Research in Higher Education

, Volume 53, Issue 7, pp 738–754 | Cite as

An Engagement-Based Student Typology and Its Relationship to College Outcomes

Article

Abstract

Using data from the 2006 cohort of the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education, we developed a student typology based on student responses to survey items on the National Survey of Student Engagement. We then examined the utility of this typology in understanding direct-assessment learning outcomes, self-reported gains, grade-point average, and persistence from the first to second year of college. Results from linear and logistic regression models indicated there were relationships between student types and the various outcomes, and that an engagement-based student typology could help deepen our understanding of the college student experience and college outcomes.

Keywords

Student engagement Typology Learning Persistence Retention College outcomes 

References

  1. Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent variables in regression analysis. Sociological Methodology, 20, 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  4. Astin, A. W. (1993a). An empirical typology of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 34(1), 36–46.Google Scholar
  5. Astin, A. W. (1993b). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and evaluation in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: American Council for Education and Oryx Press.Google Scholar
  6. Astin, A. W. (1993c). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518–529.Google Scholar
  8. Bahr, P. R. (2010). The bird’s eye view of community colleges: A behavioral typology of first-time students based on cluster analytic classification. Research in Higher Education, 51, 724–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. Sage University papers. Quantitative applications in the social sciences, No. 07-102. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Bok, D. C. (2007). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bowman, N. A. (2009). Can 1st-year college students accurately report their learning and development? American Educational Research Journal, 47, 466–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowman, N. A. (2011). Examining systematic errors in predictors of college student self-reported gains. New Directions for Institutional Research, 150, 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cacioppo, J., Petty, R., Feinstein, J., & Jarvis, W. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, May, 3–7.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, B. R., & Trow, M. (1966). The organizational context. In T. M. Newcomb & E. K. Wilson (Eds.), College peer groups: Problems and prospects for research (pp. 17–70). Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Flacks, R., & Thomas, S. L. (2007). ‘Outsiders’, student subcultures, and the massification of higher education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 181–218). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gonyea, R. M., & Miller, A. (2011). Clearing the AIR about the use of self-reported gains in institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 150, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gonzalez, J. (2010, Aug 9). In Texas speech, Obama renews his educational goals for the nation. Chronicle of Higher Education, Daily News.Google Scholar
  20. Hu, S. (2005). Beyond grade inflation: Grading problems in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Maximizing what students get out of college: Testing a learning productivity model. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hu, S., & Li, S. (Eds.) (2011). Using typological approaches to understand college student experiences and outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research, Assessment Supplement 2011. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Hu, S., McCormick, A. C., & Gonyea, R. M. (in press). Examining the relationship between student learning and persistence. Innovative Higher Education.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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(2), 228–244.Google Scholar
  27. Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., & Hayek, J. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol 32, No 5. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  28. Lorr, M. (1983). Cluster analysis for social scientists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  29. Luan, J., Zhao, C., & Hayek, J. (2009). Using a data mining approach to develop a student engagement-based institutional typology IR Applications, 18. Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research.Google Scholar
  30. Mitchell, V. W. (1994). Using factor, cluster, and determinant analysis to identify psychographic segments. Marketing working paper series, No. 9308. Manchester School of Management.Google Scholar
  31. Miville, M., Gelso, C., Pannu, R., Liu, W., Touradji, P., Holloway, P., et al. (1999). Appreciating similarities and valuing differences: The Miville–Guzman Universality-Diversity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. (2004). Measuring up 2004. San Jose, CA: Author.Google Scholar
  33. National Commission on the Future of Higher Education. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  34. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2004). Student engagement: Pathways to collegiate success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  35. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2005). Student engagement: Exploring different dimensions of student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  36. National Survey of Student Engagement. (2008). Promoting engagement for all students: The imperative to look within. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.Google Scholar
  37. Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2, 10–16.Google Scholar
  38. Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive development: A critical review and synthesis. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, Vol. I (pp. 1–64). New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from 20 years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  41. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  42. Ryff, C. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ryff, C., & Keyes, C. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. Review of Higher Education, 21, 167–177.Google Scholar
  45. Tyree, T. (1998). Designing an instrument to measure socially responsible leadership using the social change model of leadership development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland-College Park.Google Scholar
  46. Wolniak, G. C, Mayhew, M. J., & Engberg, M. E. (2012). Learning’s weak link to persistence. Journal of Higher Education (in press).Google Scholar
  47. Zhao, C. M., Gonyea, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2003, May). The psychographic typology: Toward higher resolution research on college students. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Tampa, FL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, College of EducationFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  2. 2.Center for Postsecondary ResearchIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations