Research in Higher Education

, Volume 43, Issue 5, pp 555–575 | Cite as

Being (Dis)Engaged in Educationally Purposeful Activities: The Influences of Student and Institutional Characteristics

  • Shouping HuEmail author
  • George D. Kuh


The self-reported experiences of 50,883 undergraduates at 123 institutions were analyzed using a multinomial hierarchical model to identify individual and institutional characteristics associated with varying levels of student engagement in educationally purposeful activities. Parental education and student academic preparation were positively associated with higher levels of engagement. White students were generally less engaged than students from other racial and ethnic groups whereas men were more likely to be either disengaged or highly engaged compared with women. Students at public institutions and research universities were less engaged than their counterparts at private colleges and other institutional types. Individual student perceptions of certain aspects of the institutional environment affected engagement in complicated ways.

educational disengagement educational engagement college student multinomial hierarchical model 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anaya, G. (1999). College impact on student learning: Comparing the use of self-reported gains, standardized test scores, and college grades. Res. Higher Educ. 40: 499-527.Google Scholar
  2. Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving Educational Excellence Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  3. Astin, A. W. (1993). What Matters in College: Four Critical Years Revisited Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  4. Baird, L. L. (1976). Using Self-Reports to Predict Student Performance College Board, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Barron's Profiles of American Colleges (1996). Barron's Educational Series, Hauppage, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Berger, J. B., and Milem, J. F. (2000). Organizational behavior in higher education and student outcomes. In: Smart, J. C. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. XV), Agathon, New York, pp. 268-338.Google Scholar
  7. Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Stony Brook, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Bradburn, N. M., and Sudman, S. (1988). Polls and Surveys: Understanding What They Tell Us Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  9. Bruffee, K. A. (1993). Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  10. Bryk, A. S., and Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1994). A Classification of Institutions of Higher Education Author, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  12. Chickering, A. W., and Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bull. 39(7): 3-7.Google Scholar
  13. Chickering, A. W., and Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity (Rev. ed.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  14. Colbeck, C. L., Cabrera, A. F., and Terenzini, P. T. (2001). Learning professional confidence: Linking teaching practices, students' self-perception, and gender. Rev. Higher Educ. 24: 173-191.Google Scholar
  15. Converse, J. M., and Presser, S. (1989). Survey Questions: Handcrafting the Standardized Questionnaire Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Education Commission of the States (1995). Making Quality Count in Undergraduate Education Author, Denver.Google Scholar
  17. Ethington, C. A. (1997). A hierarchical linear modeling approach to studying college effects. In: Smart, J. C. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 12), Agathon, New York, pp. 165-194.Google Scholar
  18. Ethington, C. A. (2000). Influences of the normative environment of peer groups on community college students' perceptions of growth and development. Res. Higher Educ. 41: 703-722.Google Scholar
  19. Ewell, P. T., and Jones, D. P. (1996). Indicators of “Good Practice” in Undergraduate Education: A Handbook for Development and Implementation National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  20. Flacks, R., and Thomas, S. (1998, November 27). Among affluent students, a culture of disengagement. Chronicle of Higher Education A48.Google Scholar
  21. Goodsell, A., Maher, M., and Tinto, V. (eds.) (1992). Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.Google Scholar
  22. Hu, S., and Kuh, G. D. (2000, November). A multilevel analysis on student learning in colleges and universities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (ASHE), Sacramento, CA.Google Scholar
  23. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., and Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4, The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  24. Kuh, G. D. (2000). Understanding campus environments. In: Barr, M.J., and Desler, M. (eds.), Handbook on Student Affairs Administration (2nd ed.), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 50-72.Google Scholar
  25. Kuh, G. D. (2001). College students today: Why we can't leave serendipity to chance. In: Altbach, P., Gumport, P., and Johnstone, B. (eds.), In Defense of the American University Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 277-303.Google Scholar
  26. Kuh, G. D., Douglas, K. B., Lund, J. P., and Ramin-Gyurnek, J. (1994). Student learning outside the classroom: Transcending artificial boundaries. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8, The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. Kuh, G., and Hu, S. (2001a). Learning productivity at research universities. J. Higher Educ. 72: 1-28.Google Scholar
  28. Kuh, G., and Hu, S. (2001b). The effects of faculty-student interaction in the 1990s. Rev. Higher Educ. 24: 309-332.Google Scholar
  29. Kuh, G. D., Hu, S., and Vesper, N. (2000). They shall be known by what they do”: An activities-based typology of college students. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 41: 228-244.Google Scholar
  30. Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., and Associates (1991). Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches to Fostering Student Learning and Development Outside the Classroom Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  31. Kuh, G. D., Vesper, N., Connolly, M. R., and Pace, C. R. (1997). College Student Experiences Questionnaire: Revised Norms for the Third Edition. Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  32. Laing, J., Sawyer, R., and Noble, J. (1988). Accuracy of self-reported activities and accomplishments of college-bound seniors. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 29: 362-368.Google Scholar
  33. Lowman, R. L., and Williams, R. E. (1987). Validity of self-ratings of abilities and competencies. J. Vocat. Behav. 31: 1-13.Google Scholar
  34. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. Am. Educ. Res. J. 37: 153-184.Google Scholar
  35. McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y., and Smith, D. (1986). Teaching and Learning in the College Classroom: A Review of the Research Literature National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
  36. Murray, H. G. (1991). Effective teaching behaviors in the college classroom. In: Smart, J. C. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (Vol. 7), Agathon, New York, pp. 135-172.Google Scholar
  37. National Survey of Student Engagement (2000). NSSE 2000: National Benchmarks of Effective Educational Practice Indiana Postsecondary Research and Planning, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  38. Pace, C. R. (1985). The Credibility of Student Self-Reports University of California, The Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  39. Pace, C. R. (1990a). College Student Experiences Questionnaire, Third Edition University of California, The Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  40. Pace, C. R. (1990b). The Undergraduates: A Report of Their Activities and Progress in College in the 1980s. Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  41. Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How College Affects Students Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  42. Peterson, M. W. (1985). Emerging developments in postsecondary theory and research: Fragmentation or integration. Educ. Res. 14: 5-12.Google Scholar
  43. Pfeffer, J. (1997). New Directions for Organizational Theory Oxford University Press. New York.Google Scholar
  44. Pike, G. R. (1989). Background, college experiences, and the ACT-COMP exam: Using construct validity to evaluate assessment instruments. Rev. Higher Educ. 13: 91-117.Google Scholar
  45. Pike, G. R. (1993). The relationship between perceived learning and satisfaction with college: An alternative view. Res. Higher Educ. 34: 23-40.Google Scholar
  46. Pike, G. R. (1995). The relationships between self-reports of college experiences and achievement test scores. Res. Higher Educ. 36: 1-22.Google Scholar
  47. Pike, G. R. (1996). Limitations of using students' self-reports of academic development as proxies for traditional achievement measures. Res. Higher Educ. 37: 89-114.Google Scholar
  48. Pike, G. R. (1999). The constant error of the halo in educational outcomes research. Res. Higher Educ. 40: 61-86.Google Scholar
  49. Pohlman, J. T., and Beggs, D. L. (1974). A study of the validity of self-reported measures of academic growth. J. Educ. Meas. 11: 115-119.Google Scholar
  50. Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y. F., and Congdon, R. (2000). HLM5: Hierarchical Linear and Nonlinear Modeling Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood, IL.Google Scholar
  51. Sorcinelli, M. D. (1991). Research findings on the seven principles. In: Chickering, A.W., and Gamson, Z.F. (eds), Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, New Directions for Teaching and Learning (No. 47), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 13-25.Google Scholar
  52. The Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education (1984). Involvement in Learning: Realizing the Potential of American Higher Education U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  53. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  54. Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. J. Higher Educ. 68: 599-623.Google Scholar
  55. Turner, C. F., and Martin, E. (eds.) (1984). Surveying Subjective Phenomena (Vol. 1), Russell Sage Foundation New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc. 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Administration and SupervisionCollege of Education and Human Services, Seton Hall UniversitySouth Orange
  2. 2.Indiana UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations