Research in Higher Education

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 429–454

Reported Gains in Student Learning: Do Academic Disciplines Make a Difference?

  • Gary R. Pike
  • Timothy S. Killian
Article

Abstract

This study examined differences in students' college experiences and learning outcomes using Biglan's typology of pure and applied disciplines. It was expected that students in applied disciplines would have more positive perceptions of the college environment, be more involved, and report greater gains in learning and intellectual development than students in pure disciplines. An analysis of data from one university identified significant differences in the college experiences and learning outcomes of students in pure and applied disciplines; however, differences in reported learning seemed to be related to disciplinary content, rather than Biglan's pure and applied topology.

academic disciplines learning Biglan college environment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Astin, A. W. (1970). The methodology of research on college impact (I). Sociology of Education 43(4): 223–254.Google Scholar
  2. Astin, A. W. (1993). What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  3. Baird, L. (1988). The college environment revisited: a review of research and theory. In J. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 4, pp. 1–52. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  4. Berdie, R. F. (1967). A university is a many faceted thing. Personnel and Guidance Journal 45(8): 768–775.Google Scholar
  5. Biglan, A. (1973a). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3): 195–203.Google Scholar
  6. Biglan, A. (1973b). Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3): 204–213.Google Scholar
  7. Burstein, L. (1980). The analysis of multilevel data in educational research and evaluation. In D. C. Berliner (ed.), Review of Research in Education, Vol. 8, pp. 158–233. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  8. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., and Muthén, B. O. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin 105(3): 456–466.Google Scholar
  9. Chickering, A. W. (1969) Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Chickering, A. W. (1975). Commuting versus Resident Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W., and Bean, J. P. (1981). Research output, socialization, and the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education 15(1): 69–91.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, T. M., and Murrell, P. H. (1993). A structural model of perceived academic, personal, and vocational gains related to college student responsibility. Research in Higher Education 34(3): 267–290.Google Scholar
  13. Ethington, C. A. (1997). A hierarchical linear modeling approach to studying college effects. In J. C. Smart (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 12, pp. 165–194. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  14. Ewell, P. T., Jones, D. P., Lovell, C. D., and Dressler, P. (1993). A Preliminary Study of the Feasibility and Utility for National Policy of InstructionalGood PracticeIndicators in Undergraduate Education. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.Google Scholar
  15. Feldman, K. A., and Newcomb, T. (1969). The Impact of College on Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Feldman, K. A., Smart, J. C., and Ethington, C. A. (1999). Major field and person-environment fit: using Holland's theory to study change and stability of college students. Journal of Higher Education 70(6): 642–669.Google Scholar
  17. Gamson, Z. F. (1966). Utilitarian and normative orientations toward education. Sociology of Education 39(1): 46–73.Google Scholar
  18. Holland, J. L. (1973). Making Rational Choices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices for covariance structure modeling: sensitiv-ity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods 3(3): 424–453.Google Scholar
  20. Hu, L., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55.Google Scholar
  21. Jöreskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. (1999). LISREL 8.3. Chicago: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
  22. Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Lang-Grant Universities (2000). Returning to Our Roots: Toward a Coherent Campus Culture. New York: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.Google Scholar
  23. King, P., Wood, P., and Mines, R. (1990). Critical thinking among college and graduate students. Review of Higher Education 13(2): 167–186.Google Scholar
  24. Kuh, G. D., Vesper, N., Connolly, M. R., and Pace, C. R. (1997). College Student Experiences Questionnaire: Revised Norms for the Third Edition, 1997. Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.Google Scholar
  25. Li, G., Long, S., and Simpson, M. E. (1999). Self-perceived gains in critical thinking and communication skills: are there disciplinary differences. Research in Higher Education 40(1): 43–60.Google Scholar
  26. Marsh, H. W. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: a multifaceted approach. Structural Equation Modeling 1(1): 5–34.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, G. E. (1988). The Meaning of General Education: The Emergence of a Curriculum Paradigm. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  28. Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the Quality of College Student Experiences. Los Angeles: University of California Center for the Study of Evaluation.Google Scholar
  29. Pascarella, E. T. (1976). Perceptions of the college environment by students in different academic majors in two colleges of arts and sciences. Research in Higher Education 4(2): 165–176.Google Scholar
  30. 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. 1, pp. 1–62. New York: Agathon.Google Scholar
  31. Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Phelan, W. (1979). Undergraduate orientations toward scientific and scholarly careers. American Educational Research Journal 16(4): 411–422.Google Scholar
  33. Pike, G. R. (1992). Using mixed-effect structural equation models to study student growth and development. Review of Higher Education 15(2): 151–177.Google Scholar
  34. Pike, G. R. (1995). The relationship between self-reports of college experiences and achievement test scores. Research in Higher Education 36(1): 1–21.Google Scholar
  35. Pike, G. R. (1996). Limitations of using students' self-reports of academic development as proxies for traditional achievement measures. Research in Higher Education 37(1): 89–114.Google Scholar
  36. 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(3): 269–284.Google Scholar
  37. Pike, G. R. (2000). The influence of fraternity or sorority membership on students' college experiences and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education 41(1): 117–139.Google Scholar
  38. Ratcliff, J. L., Jones, E. A., and Hoffman, S. (1992). Handbook on Linking Assessment and General Education. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.Google Scholar
  39. Regan, M. C., and Woelk, P. A. (1984, October). University structure as reflected in patterns and persistence of undergraduates' characteristics. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education Conference, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  40. Simon, A., and Ward, L. O. (1974). The performance on the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal of university students classified according to sex, type of course pursued, and personality score category. Educational and Psychological Measurement 34(4): 957–960.Google Scholar
  41. Smart, J. C., and Elton, C. F. (1975). Goal orientations of academic departments: a test of Biglan's model. Journal of Applied Psychology 60(5): 580–588.Google Scholar
  42. Smart, J. C., and Elton, C. F. (1982). Validation of the Biglan model. Research in Higher Education 17(3): 213–229.Google Scholar
  43. Smart, J. C., Feldman, K., and Ethington, C. A. (in press). Academic Disciplines: Holland's Theory and the Study of College Students and Faculty. Nashville, TN: Vander-bilt University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Smart, J. C., and McLaughlin, G. W. (1978). Reward structures of academic disciplines. Research in Higher Education 8(1): 39–55.Google Scholar
  45. Stoecker, J. L. (1993). The Biglan classification revisited. Research in Higher Education 34(4): 451–464.Google Scholar
  46. Vreeland, R. S., and Bidwell, C. E. (1966). Classifying university departments: an approach to the analysis of their effects upon undergraduates' values and attitudes. Sociology of Education 39(3): 237–254.Google Scholar
  47. Weidman, J. (1979). Nonintellective undergraduate socialization in academic departments. Journal of Higher Education 50(1): 48–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gary R. Pike
    • 1
  • Timothy S. Killian
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Missouri–ColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations