Description

I need a method section that discusses target population (faculty who teach diversity classes and students who wish to take them) previous research, and procedure. I would like to propose making a course that will be a training course for faculty in order to teach diversity programs, and a 1 credit course for students to take as a pre-req before taking a diversity class.

University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 1
Project Name
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
Survey Version
Student
SoundRocket Project Number
S16008
Study Dates
June 2016 – January 2017
Notes:
 All questions in the survey are OPTIONAL
 Horizontal lines indicate page breaks
 The survey is designed as a web-based (online) instrument
Welcome Page
The University of Michigan (U-M) is committed to providing the best possible environment for all individuals within the campus community. An important step in creating a truly diverse, equitable and inclusive community is to understand faculty, staff and student perspectives and experiences related to their work and study at U-M. The U-M Campus Climate Survey is designed to help us gain an understanding by learning about our community’s perspectives and experiences related to diversity, equity and inclusion. The data collected will be used to understand the present climate at U-M and to inform current and future decisions about supporting a diverse, inclusive and vibrant campus community.
Your participation and responses will be strictly confidential and will not be part of any academic, medical, employment or disciplinary record. No individually identifiable information will be reported. This survey is completely voluntary. You do not have to participate in this survey and – if you do choose to participate – you may skip any question you do not feel comfortable answering and you may exit the survey at any time. Completing the questionnaire should take about 15 minutes.
To thank you for your time and participation, you will be included in a random drawing to win one of ten $100 VISA gift cards, in addition, after you complete the survey you will be mailed $15 cash or be given the opportunity to donate the same amount to the United Way.
To ensure confidentiality of data, this survey is being conducted by SoundRocket, a survey research firm located in Ann Arbor, MI. SoundRocket is not affiliated with the University of Michigan. If you have any questions about the survey – or if you experience any difficulty in completing this survey – please contact the survey team via email at UMclimate@ssgresearch.com, or by phone at 734-527-2199.
Thank you in advance for your help with this important study!
Click “Next” to start the survey.
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 2
Consent to Participate
U-M Campus Climate Survey Information
● You were randomly selected to be invited to complete this survey.
● To assess perspectives, attitudes, and experiences related to diversity, equity and inclusion on the U-M campus in Ann Arbor, you will be asked questions about your employment and/or academic experiences.
● Participating in this survey is completely voluntary.
● The survey takes about 15 minutes to complete.
● You can choose to skip and not to answer any question, and you may stop your participation at any time.
● The benefit to participating is that your personal beliefs/perspectives, behaviors, and knowledge will support the development and refinement of U-M programs and services designed to help create a diverse, inclusive and equitable campus community.
● Upon completion of the survey, you will be mailed $15 cash.
● Your answers and personal information will be kept confidential.
● Results of the survey will only be reported in aggregate; your name will not be attached to any data; a number will be used instead.
● In the future, summaries of these data, which will not contain information that could identify you or any other individual participating in the survey, may be made available to others for related studies to evaluate University programs, assess University policies, improve protocols and studies of these topics, or provide background for future research on these topics.
● Additional information from the University of Michigan will be appended to survey response records for the purposes of scientific sampling and data analysis: No personally identifying information will be appended to your survey responses.
● You must be at least 18 years old to complete the questionnaire; by completing the questionnaire, you are acknowledging that you are at least 18 years old.
● The data for this survey are being collected by SoundRocket of Ann Arbor.
● The project is funded by the University of Michigan.
● If you have any questions about the survey, please contact the survey team at UMclimate@ssgresearch.com or 7345272199.
● If you would like to talk to someone about any questions or concerns you might have relating to your experiences with campus climate, please contact the Office for Institutional Equity (OIE). {PRG: EMBED URL https://hr.umich.edu/about-uhr/service-areas-offices/office-institutional-equity} OIE can discuss various options with you, including filing a civil rights complaint, a grievance or engaging mediation services to resolve conflict.
● If you would like to discuss any concerns in a confidential setting, students are encouraged to contact the Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS). {PRG: EMBED URL https://caps.umich.edu/} Faculty and staff may contact either the Faculty and Staff Assistance Program (FASAP) {PRG: EMBED URL https://hr.umich.edu/benefits-wellness/health/mhealthy/mental-emotional-well-being/faculty-staff-assistance-program-fasap/contact-fasap} or the UMHS Employee Assistance Program (EAP). {PRG: EMBED URL https://hr.umich.edu/benefits-wellness/health/mhealthy/mental-emotional-well-being/umhs-employee-assistance-program-eap/eap-counseling-consultation-services}
By clicking “Next” below, you are consenting to participate in this research survey.
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 3
STUDENT SURVEY: PART I
In which college are you currently enrolled? If you are a multiple-major or are in a joint program, check all that apply.
 Architecture & Urban Planning
 Art & Design
 Business
 Dentistry
 Education
 Engineering
 Information
 Kinesiology
 Law
 Literature, Science, and the Arts
 Medicine
 Music, Theatre & Dance
 Natural Resources & Environment
 Nursing
 Pharmacy
 Public Health
 Public Policy
 Rackham
 Social Work
What is your current age (in years)?
[NUMERIC RESPONSE 12-99]
{Comment: sample selection to exclude individuals under age 18 based on U-M institutional data}
What is your current sex?
 Male
 Female
 Preferred response not listed (Please specify): ________
What is your gender/gender identity?
 Man
 Woman
 Transgender/Gender Non-Conforming
 Preferred response not listed (Please specify): ________
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 4
{Asked of any person indicating that they are transgender/non-conforming.}
Please indicate which of the following best describe you. (Check all that apply.)
 Transgender man
 Transgender woman
 Gender non-conforming
 Genderqueer
 Preferred response not listed (Please specify): ________
What is your sexual orientation?
 Heterosexual
 Bisexual
 Gay/Lesbian
 Queer
 Questioning
 Asexual
 Preferred response not listed (Please specify): ________
Please indicate the racial or ethnic groups with which you identify. (Check all that apply.)
 African American/Black
 Asian American/Asian
 Hispanic/Latino/a
 Middle Eastern/North African
 Native American/Alaskan Native
 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
 White
 Other (Please specify): ________
{Asked of any person indicating that they identify with more than one racial or ethnic group.}
Of the following, please mark the one racial or ethnic group with which you most identify.
 African American/Black
 Asian American/Asian
 Hispanic/Latino/a
 Middle Eastern/North African
 Native American/Alaskan Native
 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
 White
 Other
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 5
Were you born in the United States?
 Yes
 No
Please indicate your generation status:
 All of my grandparents and both of my parents were born in the United States
 Both of my parents were born in the United States
 One of my parents was born in the United States
 Neither of my parents were born in the United States
{Asked of any person indicating that they were born outside of the United States.}
In which country were you born?
__________________
With what religious background, if any, do you most identify?
 Agnostic
 Atheist
 Bahá’í
 Baptist
 Buddhist
 Catholic
 Church of Christ
 Christian: Non-Denominational
 Confucian
 Eastern Orthodox
 Episcopalian
 Hindu
 Muslim
 Jehovah’s Witness
 Jewish: Orthodox
 Jewish: Other
 LDS (Mormon)
 Lutheran
 Methodist
 Pentecostal
 Presbyterian
 Protestant: Non-Denominational
 Quaker
 Seventh Day Adventist
 Taoist
 Unitarian/Universalist
 UCC/Congregational
 None
 Other (Please specify): ________
Do you have a disability?
 Yes, I have a disability
 No, I do not have a disability
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 6
{Asked of any person indicating that they have a disability.}
What type(s) of disabilities do you have? (Check all that apply.)
 Acquired/Traumatic Brain Injury
 Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
 Asperger’s/Autism Spectrum
 Blind/Low Vision
 Deaf/Hard of Hearing
 Cognitive or Learning Disability
 Chronic Illness/Medical Condition
 Mental Health/Psychological Condition
 Physical/Mobility condition that affects walking
 Physical/Mobility condition that does not affect walking
 Speech/Communication Condition
 Other (please specify): ________
Have you ever served in the U.S. Armed Forces, Military Reserves, or National Guard?
 I am currently serving
 I am no longer serving
 I have never served
Which of the following best describes the educational experience of your parents/guardians?
 Neither parent/guardian attended college
 Neither parent/guardian has a four-year degree but one or both attended college
 One or both parents/guardians have a four-year degree
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 7
STUDENT SURVEY: PART 2
How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall campus climate/environment that you have experienced at the University of Michigan within the past 12 months?
 Very Dissatisfied
 Dissatisfied
 Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied
 Satisfied
 Very Satisfied
For the next few questions, select one option between each set of adjectives that best represents how you would rate U-M based on your direct experiences:
Hostile      Friendly
Racist      Non-racist
Homogenous      Diverse
Disrespectful      Respectful
Contentious      Collegial
Sexist      Non-sexist
Individualistic      Collaborative
Competitive      Cooperative
Homophobic      Non-homophobic
Unsupportive      Supportive
Ageist      Non-ageist
Unwelcoming      Welcoming
Elitist      Non-elitist
In the past 12 months, how often have you been concerned about your physical safety on campus?
 Never
 Seldom
 Sometimes
 Often
 Very Often
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 8
In the past 12 months, which of the following have you avoided at U-M due to fear for your physical safety? (Check all that apply.)
 Sporting events
 Parties or other social gatherings
 Secluded areas on campus
 Residence halls
 Campus buildings
 Busses or bus stops
 Parking lots or garages
 Neighborhoods or other areas surrounding campus
 Off-campus housing
 Walking around campus at night
 Other (Please specify): ________
 None
Considering your experiences over the past 12 months, please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree I feel valued as an individual at U-M.     
I feel I belong at U-M.




 U-M has a strong commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.     
I have considered leaving U-M because I felt isolated or unwelcomed.




 I am treated with respect at U-M.     
I feel others don’t value my opinions at U-M.




 U-M is a place where I am able to perform up to my full potential.     
I have opportunities at U-M for academic success that are similar to those of my peers.




 I have found one or more communities or groups where I feel I belong at U-M.     
There is too much emphasis put on issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion here at U-M.




 U-M provides sufficient programs and resources to foster the success of a diverse student body.     
I have to work harder than others to be valued equally at U-M.




 My experience at U-M has had a positive influence on my academic growth.     
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 9
During the past 12 months at U-M, how often have you interacted in a meaningful way with people…
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Very Often …whose religious beliefs are different than your own     
…whose political opinions are different from your own




 …who are immigrants or from an immigrant family     
…who are of a different nationality than your own




 …who are of a different race or ethnicity than your own     
…whose gender is different than your own




 …whose sexual orientation is different than your own     
…who are from a different social class




 …who have physical or other observable disabilities     
…who have learning, psychological, or other disabilities that are not readily apparent





How would you describe the racial/ethnic composition of the community where you grew up?
 All or nearly all people of my race/ethnicity
 Mostly people of my race/ethnicity
 Half my race/ethnicity and half people of other races/ethnicities
 Mostly other types of races/ethnicities
 All or nearly all other types of races/ethnicities
How would you describe the racial/ethnic composition of the school that you graduated from prior to attending U-M?
 All or nearly all people of my race/ethnicity
 Mostly people of my race/ethnicity
 Half my race/ethnicity and half people of other races/ethnicities
 Mostly other types of races/ethnicities
 All or nearly all other types of races/ethnicities
In general over the past 12 months, have you felt discriminated against at U-M?
 Yes
 No
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 10
Over the past 12 months, how often have YOU experienced discriminatory events at U-M because of your:
Never
1-2 times
3 or more times Ability or disability status   
Racial or ethnic identity


 Sex   
Sexual orientation


 Gender identity or gender expression   
Veteran status


 Marital status   
National origin


 Age   
Religion


 Height or weight   
Political orientation


 Social class   
{Asked of those who report having experienced 1 or more discriminatory events related to religion.}
Do you believe that any of the religious discriminatory events you have experienced are related to your specific religion?
 Yes
 No
{Asked of those who believe that any of the discriminatory events they experienced are related to their specific religion.}
What religion were these events related to?
__________________
Have you experienced any discriminatory events regarding personal aspects that were not asked about in the previous questions?
 Yes
 No
{Asked of those who say that they experienced a discriminatory event regarding a personal aspect not previously asked about.}
Please describe any other discriminatory events you have experienced.
__________________
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 11
In my classrooms and classroom settings (e.g., labs, recitation sessions, clinical environments, etc.), I feel listened to by:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree Faculty instructors (faculty/post docs)     
Student instructors (e.g., GSIs, TAs, etc.)




 Other students     
Staff members





In spaces outside the classroom, I feel valued by:
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly Agree Faculty instructors (faculty/post docs)     
Other faculty members




 Student instructors (e.g., GSIs, TAs, etc.)     
Other students




 Staff members     
University administrators




 Other University mentors/advisors     
I am treated fairly and equitably on campus in general.
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Neither Agree nor Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
I am treated fairly and equitably in classrooms and classroom settings (e.g., labs, recitation sessions, clinical environments, etc.).
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Neither Agree nor Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
I am treated fairly and equitably in out-of-classroom University spaces (e.g., workshops, co-curricular offerings, etc.).
 Strongly Disagree
 Disagree
 Neither Agree nor Disagree
 Agree
 Strongly Agree
University of Michigan Campus Climate Survey on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion – Final Student Survey – Fall 2016 – www.soundrocket.com 12
Please share any other thoughts, comments or suggestions that you may have about the topics covered in this survey.
Please do not include personally-identifying information in your response.
__________________
Thank you for participating in this important survey!
INCENTIVE. As a token of appreciation for sharing your time and participating in this survey, we would like to send you $15 cash.
To send the cash, we will need you to provide us with a current mailing address where you can be reached.
PLEASE NOTE: to ensure your confidentiality, your address information will be stored in a separate database from your previous survey responses and will not be linked.
Please indicate if you would like to receive the cash, donate to the United Way, or if you prefer not to receive it.
 Send me the cash; I will provide my mailing address on the next screen and I understand that my address will not be linked to my survey responses.
 Donate the cash to the United Way.
 No, I prefer not to receive the cash or have it donated.
{Asked of those who select to receive the cash incentive.}
Please provide an address where you can be reached. We expect to mail the cash in early February 2017.
Address1: __________
Address2: __________
City: __________
State/Province: __________
Zip/Postal: __________
Country: __________
End Page
Thank you for your participation in this important research – we appreciate your time and input!
You may now close your browser.

PART III
Developing Multicultural Awareness, Knowledge, and Skills: Diversity
Training Makes a Difference?
J. Camille Hall and Matthew T. Theriot
University of Tennessee
As the population becomes more diverse, social
work educators will bear a larger responsibility
for educating culturally competent practitioners.
To enhance student learning, research should consider
those factors that influence students’ multicultural
awareness, knowledge, and skills. This
information potentially can help students better
prepare for cultural competency courses and
improve student outcomes. The focus of this study
was to evaluate BSW and MSW students’ (N D
191) multicultural awareness, knowledge, and
skills at the beginning and end of a required cultural
diversity course. The results indicate that
more previous diversity trainings at different sites
consistently predict higher pre-test scores while
previous diversity training sites and pre-test
scores predict post-test scores. The paper concludes
with a brief discussion of research, practice,
and teaching implications.
Social work practice takes place in a variety of settings
and diverse areas to facilitate client empowerment
and social change. The everyday realities of social work
interactions occur within a global world and ethnically
diverse society. This diversity is oftentimes reflected in
the personal narratives of social work students, field
practicums, and client discrimination during professional
practice (International Federation of Social Workers
[IFSW], 2014). Respecting diversity is a core
principle in social work education. Throughout their
academic journeys, students are repeatedly reminded of
the importance of practicing social work in ways that are
sensitive to clients’ backgrounds and experiences. The
purpose of this study was to find out which factors influenced
Master of Social Work (MSW) and Bachelor of
Social Work (BSW) students’ multicultural competence.
For nearly four decades social work educators have
emphasized the need for culturally competent practice
(Lum, 2010). Social work educators and researchers,
however, have not adequately documented which factors
predict multicultural competence and how multicultural
competence ultimately affects practice interactions,
treatment efficacy, and treatment outcomes.
The cultural awareness and skills that make people
culturally competent are lacking today, in a time when
these qualities are most needed. Without cultural awareness
and skills, operational gridlock can occur at great
cost to the workplace (Trompenaas & Hampden-Turner,
2012). This situation has stimulated the concern of people
engaged in business, education, health, and the human
services, and their concern has led to an increasing
emphasis on the formal training of employees in multicultural
competence (Center for American Progress, 2012).
Multiculturalism is a sociopolitical movement that
Correspondence should be sent to J. Camille Hall, College of Social
Work, University of Tennessee, 1618 Cumberland Avenue, 323
Henson Hall, Knoxville, TN 37996. E-mail: jhall39@utk.edu
Multicultural Perspectives
35
Multicultural Perspectives, 18(1), 35–41
Copyright 2016 by the National Association for Multicultural Education
ISSN: 1521-0960 print / 1532-7892
DOI: 10.1080/15210960.2016.1125742
affected higher education and changed the scope of social
work education (IFSW, 2014). Preparing social work students
to practice effectively in a multicultural society is
one of the major challenges social work educators
encounter. As social work educators address these challenges,
it is important to begin by examining the factors
that predict students’ multicultural awareness, knowledge,
and skills as they enter their required diversity courses.
Literature Review
A person’s culture is closely connected to value systems,
health beliefs and behaviors, and communication
styles. With cross-cultural interaction comes the possibility
that a person’s intentions and actions may be misjudged.
Each party brings a specific set of experiences
and personal and communication styles to an interaction.
There are three major areas of multicultural competence:
awareness of one’s own worldview, knowledge
and awareness of the worldview of the culturally different
client, and the use of culturally appropriate intervention
strategies. According to Sue and Sue (2013), factors
like age, gender, and income help to form a framework
of ideas and beliefs through which people interpret the
world and interact in it. The literature is somewhat
extant regarding how these factors impact the development
of multicultural competence among social work
students, however, teaching experiences suggest that age
and gender differences impact students’ level of critical
and constructive dialogue regarding multiculturalism
(Hall & Theriot, 2007). The limited research that is
available suggests that students develop multicultural
competence: (a) when the facilitator creates a safe environment,
(b) with formal education and diversity training
where all factors of multiculturalism are addressed
(e.g., not just racism), and (c) with exposure to diverse
populations (Dunn, Dotson, Ford, & Roberts, 2014; Hall,
2008). Developing skills to design culturally-diverse service
delivery is a prerequisite to working effectively
with clients. Although it is not possible to know everything
about every group, culturally competent social
workers must take steps to be knowledgeable about the
theory and practice of ethnic sensitive service delivery.
Research from counselor education and psychology
programs has examined factors that predict the development
of multicultural competence. Students’ perceptions
of the classroom climate is supported in a research study
of educational programs designed to increase the cultural
competence of practicing social workers (N D 48)
employed in an addiction and mental health care treatment
setting. Research findings suggest that learning for
cultural competence was shown to be highly affected by
a facilitator style that focused on the creation of a safe
environment (Dunn et al., 2014). Hung (2000) examined
148 counselor educator programs across the nation to
predict the multicultural skills and knowledge of 516
students and their ratings of the importance of multicultural
training. On average, students’ multicultural competence
increased with at least a moderate exposure to
racially and ethnically diverse clients in their practicum
and in programs where issues of gender and religious
biases were addressed. In a national sample of 228 clinical
and counseling graduates and trainees, Sagun (2014)
examined how the proportion of different types of graduate
multicultural training on racial/ethnic minority
issues and level of satisfaction with this training are
related to self-perceived multicultural counseling competency.
The results showed that the proportion of multicultural-
infused courses, multicultural supervision, and
racial/ethnic minority caseloads were significant predictors
of multicultural competency scores. Multicultural
training and satisfaction with training positively correlated
with total multicultural competency scores. In a
national sample of 186 MSW students who completed
the Multicultural Competency Inventory, Hall (2008)
found that personal characteristics and social work education
variables did not contribute to levels of cultural
competence in MSW students and recent graduates, but
cultural competence workshops and trainings were
found to have a positive influence on cultural competence
levels. Neville and Harris (2005) explored an
interracial communication course for undergraduate students.
This study examined cognitive, affective, and the
behavioral domain of the respondents. As the facilitator,
Harris collected narratives from three classes and focus
group data from one class. The results indicated that academic
instructions did reduce racial prejudice, promote
racial sensitivity, and awareness among her undergraduate
students. Most importantly, the findings indicated
that respondents’ gender (i.e., females) with previous
diversity training showed more reduction (Neville &
Harris, 2005).
Race, age, gender, and ethnicity are important factors
that contribute to students’ worldviews and learning outcomes.
Theoretical and empirical literature suggests that
previous diversity training influences the development of
multicultural competence (Guy-Walls, 2007; Lum,
2010). In addition, Dunn et al. (2014) and McIntosh
(1988) believe that the instructor’s race, ethnicity, gender,
and intellectual background also impact students’
learning. Given the increased globalization of the world
and the demands to offer evidence-based practice it is
imperative for social work educators to understand and
develop curriculum that enhances the emergence of multicultural
competence.
The research project that is described here examined
the extent to which classroom instruction and assignments
increased students’ multicultural awareness,
knowledge, and skills. The following objectives guided
The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education
36
the research: (a) students who have participated in previous
diversity training will have greater multicultural
awareness, knowledge, and skills; (b) students 25 years
of age or older will have greater multicultural awareness,
knowledge, and skills; (c) female students will have
greater multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills;
and, (d) racial/ethnic minority students will have greater
multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills.
Classroom Instructional Model: The “use of self” in
social work practice requires that people in our profession,
both students and practitioners, know themselves as thoroughly
as possible as a prerequisite to effective interpersonal
helping (Kin, Perez, & Shim, 2013). The Culturally
Responsive Social Work class was held every Tuesday and
Thursday, January through April. To increase multicultural
awareness, knowledge, and skills, student assignments
included online journaling, reaction papers, cultural and
field audit reports, and class presentations.
Multicultural Awareness: According to Lum (2010), “a
culturally competent social worker must develop a set of
knowledge and skills in order to be effective with multicultural
clients” (p. 88). The road to cultural competence
begins with an understanding of one’s own personal and
professional cultural awareness. To increase multicultural
awareness, students completed online journal assignments,
which allowed them to critically assess and discuss their
reactions to course materials. Each student completed a
two-part cultural audit. In part one, they paired off to discuss
questions about racial and ethnic identity formation,
critical incidents or experiences that shaped their identity
awareness, and how elements of their identity enhanced
and/or inhibited cross-cultural social work practice. In part
two, students conducted a field trip to identify cultural
markers (e.g., symbols, signs, art, architecture, images,
preferences, etc.) in their neighborhood, on campus, in
shopping centers, etc. Students then reflected on generalizations
about how cultural markers can be constructed in
an empowering and respectful fashion.
The next major assignment was a written and oral
field practicum audit. To evaluate a social service
agency’s multicultural strengths and weaknesses regarding
programs and aspects of staffing, students conducted
in-depth interviews with an agency administrator, a
direct service worker, and one consumer of agency services.
Students made observations and noted where there
were cultural markers, and identified examples of cultural,
ethnic, or racial bias and examples of cultural,
racial/ethnic sensitivity or empowerment.
Knowledge acquisition helps us to comprehend the
extent to which we strive to understand the interaction
between various groups who represent diversity and difference.
Cultural competence is built on knowledge
about demographic information, theories, and group
issues, which enhance the understanding of social workers
with diverse clients. The class readings focused on
social work theory and practice with international and
national populations. Culturally competent skill development
is at the core of ethnic sensitive service delivery,
because it affects the worker-client relationship.
In social work practice, skill development is processoriented.
The development of process, conceptualization,
and personalization of skills is essential for cultural
competence. Students were randomly assigned to groups
to evaluate case vignettes with diverse issues using a
process-stage approach from the course textbook. This
assignment helped students develop multicultural
assessment and intervention skills. Empirical support for
culturally competent social work education falls well
short of the long list of hypothesized benefits.
Methodology
Setting and Sample
This quantitative study sought to identify factors predicting
social work students’ multicultural awareness,
knowledge, and skills. Based on the literature reviewed,
it was hypothesized that more diversity training at different
locations, course instruction, and assignments would
impact students’ multicultural awareness, knowledge,
and skills. One hundred ninety-one social work students
enrolled in five different courses at three different state
universities in the southeastern and southwestern United
States were surveyed to evaluate these hypotheses. Specifically,
the study utilized a convenience sample of 36
BSW students in two courses at two universities (one
course per university) and 155 MSW students in three
courses at two universities located on three campuses
(one course per university/campus; one university operates
an MSW program on two distinct campuses).
Instrumentation
Multicultural understanding was evaluated using the
Multicultural Awareness-Knowledge-and-Skills Survey
(MAKSS; D’Andrea, Daniels, & Heck, 1991). The
MAKSS is a self-administered survey designed to measure
three key aspects of multicultural education—
students’ awareness about their own attitudes toward
ethnic minorities, students’ knowledge about minority
clients, and students’ cross-cultural communication
skills. To measure each of these three constructs, the
MAKSS is composed of 60 items that form three subscales
(the first 20 items are the awareness subscale,
items 21–40 are the knowledge subscale, and the last 20
items are the skills subscale). These 60 items are scored
on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 D strongly disagree/
very limited to 4 D strongly agree/very good. Five
Multicultural Perspectives Vol. 18, No. 1
37
items are reverse-scored. Each subscale therefore has a
minimum score of 20 and a maximum score of 80, with
higher scores signifying greater levels of multicultural
awareness, knowledge, and skills, respectively.
This study analyzed the three subscales plus total
scale scores (the sum of the three subscales). This
approach yielded information about specific areas of
multicultural training while the total score allowed for
an assessment of students’ competency across all three
dimensions. Consistent with previous research using the
MAKSS, reliability analysis shows satisfactory internal
consistency overall (D’Andrea et al., 1991; Kocarek,
Talbot, Batka, & Anderson, 2001; Ponteretto, Rieger,
Barrett, & Sparks, 1994). Cronbach’s Alpha values for
the present study were: pre-test total scale D 0.85, pretest
awareness subscale D 0.46, pre-test knowledge subscale
D 0.75, pre-test skills subscale D 0.85, post-test
total scale D 0.90, post-test awareness subscale D 0.58,
post-test knowledge subscale D 0.75, and post-test skills
subscale D 0.92. While internal consistency was good
for the knowledge and skills subscales, the pre- and posttest
awareness subscales were below acceptable levels to
use the scales in the analyses done here (George &
Mallery, 2014). As a result, the awareness questions
were included in the total scale scores but were not analyzed
as separate subscales.
Data Collection and Analysis
All students were enrolled in required cultural diversity
social work courses and data were collected at two
times. The first data collection happened at the beginning
of the semester prior to presentation of any course
content. These data allow for assessing those factors
related to students’ multicultural awareness, knowledge,
and skills independent of the class. Students also completed
a brief demographic questionnaire. The second
wave of data collection occurred at the end of the semester.
This longitudinal design allows for assessment of
those factors related to students’ multicultural understanding
after completing the cultural diversity course.
While it is important to know which factors might better
prepare students for cultural diversity coursework, it also
is important to know which factors predict better learning
across the semester.
Prior to any data collection, permission to conduct
this research was obtained from the university’s Institutional
Review Board. Students voluntarily completed all
instrumentation and surveys were matched to demographic
questionnaires using student identification numbers.
After eliminating those students who declined to
participate or provided incomplete information, 169 students
are analyzed (88.5% response rate).
Preliminary analyses using paired-samples t-tests
were done to identify significant changes in students’
pre-test and post-test total and subscale scores. These
results are presented on Table 1. Factors predicting
these total scores were assessed using two multivariate
linear regression models. The results of the regression
models predicting pre- and post-test total scale scores are
shown on Table 2. For these models, the dependent variables
are post-test total scale and subscale scores. Independent
variables were selected because they are
theoretically or explicitly linked to students’ multicultural
awareness, knowledge, or skills in previous
research. Consistent across all regression models, these
variables are age in years, gender (female D 1), married
or living with a partner (coded as 1), current annual
income (respondents selected their current income level
from a set of responses beginning with $5,000 or less
and increasing in $10,000 increments to the final choice
of $55,000 or more annually), BSW student (coded as 1,
MSW student D 0), MSW student with a BSW degree
(coded as 1), and total previous diversity training settings
(students reported if they had received previous
diversity training in high school, college, a place of
employment, or other locale to create a scale ranging
from 0–4). This latter variable measures the possible
benefit of receiving diversity training at multiple locations
on student scores.
Since the number of prior diversity training settings
was the only significant predictor in the two regression
models, that variable became the independent variable in
a series of analysis of variance tests to examine total and
subscale differences across the training groups. The
results of these tests are shown in Table 3 and significant
differences across groups were identified after a
Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Prior
Table 1. Paired-Samples T-test Comparisons of Scale and Subscale Scores (N D 169)
Pre-Test Post-Test
MAKSS Mean § standard deviation Mean § standard deviation T, df, Significance
Total Scale Score 155.55 § 14.2 172.02 § 14.9 ¡13.04, 168, 0.001*
Knowledge Subscale Score 49.33 § 5.7 55.26 § 5.5 ¡10.86, 168, 0.001*
Skills Subscale Score 50.71 § 8.9 58.22 § 7.9 ¡10.68, 168, 0.001*
*p < 0.05.
The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education
38
to any of the analyses described above, all continuous
variables including scale and subscale scores were tested
for normality. All yielded acceptable skewness and kurtosis
values to meet normality assumptions and be
included in the analyses (George & Mallery, 2014). In
all tests, statistical significance is measured at p < 0.05
or p < 0.10 as noted at the bottom of each table.
Results
Study respondents predominantly are female (n D
147; 87%) and not married or living with a partner (n D
106; 62.7%). The sample includes 36 BSW students
(21.3%) and 32 MSW students with a BSW degree
(18.9%). The remaining 101 students (59.8%) are MSW
students with a non-social work undergraduate degree.
The average age is 28 years (standard deviation D 9.2)
while the average number of diversity training sites is 1
(standard deviation D 0.88). Sixty-one students (36.1%)
reported no prior diversity trainings, sixty-eight students
(40.2%) reported training at one prior location, and forty
students (23.7%) received trainings at two or more locations.
Most students reported a current annual income of
$25,000 or less (n D 95; 58.3%).
The results of the paired-samples t-tests are presented
on Table 1. These tests show changes in students’ preand
post-test MAKSS scores. For the total scale and
across both subscales analyzed here, students showed
significant improvements wherein their post-test scores
exceeded their pre-test scores. Total scale scores
increased by approximately 17 points from pre-test to
post-test. Scores on the knowledge subscale increased by
6 points while scores on the skills subscale showed an
approximate 8-point improvement.
As shown on Table 2, the only consistent predictor
of total scale scores is a student’s number of previous
diversity training sites. With each additional
training site, students’ total pre-test scores rise
approximately 5 points (p < 0.001). This first regression
model also shows that female students had significantly
lower pre-test scores at the p < 0.10 level.
Specifically, female students scored approximately
6 points below their male classmates. Regarding
Table 2. Linear Regression Models Predicting MAKSS Pre- and Post-Test Total Scale Scores (N D 169)
Pre-Test Total Scale Score Post-Test Total Scale Score
Independent Variables B SE Significance B SE Significance
Age in years ¡0.18 0.15 0.221 ¡0.04 0.15 0.776
Female ¡6.50 3.40 0.058 ¡2.26 3.58 0.528
Married or living with a partner ¡0.23 2.45 0.925 0.51 2.54 0.840
Current annual income 1.08 0.68 0.111 0.32 0.71 0.655
BSW student ¡3.36 2.78 0.229 1.03 2.90 0.722
MSW student with a BSW degree ¡1.33 2.79 0.635 ¡4.55 2.90 0.119
Total previous diversity training settings 5.42 1.20 <0.001* 2.54 1.33 0.058**
Pre-test total scale score — — — 0.30 0.08 <0.001*
R2 D .164 R2 D 0.160
F D 4.35 F D 3.66
Significance < .001* Significance D 0.001*
*p < .05.
**p < 0.10.
Table 3. Analysis of Variance Comparisons for Pre- and Post-Test Total and Subscale Scores (N D 169)
No Diversity Trainings One Diversity Training Location
Two or More
Diversity Locations
Dependent Variable Mean* Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation Mean Standard Deviation F, df, p-value**
Pre-test total scale score 152.1A 10.4 154.3B 13.5 162.9A,B 17.5 8.013, 166, <0.001**
Pre-knowledge subscale score 48.9 4.7 49.2 5.9 50.3 6.8 0.765, 166, 0.467
Pre-skills subscale score 48.5A 7.4 49.8B 7.2 55.7A,B 11.5 9.307, 166, <0.001**
Post-test total scale score 169.4A 15.1 171.1 13.6 177.6A 15.7 4.050, 166, 0.019**
Post-knowledge scale score 54.5 5.3 55.2 5.8 56.5 5.4 1.540, 166, 0.217
Post-skills scale score 56.7A 7.8 57.5B 6.9 61.7A,B 8.8 5.475, 166, 0.005**
*Means in a row sharing a subscript are significantly different from each other (p < 0.05) after a Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons.
**p < 0.05.
Multicultural Perspectives Vol. 18, No. 1
39
post-test total scale scores, the model shows that pretest
scores are the strongest predictor of post-test
scores (p < 0.001). Similar to the first regression
model, the number of previous diversity training
locations is significant in the second model too (p D
0.058). even after controlling for pre-test scores, each
additional training setting predicted a rise of 2.5
points on students’ post-test total scale score.
Building on the significance of previous diversity
training sites to predict total scale scores, analysis of
variance was used to identify specific differences across
the groups. As shown on Table 3, students who
reported two or more diversity training locations scored
significantly higher than students with none or one
training site on pre-test total scores and pre-skills subscale
scores (p < 0.001). Their total scores were
approximately 10 and 8 points higher compared to the
other two groups. There was no significant difference
on pre-knowledge subscale scores. This group also
scored higher than the students with no prior trainings
on post-test total scores and higher than both of the
other groups on post-skills subscale scores. For posttest
total scale scores, students with two or more training
locations scored 8 points higher than students with
no prior training (p D 0.019). Their post-test skills
scores were 5 and 4 points higher than the two comparison
groups, respectively (p < 0.005).
Discussion and Implications
Pedagogical models in social work programs are constantly
being developed and refined to assist students in
absorbing content on multiculturalism and diversity. The
results from this study indicate that previous diversity
training is a consistent predictor of students developing
multicultural awareness, knowledge, and skills. Hence it
is essential that course instructors evaluate diversity
training(s) students have had. Because cultural factors
contribute to clients’ strengths and problems, affect the
worker and client relationship, and influence interventions,
culture is a key factor in the social work helping
process. Unfortunately, many social workers know little
of the cultural characteristics of their clients. Lum
(2010) posited the capacity for individualizing the client
within a specific cultural matrix is the genius and the
challenge of effective ethnic-sensitive service delivery.
To do so, the social worker must know the resources
available to the client and how they may be best used.
Various aspects such as ethnic identification, socioeconomic
status, migration history, gender, age, religion,
and physical capabilities have a profound impact on a
person’s way of life.
Understanding the factors that promote and predict
multicultural competence is critical. Russell and White
(2002) found that social workers who shared an intimate
knowledge of minority culture with their clients were
able to intervene productively with clients whose primary
identification was with that culture and who indicated
no desire to change. Yet, most social workers’
knowledge and cultural awareness is limited without
the knowledge of other cultures. Williams (2005)
revealed significant differences for social work practitioners
who received workshop-based educational intervention
for cultural competence and “standard diversity
activities” available in their organization. The results
indicated that participants perceived benefit from the
interventions and reported transferring learning to the
practice setting. Hence, a positive association regarding
diversity training provides a context for understanding
that students start at different places in their development
of multicultural competence and evaluating the
course content.
Many schools and departments of social work strive
to meet the Council on Social Work Education (2012)
educational policy mandates of integrating content that
promotes understanding, affirmation, and respect for
people from diverse backgrounds. Given the significance
of multicultural competence in social work practice,
the results of this study have meaningful
implications for cultural diversity courses as well as
curriculum development. For social work educators,
these results support assessment of students’ previous
diversity training while developing the course syllabus
and subsequent instruction. More importantly, the
results also highlight the importance of including cultural
diversity topics in all classes across BSW and
MSW curriculums rather than in a single class (e.g.,
field placements, field supervisor training, etc.). Every
cross-cultural encounter is a potential learning experience;
it may result in the discovery of new information
or an enhanced understanding of something not fully
appreciated before. The benefits of multiple diversity
trainings across settings are further supported by the
discovery that pre-test scores are the strongest and most
consistent predictor of post-test scores; thus the importance
of better preparing students prior to enrollment in
a multicultural course is clear.
As described, this study highlights the importance of
prior diversity trainings to better prepare students for
gaining multicultural understanding. This seems especially
true for developing students’ multicultural skills
since students who had trained in two or more settings
scored higher than students with less training sites. Since
this study considered trainings done at high school, college,
work settings, and other locations, one long-term
implication is to begin diversity training for students
prior to their entry into post-secondary institutions. Specific
to social work education, the importance of more
diversity trainings across locations suggests that
The Official Journal of the National Association for Multicultural Education
40
diversity content should be integrated across the social
work curriculum. This would essentially provide multiple
locations and opportunities for students to gain multicultural
awareness, knowledge, and skills through their
time as students enrolled in social work programs.
Limitations and Conclusion
While this preliminary study provides information
that is useful for multicultural course design and curriculum
enhancement, more research is needed to expand
upon these results and further advance multicultural
social work education. For example, future research
should seek to study social work students at numerous
universities located in geographically diverse locations.
Subsequent studies should also utilize different methods
for measuring multicultural understanding, including
appropriate internal consistency to allow for a full analysis
of the data. Future research should examine the influence
of student and university-level characteristics on
social work students’ pre- and post-test multicultural
awareness, knowledge, and skills. More in-depth information
about the content of the diversity trainings done
at different locations will be helpful to identify what has
the strongest effect on students’ development. Researchers
should also evaluate the effectiveness of different
course and curriculum models to teach multicultural
social work practice.
Beyond promoting integration of diversity content
across settings, perhaps the most important contribution
of this study is to provide a springboard for future
research in the assessment of multicultural course
instruction and student preparation to deliver ethnic-sensitive
service. The findings reported here highlight the
value of multicultural content both in the classes where
data were collected and prior to these classes. Given the
importance of multicultural competence to effective
social work practice, research is clearly needed that
builds on these results and seeks to maximize social
work students’ multicultural education before they enter
the social work profession.
References
Center for American Progress. (2012). The top 10 economic facts of
diversity in the workplace: A diverse workforce is integral to a
strong economy. Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.
org/issues/labor/news/2012/07/12/11900/the-top-10-economicfacts-
of-diversity-in-the-workplace/
Council on Social Work Education. (2012). Educational policy and
accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/
File.aspx?idD13780.
D’Andrea, M., Daniels, J., & Heck, R. (1991). Evaluating the impact of
multicultural counseling training. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 70, 143–150.
Dunn, A. H., Dotson, E. K., Ford, J. C., & Roberts, M. A. (2014). “You
won’t believe what they said in class today”: Professors’ reflections
on student resistance in multicultural education courses.
Multicultural Perspectives, 16(2), 93–98.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2014). IBM SPSS statistics 21 step by step:
A simple guide and reference (13th ed.) Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Guy-Walls, P. (2007). Exploring cultural competence practice in
undergraduate social work education. Journal of Social Work
Education, 127(4), 569–580.
Hall, D. M. H. (2008). Social work education and personal characteristic
predictors of cultural competence in MSW students (PhD thesis,
Order No. 3323585). University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI 304419424)
Hall, J. C., & Theriot, M. T. (2007). An exploratory study evaluating
the effectiveness of an innovative teaching model for multicultural
social work education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work,
27(3/4), 259–272.
Hung, M. L. (2000). Multicultural counseling competencies of clinical
and counseling psychology graduate students and interns. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 61(12), 6708, (UMI No. 9998083).
International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW). (2014). What we
do. Retrieved from http://ifsw.org/what-we-do/.
Kin, P. M., Perez, R. J., & Shim, W. (2013). How college students
experience intercultural learning key features and approaches.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 6(2), 69–83.
Kocarek, C. E., Talbot, D. M., Batka, J. C., & Anderson, M. Z.
(2001). Reliability and validity of three measures of multicultural
competency. Journal of Counseling and Development,
79, 486–496.
Lum, D. (2010). Culturally competent practice: A framework for
understanding diverse groups and justice issues (4th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Cengage Learning.
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege and male privilege: A personal
account of coming to see correspondences through work in women’s
studies. Retrieved from http://www.iub.edu/»tchsotl/part2/
McIntosh%20White%20Privilege.pdf
Neville, A. M., & Harris, T. (2005). Communicating to develop White
racial identity in an interracial communication class. Communication
Education, 54(3), 223–242.
Ponteretto, J. G., Rieger, B. P., Barrett, A., & Sparks, R. (1994).
Assessing multicultural counseling competence: A review of
instrumentation. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72,
316–322.
Russell, M. N., &White, B. (2002). Social worker and immigrant client
experiences in multicultural service provision: Education implications.
Social Work Education: The International Journal, 21(6),
635–650.
Sagun, J. N. (2014). Psychologists’ multicultural training on
racial/ethnic minority issues and multicultural competency
(PhD thesis, Order No. 3624657). Alliant International University,
Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses database. (UMI 1553437038)
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse. Theory
and practice (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Trompenaas, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2012). Riding the waves of
culture: Understanding diversity in global business. Chicago, IL:
McGraw-Hill Publishing.
Williams, C. (2005). Training for cultural competence: Individual and
group processes. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social
Work, 14(1/2), 111–133.
Multicultural Perspectives Vol. 18, No. 1
41
Copyright of Multicultural Perspectives is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.