Student engagement literature review - Book Summary - English literature, Summaries of English Literature

Download Student engagement literature review - Book Summary - English literature and more Summaries English Literature in PDF only on Docsity! Student engagement literature review Vicki Trowler Department of Educational Research Lancaster University November 2010 2 Student engagement literature review 3The Higher Education Academy – 2010 2 Scope of the review: Our understanding of the term ‘student engagement’, based on definitions in the literature and the discussion of the character of engagement and its alternatives, summarised below, is as follows: Student engagement is concerned with the interaction between the time, effort and other relevant resources invested by both students and their institutions intended to optimise the student experience and enhance the learning outcomes and development of students and the performance, and reputation of the institution. The term ‘student engagement’ has its historic roots in a body of work concerned with student involvement, enjoying widespread currency particularly in North America and Australasia, where it has been firmly entrenched through annual large scale national surveys . The most prolific authors (in particular, George Kuh and Hamish Coates) have affiliations with the organisations that have developed, implemented and supported these national surveys of student engagement, located variously within universities or private companies . By way of contrast, the body of work produced in the UK which could be said to address student engagement traces its roots back to other traditions, such as student feedback, student representation and student approaches to learning, and is less likely to be tagged as ‘student engagement’ in the authors’ keywords . Because of this, the literature flagged as ‘student engagement’ is heavily skewed towards the North American/Australasian tradition, with the exception of an emerging body of ‘grey’ literature from the UK concerned mainly with small, single case studies . A more holistic picture would thus require a full review of areas potentially related to student engagement as defined above (including, but not restricted to, student feedback, student representation, student approaches to learning, institutional organisation, learning spaces, architectural design, and learning development) as well as the literature flagged as ‘student engagement’ . This, however, was beyond the remit of this project and would be an enormous project . This review therefore confines its attention to those works flagged as concerning student engagement by their authors rather than any publication which substantively addresses issues under our definition . 4 Student engagement literature review 3 Understanding engagement In seeking to understand what is meant by ‘engagement’, some authors have considered its antithesis – if a student is not engaged, then what are they? Mann (2001, 7) contrasted engagement with alienation, proposing the engagement– alienation dyad as a more useful framework to understand students’ relationships to their learning than the surface–strategic–deep triad (Marton and Säljö, 1976), since both ‘surface’ and ‘strategic’ approaches to learning are responses to alienation from the content and the process of study . Krause (2005, 4) lists “inertia, apathy, disillusionment or engagement in other pursuits” as alternatives to engagement for the student . She describes (ibid ., 7) this as follows: Physicists use the term ‘inertia’ to describe the tendency of matter to retain its state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line. In the case of some students … inertia is a germane term to describe their attitude to university and their role in it. In this context I favour the term ‘inertia’ over disengagement. The latter suggests an active detachment or separation, whereas the former is more suggestive of doing nothing, which aptly depicts the state of being for a group of students who do not actively pursue opportunities to engage in their learning community. For some students, the interlocking of individual and institutional interests, goals and aspirations never occurs. They do not choose or see the need to waver from their familiar path to engage with people, activities or opportunities in the learning community. As well as the active, positive understanding of engagement typically found in the literature, Krause (ibid ., 9) identifies two other interpretations of the concept . The first of these is the use analogous to ‘appointment’, as in the phrase “I have an engagement at two o’clock tomorrow afternoon”, suggesting that engagement with their studies was simply something to slot into their calendars . The second connotation was less neutral: For some students, engagement with the university experience is like engaging in a battle, a conflict. These are the students for whom the culture of the university is foreign and at times alienating and uninviting. This view of a ‘dark’, hostile form of engagement stands in contrast to Mann’s view of alienation as the diametric opposite of engagement, a conceptual conflict that we 5The Higher Education Academy – 2010 resolve through separating the passive response to alienation (‘withdrawal’, or ‘apathy’) from the active (‘conflict’), which is itself a form of engagement . We expand on this view, below . Dimensions of engagement Engagement is more than involvement or participation – it requires feelings and sense- making as well as activity (see Harper and Quaye, 2009a, 5) . Acting without feeling engaged is just involvement or even compliance; feeling engaged without acting is dissociation . Although focusing on engagement at a school level, Fredricks, Blumenfeld and Paris (2004, 62-63), drawing on Bloom (1956), usefully identify three dimensions to student engagement, as discussed below: 1 . Behavioural engagement Students who are behaviourally engaged would typically comply with behavioural norms, such as attendance and involvement, and would demonstrate the absence of disruptive or negative behaviour . 2 . Emotional engagement Students who engage emotionally would experience affective reactions such as interest, enjoyment, or a sense of belonging . 3 . Cognitive engagement Cognitively engaged students would be invested in their learning, would seek to go beyond the requirements, and would relish challenge . We propose that each of these dimensions can have both a ‘positive’ and a ‘negative’ pole, each of which represents a form of engagement, separated by a gulf of non-engagement (withdrawal, or apathy) . (The terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ are used here not to denote value judgment, but rather to reflect the attitude implied in much of the literature that compliance with expectations and norms indicates internalisation and approval, and is thus seen to be productive, whereas behaviour that challenges, confronts or rejects can be disruptive, delaying or obstructive, thus seen to be counter- productive . This is not to deny that, for individual academics, evidence of critical engagement among their students is viewed as a positive indicator of success .) Thus, one can engage either positively or negatively along the behavioural, emotional or cognitive dimensions . This is illustrated in the table below . 8 Student engagement literature review — student and staff interactions (level and nature of students’ contact with teaching staff); — enriching educational experiences (participation in broadening educational activities); — supportive learning environment (feelings of legitimation within the university community); — work-integrated learning (integration of employment-focused work experience into study) . This factor is not present in the North American NSSE. 9The Higher Education Academy – 2010 5 Depicting the engagement literature The literature on student engagement is a mixed bag . Aside from wide-ranging understandings of the term – covering anything from alienated involvement to active identification – there is considerable variation in the nature and type of the work . The unit of analysis varies between individual student, minority group, or institutional level, and the scale ranges from small, intimate studies to national and international surveys . Levels of complexity range from uncritical, vague use of the term in an evaluation study to complicated multiple regressions of interwoven, related aspects seeking to understand correlation and robustness of terms and concepts . The literature often has a normative1 agenda, characterised by discussions of gains and benefits while ignoring possible downsides, and at times a reductionist2 approach, such as suggesting that students with disabilities or ethnic minority students share their opinions about architecture or artwork for the walls of buildings (see Harper and Quaye, 2009a, 9) . While methodologically rigorous work in well-regarded journals can be found in the literature, grey literature is disproportionately present, in the form of project reports, unpublished conference papers, practitioner presentations and discussion documents, as well as e-journals . There are a small number of ‘big names’ in the field such as George Kuh, Hamish Coates and Kerri-Lee Krause, but because it is so wide there are others with particular specialisms and a widely dispersed hinterland of authors . Three distinct foci of student engagement can be identified in the literature, which can be represented by way of a three-dimensional graph with each focus being represented along one axis . Individual studies can be located at various points along each of these axes, as is illustrated in the example below . This is intended as an illustration of a method of visualising individual examples from the literature, rather than attempting to represent the entire body (in excess of 1 000 examples) of literature on engagement . . 1 Reflecting the assumption that engagement is necessarily positive and promoting this attitude uncritically . 2 Simplifying the complexity/range of variation thereby minimsing, obscuring or distorting the concept under discussion . 10 Student engagement literature review Foci of engagement Axis 1: Individual student learning This axis represents a continuum along which individual works can be located according to their concern, or perspective, on the individual student learning dimension of student engagement . The overwhelming majority of literature surveyed was expressly concerned with this focus . Along this axis, a paper that had no patent concern with individual student learning would be located at 0, with way points along this axis including: — student attention in learning; — student interest in learning; — student involvement in learning; — student (active) participation in learning; — ‘student-centredness’ – student involvement in the design, delivery and assessment of their learning . Axis 2: Structure and process The second axis focuses on issues of structure and process, including student representation, students’ role within governance, student feedback processes, and other such matters . Location along this axis at the 0 point would denote that the work had no patent concern with the collective structural or process role of student engagement, while way points along this axis would include: — ‘representation as consultation’, such as tokenistic student membership of committees or panels to obviate the need for formal consultation with students; — students in an observer role on committees; — students as representatives on committees (‘delegate’ role); — students as full members of committees (‘trustee’ role); — integrated and articulated student representation at course, department, faculty, SRC/SU or NUS level – not ad hoc or piecemeal . Axis 3: Identity The third axis focuses on issues of identity . This can range from concerns about how to generate a sense of belonging for individual students, to concerns about how to engage specific groups of students – particularly those deemed ‘marginal’ with midpoints including issues concerning the role of representation in conferring identity . Examples of way points along this axis include: 13The Higher Education Academy – 2010 Intense “Students reporting an intense form of engagement are highly involved with their university study … They tend to see teaching staff as approachable, and to see their learning environment as responsive, supportive and challenging.” ( —Coates, 2007, 132-133 Independent “An independent style of engagement is characterised by a more academically and less socially orientated approach to study … Students reporting an independent style of study see themselves as participants in a supportive learning community. They see staff as being approachable, as responsive to student needs, and as encouraging and legitimating student reflection, and feedback. These students tend to be less likely, however, to work collaboratively with other students within or beyond class, or to be involved in enriching events and activities around campus.” —Coates, 2007, 133-134 Collaborative “Students reporting a collaborative style of engagement tend to favour the social aspects of university life and work, as opposed to the more purely cognitive or individualistic forms of interaction … High levels of general collaborative engagement reflect students feeling validated within their university communities, particularly by participating in broad beyond-class talent development activities and interacting with staff and other students.” —Coates, 2007, 134 Passive “It is likely that students whose response styles indicate passive styles of engage- ment rarely participate in the only or general activities and conditions linked to productive learning.” —Coates, 2007, 134 Coates cautions that these “styles of engagement refer to transient states rather than student traits or types . It is not supposed, for instance, that these are enduring qualities that are sustained within individuals over time or across contexts” (Coates, 2007, 132) . 14 Student engagement literature review 6 .2 Institutional engagement types Pike and Kuh (2005, 202) distilled seven types of engaging institutions from NSSE results, based around six factors . No institution ranked universally high or low across all measures of engagement, suggesting that not only do institutions differ in how they engage students, but that this may perhaps not be the result of conscious strategy . Pike and Kuh’s seven types are as follows: 1 . Diverse, but interpersonally fragmented Students at these colleges have numerous experiences with diversity and tend to use technology, but do not view the institution as supporting their academic or social needs nor are their peers viewed as supportive or encouraging . All in all, not a very easy place to live and learn it seems . 2 . Homogeneous and interpersonally cohesive Students at these colleges have relatively few experiences with diversity, but view the institution and their peers as supportive . These institutions are the mirror image of the first engagement type . 3 . Intellectually stimulating Students at these colleges are engaged in a variety of academic activities and have a great deal of interaction with faculty inside and outside the classroom . They also tend to engage in higher-order thinking and work with their peers on academic matters (i .e . collaborative learning) . 4 . Interpersonally supportive Students attending these institutions report high frequency of diversity experiences and view their peers and the campus as supportive of their efforts . Students also have a reasonable amount of contact with faculty members inside and outside the classroom . 5 . High-tech, low-touch Information technology rules at these universities to the point of muting other types of interactions . There is a sense of stark individualism as little collaboration occurs, academic challenge is low, and the interpersonal environment is not a distinguishing feature of the campus . 15The Higher Education Academy – 2010 6 . Academically challenging and supportive Faculty set high expectations and emphasise higher-order thinking in traditional ways . Little active and collaborative learning is required . At the same time, students support one another and view the campus as supportive . A generally friendly and congenial place to be an undergraduate interested in learning . 7 . Collaborative Peers rely on and are generally supportive of one another for learning, mediated somewhat by technology . Although there are few opportunities for experiences with diversity, students have a reasonable amount of contact with faculty, who along with other dimensions of the campus climate, are viewed as supportive . 6 .3 Student representatives’ motivations Lizzio and Wilson (2009, 73-74) identified four clusters of motivations given by students for undertaking student representative roles, predicated along two intersecting axes: motivation (intrinsic or extrinsic) and focus (personal or systems) . This gives rise to four quadrants, as illustrated below: Figure 3: Motivation for engagement in student governance (Lizzio and Wilson, 2009) Systems positioning Compliance with authority Personal development Systems advocacy Extrinsic motivation Intrinsic motivation Personal focus Systems focus 18 Student engagement literature review Teaching staff might take a specific approach to communicate with students, for instance, where the students have reported collaborative online and academic general forms of engagement … With knowledge of student engagement characteristics, pedagogical approaches could be developed to enhance the involvement of those students reporting more passive styles of engagement. 8 .3 Tools for online/classroom-based learning Many papers have looked at particular tools and technologies to improve engagement either in the classroom or online . These tend to be a mix of conference papers and journal articles, usually with the course or module as the unit of analysis, sometimes including a longitudinal or comparative element (if only discursively) . Examples include online/virtual learning environments (Dale and Lane, 2007, 101): The use of virtual learning environments (VLEs) has become a significant feature of higher education, with the majority of institutions now incorporating this technology into their wider learning and teaching strategies … Thus the model of learner engagement has changed significantly in recent years, with opportunities being created which offer more stimulating learner experiencand Audience Response Systems, commonly known as ‘clickers’ —Graham et al . 2007, 235–237 Criticism of the low student participation in traditional lecture formats in higher education has spurred interest in understanding pedagogical implications of [Audience Response Systems] … A common rationale for using ARSs has been to engage students who are shy or reluctant to take the risk of public failure. 8 .4 Extra-curricular activities These works tend to take a normative position (‘enriching educational experiences’ are ‘good’; paid work off-campus unrelated to study is ‘bad’) . Both the NSSE and AUSSE benchmark ‘enriching educational experiences’ among their “more powerful contributors to learning and personal development”, including: “complementary learning opportunities in- and out-of-class augment academic programs . Diversity experiences teach students valuable things about themselves and others . Technology facilitates collaboration between peers and instructors . Internships, community service, and senior capstone courses provide opportunities to integrate and apply knowledge” (Kuh, 2009a, 700–701) . 19The Higher Education Academy – 2010 These extra-curricular activities can be campus-based, as described below (Kuh, 2009a, 698): In addition to the high-impact activities identified [elsewhere]…, students do other things during college that likely confer similar benefits – writing for the student newspaper, working in an office or program on campus, participating in an honors program, being a leader for a student organization or campus committee, and playing intercollegiate athletics to name a few. or located in the world beyond the campus, such as that described by Slocum and Rhoads (2008, 102): By focusing this study on UBA [University of Buenos Aires] faculty and students actively engaged in anti-neoliberal social movements, we offer a counter-narrative to the notion of the university as economic tool or academic haven. This counter- narrative provides a vision of the university as a vehicle for social transformation, whereby part of the university community is engaged in something other than the pursuit of immediate economic returns. Rather, they are directly involved in creating a vision of society based on more democratic economic practices and a politically engaged citizenry. Krause (2005, 8), commenting on the results of a study of student engagement among first-year Australasian students, noted that: … the evidence points to first year undergraduates who are occupied in various pursuits beyond those of study. It seems that for an increasing number of student workers, there is a danger that university engagement will be interpreted as a noun rather than a verb [engagement as an appointment in a diary rather than being engaged]. For the multitasking Y Generation students, not to mention the X Generation or even baby boomers returning to study, university study runs the risk of becoming another appointment or engagement in the daily diary, along with paid work and a range of other commitments beyond the campus. In this context, ‘engagement’ takes on a whole new meaning. 20 Student engagement literature review However, these findings are disputed by Kuh (2009a, 693-694) who argued that: … although students who worked more hours tended to spend less time preparing for class, working on or off campus did not seem to negatively affect other forms of engagement. In fact, working students reported higher levels of active and collaborative learning, perhaps because their jobs provided them with opportunities to apply what they were learning… (T)hese studies suggest that some of the shibboleths and conclusions about the negative effects of work on student achievement from earlier studies may no longer hold. Indeed, employment may provide opportunities for students to practice and become more competent in collaboration and teamwork, skills that are needed to function effectively in the twenty-first century work environment. 8 .5 Institutional governance There was very little focus in the student engagement literature on student engagement with institutional governance, and what there was tended to be found in grey rather than peer-reviewed literature . Journal articles on the role of students in institutional governance tend to be tagged with keywords other than ‘student engagement’, suggesting a different discursive orientation . Lizzio and Wilson (2009, 70) observe that: … the value of actively involving students [in university governance] is generally described from one of three perspectives: functional (how does it benefit the university?), developmental (how does it benefit the student?) and social (how does it benefit society?) Kezar (2005, 2) comments that: Students bring an essential perspective for creating a success-orientated learning environment. No wonder that high-performing schools include students in policymaking and on committees, task forces, and governance groups, often in leadership roles. While Magolda (2005, 2) describes institutions where: … students are actively engaged in a variety of campus committees and provide meaningful input to decision making groups. Large numbers of students take 23The Higher Education Academy – 2010 Our findings suggest that increases on institutional NSSE scores can be considered as reasonable proxies for student growth and learning across a range of important educational outcomes. Thus, if an institution can only afford to focus on the ‘process’ of undergraduate education as measured by the NSSE benchmarks, this nevertheless seems likely to have implications for the ‘product’. 9 .2 Engagement to improve throughput rates and retention Student retention and throughput rates are of concern to all institutions, at least in part because of the financial penalties attached to drop-out or unreasonably length of time to complete . Since, as Kuh et al. (2008, 555) say: ... student engagement in educationally purposeful activities is positively related to academic outcomes as represented by first-year student grades and by persistence between first and second year of college, it makes sense for institutions to be concerned about student engagement, or its absence, as Krause argues (2005, 8): … we should be most concerned when students who should otherwise be receiving targeted assistance in the form of student support, course advice from academics, or peer support are not receiving this because they failed to engage when the opportunities were available. These are the students for whom inertia and failure to act may ultimately result in failure to persist and succeed … (W)e should be concerned about the inertia apparent in some of the first year students in the national study … because it is closely aligned with student dissatisfaction and potential withdrawal from study. 9 .3 Engagement for equality/social justice With the significance of the widening participation mission of UK universities given impetus by the Dearing Report, focus has also shifted to ‘non-traditional’ students of various flavours (including mature students, part-time students, economically disadvantaged students, students from ethnic minorities, students with disabilities and students with family responsibilities) and how best to ensure that they have an equal chance of success . Krause outlines the effects on diversity of the conversion of higher education to a mass system (2005, 3): 24 Student engagement literature review Mass higher education has meant that university campuses are now characterised by diversity of all kinds, including diversity of ability, age groups and educational backgrounds. Institutions are keen to know how they can engage students from diverse backgrounds and with such diverse needs. Related to this has been a concerted effort to enhance access to and monitor the experience of under- represented and disadvantaged students in higher education. Kuh (2009a, 685) argues that: … engagement has compensatory effects on grades and persistence for students who most need a boost to performance because they are not adequately prepared academically when they start college… while: … engaging in educationally purposeful activities helps to level the playing field, especially for students from low-income family backgrounds and others who have been historically underserved. (ibid., 689) According to Harper and Quaye (2009a, 3): We are persuaded by a large volume of empirical evidence that confirms that strategizing ways to increase the engagement of various student populations, especially those for whom engagement is known to be problematic, is a worthwhile endeavour. The gains and outcomes are too robust to leave to chance, and social justice is unlikely to ensue if some students come to enjoy the beneficial by-products of engagement but others do not. Krause (2005, 10) highlights that some subgroups of students (such as 20-24-year- olds, students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and foreign students) perceive their success at engagement with the university negatively: Regardless of the explanations for these findings, they nevertheless point to the need to challenge old paradigms which depict engagement solely in positive terms. The international subgroup is a case in point. As a group, international students score high on the usual measures of engagement. They spend more time on campus and in class than 25The Higher Education Academy – 2010 their domestic peers. They engage in online study far more than domestic students and devote relatively little time to paid employment. Nevertheless, they are having difficulty engaging with study and learning and are feeling overwhelmed by all they have to do. The finding points to the need for multiple indicators of engagement and a theorizing of the concept which allows for multiple perspectives. To understand engagement is to understand that for some it is a battle when they encounter teaching practices which are foreign to them, procedures which are difficult to understand, and a ‘language’ which is alien. Some students actively engage with the battle and lose – what do we do for them? While Krause’s view may at first reading appear critical of the limitations of engagement for these marginalised groups of students, on closer inspection it is apparent that she is simply calling for an expansion of the range of measures, to pick up other facets not currently reported on (such as the ‘coping and comprehension’ scale that identified these struggling groups), and a broader theorising of the concept to allow for these multiple perspectives . 9 .4 Engagement for curricular relevance The engagement of students in learning design, as discussed earlier, can lead to students perceiving improvements in curricular relevance . However, improvements in curricular relevance can also be attained through implementation of strategies informed by student engagement data, such as that illustrated by NSSE (2009b, 10): … Viterbo faculty members have increased the use of active learning strategies and technologies to create a learner-centered classroom … NSSE results from both 2006 and 2007 reinforce the effectiveness of active learning strategies at Viterbo – students’ responses indicated that they learn more when they are intensely involved in their education, asked to think about what they are learning in different settings, and collaborate with faculty and other students on projects. 9 .5 Engagement for institutional benefit Institutional benefit from student engagement can be both reputational and financial . Coates (2005, 32) argues that student engagement data have a valuable role to play in quality assurance, providing useful information for higher education managers: Student engagement data provides a means for determining the productivity of university education. Johnstone (1993) argued that the most significant and 28 Student engagement literature review control (public vs . private institutions), students’ seniority, and type of engagement measure, although: … the findings from this study seem to suggest that … instruction, followed closely by academic [including library, academic computing, academic administration, staff development and curriculum development] and institutional support [including general administration, executive planning, legal and fiscal operations, public relations and development], have the strongest positive relationships with the five NSSE measures of student engagement and educational effectiveness. Elsewhere, Kuh (2009a, 695) calls for studies to examine the cost/benefit ratios of “high-impact” practices, taking into account the probability of enhanced persistence and success of students who participate in these activities: The additional revenues realised from tuition and other fees from students who stay in school could offset what may be marginally higher costs of some of these practices, such as making available a small writing- or inquiry-intensive first-year seminar for every student and subsidising study away experiences. Knowing the costs of high-impact practices and student success interventions such as mentoring programs and early warning systems could help institutional decision makers to decide whether to reallocate resources and invest in them. 29The Higher Education Academy – 2010 10 Engagement for whom? The assumed or stated definition of engagement often varies with understandings of targets of engagement and reasons for engagement, as well as intended beneficiaries of engagement . Beneficiaries of engagement 10 .1 Students – as individuals, and collectively Students are the obvious beneficiaries of engagement, by design – as summarised by Kuh (2009a, 698): ...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 twenty-first century, and enjoy the intellectual and monetary advantages associated with the completion of the baccalaureate degree. However, individual students are not the only beneficiaries of engagement . Where students engage, a climate of co-operation and collaboration can be created, leading to a greater voice for students generally, as illustrated by Magolda (2005, 2): For example, the University of Kansas expects students to have a voice in campus governance. Indeed, the University requires that all policy committees (with the exception of personnel committees) have a minimum of twenty percent of their members be students. As one student senate officer commented, ‘Students are on an equal playing field with faculty and others in terms of governance.’ Clearly, students and their ‘voices’ are very important at the University. 10 .2 Managers Information about student engagement can be a useful tool for managers, as suggested by Coates (2010, 13): By monitoring student engagement and outcomes, institutions can identify areas of good practice as well as those areas in need of improvement. Institutions can 30 Student engagement literature review also allocate expensive teaching and support resources in a strategic fashion, and report the results of such actions in ways that demonstrate the efficacy of the feedback cycle. and echoed by Kuh (2009a, 685): The argument was that credible, actionable information about how students spent their time and what institutions emphasized in terms of student performance could tell an accurate comprehensive story of students’ educational experiences and be a powerful lever for institutional improvement. Elsewhere, Coates (2005, 32) has noted that: Data on student engagement has the advantage of providing information on what students are actually doing. While this may appear self-evident, it has a broader significance for the management of institutions, students and academic programmes. Rather than work from assumptions or partial anecdotal reports about student activities, institutions can make decisions based on more objective information. Information about student activities would provide institutions with valuable information for marketing and recruitment and help them become more responsive to student learning needs. Only with accurate and reliable information on what students are actually doing can institutions move beyond taking student activities for granted. and Krause and Coates (2008, 495) observe that: … [engagement] data have the potential to inform understanding of many aspects of university life, such as student affairs, pedagogical quality, recruitment and selection, attrition and retention, equity, and student learning processes. Addressing specifically student engagement in institutional governance, Lizzio and Wilson (2009, 70) note that there are functional benefits (to the university): Sabin and Daniels (2001), writing from a functional perspective, identify enhanced accountability (in terms of transparency of policy and decisions), evident deliberation (in terms of appropriate consideration of stakeholder views) and organisational learning (in terms of learning from experience) as benefits of participative processes. 33The Higher Education Academy – 2010 11 Effects of engagement Definitions of engagement often contain stated or unstated assumptions about aims and intended outcomes (‘engagement for what’) or beneficiaries (‘engagement for whom’), but these may vary from the actual observed effects of engagement on students, institutions and the higher education sector more broadly . The discussion below focuses on actual observed effects, rather than the intended outcomes and beneficiaries discussed in the preceding sections . Observed effects of engagement Engagement allows students to develop in important ways, as noted by Bensimon (2009, xxii-xxiii): … productive engagement is an important means by which students develop feelings about their peers, professors, and institutions that give them a sense of connectedness, affiliation, and belonging, while simultaneously offering rich opportunities for learning and development. and Kuh (2009a, 684): … students gained more from their studies and other aspects of the college experience when they devoted more time and energy to certain tasks that required more effort than others – studying, interacting with their peers and teachers about substantive matters, applying their learning to concrete situations and tasks in different contexts, and so forth. while Lizzio and Wilson (2009, 81) observed that: Students reported, on average, moderate to high levels of learning and development as a result of undertaking the representative role … The types of personal benefits they described generally reflected their motivations for originally accepting the role (i.e. developing skills and confidence, making contacts, helping fellow students). This suggests that the representative role is potentially a rich context for learning across a number of different skill and attitudinal domains. 34 Student engagement literature review Effects of engagement listed by Rush and Balamoutsou (2006, 4) include that: Engaged students … share the values and approaches to learning of their lecturers; spend time and energy on educationally meaningful tasks; learn with others inside and outside the classroom; actively explore ideas confidently with others; and learn to value perspectives other than their own. When students are part of a learning community … they are: positive about their identity as a member of a group; focused on learning; ask questions in class; feel comfortable contributing to class discussions; spend time on campus; have made a few friends; and are motivated in some extra curricular activity. Beyond these observations, robust relationships have been established over time between students’ investment of time, effort and interest in a range of educationally- orientated activities, and favourable outcomes such as increased performance, persistence and satisfaction . Following Astin’s 1984 paper which dealt with student involvement in their own learning, the concept that was subsequently expanded to incorporate earlier aspects such as “quality of effort” (Pace 1980, 1984) and “time-on-task” (Merwin 1969), with later work (Pace 1990, Chickering & Gamson 1987) on effective practices in teaching and learning, being incorporated into the concept which emerged as “student engagement” (Kuh et al . 1991, 1997; Kuh 2004, 2008a; Pascarella & Terenzini 1991, 2005; Ewell & Jones 1996; Pace 1995; Tinto 1993; Coates 2006) . Specific aspects of engagement, such as involvement, time on task, and quality of effort, have repeatedly been linked to positive outcomes (see Astin 1994, 1999; Braxton, Milem & Sullivan 2000; Goodsell, Maher & Tinto 1992; Feldman & Newcomb 1969; Kuh 1995; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh & Whitt 2005; Kuh, Pace & Vesper 1997; Kuh, Whitt & Strange 1989; LaNasa, Cabrera & Trangsrud 2009; Pace 1990, 1995; Pascarella 1985; Pascarella & Terenzini 1991, 2005; Pike 2006a, 2006b; Tinto 1987, 1993) . Chickering & Gamson (1987) summarised the evidence into seven effective practices in undergraduate teaching & learning, viz . student-staff contact, active learning, prompt feedback, time on task, high expectations, respect for diverse learning styles, and cooperation among students . Academic challenge is central to the engagement construct (NSSE 2002, 10) and some disciplines are experienced as more challenging than others (see Pascarella participating in a learning 2001, Coates & Ainley 2007; Marks & Coates 2007) . Interacting with staff has been shown to have a powerful impact on learning (Pascarella & Terenzini 1991, 2005; Astin 1993; Kuh & Hu 2001; Hausmann et al . 2007; Cuseo 2007) especially 35The Higher Education Academy – 2010 when it takes place outside of the classroom and responds to individual student needs (Kuh & Hu 2001; Chickering & Reisser 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini 1991) . Participation in extra-curricular activities has also been shown to be positively correlated to improved outcomes (Pascarella & Terenzini 1991; McInnis et al . 2001, 2005; Scott 2006) . Living on campus has been positively correlated to engagement (Chickering 1975; Pike & Kuh 2005; Terenzini et al . 1996) and community has been linked to substantial increases in engagement (Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research 2002; Pike 1999; Pike et al . 1997; Zhao & Ku 2004) . Interactions with diverse peers (in and out of the classroom) has been positively correlated with a range of positive outcomes, both personal and social (antonio et al . 2004; Chang, Astin & Kim 2004; Chang, Denson, Saenz & Misa 2006; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado & Gurin 2002; Harper & antonio 2008; Hu & Kuh 2003; Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn & Terenzini 1996; Villalpando 2002) . Additionally, studies have consistently shown correlations between engagement and improvements in specific desirable outcomes, including: — general abilities and critical thinking (Endo & Harpel 1982; Gellin 2003; Kuh 2003; Kuh, Hu & Vesper 1997; Pascarella, Duby, Terenzini & Iverson 1983; Pascarella et al. 1996; Pike 1999, 2000; Pike & Killian 2001; Pike, Kuh & Gonyea 2003; Shulman 2002; Terenzini, Pascarella & Bliming 1996); — practical competence and skills transferability (Kuh 1993, 1995); — cognitive development (Anaya 1996; Astin 1993; Baxter Magolda 1992; Kuh 1993, 1995; Pascarella, Seifert & Blaich 2009; Pascarella & Terenzini 2005); — self-esteem, psychosocial development, productive racial and gender identity formation (Bandura, Peluso, Ortman & Millard 2000; Chickering & Reisser 1993 Evans, Forney & Guido-DiBrito 1998; Harper 2004; Harper & Quaye 2007; Torres, Howard-Hamilton & Cooper 2003); — moral & ethical development (Evans 1987; Jones & Watt, 1999; Liddell & Davis 1996; Rest 1993); — student satisfaction (Kuh & Vesper 1997; Kuh et al . 2005; Kuh et al. 2007); — accrual of social capital (Harper 2008); — improved grades (Astin 1977, 1993; Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research 2002; Pike, Schroeder & Berry 1997; Tross, Harper Osher & Kneidinger 2000); — persistence (Astin 1975, 1985 1993; Bean 2005; Berger & Milem 1999; Braxton, Milem & Sullivan 2000; Bridges, Cambridge, Kuh & Leegwater 2005; Milem & Berger 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini 2005; Peltier, Laden & Matranga 1999: Pike et al. 1997; Stage & Hossler 2000; Swail, Redd & Perna 2003; Tinto 1993, 2000, 2005) . 38 Student engagement literature review Yet, as Hu and Kuh (2002, 570-571) note, other staff can also have a role to play: In addition, faculty members, academic administrators, and student affairs professionals can influence the extent to which students perceive that the institutional environment values scholarship and intellectual activity by communicating high expectations. The role such staff can play is picked up elsewhere by Kuh (2009a, 697): At high performing colleges and universities, student affairs staff collaborate with others to periodically review data about the effectiveness of policies and practices with an eye towards ensuring that what is enacted is of acceptable quality and consistent with the institutions espoused priorities and values. 12 .3 Local context Engagement issues may vary by discipline, and so engagement plans may need to be nuanced . In their study of the subject engagement of UK Sociology students, Jary and Lebeau (2009, 697) found a “greater commonality of experience and outcome across institutions than the extreme polarisation of institutional experiences and outcomes sometimes suggest”, with a “stronger … disciplinary framing of the curriculum,” and later (ibid ., 711) note that: … we would expect to find stronger personal projects in business studies and biosciences and somewhat greater integration for bioscience and subjects where class contact hours are high. Local variation can also occur at the programme level, particularly where implementation effectiveness may vary, as discussed by Kuh (2009a, 697): Another critical step is making sure the programs that research shows to be … high impact … are actually having the desired effects. One of the reasons so many college impact studies show equivocal or mixed findings is because the program or practice being evaluated was not implemented effectively. 39The Higher Education Academy – 2010 12 .4 Institutions If students are to take advantage of engagement opportunities, institutions are required to provide them, as noted by Coates (2005, 26-27): … institutions … need to provide students with the appropriate resources and opportunities to make possible and promote specific kinds of interactions. This may involve … campus libraries having sufficient space for students to work collaboratively, curricula and assessment that compel certain standards of performance or activities around campus that prompt students to reflect on the ethics and practices of their learning. This is supported by Kuh et al. (2007, 44): The second component of student engagement is how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum, other learning opportunities and support services to induce students to participate in activities that lead to the experiences and desired outcomes such as persistence, satisfaction, learning and graduation. Pike and Kuh (2005, 187) argue that: The most important institutional factors are thought to be the policies and practices adopted by institutions to increase student engagement … [Engaging] institutions were marked by an unshakeable focus on student learning emphasized in their missions and operating philosophies. They also adapted their physical campus properties and took advantage of the surrounding environment in ways that enriched students’ learning opportunities. Put another way, aspects of the institutional cultures appeared to explain more of what mattered to student success at these schools than variables typically examined in studies of institutional and student performance. An example of this is Kuh et al.’s (1991, 369) claim that “Involving Colleges are committed to pluralism in all its forms”, a view supported by Markwell’s (2007, 19) reminder that: … we need always to be mindful of the importance of creating an inclusive environment – one in which women and men of all cultural, national, socio-economic and other backgrounds will, so far as possible, feel able to engage on equal terms. 40 Student engagement literature review The institution’s duty to provide an engaging environment is a moral, rather than just an instrumental, one, as Kuh (2009b, 316) argues: … it behoves faculty and staff to create opportunities for all students to participate in what research from NSSE and other quarters indicate are ‘high impact’ practices … These include learning communities, student-faculty research, service learning, internships, study abroad, and capstone seminars or other culminating experiences. This passion is supported by Markwell (2007, 15), who argues that: … we need to put in front of students and staff alike a vision of student – and staff – engagement within a wider vision of an academic community … Presenting a compelling and exciting vision of what university life can be like, and of the great benefits that flow from it may not be sufficient but it is surely necessary for making substantial progress. Providing an engaging environment is not just the wise thing to do, they claim – it is also the right thing to do . 12 .5 Educational ideology: As noted by Coates (2005, 26): The concept of student engagement is based on the constructivist assumption that learning is influenced by how an individual participates in educationally purposeful activities. While constructivism is a theory (or philosophy) of learning, it is usually held as part of a broader set of understandings about the nature of teaching and learning, of students, and of the purposes of higher education generally . Differing orientations to such issues are best described as educational ideologies, which we define as alternative frameworks of theories, beliefs and values about the nature, distribution and ordering of educational arrangements at both national and local levels, which provide a guide and justification for behaviour in educational contexts . They provide discourses and conceptual tools that individuals draw on in thinking, talking and practising . Differing educational ideologies have implications for the way in which student engagement was understood and implemented or emphasised in an institution, as well 43The Higher Education Academy – 2010 13 Strategies for engagement Strategies for engagement hinge on one’s understanding and definition of engagement, as well as notions of what would constitute appropriate targets, goals and beneficiaries for engagement strategies . The effects and effectiveness of these strategies are impacted by the critical success factors outlined above . A useful collection of strategy guides directed at various stakeholders, distilled from ‘best practice’ at participating colleges and informed by NSSE data can be found at: http://nsse .iub .edu/institute/index . cfm?view=deep/publications&ptab=DEEP_Practice_Briefs . 13 .1 Institutional strategies 13 .1 .1 Involving blended professionals Blended professionals are “individuals who draw their identity from both professional and academic domains, and are, in effect, developing new forms of space between the two” (Whitchurch, 2009: 2) . These staff typically have mixed portfolios and work in a fluid space between and among academic and professional domains, developing a network of relationships while being contained within formal reporting hierarchies (ibid .: 3) . Examples of ‘blended professionals’ include learning developers, student affairs professionals, educational developers and quality enhancement professionals . Institutions who involve blended professionals in their student engagement strategies demonstrate a united approach to engaging students, as illustrated by Kuh (2009a, 698): Another way student affairs professionals can enhance student engagement and success is by championing and themselves consistently using what the research shows are effective educational practices … Student affairs could take the lead in monitoring students participating in these and other effective educational activities … and work with academic administrators and faculty colleagues to find ways to scale them up to create enough opportunities so that every student has a real chance to participate. 13 .1 .2 Institutional engagement plans Coates (2010, 14) notes that: … students’ interactions with their institution do not necessarily align with organisational structures. Building student engagement means building processes and 44 Student engagement literature review structures that are designed around and responsive to increasingly diverse student needs. As institutions have demonstrated in recent years, this may involve forming institution-wide action groups, appointing people to manage student engagement initiatives, making funds available for engagement-focused developments, building learning spaces that support student participation, or enhancing the capacity of teaching staff to challenge students to learn. Jankowska and Atlay (2008) discuss the use of “creative space” to enhance students’ engagement with the learning process, capitalising on a sense of “novelty and surprise” to enhance collaboration and interactivity . Krause (2005, 12-14) lists ten ‘working principles’ to enhance student engagement: 1 . Create and maintain a stimulating intellectual environment — Give students good reasons to be part of the learning community . — Provide a coherent and current course structure . — Stimulate discussion and debate, exploration and discovery . 2 . Value academic work and high standards — Actively encourage commitment to study by attaching importance to studying and spending time on academic work . — This may need to be modelled for students in first year so that they learn how to balance the different dimensions of their lives . 3 . Monitor and respond to demographic subgroup differences and their impact on engagement — Make it a priority to get to know your students, their needs, aspirations and motivations . — Monitor the subgroup differences and develop targeted strategies for engaging students according to their needs and background experiences . — This provides a powerful platform for supporting and teaching students in a responsive way so as to maximise the possibilities for engagement . 4 . Ensure expectations are explicit and responsive — Communicate expectations clearly and consistently across the institution and within faculties and departments . — Reiterate expectations at appropriate times through the semester and in 45The Higher Education Academy – 2010 different settings – before semester begins, and before and during peak stress times in the semester . — Include students in the expectation-building exercise . Listen to their expectations . Be responsive where appropriate . Ensure that they know you have listened to their views, but be sure to shape expectations so that the highest standards of learning and teaching are maintained . Do not be driven by unrealistic expectations . 5 . Foster social connections — In small groups: When students have many off-campus commitments, the value of in-class time should be maximised . Opportunities for active and collaborative learning are particularly important . Encourage problem-solving activities, small group discussion of reading and class materials, and provide intellectual stimulation and challenge . — In large lectures: Even here, student interaction can be fostered through question- answer sessions and a range of interactive activities that help to break down the potentially alienating barriers created by the large group anonymity syndrome . — Online: Provide for online discussion, collaboration and interaction . — Create opportunities for civic engagement with communities beyond the campus . 6 . Acknowledge the challenges — Let students know that you/your department/unit/institution understand and are aware of some of the pressures they face . — Acknowledge that a large proportion of students will be juggling work and study commitments throughout the semester . This may be done in reading guides, lectures or tutorials . — Be explicit and proactive in dealing with issues and challenges that potentially jeopardise student engagement . 7 . Provide targeted self-management strategies — Seek to develop self-regulated learners who drive their own engagement behaviours . — Discuss strategies for time management and maintaining motivation, particularly during stressful times of semester . — Identify the various sources of help early in the semester and at key moments through semester so that students are prepared ahead of time . They need to know that they are not alone in facing the challenges and they also need to know where to go for help . 48 Student engagement literature review necessity of cognitive work at the ground level by reflective practitioners . However, to do this work they need tools for thinking . Fullan and Scott (2009) talk about action based on evidence, but as important is interpretation of that evidence based on good theory . Action for change needs to be both evidentially and theoretically informed . So, any framework for action by change agents should be theoretically and conceptually robust as well as informed by data: ‘evidence’ . Such frameworks should stimulate the reflective practitioner to think about their own context, about the nature of the innovation being considered and about how the two things fit together . Abstracted truisms and dangerous generalisations can then, hopefully, be avoided and at the same time the ‘bipolar division’ between abstract theory and detailed instances of events on the ground can be bridged (Warde, 2005) . Frameworks for action have four elements: — data from practice on the ground; — theory; — associated concepts; — and finally, questions for practitioner . Theory and data interact with each other: data informs and refines theory; theory shapes the interpretation of data . Concepts are crystallised out of that interaction and themselves are applied to the situation on the ground . Finally, reflective questions are formulated on the basis of those processes . 49The Higher Education Academy – 2010 14 Conclusion A literature search on ‘student engagement’ produced a body of some 1,000 results, including articles in peer-reviewed journals (both print and online), books, monographs, project reports, syllabi, conference papers (both published, refereed conference proceedings and ‘raw’ presentations), evaluation reports, pamphlets, action guides, and speeches . The bulk of the literature is concentrated in the US and Australia, where the implementation of national surveys of student engagement have added impetus to a growing body of work with its roots in the 1980s work on student involvement, aimed at demonstrating the robustness of the concept and its validity and reliability, as well as its potential uses for those tasked with various roles in higher education delivery and management . Literature originating from the UK has a rather different character . It is overwhelmingly focused on particular aspects of individual student learning, often on tools (such as virtual learning environments) or techniques (such as a particular type of feedback) or approaches to a particular situation (such as induction of distance learners) . Sample sizes tend to be small, often covering the experience of a single class in a single year doing a particular module, and most often rely on measures of student perception (how much they claim to have benefited when surveyed) . The UK literature formed a very small proportion of the overall body of literature found . The literature was typically normative, with a single paper (Krause’s 2005 paper) engaging to any extent critically with the concept . Much of the literature demonstrated reductionist or essentialised views of ‘the student’, with assumptions about sameness among ‘Y Generation’ students or ethnic minority students or older students as distinct from some essentialised view of ‘the traditional student’ . Additionally, ideological perspectives were predominantly progressivist and enterprise, with the poles of traditionalism and social reconstructivism under-represented . While the relative absence of traditionalism is unsurprising in literature on student engagement, the paucity of works from a social reconstructivist perspective was striking . There was very little literature on student engagement in governance – and very little of the student governance literature was concerned with student engagement . The CHERI study focused exclusively on this aspect of student engagement but at a systems-level view; an aggregated picture of how many HEIs do what and how happy the institutions, as opposed to the student bodies, are with these mechanisms is a 50 Student engagement literature review useful starting point, but reveals little of the nature and texture of student engagement within those institutions . While most of the literature discussed – or assumed – the benefits of student engagement, a striking absence was the student voice in the literature on student engagement . Instead, literature was written about students for managers, policy makers, researchers, funders or teachers, with occasional briefing guides for student leaders, by other managers, policy makers, researchers or teachers . Where student voices appeared, it was as data in the form of quotes to illustrate arguments being made by others about them . This leads to a few recommendations for future research: — comparative studies akin to NSSE, AUSSE or the nascent SASSE (based on NSSE, being piloted in South Africa) or Chinese version (currently under development) to develop a national picture of student engagement in the UK; — finer-grained studies on student engagement in structures and practices, including student governance, student voices in curriculum-shaping and the perennial problem of ‘closing the feedback loop’; — exploration of the concept of ‘student engagement’ from the student perspective, including problematising the student role and identity in changing contexts (such as part-time students, students who return to interrupted studies, working students and students with family responsibilities); — a locally grounded but internationally validated conceptualisation of student engagement, which can be operationalised, tested and improved in classrooms, halls of residence and student societies; — the development of a robust body of evidence built up through small-scale local studies that speak to – to confirm, challenge or redefine – other studies, so that instead of a collection of stand-alone, almost anecdotal, evidence, a more integrated and rigorous picture can emerge of practice and effects; 53The Higher Education Academy – 2010 Baxter Magolda, M .B . (1992) Cocurricular Influences on College Students’ Intellectual Development . Journal of College Student Development . 33(3), pp . 203–213 . Bean, J .P . (2005) Nine Themes of College Student Retention . In: Seidman, A . (ed .) College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success . Washington DC: ACE & Praeger, pp . 215–244 . Bensimon, E .M . (2007) The Underestimated Significance of Practitioner Knowledge in the Scholarship of Student Success . Review of Higher Education . 30 (4), pp . 441–469 . Bensimon, E .M . (2009) Foreword . In: Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (eds .) Student Engagement in Higher Education . New York and London: Routledge, pp . xxi-xxvi . Berger, J .B . and Milem, J .F . (1999) The Role of Student Involvement and Perceptions of Integration in a Causal Model of Student Persistence . Research in Higher Education. 40 (6), pp . 641–664 . Blackburn, R . and Lawrence, J . (1995) Faculty at Work: Motivation, Expectation, Satisfaction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press . Bloom, B .S . (ed .) (1956) Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: the Classification of Educational Goals . New York: D McKay & Co, Inc . Bowe, R ., Ball, S .J . and Gold, A . (1992) Reforming Education and Changing Schools: Case Studies in Policy Sociology. London: Routledge . Braxton, J .M ., Milem, J .F . and Sullivan, A .S . (2000) The Influence of Active Learning on the College Student Departure Process: Towards a Revision of Tinto’s Theory . Journal of Higher Education . 71 (5), pp . 569–590 . Brennan, J ., Brighton, R ., Moon, N ., Richardson, J ., Rindi, J . and Williams, R . (2003) Collecting and Using Student Feedback on Quality and Standards of Learning and Teaching in HE: A report to Higher Education Funding Council for England. Bristol: HEFCE . Bridges, B .K ., Cambridge, B ., Kuh, G .D . and Leegwater, L .H . (2005) Student Engagement at Minority Serving Institutions: Emerging Lessons from the BEAMS Project . In: Gaither, G .H . (ed .) Minority Retention: What Works? New Directions for Institutional Research. No. 125 . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp . 25–43 . Cabrera, A .F ., Nora, A ., Terenzini, P .T ., Pascarella, E .T . and Hagedorn, L .S . (1999) Campus Racial Climate and the Adjustment of Students to College: A Comparison between White Students and African American Students . Journal of Higher Education. 70 (2), pp . 134–202 . Carini, R .M ., Kuh, G .D . and Klein, S .P . (2006) Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages . Research in Higher Education . 47 (1), pp . 1–24 . 54 Student engagement literature review Chang, M .J ., Astin, A .W . and Kim, D . (2004) Cross-Racial Interaction Among Undergraduates: Some Consequences, Causes and Patterns . Research in Higher Education . 45 (5), pp . 529–553 . Chang, M .J ., Chang, J .C . and Ledesma, M .C . (2005) Beyond Magical Thinking: Doing the Real Work of Diversifying our Institutions . About Campus . 10 (2), pp . 9–16 . Chang, M .J ., Denson, N ., Saenz, V . and Misa, K . (2006) The Educational Benefits of Sustaining Cross-Racial Interaction Among Undergraduates . Journal of Higher Education . 77 (3), pp . 430–455 . Chickering, A .W . (1975) Commuting versus Resident Students: Overcoming the Educational Inequities of Living Off Campus. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . Chickering, A .W . and Gamson, Z .F . (1987) Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education . AAHE Bulletin . 39 (7), pp . 3–7 . Chickering, A .W . and Reisser, L . (1993) Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . Christie, H ., Munro, M . and Wager, F . (2005) ‘Day Students’ in Higher Education: Widening Access Students and Successful Transition to University Life . International Studies in Sociology of Education. 15 (1), pp . 3–29 . Coates, H . (2005) The Value of Student Engagement for Higher Education Quality Assurance . Quality in Higher Education . 11 (1), pp . 25–36 . Coates, H .C . (2006) Student Engagement in Campus-based and Online Education: University Connections. London: Routledge . Coates, H . (2007) A Model of Online and General Campus-Based Student Engagement . Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education . 32 (2), pp . 121–141 . Coates, H . (2009) Engaging Students for Success - 2008 Australasian Survey of Student Engagement. Victoria, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research . Coates, H . (2010) Development of the Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) . Higher Education. 60 (1), pp . 1–17 . Coates, H .C . and Ainley, J . (2007) Graduate Course Experience, 2006: The Report of the Course Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) . Parkville, Victoria, Australia:GCA . Colby, A ., Ehrlich, T ., Beaumont, E . and Stephens, J . (2003) Educating Citizens: Preparing America’s Undergraduates for Lives of Moral and Civic Responsibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . Cress, C .M ., Astin, H .S ., Zimmerman, B ., Oster, K . and Burkhardt, J .C . (2001) Developmental Outcomes of College Students’ Involvement in Leadership Activities . Journal of College Student Development . 42 (1), pp . 15–29 . 55The Higher Education Academy – 2010 Crossan, B ., Field, J ., Gallacher, J . and Merrill, B . (2003) Understanding Participation in Learning for Non-Traditional Adult Learners: Learning Careers and the Construction of Learner Identities . British Journal of Sociology of Education . 24 (1), pp . 55–67 . Cruce, T ., Wolniak, G .C ., Seifert, T .A . and 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), pp . 365–383 . Cuseo, J . (2007) The Empirical Case Against Large Class Size: Adverse Effects on the Teaching, Learning and Retention of First-Year Students . The Journal of Faculty Development . 21 (1), pp . 5–21 . Dale, C . and Lane, A .M . (2007) A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing? An Analysis of Student Engagement with Virtual Learning Environments . Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education . 6 (2), pp . 100–108 . Davis, T .M . and Murrell, P .H . (1993) Turning Teaching into Learning: The Role of Student Responsibility in the Collegiate Experience. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education . Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) (2004) Learning and Teaching Performance Fund: Issues Paper. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education Science and Training . Endo, J .J . and Harpel, R .L . (1982) The Effect of Student-Faculty Interaction on Students’ Educational Outcomes . Research in Higher Education . 16 (2), pp . 115–137 . Evans, N .J . (1987) A Framework for Assisting Student Affairs Staff in Fostering Moral Development . Journal of Counseling and Development . 66 (4), pp . 191–193 . Evans, N .J ., Forney, D .S . and Guido-DiBrito, F . (1998) Student Development in College: Theory, Research & Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . Ewell, P .T . and Jones, D .P . (1996) Indicators of “Good Practice” in Undergraduate Education: A Handbook for Development and Implementation. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems . Fairweather, J . (1996) Faculty Work and Public Trust: Restoring the Value of Teaching and Public Service in American Academic Life. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon . Fairweather, J . (2002) The Mythologies of Faculty Productivity: Implications for Institutional Policy and Decision Making . Journal of Higher Education . 73 (1), pp . 26–48 . Feldman, K .A . and Newcomb, T . (1969) The Impact of College on Students . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . 58 Student engagement literature review Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (2007) Student Organizations as Venues for Black Identity Expression and Development among African American Male Student Leaders . Journal of College Student Development. 48 (2), pp . 133–159 . Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (2009a) Beyond Sameness, with Engagement and Outcomes for All . In: Student Engagement in Higher Education . New York and London: Routledge, pp . 1–15 . Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (eds .) (2009b) Student Engagement in Higher Education . New York and London: Routledge . Harper, S .R ., Carini, R .M ., Bridges, B .K . and Hayek, J .C . (2004) Gender Differences in Student Engagement among African American Undergraduates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities . Journal of College Student Development . 45 (3), pp . 271–284 . Harris, F .I . and Lester, J . (2009) Gender-Specific Approaches to Enhancing Identity Development among Undergraduate Women and Men . In: Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (eds .) Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York and London: Routledge, pp . 99–115 . Haug, K .H . (2006) Students’ Development of Assessment Criteria and Enhancement of Learning Potential . Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research. University of Geneva, 13–15 September . Hausman, L ., Schofield, J . and Woods, R . (2007) Sense of Belonging as a Predictor of Intentions to Persist Among African American and White First-Year College Students . Research in Higher Education . 48 (7), pp . 803–839 . Hawkins, V .M . and Larabee, H .J . (2009) Engaging Racial/Ethnic Minority Students in Out-of-Class Activities on Predominantly White Campuses . In: Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (eds .) Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York and London: Routledge, pp . 179–197 . HEFCE (2008) Tender for a Study into Student Engagement . Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England . Heiberger, G . and Harper, R . (2008) Have You Facebooked Astin Lately? Using Technology to Increase Student Involvement . New Directions for Student Services . 124 (Winter 2008), pp . 19–35 . Hillard, V .E . (1988) Boredom and the Pedagogy of Responsibility . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Central States Speech Association. Schaumburg, IL, 16–18 April . 59The Higher Education Academy – 2010 Hockings, C . (2009) Reaching the Students that Student-Centred Learning Cannot Reach . British Educational Research Journal 35 (1), pp . 83–98 . Holley, D . and Oliver, M . (2010) Student Engagement and Blended Learning: Portraits of Risk . Computers and Education . 54 (3), pp . 693–700 . Hu, S . and Kuh, G .D . (2001) Being (Dis)Engaged in Educationally Purposeful Activities: The Influences of Student and Institutional Characteristics . Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Seattle, WA, 10–14 April . Hu, S . and Kuh, G .D . (2002) Being (Dis)Engaged in Educationally Purposeful Activities: The Influences of Student and Institutional Characteristics . Research in Higher Education . 43 (5), pp . 555–575 . Hu, S . and Kuh, G .D . (2003) Diversity Experiences and College Student Learning and Development . Journal of College Student Development . 44 (3), pp . 320–334 . Hu, S ., Kuh, G .D . and Li, S . (2008) The Effects of Engagement in Inquiry-Oriented Activities on Student Learning and Personal Development . Innovative Higher Education . 33 (2), pp . 71–81 . Hughes, C . (2002) Beyond the Poststructuralist-modern Impasse: The Woman Returner as ‘exile’ and ‘nomad’ . Gender and Education . 14 (4), pp . 411–424 . Hurtado, S . (1992) The Campus Racial Climate: Contexts for Conflict . Journal of Higher Education. 63 (5), pp . 539–569 . Hurtado, S ., Milem, J ., Clayton-Pedersen, A . and Allen, W . (1999) Enacting Diverse Learning Environments: Improving the Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Vol 26 No 8 . Washington DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development . Hyland, F . (2003) Focusing on Form: Student Engagement with Teacher Feedback . System . 31 (2), pp . 217–230 . Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research (2002) From Promise to Progress: How Colleges and Universities are Using Student Engagement Results to Improve Collegiate Quality. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research . Iversen, B .K ., Pascarella, E .T . and Terenzini, P .T . (1984) Informal Faculty-Student Contact and Commuter College Freshmen . Research in Higher Education . 21 (2), pp . 123– 136 . Jackson, C . (2003) Transitions into Higher Education: Gendered Implications for Academic Self-Concept . Oxford Review of Education . 29 (3), pp . 331–346 . 60 Student engagement literature review Jankowska, M . and Atlay, M . (2008) Use of Creative Space in Enhancing Students’ Engagement . Innovations in Education and Teaching International . 45 (3), pp . 271–279 . Jary, D . and Lebeau, Y . (2009) The Student Experience and Subject Engagement in UK Sociology: a Proposed Typology . British Journal of Sociology of Education . 30 (6), pp . 697–712 . Jones, C .E . and Watt, J .D . (1999) Psychosocial Development and Moral Orientation Among Traditional-Aged College Students . Journal of College Student Development . 40 (2), pp . 125–132 . Jones, R .C . (2008) The “Why” of Class Participation: A Question Worth Asking . College Teaching . 56 (1), pp . 59–63 . Kandiko, C .B . (2008) Student Engagement in Two Countries: a Comparative Study Using National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) data . Journal of Institutional Research . 14 (1), pp . 71–86 . Keenan, C . (2007) Case 6: Students Getting Down to Work Before they Start at University: a Model for Improving Retention . In: Crosling, G ., Thomas, L . and Heagney, M . (eds .) Improving Student Retention in Higher Education: the Role of Teaching and Learning . London: Routledge, pp . 82–87 . Kezar, A . (1999) Higher Education Trends: Faculty. Washington DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education . Kezar, A . (2005) Promoting Student Success: The Importance of Shared Leadership and Collaboration. Occasional Paper No. 4. Bloomington, IN: National Survey of Student Engagement . Kezar, A .J . (2006), The Impact of Institutional Size on Student Engagement . NASPA Journal . 43 (1), pp . 87–114 . Kezar, A . (2007) Creating and Sustaining a Campus Ethos Encouraging Student Engagement . About Campus . 11 (6), pp . 13–18 . King, S .O . and Robinson, C .L . (2009) “Pretty Lights” and Maths! Increasing Student Engagement and Enhancing Learning through the Use of Electronic Voting Systems . Computers and Education. 53 (1), pp . 189–199 . Kinzie, J . (2005) Promoting Student Success: What Faculty Members Can Do. Bloomington, IN: National Survey of Student Engagement . Kinzie, J . and Kuh, G .D . (2004) Going DEEP: Learning from Campuses that Share Responsibility for Student Success . About Campus . 9 (5), pp . 2–8 . Kinzie, J .L ., Thomas, A .D ., Palmer, M .M ., Umbach, P .D . and Kuh, G .D . (2007) Women Students at Coeducational and Women’s Colleges: How Do Their Experiences Compare? Journal of College Student Development . 48 (2), pp . 145–165 . 63The Higher Education Academy – 2010 Kuh, G .D . and Umbach, P .D . (2004) College and Character: Insights from the National Survey of Student Engagement . New Directions for Institutional Research . 122 (Summer), pp . 37–54 . Kuh, G .D . and Vesper, N . (1997) A Comparison of Student Experiences with Good Practices in Undergraduate Education between 1990 and 1994 . Review of Higher Education . 21 (1), pp . 43–61 . Kuh, G .D ., Vesper, N ., Connolly, M .R . and Pace, C .R . (1997) College Student Experiences Questionnaire: Revised Norms for the Third Edition. Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, School of Education, Indiana University . Kuh, G .D . and Whitt, E .J . (1988) The Invisible Tapestry: Culture in American Colleges and Universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Vol 17 No 1. Washington DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development . Kuh, G .D ., Whitt, E .J . and Strange, C .C . (1989) The Contributions of Institutional Agents to High Quality Out-of-Class experiences for College Students . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association . San Francisco, CA, 27–31 March . LaNasa, S .M ., Cabrera, A .F . and Trangsrud, H . (2009) The Construct Validity of Student Engagement: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis Approach . Research in Higher Education . 50 (4), pp . 315–332 . Leese, M . (2009) Out of Class--Out of Mind? The Use of a Virtual Learning Environment to Encourage Student Engagement in Out of Class Activities . British Journal of Educational Technology . 40 (1), pp . 70–77 . Levy, S . and Campbell, H . (2007) Promoting Motivation and Engagement among Academically At Risk Students . Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning . 9 (3), pp . 17–25 . Liddell, D .L . and Davis, T .L . (1996) The Measure of Moral Orientation: Reliability and Validity Evidence . Journal of College Student Development . 37 (5), pp . 485–493 . Little, B ., Locke, W ., Scesa, A . and Williams, R . (2009) Report to HEFCE on Student Engagement . London: Centre for Higher Education Research and Information . Lizzio, A . and Wilson, K . (2006) Enhancing the Effectiveness of Self-Managed Learning Groups: Understanding Students’ Choices and Concerns . Studies in Higher Education . 31 (6), pp . 689–703 . Lizzio, A . and Wilson, K . (2009) Student Participation in University Governance: the Role Conceptions and Sense of Efficacy of Student Representatives on Departmental Committees . Studies in Higher Education . 34 (1), pp . 69–84 . 64 Student engagement literature review Lovatt, J ., Finlayson, O .E . and James, P . (2007) Evaluation of Student Engagement with Two Learning Supports in the Teaching of 1st Year Undergraduate Chemistry . Chemistry Education Research and Practice . 8 (4), pp . 390–402 . Luan, J ., Zhao, C .M . and Hayek, J .C . (2009) Using a Data Mining Approach to Develop a Student Engagement-Based Institutional Typology . IR Applications. 18, pp . 1–19 . MacKinnon, D . and Manathunga, C . (2003) Going Global with Assessment: What to do when the Dominant Culture’s Literacy Drives Assessment . Higher Education Research and Development . 22 (2), pp . 131–144 . Magolda, P . (2005) Promoting Student Success: What Student Leaders Can Do. Bloomington, IN: National Survey of Student Engagement . Mahaffey, C .J . and Smith, S .A . (2009) Creating Welcoming Campus Environments for Students from Minority Religious Groups . In: Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (eds .) Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York and London: Routledge, pp . 81–97 . Maier, H .R . and Rowan, T .S .C . (2007) Increasing Student Engagement with Graduate Attributes . Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. 13 (1), pp . 21–29 . Mann, S .J . (2001) Alternative Perspectives on the Student Experience: Alienation and Engagement . Studies in Higher Education . 26 (1), pp . 7–19 . Marks, G .N . and Coates, H .C . (2007) Refinement of the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund Adjustment Process. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education Science and Training (DEST) . Markwell, D . (2007) The Challenge of Student Engagement . Keynote address at the Teaching and Learning Forum. University of Western Australia, 30–31 January. Marton, F . and Säljö, R . (1976) On Qualitative Differences in Learning - I: Outcomes and Process . British Journal of Educational Psychology. 46, pp . 4–11 . McClenney, K .M . and Greene, T . (2005) A Tale of Two Students: Building a Culture of Engagement in the Community College . About Campus. 10 (3), pp . 2–7 . McCormick, A .C . (2009) Toward Reflective Accountability: Using NSSE for Accountability and Transparency . New Directions for Institutional Research. 141 (Spring), pp . 97–106 . McInnis, C ., Griffin, P ., James, R . and Coates, H .C . (2001) Development of the Course Experience Questionnaire. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education Science and Training (DEST) . McInnis, C ., Coates, H .C ., Jensz, F ., Hooper, C . and Vu, T . (2005) Study Abroad and Study Exchange Systems in Industrialised Countries. Canberra, Australia: Australian Education International . 65The Higher Education Academy – 2010 McRae, D . (2007) Student Engagement: Attendance, Participation and Belonging. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST) . Merwin, J .C . (1969) Historical View of Changing Concepts of Evaluation . In: Tyler, R .L . (ed .) Educational Evaluation: New Roles, New Methods. 68th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part II . Chicago: University of Chicago Press . Milem, J .F . and Berger, J .B . (1997) A Modified Model of College Student Persistence: Exploring the Relationship between Astin’s Theory of Involvement and Tinto’s Theory of Student Departure . Journal of College Student Development. 38 (4), pp . 387–400 . Mills, C .W . (1959) The Sociological Imagination. Harmondsworth: Penguin . Moore, S ., Armstrong, C . and Pearson, J . (2008) Lecture Absenteeism among Students in Higher Education: A Valuable Route to Understanding Student Motivation . Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 30 (1), pp . 15–24 . Mullen, C .A . (2000) Linking Research and Teaching: a Study of Graduate Student Engagement . Teaching in Higher Education. 5 (1), pp . 5–21 . Nair, C .S ., Adams, P . and Mertova, P . (2008) Student Engagement: The Key to Improving Survey Response Rates . Quality in Higher Education. 14 (3), pp . 225–232 . National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (2002) From Promise to Progress: How Colleges and Universities are using Student Engagement results to improve Collegiate Quality. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research . National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (2007) Experiences that Matter: Enhancing Student Learning and Success. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Center for Postsecondary Research . National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (2009a) Assessment for Improvement: Tracking Student Engagement Over Time. Annual Results 2009. Bloomington, IN: NSSE . National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) (2009b) Using NSSE to Assess and Improve Undergraduate Education: Lessons from the Field. Bloomington, IN: NSSE . Neumann, D .L . and Hood, M . (2009) The Effects of Using a Wiki on Student Engagement and Learning of Report Writing Skills in a University Statistics Course . Australasian Journal of Educational Technology . 25 (3), pp . 382–398 . Nichols, A .H . and Quaye, S .J . (2009) Beyond Accommodation: Removing Barriers to Academic and Social Engagement for Students with Disabilities . In: Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (eds .) Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York and London: Routledge, pp . 39–59 . 68 Student engagement literature review Richardson, S . and Coates, H . (2010) AUSSE Research Briefing. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research . Ross, M . and Welsh, M .P . (2007) Reflective Practitioners in First Year? E-portfolios as an Effective Tool to Promote Formative Assessment . Paper presented at the 2007 European Conference on Educational Research. University of Ghent, Belgium, 19–22 September . Rush, L . and Balamoutsou, S . (2006) Dominant Voices, Silent Voices and the Use of Action Learning Groups in HE: A Social Constructionist Perspective . Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6–9 September . Ryan, J .F . (2005) Institutional Expenditures and Student Engagement: A Role for Financial Resources in Enhancing Student Learning and Development? Research in Higher Education. 46 (2), pp . 235–249 . Rypisi, C ., Malcom, L . and Kim, H .S . (2009) Environmental and Developmental Approaches to Supporting Women’s Success in STEM Fields . In: Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (eds .) Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York and London: Routledge, pp . 117–135 . Sallee, M .W ., Logan, M .E ., Sims, S . and Harrington, W .P . (2009) Engaging White Students on a Multicultural Campus: Developmental Needs and Institutional Challenges . In: Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (eds .) Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York and London: Routledge, pp . 223–241 . Schön, D . (1983) The Reflective Practitioner. London: Temple Smith . Schueler, L .H ., Hoffman, J .A . and Peterson, E . (2009) Fostering Safe, Engaging Campuses for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Students . In: Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (eds .) Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York and London: Routledge, pp . 61–79 . Schuh, J .H . and Kuh, G .D . (2005) Promoting Student Success: What Department Chairs Can Do. Bloomington, IN: National Survey of Student Engagement . Scott, G . (2006) Accessing the Student Voice: Using CEQuery to Identify What Retains Students and Promotes Engagement in Productive Learning in Australian Higher Education. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education Science and Training (DEST) . 69The Higher Education Academy – 2010 Shulman, L .S . (2002) Making Differences: A Table of Learning . Change. 34 (6), pp . 36–44 . Sibeon, R . (2007) Contemporary Sociology & Policy Analysis. Eastham: Tudor Business Publishing . Silverman, S .C ., Aliabadi, S . and Stiles, M . (2009) Meeting the Needs of Commuter, Part-Time, Transfer, and Returning Students . In: Harper, S .R . and Quaye, S .J . (eds .) Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations. New York and London: Routledge, pp . 223–243 . Skinner, E . (2009) Using Community Development Theory to Improve Student Engagement in Online Discussion: A Case Study . ALT J Research in Learning Technology. 17 (2), pp . 89–100 . Slocum, J . and Rhoads, R .A . (2009) Faculty and Student Engagement in the Argentine Grassroots Rebellion: Toward a Democratic and Emancipatory Vision of the University . Higher Education. 57 (1), pp . 85–105 . Stage, F .K . and Hossler, D . (2000) Where is the Student? Linking Student Behaviours, College Choice, and College Persistence . In: Braxton, D .M . (ed .) Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, pp . 170–195 . Strange, C .C . and Banning, J .H . (2001) Educating by design: Creating Campus Learning Environments that Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . Sumner, J . (2008) From Academic Imperialism to the Civil Commons: Institutional Possibilities for Responding to the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development . Interchange. 39 (1), pp . 77–94 . Swail, W .S ., Redd, K .E . and Perna, L .W . (2003) Retaining Minority Students in Higher Education: A Framework for Success. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol 30 No 2 . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . Ten Yew, S . and Farrell, L . (2001) The Root of the Confusion: Identity . In: Chanock, K . (ed .) Sources of Confusion: Refereed Proceedings of the National Language and Academic Skills Conference, La Trobe University . Melbourne, Australia: La Trobe University Academic Skills Unit . Terenzini, P .T ., Pascarella, E .T . and Blimling, G .S . (1996) Students’ Out-of-Class Experiences and Their Influence on Learning and Cognitive Development: A Literature Review . Journal of College Student Development. 37 (2), pp . 149–162 . Teune, H . (2001) Universities as Sites of Citizenship and Civic Responsibility: United States Study. Philadelphia, PA: International Consortium for Higher Education Civic Responsibility & Democracy . Thomas, L . and Quinn, J . (2006) First Generation Entry into Higher Education: An International Study. Maidenhead: Open University Press . 70 Student engagement literature review Thornton, C .H . and Jaeger, A .J . (2007) A New Context for Understanding Civic Responsibility: Relating Culture to Action at a Research University . Research in Higher Education. 48 (8), pp . 993–1019 . Tinto, V . (1987) Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. 1st ed . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press . Tinto, V . (1993) Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. 2nd ed . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press . Tinto, V . (2000) Taking Retention Seriously: Rethinking the First Year of College . NACADA Journal. 19 (2), pp . 5–10 . Tinto, V . (2005) Moving from Theory to Action . In: Seidman, A . (ed .) College Student Retention: Formula for Student Success. Washington DC: ACE & Praeger, pp . 317–333 . Torres, V ., Howard-Hamilton, M .F . and Cooper, D .L . (2003) Identity Development of Diverse Populations: Implications for Teaching and Administration in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol 29, No 6 . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass . Tross, S .A ., Harper, J .P ., Osherr, L .W . and Kneidinger, L .M . (2000) Not Just the Usual Cast of Characteristics: Using Personality to Predict College Performance and Retention . Journal of College Student Development. 41 (3), pp . 325–336 . Trowler, P . (1998) Academics Responding to Change: New Higher Education Frameworks and academic Cultures. Buckingham: Open University Press/ SRHE . Trowler, P . and Wareham, T . (2008) Tribes, Territories, Research and Teaching: Enhancing the Teaching-Research Nexus. York: Higher Education Academy . Umbach, P .D . and Wawrzynski, M .R . (2005) Faculty Do Matter: The Role of College Faculty in Student Learning and Engagement . Research in Higher Education . 46 (2), pp . 153–184 . Villalpando, O . (2002) The Impact of Diversity and Multiculturalism on All Students: Findings from a National Survey . NASPA Journal. 40 (1), pp . 124–144 . Waller, R . (2006) ‘I don’t feel like “a student”, I feel like “me”’: The Over-Simplification of Mature Learners’ Experiences . Research in Post-Compulsory Education . 11 (1), pp . 115–130 . Warde, A . (2005) Consumption and Theories of Practice . Journal of Consumer Culture. 5 (2), pp . 131–153 . Zhao, C . and Kuh, G .D . (2004) Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement . Research in Higher Education. 45 (2), pp . 115–138 .