College
Author(s): Elizabeth J. Whitt, Marcia I. Edison, Ernest T. Pascarella, Patrick T. Terenzini and
Amaury Nora
Source: The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 72, No. 2, Special Issue: The Social Role of
Higher Education (Mar. - Apr., 2001), pp. 172-204
Published by: Ohio State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2649321 .
Accessed: 01/02/2015 01:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Ohio State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Higher Education.
http://www.jstor.org
Influences on Students'Opennessto
Diversity and Challengein the Second
and ThirdYearsof College
This will come off snobby, but it's not racial. I am not a racist. I have black
friends, my fiiends date black people. But I don't want to go to a diverse
school. I wanted to be at a school like this. If you want to go to a diverse uni-
versity, then apply to one. Why ruin it for people here?
Lauren,quoted in Baxter Magolda, 1997
Introduction
This investigation was conducted as part of the National Study of Student Learning
(NSSL) at the University of Illinois at Chicago. NSSL was supported by Grant No.
Rl 17G10037 from the U.S. Departmentof Educationto the National Center on Postsec-
ondaryTeaching, Learning,and Assessment.
Elizabeth J. Whittis associate professor of education, StudentDevelopment in Post-
secondaty Ediuication,Uniiversityof Iowa; Marcia L Edison is a postdoctoral research
fellow in higheereducation, University of Illinois at Chicago; Ernest T Pascarella is
Mary Loulise Petersen Professor of higher education, University of Iowa; Patrick T
Terenziniis professor of higher education and senior research scientist, Pennsylvania
StcateUniversity;AmauryNora is professor of higher education, Universityof Houston.
The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 72, No. 2 (March/April2001)
Copyright(C2001 by The Ohio State University
Methods
Conceptual Framewteork
Research about college students suggests that at least four sources of
influence must be considered in attemptingto understandthe effects of
college (Astin, 1993b; Chickering & Reisser, 1993). These sources of
influence constituted the conceptual frameworkfor this study: (a) pre-
enrollment characteristics of students, (b) organizational and environ-
mental characteristicsof the institution attended,(c) students' academic
experiences, and (d) students' nonacademic experiences. In designing
and implementing the study, we assumed that college outcomes are a
function of complex interactions among student and environmental(in-
stitutional,interpersonal)characteristicsand experiences. Specific ways
in which this frameworkinformed the research are described in the fol-
lowing sections.
Samples
Institutional samnsple. The institutional sample in this study was 18
four-yearcolleges and universities located in 15 states. Institutionswere
chosen from the National Centeron EducationStatistics IntegratedPost-
Data Collection
developed for the NSSL. The CSEQ and the NSSL follow-up instrument
were used to measure a wide range of students' curricularand out-of-
class experiences in the first year of college.
Information from the initial data collection and the first follow-up
constituted the data analyzed in the Pascarella, Edison, Nora, et al.
(1996) study of influences on students' openness to diversity and chal-
lenge in the first year of college. Informationfrom the initial data col-
lection and the second and third follow-ups form the data base for the
currentstudy.
Data Analysis
Variables
Dependent variable. The dependent variable in the study was an
eight-item, Likert-type scale (5 = strongly agree to 1 = strongly dis-
agree), Openness to Diversity and Challenge, developed through factor
analysis in a longitudinal pilot study. The eight items constituting the
scale are defined and describedin Table 1. Note that the Openness to Di-
versity and Challenge Scale assesses a student's openness to cultural,
racial, and value diversity (e.g., "Learningabout people from different
cultures is a very importantpart of my college education"), as well as
the extent to which a student enjoys being challenged by different per-
spectives, values, and ideas (e.g., "I enjoy taking courses that challenge
my beliefs and values"). Table 1 also shows the range of the scale items'
correlation with the total scale score and the scale internal consistency
reliabilities, which ranged from 0.83 to 0.84.
Because the Openness to Diversity and Challenge Scale was devel-
oped only recently (Pascarella, Edison, & Nora, et al., 1996), there is
less definite informationabout its predictive validity than about its item
structureor internalconsistency. However, some informationon concur-
rent and predictive validity is available from the NSSL data base. Stu-
TABLE 1
Alpha Reliabilities and Item-TotalScore Correlationsfor Opennessto Diversity and Challenge Scale
Item-Total
Scale/Item Score Correlations Alpha Reliabilities
OPENNESSTODIVERSITY/CHALLENGE 0.83-0.84
I enjoy having discussions with people whose
ideas and values are differentfrom my own. 0.64-0.67
The real value of a college education lies in
being introducedto different values. 0.56-0.62
I enjoy talking with people who have values
different from mine because it helps me
understandmyself and my values better. 0.62-0.63
Learningabout people from different cultures
is a very importantpartof my college education. 0.58-0.60
I enjoy taking courses that challenge my beliefs
and values. 0.55 -0.57
The courses I enjoy the most are those that make
me think about things from a different perspective. 0.55-0.58
Contact with individuals whose background
(e.g., race, national origin, sexual orientation) is
different from my own is an essential part of my
college education. 0.55-0.57
I enjoy courses that are intellectually challenging. 0.48-0.51
Analytic Procedures
Data analysis was a two-stage process. In the first stage, ordinaryleast
squares regression was used to estimate the unique effect of each inde-
pendent measure on end-of-second-year (spring 1994) and end-of-third-
year (spring 1995) openness to diversity and challenge, while applying
statistical controls for the effects of all the other independentvariables.
The second stage of analysis considered whether the effects of the ex-
periences and characteristicsindicated in the independent variables on
openness to diversity and challenge were general or conditional. That is,
TABLE 2
VariableDefinitions
Category/Variable
PRECOLLEGE
VARIABLES
Precollege Opennlessto Diversity/Challenge:An 8-item scale measuring students' precollege level
of openness to diversity and challenge (all items shown in Table 1).
Precollege Academic Ability: A composite of the reading comprehension,mathematics,and critical
thinking modules of the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency (CAAP), developed by the
American College Testing Program,alpha reliability = 0.83.
Sex: 1 = female, 0 = male. (Note: we use the label "sex" to denote female and male. "Gender"de-
notes the social constructs of "feminine"and "masculine")
Person of color: 1 = person of color, 0 = white.
Age: A continuous variablecalculated by subtractingyear of birthfrom 1992.
Precollege Academic Motivation:An 8-item, Likert-typescale (5 = "stronglyagree"to 1 = "strongly
disagree") with an internal consistency reliability of 0.65. The scale items were based on existing
researchon academic motivation. Examples of constituent items are: "I am willing to work hardin
a course to learn the material,even if it won't lead to a higher grade,""WhenI do well on a test it is
usually because I was well prepared,not because the test was easy,""Inhigh school I frequentlydid
more reading in a class than was requiredsimply because it interested me," and "In high school I
frequentlytalked to my teachers outside of class about ideas presented duringclass."
EMPHASISOFTHEINSTITUTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ATTENDED
Average Precollege Opennlessto Diversity/Challenge of Each Inistitution's First Year Class: Esti-
mated by the average level of precollege openness to diversity/challenge at each of the 18 institu-
tions in the sample. Each individual studentwas given the mean of his or her institution.
Nondiscrinminatory Racial Environment: A 7-item Likert-type scale (5 = "strongly agree" to 1 =
"strongly disagree") with an alpha reliability of 0.76. Examples of constituent items are: "Instruc-
tors treat all students the same regardless of race," "Few if any of the students at this college are
prejudiced against minority students,"and "Overall, course content at this institution reflects the
experiences of minorities (e.g., a literaturecourse would include minority authors)."The scale was
completed separatelyfor the second and third year of college.
EnvironmentalEmphasis oni the Development of Academtic,Scholarly, and IntellectiualQualities:
Single item CSEQ rating on a 7-point scale, where 1 = weak emphasis and 7 = strong emphasis
(computed separatelyfor the second and third years of college).
Enviroinnental Emphasis on the Development of Aesthetic, Expressive, and Creative Qualities: Sin-
gle item CSEQ rating on a 7-point scale, where 1 = weak emphasis and 7 = strong emphasis (com-
puted separatelyfor the second and third years of college).
Environm-nentalEmphasis on Being Critical, Evaluative, anid Analytical: Single item CSEQ rating
on a 7-point scale, where 1 = weak emphasis and 7 = strong emphasis (computed separatelyfor the
second and third years of college).
EnvironmentalEmphasis on the Development of VocationialanldOccupationialCompetence:Single
item CSEQ rating on a 7-point scale, where 1 = weak emphasis and 7 = strong emphasis (computed
separatelyfor the second and third years of college).
STUDENTACADEMICEXPERIENCES
Total CreditHours Completed:Numberof hours completed throughthe second or thirdyear of col-
lege.
HouirsPer WeekSpenltStudying: Single-item, 6-point self-report of hours per week spent studying
where 1 = none and 6 = more than 20 hours throughthe second or thirdyear of college.
Social Sciences Courses Taken:Number of college courses taken through the second or third year
of college in anthropology,audiology/speech pathology, child and family studies, communications,
economics, geography,history, political science, psychology, sociology, or social work.
Mathematics Courses Taken:Number of college courses taken throughthe second or third year of
college in pre-algebra,algebra, calculus, statistics, computerscience, geometry, matrix algebra, ac-
counting, or business math.
Technical/PreprofessionalCourses Takeni:Number of college courses taken through the second or
third year of college in drawing, drafting, architecturaldesign, criminology, education, agriculture,
business, physical therapy,pharmacy,physical education, nursing, or computerprogramming.
Arts and Hu7manitiesCour-sesTakeni:Number of college courses taken through the second or third
year of college in art history, art appreciation,studio art, dance, theater,music appreciation,music
TABLE 2 (Continued)
Category/Variable
Results
PRECOLLEGE
VARIABLES
Precollege openness to diversity/challenge 0.475** 0.438 0.512** 0.469
Precollege academic ability 0.005 0.002 -0.101 -0.048
Female 0.827** 0.079 0.959* * 0.094
Person of color 0.145* 0.051 0.135* 0.042
Age 0.066** 0.062 0.055** 0.055
Precollege academic motivation 0.087 0.009 0.098 0.010
ENVIRONMENTALEMPHASISOFTHE
ATTENDED
INSTITUTION
Average first-yearstudentprecollege openness
to diversity/challenge 0.106 0.020 0.069 0.015
Nondiscriminatoryracial environment 0.025* 0.048 0.044** 0.077
Environmentalemphasis on the developmentof
academic, scholarly,and intellectualqualities -0.012 -0.003 -0.112 -0.025
Environmentalemphasis on the development of
esthetic, expressive, and creative qualities 0.007 0.002 -0.154 -0.038
Environmentalemphasis on being critical,
evaluative, and analytical 0.147 0.034 0.334** 0.075
Environmentalemphasis on the development of
vocational and occupationalconfidence 0.027 0.008 0.008 0.002
STUDENTACADEMICEXPERIENCES
Total credit hours completed -0.070 -0.020 -0.073 -0.021
Hours per week spent studying 0.086 0.024 0.064 0.017
Social sciences courses taken 0.015 0.012 0.001 0.000
Mathematicscourses taken -0.061 -0.032 -0.101* -0.048
Technical/preprofessionalcourses taken 0.031 0.017 0.024 0.011
Arts and humanities courses taken 0.004 0.005 0.013 0.012
Naturalsciences and engineeringcourses taken -0.051 -0.038 -0.059 -0.039
Course learning scale 0.026 0.049 0.018 0.034
Experiences with faculty scale 0.011 0.022 0.003 0.006
STUDENTSOCIAL/NONACADEMIc
EXPERIENCES
On-campusresidence 0.647* 0.064 0.914** 0.089
Participatedin intercollegiate athletics 0.095 0.015 0.158 0.023
Participatedin a racial or culturalawareness
workshop (first year of college) 0.143 0.013. 0.467 0.039
Participatedin a racial or culturalawareness
workshop (second year of college) 0.654** 0.062 0.490 0.043
Hours worked per week 0.061 0.031 0.073 0.040
Clubs and organizationscale -0.017 -0.038 -0.006 -0.017
Student acquaintancesscale 0.052* - 0.120 0.057** 0.131
Topics of conversationscale 0.026* 0.055 0.032* 0.066
Informationin conversationsscale 0.055* 0.067 0.019 0.035
R2 0.418** 0.455**
PRECOLLEGE VARIABLES
Precollege openness to diversity/challenge 0.430** 0.409 0.465 *1 0.443
Precollege academic ability -0.034 -0.017 0.043 0.022
Female 0.564* 0.055 0.561" 0.056
Person of color 0.092 0.032 0.112 0.036
Age 0.073* 0.065 0.061* 0.063
Precollege academic motivation -0.436 -0.046 -0.758**u -0.079
ENVIRONMENTALEMPHASISOFTHE
ATTENDED
INSTITUTION
Average first-yearstudentprecollege
openness to diversity/challenge 0.061 0.011 -0.145 -0.025
Nondiscriminatoryracial environment 0.033" 0.062 0.065;-1 0.124
Environmentalemphasison the developmentof
academic, scholarly,and intellectualqualities -0.059 -0.013 -0.208 -0.049
Environmentalemphasis on the development of
esthetic, expressive, and creative qualities 0.206 0.053 0.011 0.003
Environmentalemphasis on being critical,
evaluative, and analytical 0.091 0.021 0.205 0.048
Environmentalemphasis on the development of
vocational and occupational confidence 0.054 0.019 0.089 0.024
STUDENTACADEMIC
EXPERIENCES
Total credit hours completed 0.149 0.041 0.262Y* 0.071
Hours per week spent studying 0.106 0.030 0.075 0.020
Social sciences courses taken 0.041 0.053 0.034 0.037
Mathematicscourses taken -0.092*" -0.072 -0.098* * -0.073
Technical/preprofessionalcourses taken 0.016 0.013 0.016 0.012
Arts and humanitiescourses taken 0.036* 0.055 0.049-1 0.066
Naturalsciences and engineeringcourses taken -0.006 -0.007 0.004 0.005
Course learning scale -0.017 -0.049 -0.027: -0.079
Experiences with faculty scale 0.001 0.005 0.024- 0.075
STUDENTSOCIAL/NONACADEMIc
EXPERIENCES
On-campusresidence -0.087 -0.009 0.014 0.001
Participatedin intercollegiate athletics 0.300** 0.070 0.443** 0.095
Participatedin a racial or culturalawareness
workshop (second year of college) 0.218 0.021 0.108 0.009
Participatedin a racial or culturalawareness
workshop (third year of college) 0.9788* 0.091 0.85 1 0.076
Hours worked per week -0.039 -0.020 -0.021 -0.011
Clubs and organizationscale 0.010 0.044 0.001 0.006
Student acquaintancesscale 0.041** 0.140 0.049*t 0.168
Topics of conversationscale 0.015 0.046 0.012 0.039
Informationin conversationsscale 0.062** 0.110 0.053* 0.098
R2 0.403i* 0.444**
*p<0.05. **p<0.01.
Discussion
were more open to diversity and challenge than their male counterparts
before beginning college, women also were significantly more likely
than men to change in the direction of greater openness, whatever their
precollege attitudes.
This result is consistent with other studies of college studentattitudes
and college impact (cf. Astin, 1993b, 1998; Levine & Cureton, 1998a,
1998c; Springer,Palmer,Terenzini,Pascarella, & Nora, 1996; Springer,
Terenzini, Pascarella, & Nora, 1995; Whitt, Pascarella, Pierson, Marth,
Elkins-Nesheim, & Truckenmiller,forthcoming). For example, women
students are significantly more likely than men to become more politi-
cally liberal in college and to increase in cultural awareness, whereas
men become significantly "morecommitted to the views that racial dis-
criminationis no longer a problem and that the individualcan do little to
change society" (Astin, 1993b, p. 405) than women. Women students
also are more supportive of civil rights, more opposed to social differ-
ences, and have significantly more positive views of diversity on cam-
pus, than their male peers (Levine & Cureton, 1998a; Springer,Palmer,
et. al, 1996).
Astin (1993b) attributedmost of these differences to the likelihood
that women spend more time with other women than with men, and vice
versa. Therefore, the precollege differences in attitudes are reinforced
and strengthenedduring college. Levine and Cureton (1998a) implied a
similar view in their study: "It is almost as if people from [the] different
groups inhabiteddifferent worlds" (p. 84). The currentstudy cannot tell
us if women were more likely than men to interactwith persons different
from themselves or if the sex segregationAstin posited characterizedthe
students in our sample. However, the impact of diversity of student ac-
quaintanceson the openness of both women and men raises some ques-
tions about the extent to which segregationof peers by sex is a likely ex-
planation for women's greater increases in openness to diversity and
challenge.
Age. Independentof other factors, older students were more likely to
be open to diversity than younger students.There is little researchon the
impact of age on what studentsgain from college (Arnold, Kuh, Vesper,
& Schuh, 1993; Graham,1998; Kuh, 1993b), and so we can only specu-
late about reasons for our result. In a study comparingcollege outcomes
for a national sample of traditional-agedand adult students (27 years
and older), Graham (1998) found that, among other things, older stu-
dents became slightly more open to new ideas than younger students.
Grahamconjecturedthat adult studentsviewed what they learnedin col-
lege "in light of what they already have experienced and can reflect on
earlier leadership opportunities and adult life roles" (p. 248) to apply,
and make meaning of, new information. Perhaps the older students in
this study became more open to diversity and challenge than younger
students as a result of integratingprevious experiences into new ones.
Other possible explanations can be found in research and theories
about identity development,including the developmentof racial and eth-
nic identities (cf. Cross, 1991; Helms, 1993; Phinney, 1990). For exam-
ple, Helms's White Identity Development Model (Helms, 1993) posits
movement toward a nonracist identity by abandoning a racist identity
and developing a nonracistwhite identity.In the final stage-or status-
of Helms's model, Autonomy, the individual has internalized a new
white identity: "Seeking learning opportunitiesinvolving other cultural
groups, understanding how other forms of oppression are related to
racism, and working to eliminate all 'isms' are behaviors included in
Autonomy" (Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 79). The older
students in the currentstudy might have developed racial identities that
encompass openness to diversity and an appreciationfor challenges to
beliefs, values, and attitudes.
Environmental characteristics: A nondiscriminatory racial environ-
ment. One institutional environmentalcharacteristicinfluenced the de-
velopment of openness to diversity and challenge across the three years
of the study: a nondiscriminatoryracial environment (as perceived by
the students). Other studies (cf. Astin, 1993a, 1993b; Hurtado, 1992;
Kuh, 1993a; Springer,Terenziniet. al, 1995) have demonstratedthe pos-
itive influences of students'perceptions of a campus commitmentto di-
versity on students' attitudes and behavior about racial differences. For
example, Astin (1993) found that studentswho perceived that their insti-
tution emphasized creating a diverse multicultural environment were
significantly more likely to have relationshipswith persons from differ-
ent racial or ethnic groups and to discuss racial or ethnic issues than did
their peers who did not share this perception. Sylvia Hurtado (1992)
noted that her study of campus racial climates supported"thenotion that
an institutional commitment to diversity can substantially improve mi-
nority and, to some extent, white students' perceptions of race relations
on campus"(p. 558).
In the currentstudy, a nondiscriminatoryracial environmentwas indi-
cated by studentresponses (Likert-typescale) to a set of seven items in
the NSSL follow-up survey. These items included such statements as
"Instructorstreat all students the same, regardless of race," "Few if any
students at this college are prejudiced against minority students,"and
"Overall,course content at this institution reflects the experience of mi-
norities (e.g., a literaturecourse would include minority authors)."It is
reasonable to assume that students could infer from such behaviors and
"too late" in a student's college career and that, whether previous expe-
riences were negative or positive, subsequentworkshopscan have a pos-
itive effect. Our data cannot tell us, however, why students elected to
participate in these workshops, including whether their participation
was voluntaryor mandatory,nor the precise natureof the workshop ex-
periences that fostered openness.
Studentacquaintances. Openness to diversity and challenge had a sig-
nificant positive association with studentacquaintances,as measuredby
the CSEQ Student Acquaintance Scale, across the first three years of
college. The CSEQ StudentAcquaintanceScale focuses on the extent to
which a student is involved with other students who differ in some way
(e.g., race, ideas, age, religion) from herself or himself. The more likely
a student was to interact with diverse peers, the more likely she or he
was to increase in openness to diversity and challenge.
Because of the correlationalnatureof the data, our findings do not es-
tablish unambiguous causal links between students' engagement with
diverse peers or their participationin racial and culturalworkshops and
growth in openness to diversity. Perhaps students with higher levels of
precollege openness to diversity are more likely to engage in these activ-
ities than their less open peers. However, our results do demonstratethat
those students who chose to be engaged in interactions with diverse
peers on challenging topics and in such activities as racial or cultural
awareness workshops benefitted in significant ways. And those benefits
were evident even when controls were applied for a wide range of back-
groundcharacteristics,including initial openness to diversity.
Information in conversations. The CSEQ Information in Conversa-
tions Scale asks studentsto identify the extent to which they had, for ex-
ample, persuadedothers to change their minds, explored different ways
of thinking, and referredto knowledge acquiredin reading in conversa-
tions with other students.As in the case of student acquaintances,then,
the more likely a student was to engage in conversations that empha-
sized opportunities to encounter different ideas and experiences, the
more likely she or he was to increase in openness to diversity and chal-
lenge during college.
Conditional Effects
Finally, the general conclusions of the study should be interpretedin
light of conditional effects. As we reportedearlier in this article, condi-
tional effects based on sex were found in both the second and thirdyears
of the study. Average institutional openness to diversity and challenge
(i.e., composite openness to diversity scores of the first-yearclass in fall
1992) and participationin clubs and organizationswere negatively asso-
ciated with openness to diversity for men and were positively associated
with openness to diversity for women. On the other hand, interactions
with faculty outside of class were positively associated with openness to
diversity and challenge for men, but negatively associated with openness
for women.
The negative influence of average institutional openness to diversity
on openness in men is particularlypuzzling. It indicates that higher av-
erage levels of institutional openness to diversity and challenge-as re-
flected in the scores of students on the Openness to Diversity and Chal-
lenge Scale-had a significant negative influence on male students'
openness to diversity and challenge. Perhaps a higher average level of
openness to diversity among peers created a threateningclimate for men
who, in response, clung to behaviors and ideas that felt comfortable.
The differential impact of involvement in clubs and organizations
might be explained by differences in the clubs and organizations-and
Recommendations
Conclusion
Limitations
The NSSL data have several limitations that should be kept in mind
when interpretingthe results. First, althoughthe overall sample is multi-
institutionaland consists of a broad range of four-yearinstitutions from
15 states, the fact that the analyses were limited to 18 four-yearcolleges
means that one cannot necessarily generalize the results to all four-year
institutions. Similarly, although we attemptedin the initial sampling de-
sign and subsequent sample weighting to make the sample as represen-
tative as possible at each institution,the time commitments and work re-
quired of each student participant led to some self-selection. The
responses of the students who were willing to participate in the study
might have differed from those of the students who were invited, but de-
clined, to participate.
Several additionalanalyses, reportedelsewhere (e.g., Pascarella,Edi-
son, Nora, et al., 1996), have looked at differences in the characteristics
of those students who participatedin all three years of the NSSL and
those who droppedout of the study.The dropoutsconsist of two groups:
those who droppedout of the institutionduringthe study and those who
persisted at the institution but dropped out of the study. Initial partici-
pants who droppedout of their institutionshad somewhatlower levels of
precollege academic preparation(as measuredby the CAAP), family so-
cioeconomic background, and academic motivation than their counter-
parts who persisted in the study. However, studentswho remainedin the
study and those who droppedout of the study, but persisted at the insti-
tution, did not differ significantly (e.g., with regardto precollege acade-
mic preparation,age, race/ethnicity,or socioeconomic origins).
References
Alschuler, A. S., & Kilmer, H. L. (1998). Telling stories of racism. About Campus,2(6),
25-28.
American College Testing Program. (1989). Report on the technical characteristics of
CAAP:Pilot Year1, 1988-89. Iowa City, IA: Author.
American College Testing Program. (1991). CAAP technical handbook. Iowa City, IA:
Author.
Arnold, J., Kuh, G. D., Vesper, N., & Schuh, J. H. (1993). Student age and enrollment
status as determinantsof learning and personal development at metropolitaninstitu-
tions. Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 34, 11-16.
Astin, A. (1993a). Diversity and multiculturalism on campus: How are students af-
fected? Chaange,25(2), 44-49.
Astin, A. (1993b). Whatmatters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Levine, A., & Cureton, J. S. (1998c). Student politics: The new localism. Review of
Higher Education, 21, 137-150.
Magolda, P. M. (1997). Life as I don't know it. About Campus,2(2), 16-22.
Moffatt, M. (1989). Coming of age in New Jersey: College and American culture. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
National Association of State Universities and Land-GrantColleges. (1997). Returning
to our roots: The student experience. Washington,DC: Author.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). The condition of education. Washing-
ton, DC: United States Departmentof Education.
Pace, C. R. (1990). The undergraduates:A report of their activities and progress in col-
lege in the 1980s. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA Graduate
School of Education.
Pascarella,E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn,L. S., & Terenzini,P. T. (1996). Influ-
ences on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college.
Journal of Higher Education, 67, 174-195.
Pascarella,E. T., Edison, M. I., Whitt, E. J., Nora, A., Hagedorn,L. S., & Terenzini,P. T.
(1996). Cognitive effects of Greek affiliation during the first year of college. NASPA
Journal, 33, 242-259.
Pascarella,E. T., & Terenzini,P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella,E. T., & Terenzini,P. T. (1998). Studying college studentsin the 21st century:
Meeting new challenges. Review of Higher Education, 21, 151-165.
Pascarella, E. T., Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Nora, A., Hagedorn,L. S., Yeager,P. M., &
Terenzini, P. T. (1997). Women's perceptions of a "chilly climate" and their cognitive
outcomes during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development,
38, 109-124.
Pascarella, E. T., Whitt, E. J., Nora, A., Edison, M., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T.
(1996). What have we learned from the first year of the National Study of Student
Learning?Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 37, 182-192.
Pedhazur,E. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and pre-
diction (2nd. ed.). New York:Holt, Rinehart,and Winston.
Phinney,J. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults:Review of research.Psy-
chological Bulletin, 108, 499-514.
Rendon, L. I. (1996). Life on the border.About Campus, 1(5), 14-20.
Rendon, L. I. (1998). Helping nontraditionalstudents be successful in college. About
Campus,3(1), 2-3.
Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Coming out in college: The strugglefor a queer identity.Westport,
CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Springer,L., Palmer,B., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella,E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). Attitudes
toward campus diversity: Participation in a racial or cultural workshop. Review of
Higher Education, 20, 53 -68.
Springer,L., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1995, April). Do white stu-
dents perceive racism toward minoritygroups on canmpus?Paperpresented at the an-
nual meeting of the American EducationalResearchAssociation, San Francisco.
Terenzini,P. T., Pascarella,E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students' out-of-class expe-
riences and their influence on cognitive development:A literaturereview. Journal of
College StudentDevelopment, 37, 149-162.
Tierney, W. G. (1992). Building academic communities of difference: Gays, lesbians,
and bisexuals on campus. Change, 24(2), 40-47.
Whitt, E. J. (1996). Assessing student cultures. In M. L. Upcraft & J. H. Schuh (Eds.),
Assessment in student affairs (pp. 189-216). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella,E. T., Nora, A., & Terenzini, P. T. (1999). Peer in-
teractions and cognitive outcomes during three years of college. Jour-nalof College
StudentDevelopment, 40, 61-78.
Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1999). The 'chilly cli-
mate' for women and cognitive outcomes in the second and third years of college.
Journal of College StudentDevelopment, 40, 163-177.
Whitt, E. J., Pascarella,E. T., Pierson, C., Marth,B. P., Elkins Nesheim, B., & Trucken-
miller, R. (forthcoming).Sex and gender in college: Evidence of differences in experi-
ences and outcomes. Nashville: VanderbiltUniversity Press.
Williams, L. B. (1997). Telling tales in school. About Campus,2(2), 2-3.
Wilson, R. (1997a). The future of affirmativeaction. About Campus,2(5), 2-3.
Wilson, R. (1997b). The question of race in characterdevelopment.Educational Record,
78(3-4), 66-72.
Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative: Higher ex-
pectations for higher education. Racine, WI: The Johnson Foundation.