Counseling, Higher Education & Special Education

Permanent URI for this communityhttp://hdl.handle.net/1903/2226

The departments within the College of Education were reorganized and renamed as of July 1, 2011. This department incorporates the former departments of Counseling & Personnel Services; Education Leadership, Higher Education & International Education (excluding Organizational Leadership & Policy Studies); and Special Education.

Browse

Subject: search.filters.subject.equity

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    “We’re Not Going to Overcome Institutional Bias by Doing Nothing”: Latinx/a/o Student Affairs Professionals as Advocates for Equity
    (MDPI, 2022-10-18) Espino, Michelle M.; Ariza, Juanita
    Higher education institutions continue to be contested environments where the goals of equity and inclusion are often at odds with the permanence of institutional racism. Through a multi-case study of 19 Latinx/a/o mid-level administrators who worked at 16 predominantly white, private four-year universities, the authors uncovered the ways that (a) private universities grant agency to Latinx/a/o mid-level administrators to serve student needs but restrict agency to address the inequitable organizational structures; (b) constituent groups within private universities, namely faculty, mark the racialized boundaries of power and decision-making through credentialing; and (c) private universities use silence as a means of controlling Latinx/a/o mid-level professionals administrators’ equity work. Although Latinx/a/o mid-level administrators have a significant role to play in advancing equity work inside higher education institutions, these racialized organizations will create barriers that maintain whiteness and white interests. Without addressing power structures and the bureaucracy of decision-making at private institutions, progress on equity throughout the organizational structure may be limited. Implications for research and practice for Latinx/a/o/ administrators are discussed.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Participatory Equity and Student Outcomes in Living-Learning Programs of Differing Thematic Types
    (2011) Soldner, Matthew E.; Inkelas, Karen K; Counseling and Personnel Services; Digital Repository at the University of Maryland; University of Maryland (College Park, Md.)
    This study evaluated participatory equity in varying thematic types of living-learning programs and, for a subset of student group × program type combinations found to be below equity, used latent mean modeling to determine whether statistically significant mean differences existed between the outcome scores of living-learning participants and their peers in traditional residence hall environments. This study employs a conceptual framework informed by Astin's (1991) IEO model and Pascarella and Terenzini's (1980) model of structural mediation in residential environments, and is based on data collected as part of the 2007 National Study of Living-Learning Programs. First, a team of raters used descriptive content analytic techniques to identify a typology of living-learning programs consisting of 41 specific thematic types, based on those programs' stated goals and objectives. That typology was the basis for computing Hao's (2002) equity indices, which were used to determine whether students from different racial/ethnic groups or socioeconomic statuses were under- or over-represented in specific thematic types of living-learning programs, relative to their representation in living-learning programs overall. Twenty-two race/ethnicity × type combinations exhibited low levels of participatory equity, as did 13 socioeconomic status × type combinations. Three group × type combinations were selected for latent mean modeling, including: (a) Asian/Pacific Islander students in disciplinary, general academic, honors programs; (b) White students in international/global programs; and (c) low-SES students in honors programs. The outcome of interest for Asian/Pacific Islander and low-SES students was ease of academic transition, and, for White students, diversity appreciation. Analyses revealed that although L/L participants reported higher mean scores on measures of several key living and learning environments, no statistically significant mean difference in outcome measures was observed. In the face of the participatory inequities found in this national sample of living-learning programs, the primary implication for student affairs practitioners generally is that the exploration of equity in high-impact practices for students--and involvement and engagement opportunities for all members of the university community--is warranted. This implication is indicated for living-learning practitioners as well, who can also take findings vis-à-vis the relationship between key living and learning environments and specific student outcomes in to account when designing and improving the programs with which they work. Finally, living-learning practitioners should consider whether the relatively small differences in environment measures and the lack of detectable differences in outcome measures is driven by weak treatments, weak measures, or both.