Fostering a Sense of Belonging Using a Multicontext Approach

Multicontext Theory

Multicontext theory recognizes the importance of cultural differences in how people interact with each other, manage time, process information, respond to communication and instruction, and perceive interconnections in the world (Weissmann et al., 2019). Multicontext theory (Ibarra, 2001, 2005) operates from the perspective that most North American higher education institutions are built on a low context Northern European model. Low context teaching traditions favor individual achievement and efforts, compartmentalized knowledge, linear time, and a task-over-process orientation. Multicontext theory posits that a low context approach does not fit all contemporary fields of inquiry, much less all types of learners (Ibarra, 2001, 2005).

While upper and middle class Western-centric cultures operate predominantly within a low context orientation, many other cultural groups do not, particularly African American, Asian, Indigenous, and Latinx, who often come from more high context cultural backgrounds, and/or operate with a mix of high and low contexts (Chavez & Longerbeam, 2016; Ibarra, 2001, 2005). North American women and the Millennial generation have also been associated with more high context tendencies (Ibarra, 2005; Weissmann et al., 2019). High context cultures emphasize community, where learning takes place in groups, for the betterment of everyone, not just the individual, and through which less formal, more personal interactions occur within flexible time frames, and with an emphasis on process-over-task (Ibarra, 2001, 2005).

For example, given a group assignment, a high context student might jump right in to working with classmates to tackle the problem collaboratively, whereas alow context student may show a preference for working on the problem individually and resist collaboration (though one can imagine a myriad of other personality traits and circumstances that shape such reactions). It is important to note that people generally exhibit characteristics of both high and low contexts, falling somewhere along a spectrum, which can differ from situation to situation (Ibarra, 2001, 2005; Weissmann et al., 2019). Ibarra (2001) stresses that “cultural reality in academia does not come from any one source or person within the organization” but rather “a variety of cultural patterns over time” (p. 31) which captures the nuanced way in which myriad behaviors and experiences observed over time can be crystallized into patterns that help describe, but do not necessary define, populations and tendencies.

Ibarra (2001, 2005) developed multicontext theory based on his investigation of Latinx graduate students in the Southwestern United States, incorporating (Hall, 1977) work on cultural communication differences. Hall described how different cultural groups have different communication tendencies, which manifest themselves in the amount of communicative context that is expected, needed, and provided. In Hall’s cultural communication theory, low context cultures tend to communicate a great deal of information directly because there is an underlying assumption that the other party may not have any contextual information within which to situate the communication. In contrast, high context cultures assume a great deal of existing understanding about cultural norms and expectations, and so do not share as much information directly, but rather talk around ideas with an assumption that information will be transmitted subtly. These tendencies reveal themselves in all sorts of ways, from everyday personal interactions, the operation of the judicial system, arts and literature, religious practices, social demonstrations and business practices. These diverse tendencies can create intercultural confusion and misunderstandings during interactions across cultures, a concept referred to by Chavez and Longerbeam (2016) as cultural dissonance.

Ibarra’s (2001) findings revealed that Latinx graduate and professional students from predominantly high context cultures faced difficulties as a result of this cultural dissonance when attending postsecondary educational institutions that largely operate within a low context orientation.Chávez et al., 2012 described the Western-leaning nature of higher education environments, highlighting four major findings: a Western-dominant perspective underlying curriculum materials and approaches; academic expectations grounded in Western notions like individualism, linearity, dominance of mind over body, intuitions and emotions; Western cultural norms of communication and interaction; and the occurrence of culturally-centered miscommunications during collaboration (p. 781). They also noted a lack of research on culturally-informed pedagogy at the postsecondary level (Chávez et al., 2012). Multicontext theory in large part is designed to redress some of these Western-leaning academic assumptions through re-envisioning the way academic encounters are structured, perceived and assessed, opening up consideration beyond this specific scope to encompasses varied cultural perspectives.

Chavez and Longerbeam (2016) developed a parallel model of cultural tendencies, featuring “two end-member populations—individuated and integrated—that roughly correspond to low context and high context populations, respectively” (Weissmann et al., 2019). In the context of academia, Chavez and Longerbeam describe individuated cultures as largely “individual, linear, abstract, [and] mind-based” while integrated cultures are more “interconnected, circular or seasonal, contextual, and mind/body/spirit/heart-based” (p. 9). Chavez and Longerbeam reiterate a “both-and” perspective, not shielding students from approaches different to theirs, but rather finding a happy medium, a “balance of comfort and dissonance necessary for complex learning” (p. 16). Chavez and Longerbeam describe the balance as “symbiotic polarities” like the synergistic yin-yang, where the comfort of finding similarities helps build a productive foundation for exploring sometimes challenging differences, stimulating critical thought and intellectual growth (pp. 16–17). In this perspective, teachers can deepen learning by attending to both ends of the spectrum in their teaching and providing their students a more holistic learning experience, building on both differences and similarities as a means for exploration and development.

Chavez and Longerbeam (2016) created Cultural Frameworks in Teaching and Learning, situating tendencies along a spectrum of individuated to integrated teaching and learning, based on a yearlong faculty development project with 37 faculty at two universities. This framework can serve as a tool for identifying, locating and adjusting academic behaviors to encompass different types of teaching and learning and play to different cultural strengths. Chavez and Longerbeam encourage faculty to become more aware of the lenses through which they see students and the cultural frameworks students exist in to “cultivate the ability to reinterpret others’ cultural norms as strengths and redesign our teaching and courses to engage these strengths among students” (p. 5). This framework can be used in concert with multicontext theory to explore ways that cultural differences can be leveraged in faculty-student interactions in an effort to improve students’ sense of belonging and persistence.

Ibarra (1995, 2005) argued that high context approaches can be infused more frequently into curriculum as acceptable and even favorable ways of experiencing education, without devaluing low context cultural approaches, hence the prefix ‘multi.’ Ibarra and colleagues posit that consciously implementing a multicontext approach like community-oriented supports may help to narrow the achievement gap for URMs (underrepresented minorities) on campus by levelling the playing field, so to speak, by leveraging their cultural capital. Chavez and Longerbeam’s (2016) research lends further weight to this premise, as they found that “students of color throughout our studies described feeling outside the norms of teaching and learning practices in college, while Northern European Americans in our study usually did not” (p. 9). This “culturally dissonant teaching” is not necessarily intentional but results from faculty tending to teach from their own cultural context or the one in which they were trained (Chavez & Longerbeam, 2016, p. 10). The subtle nature of cultural biases are so well trod as to become almost invisible; as instructors “teach and promote epistemologies like positivism to postmodernism, we are, at least implicitly, teaching and promoting the social history of the dominant race at the exclusion of people of color, scholars of color, and the possibility for research based on other race/culture epistemologies” (Scheurich & Young, 1997, p. 11). Hence the need for introspection and reflection on teaching practices to reveal assumptions and question heretofore accepted norms that may be excluding populations and adding an extra burden onto a subset of students.

As with individuals and cultural groups, postsecondary institutions have a cultural identity that falls along the multicontext/individuated vs. integrated spectrum, and they too have internal diversity. Different departments and operational bodies may exhibit different points along the high and low context spectrum. For instance, Ibarra (2005) found that university libraries are increasingly becoming multicontext spaces, serving as a model for context diversity as they focus more on supporting students working in groups and connecting rather than operating largely as sites of individual, isolated learning. The 1960s GI bill in the US diversified the student body and libraries began to look at students more as customers in the late 20th century (Ibarra, 2005). Ibarra (2005) states that, as a result, libraries began to “accommodate a new generation of high context student users who were more collaborative, community and people-oriented, preferred studying in groups or working in teams and used advanced technology easily” (p. 12). This has led many libraries to take on the mantel “a place to belong” and demonstrates the transformative impact of multicontext approaches (intentional or not) on students’ sense of belonging (Ibarra, 2005, p. 12).

Despite efforts to diversify campuses through structural initiatives and multicultural sensitization, Ibarra (2005) notes that most efforts have been focused on student affairs, while “little if any attention is directed toward enhancing academic affairs” (p. 5). Raising awareness of multicontext theory among instructors could help address this slow progress towards more curriculum-focused efforts to support the growing number of URMs and other marginalized groups. Likewise, explicit multicontext-oriented instruction could foster in students the ability to “flexibly operate throughout the context spectrum” by developing a “‘multicontextual’ skill set” (Weissmann et al., 2019, p. 4). This concept parallels Chavez and Longerbeam’s (2016) both-and approach; explicit in both ideas is the notion that students benefit not just from learning about ‘the other’ but also utilizing tendencies that are non-normative for them to the point of becoming more conversant, coming out of these interactions with a diversified outlook and skillset.

However, before that can happen, students, faculty and staff need to be made aware of concepts like multicontext theory and individuated/integrated learning. Otherwise, cultural dissonance can persist unaddressed. Students who struggle to recognize and maneuver within the underlying low context systems pervasive in Western higher education may start to feel inadequate as learners and as people, when really they just need the system to be made clear to them; students need to know that their experiences of feeling out of sync with the dominant culture are not unusual or a sign of failure (Castleman & Meyer, 2017; Diaz et al., 2019). As students enter college, often left unspoken are things like how to interact with professors and teaching assistants, read and use a syllabus, sequence courses, maintain financial aid, obtain academic advising, be self-disciplined with assignments, and know what to spend time on and what not to spend time on (Castleman & Meyer, 2017; Jack, 2016). The burden of learning about these low context-leaning practices and expectations may fall disproportionately on high context-leaning students (Weissmann et al., 2019). However, conversations about these topics are important for every student, and one of the great benefits of a multicontext approach is that it is structured to reach all students. A multicontext approach may help students to understand the educational system and to feel more like a part of it rather than apart from it, strengthening their sense of belonging and supporting persistence.

Sense of Belonging

Sense of belonging is regarded as one of the major factors in student persistence (Castleman & Meyer, 2017; Reason, 2009; Swail, 2003; Tinto, 2017). In combination with perception of curriculum and self-efficacy, Tinto (2017) describes sense of belonging as one of the factors that motivates students to persist in higher education. Sense of belonging produces “a bond, often expressed as a commitment, which serves to bind the individual to the group or community even when challenges arise” (Tinto, 2017, p. 258). These challenges might include the aforementioned learning-curve that students face when learning the low context-leaning norms of higher education at a new institution.

In addition, developing a sense of belonging may be especially important for URMs, who may feel less like they fit in at predominantly White institutions because of negative stereotypes associated with their ethnic and/or cultural background, as well as students from low SES backgrounds who might not perceive themselves as fitting in because of financially related differences (Murphy & Zirkel, 2015). Murphy and Zirkel (2015) suggest that the notion of belonging extends beyond the actual ethnic makeup of the student body, but includes student perceptions about institutions as a whole, and can be based on anticipated belonging. Anticipated belonging is a students’ perception of how they would theoretically fit in to an institution, and can shape ideas about what an institution will be like, or who college is for, before students are even attending (Murphy & Zirkel, 2015). Murphy and Zirkel’s study included middle schoolers’ sense of belonging and how it influenced their higher education aspirations, indicating how early a sense of belonging may start to impact student interest in and notions of success at institutions of higher education.

Once students are attending an institution, social belonging interventions can help students integrate into the fabric of a university. Documented efforts to improve sense of belonging range far and wide, from learning community models, to new student orientation courses, identity-focused clubs, and mentorship programs (Bailey et al., 2015; Murphy & Zirkel, 2015). Many take the form of shared activities that follow more integrated community-based contexts. Honors programs have been shown to increase sense of belonging by strengthening academic mindsets and connecting students with communities, fostering a sense of belonging, even when the community itself is somewhat isolated from the rest of the student body (Diaz et al., 2019). Diversity programs that emphasize community in the form of engaging families, offering psychological supports, group work and collaboration have been shown to reduce the performance gap between African American and majority group students’ success (Ibarra, 2005, p. 6).

Even imagined communities can have a positive impact. Walton and Cohen (2011) exposed new African American and European American college students to an intervention designed to frame adversity in transitions to college not as personal or related to their ethnic status but as “shared and short-lived” (p. 1448). Students read about previous students’ transitions to college, which included examples of struggles overcome, and then created messages for future students on how their own experiences related to the stories they had read. Results indicated that African American students were positively impacted by the intervention, with GPAs rising in parallel to their European American counterparts in the study, eliminating an achievement gap (Walton & Cohen, 2011). Central to the intervention was passing down knowledge about the shared difficult experiences of transitions to college, helping students learn to cope with difficulty by listening to the stories of others’ experiences, and then sharing their own experience for the benefit of future students. This process fits in more with an integrated, high context community-oriented approach to learning than it does an individualized, low context approach to learning, and did not require the existence of an actual community to reap the benefits of feeling like one belonged.

Sense of belonging is achieved through a number of means, and feeds into the likelihood that a student will stay at an institution. Self-efficacy is another important aspect of persistence, but is outside the scope of this review. However, perception of curriculum is a key area for exploration here given that it is centrally tied to faculty-student interactions. The following section explores how multicontext theory may fit in to student perceptions of curriculum and therefore persistence.

Perceptions of Curriculum

Persistence extends into the classroom, as student ideas about curriculum can be shaped by their perception of its quality and relevance, and also how it is presented by instructors, including attention to student learning preferences (Tinto, 2017). By explicitly attending to multicontexts in their teaching, an instructor can demonstrate that they are making an effort to encompass multiple student learning preferences, which ideally can lead students to feel recognized in the classroom (Chavez & Longerbeam, 2016). The following two studies show the complex interplay of perceptions of curriculum, persistence, and the way in which multicontext theory could be integrated into future explorations.

Pascarella et al., 2008 conducted a longitudinal survey of 1,353 first year students at a research university in the Midwest looking at student backgrounds, grades, educational satisfaction and degree plans, as well as their perceptions of instructional quality and persistence across semesters. Their study found a statistically significant correlation between exposure to “organized and clear” instruction and re-enrolment in a second year of college, even when controlling for grades, degree plan and incoming ACT scores (Pascarella et al., 2008, p. 64). The definition of organized and clear used in the study included factors such as “course goals and requirements are clearly explained,” “teachers give clear explanations,” “teachers effectively review and summarize the material” and “teachers interpret abstract ideas and theories clearly” (Pascarella et al., 2008, p. 62). Some of these descriptors of organized and clear instruction fit in a low context style of teaching where the emphasis is on examination of ideas, linear thinking, direct communication, mind as primary source of knowledge and individual competence (Weissmann et al., 2019). This leaves open the question as to whom these practices were organized and clear for – all students or mostly the low context-leaning ones? Pascarella et al. (2008) did not disaggregate their results to identify ethnic or cultural differences, so alignment between teaching style and context orientation or cultural background cannot be borne out by this study. This study does, however, raise an interesting question of how a multicontext approach in the classroom might be perceived by students across varied contextual tendencies. The perception of curriculum study that follows adds a social dimension, weaving together perception of curriculum, sense of belonging by way of social integration, faculty-student interactions and persistence.

Braxton et al., 2000 conducted a longitudinal study of 696 first year students at a selective private research university exploring connections between instructional characteristics and student dropout rates. Braxton et al.’s definition of high quality instruction was much the same as Pascarella et al.’s (2008), however Braxton et al. also examined social integration in the context of peer interactions and non-classroom faculty interactions. Braxton et al. found that social integration and quality of instruction both had a positive impact on intent to re-enroll, and proposed that more organized and clear instruction may allow students to expend more cognitive energy on social integration. This possibility presents a noteworthy line of inquiry along the lines of multicontext theory. For if, as Braxton et al. suggest, one of the benefits of a clearer in class experience is freed up energy to expend upon co-curricular and non-academic pursuits, then does the amount of energy freed up differ across different contextual orientations? As inferred from the definition of quality instruction in both the Braxton et al. and Pascarella et al. studies, high quality instruction appears to be situated in a mostly low context orientation. So what is happening to students for whom this orientation is non-normative? In both studies, data on ‘race’ was collected, but the results did not discuss ethnic or cultural differences, so it is not clear from the data reported whether or not URMs experienced the same successes in any statistically significant way.

Further exploration is needed to identify how quality instruction is perceived across different ethnic and cultural groups. This type of data could help inform the import of attending to both high and low contexts in the classroom in order to assure the benefit of freed up cognitive energy for all students, especially if this freed up energy leads to social pursuits that strengthen sense of belonging and possibly result in higher rates of persistence. These studies by Braxton et al. (2000) and Pascarella et al. (2008) demonstrate the importance of high quality instruction for persistence, but differences across ethnic and cultural groups were not a central focus of these studies, and warrant attention in their own right.

The Braxton et al. (2000) study also highlights the value of faculty-student interaction in student success. Faculty-student interactions appear to be helpful in fostering a sense of belonging, which is especially important when the classroom is the main site of the academic experience, as tends to be the case at community colleges and commuter schools (Bailey et al., 2015; Parnes et al., 2019; Ramsden, 2003), and at research-intensive universities associated with the lowest amount of faculty-student interaction (Cox & Orehovec, 2007). Even though institutional retention is typically higher at four-year institutions than at community colleges, African American, Hispanic and American Indian students leave four-year colleges at higher rates than their White and Asian counterparts (National Center for Education Statistics, 2018; Seidman, 2005). In addition, ‘non-traditional’ lower income and first generation students leave higher education with more frequency than ‘traditional’ students (Kezar & Kitchen, 2020). Notably, faculty-student interactions tend to vary across student backgrounds, bringing the discussion home to how multicontext theory might better serve URMs and other diverse groups in and out of classrooms, fostering a sense of belonging and strengthening persistence.

Faculty-Student Interactions

Faculty-student interactions both in and out of the classroom have been associated with a myriad of positive benefits for students including persistence (Astin, 1993; Chang, 2005). In his monumental 1993 longitudinal study of 25,000 US students across 200 four-year colleges and the faculty associated with those institutions, Astin found that the majority of faculty-student interactions take place in the classroom, with small, selective liberal arts colleges as an exception.

Faculty-student interactions outside of the classroom have been even more beneficial for persistence than those inside of the classroom (Swail, 2003). Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) indicate that non-classroom interactions between faculty and students raise academic aspirations and degree completion through providing socialization into academia and a sense of belonging to an institution. However, Hagedorn et al. (2000) found that 80% of students interacted with faculty no more than once a semester outside of the classroom; the infrequency of non-classroom faculty-student interactions is more closely examined in the following study.

Cox and Orehovec, 2007 observed faculty-student “tea” events held at an undergraduate residential college within a large, public research university. The monthly teas were a chance for residential students and the 40 or so faculty associates of the college to mingle; these events were required (and free) for students and optional for faculty. Cox and Orehovec observed events over a year-long period and developed the following “fluid” typology based on their observations, interviews and focus groups: mentoring, personal interaction, functional interaction, incidental contact and disengagement (p. 350).

Disengagement, or non-interactions, were by far the most common and were defined as lack of faculty presence at non-classroom faculty-student events. In their study, Cox and Orehovec (2007) routinely observed faculty and students in close proximity but not interacting, which falls under the disengagement classification. The second most common type, incidental contact, involved “polite greetings and waves” of a “superficial” nature between faculty and students (Cox & Orehovec, 2007, p. 352). Functional interactions included conversations with a specific academic purpose, like asking a question about a scholarly topic, which Cox and Orehovec described as beneficial because they can reveal commonalities, lead to more extended conversations, and provide “personal attention” (p. 354). Personal interactions were those less academic in nature, though they may still revolve around academic topics, and can create a sense of camaraderie or friendship between faculty and students (Cox & Orehovec, 2007). Mentoring was the least common and involved direct assistance, emotional support and role modelling (Cox & Orehovec, 2007, p. 356). Cox and Orehovec’s study suggested that all interactions (disengagement not included) had potentially positive effects and that more minor interactions could lead to more significant interactions (a functional interaction becoming a personal interaction, which could eventually lead to mentoring, for example). In addition to providing an example of the difficulty of sustaining out of class faculty-student interactions, their study also provided a language and a framework through which to analyze faculty-student interactions, and could potentially be used to scaffold faculty-student interaction programs or policies.

Given the positive student outcomes of faculty-student interactions, it is of import to identify how URMs and other marginalized groups might experience faculty-student interactions differently from non-URMs, whether in or out of the classroom. Especially of concern are Jack’s (2016) findings that URM undergraduates at an elite university perceived faculty as less approachable in comparison to their non-URM counterparts. Likewise, Bush and Bush (2010) reported on numerous studies describing the infrequency with which African American undergraduate males interacted with faculty. In their study on African American male achievement at a Southern California community college, Bush and Bush found African American males less socially integrated into the fabric of the school, including interactions with faculty. The researchers attributed this in part to an institutional commitment to equality, rather than equity, that left African American males feeling unsupported by the academic environment.

In the same study, Bush and Bush (2010) found that, when they did occur, faculty-student interactions positively impacted student retention and transfer, and were related to higher GPAs. Likewise, a survey of African American and Latinx students at a four-year Hispanic-serving institution found a significant connection between higher academic achievement and faculty interaction, with self-efficacy as a mediating factor (Craft-Defreitas & Bravo, 2012). In another study, Anaya and Cole (2001) explored survey data from the 1997 College Student Experiences Questionnaire to search for correlations between academic achievement and faculty-student interactions and found that both functional and personal interactions had a positive impact on academic achievement for Latinx students. Though the ethnicity of the faculty members was not available within the questionnaire data, the researchers acknowledged that because most of the professoriate is White, most of these were likely “interracial interactions” (Anaya & Cole, 2001, p. 6).

In a quantitative analysis of statistical data collected across nine two-year colleges in the Los Angeles area, Chang (2005) found faculty-student interaction rates higher for African American students than other ethnic groups, contrary to most of the extant literature, which she attributed to effective student engagement policies at the institutions, or possibly lower incoming preparation levels that pushed them to need more assistance and seek it out. Chang also found Asian American/Pacific Islanders to have the lowest faculty-student interaction rates. She attributed the lower faculty-student interaction rates for Asian American/Pacific Islander students in part to different cultural communication styles, and/or from relying on a strong community and family network instead of faculty (Chang, 2005).

Interestingly, Chang (2005) also found that the Asian American/Pacific Islander population she studied perceived the highest rate of a negative racial climate for their particular ethnic group, which could possibly relate to the “model minority myth” (p. 792). The model minority myth is the belief that Asian students tend to be model minorities and excel in academic pursuits, which Chang suggests could lead them to feel unsupported on campus, as the expectation is that they will succeed regardless and so may be neglected by college support systems. The ethnic makeup of the professoriate might also be of import; if there were fewer Asian American/Pacific Islander professors employed at these institutions, for instance, this might warrant further examination. The unique results of this study perhaps reveal a regional pattern specific to this part of the United States, and show the complexity of understanding trends across different cultural groups and places.

In Chávez et al.’s (2012) study of Native American, Latino and Mestizo students’ learning experiences, the researchers note that students valued faculty “‘being there’” (p. 795), demonstrated through sharing their interests and relation to the course material, being open to student input, welcoming interactions via office hours and email, apologizing for mistakes, and sharing knowledge of campus support services. Students reported feeling like they are “‘learning alone together’ in face-to-face courses and ‘all alone out here in cyberspace’ in online classes,” indicating that faculty-student interaction can be a valuable way to make students feel more connected and less alone (Chávez et al., 2012, p. 795). Faculty clearly have a role in helping foster students’ sense of belonging; when faculty become more aware of and open up opportunities for more multicontextual teaching approaches, including generating a sense of community and tending to both individualistic and integrated tendencies, this could potentially further extend a sense of belonging for all students, including URMs who are sometimes less likely to interact with faculty.

Swail (2003) stated that faculty-student interactions were even more impactful for persistence of URMs than non-URMs, however, according to the most recent IPEDs data available (2007–2008), 76% of full-time faculty are still classified as “White, non-Hispanic,” which means that the majority of URMs are not going to see faculty who look like them (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007). This raises the question of how URM students routinely being taught by non-URMs might generate instances of cultural dissonance described by Chavez and Longerbeam (2016). More exploration into connections between a predominantly White faculty, an increasingly diverse study body, cultural dissonance, and faculty efforts to connect with students and foster a multicontext classroom could prove enlightening. If a multicontext approach can increase a sense of community and belonging, it may also increase a student’s comfort level with approaching faculty, which could have a positive impact on persistence.

Another relevant line of inquiry is the fact that both Astin (1993) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) report that faculty-student interactions can have a positive impact on fostering understanding of different ethnic groups, which could be pursued further to identify what about these interactions benefitted this understanding, and how activations of multicontext theory may already be in evidence. Further work into Chavez and Longerbeam’s (2016) “both-and” teaching approach could be an illuminating foray into this line of inquiry, teasing apart instances where familiarity and difference interact to produce deep learning, potentially with a focus on cross-cultural communication and understanding.

It is perhaps not surprising that so little faculty-student interaction tends to occur in academic settings that are often, as is true of most higher education institutions, predominantly low context environments (Ibarra, 2001, 2005). Personal relationships are more formal and learning is more compartmentalized, taking place in the classroom rather than outside of it, even in the context of faculty-student dinners like those studied by Cox and Orehovec (2007). As such, this is a fruitful line of inquiry given the tremendous benefits of faculty-student interaction, especially for marginalized students.