What Student Affairs Professionals Need To Know About Student Engagement
What Student Affairs Professionals Need To Know About Student Engagement
What Student Affairs Professionals Need To Know About Student Engagement
Engagement
George D. Kuh
Access Provided by George Mason University & (Viva) at 08/03/10 1:19PM GMT
What Student Affairs Professionals Need to
Know About Student Engagement
George D. Kuh
In a 1992 Calvin and Hobbs cartoon (Watterson), the relationships between student engagement
6-year-old Calvin asks his teacher whether he is and selected activities including participation
being adequately prepared for the challenges of in high-impact practices, employment, and
the 21st century. He wants to know if he will some other experiences of relevant a relevance
have the skills and competencies that will allow to the current generation of undergraduates.
him to succeed in a tough, global economy. In Next, I discuss some topics that warrant
response, the teacher suggests he start working additional investigation to better understand
harder because what he will get out of school how to further potential and utility of student
depends on how much effort he puts into it. engagement research and institutional policies
Calvin ponders this advice for a moment and and practices that the findings suggest. I close
says, “Then forget it.” with some observations about the implications
The exchange between Calvin and his of student engagement research for student
teacher gets right to the point about what affairs professionals and others on campus
matters to student learning and personal committed to improving the quality of
development. Indeed, one of the few unequi undergraduate education.
vocal conclusions from How College Affects
Students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) is Meaning, Evolution, and
that the amount of time and energy stu Importance of Student
dents put forth—student engagement—is Engagement
positively linked with the desired outcomes
of undergraduate education. Unfortunately, Student engagement represents the time and
Calvin’s response is all too common, if not effort students devote to activities that are
according to what students say, then by what empirically linked to desired outcomes of college
they do or do not do. and what institutions do to induce students to
In this paper, I summarize the role and participate in these activities (Kuh, 2001, 2003,
contributions of the scholarship and institu 2009). The meaning and applications of this
tional research about student engagement definition of student engagement have evolved
and its relevance for student development over time to represent increasingly complex
professionals and others committed to enhanc understandings of the relationships between
ing the quality of the undergraduate experience. desired outcomes of college and the amount
The presentation is organized into four major of time and effort students invest in their
sections. First, I briefly describe the evolution studies and other educationally purposeful
of the student engagement concept and explain activities (Kuh, 2009; Wolf-Wendel, Ward, &
its importance to student development. Then, I Kinzie, 2009). For example, building on Tyler’s
summarize findings from research studies about “time on task” concept (Merwin, 1969), Pace
George Kuh is Chancellor’s Professor and Director of the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.
(1980, 1984) developed the College Student Since then, numerous scholars have
Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) to measure contributed scores of papers addressing
“quality of effort” to identify the activities different features of student engagement
that contributed to various dimensions of variously defined (e.g., time on task, quality
student learning and personal development. of effort, involvement) and their relationship
His research across three decades (1960 to to various desired outcomes of college (e.g.,
1990) showed that students gained more Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000; Pascarella,
from their studies and other aspects of the 1985; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Pike,
college experience when they devoted more 2006a, 2006b; Tinto, 1987, 1993). These
time and energy to certain tasks that required outcomes include cognitive development
more effort than others—studying, interacting (Astin, 1993; Kuh, 1993, 1995; Pascarella,
with their peers and teachers about substantive Seifert & Blaich, 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini,
matters, applying their learning to concrete 2005); psychosocial development, self-esteem,
situations and tasks in different contexts, and and locus of control (Bandura, Peluso, Ortman,
so forth (Pace, 1984, 1990). & Millard, 2000; Chickering & Reisser, 1993);
Astin (1984) further fleshed out and moral and ethical development (Jones & Watt,
popularized the quality of effort concept with 1999; Liddell & Davis, 1996); and persistence
his “theory of involvement,” which highlighted (Berger & Milem, 1999).
the psychological and behavioral dimensions of In addition, virtually every reform report
time on task and quality of effort. His landmark since Involvement in Learning emphasized to
longitudinal studies about the impact of college varying degrees the important link between
on students empirically demonstrated the links student engagement and desired outcomes of
between involvement and a range of attitudinal college (e.g., Association of American Colleges
and developmental outcomes (Astin, 1977, and Universities [AAC&U], 2002, 2005,
1993). Astin was a major contributor to the 2007; American College Personnel Association,
widely cited Involvement in Learning report 1994; Education Commission of the States,
(National Institute of Education, 1984) which 1995; Joint Task Force on Student Learning,
underscored the importance of involvement to 1998; Keeling, 2004; National Association of
student achievement and such other valued State Universities and Land Grant Colleges,
outcomes as persistence and educational 1997; National Commission on the Future of
attainment (Astin, 1999). Higher Education, 2006; Wingspread Group
In that same decade, after an invitational on Higher Education, 1993).
conference of scholars and educators held at the Some have understandably and correctly
Wingspread Conference Center in Wisconsin, sounded cautionary notes about whether the
Chickering and Gamson (1987) distilled the assumptions on which the engagement construct
discussions about the features of high-quality rest apply more to full-time, traditional-age, and
teaching and learning settings into seven residential students, and less to students from
good practices in undergraduate education: historically underserved groups (Bensimon,
(a) student–faculty contact, (b) active learning, 2007; Harper & Quaye, 2008). The bulk of
(c) prompt feedback, (d) time on task, (e) high the empirical research suggests that students
expectations, (f ) respect for diverse learning from different backgrounds all generally benefit
styles, and (g) cooperation among students. from engaging in effective educational practices,
Each of these represents a different dimension although conditional effects apply, meaning that
of engagement. some students benefit more than others from
certain activities (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). the same time, building frustration with the
As explained in more detail later, some research amount of attention given to rankings based on
shows that engagement has compensatory institutional resources compelled scholars and
effects on grades and persistence for students educational leaders to find a more promising,
who most need a boost to performance because responsible ways to measure quality that could
they are not adequately prepared academically also be used to improve teaching and learning.
when they start college (Cruce, Wolniak, The argument was that credible, actionable
Seifert, & Pascarella, 2006; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, information about how students spent their
Kinzie, & Gonyea, 2008; National Survey of time and what institutions emphasized in
Student Engagement [NSSE], 2007; Pascarella terms of student performance could tell an
& Terenzini, 2005). accurate, comprehensive story of students’
In the 1990s, a second feature of student educational experiences and be a powerful
engagement began to receive more attention— lever for institutional improvement (Ewell &
how the institution allocates its resources Jones, 1996; Gonyea & Kuh, 2009).
and arranges its curricula, other learning As the calls for accountability became more
opportunities, and support services to encourage frequent and occasionally strident (National
students to participate in activities positively Commission on the Future of Higher Education,
associated with persistence, satisfaction, 2006), some leaders championed systematic
learning, and graduation (Kuh, 2001; Kuh, approaches to demonstrate that institutions
Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 1991; Kuh, were taking seriously their responsibility for
Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005). student learning. They include:
What the institution does to foster student • the Voluntary System of Accountability
engagement can be thought of as a margin of sponsored by the Association of Public
educational quality—sometimes called value and Land-Grant Universities and Ameri
added—and something a college or university can Association of State Colleges and
can directly influence to some degree (Kuh, Universities and its College Portrait
2009). Using student engagement as an which features data on learning outcomes
indicator of quality was prompted by questions (McPherson & Shulenburger, 2006);
about whether colleges and universities were
• the Council of Independent Colleges,
using their resources effectively to foster
which encourages its member institutions
student learning in general and to enhance
to use standardized and locally developed
success of students from increasingly diverse
instruments to document student learning;
backgrounds (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges,
and
& Hayek, 2007).
Other related factors also compelled • the National Association of Independent
institutions to pay attention to student College and Universities’ U-CAN Web
engagement. By the end of the 1990s, regional site, where colleges and universities
accrediting agencies and their counterparts can present selected information about
in the disciplines required that institutions costs, the student experience, and other
show evidence that they were assessing information.
student outcomes and aspects of the campus All of these efforts encourage or require that
environment associated with these outcomes student engagement data be incorporated in
and were using this information to improve some meaningful way.
student learning and success (Ewell, 2008). At Taken together, the combination of
decades of empirical findings documenting experience in the first decade of the twenty-first
the importance of student engagement such century (e.g., Astin & Sax, 1998; Carini, Kuh,
as the seven good practices in undergraduate & Klein, 2006; Community College Survey
education and the press on institutions to be of Student Engagement, 2006, 2007, 2008;
more accountable for student learning and Gellin, 2003; Greene, Marti, & McClenney,
its improvement led to the development of 2008; Hurtado, Dey, Gurin, & Gurin, 2003;
the widely used the NSSE in 1999 (Kuh, Hu & Kuh, 2003; Kinzie, Thomas, Palmer,
2009). Building on the acceptance and Umbach, & Kuh, 2007; Klein, Kuh, Chun,
widespread use of NSSE in the United States Shavelson, & Benjamin, 2005; Kuh 2001,
and Canada, other instruments based on the 2003, 2008; Kuh & Pascarella, 2004; NSSE,
engagement premise were developed for use 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
by two-year colleges (Community College 2007, 2008; Nelson Laird, & Kuh, 2005;
Survey of Student Engagement), law schools Nelson Laird, Shoup, Kuh, & Schwarz, 2008;
(Law School Survey of Student Engagement), Outcalt & Skewes-Cox, 2002; Pascarella et
faculty (Community College Faculty Survey al., 2006; Pike, 2003, 2006a, 2006b; Pike
of Student Engagement, Faculty Survey of & Kuh, 2005, 2006; Pike, Kuh, & Gonyea,
Student Engagement), and beginning college 2003, 2007; Pike, Smart, Kuh, & Hayek,
students (Beginning College Survey of Student 2006; Umbach & Kuh, 2006; Zhao, Carini,
Engagement for four-year schools, Survey of & Kuh, 2005; Zhao & Kuh, 2004; Zhao, Kuh,
Entering Student Engagement for Community & Carini, 2005).
Colleges). The High School Survey of Student This work helped to firmly root student
Engagement collects data about the extent engagement into the higher education lexi
to which high school students engage in a con and to feature the construct in policy
range of productive learning activities. Other discussions, the scholarly and institutional
instruments also gather information related research literatures, and the popular media in
to some aspects of student engagement. In the United States. In addition, questionnaires
addition to the CSEQ and its partner tool for based on NSSE are being used in Australia,
students starting college, the College Student New Zealand, and South Africa (Coates, 2008;
Expectations Questionnaire (CSXQ), the Strydom, Mentz, & Kuh, in press). Other
best known are the Cooperative Institutional countries such as China, Macedonia, and
Research Program’s Entering Student Survey Spain also have experimented with instruments
and its follow-up version, the College Senior adapted from NSSE, making the engagement
Survey (Astin, 1993). By design, the NSSE, phenomenon worldwide.
Community College Survey of Student
Engagement (CCSSE), and their counterparts Selected Research Findings
have demonstrated that student engagement
can be reliably measured across large numbers This section addresses to two key questions
of institutions and that the results from these about student engagement:
instruments can be used by faculty and staff 1. What is the evidence that the commonly
to improve the undergraduate experience. used engagement measures are valid and
Scores of articles, chapters, books, and reliable? and
reports have generated a treasure trove of
insights into how and why engagement is 2. Who benefits from engagement and
important to a high quality undergraduate why?
Consistent with the pattern of findings time, the greatest effects of college experiences
reported by Pascarella et al., (2009), Pike, are conditional, meaning that some students
Kuh, McCormick, & Ethington (2007) found benefit more than others from certain activities
that all five NSSE engagement clusters of (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
effective educational practice were significantly For example, Hu and Kuh’s (2002) study
and positively related with students’ self- of student engagement at baccalaureate-
reported cognitive and noncognitive gains granting institutions and Greene, Marti, and
in learning and development. As the authors McClenney’s (2008) research into student
explained, this finding is somewhat surprising; engagement in two-year colleges found an
when regressing an outcome measure on a effort–outcome gap for African-American
set of moderately intercorrelated variables, students. That is, African-American students
as with engagement measures, suppressor report spending more time studying than
effects frequently reverse the directions of the their White counterparts, but earn lower
observed relationships (Ethington, Thomas, grades. At the same time, there is evidence that
& Pike, 2002). This did not happen, however, engagement has compensatory effects. That
which suggests that the various engagement is, although exposure to effective educational
measures make unique, positive contributions practices generally benefits all students, the
to student learning and development. effects on first-year grades and persistence
Three independent studies have validated are even greater for lower ability students
the CCSSE’s use of student engagement as and students of color compared with White
a proxy for student academic achievement students (Kuh et al., 2008). The compensatory
and persistence. Across all three inquiries, effect of engagement has been noted by others
CCSSE benchmarks consistently exhibited (Cruce et al., 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini,
positive links with key outcome measures 2005), suggesting that institutions should
such as persistence and academic achievement seek ways to channel student energy toward
(McClenney, Marti, & Adkins, 2006). educationally effective activities, especially
for those who start college with two or more
Who Benefits From Engagement “risk” factors, such as being academically
and Why underprepared, first in the family to go to
One implication of these studies is that the college, or from low-income backgrounds.
greatest impact on learning and personal Unfortunately, students from these groups
development during college seems to be a are less likely to participate in high-impact
function of institutional policies and practices activities during college (Kuh, 2008a), the next
that induce higher levels of engagement topic to be discussed.
across various kinds of in-class and out-of- High-Impact Activities. The AAC&U’s
class educationally purposeful activities (Kuh LEAP project (2007) calls for more consistent,
et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). widespread use of effective educational
In addition, the effects of engagement are practices, featuring ten potentially “high-
generally in the same positive direction for all impact practices” that make a claim on student
students, including those from different racial time and energy in ways that channel student
and ethnic backgrounds, those first in their effort toward productive activities and deepen
families to attend college, and those who are learning. They include first-year seminars,
less well prepared for college (Greene et al., learning communities, writing-intensive
2008; Kuh, 2003; Pace 1990). At the same courses, common intellectual experiences,
service learning, diversity experiences, student– other factors such as gender, major, and year
faculty research, study abroad, internships and in school, students in learning communities
other field placements, and senior capstone report higher levels of academic challenge and
experiences. For example, Zhao and Kuh contact with faculty when instructors create
(2004) found that students with a learning assignments that require students integrate
community experience, defined as “some formal across the multiple courses associated with
program where groups of students take two or the learning community (NSSE, 2007). In
more classes together,” were substantially more addition, whereas first-year participants in a
engaged in all the other educationally effective learning community who were required to live
activities represented by NSSE benchmarks on campus together reported more positive
compared with their counterparts who had not views of the quality of social life and more
participated in such a program. In other words, contact with faculty, they did not engage more
learning community students interacted more often in other ways nor did they report greater
with faculty and diverse peers, studied more, gains on NSSE outcomes. Furthermore, Pike
and engaged more frequently in higher order et al. (2008) found that learning-community
mental activities such as synthesizing material participation was not directly related to gains in
and analyzing problems. They also reported learning and development; rather, participating
gaining more from their college experience. in a learning community was related to levels of
Moreover, the differences favoring learning student engagement that were, in turn, related
community students persisted through the to gains in learning and development. Also,
senior year, suggesting that this experience— learning communities seem to be less positively
which most students have in their first college related with student engagement at larger and
year—continued to positively affect what more selective institutions, but more positively
students throughout their college years. related with student engagement at institutions
Probing more deeply into the nature of with a strong arts and science emphasis. Thus,
high impact activities and the characteristics “a simple inoculation model in which learning
of students who do them, Kuh (2008a) found community membership has a direct, linear
that they seem to have very strong direct effects effect on student learning does not adequately
on engagement, including a NSSE scale of explain the complex interactions of learning
deep leaning (see Nelson Laird et al., 2008). community design, student characteristics,
This is consistent with what Pike, Kuh, and and institutional settings” (Pike et al., 2008,
McCormick (2008) found with regard to the p. 30).
learning community experience. Rather than Similarly, Gonyea (2008) found that
having direct effects on student learning, studying abroad not only had a positive impact
participating in a learning community seems to on various dimensions of student development
boost student engagement which, in turn, leads as frequently asserted (Lewin, 2009), but also
to a host of positive educational outcomes. was related to increased levels of engagement
Similarly, the relationships among learning after the experience in the senior year. These
community participation, student engagement, positive findings are especially noteworthy
and learning outcomes seem to vary according because, in addition to controlling for student
to characteristics of the institution and how and institutional characteristics, the analysis
the learning community is structured (NSSE, also controlled for such self-selection effects as
2007). For example, after controlling for predispositions to engage and to report greater
where students live (on or off campus) and gains after the first year of college. In other
words, although students who studied abroad support it, all of which increases the likelihood
had higher grades, better educated parents, that the activities will be available to large
and devoted more effort to educationally numbers of students and that the campus
purposeful activities in the first year of college culture encourages student participation in
compared with their counterparts who did not the activities. This view is consistent with
study abroad, study abroad participants were the concept of institutional commitment
even more engaged after returning from their student welfare posited by Braxton, Hirschy,
time away from the campus. and McClendon (2004). Although similar
What faculty think and value makes a information is not, to my knowledge, available
difference with regard to the likelihood that for the views of student affairs professionals, it
students will participate in educationally stands to reason that what they value can also
effective practices (Kuh, Chen, & Nelson have an indirect, positive effect on student
Laird, 2007; Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005), participation in high-impact activities.
including high-impact practices (Kuh, 2008a). Women in Science, Mathematics, Engineering
That is, the greater the number of faculty and Technology (SMET). Disproportionately low
members at a given school who say it is impor numbers of women persist in SMET majors.
tant that students at their institution do a parti Contrary to what might be expected, Zhao et al.
cular activity before they graduate (such as study (2005) found that females in the various SMET
abroad, participate in a learning community, majors were as or more engaged in effective
or have a capstone seminar), the greater the educational practices as their male counterparts.
number of students who actually participate Particularly noteworthy is that female SMET
in the activity (Kuh, 2008a). For example, on majors were at least as or more satisfied with
a campus where the average faculty member their collegiate experience and they also viewed
believes participating in a learning community their campus environment more favorably than
is just somewhat important, only three percent did their male counterparts. In stark contrast
of first-year students become involved in this with the commonly held notion that SMET
activity. In contrast, at institutions where the fields are often inhospitable to women, these
typical faculty member agrees that learning findings are consistent with other research
communities are very important, fifty-five suggesting that women tend to thrive in college
percent of first-year students participate. This when they survive initial entry into technical
also holds for student participation and the fields (Huang, Taddese, & Walter, 2000; Spade
importance faculty place on culminating senior & Reese, 1991). In other words, even if the
experiences, research with a faculty member, climate for women SMET majors remains
and study abroad. For each activity, an increase “chilly,” many women today seem to be able
of one category in the average importance to persist and succeed by putting forth more
faculty place on the activity—from somewhat academic effort. However, even though women
important to important or important to very in SMET majors spent more time reading and
important—corresponds to about a twenty studying and less time relaxing and socializing,
percent increase in student participation. they reported lower gains in quantitative,
Apparently, when large numbers of faculty and analytical, and work-related skills (Zhao et al.,
staff at an institution agree on the merit of an 2005). Perhaps women majoring in traditionally
activity, members of the campus community male-dominated fields underestimate their
are more likely to devote their own time and collegiate educational accomplishments to a
energy to it as well as provide resources to greater extent than do men (Beyer, 1999, 2002;
Beyer & Bowden, 1997). If so, the Zhao et al. As Bridges et al. explained, student–faculty
findings may understate the higher levels of interaction and supportive campus climate
engagement of women in SMET fields. In any appear to be critical to the cultivating the
case, why women majors in SMET fields must third distinguishing feature—the web of
expend more effort to realize the same benefits policies and practices that induce students to
as men is worrisome and warrants additional take part in various demonstrably effective
investigation. educational activities; indeed, some MSIs such
Engagement at Minority-Serving Institutions as Fayetteville State University and Winston-
(MSI). Attending an MSI seems to have salu Salem State University require students to
tary effects in terms of engagement (Bridges, do so. These programs and practices are not
Kinzie, Nelson Laird, & Kuh, 2008). The independent of, but exist and are effective
insights from the MSIs and other schools because they bring faculty and students into
in the Documenting Effective Educational more frequent, meaningful contact, particularly
Practices (DEEP) project (Kuh et al., 2005), around structured curricular components such
a study of twenty four-year colleges with as small freshman seminars linked to academic
higher than predicted graduation rates and departments or to advising. All this suggests
NSSE scores, are especially instructive for that MSIs are especially effective when they
understanding what these institutions do and cultivate a culture of affirmation, aspiration,
how they foster student success. Integrating and achievement buttressed by widespread use
NSSE results with DEEP data produced three of effective educational practices.
patterns of findings that distinguished MSIs Engagement at a Distance. Chen, Gonyea,
from other institutions: high levels of student– and Kuh (2008) found that distance learners—
faculty interaction, perceptions that the defined as those who took all their courses
campus environment is supportive of students’ on-line in a given academic year—generally
academic and social needs, and a network scored higher on the student engagement and
of intrusive educationally effective policies outcomes measures than their campus-based
and practices (Bridges et al., 2008). Students counterparts (see also NSSE [2008]). For
interacted more frequently with faculty example, distance learners reported higher levels
and staff at HBCUs and also at Hispanic of academic challenge and reflective thinking—a
Serving Institutions, especially after student component of deep learning as defined by
background characteristics were controlled Nelson Laird et al. (2008). They also reported
for the latter. This finding lends credence to that they gained more in practical competence
the common belief that faculty and staff at and in personal and social development,
MSIs are not only integral to fostering student and they were generally more satisfied with
success, but may also provide more support their educational experiences. First-year
to their students than their counterparts at distance learners reported interacting more
predominantly White campuses. In addition, with faculty and engaging more in enriching
after controlling for differences in student educational experiences, such as participating
background characteristics, participating in in a learning community and independent
effective educational practices at MSIs seemed study. Senior distance learners perceived the
to compensate for some of the documented learning environment to be more supportive
student academic preparation and resource than their campus-based counterparts and
inequalities that exist between MSIs and PWIs reported greater gains in practical competence,
(Benitez, 1998;). personal and social development, as well
as in general education. In only one area than they thought they would when starting
of engagement—active and collaborative college. Even so, nine of ten first-year students
learning—were distance learners significantly expected to earn grades of B or better, while
less involved. To a nontrivial degree, the results spending only about half the amount of time
favoring distance education students may be a preparing for class that faculty say is needed
function of age and maturity. That is, although to do well. Three of ten first-year students
older distance learners were much less likely to reported working just hard enough to get by.
participate in active and collaborative learning The shortfall between expectations and
and had fewer enriching experiences and less behavior extends to life outside the classroom
contact with faculty, they were more engaged as well; most entering students expected to
in deep learning activities, reported greater participate in co-curricular activities, but
gains in practical competence and generation thirty-two percent spent no time in these
education, and were also more satisfied overall activities during their first year. In this same
with their educational experiences. vein, between forty and fifty percent of first-
Precollege Dispositions, Expectations, and year students never used career planning,
Student Engagement. The CSXQ and the financial advising, or academic tutoring
Beginning College Student Survey of Student services. In some areas, students do pretty
Engagement asks first-year students as they much what they thought they would. One area
are starting college about their academic is relaxing and socializing where one quarter
and extracurricular involvements in high of students said they would spend more than
school as well as the importance they place fifteen hours per week with twenty-seven
on participating in educationally purposeful percent actually doing so. More than half
activities in the first year of college (Kuh, 2005, predicted they would have little contact with
Kuh et al., 2005). Dispositions to engage are their instructors outside the classroom and,
important because they influence students’ sadly, this became the case (NSSE, 2005). At
willingness to engage in different activities two-year colleges, after the first three weeks
during college. First tested in 2008, the Survey of class, thirty-two percent of students were
of Entering Student Engagement for two-year unaware that their institution had academic
college students focuses on the first three weeks skills labs for their use; twenty-seven percent
of college and assesses practices that are likely did not know about tutoring or financial aid
to engage and encourage students to persist to advising (Center for Community College
attain their educational goals. Student Engagement, 2009). More than one
Studies using the Beginning College third never met with an academic advisor
Student Survey of Student Engagement–NSSE (CCSSE, 2007).
and CSXQ–CSEQ generally show that first- Disposition is not destiny, however; some
year students expect to do more during the students who do not expect to interact with
first-year of college than they actually do faculty frequently do so; the same is true
(Gonyea, Kuh, Kinzie, Cruce, & Nelson Laird, for participating in active and collaborative
2006; Kuh, 2005; Kuh et al., 2005; NSSE, learning activities. This suggests, that “well-
2007, 2008). For example, about three fifths crafted first-year experience programs and
expected to spend more than fifteen hours individual effort can allow students to exceed
a week studying, but only two fifths did so expectations” (NSSE, 2008, pp. 17–18).
(Kuh et al., 2005). Put another way, they Employment and Engagement. Working
study two to six hours less per week on average during college is now the norm for under
graduates in the United States (King, 1998). between work and several measures of student
Nearly half of full-time first-year students engagement and between engagement and
and three quarters of seniors attending four- selected educational outcomes, the benefits of
year colleges and universities responding to work during college seem to be mediated by
the 2008 NSSE reported working for pay. student engagement.
The numbers were even higher for part-time Consistent with the findings of McCormick
students, with seventy-six percent of first-year et al., Pike, Kuh, and McKinley (2009) found
students and eighty-four percent of seniors that a substantial proportion of students
doing so. Among first-generation students, worked more than twenty hours per week,
one fifth of full-time first-years and two fifths with many employed both on and off campus.
of full-time seniors worked more than twenty Although working during college had variable
hours per week. At two-year colleges, fifty- effects on grades depending on where, whether,
seven percent of all students worked more than and how much a student worked, those
twenty hours per week (CCSSE, 2007). students who worked part time on campus
McCormick, Moore, and Kuh (in press) had significantly higher grades than students
found that, surprisingly, working either who did not work, students who worked
on or off campus was positively related to off campus, or students working more than
several dimensions of student engagement, twenty hours per week. For first-year students,
especially for full-time students. As with working more than twenty hours a week was
previous research (Astin, 1993; Pascarella negatively related with grades; however, seniors
& Terenzini, 2005), those who worked on with part-time jobs off campus tended to have
campus generally benefitted more than their higher grade point averages than students who
counterparts who worked off campus. For did not work. Moreover, seniors who worked
example, full-time students who worked on more than twenty hours per week did not differ
campus for up to ten hours per week had significantly from seniors who did not work in
slightly higher self-reported grades, whereas terms of their academic achievement. When
those working more than twenty hours per the mediating relationships among work,
week on campus had slightly lower grades. grades, and student engagement were taken
The grade point average penalty was about into account, even working more than twenty
twice as much for the same amount of work hours a week was positively related to seniors’
off campus. Heavy work commitments on or grades. Although students who worked more
off campus seemed to dampen engagement for hours tended to spend less time preparing for
part-time students. In addition, net of student class, working on or off campus did not seem
and institutional characteristics, working off to negatively affect other forms of engagement.
campus, and students’ perceptions of the In fact, working students reported higher
campus environment were negatively related. levels of active and collaborative learning,
However, some of the stronger positive effects perhaps because their jobs provided them
on engagement were for full-time students with opportunities to apply what they are
working more than twenty hours per week learning. In addition, students who worked
on campus. The greatest net engagement part time on campus also had substantially
advantage was for students who reported more interaction with faculty members. Pike
working both on and off campus. This was a et al. (2009) tentatively concluded that student
relatively small group about which more must engagement plays a mediating role on work
be learned. Given the positive relationships and grades, which could be interpreted perhaps
characteristics. As noted near the beginning and graduation measures are certainly not
of this article, a confluence of factors in the mutually exclusive, but each says something
late 1990s increased interest on the part of different about institutional performance and
stakeholders both on and off campus in student student development” (Kuh, 2007a, p. 33).
engagement and related data about the student
experience. The development of the NSSE Implications for Student
and the CCSSE was in large part intended to Affairs
respond to these conditions. Their widespread
use along with other tools made it possible to The student affairs profession has long
compare institutional performance on these embraced various iterations of the student
measures, although not always to the extent engagement construct. Indeed, “engaging
some groups preferred (National Commission students in active learning” is one of the
on the Future of Higher Education, 2006). principles of good practice in student affairs
Improvement, transparency, and account (Blimling, Whitt, & Associates, 1999).
ability are desirable ends. Every year, additional Elsewhere, I and others have discussed what
examples are discovered about how institutions student affairs professionals can do with
are using their student engagement results others on campus to promote higher levels of
to improve the quality of the undergraduate student engagement (Kinzie & Kuh, 2004;
experience (e.g., Kinzie & Pennipede, 2009) Kuh 2007b, 2008b, in press; Kuh et al., 2005,
and more are needed, especially illustrations 2007; Manning, Kinzie, & Schuh, 2006).
of how and to what ends campuses “close Here I offer some observations about what
the loop”—demonstrate the changes that the student affairs professionals can do to help
institution has made in response to its student their institutions use student engagement data
engagement results and the impact of these to promote student success.
changes on student engagement and learning The first step is to make certain various
outcomes. constituents become familiar with what the
At the same time, we must be vigilant student engagement construct represents and
to ward off misuse or misinterpretation of its empirical and conceptual foundations,
student engagement results that can lead to which is the focus of this paper. Especially
problematic and unacceptable outcomes (Kuh, important is that faculty, student affairs
2007a). Although some thoughtful work has professionals, and institutional leaders agree
been done to help guide appropriate use of as to who shares the responsibility for student
student engagement results for various purposes engagement. Until recent years, the dominant
(Borden & Pike, 2008; McCormick, 2009), institutional philosophy was that the student
systematic monitoring of such uses are needed had to adjust to the institution to succeed. As
to avoid, for example, simplifying student student populations have become more diverse
experience and institutional performance and participation in postsecondary education
by comparing schools on only one or two became all but universal, policy makers and
indicators or presuming schools with high institutional leaders increasingly recognized
graduation rates have high engagement scores. that institutions must also change teaching
To illustrate, an institution can have a high and learning approaches and cultivate campus
graduation rate, but low engagement and cultures that welcome and affirm students
unacceptable educational outcomes. “Strong as well as faculty and staff from historically
performance on engagement, achievement, underrepresented backgrounds (Kuh, 2007b).
Simply put, engagement is a two-way street. Many campuses know a good deal about
Both institutions and students have roles to their first-year students and graduating seniors,
play in creating the conditions for engagement those students who are highly involved in
and for taking advantage of engagement leadership positions, and those who struggle
opportunities. Each campus must determine academically and socially. Not enough is
the most appropriate balance. known about the all-but-invisible majority
At high-performing colleges and univer with whom most student affairs staff have
sities, student affairs staff collaborate with little or no contact. Many of these students
others to periodically collect and review leave college without completing their degree,
data about the effectiveness of policies and including some who are only a semester or two
practices with an eye toward insuring that away from fulfilling graduation requirements.
what is enacted is of acceptable quality and The students at greatest risk of leaving
consistent with the institution’s espoused college sometime after the second year are
priorities and values (Kuh et al., 2005). Such almost identical in terms of demographic
examinations are sometimes triggered by self- characteristics to those who leave before
studies to prepare for a regional accreditation that point. It is essential that student affairs
visit. Others may be prompted by institutional extend its data collection to the experiences of
strategic priorities. For example, the University students that span all the years of baccalaureate
of Michigan conducted several major studies study. One promising approach are the Web-
between the mid-1980s and 2000 to monitor based templates that allow student affairs
the impact of initiatives intended to improve staff to send electronic prompts to students
the quality of the undergraduate experience to encourage them to take advantage of
(Kuh et al., 2005). institutional resources and report on their use
Deciding what to measure is critical of the resources.
because whatever student affairs collects The ability to leverage significant institu
data about is what the division of student tional change to increase student success
affairs will probably report and, perhaps, will be severely limited unless student affairs
even target resources for. Along with student has adequate data systems to use to evaluate
engagement data, other commonly used its performance and that of students with
indicators of success to which student affairs different characteristics and backgrounds,
should attend include course completion rates, such as race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic
success rates of developmental coursework and status, first-generation status, and transfer
supplemental instruction, student retention status. By identifying the gaps between
and graduation rates, transfer student success, the expectations that different groups of
student satisfaction, student personal and students have for college and their level of
professional development, and citizenship. engagement at different points in the first
Another critical step is making sure the year of college, student affairs professionals
programs that research show to be potentially can help institutions target their efforts to
to be high impact (Kuh, 2008a) actually are create educationally effective programs for new
having the desired effects. One of the reasons students (Miller, Bender, Schuh, & Associates,
so many college impact studies show equivocal 2005; Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005).
or mixed findings is because the program or Another way student affairs professionals
practice being evaluated was not implemented can enhance student engagement and success
effectively. is by championing and themselves consistently
using what the research shows are effective give students practice in reflecting on and
educational practices. To have the optimal integrating these experiences. Most traditional-
impact, these practices must be implemented at age undergraduates—especially first- and
a high level of quality. At too many institutions, second-year students—do not often or ever do
only small numbers of students take part in this on their own, and all would benefit from
high-impact activities and, as noted, even fewer hearing their peers talk about these important
students from historically underrepresented aspects of their college life. Initial discussions
groups participate. Student affairs could take about these matters will predictably be replete
the lead in monitoring student participation with sometimes awkward silences. But after a
in these and other effective educational few sessions, students will have had enough
activities—akin to what Hurtado (2007) called practice to do more of this without too much
“the opportunity structure”—and work with prompting. And this is, after all, the kind of
academic administrators and faculty colleagues experience that helps students to develop the
to find ways to scale them up to create enough capacity for deep, integrative learning, the
opportunities so that every student has a real gateway to a lifetime of continuous learning
chance to participate. and personal development.
This would go a long way to helping those
students who most need it to compensate for A Final Word
shortcomings in their academic preparation as
well as cultivate a campus culture that fosters Student engagement and its historical antece
student success. In addition to the high-impact dents—time on task, quality of effort, and
activities identified by the AAC&U (2007) and involvement—are supported by decades of
described by Kuh (2008a), students do other research showing positive associations with a
things during college that likely confer similar range of desired outcomes of college. Engaging
benefits—writing for the student newspaper, in educationally purposeful activities helps to
working in an office or program on campus, level the playing field, especially for students
participating in an honors program, being a from low-income family backgrounds and
leader for a student organization or campus others who have been historically underserved.
committee, and playing intercollegiate athletics Moreover, engagement increases the odds
to name a few. But these opportunities—with that any student—educational and social
the exception of working on campus—too background notwithstanding—will attain his
often are limited to small numbers of students, or her educational and personal objectives,
especially on large campuses. acquire the skills and competencies demanded
Campus employment is a target of oppor by the challenges of the twenty-first century,
tunity in this regard. Working on campus and enjoy the intellectual and monetary
could become a developmentally powerful advantages associated with the completion
experience for more students if student affairs of the baccalaureate degree. At the same
professionals who supervise students in their time, there are limits to what student affairs
employ intentionally created some of the same professionals and faculty can realistically do to
conditions that characterize the high-impact help students overcome years of educational
activities Kuh (2008a) described. For example, disadvantages.
bringing small groups of students together Although the engagement construct
monthly to discuss what they are learning on is widely accepted and used today, in the
the job and how it relates to their studies would future more complex iterations of the under
lying properties will emerge. These new our obligations to students and institutions, it
conceptualizations and operationalizations is imperative the student affairs professionals
will more precisely identify the teaching remain open to alternative interpretations of
and learning conditions that are even more what at this moment in time seem to be near-
effective for helping increasingly diverse paradigmatic understandings of what matters
students acquire the knowledge, dispositions, to student success and enthusiastically welcome
skills, and competencies demanded by future evidence that points to other, better ways to
circumstances. Over the past twenty-five define and measure student engagement.
years, student affairs professionals have
traditionally been among the first on campus
to acknowledge, embrace, and attempt to apply Correspondence concerning this article to be addressed
research-based innovative practices. To meet to George Kuh: kuh@indiana.edu
Appendix continues
Student–Faculty Interaction
Students learn firsthand how experts think about and solve practical problems by interacting with
faculty members inside and outside the classroom. As a result, their teachers become role models,
mentors, and guides for continuous, life-long learning.
• Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor
• Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor
• Discussed ideas from readings or classes with faculty members outside of class
• Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation,
student-life activities, etc.)
• Received prompt feedback from faculty on your academic performance (written or oral)
• Worked with a faculty member on an outside research project
References
American College Personnel Association (ACPA). (1994). The Borden, V. M. H., & Pike, G. R. (Eds.). (2008). Assessing
student learning imperative. Retrieved December 5, 2007, and accounting for student learning: Beyond the Spellings
from http://www.myacpa.org/sli_delete/sli.htm Commission. New Directions for Institutional Research
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). Assessment Supplement 2007. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
(2002). Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a Boyd, M. K., & Wesemann, J. L. (Eds.). (2009). Broadening
nation goes to college. Retrieved November 15, 2006, from participation in undergraduate research: Fostering excellence
http://www.greaterexpectations.org and enhancing the impact. Washington, DC: Council on
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). Undergraduate Research.
(2005). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report on Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004).
student achievement in college. Washington, DC: Author. Understanding and reducing college student departure. ASHE-
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 30, No. 3. Washington,
(2007). College learning for the new global century: A report DC: School of Education and Human Development, The
from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education George Washington University.
and America’s Promise. Washington, DC: Author. Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey- influence of active learning on the college student departure
Bass. process: Toward a revision of Tinto’s theory. Journal of Higher
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental Education, 71, 569-590.
theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Bridges, B.K., Kinzie, J., Nelson Laird, T.F., & Kuh, G.D.
Development, 25, 297–308. (2008). Student engagement and student success at minority
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years serving institutions. In M. Gasman, B. Baez, and C.S. Turner
revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Eds.), Interdisciplinary approaches to understanding minority
Astin, A. W. (1999, March/April). Involvement in Learning institutions. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
revisited. Journal of College Student Development. Retrieved Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student
May 9, 2008, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3752 engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages.
/is_199909 Research in Higher Education, 47, 1-32.
Astin, A. W., & Lee, J. (2003). How risky are one-shot cross- Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2009).
sectional assessments of undergraduate students? Research in Imagine success: Engaging entering students (2008 SENSE field
Higher Education, 44, 657-672. test findings). Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin,
Astin, A. W., & Sax, L. (1998). How undergraduates are Community College Leadership Program.
affected by service participation. Journal of College Student Chen, D. P., Gonyea, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2008). Learning
Development, 39, 251–263. at a distance: Engaged or not? Innovate: Journal of Online
Bandura, A., Millard, M., Peluso, E. A., & Ortman, N. Education [serial online], 4(3). Retrieved from http://
(2000). Effects of peer education training on peer educators: innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=438&action
Leadership, self-esteem, health knowledge, and health =login
behaviors. Journal of College Student Development, 41, Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles
471-478. for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin,
Benitez, M. (1998). Hispanic-serving institutions: Challenges March, 3-7.
and opportunities. New Directions for Higher Education, Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity.
102, 57-68. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of Coates, H. (2008). 2008 Australasian student engagement report.
practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student success. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.
Review of Higher Education, 30, 441-469, Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE).
Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student (2006). Act on fact: Using data to improve student success.
involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Community
model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, College Leadership Program.
40, 641-664. Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE).
Beyer, S. (1999). Gender differences in the accuracy of grade (2007). Committing to student engagement: Reflections on
expectancies and evaluations. Sex Roles, 41, 279-296. CCSSE’s first five years. Austin, TX: University of Texas at
Beyer, S. (2002). The effects of gender, dysphoria, and Austin, Community College Leadership Program.
performance feedback on the accuracy of self-evaluations. Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE).
Sex Roles, 47, 453-464. (2008). High expectations and high support: Essential elements
Beyer, S., & Bowden, E. M. (1997). Gender differences in self- of engagement. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin,
perceptions: Convergent evidence from three measures of Community College Leadership Program.
accuracy and bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Cruce, T., Wolniak, G. C., Seifert, T. A., & Pascarella, E. T.
23, 157-172. (2006). Impacts of good practices on cognitive development,
Blimling, G. S., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (1999). Good practice learning orientations, and graduate degree plans during the
in student affairs: Principles to foster student learning. San first year of college. Journal of College Student Development,
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 47, 365-383.
Education Commission of the States. (1995). Making quality Hurtado, S. (2007). The sociology of the study of college
count in undergraduate education. Denver, CO: Education impact. In P. Gumport (Ed.), The sociology of higher education:
Commission of the States. Contributions and their contexts. Baltimore: The Johns
Ethington, C. A., Thomas, S. L., & Pike, G. R. (2002). Back to Hopkins University Press.
the basics: Regression as it should be. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Hurtado, S., Dey, E. L., Gurin, P. Y., & Gurin, G. (2003).
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 17, College environments, diversity, and student learning. In
pp. 267-287). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory
Ewell, P. T. (2008). US accreditation and the future of quality and research (Vol. XVIII, pp. 145–189). Dordrecht, The
assurance: A tenth anniversary report from the Council on Netherlands: Kluwer.
Higher Education Accreditation. Washington, DC: CHEA Inkelas, K. K., & Weisman, J. L. (2003). Different by design:
Institute for Research and Study of Accreditation and An examination of student outcomes among participants in
Quality Assurance. three types of living-learning programs. Journal of College
Ewell, P. T., & Jones, D. P. (1996). Indicators of “good practice” Student Development, 44, 335-368.
in undergraduate education: A handbook for development and Inkelas, K. K., Brower, A. M., Crawford, S., Hummel, M.,
implementation. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Pope, D., & Zeller, W. L. (2004). National Study of Living-
Education Management Systems. Learning Programs: 2004 report of findings. Retrieved
Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student July 11, 2009, from http://www.livelearnstudy.net/images
involvement on critical thinking: A meta-analysis of the /NSLLP_2004_Final_Report.pdf
literature, 1991-2000. Journal of College Student Development, Joint Task Force on Student Learning. (1998). Powerful
44, 746-762. partnerships: A shared responsibility for learning. Retrieved
Gonyea, R.M. (2008, November). The impact of study abroad on from http://www.myacpa.org/pub/documents/taskforce.pdf
senior year engagement. Paper presented at the annual meeting Jones, C. E., & Watt, J. D. (1999). Psychosocial development and
of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, moral orientation among traditional-aged college students.
Jacksonville, FL. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 125‑132.
Gonyea, R.M. & Kuh, G.D. (2009). Using NSSE in institutional Keeling, R. P. (Ed.). (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-
research. New Directions for Institutional Research, No 141. wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC:
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
Gonyea, R. M., Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. Cruce, T., & Nelson & American College Personnel Association.
Laird, T. (2006, November). The influence of high school King, J. E. (1998, May 1). Too many students are holding jobs
engagement and pre-college expectations on first-year student for too many hours. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A72.
engagement and self-reported learning outcomes at liberal arts Kinzie, J., & Pennipede, B. S. (2009). Converting engagement
institutions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the results into action. In R. Gonyea and G. Kuh (Eds.),
Association for the Study of Higher Education, Anaheim, Using student engagement data in institutional research. New
California. Directions for Institutional Research, No. 141 (pp. 83-96).
Gordon, J., Ludlum, J., & Hoey, J.J. (2006, May). Validating San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
the National Survey of Student Engagement against student Kinzie, J., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Going DEEP: Learning from
outcomes: Are they related? Paper present at the Annual Forum campuses that share responsibility for student success. About
of the Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, IL. Campus, 9(5), 2-8.
Greene, T. G., Marti, C. N., & McClenney, K. (2008). The Kinzie, J. L., Thomas, A. D., Palmer, M. M., Umbach, P. D., &
effort-outcome gap: Differences for African-American and Kuh, G. D. (2007). Women students at coeducational and
Hispanic community college students in student engagement women’s colleges: How do their experiences compare? Journal
and academic achievement. Journal of Higher Education, of College Student Development, 48, 145-165.
79, 513-539. Klein, S. P., Kuh, G. D., Chun, M., Shavelson, R., & Benjamin,
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2008). Student engagement R. (2005). An approach to measuring cognitive outcomes
in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical across higher education institutions. Research in Higher
approaches for diverse populations. London: Routledge. Education, 46, 251-276.
Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Being (dis)engaged in Kuh, G. D. (1993). In their own words: What students learn
educationally purposeful activities: The influence of student outside the classroom. American Educational Research Journal,
and institutional characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 30, 277-304.
43, 555-576. Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class
Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). A learning productivity model experiences associated with student learning and personal
for estimating student gains during college. Journal of College development. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 123-155.
Student Development, 44, 185-203. Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student
Huang, G., Taddese, N., & Walter, E. (2000). Entry and learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement.
persistence of women and minorities in college science Change, 33(3), 10-17, 66.
and engineering education. Report No. NCES 2000-
601. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Kuh, G. D. (2002). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Liddell, D. L., & Davis, T. L. (1996). The measure of moral
Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. orientation: Reliability and validity evidence. Journal of
Bloomington: Indiana University, Center for Postsecondary College Student Development, 37, 485–493.
Research. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://nsse.iub.edu Lewin, R. (Ed.), (2009). The handbook of practice and research
/html/pubs.cfm?action=&viewwhat=Journal%20Article,Book in student abroad: Higher education and quest for global
%20Chapter,Report,Research%20Paper citizenship. New York: Routledge and Association of
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student American Colleges and Universities.
engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24-32. McClenney, K., Marti, C. N., & Adkins, C. (2006). Student
Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student engagement in the first year of engagement and student outcomes: Key findings from CCSSE
college. In Upcraft, L. M., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. validation research. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin,
O. (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student. Community College Leadership Program.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. McCormick, A. M. (2009). Toward reflective accountability:
Kuh, G. D. (2007a). Risky business: Promises and pitfalls of Using NSSE for accountability and transparency. In R.
institutional transparency. Change, 39(5), 30-35. Gonyea & G. Kuh (Eds.), Using student engagement data in
Kuh, G. D. (2007b). Success in college. In P. Lingenfelter (Ed.), institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research,
More student success: A systemic solution. Boulder, CO: State No. 141 (pp. 97-106). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Higher Education Executive Officers. McCormick, A. C., Moore, J. V., III, & Kuh, G. D. (In
Kuh, G. D. (2008a). High-impact educational practices: What they press). Working in college: Its relationship to student
are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Washington, engagement and educational outcomes. In L. W. Perna (Ed.),
DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Understand the working college student: Implications for policy,
Kuh, G. D. (2008b). Diagnosing why some students don’t administrators, academic affairs, and institutional support.
succeed. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(16), A72. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: McPherson, P., & Shulenburger, D. (2006, August). Toward a
Conceptual and empirical foundations. In R. Gonyea and public universities and colleges Voluntary System of Accountability
G. Kuh (Eds.), Using student engagement data in institutional for undergraduate education (VSA): A NASULGC and AASCU
research. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 141 discussion draft. Washington, DC: NASULGC.
(pp. 5-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Manning, K., Kinzie, J. & Schuh, J. H. (2006). One size does
Kuh, G. D. (in press). Student success in college: What student not fit all: Traditional and innovative models of student affairs
affairs can do. In J. Schuh, S. Jones, & S. Harper (Eds.), practice. New York: Routledge.
Student services: A handbook for the profession (5th ed.). San
Merwin, J. C. (1969). Historical review of changing concepts of
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
evaluation. In R. L. Tyler (Ed.), Educational evaluation: New
Kuh, G. D., Chen, D. P., & Nelson Laird, T. F. (2007). Why
roles, new methods. The 68th Yearbook of the National Society
teacher-scholars matter: Some insights from FSSE and NSSE.
for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago: University of
Liberal Education, 93(4), 40-45.
Chicago Press.
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R.
Miller, T., Bender, B. Schuh, J. H., & Associates (2005).
M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on
Promoting reasonable expectations: Aligning student and
college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education,
institutional thinking about the college experience. San
79, 540-563.
Francisco: Jossey-Bass/National Association of Student
Kuh, G. D., Gonyea, R. M., & Williams, J. M. (2005). What
Personnel Administrators.
students expect from college and what they get. In T. Miller,
B. Bender, J. Schuh, & Associates, Promoting reasonable National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
expectations: Aligning student and institutional thinking about Colleges. (1997). Returning to our roots: The student experience.
the college experience. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/National Washington, DC: Author.
Association of Student Personnel Administrators. National Commission on the Future of Higher Education.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher
C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, education. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
propositions, and recommendations. ASHE Higher Education Retrieved September 4, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov
Report, 32(5). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. /about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports/final-report.pdf
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates National Institute of Education. (1984). Involvement in learning.
(2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2000).
Kuh, G. D., & Pascarella, E. T. (2004).What does institutional The NSSE 2000 Report: National benchmarks of effective
selectivity tell us about educational quality? Change, 36(5), educational practice. Bloomington: Indiana University Center
52-58. for Postsecondary Research.
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (1991). National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2001).
Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student Improving the college experience: National benchmarks for
learning and personal development outside the classroom. San effective educational practice. Bloomington: Indiana University
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Center for Postsecondary Research.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2002). Pascarella, E. T., Cruce, T., Wolniak, G. C., Kuh, G. D.,
From promise to progress: How colleges and universities are Umbach, P. D., Hayek, J. C., et al. (2006). Institutional
using student engagement results to improve collegiate quality. selectivity and good practices in undergraduate education.
Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Journal of Higher Education, 77, 251-285.
Research. Pascarella, E. T., Seifert, T. A., & Blaich, C. (2009). Validation of
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2003). the NSSE Benchmarks and deep approaches to learning against
Converting data into action: Expanding the boundaries of liberal arts outcomes. Iowa City: University of Iowa Center
institutional improvement. Bloomington: Indiana University for Research on Undergraduate Education.
Center for Postsecondary Research. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2004). Student students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-
engagement: Pathways to collegiate success. Bloomington: Bass.
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Pike, G. R. (2003). Membership in a fraternity or sorority,
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2005). student engagement, and educational outcomes at AAU
Student engagement: Exploring different dimensions of student public research universities. Journal of College Student
engagement. Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Development, 44, 369-382.
Postsecondary Research. Pike, G. R. (2006a). The dependability of NSSE scalets for
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2006). college and department-level assessment. Research in Higher
Engaged learning: Fostering success of all students. Bloomington: Education, 47, 177-195.
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Pike, G. R. (2006b). The convergent and discriminant validity
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2007). of NSSE scalet scores. Journal of College Student Development,
Experiences that matter: Enhancing student learning and success. 47, 551-564.
Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First- and second-generation
Research. college students: A comparison of their engagement and
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2008). intellectual development. Journal of Higher Education, 76,
Promoting engagement for all students: The imperative to 276-300.
look within. Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Relationships among
Postsecondary Research. structural diversity, informal peer interactions and perceptions
Nelson Laird, T. F., Chen, P. D., & Kuh, G. D. (2008). of the campus environment. Review of Higher Education, 29,
Classroom practices at institutions with higher than expected 425-450.
persistence rates: What student engagement data tell us. In Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The
J. M. Braxton (Ed.), The role of the classroom in college student relationship between institutional mission and students’
persistence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. involvement and educational outcomes. Research in Higher
Nelson Laird, T. F., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Student experiences Education, 44, 241-261.
with information technology and their relationship to other Pike, G.R., Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2007). Evaluating
aspects of student engagement. Research in Higher Education, the rationale for affirmative action in college admissions:
46, 211-233. Direct and indirect relationships between campus diversity
Nelson Laird, T. F, Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. and gains in understanding diverse groups. Journal of College
(2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to Student Development, 48, 166-182.
student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & McCormick, A. M. (2008,
Education, 49, 469-494. November). Direct, indirect, and contingent relationships
Outcalt, C. L., & Skewes-Cox, T. E. (2002). Involvement, between participating in a learning community and educational
interaction, and satisfaction: The human environment at outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
HBCUs. The Review of Higher Education, 25, 331-347. Association for the Study of Higher Education, Jacksonville,
Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Florida.
Current Issues in Higher Education, 2, 10–16. Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., McCormick, A. C., & Ethington, C.
Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student A. (2007). If and when money matters: Direct and indirect
experiences. An account of the development and use of the relationships between expenditures and student learning. Paper
college student experiences questionnaire. Los Angeles: Higher presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the
Education Research Institute. Study of Higher Education, Louisville, KY.
Pace, C. R. (1990). The undergraduates: A report of their activities Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & McKinley, R. (2009). First-
and college experiences in the 1980s. Los Angeles: Center year students’ employment, engagement, and academic
for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA Graduate School of achievement: Untangling the relationship between work and
Education. grades. NASPA Journal, 45, 560-582.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on Pike, G. R., Smart, J. C., Kuh, G. D., & Hayek, J. C. (2006).
learning and cognitive development: A critical review and Educational expenditures and student engagement: When
synthesis. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of does money matter? Research in Higher Education, 47,
theory and research, Vol. 1 (pp.1-62). New York: Agathon. 847-992.
Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Using student self-reported gains to Spade, J. Z., & Reese, C. A. (1991). We’ve come a long way,
estimate college impact: A cautionary tale. Journal of College maybe: College students’ plans for work and family. Sex
Student Development, 42, 488-492. Roles, 24, 309-321.
Strydom, J. F., Mentz, M., & Kuh, G. D. (in press). Maximising Watterson, B. (1992, March 30). Calvin and Hobbs. Universal
success in higher education: The case for student engagement Press Syndicate.
in South Africa. Acta Academica. Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American
Swaner, L. E., & Brownell, J. E. (2009). Outcomes of high impact imperative: Higher expectations for higher education. Racine,
practices for underserved students: A review of the literature. WI: The Johnson Foundation.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. (2009). A tangled
Universities. web of terms: The overlap and unique contribution of
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding
of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. college student success. Journal of College Student Development,
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and 50, 407-428.
cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Zhao, C-M., Carini, R. M., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). Searching
Chicago Press. for the peach blossom Shangri-la: Student engagement of
Umbach, P.D., & Kuh, G.D. (2006). Student experiences men and women SMET majors. Review of Higher Education,
with diversity at liberal arts colleges: Another claim for 28, 503-525.
distinctiveness. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 169-192. Zhao, C-M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do communities and student engagement. Research in Higher
matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and Education, 45, 115-138.
engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 153-184. Zhao, C-M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2005). A
Upcraft, L. M., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (Eds.). comparison of international student and American student
(2005). Challenging and supporting the first-year student. San engagement in effective educational practices. Journal of
Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Higher Education, 76, 209-231.