Are students learning what they need to know and do to survive and thrive in the 21st century? Are they participating in the kinds of activities that will help them acquire these abilities, skills, and dispositions? These questions get right to the heart of a college or university’s educational mission. And in today’s climate of escalating accountability, they are among the many that a board must be asking to determine whether its institution is delivering on its promises to key constituencies.
This article focuses on the second question—the core teaching and learning activities associated with such valued outcomes of college as critical thinking, problem solving, and communications skills, among others. The commonly used term today for this concept is “student engagement.”
Why Student Engagement Matters
Decades of research studies on collegestudent learning and development point to an unequivocal conclusion: The more time and energy students devote to educationally purposeful activities—studying, interacting with faculty members and peers about substantive matters, practicing and applying what they are learning—the more they typically benefit in terms of a wide range of desired outcomes of college. Those include subjectmatter knowledge, analytical reasoning, effective writing and speaking, and so on. The observation that effort is key to strong performance holds for every field of endeavor and setting and explains why student engagement is integral to student learning.
Student engagement represents two interdependent components. The first is what students do—the time and energy they expend on worthwhile activities. The second component is what the institution does to induce or require students to do the things that matter to their learning—how it organizes the curriculum, other learning opportunities, and support services, and how it uses other resources. What an institution does to foster student engagement can be thought of as “value added” in terms of its performance.
The most efficient, cost-effective way to measure student engagement is to use a valid, reliable questionnaire that asks students how often they participate in activities linked to learning. Two tools are the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) administered by Indiana University and used by more than 1,400 four-year institutions in North America since 2000, and the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE), based at the University of Texas at Austin and used by about 800 two-year instituinstitutions. Both projects offer companion tools to assess what beginning college students expect to do and their engagement patterns in the first few of college.
What Governing Boards Need to Know About Student Engagement
To maximize the usefulness of studentengagement information, governing boards should be familiar with five of its features:
Engagement matters for all students. Engagement is an equal-opportunity provider. It levels the playing field in that all students generally benefit in positive ways from devoting time and energy to educationally purposeful activities. That includes younger and older students, those from different racial and ethnic backgrounds, those first in their families to attend college, those who are less-wellprepared for college, and international students.
For example, with some exceptions, international students generally are more engaged in educationally purposeful activities than their American counterparts, especially in the first year of college. They also report gaining more in areas that represent desired outcomes of college. And contrary to what many think, distance learners—defined as those who take all their courses online in a given academic year—typically are as engaged or more engaged than their campus-based counterparts.
Working students also benefit from engagement, especially those who do so for 20 hours per week or less. Indeed, employment can provide opportunities for students to practice and become more competent in collaboration and teamwork—skills needed to function effectively in the 21st-century work environment. A major caveat is that heavy work commitments (more than 25 hours per week whether on or off campus) make it difficult, if not impossible, to take part in some of the most powerful, learning-rich, high-impact activities.
Engagement helps boost the performance of students who most need it. The effects on first-year grades and student persistence to a degree are even greater for students of color and those who are academically less well prepared than for other students. This “compensatory effect,” as researchers call it, suggests that institutions should require or otherwise seek ways to involve first-year students in activities that can get them off to a positive start, academically and socially. My book, Student Success in College (Jossey-Bass, 2005), features examples of programs and practices from 20 high-performing institutions.
One such exemplar is the University of Texas at El Paso’s Entering Student Program that integrates enrollment, orientation, advising, and tutoring along with its signature intervention, UNIV 1301, a first-year seminar taught by a faculty member, peer leader, and librarian that features active learning and group projects. This campuswide approach was modeled after UTEP’s demonstrably effective project, supported by the National Science Foundation, to increase the number of Hispanic students completing degrees in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology.
Participating in high-impact activities has unusually positive effects. The Association of American Colleges and Universities has urged institutions to increase their use of “high-impact practices” that for various reasons induce students to put forth more effort than they might otherwise. Such activities include first-year seminars, learning communities, writing-intensive courses, common intellectual experiences, service learning, diversity experiences, student-faculty research, study abroad, internships and other field placements, and culminating experiences at the end of a program of study in which students have to demonstrate what they have learned. Participating in such practices also enriches and deepens learning, and it is especially effective for students who start college with two or more “risk” factors, such as being academically underprepared, first in their family to go on to postsecondary education, or from low-income backgrounds.
For example, students with a learningcommunity experience, defined as “some formal program where groups of students take two or more classes together,” tend to interact more frequently with faculty members and diverse peers in substantive ways and study more hours per week; they also report gaining more from their college experience. Similar effects accrue when students study abroad, work with a faculty member on research, or do an internship. In addition, high-impact activities often put students in real-life situations where they have to apply and practice what they are learning. They also tend to get immediate feedback about their performance, which is essential to learning how to learn after college.
Student engagement findings typically are actionable. Institutions collect different kinds of information from and about students for a variety of purposes. Much of this information describes the educational backgrounds, values, and interests of those who apply and matriculate. Most institutions cannot do much about the nature of the students who enroll. But they can take action to make a difference in the quality of the collegiate experience once they arrive. And this is why student engagement results are so useful: They both inform and point to areas of student and institutional performance where changes in policies and practices have the potential to improve the experience.
For example, at University of Nevada Las Vegas, NSSE results coupled with other information pointed to a need to improve academic advising. Among other things, the institution hired more academic advisors and required first-year and transfer students to see an advisor before registering. Subsequently, UNLV’s scores on the NSSE’s Supportive Campus Environment scale went up.
The University of Colorado at Boulder did a number of things to enhance its firstyear writing program. Between 2000 and 2009, results improved on items related to student writing, showing they compared favorably to students at peer institutions.
To counter student overreliance on memorization as the preferred learning mode, Patrick Henry Community College put in place a comprehensive facultydevelopment program to increase active and collaborative learning. In courses using cooperative-learning strategies, the first-year persistence rate of students was 10 to 15 percent higher than for students who enrolled in other courses. At the same time, students reported that their courses were more academically challenging.
Engagement measures are commonly used as a metric for institutional effectiveness. Colleges and universities are increasingly expected to provide information to the public about student and institutional performance. Because student- engagement results point to actions an institution can take to improve collegiate quality, engagement data are often referenced in accreditation self-studies, program reviews, and strategic planning to indicate the institution is taking seriously its responsibility for monitoring the quality of the student experience and targeting efforts to areas where improvement is needed to enhance learning, persistence, and graduation rates. For those reasons, many institutions have included engagement results on the internal dashboard indicators that their governing board reviews annually to monitor institutional performance. According to James C. Votruba, president of Northern Kentucky University, his institution includes measures of student engagement in the university’s executive dashboard and “treats those measures as core indicators of institutional progress and performance.”
Recommendations for Board Members
To encourage their institution to value and use student-engagement data productively, governing boards can take four key steps:
Include some form of valid, reliable student-engagement data on the institution’s performance dashboard. Typically, an institution’s student-engagement results do not change much from year to year, short of a comprehensive curricular change, such as requiring all first-year students to be in a learning community or complete a service-learning course. Even so, the full board should at least see summaries of the results annually along with the other institutional performance measures it routinely reviews.
Board committees responsible for academic affairs, student learning, and campus life should more frequently examine this information, especially if past results suggest areas where performance falls below what the campus considers to be an acceptable level and new results are available. Committee chairs and institutional staff members can determine if and when full board consideration and discussion is warranted. The displays should include year-to-year comparisons when multiple years of data are available as well as comparison information with peer institutions. Depending on the circumstances, multiple comparison groups may be instructive, such as results from an aspirational peer group of schools. Such information makes it possible to estimate where attention is needed by faculty members, administrators, and students to attain a higher level of accomplishment.
At least every third year or so, devote a full board session for reviewing both average institutional student-engagement results as well as disaggregated results. For purposes of year-to-year and peer-group comparisons, considering the institution’s average scores on engagement measures will likely be sufficient. But looking only at averages can cloud over what may be worrisome underengagement or other undesirable patterns on the part of certain groups, such as women in science, student athletes, commuter students, and so on. For that reason, it is also important for the relevant board committees to periodically review the findings disaggregated by student characteristics where the engagement literature suggest differences may exist. The institutional research or assessment office can drill down into the institutional data and make those analyses to provide a more complete picture of the student experience and where more institutional effort may be needed. That would go a long way toward designing interventions for those students who most need it.
Request periodic reports on the number and nature of students participating in high-impact practices. Another informative way of looking at student-engagement data is to look at the number and characteristics of students who take part in high-impact activities. For various reasons, certain types of students are typically underrepresented in such activities, so it is important that the data also be broken out by different student subgroups to be sure the institution is making those powerful activities available to all students.
Keep in mind, too, that some students do other things during college that probably confer similar benefits as high impact practices—writing for the student newspaper, working in an office on campus, participating in an honors program, leading a student organization or campus committee, and playing intercollegiate athletics, to name a few. But those opportunities too often are limited to small numbers of students, especially at large universities. Thus, it makes sense to have a focused conversation every few years about who participates in such activities and the benefits that accrue to those involved.
To make these discussions even more meaningful and revealing, boards could occasionally invite faculty members who are using innovative teaching and learning approaches to describe how they are making the student experience more engaging. Having students present could also add richness and depth to the conversation, providing uplifting and affirming testimonies that brighten even the most routine board meeting.
Consider supporting additional opportunities for students to participate in high-impact and other educationally effective practices. Faculty and staff members are responsible for revising the curriculum and establishing policies that shape students’ experiences inside and outside class. However, board members can make it possible for more students to reap the rewards and benefits of engagement activities. For example, they could help support one or more highimpact practices, like scholarships for students who study abroad or funds for student research. Board members also can offer high-quality, challenging internships and encourage their friends to do so, as well.
A Final Word
Student engagement is now part of the higher education lexicon. Students from low-income family backgrounds and others who are academically underprepared get a boost in performance when they are highly engaged. Moreover, engagement increases the odds that any student—educational and social background notwithstanding—will attain his or her educational and personal objectives, acquire the skills and competencies demanded by the challenges of the 21st century, and enjoy the intellectual and economic advantages that come with earning a degree. Finally, allocating time to reviewing engagement data, and the student and institutional behaviors associated with them, sends a strong message to the senior leadership and others on campus that enhancing the quality of the student experience is a continuing board priority.
For all these reasons, it’s imperative that boards become familiar with and pay attention to student engagement as a key indicator of educational quality.
How Student Engagement Transformed Widener University
By James T. Harris III, president of Widener University and co-chair of the board of Campus Compact
As it searched for a new president in 2002, the Widener University board of trustees knew the university faced some significant challenges. Widener had grown over the years into a multicampus institution with an amalgam of fine academic programs, but it lacked a clear sense of purpose. Most concerning was a decade-long decline in its student headcount. As a tuition-dependent institution, Widener had to stabilize its enrollment.
The board also recognized that the university’s main campus was located in one of the most distressed cities in the country, Chester, Penn., and that location was viewed by many, including potential students and their families, as a strong deterrent to enrolling. With limited resources, a modest endowment, and no real academic niche, the board knew the university would struggle in the future if it didn’t chart a new direction.
After I was hired as the new president, the board committed itself to a two-year process of working with me to assess the university’s position and plan its future. That process would lead to a 10-year strategic plan that clearly articulated Widener’s mission and vision, as well as added vital elements of assessment and accountability.
While all of these outcomes might sound familiar and are considered good board practices, what has been different at Widener has been the board’s full commitment to civic engagement in every aspect of the university. It has been that commitment that has helped stabilize enrollments, improved student learning and other institutional outcomes, and transformed the university into one of the nation’s most civically engaged institutions. Recent results from the National Survey on Student Engagement show that Widener students are much more likely to be engaged in community-based learning than their peers nationally.
Why did we take this approach? During a time of institutional cutbacks, reduced government spending on higher education, and increased accountability, it is easy to understand why some educational leaders do not spend their time on civic-engagement activities. However, a recent report—published by Campus Compact, a national coalition of more than 1,100 college and university presidents committed to fulfilling the civic purposes of higher education—documented a clear connection between civic engagement and student academic success, as well as increased student access. For example, college students engaged in intensive service-learning experiences scored higher on five key learning outcomes than their peers. Several other studies included in the report, “A Promising Connection: Increasing College Access and Success through Civic Engagement,” found a linkage between participating in a service-learning course and an increased likelihood that students from traditionally underserved populations would persist and graduate. Furthermore, postsecondary level civic-engagement activities that targeted at-risk high-school students through mentoring and tutoring programs improved the likelihood of those students going on to college.
The first big step the Widener board took in engaging the university much more in its community was to sponsor a visioning conference to chart a new mission that included faculty members, alumni, students, administrators, and local representatives. The final product clearly stated Widener’s commitment to its metropolitan region and emphasized that the college would create “a learning environment where curricula are connected to societal issues through civic engagement.” This, coupled with a requirement by the board that all strategic initiatives and budgeting priorities be tied to the mission, encouraged faculty members and administrators to rethink Widener’s curricular offerings, its expectations of students, and its dedication to Chester.
With the lowest-performing public school district in the state as well as high levels of unemployment and poverty, Chester did not at first appear to be an ideal environment for student learning. However, by encouraging the creation of community partnerships through experiential learning, the university supported faculty in the development of new courses and learning opportunities tied directly to the local community.
The results? The commitment of Widener’s board to civic engagement has transformed the university. Student enrollment has grown through greater interest in Widener’s commitment to civic engagement, employees report a renewed dedication to the mission, and most important, student learning as measured on a number of key factors has improved.
With over 75 service- learning courses, as well as multiple student research projects based in Chester across a myriad of academic programs, students report that their coursework is much more likely to help them apply concepts to practical problems than their peers report nationally.
Other boards may wish to consider whether a greater commitment to student engagement could be a strategy for achieving institutional goals and objectives. Those that fail to understand the connection between civic engagement and student achievement may be missing a key method of ensuring both student and institutional success.
For more on this topic, listen to the podcast with George D. Kuh.
Share on LinkedIn
