Research in Higher Education

, Volume 52, Issue 3, pp 300–322 | Cite as

An Investigation of the Contingent Relationships Between Learning Community Participation and Student Engagement

  • Gary R. Pike
  • George D. Kuh
  • Alexander C. McCormick
Article

Abstract

This study examined the contingent relationships between learning community participation and student engagement in educational activities inside and outside the classroom using data from the 2004 administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Results indicated that learning community participation was positively and significantly related to student engagement, both for first-year students and seniors. For some types of engagement, relationships were significantly stronger for seniors than for first-year students. Analyses also revealed there was substantial variability across institutions in the magnitude of the relationships between learning community participation and first-year students’ levels of engagement. Although institutional characteristics accounted for some of the variability across institutions, a substantial amount of the variability in engagement–learning community relationships remained unexplained.

Keywords

Learning communities Student engagement Institutional characteristics Contingent effects 

References

  1. Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Rubin, D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 25, 297–308.Google Scholar
  5. Astin, A. W. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change, 17(4), 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Baird, L. L. (1976). Using self-reports to predict student performance. New York: The College Board.Google Scholar
  8. Baker, S., & Pomerantz, N. (2000). Impact of learning communities on retention at a metropolitan university. Journal of College Student Retention, 2, 115–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beckett, A. K., & Rosser, V. J. (2007, November). Relationship between learning community participation and degree attainment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
  10. Brower, A. M., Golde, C. M., & Allen, C. (2003). Residential learning communities positively affect college binge drinking. NASPA Journal, 40, 132–144.Google Scholar
  11. Bryk, A. A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Carini, R. M., Hayek, J. H., Kuh, G. D., Kennedy, J. M., & Ouimet, J. A. (2003). College student responses to web and paper surveys: Does mode matter? Research in Higher Education, 44, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cellini, S. R. (2008). Causal inference and omitted variable bias in financial aid research: Assessing solutions. Review of Higher Education, 31, 329–354.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Community College Survey of Student Engagement. (2008). High expectations and high support: Essential elements of engagement. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.Google Scholar
  16. DesJardins, S. L., McCall, B. P., Ahlburg, D. A., & Moye, M. J. (2002). Adding a timing light to the “Tool box”. Research in Higher Education, 43, 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. du Toit, S., du Toit, M., Mels, G., & Cheng, Y. (2007). LISREL for Windows: SURVEYGLIM user’s guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software. Retrieved April 17, 2008, from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/SGUG.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks.
  18. Ethington, C. A. (1997). A hierarchical linear modeling approach to studying college effects. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XII, pp. 165–194). New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  19. Ethington, C. A., Thomas, S. L., & Pike, G. R. (2002). Back to the basics: Regression as it should be. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XVII, pp. 263–294). New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  20. Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta-analysis of the literature, 1991–2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 746–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inkelas, K. K., Brower, A. M., Crawford, S., Hummel, M., Pope, D., & Zeller, W. J. (2004, November). National Study of Living-Learning Programs: 2004 Report of findings. College Park, MD: University of Maryland & Association of College and University Housing Officers International. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://www.livelearnstudy.net/additionalresources/reports.html.
  22. Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2007a). Living-learning programs and first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in Higher Education, 48, 403–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inkelas, K. K., Szelényi, K., Soldner, M., & Brower, A. M. (2007b, November). National Study of Living-Learning Programs: 2007 Report of findings. College Park, MD: University of Maryland. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://www.livelearnstudy.net/additionalresources/reports.html.
  24. Inkelas, K. K., & Weisman, J. L. (2003). Different by design: An examination of student outcomes among participants in three types of living-learning programs. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 335–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson, J. L., & Romanoff, S. J. (1999). Higher education residential learning communities: What are the implications for student success? College Student Journal, 33, 385–399.Google Scholar
  26. Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series, no. 35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Knight, W. E. (2003). Learning communities and first-year programs: Lessons for planners. Planning for Higher Education, 31(4), 5–12.Google Scholar
  28. Kuh, G. D. (2001a). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17. 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuh, G. D. (2001b). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  30. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kuh, G. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.Google Scholar
  32. Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In R. Gonyea & G. Kuh (Eds.), Using student engagement data in institutional research (New Directions for Institutional Research Series, no. 141, pp. 5–20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  33. Kuh, G. D., Hayek, J. C., Carini, R. M., Ouimet, J. A., Gonyea, R. M., & Kennedy, J. (2001). NSSE technical and norms report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  34. Kuh, G. D., Hu, S., & Vesper, N. (2000). “They shall be known by what they do:” An activities-based typology of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 228–244.Google Scholar
  35. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007a). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(5). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  36. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., & Gonyea, R. M. (2007b). Connecting the dots: Multifaceted analyses of the relationships between student engagement results from the NSSE, and the institutional practices and conditions that foster student success. Final report prepared for Lumina Foundation for Education. Center for Postsecondary Research, Bloomington, IN.Google Scholar
  37. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., et al. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  38. Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., et al. (1991). Involving colleges: Encouraging student learning and personal development through out-of-class experiences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. McCormick, A. C., Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & Chen, D. P. (2009). Comparing the utility of the 2000 and 2005 Carnegie classification systems in research on students’ college experiences and outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 50, 144–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2004). Student engagement: Pathways to collegiate success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  41. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning and success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  42. Ouimet, J. A., Bunnage, J. B., Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Kennedy, J. (2004). Using focus groups to establish the validity and reliability of a college student survey. Research in Higher Education, 45, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2, 10–16.Google Scholar
  44. Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences. An account of the development and use of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute.Google Scholar
  45. Pace, C. R. (1985). The credibility of student self-reports. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  46. Pascarella, E. T., Seifert, T. A., & Blaich, C. (2010). How effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predicting important educational outcomes? Change, 42(1), 16–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  48. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  49. Pascarella, E. T., Whitt, E. J., Nora, A., Edison, M., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). What have we learned from the first year of the national study of student learning? Journal of College Student Development, 37, 182–192.Google Scholar
  50. Pasque, P. A., & Murphy, R. (2005). The intersections of living-learning programs and social identity as factors of academic achievement and intellectual engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 429–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). South Melbourne: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  52. Peters, J. R., & Stearns, D. E. (2003). Bringing educational relevancy to the first-year college experience by bearing witness to social problems. Journal of Experiential Education, 25, 332–342.Google Scholar
  53. Pike, G. R. (1995). The relationship between self reports of college experiences and achievement test scores. Research in Higher Education, 36, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pike, G. R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 269–284.Google Scholar
  55. Pike, G. R. (2000). Assessment measures: Methodological issues in the assessment of learning communities. Assessment Update: Progress, Trends and Practices in Higher Education, 12(2), 14–15.Google Scholar
  56. Pike, G. R. (2002). The differential effects of on- and off-campus living arrangements on students’ openness to diversity. NASPA Journal, 39, 283–299.Google Scholar
  57. Pike, G. R. (2007). Adjusting for nonresponse in surveys. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. XXII, pp. 411–449). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  58. Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The relationship between institutional mission and students’ involvement and educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 44, 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., McCormick, A. C., Ethington, C. A., & Smart, J. C. (in press). If and when money matters: Direct and indirect relationships between expenditures and student learning. Research in Higher Education. Google Scholar
  61. Pike, G. R., Schroeder, C. C., & Berry, T. R. (1997). Enhancing the educational impact of residence halls: The relationship between residential learning communities and first-year college experiences and persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 609–621.Google Scholar
  62. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Purdie, J. R. II, & Rosser, V. J. (2007, November). Examining the academic performance and retention of four-year students in academic themed floors, freshman interest groups and first-year experience courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
  64. Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2004). HLM6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  65. Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  66. Soldner, M., McCarron, G. P., & Inkelas, K. K. (2007, November). Honors living-learning programs for first-year students: Educational benefits for whom? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
  67. Spencer, J. C. (1998). Student life studies abstract: Learning communities and second-year students. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Office of Student Life Studies.Google Scholar
  68. Stassen, M. L. A. (2003). Student outcomes: The impact of varying living-learning community models. Research in Higher Education, 44, 581–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Szelényi, K., Inkelas, K. K., Drechsler, M. J., & Kim, Y. C. (2007, November). Exploring social capital in the transition to college of students in living-learning programs from differing socioeconomic backgrounds. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
  70. Taylor, K., with Moore, W. S., MacGregor, J., & Lindblad, J. (2003). Learning community research and assessment: What we know now (National Learning Communities Monograph Series). Olympia, WA: The Evergreen State College, Washington Center for Improving the Quality of undergraduate Education.Google Scholar
  71. Thomas, S. L. (2006). Sampling: Rationale and rigor in choosing what to observe. In C. F. Conrad & R. C. Serlin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook for research in education: Engaging ideas and enriching inquiry (pp. 393–404). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Tinto, V. (2000). What have we learned about the impact of learning communities on students? Assessment Update: Progress, Trends and practices in Higher Education, 12(2), 1–2. 12.Google Scholar
  73. Titus, M. A. (2007). Detecting selection bias, using propensity score matching, and estimating treatment effects: An application to the private returns to a master’s degree. Research in Higher Education, 48, 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tyler, R. W. (1932). Service studies in higher education. Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  75. Zhao, C., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45, 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary R. Pike
    • 1
  • George D. Kuh
    • 2
  • Alexander C. McCormick
    • 2
  1. 1.Information Management and Institutional ResearchIndiana University Purdue University IndianapolisIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Indiana University BloomingtonBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations