Student Involvement Article
Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education
Alexander W. Astin
A student development theory based on student involvement is presented and described, and the implications for practice and research are discussed. faculty—to help them design more effective learning environments.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY
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 f indings 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
Let me first explain what I mean by involvement, a construct that should
Alexander W. Astin
A student development theory based on student involvement is presented and described, and the implications for practice and research are discussed. faculty—to help them design more effective learning environments.
BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY
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 f indings 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
Let me first explain what I mean by involvement, a construct that should
References: Astin, A. W. (1968). The college environment. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Astin, A. W. (1973). The impact of dormitory living on students Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1982). Minorities in American higher education Bloom, B. (1974). Time and learning. American Psychologist, 29, 682-688. Brown, R. D., & DeCoster, D. A. (Eds.). (1982). Mentoringtranscript systems for promoting student growth: New directions for student services no Chickering, A. W. (1974). Commuters versus residents. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A. W., & Associates. (1981). The modern American college Coleman. J. S. (1961). The adolescent society. New York: Free Press. Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning. (3rd ed.). Hanson, G. R. (Ed.). (1982). Measuring student merit: New directions for student services no Heath, D. (1968). Growing up in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development. In C. Loevinger, J. (1966). The meaning and measure of ego development McDill, E. L., & Rigsby, L. C. (1973). Structure and process in secondary schools: The academic impact of educational climates Pace, C. R. (1982). Achievement and the quality of student effort: Report prepared for the National Commission on Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years Rosenshine. B. (1982). Teaching functions in instructional programs Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectations for internal versus external control of reinforcement Weiner, B. A. (1979). Theory of motivation for some classroom experiences