student involvement a developmental theory for higher education

Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education Big Idea Update (if you would care to skip to lightning round it is bolded below): To preface this week’s lightning round

student involvement a developmental theory for higher education

5. The effectiveness of any educational policy or practice is directly related to the capacity of that policy or practice to increase student involvement.”

“4. The amount of student learning and personal development associated with any educational program is directly proportional to the quality and quantity of student involvement in that program.

Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education12: 155-187.
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

“… problem with this approach is its focus on the mere accumulation of resources with little attention given to the use or deployment of such resources.” (p 521)

[Heading:”Place of residence”]

Rutgers University Student Involvement offers a wide variety of opportunities to develop, explore, challenge and test your leadership potential. These outside-of-the-classroom experiences give our students a competitive edge in the internship, graduate school and career application processes.
A Job Outlook Survey conducted by the National Association of College Employers (NACE), identified the top five personal qualities/skills employers seek in hiring college graduates: verbal and written communications skills; strong work ethic; teamwork skills; initiative; and interpersonal skills.

Even a casual reading of the extensive literature on student development in higher education can create confusion and perplexity. One finds not only that the problems being studied are highly diverse but also that investigators who claim to be studying the same problem frequently do not look at the same variables or employ the same methodologies. And even when they are investigating the same variables, different investigators may use completely different terms to describe and discuss these variables. My own interest in articulating a theory of student development is partly practical—I would like to bring some order into the chaos of the literature—and partly self-protective. I and increasingly bewildered by the muddle of findings that have emerged from my own research in student development, research that I have been engaged in for more than 20 years. The theory of student involvement that I describe in this article appeals to me for several reasons. First, it is simple: I have not needed to draw a maze consisting of dozens of boxes interconnected by two-headed arrows to explain the basic elements of the theory to others. Second, the theory can explain most of the empirical knowledge about environmental influences on student development that researchers have gained over the years. Third, it is capable of embracing principles from such widely divergent sources as psychoanalysis and classical learning theory. Finally, this theory of student involvement can be used both by researchers to guide their investigation of student development—and by college administrators and faculty—to help them design more effective learning environments.