Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 25, 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change, 17(4), 35–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, L. L. (1976). Using self-reports to predict student performance. New York: The College Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, S., & Pomerantz, N. (2000). Impact of learning communities on retention at a metropolitan university. Journal of College Student Retention, 2, 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Brower, A. M., Golde, C. M., & Allen, C. (2003). Residential learning communities positively affect college binge drinking. NASPA Journal, 40, 132–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryk, A. A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to survey sampling (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences Series, no. 35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Knight, W. E. (2003). Learning communities and first-year programs: Lessons for planners. Planning for Higher Education, 31(4), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2001a). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17. 66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement. (2004). Student engagement: Pathways to collegiate success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement. (2007). Experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning and success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2, 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). South Melbourne: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pike, G. R. (1995). The relationship between self reports of college experiences and achievement test scores. Research in Higher Education, 36, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 160–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Stassen, M. L. A. (2003). Student outcomes: The impact of varying living-learning community models. Research in Higher Education, 44, 581–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. W. (1932). Service studies in higher education. Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, C., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45, 115–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Management and Institutional Research, Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis, 355 N. Lansing St., AO 127, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Gary R. Pike

  2. Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA

    George D. Kuh & Alexander C. McCormick

Authors
  1. Gary R. Pike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. George D. Kuh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander C. McCormick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary R. Pike.

Appendix

Appendix

Academic Effort (α = 0.66)

  • During the current school year, how often have you … prepared two or more drafts of a paper or assignment before turning it in

  • During the current school year, how often have you …worked harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor’s standards or expectations

  • Mark … the extent to which your examinations during the current school year challenged you to do your best

  • During the current school year … number of assigned textbooks, books, or book-length packs of course readings

  • During the current school year … number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more

  • During the current school year … number of written papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages

  • During the current school year … number of written papers or reports of fewer than 5 pages

  • In a typical week … number of problem sets that take you more than an hour to complete

  • In a typical week … number of problem sets that take you less than an hour to complete

  • Hours in a 7-day week spent … preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, doing homework or lab work, analyzing data, rehearsing, and other academic activities)

  • To what extent does your institution emphasize … spending significant amounts of time studying and on academic work.

Integrative and Higher-Order Thinking (α = 0.80)

  • During the current school year, how often have you … worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or information from various sources

  • During the current school year, how often have you … put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing assignments or during class discussions

  • How much has your coursework emphasized … analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory, such as examining a particular case or situation in depth and considering its components

  • How much has your coursework emphasized … synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships

  • How much has your coursework emphasized … making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods, such as examining how others gathered and interpreted data and assessing the soundness of their conclusions

  • How much has your coursework emphasized … applying theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations.

Diversity Experiences (α = 0.67)

  • During the current school year, how often have you … included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political beliefs, etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments

  • During the current school year, how often have you … had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than you

  • During the current school year, how often have you … had serious conversations with students who are very different from you in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values

  • To what extent does your institution emphasize … encouraging contact among students from different economic, social, and racial or ethnic backgrounds.

Active and Collaborative Learning (α = 0.65)

  • During the current school year, how often have you … asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions

  • During the current school year, how often have you … made a class presentation

  • During the current school year, how often have you … worked with other students on projects during class

  • During the current school year, how often have you … worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments

  • During the current school year, how often have you … tutored or taught other students (paid or voluntary)

  • During the current school year, how often have you … participated in a community-based project (e.g., service learning) as part of a regular course

  • During the current school year, how often have you … discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of class (students, family members, co-workers, etc.).

Student–Faculty Interaction (α = 0.78)

  • During the current school year, how often have you … used email to communicate with an instructor

  • During the current school year, how often have you … discussed grades or assignments with an instructor

  • During the current school year, how often have you … talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor

  • During the current school year, how often have you … discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class

  • During the current school year, how often have you … received prompt feedback from faculty on your academic performance (written or oral)

  • During the current school year, how often have you … worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student life activities, etc.).

Supportive Campus Environment (α = 0.78)

  • Quality of your relationships with … other students

  • Quality of your relationships with … faculty members

  • Quality of your relationships with … administrative personnel and offices

  • To what extent does you institution emphasize … providing the support you need to help you succeed academically

  • To what extent does you institution emphasize … helping you cope with your nonacademic responsibilities (work, family, etc.)

  • To what extent does you institution emphasize … providing the support you need to thrive socially.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pike, G.R., Kuh, G.D. & McCormick, A.C. An Investigation of the Contingent Relationships Between Learning Community Participation and Student Engagement. Res High Educ 52, 300–322 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9192-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9192-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation