astin, alexander w._student involvement

518 Journal of College Student Development

Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory

for Higher Education

Alexander W. Astin

A student development theory based on studentinvolvement is presented and described, and theimplications for practice and research arediscussed.

Even a casual reading of the extensive literatureon student development in higher education cancreate confusion and perplexity. One finds notonly that the problems being studied are highlydiverse but also that investigators who claim tobe studying the same problem frequently do notlook at the same variables or employ the samemethodologies. And even when they are investi-gating the same variables, different investigatorsmay use completely different terms to describeand discuss these variables.

My own interest in articulating a theory ofstudent development is partly practical—I wouldlike to bring some order into the chaos of theliterature—and partly self-protective. I andincreasingly bewildered by the muddle off indings that have emerged from my ownresearch in student development, research that Ihave been engaged in for more than 20 years.

The theory of student involvement that Idescribe in this article appeals to me for severalreasons. First, it is simple: I have not needed todraw a maze consisting of dozens of boxesinterconnected by two-headed arrows to explainthe basic elements of the theory to others.Second, the theory can explain most of theempirical knowledge about environmentalinfluences on student development that re-searchers have gained over the years. Third, itis capable of embracing principles from suchwidely divergent sources as psychoanalysis andclassical learning theory. Finally, this theory ofstudent involvement can be used both byresearchers to guide their investigation of studentdevelopment—and by college administrators and

Originally published July 1984. Alexander W. Astin, Graduate School of Education, University of California,Los Angeles.

faculty—to help them design more effectivelearning environments.

BASIC ELEMENTS OF THE THEORY

Let me first explain what I mean by involvement,a construct that should not be either mysteriousor esoteric. Quite simply, student involvementrefers to the amount of physical and psycho-logical energy that the student devotes to theacademic experience. Thus, a highly involvedstudent is one who, for example, devotesconsiderable energy to studying, spends muchtime on campus, participates actively in studentorganizations, and interacts frequently withfaculty members and other students. Conversely,a typical uninvolved student neglects studies,spends little time on campus, abstains fromextracurricular activities, and has infrequentcontact with faculty members or other students.These hypothetical examples are only intendedto be illustrative; there are many other possibleforms of involvement, which are discussed indetail below.

In certain respects the concept of involve-ment closely resembles the Freudian concept ofcathexis, which I learned about in my formercareer as a clinical psychologist. Freud believedthat people invest psychological energy in objectsand persons outside of themselves. In otherwords, people can cathect on their friends,families, schoolwork, and jobs. The involvementconcept also resembles closely what the learningtheorists have traditionally referred to asvigilance or time-on-task. The concept of effort,although much narrower, has much in commonwith the concept of involvement.

To give a better sense of what I mean bythe term involvement, I have listed below theresults of several hours that I spent recently

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1999 ◆ VOL 40 NO 5 519

Developmental Theory

looking in dictionaries and a thesaurus for wordsor phrases that capture some of the intendedmeaning. Because involvement is, to me, anactive term, the list uses verb forms.

attach oneself to

commit oneself to

devote oneself to

engage in

go in for

incline toward

join in

partake of

participate in

plunge into

show enthusiasm for

tackle

take a fancy to

take an interest in

take on

take part in

take to

take up

undertake

Most of these terms are behavioral inmeaning. I could have also included words andphrases that are more “interior” in nature, suchas value, care for, stress, accentuate, andemphasize. But in the sense that I am using theterm, involvement implies a behavioral compo-nent. I am not denying that motivation is animportant aspect of involvement, but rather I amemphasizing that the behavioral aspects, in myjudgment, are critical: It is not so much what theindividual thinks or feels, but what the individualdoes, how he or she behaves, that defines andidentifies involvement.

At this stage in its development, the involve-ment theory has five basic postulates:

1. Involvement refers to the investment ofphysical and psychological energy in variousobjects. The objects may be highly gen-eralized (the student experience) or highlyspecific (preparing for a chemistry

examination).

2. Regardless of its object, involvement occursalong a continuum; that is, different studentsmanifest different degrees of involvement ina given object, and the same student mani-fests different degrees of involvement indifferent objects at different times.

3. Involvement has both quantitative andqualitative features. The extent of a student’sinvolvement in academic work, for instance,can be measured quantitatively (how manyhours the student spends studying) andqualitatively (whether the student reviewsand comprehends reading assignments orsimply stares at the textbook and day-dreams).

4. The amount of student learning and personaldevelopment associated with any edu-cational program is directly proportional tothe quality and quantity of student involve-ment in that program.

5. The effectiveness of any educational policyor practice is directly related to the capacityof that policy or practice to increase studentinvolvement.

These last two propositions are, of course, thekey educational postulates, because they provideclues for designing more effective educationalprograms for students. Strictly speaking, they donot really qualify as postulates, because they aresubject to empirical proof. Indeed, much of therecommended research on involvement (dis-cussed below) would be designed to test thesetwo propositions.

TRADITIONAL PEDAGOGICALTHEORIES

A major impetus for the development of thestudent involvement theory was my exasperationat the tendency of many academicians to treatthe student as a kind of “black box.” On the inputend of this black box are the various policies andprograms of a college or university; on the outputend are various types of achievement measuressuch as the GPA or scores on standardized tests.It seemed that something was missing: some


Astin (1984)

mediating mechanism that would explain howthese educational programs and policies aretranslated into student achievement anddevelopment.

I am not implying that the actions andpolicies of most faculty members and admini-strators are not guided by some kind of educa-tional theory. But usually any such theory is onlyimplicit in their actions; it is seldom statedformally or examined critically. Even whencollege personnel are aware of the theories thatguide their actions, they seem to accept them asgospel rather than as testable propositions. In anyevent, it may be useful to examine these implicitpedagogical theories and to show how the theoryof student involvement can help tie them moredirectly to student developmental outcomes. Ihave identified three implicit pedagogicaltheories, labeled for simplicity the subject-matter, the resource, and the individualized (oreclectic) theories.

The Subject-Matter Theory

The subject-matter theory of pedagogy, whichcould also be labeled the content theory, ispopular among college professors. According tothis theory, student learning and developmentdepend primarily on exposure to the right subjectmatter. Thus, a “liberal education” consists ofan assortment of “worthwhile” courses. Indi-vidual courses, in turn, are evaluated in terms ofthe content reflected, for example, in coursesyllabi. Indeed, in most colleges and universitiesteaching performance is evaluated by inspectingthe professor’s course syllabi. Given this strongemphasis on course content, it is not surprisingthat proponents of this theory tend to believe thatstudents learn by attending lectures, doing thereading assignments, and working in the library.To the extent that written and oral presentationsby the student are used as learning tools, theygenerally focus on the content of the reading orthe lecture.

In the subject-matter approach to learning,those professors with the greatest knowledge ofa particular subject matter have the highestprestige. Indeed, because of this emphasis onspecialized knowledge, this approach seems toencourage the fragmentation and specialization

of faculty interests and to equate scholarlyexpertise with pedagogical ability.

But perhaps the most serious limitation ofthe subject-matter theory is that it assignsstudents a passive role in the learning process:The “knowledgeable” professor lectures to the“ignorant” student so that the student can acquirethe same knowledge. Such an approach clearlyfavors highly motivated students and those whotend to be avid readers and good listeners.Students who are slow readers or who have nointrinsic interest in the subject matter of aparticular course are not well served by thisapproach. In fact, recent attempts to expandeducational opportunities for underpreparedstudents have probably been hindered by thecontinued adherence of most faculty membersto the subject-matter theory of learning (Astin,1982).

The Resource Theory

The resource theory of pedagogy is a favoriteamong administrators and policymakers. Usedhere, the term resources includes a wide rangeof ingredients believed to enhance studentlearning: physical facilities (laboratories,libraries, and audiovisual aids), human resources(well-trained faculty members, counselors, andsupport personnel), and fiscal resources (finan-cial aid, endowments, and extramural researchfunds). In effect, the resource theory maintainsthat if adequate resources are brought togetherin one place, student learning and developmentwill occur. Many college administrators believethat the acquisition of resources is their mostimportant duty.

One resource measure that is particularlypopular is the student-faculty ratio. Manyadministrators believe that the lower the ratio,the greater the learning and personal develop-ment that will occur. But the resource theory hasqualitative as well as quantitative aspects, suchas the belief that increasing the proportion of“high-quality” professors on the faculty (qualityin this instance is defined primarily in terms ofscholarly productivity and national visibility) willstrengthen the educational environment. Actually,many research-oriented institutions couldprobably afford to hire more faculty members if



they were less committed to recruiting andretaining faculty members who are highly visiblein their disciplines. In short, such policies involvea trade-off between quantity and quality.

The resource theory of pedagogy also tendsto include the belief that high-achieving studentsare a resource, that large numbers of suchstudents on the campus enhance the quality ofthe learning environment for all students. Actingon this belief, many institutions invest substantialfinancial resources in the recruitment of high-achieving students.

The resource theory has two principallimitations. First, certain resources, such as brightstudents and prestigious faculty, are finite. As aresult, the institutional energies expended inrecruiting high-achieving students and presti-gious faculty serve merely to redistribute thesefinite resources rather than to add to the totalpool of such resources. In other words, asuccessful faculty or student recruitment programmay benefit a particular institution, but thebenefit comes at the expense of other institutions.As a consequence, widespread acceptance of theresource theory as it applies to faculty andstudents tends, paradoxically, to reduce the totalresources available to the entire higher educationcommunity.

The second problem with this approach isits focus on the mere accumulation of resourceswith little attention given to the use or deploy-ment of such resources. For instance, havingestablished a multimillion-volume library, theadministration may neglect to find out whetherstudents are making effective use of that library.Similarly, having successfully recruited a faculty“star,” the college may pay little attention towhether the new faculty member works effec-tively with students.

The Individualized (Eclectic) Theory

The individualized theory—a favorite of manydevelopmental and learning psychologists(Chickering & Associates, 1981)—assumes thatno single approach to subject matter, teaching,or resource allocation is adequate for all students.Rather, it attempts to identify the curricularcontent and instructional methods that best meet

the needs of the individual student. With itsemphasis on borrowing what is most useful fromother pedagogical approaches, this flexibleapproach could also be termed eclectic.

In contrast to the subject-matter approach,which generally results in a fixed set of curricularrequirements (i.e., courses that all students musttake), the individualized approach emphasizeselectives. Most college curricula represent amixture of the subject-matter and individualizedtheories; that is, students must take certainrequired courses or satisfy certain distributionalrequirements but also have the option of takinga certain number of elective courses.

But the individualized theory goes farbeyond curriculum. It emphasizes, for instance,the importance to the student of advising andcounseling and of independent study. Thephilosophy underlying most student personnelwork (guidance, counseling, selective placement,and student support services) implicitly incor-porates the individualized or eclectic theory ofstudent development.

The individualized approach is also associ-ated with particular instructional techniques suchas self-paced instruction. This theory has ledsome educators to espouse the “competency-based” learning model (Grant et al., 1979),whereby common learning objectives (compe-tencies) are formulated for all students, but thetime allowed to reach these objectives is highlyvariable and the instructional techniques used arehighly individualized.

The most obvious limitation of the indivi-dualized theory is that it can be extremelyexpensive to implement, because each studentnormally requires considerable individualizedattention. In addition, because there are virtuallyno limitations to the possible variations in subjectmatter and pedagogical approach, the indi-vidualized theory is difficult to define withprecision. Furthermore, given the state ofresearch on learning, it is currently impossibleto specify which types of educational programsor teaching techniques are most effective withwhich types of learners. In other words, althoughthe theory is appealing in the abstract, it isextremely difficult to put into practice.


Astin (1984)

THE PLACE OF THE THEORY OFSTUDENT INVOLVEMENT

In what way does the theory of student involve-ment relate to these traditional pedagogicaltheories? I believe that it can provide a linkbetween the variables emphasized in thesetheories (subject matter, resources, and indivi-dualization of approach) and the learningoutcomes desired by the student and the pro-fessor. In other words, the theory of studentinvolvement argues that a particular curriculum,to achieve the effects intended, must elicitsufficient student effort and investment of energyto bring about the desired learning and develop-ment. Simply exposing the student to a particularset of courses may or may not work. The theoryof involvement, in other words, provides aconceptual substitute for the black box that isimplicit in the three traditional pedagogicaltheories.

The content theory, in particular, tends toplace students in a passive role as recipients ofinformation. The theory of involvement, on theother hand, emphasizes active participation ofthe student in the learning process. Recentresearch at the precollegiate level (Rosenshine,1982) has suggested that learning will be greatestwhen the learning environment is structured toencourage active participation by the student.

On a more subtle level, the theory of studentinvolvement encourages educators to focus lesson what they do and more on what the studentdoes: how motivated the student is and how muchtime and energy the student devotes to thelearning process. The theory assumes that studentlearning and development will not be impressiveif educators focus most of their attention oncourse content, teaching techniques, laboratories,books, and other resources. With this approach,student involvement—rather than the resourcesor techniques typically used by educators—becomes the focus of concern.

Thus, the construct of student involvementin certain respects resembles a more commonconstruct in psychology: motivation. I personallyprefer the term involvement, however, becauseit implies more than just a psychological state;it connotes the behavioral manifestation of thatstate. Involvement, in other words, is more

susceptible to direct observation and measure-ment than is the more abstract psychologicalconstruct of motivation. Moreover, involvementseems to be a more useful construct for edu-cational practitioners. “How do you motivatestudents?” is probably a more difficult questionto answer than “How do you get studentsinvolved?”

The theory of student involvement isqualitatively different from the developmentaltheories that have received so much attention inthe literature of higher education during the pastfew years. These theories are of at least twotypes: those that postulate a series of hier-archically arranged developmental stages (e.g.,Heath, 1968; Kohlberg, 1971; Loevinger, 1966;Perry, 1970) and those that view student develop-ment in multidimensional terms (e.g., Brown &DeCoster, 1982; Chickering, 1969). (For recent,comprehensive summaries of these theories seeChickering & Associates, 1981; Hanson, 1982.)

Whereas these theories focus primarily ondevelopmental outcomes (the what of studentdevelopment), the theory of student involvementis more concerned with the behavioral mech-anisms or processes that facilitate studentdevelopment (the how of student development).These two types of theories can be studiedsimultaneously (see “Research Possibilities”section below).

Student Time as a Resource

College administrators are constantly pre-occupied with the accumulation and allocationof fiscal resources; the theory of student involve-ment, however, suggests that the most preciousinstitutional resource may be student time.According to the theory, the extent to whichstudents can achieve particular developmentalgoals is a direct function of the time and effortthey devote to activities designed to producethese gains. For example, if increased knowledgeand understanding of history is an important goalfor history majors, the extent to which studentsreach this goal is a direct function of the timethey spend at such activities as listening toprofessors talk about history, reading books abouthistory, and discussing history with otherstudents. Generally, the more time students spend



in these activities, the more history they learn.The theory of student involvement explicitly

acknowledges that the psychic and physical timeand energy of students are finite. Thus, educatorsare competing with other forces in the student’slife for a share of that finite time and energy. Hereare the basic ingredients of a so-called “zero-sum” game, in which the time and energy thatthe student invests in family, friends, job, andother outside activities represent a reduction inthe time and energy the student has to devote toeducational development.

Administrators and faculty members mustrecognize that virtually every institutional policyand practice (e.g., class schedules; regulationson class attendance, academic probation, andparticipation in honors courses; policies on officehours for faculty, student orientation, andadvising) can affect the way students spend theirtime and the amount of effort they devote toacademic pursuits. Moreover, administrativedecisions about many nonacademic issues (e.g.,the location of new buildings such as dormitoriesand student unions; rules governing residency;the design of recreational and living facilities;on-campus employment opportunities; numberand type of extracurricular activities andregulations regarding participation; the fre-quency, type, and cost of cultural events;roommate assignments; financial aid policies; therelative attractiveness of eating facilities on andoff campus; parking regulations) can significantlyaffect how students spend their time and energy.

RELEVANT RESEARCH

The theory of student involvement has its rootsin a longitudinal study of college dropouts (Astin,1975) that endeavored to identify factors in thecollege environment that significantly affect thestudent’s persistence in college. It turned out thatvirtually every signif icant effect could berationalized in terms of the involvement concept;that is, every positive factor was likely to increasestudent involvement in the undergraduateexperience, whereas every negative factor waslikely to reduce involvement. In other words, thefactors that contributed to the student’s remainingin college suggested involvement, whereas those

that contributed to the student’s dropping outimplied a lack of involvement.

What were these significant environmentalfactors? Probably the most important andpervasive was the student’s residence. Living ina campus residence was positively related toretention, and this positive effect occurred in alltypes of institutions and among all types ofstudents regardless of sex, race, ability, or familybackground. Similar results had been obtainedin earlier studies (Astin, 1973; Chickering, 1974)and have been subsequently replicated (Astin,1977, 1982). It is obvious that students who livein residence halls have more time and oppor-tunity to get involved in all aspects of campuslife. Indeed, simply by eating, sleeping, andspending their waking hours on the collegecampus, residential students have a better chancethan do commuter students of developing astrong identification and attachment to under-graduate life.

The longitudinal study also showed thatstudents who join social fraternities or sororitiesor participate in extracurricular activities ofalmost any type are less likely to drop out.Participation in sports, particularly inter-collegiate sports, has an especially pronounced,positive effect on persistence. Other activitiesthat enhance retention include enrollment inhonors programs, involvement in ROTC, andparticipation in professors’ undergraduateresearch projects.

One of the most interesting environmentalfactors that affected retention was holding a part-time job on campus. Although it might seem thatworking while attending college takes time andenergy away from academic pursuits, part-timeemployment in an on-campus job actuallyfacilitates retention. Apparently such work,which also includes work-study combinations,operates in much the same way as residentialliving: The student is spending time on thecampus, thus increasing the likelihood that heor she will come into contact with other students,professors, and college staff. On a more subtlepsychological level, relying on the college as asource of income can result in a greater sense ofattachment to the college.

Retention suffers, however, if the student


Astin (1984)

works off campus at a full-time job. Because thestudent is spending considerable time and energyon nonacademic activities that are usuallyunrelated to student life, full-time work offcampus decreases the time and energy that thestudent can devote to studies and other campusactivities.

Findings concerning the effects of differenttypes of colleges are also relevant to the theoryof involvement. Thus, the most consistentfinding—reported in almost every longitudinalstudy of student development—is that thestudent’s chances of dropping out are sub-stantially greater at a 2-year college than at a4-year college. The negative effects of attendinga community college are observed even after thevariables of entering student characteristics andlack of residence and work are considered (Astin,1975, 1977). Community colleges are placeswhere the involvement of both faculty andstudents seems to be minimal. Most (if not all)students are commuters, and a large proportionattend college on a part-time basis (thus, theypresumably manifest less involvement simplybecause of their part-time status). Similarly, alarge proportion of faculty members are em-ployed on a part-time basis.

The 1975 study of dropouts also producedsome interesting findings regarding the “fit”between student and college: Students are morelikely to persist at religious colleges if their ownreligious backgrounds are similar; Blacks aremore likely to persist at Black colleges than atWhite colleges; and students from small townsare more likely to persist in small than in largecolleges. The origin of such effects probably liesin the student’s ability to identify with theinstitution. It is easier to become involved whenone can identify with the college environment.

Further support for the involvement theorycan be found by examining the reasons thatstudents give for dropping out of college. Formen the most common reason is boredom withcourses, clearly implying a lack of involvement.The most common reason for women is marriage,pregnancy, or other responsibilities, a set ofcompeting objects that drain away the time andenergy that women could otherwise devote tobeing students.

The persister-dropout phenomenon providesan ideal paradigm for studying student involve-ment. Thus, if we conceive of involvement asoccurring along a continuum, the act of droppingout can be viewed as the ultimate form ofnoninvolvement, and dropping out anchors theinvolvement continuum at the lowest end.

Because of the apparent usefulness of theinvolvement theory as it applied to the earlierresearch on dropping out, I decided to investigatethe involvement phenomenon more intensivelyby studying the impact of college on a wide rangeof other outcomes (Astin, 1977). This study,which used longitudinal data on several samplestotaling more than 200,000 students and ex-amined more than 80 different student outcomes,focused on the effects of several different typesof involvement: place of residence, honorsprograms, undergraduate research participation,social fraternities and sororities, academicinvolvement, student-faculty interaction, athleticinvolvement, and involvement in student govern-ment. In understanding the effects of thesevarious forms of involvement it is important tokeep in mind the overall results of this study:College attendance in general seems to strength-en students’ competency, self-esteem, artisticinterests, liberalism, hedonism, and religiousapostasy and to weaken their business interests.

Perhaps the most important general con-clusion I reached from this elaborate analysis wasthat nearly all forms of student involvement areassociated with greater than average changes inentering freshman characteristics. And for certainstudent outcomes involvement is more stronglyassociated with change than either enteringfreshman characteristics or institutional charac-teristics. The following is a summary of theresults for specific forms of involvement.

Place of Residence

Leaving home to attend college has significanteffects on most college outcomes. Students wholive in campus residences are much more likelythan commuter students to become less religiousand more hedonistic. Residents also show greatergains than commuters in artistic interests,liberalism, and interpersonal self-esteem. Livingin a dormitory is positively associated with



several other forms of involvement: interactionwith faculty, involvement in student government,and participation in social fraternities orsororities.

Living on campus substantially increases thestudent’s chances of persisting and of aspiringto a graduate or professional degree. Residentsare more likely than commuters to achieve insuch extracurricular areas as leadership andathletics and to express satisfaction with theirundergraduate experience, particularly in theareas of student friendships, faculty-studentrelations, institutional reputation, and social life.

Honors Programs

Students who participate in honors programs gainsubstantially in interpersonal self-esteem,intellectual self-esteem, and artistic interests.They are more likely than other students topersist in college and to aspire to graduate andprofessional degrees. Honors participation ispositively related to student satisfaction in threeareas—quality of the science program, closenessto faculty, and quality of instruction-and nega-tively related to satisfaction with friendships andwith the institution’s academic reputation. Thesefindings suggest that honors participationenhances faculty—student relationships but mayisolate students from their peers.

Academic Involvement

Defined as a complex of self-reported traits andbehaviors (e.g., the extent to which students workhard at their studies, the number of hours theyspend studying, the degree of interest in theircourses, good study habits), academic involve-ment produces an unusual pattern of effects.Intense academic involvement tends to retardthose changes in personality and behavior thatnormally result from college attendance. Thus,students who are deeply involved academicallyare less likely than average students to showincreases in liberalism, hedonism, artisticinterests, and religious apostasy or decreases inbusiness interests. The only personality changeaccentuated by academic involvement is need forstatus, which is strengthened. Being academicallyinvolved is strongly related to satisfaction withall aspects of college life except friendships with

other students.This pattern reinforces the hypothesis that

students who become intensely involved in theircollege studies tend to become isolated from theirpeers and, consequently, are less susceptible tothe peer group influences that seem critical tothe development of political liberalism, hedon-ism, and religious apostasy. On the other hand,they experience considerable satisfaction,perhaps because of the many institutionalrewards for good academic performance.

Student-Faculty Interaction

Frequent interaction with faculty is more stronglyrelated to satisfaction with college than any othertype of involvement or, indeed, any other studentor institutional characteristic. Students whointeract frequently with faculty members aremore likely than other students to expresssatisfaction with all aspects of their institutionalexperience, including student friendships, varietyof courses, intellectual environment, and eventhe administration of the institution. Thus, findingways to encourage greater student involvementwith faculty (and vice versa) could be a highlyproductive activity on most college campuses.

Athletic Involvement

The pattern of effects associated with involve-ment in athletic activities closely parallels thepattern associated with academic involvement;that is, students who become intensely involvedin athletic activities show smaller than averageincreases in political liberalism, religiousapostasy, and artistic interests and a smaller thanaverage decrease in business interests. Athleticinvolvement is also associated with satisfactionin four areas: the institution’s academic repu-tation, the intellectual environment, studentfriendships, and institutional administration.These results suggest that athletic involvement,like academic involvement, tends to isolatestudents from the peer group effects that normallyaccompany college attendance. For the studiousperson, this isolation results from the time andeffort devoted to studying. For the athlete, theisolation probably results from long practicehours, travel to athletic competitions, and specialliving quarters.


Astin (1984)

Involvement in Student Government

Involvement in student government is associatedwith greater than average increases in politicalliberalism, hedonism, artistic interests, and statusneeds as well as greater than average satisfactionwith student friendships. This pattern of relation-ships supports the hypothesis that the changesin attitudes and behavior that usually accompanycollege attendance are attributable to peer-groupeffects. That is, students who become activelyinvolved in student government interact fre-quently with their peers, and this interactionseems to accentuate the changes normallyresulting from the college experience.

Research on Cognitive Development

Although most research on classroom learninghas been carried out at the precollegiate level,most of the evidence from this research stronglysupports the concept of involvement as a criticalelement in the learning process. The concepts oftime-on-task and effort, for example, appearfrequently in the literature as key determinantsof a wide range of cognitive learning outcomes(Bloom, 1974; Fisher et al., 1980; Gagne, 1977).

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

There are several implications of the theory ofinvolvement for practitioners in higher education.Some of the possible uses that could be made ofthe theory by faculty, administrators, and studentpersonnel workers are briefly described below.

Faculty and Administrators

As already suggested, the content and resourceapproaches to pedagogy tend to favor the well-prepared, assertive student. In contrast, theconcept of student involvement emphasizesgiving greater attention to the passive, reticent,or unprepared student. Of course, not all passivestudents are uninvolved in their academic work,nor are they necessarily experiencing academicdifficulties. But passivity is an important warningsign that may reflect a lack of involvement.

Perhaps the most important application ofthe student involvement theory to teaching is thatit encourages the instructor to focus less oncontent and teaching techniques and more on

what students are actually doing—how motivatedthey are and how much time and energy they aredevoting to the learning process. Teaching is acomplex art. And, like other art forms, it maysuffer if the artist focuses exclusively ontechnique. Instructors can be more effective ifthey focus on the intended outcomes of theirpedagogical efforts: achieving maximum studentinvolvement and learning. (Final examinationsmonitor learning, but they come too late in thelearning process to have much value for theindividual student.)

The art-form analogy can perhaps be betterillustrated with an example from sports. Anyprofessional baseball player will confirm that thebest way to develop skill in pitching is to focusnot on the mechanics but on the intended results:getting the ball over the plate. If the playeroveremphasizes such techniques as the grip, thestance, the windup, and the kick without attend-ing to where the ball goes, he will probably neverlearn to pitch well. In fact, the technique involvedin pitching a baseball, shooting a basketball, orhitting a golf ball is really unimportant as longas the ball goes where the player wants it to. Ifthe ball fails to behave as intended, then theplayer begins to worry about adjusting his or hertechnique.

In education, teachers and administratorsoften concentrate on their own techniques orprocesses and thus ignore or overlook what isgoing on with the student. I believe that theinvolvement approach has the advantage ofencouraging educators to focus more on what thestudent is actually doing.

Counselors and Student PersonnelWorkers

If an institution commits itself to achievingmaximum student involvement, counselors andother student personnel workers will probablyoccupy a more important role in institutionaloperations. Because student personnel workersfrequently operate on a one-to-one basis withstudents, they are in a unique position to monitorthe involvement of their clients in the academicprocess and to work with individual clients inan attempt to increase that involvement. One ofthe challenges confronting student personnel



workers these days is to find a “hook” that willstimulate students to get more involved in thecollege experience: taking a different array ofcourses, changing residential situations, joiningstudent organizations, participating in variouskinds of extracurricular activities, or finding newpeer groups.

The theory of involvement also provides auseful frame of reference for working withstudents who are having academic difficulties.Perhaps the first task in working with suchstudents is to understand the principal objectson which their energies are focused. It might behelpful, for example, to ask the student to keepa detailed diary, showing the time spent in variousactivities such as studying, sleeping, socializing,daydreaming, working, and commuting. Fromsuch a diary the counselor can identify theprincipal activities in which the student iscurrently involved and the objects of cathexis andcan then determine if the academic difficultiesstem from competing involvements, poor studyhabits, lack of motivation, or some combinationof these factors.

In short, the theory of student involvementprovides a unifying construct that can help tofocus the energies of all institutional personnelon a common objective.

RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES

My research over the past several years, applyingthe theory of student involvement, has generatedmany ideas for further research. There arepossibilities not only for testing the theory itselfbut also for exploring educational ideas that growout of the theory. The following are just a fewexamples of the kinds of research that could beundertaken.

Assessing Different Forms of Involvement

Clearly, one of the most important next steps indeveloping and testing the involvement theoryis to explore ways of assessing different formsof involvement. As already suggested, a timediary could be valuable in determining therelative importance of various objects andactivities to the student. Judging from my firstattempt to develop time diaries (Astin, 1968),

students vary considerably in the amount of timethey spend on such diverse activities as studying,socializing, sleeping, daydreaming, and traveling.It would also be useful to assess how frequentlystudents interact with each other, with facultymembers and other institutional personnel, andwith people outside the institution. In addition,it is important not only to identify the extra-curricular activities in which the student parti-cipates but also to assess the time and energythat the student devotes to each activity.

Quality Versus Quantity

My colleague, C. Robert Pace, has developed anextensive battery of devices to assess the qualityof effort that students devote to various activities(Pace, 1982). A number of research questionsarise in connection with the quality versusquantity issue: To what extent can high-qualityinvolvement compensate for lack of quantity?Can students be encouraged to use time morewisely? To what extent does low-quality involve-ment reflect such obstacles as lack of motivationand personal problems?

Involvement and Developmental Outcomes

The research reviewed earlier (Astin, 1977)suggests that different forms of involvement leadto different developmental outcomes. Theconnection between particular forms of involve-ment and particular outcomes is an importantquestion that should be addressed in futureresearch. For example, do particular forms ofinvolvement facilitate student development alongthe various dimensions postulated by theoristssuch as Chickering (1969), Loevinger (1966),Heath (1968), Perry (1970), and Kohlberg(1971)? It would also be useful to determinewhether particular student characteristics (e.g.,socioeconomic status, academic preparation, sex)are significantly related to different forms ofinvolvement and whether a given form ofinvolvement produces different outcomes fordifferent types of students.

The Role of Peer Groups

Considerable research at the precollegiate levelsuggests that the student’s commitment of timeand energy to academic work can be strongly


Astin (1984)

influenced by student peers (Coleman, 1961;McDill & Rigsby, 1973). It would be useful todetermine whether similar relationships exist atthe postsecondary level and, in particular,whether different types of student peer groupscan be consciously used to enhance studentinvolvement in the learning process.

Attribution and Locus of Control

In recent years learning and developmentaltheorists have shown an increasing interest in theconcepts of locus of control (Rotter, 1966) andattribution (Weiner, 1979). Considerable re-search, for example, suggests that students’degree of involvement in learning tasks can beinfluenced by whether they believe that theirbehavior is controlled by internal or by externalfactors. Weiner (1979) argued that even ifstudents tend to view their locus of control asinternal, involvement may be further contingenton whether the internal factors are controllable(e.g., dependent on effort) or uncontrollable (e.g.,dependent on ability). It seems clear that theeffectiveness of any attempt to increase studentinvolvement is highly contingent on the student’sperceived locus of control and attributionalinclinations.

Other Questions

Other questions that could be explored in futureresearch on the involvement theory include thefollowing:

Exceptions to the rule. What are the charac-teristics of highly involved students who dropout? What are the characteristics of uninvolvedstudents who nonetheless manage to persist incollege? Are there particular developmentaloutcomes for which a high degree of involvementis contraindicated?

Temporal patterns of involvement. Twostudents may devote the same total amount oftime and energy to a task but may distribute theirtime in very different ways. For example, onestudent preparing a term paper may work for 1hour each night over a period of 2 weeks; anothermay stay up all night to do the paper. What arethe developmental consequences of thesedifferent patterns?

Combining different forms of involvement.

How do different forms of involvement interact?Does one form of involvement (e.g., in extra-curricular activities) enhance or diminish theeffects of another form (e.g., in academic work)?What are the ideal combinations that facilitatemaximum learning and personal development?

Desirable limits to involvement. Althoughthe theory of involvement generally holds that“more is better,” there are probably limits beyondwhich increasing involvement ceases to producedesirable results and can even become counter-productive. Examples of excessive involvementare the “workaholic,” the academic “grind,” andothers who manifest obsessive-compulsivebehavior. What are the ideal upper limits forvarious forms of involvement? Are problemsmore likely to develop if the student is ex-cessively involved in a single object (e.g.,academic work) rather than in a variety ofobjects (e.g., academic work, part-time job,extracurricular activities, social activities, andpolitical activities)?

Epidemiology of involvement. Can studentinvolvement be increased if professors interactmore with students? Can administrators bringabout greater faculty-student interaction bysetting an example themselves? Does focusingon student involvement as a common institutionalgoal tend to break down traditional status barriersbetween faculty and student personnel workers?

SUMMARY

I have presented a theory of student development,labeled the student involvement theory, which Ibelieve is both simple and comprehensive. Thistheory not only elucidates the considerablefindings that have emerged from decades ofresearch on student development; it also offerseducators a tool for designing more effectivelearning environments.

Student involvement refers to the quantityand quality of the physical and psychologicalenergy that students invest in the collegeexperience. Such involvement takes many forms,such as absorption in academic work, parti-cipation in extracurricular activities, andinteraction with faculty and other institutionalpersonnel. According to the theory, the greater



the student’s involvement in college, the greaterwill be the amount of student learning andpersonal development. Front the standpoint ofthe educator, the most important hypothesis inthe theory is that the effectiveness of anyeducational policy or practice is directly relatedto the capacity of that policy or practice toincrease student involvement.

The principal advantage of the studentinvolvement theory over traditional pedagogicalapproaches (including the subject-matter, theresource, and the individualized or eclectictheories) is that it directs attention away fromsubject matter and technique and toward themotivation and behavior of the student. It viewsstudent time and energy as institutional resources,albeit finite resources. Thus, all institutionalpolicies and practices—those relating to non-academic as well as academic matters—can beevaluated in terms of the degree to which theyincrease or reduce student involvement. Simi-larly, all college personnel—counselors andstudent personnel workers as well as faculty andadministrators—can assess their own activities interms of their success in encouraging students tobecome more involved in the college experience.

REFERENCES

Astin, A. W. (1968). The college environment. Washington,DC: American Council on Education.

Astin, A. W. (1973). The impact of dormitory living onstudents. Educational Record, 54, 204-210.

Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from droppingout. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.Astin, A. W. (1982). Minorities in American higher

education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bloom, B. (1974). Time and learning. American Psy-

chologist, 29, 682-688.Brown, R. D., & DeCoster, D. A. (Eds.). (1982). Mentoring-

transcript systems for promoting student growth: Newdirections for student services no. 19. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W. (1974). Commuters versus residents. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Associates. (1981). The modernAmerican college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Coleman. J. S. (1961). The adolescent society. New York:Free Press.

Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D., Filby, N., Martiave, R. Cahen,L., & Dishaw, M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academiclearning time and student achievement. In C. Denham& A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn. Washington, DC:National Institute of Education.

Gagne, R. M. (1977). The conditions of learning. (3rd ed.).New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Grant, G.. Elbow, P.. Ewens, T.. Gamson, Z., Kohli, W.,Neumann, W., Olesen, V., & Riesnian, D. (1979). Oncompetence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hanson, G. R. (Ed.). (1982). Measuring student merit: Newdirections for student services no. 20. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Heath, D. (1968). Growing up in college. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Kohlberg, L. (1971). Stages of moral development. In C.M. Beck, B. S. Crittenden, & E. V. Sullivan (Eds.), Moraleducation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Loevinger, J. (1966). The meaning and measure of egodevelopment. American Psychologist, 21, 195-206.

McDill, E. L., & Rigsby, L. C. (1973). Structure and processin secondary schools: The academic impact of educa-tional climates. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress.

Pace, C. R. (1982). Achievement and the quality of studenteffort: Report prepared for the National Commission onExcellence in Education. Los Angeles: Higher EducationResearch Institute, University of California at LosAngeles.

Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethicaldevelopment in the college years. New York: Holt,Rinehart and Winston.

Rosenshine. B. (1982). Teaching functions in instructionalprograms. Paper presented at the National Institute ofEducation’s National Invitational Conference onResearch on ‘reaching: Implications for Practice,Washington, DC.

Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectations for internalversus external control of reinforcement. PsychologicalMonographs, I (Whole No. 609).

Weiner, B. A. (1979). Theory of motivation for someclassroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 71, 3-25.

astin, alexander w._student involvement

Documents