International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education
http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/

2016, Volume 28, Number 3, 463-473
ISSN 1812-9129

Effective Instruction for Engaging Culturally Diverse
Students in Higher Education
Lois A. Yamauchi andKazufumi Taira
University of Hawai‘iTracy Trevorrow
Chaminade University

Engagement is related to important student outcomes such as persistence, retention, and grades. It is
key to all students’ learning, but it may be particularly important for culturally diverse students who
may have fewer models and other resources for keeping themselves engaged. As the institutions ofhigher education become increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse, instructors are challenged
to engage a more diverse student population. This paper describes how three university instructors
applied the Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE) Standards for
Effective Pedagogy to their instruction in courses of general psychology, educational psychology,
and statistics in order to increase students’ cognitive and social engagement. The CREDE Standards
are strategies of instruction that incorporate small group discussions and making connections
between students’ prior experiences and abstract concepts.

The purpose of this paper is to present strategies toengage culturally diverse students in higher education.
Academic engagement is multidimensional (Carini,2012), consisting of behavioral, cognitive, emotional,
and social investment (National Research Council,
2004). Behavioral engagement includes observableactions, e.g., coming to class, completing assignments,
and persisting in academic programs. Cognitive
engagement includes students paying attention andproblem solving. When students are emotionallyengaged, they show interest and enthusiasm and viewthe curriculum as relevant. Social engagement includes
students feeling connected to classmates and teachers,
and perceiving the school climate to be supportive.
Engagement also includes students’ involvement in
extra-curricular activities.
A synthesis of over ten years of research on
engagement in higher education indicated that academic
and social engagement had indirect effects on student
persistence through institutional commitment, thedegree to which students were committed to staying at aparticular school (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
Harper and Quaye (2009) emphasized a dual
responsibility for engagement such that students have a
responsibility to be engaged in meaningful activities,
while educators are responsible for providing activities
that engage them.
Educators may attempt to increase cognitive
engagement by applying active learning strategies intheir courses. For example, Goldberg and Ingram(2001) compared student engagement and performancein two sections of a botany course. The active learning
section was designed as a combination of mini lectures
and activities, such as concept map-making, problem
solving, and categorization tasks. Students in the active
learning section performed better on the final exam andalso reported being more cognitively engaged. Mazurand colleagues developed Peer Instruction, a method toactively engage students in their lecture classes. Peer
Instruction involves asking conceptual questions
throughout the class period that students answer
individually first and then engage in discussions withclassmates who have solved the problem in different
ways to come up with revised and improved solutions(Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Fagen, Crouch, & Mazur,
2002; Mazur, 2009). During the peer discussions, theinstructor and teaching assistants circulate to participate
in the discussions. Mazur (2009) reported that students’conceptual understandings increased, often threefold,through use of Peer Instruction. Jakee (2011) described
providing modified lecture notes to students that did notinclude the conceptual understandings or conclusions of
the lectures. Students filled in the important details
during the lecture, promoting more active learning andlecture attendance. Fatokun and Fatokun (2013) applied
problem-based learning, another active learning
strategy, in their chemistry and mathematics classes.
Working in small groups, the students solved “realworld” problems that integrated the two subjects,
identifying concepts, brainstorming possible solutions,and interpreting results. Ahn (Ahn & Class, 2011)
described students constructing sample exam questions
that assessed conceptual, rather than rote learning.
Although the task was challenging, it promoted active
learning and peer collaboration.
Some instructors use technology, such as clickers, topromote students’ cognitive engagement (e.g., BlascoArcas, Bull, Hernández-Ortega, & Sese, 2013; Gauci,
Dantas, Williams, & Kemm, 2009; Han & Finkelstein,2013). Clickers are electronic devices that students use toanswer questions posed by the teacher. In general,
students reported enjoying using clickers in courses(Crossgrove & Curran, 2008; Powell, Straub, Rodrigues,
VanHorn, 2011) and suggested that it increases their
engagement and learning (Powell et al, 2011). In one
study, students who used clickers received better grades

Yamauchi, Taira, and Trevorrow

than those who did not, and those who benefitted mosthad received lower grades in a related previous course(Gauci et al., 2009). Crossgrove and Curran (2008)
studied the effects of using clickers in two large section
biology courses, one for biology majors and another for
non-majors. They found that students in both courses
expressed positive attitudes toward clicker use, but its
effects on learning were more dramatic for the nonmajors. Sullivan (2008/2009) pointed out that clickers
are best used when instructors pose questions that engage
a higher level of thinking and require students to go
beyond rote memorization to apply, analyze, or
synthesize information. Mazur and colleagues usedclickers in this way to implement the Peer Instruction
described previously (Crouch & Mazur, 2001; Fagen,Crouch, & Mazur, 2002; Mazur, 2009).
Instructors may also design course activities that
increase social engagement through classroom
interactions. Research suggests that peer support isrelated to college persistence, retention, and grades(Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005). The timing ofstudents’ social engagement and perceptions of support
may also make a difference. Berger and Milem (1999)
found that students’ perceptions of faculty and peer
support early in their college careers were strong
predictors of persistence. A perceived lack of peer
support was more predictive of academic outcomesamong first-generation college students than actual
support (Dennis et al., 2005).
Thus, engagement can be considered the first stepin the learning process for students. Although this is thecase for all students, higher education instructors may
find it especially important to consider effective
strategies to engage culturally diverse students, forexample, immigrant students and those who are the firstin their families to attend college. These students may
have fewer models and other resources to sustain theirown engagement in higher education. Instructors’attempts to design instruction for effective engagement
may have particular influence on the retention andachievement of culturally diverse students.
The Increasing Diversity of Higher Education
Across the globe, higher education classrooms are
becoming more culturally and linguistically diverse. As
countries like the U.S. become more multicultural,institutions of higher education tend to reflect those trends(Laden, 2004). Of the 18.6 million undergraduates enrolled
in American universities in 2011, 45% were non-White(Knapp, Kelly-Reid, & Ginder, 2012). Educators haveattempted to increase the diversity of their universities toparallel their national populations. For example, Dutch
universities have tried to increase the enrollment of minority
groups while maintaining a high level of academic
achievement (Reumer & van der Wende, 2010).

Engaging Culturally Diverse Students

464

The growing numbers of international students
have also increased the diversity of higher education.
Between 1990 and 2011, the number of students
studying outside of their home countries tripled, with anannual increase of 6% (OECD, 2013). Nearly 4.5
million students studied in international settings in
2013. In 2011, the largest numbers of students studying
abroad were from China, India, and Korea, with 53% of
all international students arriving from Asia. Although
the U.S. and U.K. continue to have the largest share ofinternational students, other countries are increasing
their international enrollments. For example, 18% and
11% of higher education graduates in Australia and
New Zealand respectively were international students,
as were half of all PhD candidates in Switzerland(OECD, 2014). Spain, Russia, and Korea are new tothis arena, with increasing numbers of international
students (OECD, 2013).
Jiang (2010) observed that many universities areoperating within a broad, global context and serving
an increasingly diverse student population. The
increase in students studying outside their country of
citizenship has been attributed to a number of factors,
including students’ perceptions of the benefits ofcultural understandings, language learning, and acompetitive advantage of a foreign degree (OECD,
2013; Sawir, 2013). Some students from lessdeveloped countries, for example, those from Africa,
report that their home countries do not have thecapacity to provide the advanced education they desire(Maringe & Carter, 2007). Other students, forexample, from China, are encouraged to attend auniversity abroad in order to build the capacity of theirown countries (OECD/World Bank, 2007).
Increasingly, universities and colleges viewinternational students as a form of revenue as publicfunding for higher education continues to decrease,and those institutions are more reliant on tuition
dollars (Sawir, 2013; Trilokekar & Kizilbash, 2013).
In Japan, a decreasing birth rate has threatened thecontinuation of a number of higher education
institutions, and this has promoted the recruitment ofinternational students (Rivers, 2010).
As their student bodies become more multicultural,
higher education faculty are challenged to use strategies
to better engage them. This may be particularly
problematic for new faculty, as most doctoral programs
do not require teaching preparation (Jensen 2011), andthose new to teaching report being unprepared for the
instructional demands of an academic position (Golde &Dore, 2001). Thus, many professors were not prepared toteach, much less to consider the needs of diverse
students. Some universities now provide pedagogicaltraining for faculty once they are hired. One study foundthat those who participated in such training indicatedpositive changes, including the use of more student-Yamauchi, Taira, and Trevorrow

centered strategies and increased teaching self-efficacy(Postareff, Lindblom-Ylänne, & Nevgi, 2007).
Without adequate preparation, professors may
perpetuate instructional models that they were exposed toas students, using strategies that are not suited to diverse
student populations. Close relationships and support thatstudents perceive from teachers and peers are related topersistence by minority students (e.g., Dennis et al.,2005; Jackson, Smith, & Hill, 2003). However, relianceon lecturing, particularly in large classes, often prevents
professors from getting to know their students. Many
have criticized lectures for their resulting in student
passivity and low levels of engagement andunderstanding (e.g., Rodd, 2003; Yoon, KensingtonMiller, Sneddon, & Bartholomew, 2011).
Using The CREDE Standards for Effective
Pedagogy to Promote Engagement
This paper describes how the Center for
Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence(CREDE) Standards for Effective Pedagogy canpromote students’ engagement in learning. We
reflected on our adaptation of the CREDE Standards
for Effective Pedagogy for our university
classrooms, their effect on engagement, and thechallenges posed. Below we describe the CREDE
model and research on its effectiveness.
The CREDE Standards
The CREDE Standards are strategies to create
interaction-rich classrooms that integrate classroom
dialogue to promote conceptual understanding (Tharp,
Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000). CREDE was a
U.S. national research center for eight years (19962004) (CREDE, n.d.). The Center funded 31 research
projects across the nation that focused on how best toteach culturally and linguistically diverse students fromkindergarten through 12th grade. From that research andprevious work from the National Center for Researchon Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learningand the Kamehameha Early Education Program,
CREDE researchers identified five strategies ofeffective instruction that appeared to be important for
all groups of students. These five became known as the
CREDE Standards. Researchers working with
American Indians, Native Hawaiians, and Alaska
Natives identified two additional Standards thatappeared to be important for indigenous groups (Tharp,2006); however, most of the research on CREDE has
focused on the first five. Researchers later adapted theseven Standards for preschoolers (Yamauchi, Im, &Schonleber, 2012). Although some have used the
CREDE model in higher education (e.g., Stoddard,

Engaging Culturally Diverse Students

465

Bravo, Solis, Stevens, & Vega de Jesus, 2009), little has
been written on their adaptation for adult learning.
The CREDE Standards
The CREDE Standards are based on Vygotsky’s(1978) theory and over 40 years of research on effective
instruction for diverse students (Tharp et al., 2000).
They are the following:• Joint Productive Activity: Teachers andstudents working together to create sharedunderstandings and tangible products.
• Language
andLiteracy
Development:
Promoting language goals and skills.
• Contextualization:
Connecting
newinformation to what students already know
from their previous home, community andcultural experiences.
• Complex Thinking: Developing students’high-level thinking and problem solving skills.
• Instructional Conversation: Using small group
discussions to develop conceptual understandings.
Effectiveness of the CREDE Standards
Researchers have found positive relationships
between use of the CREDE Standards and student
achievement in K-12 settings (e.g., Doherty, Hilberg,
Pinal, & Tharp, 2003; Saunders & Goldenberg, 2007).
The US Department of Education reviewed 73 studies
focused on language development for English
language learners and ranked the CREDE Standards as
the most effective method for promoting reading
achievement and the second most effective for
improving English language literacy (Institute of
Educational Sciences, 2006).
Use of the CREDE model may improveengagement of culturally diverse post-secondary
students. An analysis of over 42,000 students at 137
institutions of higher education indicated greater
engagement and learning when instructors interactedwith students (Joint Productive Activity, Instructional
Conversation),provided
experiential
learning
opportunities (Contextualization), used active andcollaborative strategies (Joint Productive Activity,
Complex Thinking) and emphasized higher order
thinking (Complex Thinking) (Umbach & Wawrzynski,2005). In this paper, we define engagement as students’sustained attention to tasks requiring mental effort(Corno & Mandinach, 1983); students’ enthusiasm,
interest, and enjoyment (Skinner, Kindermann &Furrer, 2008); and their emotional connections toteachers and peers.

Yamauchi, Taira, and Trevorrow

Our Instructional Contexts
We are three instructors who collaborated tounderstand how the CREDE Standards could beapplied in higher education to increase student
engagement. The three of us taught at universities in
Hawai‘i, an American state with no ethnic majority.
The institutions in which we worked have been rated
among the top 10 most ethnically diverse universities
in the nation (US News and World Report, 2015a;
2015b). Students in all three courses were ethnicallyand linguistically diverse and from the US and othercountries. Tracy taught an undergraduate survey ofpsychology class at a small Catholic university where
there was an undergraduate enrollment of just over
1,300 students, of whom 66% were from Hawai‘i,
22% from the U.S. continent, and 9% from the PacificIslands. The racial/ethnic background of the university
included 37% Asian, 17% Hawaiian or PacificIslander, 15% Caucasian, and 17% mixed ethnicity.
Lois and Kazufumi taught at a large public
university with an undergraduate enrollment of 14,500
students, of whom 71% were from Hawai‘i and 21%
from the continental U.S. The racial/ethnic backgroundof full-time students at this university included 28%
Asian, 24% Caucasian, 15% Hawaiian/Part Hawaiian,
14% mixed ethnicity, 2% Pacific Islander, and 18%
other. Lois, a professor in educational psychology,taughtintroductory
graduate-level
educational
psychology. Kazufumi, a doctoral student from
Okinawa, taught undergraduate statistics. Although thestatistics course was designed for undergraduates, a few
graduate students also enrolled.
CREDE in Higher Education
In this section, we describe how we used eachStandard in one of the courses and provide shorter
examples from the other classes. We also discusschallenges presented by the model.
Joint Productive Activity
Joint Productive Activity refers to teachers andstudents collaborating to create tangible or intangible
products. At its highest level, the instructor
collaborates with a small group of students for at least
10 minutes (Luning, Wyatt, & Im, 2011).
Collaboration occurs between the teacher andstudents, with the majority participating and theteacher assisting in different ways.
Undergraduate introduction to psychology. In
Tracy’s course, there were multiple opportunities forstudents to work collaboratively on tangible products.
For example, in groups with four or five members,
students discussed what humans need to live, and they

Engaging Culturally Diverse Students

466

wrote each item on a Post-it note. Tracy rotated throughseveral of these groups to monitor their discussion,
encourage them to think broadly, and promote theengagement of quieter students. Participation was
encouraged by the simplicity of the task. It did not
require self-disclosure or depend on whether students
had read the chapter on motivation, yet it drew on theirpast experiences. Students then left their groups, moved
to the front of the classroom, and placed their Post-it
notes on the whiteboard. Tracy asked the class what they
noticed about the many “needs” on the board. Students
noted that there was considerable redundancy as thesmall groups had generated similar lists. Tracy thenasked the students to come up to the board and groupsimilar needs. These grouped needs were then labeled by
the class and placed in a hierarchy from what was most“basic” to the most sophisticated need, essentially
duplicating Maslow’s (1943) Hierarchy, a pyramid
depicting physiological and safety needs at the bottomthat are essential before other needs at higher levels (e.g.,
love, esteem, self-actualization) can be realized.
Students appeared to enjoy the exploratory natureof this activity and that there were no “correct
answers.” At the same time, the parallels between
Maslow’s concept and their class-created hierarchy
were striking and increased the credibility of the
Hierarchy of Needs construct. Tracy challenged theclass to come up with exceptions to such a hierarchy,
such as the life of Nelson Mandela, whose basic needs
were severely limited while satisfying higher levels,
such as self-actualization. This prompted a classdiscussion of other exceptions, and students suggested
other examples such as soldiers and religious pilgrims.
This activity exemplified Joint Productive Activity
at the highest level in that the students collaborated witheach other and the instructor to develop both tangible
products (the list of needs and the eventual composite
hierarchy) and intangible products (understanding of
Maslow’s ideas and exceptions to an establishedmotivation hierarchy). Tracy assisted students’collaboration by questioning, rephrasing what was said,
and modeling how concepts could be grouped and how
established and well-known theories may be challenged.
Joint Productive Activity in the other courses.
Kazufumi implemented Joint Productive Activity
when he covered the topics of statistical analyses andestimation. Like Tracy, Kazufumi’s students workedon the same task in small groups while he circulated
among them. For example, students discussed how tocreate four steps of hypothesis testing and summarized
their discussions on chart paper as a tangible productthat was created while the students also built theirintangible understandings. Lois structured her classinto small groups and planned a different collaborative
activity for each “center.” Students rotated througheach of the centers throughout the class period with

Yamauchi, Taira, and Trevorrowthe composition of the centers changing so that they
worked with different members for each rotation. At
each center, both peer-led and teacher-facilitated,students discussed questions posed, creating intangible
products and sometimes creating tangible products
together. For a session focused on theories of learning,
Lois met with her small group to discuss contexts inwhich students had learned something intentionally orunintentionally, while a peer-led group created avisual representation of the main ideas of the reading,and a third group worked in pairs to teach each othersomething new.
Language and Literacy Development
Language and Literacy Development refers toteachers promoting the language of their subject matter.
At the highest level, one of the goals of the classsession is for students to write or speak in ways that are
specific to that subject (Luning et al., 2011).
Graduate
introduction
toeducational
psychology. Lois designed the activity centers with agoal of developing students’ skills in reading, writing,or talking about research and theory in educational
psychology. Students wrote a short paper responding toa prompt about the assigned readings and in class, readeach other’s papers, and wrote comments on them.
Then, in one of the centers, they discussed the papers.
The students enjoyed reading each other’s papers, andthis also gave them ideas for their discussion. This
promoted the engagement of quieter students who
might have tended to remain silent in discussion. They
participated by writing comments to their peers, andother students also asked them questions more directlybased on what the quieter students had written. The
peer paper sharing and discussion groups is considered
Language and Literacy Development, but not at thehighest level because the teacher was not there toprovide assistance.
At her Center that day, Lois sat with each small
group of students and discussed their literature
review questions. Lois had told students to bring one
or two of their ideas. At that Center, the students
took turns presenting their ideas and the groupprovided feedback. Language and Literacy
Development was enacted at the highest level
because Lois modeled use of psychological language
and assisted students through questioning andrephrasing what they had said using psychologicalterms. The goal was for students to be able toarticulate a question they could pursue for their final
paper. For example, one of the students, Jana, was ateacher who had been out of school for a while andwas intimidated by having to write a long research
paper. Jana wanted her paper to be relevant to herclassroom practice and was unsure how to frame her

Engaging Culturally Diverse Students

467

ideas as an appropriate literature review question.
Lois asked Jana questions to clarify what she wanted
to know: “What do you want to find out to help you
improve
yourinstruction?
How
is
that
psychological?” Other students in the small groupmade suggestions, and Jana eventually stated thefocus of her paper as, “How is family engagement
related to student outcomes?”
Designing the class activities so that students had
many opportunities to communicate with each otherand with the instructor increased engagement because
students were expected to take an active rather thanpassive role in learning. One of the international
students in class told Lois that the emphasis on
language and literacy was especially helpful to thedevelopment of her English writing and speaking skills,
as she was required to speak and write a lot and formany purposes. She also felt that the intensive
interaction promoted students getting to know eachother and created a socially engaging class, whichfurther supported students’ development.
Language and Literacy in the other courses.
After a mini lecture on difficult statistical terms andconcepts, Kazufumi posed a question that small groupsof students discussed as he moved among them to assist
with comprehension of terms. The question for one day
was, “What are differences and similarities between
hypothesis testing and interval estimation?” These
were two concepts that were difficult for students.
When Kazufumi worked with each group, the students
explained the concepts to show their understanding,applying appropriate and technical language.
Tracy required students to work in small groups ona research project that included writing a term paper.
Students brought sections of the paper to class to sharewith group members. As students provided feedback oneach other’s writing, Tracy rotated through the groups
to monitor this process and model how to give
constructive feedback. Students received a group scorerather than an individual grade for the paper, so there
was incentive and a high level of engagement toprovide productive feedback to each other.
Contextualization
This Standard focuses on the notion that instruction
is most engaging and successful when new informationis connected to what learners already know from priorhome, community, and school experiences. At its
highest level, teachers integrate students’ priorknowledge with new and abstract understandings(Luning et al., 2011).
Undergraduate introduction to psychology. Tracy
found that there were many opportunities to connect
students’ prior experiences to course concepts. To promote
such connections, he required journal assignments inYamauchi, Taira, and Trevorrow

which students connected how the topic of the weekrelated to their own lives. For example, as a means of
exploring the nature versus nurture debate in development,
students reflected on aspects of their personality and theextent to which they considered themselves to be more
like their parents or more like their friends.
To demonstrate classical conditioning, Tracy
showed students an empty bag of li hing mui, a salty
Chinese snack that is popular in Hawai‘i. Those students
who were raised in Hawai‘i and recognized the bag
salivated upon seeing it, demonstrating a conditioned
response, whereas, those who were unfamiliar did not.
This demonstration was both an example of theinvoluntary nature of conditioned responses and provided
relevancy to the typical review of Pavlov’s research.
Students were then challenged in a whole classdiscussion to come up with other ways in which theyexperienced conditioning. Students volunteered that thesmell of a perfume or cologne could make them feel
good as it reminded them of a boyfriend or girlfriend.
Tracy used students’ everyday experiences toillustrate a concept and assisted students in understanding
the abstract ideas by questioning and modeling theconnections. Student engagement increased when they
were required to relate concepts to their own lives andshare these insights. Contextualization was at the highest
level of enactment when Tracy could assess student
understandings and assist them in making connections
between their personal experiences and abstract concepts(Luning et al., 2011).
Contextualization in the other courses. In theother courses, the instructors made many attempts toconnect students’ prior experiences to concepts beingtaught. For example, when they discussed student
assessment in the graduate educational psychology
course, Lois asked the students to think of an example ofan assessment they had experienced as a student and to
relate that experience to what they had read in the text.
When a student in the statistics course had difficulty
understanding the concept of correlation, Kazufumi gave
an example of the correlation between GPA in college
and the likelihood of gaining a well-paid job.
Contextualization
increased
students’cognitive
engagement in that it required students to actively apply
the abstract concepts to previous experiences.
Complex Thinking
ComplexThinkinggoesbeyondrotememorization such that students use skills of analysis,
synthesis, and application (Tharp et al., 2000).
Instructors emphasize Complex Thinking when theyteach students metacognitive skills, such as how toorganize and revise a paper or when they provide atemplate for an assignment. At the highest level,
teachers design instructional activities that require

Engaging Culturally Diverse Students

468

complex thinking and assist students with thesestrategies (Luning et al., 2011).
Undergraduate statistics. Kazufumi provided
lecture-style instruction for half of the class and group
activities for the remainder of the session. He divided
the students into small groups for a 10-minute session
at the beginning of class to work in small groups todiscuss their homework. A 20-minute group discussion
followed to assess students’ understanding of thoseideas. Kazufumi checked in with each group, asking
students about the meaning of statistical concepts andencouraging them to apply prior knowledge andexperience to understand the ideas.
For small group discussions on statistical
hypothesis testing, Kazufumi posed two questions:“What is the level of significance or α level and what
are typical probabilities at that level?” He joined eachgroup in their conversations, asking questions,
rephrasing, and clarifying. One group’s discussion
went beyond answering the questions. They talked
about the social consequences of setting an α level for
one’s research. A student suggested that a significancelevel of .05 and .01 could be too high in certain areas,such as physics. Kazufumi joined this group, and they
discussed how setting an α level at .05 or .01 in
physics, medical science, and other areas could be
problematic because of the consequences of error.
Researchers would want to be more stringent in theirdecision-making. Kazufumi asked the students toconsider the importance of assessing whether thesignificance level fit the particular area of researchand to consider aspects of practical significance andthe social consequences of research, in addition tostatistical significance.
This example of a small group discussion can beconsidered Complex Thinking at the highest level
because students and Kazufumi developed sharedunderstandings and applications of statistical concepts
that went beyond providing definitions and calculating
formulas. By designing small group discussions inwhich he participated, Kazufumi assessed students’knowledge and assisted through clarification,questioning, and modeling use of concepts. Complex
thinking is itself cognitive engagement. By having
students tackle questions that were complicated andrequired discussion in small groups, Kazufumi
promoted an environment in which students got toknow one another, felt comfortable asking questions,and engaged in conversations on complex topics.
Complex Thinking in the other courses.
Instructors in the other two courses engaged theirstudents in many activities that required higher-level
thinking, rather than memorizing facts. Students in thegraduate educational psychology class were required toapply criteria of what made for quality research to
critique an empirical article.

Yamauchi, Taira, and Trevorrow

In the undergraduate psychology course,
students listened to an audio recording of aconversation between Tracy and a professional
telephone psychic. Tracy asked students to reflect on
a number of features of the conversation, such as the
specificity of predictions, the clarity of terms, andthe model of causation reflected by what the psychic
said about planetary movement and Tracy’s future.
This exercise promoted students’ critical thinking,consideration of causation, and reflections on thenature of truth and limits to understanding. The
phone call was very amusing, so students wereinterested and enjoyed the activities.
Instructional Conversation
Instructional Conversation (IC) involves theteacher and a small group of students in sustained
conversation about an academic topic (Tharp &Gallimore 1988). Students talk to each other, as well as
to the teacher, and ideally, students speak more than theteacher. At the highest level, IC occurs for at least 10
minutes, and teachers listen carefully, foster students’
understandings, and question them on their judgments
and rationales (Luning et al., 2011).
Graduate
introduction
toeducational
psychology. As described in the section on Joint
Productive Activity, Lois designed her class as aseries of small group rotations. At her Center, Loisdeliberately chose a topic that the students would
likely have difficulty understanding and designed an
IC around those concepts. For one class, students eachbrought an article for which they were writing
critiques based upon criteria in the readings that
described quality educational research. In their small
group with Lois, the students summarized the articles
they had chosen and discussed their strengths andweaknesses. Lois questioned students by referring to
the articles the class had read on standards for judging
educational research: “How does that relate to thearticles we read on good research?” She asked otherstudents in the group what they thought: “What areother strengths and weaknesses that you can think of?”Student engagement in the discussion was generallyhigh as students worked to understand theirclassmates’ arguments. Students asked each other toclarify their points and suggested other strengths andweaknesses of the papers. One student pointed out thatwhat a peer had suggested as a negative aspect of thearticle he was analyzing could also be conceived of asa strength: “The article you chose is a qualitative
study, so maybe you can also think of the small
sample size as appropriate for that kind of study. The
point wasn’t to go broad, but instead having a small
sample size allowed the researcher to go into more in
depth and to explore what people thought.”

Engaging Culturally Diverse Students469

One of the strengths of these ICs was that, in general,
student engagement was high and students talked to eachother, as well as the teacher. However, as it was somewhat
early in the semester and a topic for which students had
relatively little experience, some students were reticent toparticipate. In one group a student tended to dominate theconversation. Lois worked to include more students in thediscussion by asking the particular student to hold off before
others spoke: “I would like to hear a little more from othersin the group before you add your comments.” She thenmore directly asked the other students for their comments.
Using IC promoted student engagement because Lois
met with small groups of students in which she could assess
student understanding and ask questions to promote
cognitive engagement. The small group setting also
promoted Lois getting to know students better, so it
influenced the social and emotional engagement of the class.
IC in the other two courses. Tracy and Kazufumi
also engaged their students in frequent small group
discussions. Kazufumi often used IC to engage students
with statistical concepts. He engaged students in dialogueduring small group discussions, moving from group togroup to see how students were doing, clarifying concepts,
and asking questions that pushed them to think moredeeply about the topic. These conversations increased
students’ mental effort and promoted students getting toknow one another in a class that typically created a lot ofanxiety for many students.
Tracy organized small student discussion groups
and circulated among them to engage in theconversations. He often followed this with whole classdiscussions, and he found that these larger
conversations moved in unexpected directions and led
to deeper levels of understanding. For example, after
small group discussions on their families’ parenting
styles, students in the whole class discussion recognizedthat those who came from particular cultures—thosethat tended to emphasize an extended family
structure—also tended to have parents with a moreauthoritarian parenting style. These discussion
structures increased emotional and social engagement
as students enjoyed sharing and interacting with peers.
Challenges to Using CREDE
All of the instructors experienced challenges
implementing the CREDE Standards in theirclassrooms. Lois found that some students,
particularly those who were international students
from Asia, were not used to discussion-based courses
and did not feel comfortable, initially, discussing theirideas in class. These students reported wanting to hearmore lecturing, particularly when the content waschallenging and they were not sure if they were on theright track. Another challenge was making sure thatthe peer-led center activities were roughly the sameYamauchi, Taira, and Trevorrow

length of time. When activities ended early, students
talked about less relevant topics.
Kazufumi felt that one of the most challenging
aspects of integrating the CREDE Standards was how
to address a diversity of statistical knowledge, learning
styles, and attitudes toward statistics. Kazufumi allowed
students to choose with whom they wanted to work. He
noticed that the students tended to work with the same
peers each time, and there was one group that was
lower achieving. This group was obviously anxious
about statistics. These students did not seem as
motivated to create the joint products that wereassigned and had more difficulty engaging in tasks thanother groups. While Shimazoe and Aldrich (2010)
found that increased group productivity was related toteacher-assigned groups, compared to situations inwhich students self-select their group membership,
research by Chapman, Meuter, Toy, and Wright (2006)
indicated that there were advantages to allowing
students to choose their own groups. Kazufumi decided
that the next time he teaches this course, he will assign
students to groups and rotate them so that they workwith different peers.
A few students in the introductory psychology
course appeared less comfortable with engaging insmall group activity and whole class discussions. Someappeared to expect more lectures, and one commented
in the post-course evaluation that Tracy was notteaching enough! Tracy found that it was often
necessary to interact more with groups who did notseem as engaged, which at times left the higher
achieving groups without his participation. The
personal nature of the psychology course content may
have also presented more difficulties for some
introverted students to discuss issues openly with peers
and the instructor.
Conclusions
Engagement among Culturally Diverse Higher
Education Students
We chose to apply the CREDE model in our university
classrooms because of its long history of success with
culturally and linguistically diverse K-12 students (e.g.,
Doherty et al. 2003; Saunders & Goldenberg, 2007).
Students in our courses were very diverse in terms of
ethnicity and nationality. The CREDE model appeared toengage these diverse groups of students to participate in ourclassroom activities. However, for some students,
particularly those from Asia, the model was different fromwhat they had experienced as students in their homecountries. It took longer for those students to be comfortable
in a CREDE-based classroom, and some preferred morepassive lectures and interactions with faculty members,
rather than peers.

Engaging Culturally Diverse Students

470

This is consistent with previous research indicatingthat international students, particularly in their first year
studying at an American university, tended to interact
more with faculty members than their U.S. counterparts(Zhao, Kuh, & Carini, 2005). Furnham and Alibhai(1985) found that international students also tended toprefer developing friendships with students from theirhome countries, or other international students, rather
than students from the host country. Promotingclassroom friendships with many different students,
including those from the host country, can be fosteredthrough CREDE classroom activities. This can bebeneficial for international students, as researchsuggests that those who develop friendships with hostcountry peers tend to have an easier time adjusting totheir new situations (Furnham & Alibhai, 1985; Ying &Han, 2008). We found that once the students from Asia
got used to the model, their engagement increased, andthey reported that they were more active learners thanthey were in university classrooms back home.
In general, Contextualization appeared to be an
important way to engage diverse students to participate
because it required them to connect prior experiences tothe new information being taught, thus increasing
cognitive engagement. Through Contextualization,
everyone’s past experiences are highlighted asimportant to learning new concepts. Small group
instruction, as required by Joint Productive Activity andIC, also promotes social engagement and creates
opportunities for instructors to get to know students.
Once teachers know more about their students, they canpromote the expansion of their understandings.
By getting to know our students and talking withthem in small groups, we may create a more caring
environment. Previous research found that students’
perceptions of faculty members’ warmth and caring
were related to persistence and retention in higher
education (Jackson et al., 2003). Instructors’ positive
comments
andnon-verbal
cues
indicated
responsiveness to students’ needs and were related topositive
faculty-student
relationships.
These
relationships predicted the development of students’
self-efficacy and their feelings of being in control of
their learning environments (Creasey, Jarvis, & Gadke,2009). This in turn may have led to better learning
outcomes, as college students with higher self-efficacy
tend to earn better grades (DeFreitas, 2012; Komarraju,& Nadler, 2013; Peters, 2013).
References
Ahn, R., & Class, M. (2011). Student-centeredpedagogy: Co-construction of knowledge throughstudent-generated midterm exams. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, 23(2), 269-281.

Yamauchi, Taira, and Trevorrow

Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student
involvement and perceptions of integration in a
causal model of student persistence. Research inHigher Education, 40, 641-664.
Blasco-Arcas, L., Bull, I., Hernández-Ortega, B, &Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class: The roleof interactivity, active collaborative learning andengagement in learning. Computers and Science,
62, 102–110.
Carini, R. M. (2012). Engagement in learning. In N. M.
Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning(pp.1153-1156). New York, NY: Springer.
Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L.
(2006). Can we pick our own groups? The
influence of group selection methods on groupdynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management
Education, 30, 557-569.
Corno, L., & Mandinach, E. B. (1983). The role ofcognitive engagement in classroom learning andmotivation. Educational Psychologist, 18(2), 88-108.
Creasey, G., Jarvis, P., & Gadke, D. (2009). Student
attachment stances, instructor immediacy, andstudent- teacher relationships as predictors ofachievement expectancies in college students. Journalof College Student Development, 50, 353-372.
CREDE (n.d.). CREDE History. Center for Researchon Education, Diversity, and Excellence,
University of Hawai‘i. Retrieved fromhttp://manoa.hawaii.edu/coe/credenational/crede-history/
Crossgrove, K., & Curran, K. L. (2008). Using clickers
in nonmajors- and majors-level biology courses:
Student opinion, learning, and long-term retentionof course material. CBE: Life Sciences Education,
7, 146-154.
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction:
Ten years of experience and results. American
Journal of Physics, 9, 970-977.
DeFreitas, S. C. (2012). Differences between African
American and European American first-yearcollege students in the relationship between selfefficacy, outcome expectations, and academic
achievement. Social Psychology of Education: An
International Journal, 15, 109-123.
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I.
(2005). The role of motivation, parental
support, and peer support in the academic
success of ethnic minority first-generationcollege students. Journal of College Student
Development, 46, 223-236.
Doherty, R. W., Hilberg, R. S., Pinal, A., & Tharp, R.
G. (2003). Five standards and student achievement.
NABE Journal of Research and Practice, 1, 1-24.
Fagen, A. P., Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2002). Peer
instruction: Results from a range of classrooms.
The Physics Teacher, 40, 206-209.

Engaging Culturally Diverse Students

471

Fatokun, J. O., & Fatokun, K. V. (2013). A problem
based learning (PBL) application for the teaching ofmathematics and chemistry in higher schools andtertiary education: An integrative approach.
Educational Research and Reviews, 8(11), 663-667.
Furnham, A., & Alibhai, N. (1985). The friendshipnetworks of foreign students: A replication andextension of the functional model. International
Journal of Psychology, 20, 709-722.
Gauci, S. A., Dantas, A. M., Williams, D. A., & Kemm,
R. E. (2009). Promoting student-centered active
learning in lectures with a personal response system.
Advanced Physiological Education, 33, 60-71.
Goldberg N. A., & Ingram, K. W. (2001). Improving
student engagement in a lower-division botanycourse. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 11, 76–90.
Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes:
What the experiences of today’s doctoral students
reveal about doctoral education. Report for the Pew
Charitable Trusts. ERIC Documents: ED 450 628.
Han, J. H., & Finkelstein, A. (2013). Understanding theeffects of professors’ pedagogical developmentwith clicker assessment and feedback technologies
and the impact on students’ engagement andlearning in higher education. Computers andEducation, 65, 64–76.
Harper, S. R. H., & Quaye, S. J. (2005). Student
engagement in higher education: Theoreticalperspectives and practical approaches for diverse
populations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Institute of Educational Sciences. (2006). What works
clearinghouse: IC and literature logs. Retrieved fromhttp://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_ICLL_102606.
pdf
Jackson, A. P., Smith, S. A., & Hill, C. L. (2003).
Academic persistence among Native Americancollege students. Journal of College Student
Development, 44, 548–565.
Jakee, K. (2011). Overhauling technical handouts for
active student participation: A model for improving
lecture efficiency and increasing attendance.
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education, 23(1), 98-108.
Jensen, J. L. (2011). Higher education faculty versus
high school teacher: Does pedagogical preparation
make a difference? Bioscene: Journal of College
Biology Teaching, 37, 30–36.
Jiang, X. (2010). A probe into the internationalizationof higher education in the New Zealand context.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42, 881-897.
Knapp, L.G., Kelly-Reid, J.E., & Ginder, S.A. (2012).
Enrollment in postsecondary institutions, fall 2011;
Financial statistics, fiscal year 2011; andgraduation rates, selected cohorts, 2003-2008:
First look (Preliminary data) (NCES 2012-174).

Yamauchi, Taira, and Trevorrow

U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Komarraju, M., & Nadler, D. (2013). Self-efficacy andacademic achievement: Why do implicit beliefs,
goals, and effort regulations matter? Learning andIndividual Differences, 25, 67-72.
Laden, B. V. (2004). Serving emerging majority students.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 127, 5-19.
Luning, R. I., Wyatt, T., & Im, S. (2011).
Classroom Observation Rubric: Development
and Validation of a Measure of Effective
Pedagogy. CREDE Hawai‘i Project. Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawai‘i.
Maringe, F., & Carter, S. (2007). International students’motivations for studying in UK HE: Insights into
the choice and decision making of African
students. International Journal of Educational
Management, 21, 459-475.
Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation.
Psychological Review, 50, 370-396.
Mazur, E. (2009). Farewell, lecture? Science, 323, 50-51.
National Research Council (2004). Engaging schools:
Fostering high school students’ motivation tolearn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
OECD (2013, July). Education indicators in focus.
Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved fromhttp://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyondschool/EDIF%202013-N%C2%B014%20%28eng%29-Final.pdf
OECD (2014). Education at a glance 2014: OECD
indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2014-en
OECD / World Bank (2007). Cross-Border tertiary
education: A way towards capacity development.
Paris: OECD Publishing.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college
affects students, volume 2: A third decade ofresearch. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Peters, M. (2013). Examining the relationships amongclassroom climate, self-efficacy, and achievementin undergraduate mathematics: A multi-level
analysis. International Journal of Science andMathematics Education, 11, 459-480.
Postareff, L., Lindbloom-Ylänne, S., & Nevgi, A.
(2007). A follow-up study of the effect ofpedagogical training on teaching in higher
education. Higher Education, 56, 29-43.
Powell, S., Straub, C., Rodriguez, J., & VanHorn, B.
(2011). Using clickers in large college psychology
classes: Academic achievement and perceptions.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 11(4), 1-11.
Reumer, C., & van der Wende, M. (2010). Excellenceand diversity: The emergence of selective
admission policies in Dutch higher education: A
case study on Amsterdam University College.

Engaging Culturally Diverse Students

472(ResearchandOccasional
Paper
Series
CSHE.15.10). Center for Studies in Higher
Education, University of California. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517761.pdf
Rivers, D. J. (2010). Ideologies of internationalizationand the treatment of diversity in Japanese higher
education. Journal of Higher Education Policy andManagement, 32, 441-454.
Rodd, M. (2003). Witness as participation: The lecture
theatre as a site for awe and wonder. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 23, 15-21.
Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (2007). The effects ofan instructional conversation on transition students’concepts of friendship and story comprehension. In
R. Horowitz (Ed.), The evolution of talk about text:
Knowing the world through classroom discourse(pp. 221-252) Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Sawir, E. (2013). Internationalisation of higher
education curriculum: The contribution ofinternational students. Globalization, Societies, and
Education, 11, 359-378.
Shimazoe, J., & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be
gratifying: Understanding and overcoming
resistance to cooperative learning. College
Teaching, 58, 52-57.
Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J.
(2008). A motivational perspective on engagementand disaffection conceptualization and assessmentof children's behavioral and emotional participationin academic activities in the classroom.
Educational and Psychological Measurement,
69(3), 493-525.
Stoddard, T., Bravo, M., Solis, J., Stevens, M., & Vega
de Jesus, R. (2009, May). Preparing pre-service
teachers to integrate inquiry science with language
and literacy instruction for English language
learners: An experimental study. Paper presented at
the CREDE Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Sullivan, R. (2008-2009). Principals for constructing
good clicker questions: Going beyond rote learningand stimulating active engagement with course
content. Journal of Educational Technology
Systems, 37(3), 335-347.
Tharp, R. G. (2006). Four hundred years of evidence:
Culture, pedagogy, and Native America. Journal of
American Indian Education, 45(6), 6-25.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds
to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling insocial context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L.
A. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving
excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Trikokekar, R. D., & Kizilbash, Z. (2013). IMAGINE:Yamauchi, Taira, and Trevorrow

Canada as a leader in international education: How
can Canada benefit from the Australianexperience? Canadian Journal of Higher
Education, 43, 1-26.
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski. M. R. (2005). Faculty
do matter: The role of college faculty in student
learning and engagement. Research in Higher
Education, 46, 153-184.
US News and World Report (2015a). Campus ethnic
diversity: National universities. Retrieved fromhttp://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/bes
t-colleges/rankings/national-universities/campusethnic-diversity
US News and World Report (2015b). Campus ethnic
diversity: Regional universities. Retrieved fromhttp://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/bes
t-colleges/rankings/regional-universities/campusethnic-diversity
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Yamauchi, L. A., Im, S., & Schonleber, N. (2012).
Adapting strategies of effective instruction for
culturally diverse preschoolers. Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher Education, 33, 54-72.
Ying, Y. W., & Han, M. (2008). Variation in the predictionof cross-cultural adjustment by ethnic density: A
longitudinal study of Taiwanese students in the UnitedStates. College Student Journal, 42, 1075-1086.
Yoon, C, Kensington-Miller, B., Sneddon, J., &Bartholomew. H. (2011). It’s not the done thing:Social norms governing students’ passive behavior
inundergraduate
mathematics
lectures.
International Journal of Mathematical Educationin Science and Technology, 42, 1107–1122.
Zhao, C. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. 2005. A
comparison of international student andAmerican student engagement in effective

Engaging Culturally Diverse Students

473

educational practices. The Journal of Higher
Education, 76, 209–31.
___________________________
LOIS A. YAMAUCHI, PhD is a professor in the
Department of Educational Psychology at the
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa and the Director of the
CREDE Hawai'i Project. Her research interests include
sociocultural theory, cultural influences on learning,
and the educational experiences of indigenous teachers,
students, and families. She has led efforts to adapt the
CREDE model for early childhood and higher
education educators.
TRACY TREVORROW, PhD is a professor of
psychology at Chaminade University of Honolulu
and the Director of the Center for Medical
Psychology. He has research interests in sleep
disorders, epilepsy, and applied psychophysiology
and maintains a clinical practice for clients withcentral nervous system disorders.
KAZUFUMI TAIRA, M.A. is a PhD candidate in the
Department of Educational Psychology at the
University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. His research interests
include higher education, international education, andidentity salience and development.
Acknowledgements
A version of this paper was presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, April 27-May 2, 2013, in San Francisco,
CA. The authors wish to thank the students in theclasses studied and E. Brook Chapman de Sousa,
Ernestine Enomoto, Rebecca Luning, Katherine
Ratliffe, and Seongah Im for their helpful feedback onearlier versions of this paper.