The Ohio State UniversityFaculty and TA Developmenthttp://ftad.osu.edu/

Diversity-related content as a gateway to critical thinking:

A case study of a freshman seminar

CAUSE Webinar12 August 2008

Michele DiPietroCarnegie Mellon University

Kathryn M. PlankThe Ohio State University

As teachers, we include diversity-related content for many reasons, such as:• It is necessary in order to represent the

content of the discipline.

• It can create a more welcoming learning environment for a wider range of students.

• It can provide a context and examples for course concepts that students care about.

• It can help students develop better critical thinking skills.

William Perry’s model of Intellectual and Ethical Development (1970)• Dualism--“There’s one right answer, and

the teacher has it.”

• Multiplicity--“There are lots of right answers and my answer is as good as yours.”

• Relativism--“There are disciplinary ways of using evidence to make decisions about what answer is best.”

• Commitment--“In a world of uncertainty, I have to make the best decisions possible and commit to them because it matters.”

Craig Nelson’s metaphors:

• Dualism--Sergeant Friday• Multiplicity--Baskin Robbins• Relativism--Teachers’ Games• Commitment--“Adult thinking”

Facilitating students’ movement through this model of development means supporting them where they are, removing obstacles that might hinder their development, and giving them a gentle nudge to the next stage.

Content/teaching methods to facilitate transitions:• Dualism > Multiplicity

Makes uncertainty safe; resists a single right answer.

• Multiplicity > RelativismDemonstrates that personal opinion alone is insufficient.

• Relativism > CommitmentExplores the values implicit in decisions and the significance of the paradigms they use; requires they take ownership of their thinking.

Diversity-related content is particularly well-suited for guiding (encouraging, motivating, prodding) students through these transitions and helping them reach higher levels of critical thinking.

A unique course

From Ten Percent to Couples per County: The Statistics of the Gay and Lesbian Population

• First of its kind!

• Freshman seminar: Restricted to H&SS students Enrollment capped at 20 (had a small waitlist) Additional goals:

• Ease transition from HS to college• Create community• Establish study skills and habits

Course Structure

• Initial concept maps to assess LGBT and stats knowledge

• 5 content units

• Student presentations

• Final concept maps

• Assessments 8 homework problem sets (20%) 5 paper analyses (20%) Weekly journal entries (15%) Oral presentation + companion literature review paper

(30%) Class participation (15%)

Initial concept map: Student K

Initial concept map: Student J

The 5 units

• Who is gay? Defining variables

• Sampling LGBT folks Sampling

• Counting LGBT folks (Prevalence) Estimation/Bias

• Understanding homosexuality Hypothesis Testing

Nature of homosexuality Causes of homosexuality

• Stability of sexual orientation Synthesis

Sample Activities

• Minimal groups (extracting patterns from data)

• Gaydar (classification)

• ProjectImplicit (validity & reliability) https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

• Letter to the editor of the “Chronicle of Higher Education” concerning M. Bailey’s research on transsexuals (research methodology and ethics)

Final concept map:Student K

Final concept map: Student J

Journal excerpts

• Before I took this class, I believed what studies I heard about very easily […] My impression was that Kinsey had only one, infallible statistic: 10%.

Journal excerpts (cont’d)

• One of the most difficult questions for me was when we were given different scenarios and asked to put them in categories of homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. From this we were supposed to construct a definition. At first this looked easy […] Once I was done, I realized my definition and the categories did not match up. When reading in an article the definition they came up with it seems so simple and easy […] This assignment is actually one of the first times I actually had to think. I didn’t copy things from a book or take someone else’s analysis. It was mine.

Journal excerpts (cont’d)

• It just might be me who is second-guessing studies but sometimes I think one article/piece of information isn’t enough to completely convince me if something is true or not.

• If there’s anything I’ve gotten out of this semester, it’s an impression that

1. We know nothing because every study can be heavily critiqued2. We never will know anything because all future studies can be

disqualified, and3. Even the most biased, homophobic studies have some

redeeming factors that, in my head, partially validate their evidence!

I now know too much to know anything.

Journal excerpts (cont’d)

• In the end, I was disappointed as to how few answers there really were concerning the GLBT population. There were many results and theories and conflicting views, but few real tangible answers. Or at least black and white answers. But such is the nature of life, apparently. In the real world, things aren’t always black and white and numbers are never pretty and complete. But although I do not yet know what the answers are, I am much more informed than I was at the start of the semester.

Journal excerpts (cont’d)

• I learned that despite how accurate stat classes make data look if the

p-value shows significance but the sample size or method were bad it

means very little.

• How cool would it be to trick people into thinking they were

participating in a random response test when they really weren’t? For

instance, if you were the Hub and you knew everybody’s SSN, you

could email everyone who has an even last digit of their SSN and ask

them to participate in a survey […] You then get the people together

and ask them to respond based on whether the last digit in their SSN

is odd or even. The test would be very effective because you could

take your data much more seriously. Your N would not have to be

very large to estimate a very small p. While dishonest, it sounds like

a fantastic plan to me!

Journal excerpts (cont’d)

• I really like the matched pairs way of surveying. I think that in class we

have clearly shown how hard it is to do a random statistical sampling of

the GLBT population and so, barring that option, I think matched pairing,

like in the Hooker study, is a very good way of gathering data. In calculus

class, we are looking at 3-D objects which are almost impossible to

visualize and draw. And so rather than trying to draw the entire object, we

take slices of it along various axes and planes. Even though we are only

taking cuts of the object, the synthesis of those cuts is a very good

approximation of what the object truly is, and much easier to draw. It

seems like the Hooker study is doing a similar thing rather than sample

the entire population poorly, it takes a very concrete cut of the population

and examines it very well and accurately. If similar studies could be

performed on other sections of the LGBT population, perhaps they could

be combined to form a relatively clear picture of the population as a

whole.

Journal excerpts (cont’d)

• I really liked the final paper [and presentation]. Almost everybody so

far has given a really fascinating presentation, and I think my

knowledge has gone way up. I personally really liked the topic me and

___ did. I thought it was so cool that we actually went out and found

studies - that we got data and info straight from the source. It was

quite satisfying to actually ask my own questions of a topic I think is

important, and then find the answers. When ___ and I actually realized

that most of the studies we were looking at had results that could be

compared to each other, as well as very similar recommendations for

the future, we were both stunned. How cool is it that you do a bunch of

research and the answers you find are consistent, and thanks to part of

your research, you also know they are correct. It totally made me feel

like an expert in the field, that I could collate and compare these

professional studies, and come up with clear, justified answers.

References

• Nelson, C. E. 1999. On the persistence of unicorns: The tradeoff between content and critical thinking revisited. In B.A. Pescosolido and R. Aminzade, Eds., The Social Worlds of Higher Education: Handbook for Teaching in a New Century. Pine Forge Press

• Perry, W. G. 1970. Forms of intellectual and cognitive development in the college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

• Plank, K. M., & Rohdieck, S. V. 2007. The value of diversity. NEA Higher Education Advocate 24.6.