Student engagement is simply characterized as participation in educationally effective practices, both inside and outside the classroom, which leads to a range of measurable outcomes. We borrow this operational definition from Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2007), who also note:
Student engagement represents two critical features. The first is the amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposeful activities⊠. The second component of student engagement is how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum, other learning opportunities, and support services to induce students to participate in activities that lead to the experiences and desired outcomes such as persistence, satisfaction, learning, and graduation.
(p. 44)
We are persuaded by a large volume of empirical evidence that confirms strategizing ways to increase the engagement of various student populations, especially those for whom engagement is known to be problematic, is a worthwhile endeavor. However, the gains and outcomes are too robust to leave to chance, and social justice will not ensue if some students come to enjoy the beneficial byproducts of engagement, but others do not.
Engagement and Student Outcomes
âThe impact of college is largely determined by individual effort and involvement in the academic, interpersonal, and extracurricular offerings on a campusâ (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005, p. 602). However, as the authors of this book elucidate in myriad ways, countless cultural and contextual obstacles exist on the path of students being able to fully engage with all the campus offerings. That disparity is especially sharp, given that researchers have found that educationally purposeful engagement leads to the production of gains, benefits, and outcomes in numerous domains. These include: cognitive and intellectual skill development (Anaya, 1996; Baxter Magolda, 1992); college adjustment (Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1999; Kuh, Palmer, & Kish, 2003); moral and ethical development (Evans, 1987; Rest, 1993); practical competence and skills transferability (Kuh, 1993, 1995); the accrual of social capital (Harper, 2008); and psychosocial development, productive racial and gender identity formation, and positive images of self (Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016; Harper & Quaye, 2007; Okello, 2018; Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper, 2003). In addition, Tross, Harper, Osher, and Kneidinger (2000) found that students who devote more time to academic preparation activities outside of class earn higher grade-point averages. While all these benefits are important, the nexus between engagement and persistence has garnered the most attention.
Engagement and Persistence
As noted in the first edition of this book (and elsewhere), differences in first- to second- year persistence, as well as in four-year and six-year graduation rates, continually disadvantage many Students of Color, undergraduate men, lower-income students, first-generation college-goers, undergraduates who commute to their campuses, and a handful of other student populations. While the reasons for student persistence through degree attainment are multifaceted and not easily attributed to a narrow set of explanatory factors (Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, 2004), we know one point for certain: Those who are actively engaged in educationally purposeful activities, both inside and outside the classroom, are more likely to persist through graduation. This assertion has been empirically proven and consistently documented by numerous higher education researchers (e.g., Astin, 1975, 1993; Bean, 1990, 2005; Berger & Milem, 1999; Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000; Bridges, Cambridge, Kuh, & Leegwater, 2005; Milem & Berger, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Peltier, Laden, & Matranga, 1999; Stage & Hossler, 2000; Tinto, 1993, 2000, 2005). Museus (2014) expands on this body of research by describing the site of student engagement through the Culturally Engaging Campus Environments Model, which focuses on cultural relevance and cultural responsiveness.
Tinto, the most frequently cited scholar on college student retention, contends that engagement (or âacademic and social integration,â as he called it) is positively related to persistence. In fact, his research shows that engagement is the single most significant predictor of persistence (Tinto, 2000). He notes that many students discontinue their undergraduate education because they feel disconnected from peers, professors, and administrators at the institution. âLeavers of this type express a sense of not having made any significant contacts or not feeling membership in the institutionâ (Tinto, 2000, p. 7). In his 1993 book, Leaving College: The Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, Tinto argues that high levels of integration into academic and social communities on campus lead to higher levels of institutional commitment, which in turn compel a student to persist (Tinto, 1993).
Similarly, Bean (1990, 2005) proposes that students leave when they are marginally committed to their institutions. Institutional commitment is strengthened when undergraduates are actively engaged in educationally purposeful endeavors that connect them to the campus and in which they feel some sense of enduring obligation and responsibility (Bean, 2005; Swail, Redd, & Perna, 2003; Tinto, 1993). Those who hold leadership positions in student organizations, for example, assume responsibilities in their groups and know that others depend on them for service, guidance, and follow-through on important initiatives. Thus, they feel committed to their respective organizations and the institution at large and are less likely than students who are not engaged to leave. The same could be applied to a student who feels like an important contributor to learning and discussions in their classes. While the relationships between engagement, student outcomes, and retention are powerful, it is important to acknowledge the conditions under which these are likely to occur.
Distinguishing Educationally Purposeful Engagement
Over 30 years ago, Astin defined student involvement as âthe amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experienceâ (1984, p. 297). Astinâs conceptualization of involvement refers to behaviors and what students actually do, instead of what they think, how they feel, and the meanings they make of their experiences. His theory of student involvement is principally concerned with how college students spend their time and how various institutional actors, processes, and opportunities facilitate development. âThe extent to which students can achieve particular developmental goals is a direct function of the time and effort they devote to activities designed to produce these gainsâ (p. 301). This theory is among the most frequently cited in the higher education literature.
While conceptually similar, there is a key qualitative difference between involvement and engagement: it is entirely possible to be involved in something without being engaged. For example, a student who is present and on time for every weekly meeting of an organization but sits passively in the back of the room, never offers an opinion or volunteers for committees, interacts infrequently with the groupâs advisor or fellow members outside weekly meetings, and would not dare consider running for an office could still legitimately claim that she is involved in the group. However, few would argue this student is actively engaged, as outcomes accrual is likely to be limited. The same could be said for the student who is involved in a study group for his psychology class but contributes little and asks few questions when the group meets for study sessions. Action, purpose, and cross-institutional collaboration are requisites for engagement and deep learning (Kinzie & Kuh, 2004; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005; Kuh et al., 2007).
The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), an instrument through which data have now been collected from approximately four million undergraduates at more than 1,500 different four-year colleges and universities since 2000, is constructed around ten engagement indicators and a set of high-impact educational practices:
- Academic ChallengeâIncluding Higher-Order Learning, Reflective and Integrative Learning, Quantitative Reasoning, and Learning Strategies.
- Learning with PeersâIncluding Collaborative Learning and Discussions with Diverse Others.
- Experiences with FacultyâIncluding Student-Faculty Interaction and Effective Teaching Practices.
- Campus EnvironmentâIncluding Quality of Interactions and Supportive Environment.
- High-Impact PracticesâSpecial undergraduate opportunities such as Service Learning, Study Abr...