Table Of ContentStudent Engagement in Higher Education
Student Engagement in Higher Education fills a longstanding void in the higher education and student affairs
literature. In the fully revised and updated edition of this important volume, the editors and chapter
contributors explore how diverse populations of students experience college differently and encounter group-
specific barriers to success. Informed by relevant theories, each chapter focuses on engaging a different student
population, including: low-income students, students of color, international students, students with disabilities,
LGBT students, religious minority students, student-athletes, homeless students, transfer students, commuter
and part-time students, adult learners, student veterans, and graduate students. The forward-thinking, practical
strategies offered throughout the book are based on research and the collected professional wisdom of
experienced educators and scholars at two-year and four-year institutions of higher education. Current and
future faculty, administrators, and student affairs staff will undoubtedly find this book complete with fresh
ideas to reverse troubling engagement trends among various college student populations.
Stephen John Quaye is on the faculty in the Student Affairs in Higher Education Program at Miami
University.
Shaun R. Harper is on the faculty in the Graduate School of Education and Executive Director of the Center
for the Study of Race and Equity in Education at the University of Pennsylvania.
2
Student Engagement in Higher Education
Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations
Second Edition
EDITED BY
STEPHEN JOHN QUAYE AND SHAUN R. HARPER
FOREWORD BY GEORGE D. KUH
3
Second edition published 2015
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
The right of the editor to be identified as the author of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Routledge 2009.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Student engagement in higher education : theoretical perspectives and practical
approaches for diverse populations / edited by Stephen John Quaye, Shaun
R. Harper. — Second edition.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Student affairs services—United States. 2. Student activities—United States.
3. College students—Services for—United States. 4. Muticultural education—
United States/ I. Quaye, Stephen John, 1980– II. Harper, Shaun R., 1975–
LB2342.92.S78 2014
378.1’97—dc23 2013047552
ISBN: 978-0-415-89509-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-415-89510-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-81016-3 (ebk)
Typeset in Minion
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
4
We dedicate the second edition of this book to postsecondary educators who take seriously the responsibility of
equitably engaging every student at their institutions.
5
Contents
Foreword George D. Kuh
Acknowledgments
CHAPTER 1: Making Engagement Equitable for Students in U.S. Higher Education Shaun R. Harper and
Stephen John Quaye
CHAPTER 2: Engaging Students of Color Stephen John Quaye, Kimberly A. Griffin, and Samuel D. Museus
CHAPTER 3: Engaging Undergraduate Women of Color Lori D. Patton, Jessica C. Harris, Jessica Ranero-
Ramirez, Isabella Villacampa, and Joyce Lui
CHAPTER 4: Engaging College Men of Color Shaun R. Harper, Jonathan Berhanu, Charles H. F. Davis III,
and Keon M. McGuire
CHAPTER 5: Engaging White Students on Multicultural Campuses Robert D. Reason
CHAPTER 6: Engaging Multiracial College Students C. Casey Ozaki and Kristen A. Renn
CHAPTER 7: Engaging International Students Jenny J. Lee
CHAPTER 8: Engaging Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Students on College Campuses Dafina-Lazarus Stewart
and Mary F. Howard-Hamilton
CHAPTER 9: Engaging Trans* Students on College and University Campuses Susan B. Marine and D.
Chase J. Catalano
CHAPTER 10: Engaging Undergraduate Women and Men Jaime Lester and Frank Harris III
CHAPTER 11: Engaging Religious Minority Students Shafiqa Ahmadi and Darnell Cole
CHAPTER 12: Engaging Students with Disabilities Kirsten Brown and Ellen M. Broido
CHAPTER 13: Engaging Student Athletes Joy Gaston Gayles
CHAPTER 14: Engaging Homeless Students in College Jarrett T. Gupton
CHAPTER 15: Engaging Low-Income Students Adrianna J. Kezar, MaryBeth Walpole, and Laura W. Perna
CHAPTER 16: Engaging Students in an Online Environment Tina M. Stavredes and Tiffany M. Herder
CHAPTER 17: Engaging Community College Transfer Students J. Luke Wood and Carl S. Moore
CHAPTER 18: Engaging Commuter and Part-Time Students Barbara Jacoby
CHAPTER 19: Engaging Returning Adult Learners in Community Colleges Linda Serra Hagedorn
CHAPTER 20: Engaging Student Veterans Inside and Outside the Classroom Corey B. Rumann and
Stephanie Bondi
6
CHAPTER 21: Engaging Graduate and Professional Students Susan K. Gardner and Marco J. Barker
About the Editors
Contributors
Index
7
Foreword
George D. Kuh
Stephen John Quaye, Shaun R. Harper, and the chapter authors have synthesized the best theory and research
about today’s diverse college students with an eye toward what colleges and universities should do to enhance
their success represented by persistence and graduation rates and learning and personal development
outcomes. The warrant for examining and understanding the experiences of different groups of historically
underrepresented students is research-based. Based on their cogent, massive synthesis of thousands of studies
of college student learning and development, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) concluded that while the impact
of college is generally positive for all students, the largest effects are conditional. That is, some groups of
students tend to benefit more than their peers from certain collegiate experiences. For example, National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) data show that women, full-time enrolled students, those who live on
campus, and those who start at and graduate from the same institution tend to be more engaged than their
counterparts. Less well documented, and the focus of this book, is what students with various immutable
characteristics may need from the institution to take full advantage of their institution’s educational resources.
In the opening chapter, Harper and Quaye make it plain that institutional policies, practices, and learning
environments can encourage and support, or discourage and hinder students in achieving their educational
objectives. A key factor is the institution’s philosophy about who is responsible for student learning and
success—the individual student or the institution—and how this philosophy is enacted. Through the middle of
the 20th century, the dominant approach at the vast majority of colleges and universities was Darwinist; that
is, the students who deserved to succeed were those who could figure out on their own how to adjust to and
find their way through the institution. In the 1970s, the campus ecology movement emerged, and its apostles
(see Strange & Banning, 2001) argued that it was no longer sufficient or educationally sound to think of the
institution as a one-size-fits-all shoe into which students must “fit” or squeeze into. Rather, colleges and
universities had a moral, ethical, and educational obligation to modify their policies and practices in ways that
were academically challenging and socially supportive of students—especially those from historically
underrepresented groups.
It is worth emphasizing that such institutional accommodations were not intended to dilute academic rigor
and lower performance expectations. Indeed, the goal was the converse; responding to students’ needs was
essential in order to push all students to attain at high levels while at the same time supporting them so that
they could attain their educational goals and benefit in desired ways. Today, this proposition is widely (though
not universally) espoused and endorsed, but not always enacted as is evident by among other things the
disparities in persistence and graduation rates of students from historically underrepresented groups. More
than a few students continue to report being alienated and rebuffed as they attempt to navigate campus
settings that they perceive privilege some groups over others. To make the proper student-centered
adjustments in policies and practices, a school must first understand who its students are, what they are
prepared to do academically, and what they expect of the institution and themselves (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley,
Bridges, & Hayek, 2007), which is, of course, the purpose of this volume.
One concrete step a college or university can take is to periodically audit its policies and practices to insure
they are working in the mutual interests of all students and the institution, as recommended by Ozaki and
Renn in this book (see also Kuh, Schuh, Whitt & Associates, 1991; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt & Associates,
2005a/2010). But it is also essential that faculty, staff, and students be aware of and agree on the intended
outcomes (such as persistence or academic achievement) and to monitor intermediate outcomes that are early
predictors of success in college, such as satisfaction and course completion rates disaggregated by various
student characteristics (Kuh et al., 2007). One of the most important of these early predictors is goal realization
8
or the ability of a student to express in his or her own words what they want to and are getting out of
attending college.
Three implications flow from goal realization as a state of mind that are especially important to student
success in the early weeks and months of study. The first is that a student be able to explain in plain language
in one’s own voice “why I am here,” not simply repeat what they have been told or heard (“My parents always
told me I was going to college and here I am”). Second, the explanation cannot be vacuous (“I don’t have any
other place to be right now”), but personally relevant and meaningful (“I cannot imagine a better place for me
at this time”). Third, goal realization as an early college predictor of success is concrete, to the extent that one
can articulate the importance of what they are doing and its value in the present or longer term (“I feel I am
doing something worthwhile and learning things that I can use now and other things I am sure will be
important to me later”).
Goal realization is more than just a facile social science phrase. The inability to articulate and devote effort
toward meaningful ends during college explains in part why many students leave school even though they are
in good academic standing and financially able to continue (though some students surely point to
accumulating debt as problematic, which is exacerbated by seeing little personal benefit by staying in school).
Goal realization takes on added importance in the first few academic terms when the majority of students are
taking introductory courses that meet general education and other requirements too often delivered via a
passive lecture format. It is no surprise that many students—probably the majority—see little connection
between their classes and matters of practical relevance to their personal lives.
The connection challenge is further compounded for traditional-age students who are in the dualistic stage
of intellectual and cognitive development, which makes it difficult to integrate, synthesize, and apply what
they are learning in different courses to other aspects of their lives. The result is that many students who are
not involved in a personally meaningful way with some other aspect of the institution—a social or academic
organization, athletics, music or drama, student publications, campus employment, and so forth—are less
satisfied and struggle to make sense of the experience, all of which makes leaving the institution a more viable
option than anything else they can imagine. And when students do not find others like them to connect with—
a hospitable, affirming peer affinity group and supportive, encouraging mentors or sponsors—the most
attractive option is to return home (Kuh 2007).
An especially promising target of opportunity for promoting goal realization for many students is
employment both on and off campus. As I have explained elsewhere (Kuh, 2010a, 2010b), the workplace is a
potentially rich venue where students can see how what they are learning in their classes can be used on the
job, and vice versa. With a little preparation, as can be seen from the experience at the University of Iowa
(Kuh, 2010b), staff and faculty can structure discussions with students that encourage and teach them how to
think about their thinking and begin to see college classes that seem abstract and remote can have practical
significance in the life outside the classroom. Given that upwards of three-quarters of undergraduates work at
some point in the college years, making work more educationally purposeful may well be one of the most
effective levers we can pull to enhance student success.
Another noteworthy finding from the engagement research during the last decade is that participating in
certain activities appears to be linked to a variety of positive effects, including persistence. These activities, all
empirically supported to varying degrees, are called high-impact practices (HIPs) because undergraduate
students who do them score much higher than their peers who have not had such experiences on such NSSE
engagement measures as academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction,
and supportive campus environment. This is because HIPs induce students to among other things invest
substantial time and energy to educationally purposeful tasks, interact frequently with their teachers and peers,
get feedback often, and apply what they are learning (Kuh, 2008). I am also persuaded that doing one of these
activities will contribute to goal realization, as mentioned earlier.
In addition, students who have done at least one HIP report more frequent deep learning behaviors and
benefit to a greater degree on various self-reported outcomes, such as personal-social development and
practical competencies (Kuh, 2008). A review of the literature lends additional support to these promising
findings (Brownell & Swaner, 2010), as do results from the ongoing Wabash National Study (Blaich, 2009).
More recently, analysis of the college experiences of students from different racial and ethnic backgrounds who
participate in one or more HIPs shows that they are more likely to complete a baccalaureate degree. At
9
California State University-Northridge (a Hispanic-serving institution), only about 38% of Latino students who
did not do a HIP finished in six years. But almost half (48%) of their peers who did one HIP completed their
degree in six years. The completion rate for students who did two HIPs was 65%. CSU Northridge students who
are not Latino show a similar positive pattern of effects. These findings have prompted discussions among
faculty and staffacross the CSU system campuses and at other colleges and universities about how to
encourage more students to do one or more of these kinds of activities.
So, as with other engagement practices, all students benefit from HIPs. However, certain groups are less
likely to participate in them, including first-generation students, students of color, part-time students, older
students, and transfer students. We can speculate why this is, but a clear implication is that those who advise
students prior to and after they matriculate must ask students during every contact when (not if) they are going
to do one of them. Institutional leaders must do their part by insuring that enough of these opportunities are
available to meet the demand and are implemented at a level of quality that will, indeed, deliver the positive
outcomes mentioned earlier.
Certainly more college experiences can be or are high impact in addition to the ten on the list promulgated
by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (2011). Some of the more likely candidates are
writing for campus publications, performing in musical or theater productions, participating in intercollegiate
athletics, and leading campus organizations. Indeed, there seems to be a small explosion of applying the high
impact label to programs and practices in which faculty and staff have a vested interest. Far too few so far have
the weight of empirical evidence to bolster such claims. Some programs will meet the evidence test, but in all
instances we need to be more circumspect about declaring victory and labeling an activity “high impact” until
we have data to support the claim.
So, do we need another book on student engagement? Well, we do not need just any book, but we certainly
need this one because finding ways to engage students from historically underrepresented groups must be one
of the academy’s highest priorities going forward. The contributors to this volume have done a great service by
pointing to actions colleges and universities can take consistent with this goal, which is in the national interest
as well as that of individual students. We are in their debt for helping us better understand and appreciate the
rich diversity of student backgrounds and experiences that characterize college and university campuses today
and what institutions can do to promote the success of all their students.
10
