I AM A CHANGE AGENT 1

“I Am a Change Agent”: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Students’ Social Justice Value Orientation in an

Undergraduate Community Psychology Course

Dawn X. Henderson1, Amber T. Majors2, and Michelle Wright3

1
Center for Faculty Excellence, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

2
Peabody School of Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

3
College of Education, North Carolina A&T State University

Author Note

Dawn X. Henderson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9773-4208

Individuals can access a full description of the course syllabi, data files, and supplemental data

through the Open Science Framework website (https://osf.io/dashboard). We have no conflicts of

interest to disclose.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dawn X. Henderson, Center for

Faculty Excellence, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 316 Wilson Library, CB#3470, Chapel Hill,

NC 27599-3470, United States. Email: [email protected]

I AM A CHANGE AGENT 2

Abstract

Learning experiences that connect students to communities and provide them with opportunities to

reflect and apply theories to real-world challenges can promote a value orientation toward social justice.

This study uses a mixed methods design to investigate students’ value orientation toward social justice

in an undergraduate community psychology course and the extent to which community engagement

contributes to this orientation among a cross-sectional undergraduate sample of racially diverse

students at a minority-serving institution. The analysis of outcomes collected across three different

course offerings revealed that students enrolled in the course possessed a more favorable orientation

toward social justice (Mdn = 150.00) and that the course had subtle effects in improving this orientation

(Mdn = 152.32, Z = −1.73, p = .08, r = −.22). An analysis of students’ value orientation across each course

offering revealed a significant between-course effect, H(2) = 5.86, p = .05. Students enrolled in courses

with an emphasis on completing the community engagement assignment in a group demonstrated a

more positive value orientation. Qualitative findings further explicate how the course increased

students’ awareness of social inequalities and, for some, their social justice behaviors.

Keywords: social justice, undergraduate education, community psychology, value orientation

I AM A CHANGE AGENT 3

“I Am a Change Agent”: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Students’ Social Justice Value Orientation in an

Undergraduate Community Psychology Course

Working with diverse individuals across different communities to solve problems is a worthwhile

learning experience for students in the undergraduate psychology major (Gallor, 2017). According to the

American Psychological Association’s (2013) guidelines for undergraduate education, students should be

able to “adopt values that build community at local, national, and global levels” (p. 16). Theoretically, a

student who completes an undergraduate major in psychology should possess personal and professional

values that respect sociocultural diversity and honor positive community relationships.

Offering an undergraduate community psychology course to students may be one way to

strengthen community engagement and build competence in advocacy and sociocultural diversity. The

emergence of community psychology as a subfield in psychology in the 1960s and its emphasis on

ecological principles, prevention, and systems change (Nelson & Prilleltensky, 2010) provides an

opportunity for undergraduate students to gain experience in applied research and a new perspective of

psychology (Henderson & Wright, 2015; Jimenez et al., 2016; Lichty et al., 2019; Schlehofer & Phillips,

2013). Furthermore, the field’s broad focus on understanding interactions between systems and

individuals and the degree to which systems interfere or promote well-being (Society for Community

Research and Action, 2019) may be particularly valuable to students who possess a more favorable

value orientation toward social justice.

Aligning learning to the value orientation of students may be an essential process in helping to

increase the retention of racially diverse students in the psychology major and the graduate pipeline.

According to Garibay (2015), racially diverse students are more likely to express working for social

change as important to their choice of major and career interests. Unfortunately, the degree to which

research on the scholarship of teaching and learning has focused on the value orientation of racially

diverse students and the benefits of community engagement on students’ learning remains
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 4

underdeveloped. This study seeks to address this current gap by using a mixed methods design to assess

the following research questions:

• Research Question 1: Do racially diverse students who enroll in an undergraduate community

psychology course possess a high-value orientation toward social justice?

• Research Question 2: Do racially diverse students who complete an undergraduate community

psychology course demonstrate gains in their value orientation toward social justice?

• Research Question 3: Does the type of community engagement (individual vs. group) influence

students’ value orientation toward social justice?

The discussion will center on the value community engagement offers to psychology students and, more

specifically, racially diverse students.

A Value Orientation Toward Social Justice

Individuals transition through different systems in their socioecology, to include the family and

schools, and begin to construct meaning and develop a worldview (Betancourt et al., 1992; Lee et al.,

2010). Interactions, messages, and observations of others inform how individuals develop their core

beliefs and values (Betancourt et al., 1992; McClintock & Allison, 1989; Messick & McClintock, 1968).

van Zomeren et al. (2008) articulated how the messages individuals receive from their environment as

well as models observed from others can shape perceptions of group advantages and disadvantages.

Such beliefs and related attitudes evolve into a value orientation and influence individual motivations

and goal attainment. According to Messick and McClintock (1968), most people will possess one of three

types of value orientation: cooperative, individualistic, or competitive. Individuals who possess a

cooperative value orientation are more likely to exhibit a high commitment to helping others and to set

goals that align with the broader collective (McClintock & Allison, 1989), whereas individuals who adopt

an individualistic orientation are more likely to value self-preservation and to focus on their needs over

others (Murphy & Ackermann, 2014). Experiences and interactions one may have across their
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 5

socioecology can either affirm or challenge such values. Moreover, individuals are likely to actively seek

those experiences that affirm such values. For instance, Caldwell and Vera’s (2010) qualitative study

using a sample of doctoral counseling psychology students found that those who modeled cooperation

over competition were more likely to engage in service-related activities and exhibited a high-value

orientation toward social justice. Understanding a student’s value orientation can provide insight into

motivations and interests in social justice work.

A value orientation toward social justice indicates a student is likely to possess an awareness of

social disadvantages and express a value in working to improve well-being and justice for all people

(Gallor, 2017; Hardiman et al., 2007). Interactions with influential others (e.g., parents and peers),

cultural beliefs, and institutions socialize individuals to develop an awareness of and unfavorable

attitudes toward injustice (Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Lee et al., 2010). Individuals who possess a value

orientation toward social justice also develop such values from first-hand experiences and an affinity

toward others (Caldwell & Vera, 2010; Garibay, 2015; Georgetown University Center on Education and

the Workforce, 2017). Several scholars have attempted to examine such values by citing that those who

decide to engage in civic action or activism are often motivated from their own shared experiences with

injustice and an awareness of distinctions observed across their environments and group disadvantages

(Thomas et al., 2012; van Zomeren et al., 2008). Consequently, a value orientation toward social justice

may be quite salient among racially diverse students and influence their decision in choosing a major

and career (Garibay, 2015; Gibbs & Griffin, 2013; McGee & Bentley, 2017).

The Role of the University in Social Justice Education

The university environment provides a learning context in which students are likely to encounter

experiences that alter their beliefs and worldview or further affirms them. Many universities infuse

social justice principles and social justice education into departmental, curricular, and professional

training standards (Brennan & Naidoo, 2008; Bringle & Steinberg, 2010; Einfeld & Collins, 2008; Gallor,
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 6

2017; Nagda et al., 1999; Stearns, 2009; Teasley & Archuleta, 2015). The adoption of social justice

principles and education is perceived as a necessity in preparing students to meet the social needs of an

increasingly diverse population (Adams et al., 2016). Students learn about individual biases and global

challenges and engage in reflection before working with historically marginalized and oppressed groups

(Gallor, 2017). Such learning experiences include the critical examination of values and inequalities and

the immersion of students in diverse communities as volunteers or service providers. The university

environment, therefore, becomes an intervening point in students’ lives that can influence their

attitudes, beliefs, and behavioral intentions to pursue specific work experiences (Grant, 2012;

McInerney, 2012; Mitchell & Soria, 2016).

Community engagement functions as “a collaboration between institutions of higher education

and their larger communities (local, regional/state, national, global) for the mutually beneficial exchange

of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity” (Driscoll, 2008, p. 38). Students

become essential resources to a community by offering their services, time, and knowledge;

simultaneously, the community functions as a space and resource for students to gain knowledge of

human behavior, development, and motivation (Gallor, 2017; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2015; McAuliff

et al., 2013; Schlehofer & Phillips, 2013). For instance, Ginwright and Cammarota (2015) reported

several advantages of placing undergraduate students in international community settings to conduct

applied research on issues related to health. They found that having opportunities for students to reflect

on their learning and form relationships with diverse community members increased awareness of

structural and economic inequalities and social justice behaviors. Mitchell and Soria’s (2016) analysis of

more than 3,000 undergraduate students similarly found that those involved in community engagement

experiences were more likely to demonstrate positive changes in attitudes, an affinity toward

empowering others, and an increase in advocacy behaviors. When students have the opportunity to

apply course theories to practical problems and model collaboration in community settings, they are
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 7

likely to increase their sense of agency and gain relationship-building skills (Adams et al., 2016; Gallor,

2017; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2015; Stenhouse & Jarrett, 2012; Zimmerman et al., 2013).

Higher education is a critical context to assess the value of social justice education and

community engagement on student learning. Community engagement may be an essential feature of

social justice education because it places students outside the traditional classroom and into spaces

where they can experience service-learning (Hardiman et al., 2007; McCabe & Rubinson, 2008;

Schlehofer & Phillips, 2013). Gallor (2017) proposed that students working with a wide range of

individuals and diverse communities are an essential piece of instituting social justice in undergraduate

education. Whereas experiential learning connects learning to applied experiences (Simons et al., 2012),

service-learning involves learning from service to one’s community (Stenhouse & Jarrett, 2012).

Students begin to work within local communities, collaborate with others, and develop competence in

the values of fairness, respect for human dignity, and diversity. McAuliff et al. (2013) found

undergraduate students volunteering in communities and working with organizations were more likely

to develop favorable attitudes toward social justice. Learning thus becomes a vital outcome in

community engagement experience when it transforms how students think of others and see

themselves and increases their efficacy to advocate for justice (Friedland, 2004; Grant, 2012; McInerney,

2012; Nagda et al., 1999; Watts & Flanagan, 2007).

Method

The present study employs a mixed methods design to assess a value orientation toward social

justice in a sample of racially diverse students enrolled in an undergraduate community psychology

course. The research design uses the typology QUANTITATIVE + qualitative to emphasize the

quantitative phase and complementary role of the qualitative phase in the mixed methods design

(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The design of the study provides a descriptive analysis of students’ social

justice orientation using a validated metric (Torres-Harding et al., 2012) and further explicates findings
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 8

through the interpretive analysis of qualitative responses (Esterberg, 2002).

Context

The institutional review board approved the research design and protocol for this study. The

students selected for the study were from an undergraduate community psychology course offered over

3 subsequent years at a minority-serving institution in the southeast region of the United States. The

university enrolled students who majority self-identified as first generation (52%), and 77% identified as

a member of a racially diverse group (to include Black/African American, Hispanic, or mixed ethnic/racial

groups). The minority-serving institution provided a vital context to investigate undergraduate

community psychology education because a majority of students represent groups underrepresented in

the field of psychology and those students may have limited to no exposure to community psychology

(Bauer et al., 2017; Simmons & Smiley, 2010).

Participants

The study included a cross-sectional sample of undergraduate students. Of a total of 72 students

enrolled in the undergraduate courses, 61 provided informed consent (89% of enrollment). Of those

students who did not provide informed consent, five withdrew, and the remaining chose to opt out of

the study. Course size varied from 18 to 28 students. The majority of students self-identified as African

American (85%) and female (87%). Table 1 provides an overview of student demographics for each

course offering. Seventy-seven percent of students indicated that they were majoring in psychology, and

the remaining 23% majored in social work, education, and interdisciplinary studies. The majority of

students were completing their 3rd year in college, and the average age of students in the sample was

21.5 years (SD = 4.25).

Course Structure

The faculty member offered the undergraduate course to different cohorts of students over 3

subsequent years. Each course offering met twice a week for 1.5 hr during a 15-week-long spring
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 9

Table 1

Characteristics of Students Enrolled in the Undergraduate Course

Characteristic Course offerings Total (N = 61)

First (n = 15) Second (n = 28) Third (n = 18)
Age, M (SD) 20.5 (1.6) 22.6 (8.1) 21.4 (3.0)
Ethnicity or race
Black or African American 14 23 15 52
White or European American 0 3 0 3
Other a 1 2 3 6
Gender
Female 11 22 15 48
Male 4 6 3 13
Grade level b
Senior 9 16 3 28
Junior 4 8 12 24
Sophomore 2 2 3 7

a
The “other” classification was composed of students who self-identified as Latina, Filipina, or

multiracial. b Two students in the second course offering did not provide their grade level.

semester. The primary structure of the course included readings on principles and competencies in

community psychology (Kloos et al., 2012) and 20 hr of service offered through a community

engagement assignment. The faculty designed the community engagement assignment to expose

students to research and some form of social advocacy in a community setting (Carmony et al., 2000).

The structure of the course included consistent topics and assignments, such as preparing an advocacy

report and an advocacy/informational video on the community engagement experience (see Henderson,

2017; Henderson & Wright, 2015). The advocacy report consisted of a statement of the issue or

problem, research outlining the pros and cons of the advocacy statement, and a call to action. Similar to

the report, the multimedia video included a call to action and aimed to improve student skills in using

visual media, text, and music to convey a message.

I AM A CHANGE AGENT 10

There were several moderations offered in the community engagement experience. The first

course offering allowed students to choose a community site of their preference and complete the

report as an individual submission. Students had minimal opportunities to discuss or share assignments

with peers in the course, and roughly 30% did not complete their service in the community surrounding

the university and elected to complete it elsewhere. In the second course offering, the faculty member

identified local agencies near the university and required students to complete the report and video as a

group submission. The students had to choose an agency from the list and focus their topic on services

offered. Some course time was devoted to students working in their groups and moving through

activities related to their topic. In the last course offering, students worked as a class in conducting a

needs assessment for a local neighborhood revitalization project. Course time was devoted to having

class discussions on challenges arising in the local neighborhood and connecting group topics to

revitalization efforts. Students were divided into small groups to work on individual sections of a final

report and a class video submission (Henderson, 2017).

Measures

The study included an online version of the Social Justice Scale (SJS; Torres-Harding et al., 2012)

and an open-ended assessment designed by the faculty member. The SJS is a 24-item scale designed to

assess social justice in four domains: Attitudes Toward Social Justice, Perceived Behavioral Control,

Subjective Norms, and Behavioral Intentions. The scale consists of a 7-point Likert rating ranging from 1

= strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. Cumulative scores range from 24 to 168; higher scores indicate

a more favorable value orientation toward social justice. Students’ response in the courses aimed to

confirm the reliability of the scale; Cronbach’s alpha on the subscales ranged from .82 to .95.

The open-ended assessment required students to review the definition of social justice outlined

by Kloos et al. (2012) and then describe the degree to which the course increased their awareness and

commitment to social justice. Specifically, in one essay, students were required to describe how the
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 11

course increased their awareness of social justice issues, followed by a second essay on how the course

increased their commitment to social justice. The free-writing process aimed to gain as much descriptive

text as possible from students using a focused prompt.

Procedure and Analysis

At the beginning of the course, students were informed about the study and encouraged to

complete the consent form and SJS online within the 1st week of class. In the last week of class,

students received information about completing the SJS measure via email and were provided with a

deadline before the final exam. All students who completed the online measure at the beginning and

end of the course received two extra points toward their final grade (translating to about 2% of their

total course grade). At the end of the course, students received a prompt asking them to reflect on their

experiences and to indicate their level of agreement with items on the SJS. Responses from the SJS at

pretest and posttest were downloaded into a spreadsheet, coded, and entered into SPSS Version 25 for

analysis.

The faculty member provided the option of completing the open-ended assessment on the last

day of the course. Completing the assessment was voluntary; about 95% of students completed the

assessment. Responses from the open-ended assessment were transcribed and coded by a research

assistant. The research assistant was a former student who received training in qualitative methods and

had the opportunity to review the syllabus and observe one of the courses before coding. Deductive

coding included a review of individual responses across each course, the literature, and items on the SJS

to generate unique codes (Esterberg, 2002). Following this step, the research assistant prepared an

audit trail to review all responses and organize similar codes into categories related to social justice

attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. A total of 54 codes emerged at this stage of analysis. The lead author

reviewed the final codes with the research assistant to establish a level of agreement (90%) and

organized codes into a spreadsheet to establish intercoder reliability (Cohen’s κ = .78).

I AM A CHANGE AGENT 12

Codes and transcripts were uploaded into NVivo Version 10 to perform text queries. Using codes

such as “advocacy” and “change,” text queries can assess the frequency of codes in the transcripts,

similar words, and relationships (Bazeley & Jackson, 2013). For example, codes such as “advocacy” and

“change” were coded into a relationship node such as “behavior.” Queries led to finalizing 21 consistent

codes, where 17 codes were consistent across all three courses (81%). We used NVivo to visualize

relationships in the data by clustering codes into similar groups, which guided the thematic categories

outlined in Table 2.

Table 2

Thematic Categories With Codes Across Course Offerings

Theme and code cluster Course offering (% coverage)

First Second Third
Awareness of social justice issues
Change thinking 20 30 36
Diverse issues 1 7 7
Diverse people 9 12 7
Domestic violence 1 36 1
Ecological systems 36 42 48
Local community 11 18 29
Immigration 83 1 26
Inequalities 62 42 52
Mental health 26 4 1
Behavioral control
Changing roles 3 6 7
How to change 22 24 32
Make a difference 5 18 14
Social justice behaviors
Activist 4 14 16
Advocate 3 12 22
Build community 1 1 3
Committed 1 4 13
Involvement 1 3 19
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 13

Results

Quantitative Results

A review of the descriptive results suggested that cumulative student scores on the SJS were

nonnormally distributed; skewness at the beginning of the courses ranged from −1.15 to −0.31 (SE =

0.30) and kurtosis ranged from −0.60 to 1.04 (SE = 0.60). Descriptive analysis of students’ scores on the

SJS at the end of the course showed skewness that ranged from −1.56 to −0.01 (SE = 0.30) and kurtosis

that ranged from 0.30 to 2.86 (SE = 0.30). There was an outlier in the last course offering, a result of

incomplete items. Removal of the score did not alter the skewness of the data.

The lead author performed nonparametric tests to assess score changes in students’ responses

(Grech & Calleja, 2018). The lead author then subtracted the posttest scores from the pretest scores to

rank data from lowest to highest. A focus on the median assessed permutation in scores and differences

across groups and time (Hunter & May, 1993; Leong & Austin, 2006). A Wilcoxon signed-ranks test

indicated that students’ cumulative scores on the SJS at the end of the course slightly increased (Mdn =

152.32) but were not significantly higher than their scores at the beginning of the course (Mdn = 150.00,

Z = −1.73, p = .08, r = −.22). Analysis across the subscales suggested there was no significant difference

in scores from the beginning to the end of the course across all subscales except subjective norms.

Student scores on the Subjective Norms subscale revealed a slight but significant increase at the end of

the course (Mdn = 20.87) compared to scores at the beginning of the course (Mdn = 19.00, Z = −2.32, p <

.05, r = −.29). Table 3 presents the results in detail.

We used the Kruskal–Wallis test to explore differences in scores on the SJS between course

groups. The analysis revealed significant between-groups differences in students’ scores on the

composite SJS, H(2) = 5.86, p = .05, and the Subjective Norms subscale, H(2) = 6.72, p < .05. Comparisons

across course offerings revealed that students in the second course offering had the greatest increase in

scores on the SJS from beginning (Mdn = 144.00) to the end of the course (Mdn = 157.00). Results
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 14

Table 3

Median Scores Across the Course Offerings From Beginning to End of the Course

Measure Beginning of course End of course Difference

Mdn Min. Max. Mdn Min. Max. Mdn p
Social Justice Scale composite 150.00 119.00 171.00 152.32 123.00 168.00 −2.32 .08
Attitudes subscale 74.50 56.00 77.00 74.04 59.00 77.00 0.46 .46
Behavioral Control subscale 32.00 20.00 41.00 32.49 25.00 35.00 −0.49 .51
Subjective Norms subscale 19.00 5.00 28.00 20.87 13.00 28.00 −1.87 <.05
Behavioral Intentions subscale 26.00 17.00 28.00 25.47 16.00 28.00 0.53 .29
Note. Min. = minimum; Max. = maximum.

suggest that cumulative scores on the SJS at the end of the course were significantly different between

students in the first and third course offerings (U = 83.00, r = .44). Scores on the Subjective Norms

subscale were significantly different between students in the first and second course offerings (U =

141.00, r = .32) and between students in the first and third course offerings (U = 89.50, r = .41).

Qualitative Results

Results from the qualitative phase of the study complemented quantitative findings and allowed

us to understand, more broadly, change in students’ value orientation toward social justice. There were

some unique course variations in the analysis. For one, the majority of student responses in the first

course offering focused on awareness and changes in attitudes about social justice issues, whereas

responses in the second and last course offerings were more likely to mention behavioral control and

actual behaviors. A majority of codes clustered under the theme called “improved awareness and

attitudes toward social justice.” Codes in the awareness category included an increased awareness of

systemic factors on individuals and an increased awareness of issues related to domestic violence,

immigration, and mental health. Other codes under the theme suggested students perceived the course

as exposing them to different backgrounds and perspectives. This finding was consistent across all three

course offerings and evident in this quote from a student (self-identified as Latina/Black, female,
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 15

second-course offering):

I can admit I was ignorant to the fact of why I thought immigrants migrated over to the United

States. My beliefs were immigrants just came over here to take our jobs and get all the money,

because I always heard from people they would work anywhere as long as they were getting

paid but knowing what I know now it is so much bigger than that. Even when I had to participate

and interview individuals for my community project, one of my interviewee[‘]s parents was an

immigrant, and he was sharing the harsh treatment they suffered in their old country. I believe

it should be programs and networks that help these people out and make it a little easier for

them; they deserve rights just like the rest of the us born here or not.

Codes clustered under behavioral control and social justice behaviors varied across courses.

These two themes captured students’ beliefs about their ability or capacity to address injustices (Ajzen,

2002) and their articulation of actual behaviors. Behavioral control captured three codes, and social

justice behaviors represented five codes in the data. Student responses under Behavioral Control

indicated that the course helped them identify where inequalities exist and possible ways to address

them. One respondent who self-identified as a 20-year-old African American male (third course offering)

wrote the following:

I am aware of social justice and the resources we have around our community. Change in the

community and the powers, privileges, and oppressions that people face bring together a

community! I am aware that “I am a change agent.”

Student responses indicated how the course and community engagement experience increased

not only their awareness of the local community but of their power to address local challenges. Social

justice behaviors appeared less frequent in student responses in the first course and more frequent in

the second and last course offerings. Social justice behaviors included responses where students

mentioned involvement in building communities or some form of advocacy. In this quote, the student
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 16

(self-identified as African American, female, third course offering) spoke to this directly:

Overall, I feel that my research [experience] . . . was fulfilling. I learned a lot about intervention

and success. I am more prepared to create programs and events that can target girls of different

generations and demographics. Even though one thing was unsuccessful, I know that through

failure, there is absolute learning if you can correct mistakes. My personal goals have been

confirmed through the experience. Young girls everywhere are struggling with the same issues

and need consistent guidance and uplifting.

Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the degree to which racially diverse students who enroll in an

undergraduate community psychology course possess a value orientation toward social justice and the

course influence on such an orientation. The results from the descriptive analysis indicated that most

students’ scores at the beginning of the course hovered in the high end, with the lowest score being

130. A majority of students in the undergraduate course self-identified as African American; thus,

findings were consistent with previous literature. Research conducted by Thomas et al. (2012), for

example, found that one’s social identity can have a significant effect on one’s desire to pursue justice.

The authors indicated that individuals who ascribe to identities that align with more marginalized or

disadvantaged groups are more likely to seek others who share similar experiences and advocate against

disadvantages. Other studies examining students majoring in broad science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics courses found those who self-identified as a member of a racially marginalized group

were more likely to possess a higher orientation toward social justice when compared with other

students (Garibay, 2015; Gibbs & Griffin, 2013). Another study examining undergraduate students’ social

justice attitudes and beliefs found that African American students were more likely to express creating

equality and combatting injustice as relevant to their interests (Torres-Harding et al., 2014).

Assessing incoming scores suggest some alignment between students’ value orientation and
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 17

description of the course. For example, course objectives included increasing student knowledge of

systems that promote social inequality and ways to address systemic change. Those students who

already possessed a value orientation toward social justice more than likely reviewed the description of

the course, were possibly attracted to it, and decided to enroll. Previous studies have found a link

between students’ orientation toward social justice and their selection of a college major and career

interests (Caldwell & Vera, 2010; Gibbs & Griffin, 2013; McCabe & Rubinson, 2008). Although the results

do not focus on the selection of major or career, they reveal underlying factors that could contribute to

the kinds of learning experiences students may seek for themselves. Assessing students’ incoming value

orientation toward social justice may contribute to understanding the kinds of learning experiences that

students value and future behavioral intentions in course selection and enrollment (Bringle & Steinberg,

2010; Einfeld & Collins, 2008).

Overall, incoming scores on the SJS led to a ceiling effect that may limit conclusions on the

courses’ impact on student learning. Results from the nonparametric analysis further validate the small

effects the course had on changing students’ value orientation toward social justice. Nonetheless, the

results do suggest the subtle increase in students’ social value orientation toward social justice may be

more dependent on how students perceive others’ involvement in such behaviors rather than the

course content itself. Students enrolled in courses with an emphasis on groups rather than individuals

completing the community engagement project had higher scores on the SJS at the end of the course.

This finding suggests there may be value in engaging in community settings and conducting research as a

group versus as an individual. Hunn (2014) suggested that group learning can strengthen trust, create a

sense of common interest, and foster an overall sense of belonging for African American students.

Thomas et al. (2012) also found that perceiving others as having similar interests and identities can

increase an individual’s engagement in collective and civic action. Increasing opportunities for group

engagement where students can collaborate, discuss common issues, and observe others in modeling
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 18

social justice behavior may be an essential driver in shifting student perceptions.

Comparing differences across the courses also revealed that students in the second course

offering demonstrated a significant increase in their scores on the SJS compared with students in the

first and last course offerings. Again, this course required students to work in small groups to share

challenges and complete the community engagement assignment rather than working as a class or as an

individual. This finding suggests that working on a project and sharing challenges as a group while

maintaining some degree of autonomy from the broader class may have been particularly valuable in

shaping value orientations toward social justice in this sample of racially diverse students.

This group effect on perceptions of social justice was further validated by examining students’

scores on the Subjective Norms subscale. Students’ scores on the Subjective Norms subscale fell within a

normal distribution compared with the composite SJS and other subscales. That is, students were more

likely to have more varied levels of agreement on whether they had individuals around them engaging

and participating in social justice work. By the end of the course, students’ scores on the Subjective

Norms subscale hovered in the high range. According to van Zomeren et al. (2008), individuals who

perceive a high level of civic engagement in others around them are likely to adopt similar behaviors and

beliefs. The results reveal some subtle effects in students’ value orientation toward social justice. More

importantly, the results suggest that the ability to work in groups influenced students’ subjective norms.

The qualitative findings complement the quantitative results by revealing that a majority of

students perceived the course experience as expanding their awareness of local communities and issues

of diversity. These findings corroborate the small effects evident in the quantitative results and previous

literature highlighting the benefits of social justice education on undergraduate students. For example, a

previous study conducted by Cattaneo et al. (2019) examined the benefits of infusing social justice

education into an undergraduate psychology course. The authors found that, after completing the

course, students were less likely to blame individuals for their poverty, focused more on systemic
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 19

influences, and displayed an increase in commitment to address community problems. This shift in

perspective aligns with competencies in community psychology that value ecological principles and

advocacy (Christens et al., 2015; Kloos et al., 2012). Jimenez et al. (2016) further articulated that when

undergraduate students have the opportunity to complete a course in community psychology, they

begin to see how they are an essential resource in project leadership and community organizing.

Similar to the quantitative results, the qualitative findings suggest some advantages for students

doing work as a group versus as individuals. In the courses with groups completing the community

engagement assignment, student responses were more likely to express social justice behaviors

compared with students in the first course offering who worked independently. It is possible to conclude

that having others around students working on similar activities or for similar causes is beneficial in

improving social justice behaviors. Students who begin to demonstrate changes in attitudes and beliefs

may feel more efficacious about their social justice behaviors when they interact with others who

support and affirm such behaviors (Einfeld & Collins, 2008).

Assessing the value orientation of racially diverse students enrolled in the undergraduate

community course corroborates the work of other scholars (Mitchell, 2007, 2014; Simons et al., 2012) as

well as offers new insight into how such learning can translate into other valuable skills and

engagement. Several bodies of research highlight the link between social justice attitudes and beliefs

and improvements in political self-efficacy and civic engagement (Moely et al., 2002; Watts & Flanagan,

2007). When students begin to see how they can make a difference in the lives of others, it can

potentially increase their efficacy toward achieving other related tasks and goals. Students who are able

to develop a value orientation toward social justice increase their sense of agency and are likely to

pursue career opportunities that place them in positions to combat inequalities (Gallor, 2017; Hardiman

et al., 2007; Simons et al., 2012). Moreover, increasing students’ involvement in reciprocal relationships

with community members to solve problems can serve as a predictor of continued social justice
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 20

advocacy (Mitchell, 2007, 2014).

Limitations of the Present Study

The conclusions from this study have some limitations. For one, we did not include a control or

comparison group in our study design to determine if there were any distinctions in students’ value

orientation toward social justice between those enrolled in the undergraduate community psychology

course versus nonenrolled students. Future research should consider the use of a more diverse sample

and students in other psychology courses to determine effects and guide stronger conclusions. A second

limitation in this study is that students’ incoming scores were high, which limits interpretations of any

effects of the course on their value orientation. We aimed to address this issue by focusing on the

median of the group and by using nonparametric analysis.

Last, we acknowledge other confounding factors not addressed in this study. The faculty

member teaching the course shared a racial identity with students in the course and espoused a social

justice pedagogy. Scholars have argued that a faculty member’s orientation and sharing identities with

students can significantly impact shaping students’ attitudes and behaviors (Funge, 2011; Lott & Rogers,

2011). We also acknowledge that faculty as well as the way items were phrased on the SJS may

influence students to rate themselves higher on the scale due to perceptions that such beliefs are

considered socially desirable (Arnold & Feldman, 1981). The study findings are limited by an inability to

control for these factors or compare students’ orientation in the course with other students.

Conclusion

The potential increase in the number of racially diverse students who will enter universities and

who are in search of experiences that are relevant and prepare them to address broader challenges in

society provides an opportunity to understand the connection between students’ value orientation and

learning in psychology. Identifying ways to infuse community engagement into the undergraduate

experience where students learn to reflect, analyze systems, and model advocacy may be a way to
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 21

retain students’ interest in the field of psychology and, more broadly, in completing college (Reed et al.,

2015). Findings from this study are highly valuable to the field of community psychology and other

subdisciplines in which members are interested in increasing the number of racially diverse students in

their major and continuing onto graduate school. To date, eight of the 61 students who enrolled in the

undergraduate community psychology course went on to pursue and obtain a master’s degree in

community psychology or a related psychology discipline. Mapping the value orientation of students to

specific learning experiences can potentially increase persistence in the psychology major as well as

prepare the next generation of advocates, practitioners, and researchers for the psychology workforce.
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 22

References

Adams, M., Bell, L. A., Goodman, D. J., & Joshi, K. Y. (2016). Teaching for diversity and social justice.

Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315775852

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, and locus of control, and the theory of

planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

American Psychological Association. (2013). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major.

https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/about/undergraduate-major

Arnold, H. J., & Feldman, D. C. (1981). Social desirability response bias in self-report choice situations.

Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 377–385. https://doi.org/10.5465/255848

Bauer, H. M., Glantsman, O., Hochberg, L., Turner, C., & Jason, L. A. (2017). Community psychology

coverage in Introduction to Psychology textbooks. Global Journal of Community Psychology

Practice, 8(3), 1–11. https://www.gjcpp.org/pdfs/BauerEtAl_Final.pdf

Bazeley, P., & Jackson, K. (2013). Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Betancourt, H., Hardin, C., & Manzi, J. (1992). Beliefs, value orientation, and culture in attribution

processes and helping behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(2), 179–195.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022192232004

Brennan, J., & Naidoo, R. (2008). Higher education and the achievement (and/or prevention) of equity

and social justice. Higher Education, 56, 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9127-3

Bringle, R. G., & Steinberg, K. (2010). Educating for informed community involvement. American Journal

of Community Psychology, 46(3–4), 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9340-y

Caldwell, J. C., & Vera, E. M. (2010). Critical incidents in counseling psychology professionals’ and

trainees’ social justice orientation development. Training and Education in Professional

Psychology, 4(3), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019093

I AM A CHANGE AGENT 23

Carmony, T. M., Lock, T. L., Crabtree, A. K., Keller, J., Szeto, A., Yanasak, B., & Moritsugu, J. N. (2000).

Teaching community psychology: A brief review of undergraduate courses. Teaching of

Psychology, 27(3), 214–216. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ625613

Cattaneo, L. B., Shor, R., Calton, J. M., Gebhard, K. T., Buchwach, S. Y., Elshabassi, N., & Hargrove, S.

(2019). Social problems are social: Empirical evidence and reflections on integrating community

psychology into traditional curriculum. Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 10(1),

1–29. https://www.gjcpp.org/pdfs/4-CattaneoEtAl-Final.pdf

Christens, B. D., Connell, C. M., Faust, V., Haber, M. G., & the Council of Education Programs. (2015).

Progress report: Competencies for community research and action. The Community

Psychologist, 48(4), 3–9. http://www.scra27.com/publications/tcp/tcp-past-

issues/tcpfall2015/special-feature/

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.).

SAGE Publications.

Driscoll, A. (2008). Carnegie’s community-engagement classification: Intentions and insights. Change:

The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(1), 38–41. https://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.40.1.38-41

Einfeld, A., & Collins, D. (2008). The relationships between service-learning, social justice, multicultural

competence, and civic engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 49(2), 95–109.

https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2008.0017

Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. McGraw-Hill.

Friedland, E. (2004). Education for liberation: Making the classroom a place for thinking and creating—A

Guatemalan story. Multicultural Education, 12(2), 2–7.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ781920.pdf

Funge, S. P. (2011). Promoting the social justice orientation of students: The role of the educator.

Journal of Social Work Education, 47(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2011.200900035

I AM A CHANGE AGENT 24

Gallor, S. (2017). A social justice approach to undergraduate psychology education: Building cultural

diversity, inclusion, and sensitivity into teaching, research, and service. Psi Chi Journal of

Psychological Research, 22(4), 254–257. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN22.4.254

Garibay, J. C. (2015). STEM students’ social agency and views on working for social change: Are STEM

disciplines developing socially and civically responsible students? Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 52(5), 610–632. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21203

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. (2017). African Americans: College

majors and earnings. Georgetown University. https://cew.georgetown.edu/cew-reports/african-

american-majors/

Gibbs, K. D., Jr., & Griffin, K. A. (2013). What do I want to be with my PhD? The roles of personal values

and structural dynamics in shaping the career interests of recent biomedical science PhD

graduates. CBE Life Sciences Education, 12(4), 711–723. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-02-0021

Ginwright, S. A., & Cammarota, J. (2015). Teaching social justice research to undergraduate students in

Puerto Rico: Using personal experiences to inform research. Equity & Excellence in Education,

48(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.959331

Grant, C. A. (2012). Cultivating flourishing lives: A robust social justice vision of education. American

Educational Research Journal, 49(5), 910–934. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212447977

Grech, V., & Calleja, N. (2018). WASP (write a scientific paper): Parametric vs. non-parametric tests.

Early Human Development, 123, 48–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2018.04.014

Hardiman, R., Jackson, B., & Griffin, P. (2007). Conceptual foundations for social justice education. In M.

Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 35–66).

Routledge.

Henderson, D. X. (2017). Modeling community engagement in an undergraduate course in psychology at

an HBCU. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 58–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628316679958

I AM A CHANGE AGENT 25

Henderson, D. X., & Wright, M. (2015). Getting students to “go out and make a change”: Promoting

dimensions of global citizenship and social justice in an undergraduate course. Journal of

Contemporary Issues in Higher Education, 1(1), 14–29.

Hunn, V. (2014). African American students, retention, and team-based learning: A review of the

literature and recommendations for retention at predominately White institutions. Journal of

Black Studies, 45(4), 301–314. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24572850

Hunter, M. A., & May, R. B. (1993). Some myths concerning parametric and nonparametric tests.

Canadian Psychology, 34(4), 384–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0078860

Jimenez, T. R., Sánchez, B., McMahon, S. D., & Viola, J. (2016). A vision for the future of community

psychology education and training. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58(3–4), 339–

347. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12079

Kloos, B., Hill, J., Thomas, E., Wandersman, A., Elias, M., & Dalton, J. H. (2012). Community psychology:

Linking individuals and communities (3rd ed.). Wadsworth.

Lee, C. T., Beckert, T. E., & Goodrich, T. R. (2010). The relationship between individualistic, collectivistic,

and transitional cultural value orientations and adolescents’ autonomy and identity status.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 882–893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9430-z

Leong, F. T. L., & Austin, J. T. (2006). The psychology research handbook: A guide for graduate students

and research assistants. SAGE Publications.

Lichty, L. F., Palamaro-Munsell, E., & Wallin- Ruschman, J. (2019). Introduction to the special issue:

Developing undergraduate community psychology pedagogy and research practice. Global

Journal of Community Psychology Practice, 10(1), 1–7.

https://www.gjcpp.org/pdfs/Lichty,%20Palamaro-Munsell,%20_%20Wallin-Ruschman-

Editor_s%20Note.pdf
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 26

Lott, B., & Rogers, M. R. (2011). Ethnicity matters for undergraduate majors in challenges, experiences,

and perceptions of psychology. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17(2), 204–210.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023673

McAuliff, K. E., Williams, S. M., & Ferrari, J. R. (2013). Social justice and the university community: Does

campus involvement make a difference? Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community,

41(4), 244–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2013.818486

McCabe, P. C., & Rubinson, F. (2008). Committing to social justice: The behavioral intention of school

psychology and education trainees to advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered

youth. School Psychology Review, 37(4), 469–486.

McClintock, C. G., & Allison, S. T. (1989). Social value orientation and helping behavior. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 19(4), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1989.tb00060.x

McGee, E., & Bentley, L. (2017). The equity ethic: Black and Latinx college students reengineering their

STEM careers toward justice. American Journal of Education, 124(1), 1–36.

https://doi.org/10.1086/693954

McInerney, P. (2012). Rediscovering discourses of social justice: Making hope practical. In B. Down & J.

Smyth (Eds.), Critical voices in teacher education: Exploration of educational purpose (pp. 27–

43). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3974-1_3

Messick, D. M., & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(68)90046-2

Mitchell, T. D. (2007). Critical service-learning as social justice education: A case study of the citizen

scholars program. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(2), 101–112.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680701228797

Mitchell, T. D. (2014). How service-learning enacts social justice sensemaking. Journal of Critical Thought

and Praxis, 2(2), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.31274/jctp-180810-22

I AM A CHANGE AGENT 27

Mitchell, T. D., & Soria, K. M. (2016). Seeking social justice: Undergraduates’ engagement in social

change and social justice at American research universities. In T. D. Mitchell & K. M. Soria (Eds.),

Civic engagement and community service at research universities (pp. 241–255). Palgrave

Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55312-6_13

Moely, B. E., McFarland, M., Miron, D., Mercer, S., & Ilustre, V. (2002). Changes in college students’

attitudes and intentions for civic involvement as a function of service-learning experiences.

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 18–26.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cache//3/2/3/3239521.0009.102/3239521.0009.102.pdf#page=1;zo

om=75

Murphy, R. O., & Ackermann, K. A. (2014). Social value orientation: Theoretical and measurement issues

in the study of social preferences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18(1), 13–41.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313501745

Nagda, B. A., Spearmon, M. L., Holley, L. C., Harding, S., Moïse-Swanson, D., Balassone, M. L., & De

Mello, S. (1999). Intergroup dialogues: An innovative approach to teaching about diversity and

justice in social work programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 35(3), 433–449.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.1999.10778980

Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.). (2010). Community psychology: In pursuit of liberation and well-

being. Palgrave Macmillan.

Reed, S. C., Rosenberg, H., Statham, A., & Rosing, H. (2015). The effect of community service learning on

undergraduate persistence in three institutional contexts. Michigan Journal of Community

Service Learning, 21, 22–36. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1116299.pdf

Schlehofer, M. M., & Phillips, S. M. (2013). Teaching experientially in the undergraduate community

psychology classroom. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 41(2), 55–60.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2013.757978
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 28

Simons, L., Fehr, L., Blank, N., Connell, H., Georganas, D., Fernandez, D., & Peterson, V. (2012). Lessons

learned from experiential learning: What do students learn from a practicum/internship?

International Journal on Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 325–334.

http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/pdf/IJTLHE1315.pdf

Society for Community Research and Action. (2019). What is community psychology?

http://www.scra27.org/what-we-do/what-community-psychology/

Stearns, P. N. (2009). Educating global citizens in college and universities: Challenges and opportunities.

Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203885185

Stenhouse, V. L., & Jarrett, O. S. (2012). In the service of learning and activism: Service learning, critical

pedagogy, and the problem solution project. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39(1), 51–76.

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ977356.pdf

Teasley, M., & Archuleta, A. J. (2015). A review of social justice and diversity content in diversity course

syllabi. Social Work Education, 34(6), 607–622.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2015.1037828

Thomas, E. F., Mavor, K. I., & McGarty, C. (2012). Social identities facilitate and encapsulate action-

relevant constructs: A test of the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations, 15(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211413619

Torres-Harding, S. R., Siers, B., & Olson, B. D. (2012). Development and psychometric evaluation of the

Social Justice Scale (SJS). American Journal of Community Psychology, 50(1–2), 77–88.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-011-9478-2

Torres-Harding, S. R., Steele, C., Schulz, E., Taha, F., & Pico, C. (2014). Student perceptions of social

justice and social justice activities. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 9(1), 55–66.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197914520655
I AM A CHANGE AGENT 29

van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of

collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives.

Psychological Bulletin, 134(4), 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504

Watts, R. J., & Flanagan, C. (2007). Pushing the envelope on youth civic engagement: A developmental

and liberation psychology perspective. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 779–792.

https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20178

Zimmerman, L., Kamal, Z., & Kim, H. (2013). Pedagogy of the logic model: Teaching undergraduates to

work together to change their communities. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the

Community, 41(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/10852352.2013.757990