Student Engagement and Retention in Postsecondary Education

Dan Laitsch

The Question

Do theorized educational best practices actually support student learning and persistence in high education?

The Context

The secretary of education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education recently released a fourth (and, most likely, final) draft of its soon-to-be-released report on higher education in the United States. Although the report addresses many issues in higher education, it focuses strongly on accountability and highlights the need for establishing indicators of quality-related student achievement and literacy, retention, and institutional practice. Prior research suggests that postsecondary institutions can take important steps to support students in their early years of higher education and improve student outcomes in these and other areas. The study highlighted in this issue of ResearchBrief looks at the effect of indicators of best practice on student outcomes during the first year of college.

The Details

Ty Cruce, Gregory Wolniak, Tricia Seifert, and Ernest Pascarella conducted the study highlighted in this issue of ResearchBrief (see below for full citation). The researchers looked at how academic and nonacademic student outcomes (based on data from the National Study of Student Learning) interacted with a set of best practice principles related to student success in undergraduate education. They wanted to see how students were affected and whether there was a differential impact based on student characteristics, institutional type, or institutional context.

The researchers intentionally selected a variety of institutions—including public and private research universities, private liberal arts colleges, comprehensive universities, historically black colleges, and community colleges—resulting in a final sample of 18 four-year colleges and universities and 5 two-year colleges. The institutions also varied in size, location, ethnic makeup, commuter and residential focus, and selectivity. Student data was taken from the National Study of Student Learning, a federally funded longitudinal study that followed the 1992 incoming freshman class at postsecondary institutions across the country and included 3,895 students in the current study's institutional sample. Data collected included demographic data; data on precollegiate experiences; and math, reading, and critical-thinking assessments.

At the end of the first year, researchers gathered follow-up data on student classroom and nonclassroom experiences. Because only 63.5 percent of the 3,895 students originally engaged in the study participated in the second data gathering, researchers statistically adjusted responses to protect against response bias based on gender, ethnicity, and institution type. The authors also looked at the characteristics of students dropping out of the study in an effort to gauge the effect those who depart have on the outcomes.

The researchers looked at three dependent variables^*  :

• Cognitive development—based on standardized assessment data.
• Orientation to learning—openness to challenge, learning for self-understanding, locus of attribution for success, preference for higher-order cognitive tasks, positive attitude toward learning.
• Student academic aspirations—bachelor's degree and lower or master's and higher.

The independent variables included 19 measures that crossed 7 general principles:

• Encouraging student–faculty contact.
• Encouraging student cooperation.
• Encouraging active learning.
• Giving students prompt feedback.
• Emphasizing time on task.
• Communicating high expectations.
• Respecting diverse abilities and learning styles.

These principles were organized into three higher-order measures: effective teaching and faculty interaction, interaction with peers, and challenge and expectations. The researchers also controlled for the influence of demographic and precollegiate characteristics, institutional attributes, college academic experiences, and college nonacademic experiences, then analyzed the data in two stages—first, to look at the interaction of the three higher-order measures and, second, to look at the interactions between measures.

The authors found that many of the good practice dimensions had a significant, albeit small, effect on student academic gains and their orientation toward learning. Interaction with faculty positively affected reading comprehension, critical thinking, openness to diversity, and internal attribution of academic success. Interaction with peers had a positive effect on mathematics knowledge, openness to diversity, learning for self-understanding, and preference for higher-order cognitive tasks. Challenge had a direct effect on students' attitudes toward literacy and plans for advanced study. Although the magnitude of each effect varied considerably, the positive findings suggest that each measure offers a unique contribution to student success. The authors also looked for differential effects by other characteristics and found that below-average students (when they entered college) experienced some small additional benefits from the good practice dimensions.

The Bottom Line

Measures of good practice (including interaction with faculty, positive peer interactions, and high student expectations) have a positive effect on student cognitive development, orientation to learning, and student academic aspirations during the first year of college, particularly for below-average students.

Who's Affected?

This study looked at students in their first year of postsecondary education.

Caveats

Because of the nature of the sample in this study (a relatively small number of institutions intentionally selected across multiple institution types), the findings may not be generalizable to other institutions. Although students exiting the study but remaining enrolled in their institutions were similar to students remaining in the study, students who left because of dropout showed lower levels of precollegiate achievement, socioeconomic status, and motivation. As a result, the large number of dropouts may have influenced the findings. Because the study only looked at students during their first year of study, the results cannot be generalized to students in other years.

The Study

Cruce, T. M., Wolniak, G. C., Seifert, T. A., & Pascarella, E. T. (2006). Impacts of good practices on cognitive development, learning orientations, and graduate degree plans during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development 47(4), 365–383.

Other Resources

Commission on the Future of Higher Education

Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education

‘Engagement’ and the Underprepared
Inside Higher Ed

Connecting the Dots
Lumina Foundation for Education

Variables in Applied Statistics
Wikipedia

Endnote

^*  Dependent and independent variables: Dependent variables are factors whose values in different treatment conditions are compared. That is, the researcher is interested in determining if the value of the dependent variable changes when the characteristics of another variable—the independent variable—are varied.

All comments regarding ReseachBrief should be sent to RBfeedback@ascd.org. To speak directly with an ASCD staff member, please contact us.

Dan Laitsch serves as ASCD's consultant editor for ResearchBrief. Laitsch is an assistant professor in the faculty of education at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada, and is coeditor of the International Journal for Education Policy and Leadership.