Foundational Work

The importance of students having shared and frequent interactions with students and staff, both in and out of formal settings, (Astin, 1984; 1993; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Tinto, 1993), has long been recognized as an important part of the overall university experience assisting positive student outcomes. Extensive compilations of pre-entry and add-on first year seminars and activities (Barefoot, 1993; Dollarhide, Carson & Jones, 1995) are evidence of university support for non-traditional first year students and students at risk of failure. Indeed, academic and social support initiatives for student success have since evolved from peripheral activities to the status of core university practice (Upcraft, Gardner & Barefoot, 2005). Consequently, it is important that insights from some significant contributors to these initiatives are provided to establish links between such programs and connectedness in universities.

Astin’s (1998) major review of American college trends (1966-1996), indicates that first year men and women are more similar than in previous generations as (i) many students have educated parents and (ii) many experience issues of student finance stress. An additional concern was with the decline in student engagement, this being at a time when few students had jobs or other responsibilities, and most lived in University residences. As a way to compensate waning student engagement, Astin made known his strategy of utilising the ‘core

30

curriculum’ (Astin, 1993, p. 3) and involvement8, the former aligning support activities to core subjects that all students shared, to improve greater student-staff interactions.

In a separate American study, a focus on first-in-family (FIF) students9 revealed they were less likely to be involved in extracurricular activities, work more hours and have lower grades in their first year (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak & Terenzini, 2004). Fearing FIF students may be ‘left behind’ (p. 276), pedagogical improvements utilising class and academic engagement activities were recommended to assist early adjustment and student success (Pascarella et al., 2004) and were shown to circumvent participation issues.

The importance of regular connections and activities also underpins Tinto’s Learning Communities Model (1998; 2002), which recommends offering first year units in clusters of 3-4 units to assist continuity of contact with a regular group of peers. What may be viewed as an initial focus on retention has received ontological status (Grayson, 2003) as an educational pedagogy that may act to reform support practices and enrich the student experience. Tinto, the capacity builder, has challenged universities to evaluate their support practices in relation to creating conditions of student success (Tinto, 2009). Conditions include setting high expectations, offering support, the provision early feedback and engaging with others in learning, all of which require regular interactions and mirror the Wingspread Declaration (Blum, 2005) regarding supportive conditions for school students.

The Learning Communities approach provides a platform attentive to learning and is believed to hold value for the development of ‘transdisiciplinary skills’10 (Sears 2004, p. 5) whilst being simultaneously attentive to the process of learning (Barefoot & Fidler, 1996; Tinto 2002). Although student involvement and satisfaction are the most prominent learning community outcomes (Andrade, 2007) it has received criticism for not showing gains in academic (Grayson, 2003) or persistence outcomes or the ability to predict student departure (Wintre, Knoll, Pancer, Pratt, Polivy, Birnie-Lefcovitch & Adams, 2008).

8

Involvement - defined as ‘the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to academic experience’ (Astin, 1993, p. 518); such energy may be measured by behaviours of studying, participation in student groups/committees, frequent interactions with staff and students and time on campus.

9

First in Family (FIF) refers to students ‘whose parents had no more than a high school education’ (Pascarella et al., 2004, p. 275).

10

Transdisciplinary refers to generic skill sets which are ‘important to student development irrespective of discipline (Sears, 2004, p.1) such as thinking, communication, social, self-management, and research skills.

31 2.6.2 Engagement

Student engagement, explained by Kuh as ‘the time and energy students devote to educationally sound activities inside and outside of the classroom, reports on how student activities related to learning and development’ (2005, p.2). The same study reported similarity of engagement between first and other generations to university, all of whom lived on campus. This commonality supported a push for greater proximity to assist student engagement in the classroom. Subsequent contributions focusing on the impact of enhanced engagement behaviours and quality of social connections for tertiary students have indicated outcomes are primarily restricted to academic learning/grades early in the course, (Pike, Kuh and Massa-McKinley, 2008), FIF and the less engaged; (Pike & Kuh, 2005; Kuh, Pace & Vesper 1997).

Kuh (2010) also supports combining engagement data with other available university data to help profile student engagement and document the relationship between student engagement and learning. Recently, the provision of a supportive and quality student experience has also been positioned as essential to the preparation of university graduates as effective professionals and global citizens (Lehtomäki, Moate & Posti-Aholkas, 2015). This certainly extends the research focus well beyond first year development and, overall, helps to direct university practices. However, evidence of the impact of engagement behaviours and social connections on a wider range of student outcomes remains a research challenge (ACER, 2009; Pascarella, 2005).

2.6.2.1 Interim Summary (1)

Activities designed to enhance the frequently of shared interactions and connections with staff and students, previously considered fundamental to skill development and university success for at-risk or non-traditional students, over time have moved from peripheral to inclusive mainstream practices which are beneficial for most students. However, a focus on improving conditions to enhance interactions connectedness appears to be restricted to the likelihood of better student outcomes and furthermore restricted by interim measures of satisfaction, early academic results and student persistence. Considerable research about numerous student connections and interactions, have conveyed concern about FIF students and excessive work hours as well as stating the potential of quality interactions to develop graduate attributes and the usefulness to combine with other university data. However, lacking here is a focus on process, including the tracking of a broader range of success

32

measures between the times of commencing and completing university. It appears that the connectedness lens holds promise to improve student success and reveal a broader range of student outcomes as a result of supportive relationships and conditions. Research contributions regarding the association of connectedness to university student success and outcomes are introduced in the next section.