Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Two Cultures of Undergraduate Academic Engagement

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using data on upper-division students in the University of California system, we show that two distinct cultures of engagement exist on campus. The culture of engagement in the arts, humanities and social sciences focuses on interaction, participation, and interest in ideas. The culture of engagement in the natural sciences and engineering focuses on improvement of quantitative skills through collaborative study with an eye to rewards in the labor market. The two cultures of engagement are strongly associated with post-graduate degree plans. The findings raise questions about normative conceptions of good educational practices in so far as they are considered to be equally relevant to students in all higher education institutions and all major fields of study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These findings on the socio-demographic correlates of academic engagement were largely supported by Porter (2006) using a different data set, the Beginning Postsecondary Students Survey, and a measure of engagement focusing on participation on campus activities.

  2. Results from the individual campuses are available on request.

  3. A scale we derived to measure active participation in learning correlated .89 with HUMSOC, indicating a high degree of overlap between the two. In UCUES, collaborative learning items did not factor with active participation items.

  4. The limitations of the two cultures are suggested by Goethe’s famous lines, quoted by Max Weber at the end of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism: “For the last stage of this cultural development, it might well be truly said, ‘Specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart…’” (Weber [1904–1905] 1958: p. 182).

References

  • Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington, DC: AAC&U.

    Google Scholar 

  • Association of American Colleges (AAC). (1985). Integrity in the college curriculum: A report to the academic community. Washington, DC: AAC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D. (1966). The reforming of general education: The Columbia experience in its national setting. New York and London: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 195–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. (2006). Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how much students learn and why they should be learning more. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M., & Hargens, L. L. (1996). Variation among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 11, pp. 1–46). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braxton, J. M., Olsen, D., & Simmons, A. (1998). Affinity disciplines and the use of principles of good practice for undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 39, 299–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brecher, T. (1994). The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education, 6, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Klein, S. P. (2006). Student engagement and student learning: Testing the linkages. Research in Higher Education, 32, 1–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatman, S. (2006). Analysis of response bias in UCUES 2006. Unpublished paper, Center for Studies in Higher Education, Berkeley, CA.

  • Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. A. (1965). Undergraduate career decisions: Correlates of occupational choice. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglass, J. A. (2007). The conditions of admission: Access, equity and the social contract of public universities. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2003). Quality, affordability, and access: Americans speak on higher education. Princeton: ETS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, R. L. (2002). The competition for high-ability students: Universities in a key marketplace. In S. Brint (Ed.) The future of the city of intellect: The changing American university (pp. 82–106). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horowitz, H. L. (1987). Campus life: Undergraduate cultures from the end of the eighteenth century to the present. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, V. (2003). Grade inflation: A crisis in college education. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, R., & Hart, B. D. (1971). Role preferences of faculty in different age groups and academic disciplines. Sociology of Education, 44, 351–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66, 123–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17, 66.

  • Kuh, G. D., Gonyea, R. M., & Palmer, M. (2001). The disengaged commuter student: Factor or fiction? Commuter Perspectives, 27, 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2003a). What we are learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2003b). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Bloomington: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2004). Exploring the relationships between spirituality, liberal learning and college student engagement. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning. Special report to the Teagle Foundation.

  • Kuh, G. D., & Hu, S. (2001). Learning productivity at research universities. Journal of Higher Education, 72, 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Pace, R. C., & Vesper, N. (1997). The development of process indicators to estimate student gains associated with good practices in undergraduate education. Research in Higher Education, 38, 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M., & Ladd, E. C., Jr. (1971). The divided professoriate. Change, 3(3), 54–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, H. G., & Renaud, R. D. (1995). Disciplinary differences in classroom teaching behavior. In M. Marincovich & N. Havita (Eds.), Disciplinary differences in teaching and learning: Implications for practice (pp. 31–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, R. (2005). My freshman year: What a professor learned by becoming a student. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). (2006). A first look at the literacy of America’s adults in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2006). Digest of education statistics 2006. Washington, DC: NCES.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). (2005). NSSE 2005 annual report: Exploring different dimensions of student engagement. Bloomington, IN: NSSE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., et al. (2006). Institutional selectivity and good practices in undergraduate education: how strong is the link? Journal of Higher Education, 77, 251–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R. (2003). Membership in a fraternity or sorority: Student engagement and educational outcomes at AAU public research universities. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 369–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 276–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. R. (2006). Institutional structures and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 47, 521–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimer, S. (2007). Harvard task force calls for new focus on teaching and not just research. The New York Times (May 10), A10.

  • Secretary of Education’s Commission on the Future of Higher Education (Spellings Commission). (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & McLaughlin, G. W. (1974). Variations in goal priorities of academic departments. Research in Higher Education, 2, 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2000). Academic disciplines: Holland’s theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty and academic environments: Using Holland’s theory to explore differences in how faculty structure undergraduate courses. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. P. (1959 [1964]). The two cultures and a second look. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

  • Sorincelli, M. D. (1991). Research findings on the seven principles. In A. W. Chickering & Z. F. Gamson (Eds.), Applying the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education (pp. 13–25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D., et al. (2004). Intercollegiate athletes and effective educational practices: Winning combination or losing effort? Unpublished paper presented at the Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. Boston, MA (June).

  • Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty cultures and college teaching. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Student experiences with diversity at liberal arts colleges: Another claim for distinctiveness. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1904–05 [1958]). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons.

  • Zhao, C.-M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. M. (2004). A comparison of international student and American student engagement and effective educational practice. Journal of Higher Education, 76, 209–231.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, 92521-0419, USA

    Steven Brint, Allison M. Cantwell & Robert A. Hanneman

Authors
  1. Steven Brint
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Allison M. Cantwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert A. Hanneman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Brint.

Appendix A: NSSE Benchmarks

Appendix A: NSSE Benchmarks

The NSSE scale labels have remained constant, though items included on the scales have varied over time based on changes in the surveys and factor loadings of items. This appendix reports items in the NSSE benchmarks from a recent study by Carini et al. (2006).

Items in the active/collaborative learning benchmark include: (1) frequency R asked questions in class or contributed to class discussions; (2) frequency R made class presentations; (3) frequency R worked with other students on projects during class; (4) frequency R tutored or taught other students: (5) frequency R participated in a community-based project as part of a regular course; and (6) frequency R discussed ideas from readings or classes with others outside of class.

Items in the student–faculty contact benchmark include: (1) frequency R discussed grades or assignments with an instructor; (2) frequency R talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor; (3) frequency R discussed ideas from readings or classes with faculty members outside of class; (4) frequency R received prompt feedback from faculty on academic performance; and (5) work on a research project with a faculty member outside class or program requirements.

Items in the level of academic challenge benchmark include: (1) number of hours per week R spent preparing for class; (2) frequency R worked harder than expected to meets instructors’ standards or expectations during the school year; (3) number of assigned textbooks, books or book-length packs of course readings during the current school year; (4) number of written papers or reports of 20 pages or more during the current school year; (5) number of written papers or reports between 5 and 19 pages during the current school year; (6) extent of course work emphasized analyzing the basic elements of an idea, experience, or theory; (7) extent course work emphasized synthesizing and organizing ideas, information or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships; (8) extent course work emphasized making judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods; (9) extent course work emphasized applying theories or concepts to practical problems or new situations; and (10) extent the institution emphasized spending significant amounts of time studying and on academic work.

Items in the enriching educational experiences benchmark include: (1) frequency R used an electronic medium to discuss or complete an assignment; (2) frequency R had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity; (3) frequency R had serious conversations with students who differed in terms of their religious beliefs, political opinions, or personal values; (4) has R completed or planned a practicum, internship, field experience, coop experience, or clinical assignment; (5) has R completed or planned to do community service or volunteer work; (6) has R completed or planned to take foreign language course work; (7) has R completed or planned to study abroad; (8) has R completed or planned an independent study or self-designed major; (9) has R completed or planned a culminating senior experience; (10) number of hours R participates in co-curricular activities; and (11) extent to which R’s institution emphasizes contact among students from different backgrounds.

Items in the supportive campus environment benchmark include: (1) the extent to which R’s institution emphasized providing support needed to succeed academically; (2) the extent to which R’s institution emphasized helping to cope with non-academic responsibilities; (3) the extent to which R’s institution emphasized providing support needed to thrive socially; (4) quality of relationships with other students at R’s institution; (5) quality of relationships with faculty members at R’s institution; and (6) quality of relationships with administrative personnel and offices at R’s institution.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brint, S., Cantwell, A.M. & Hanneman, R.A. The Two Cultures of Undergraduate Academic Engagement. Res High Educ 49, 383–402 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9090-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9090-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation