Astin's Theory Research Articles

Personal Factors and Clinical Learning Environment as Predictors of Nursing Students' Readiness for Practice: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

It is essential to ensure the readiness for practice among undergraduate nursing studentssince the purpose of such education is to cultivate competent nurses who deliver high-quality and safe nursing. Astin's theory of student involvement suggests that this is affected by their personal factors and learning environment. We conducted a cross-sectional study between November 16, 2020 and December 21, 2020 which examined personal factors and aspects of the clinical learning environment among senior nursing students (n=838) enrolled across 54 nursing schools in Korea. The participants were asked to fill out a self-administered online survey, which assessed demographic characteristics, self-esteem, depression, work-life balance, clinical learning environment, anxiety during clinical practicum, and readiness for practice. Readiness for practice was measured using the Casey-Fink Readiness for practice survey. We used structural equational modeling to test our hypothetical model. The nursing students' readiness for practice was significantly affected by their self-esteem, work-life balance satisfaction, and clinical learning environment. Anxiety during clinical practicum directly influenced their readiness for practice. Increasing self-esteem and work-life balance satisfaction, and improving their clinical learning environment by providing sufficient educational and clinical support, could help facilitate the transition from nursing schools to real-world practice for nursing students.

Association between Collegiate Recreational Sports Involvement and Undergraduate Student Retention

This study examined the association between collegiate recreational sports (CRS) involvement and undergraduate retention rates after 1, 2, and 3 years of study at a midsized Canadian university. Astin's theory of involvement and Tinto's inter-actionist theory of student departure provided the conceptual underpinnings for the study. The results of the study indicated a significant association between CRS employment, or participation in intramural sports, with retention when compared to the broader student population that were not participating in intramural sports nor employed by the CRS department. These findings will assist recreation directors and program staff to ensure that the value of recreational activities for all students and the leadership opportunities provided through staffing programs and recreational facilities with students continues to be seen as important to university administrators.

Benefits of Collegiate Recreational Sports Participation: Results from the 2013 NASPA Assessment and Knowledge Consortium Study

This study reports the results from the 2013 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) Assessment and Knowledge Consortium. Students ( N = 33,522) from 38 different colleges and universities across the United States completed the Recreation and Wellness Benchmark instrument. Using Astin's Theory of Student Involvement (1984), this study sought to determine if there were significant differences between different depth and breadth levels of participants' campus recreational sports involvement/participation on student retention, health and wellness, and student learning outcomes. Heavy Users placed significantly more importance on campus recreational sports facilities and programs when deciding to continue at their college/university, and felt they had increased or improved every health and wellness and student learning outcome from their participation in campus recreation significantly more when compared with Moderate, Light, and Non-Users. Findings from this nationwide study demonstrate the value of collegiate recreation to the college and university experience.

Understanding the Decision to Enroll in Graduate School: Sex and Racial/Ethnic Group Differences

Women continue to receive fewer doctoral and first-professional degrees than men, even though women receive more bachelor's degrees. The underrepresentation of women holds even after allowing for time to complete an advanced degree. For example, women received 55% of the bachelor's degrees that were awarded in 1994-95 but only 44% of the doctoral degrees and 45% of the first-professional degrees that were awarded five years later in 1999-00 (NCES, 2002). (1) African Americans also represented smaller shares of doctoral and first-professional degree recipients in 1999-00 than of bachelor's degree recipients in 1994-95 (5.0% and 6.9% versus 7.5%, NCES, 2002). Hispanics represented a smaller share of doctoral degree recipients (2.9%) but a comparable share of first-professional degrees (4.8%) in 1999-00 than of bachelor's degrees in 1994-95 (4.7%, NCES, 2002). Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) offer several possible explanations for the lower representation of women, African Americans, and Hispanics among doctoral degree recipients than bachelor's degree recipients. First, non-U.S. citizens, the majority of whom are men, account for a higher share of doctoral degree recipients than bachelor's degree recipients. Second, the distribution of bachelor's degree recipients by undergraduate major field varies by sex and race/ethnicity, with women, African Americans, and Hispanics tending to major in fields in which smaller shares of bachelor's degree recipients enroll in doctoral programs, such as communications. Even after taking into account these sources of the gap, however, Bowen and Rudenstine (1992) conclude that women, African Americans, and Hispanics are less likely to receive doctoral degrees. They speculate that both lower rates of doctoral program enrollment and lower rates of persisting to doctoral degree completion play a role. Although researchers have examined sex and racial/ethnic group differences in undergraduate enrollment (e.g., Hurtado, Inkelas, Briggs, & Rhee, 1997; Jackson, 1990; Perna, 2000; St. John & Noell, 1989), few theoretically based, methodologically rigorous studies have explored the sources of observed sex and racial/ethnic group differences in graduate school enrollment using a nationally representative sample of students. Ethington and Smart (1986) examined sex differences in graduate enrollment using a comprehensive causal model but did not include race/ethnicity in the analyses, likely due to a small number of non-White individuals in the sample. Other research has been limited to describing the correlates of graduate enrollment for a particular group, such as Mexican-American female graduate students (Lango, 1995), African-American doctoral recipients in sports and exercise science (King & Chepyator-Thomas, 1996), doctoral students in higher education administration (Poock & Love, 2001), and newly enrolled graduate students at one institution (Malaney, 1987; Stiber, 2000). A variety of conceptual approaches have been utilized to examine graduate school enrollment, including a marketing perspective (Malaney, 1987; Stiber, 2000), Hossler and Gallagher's three-stage college-choice model (Poock & Love, 2001), Astin's theory of involvement (Lango, 1995), and Tinto's model of persistence (Ethington & Smart, 1986). This research contributes to our understanding of the sources of the underrepresentation of women, African Americans, and Hispanics among doctoral and professional degree recipients by examining one phase of the educational pipeline: the enrollment of bachelor's degree recipients in different types of post-baccalaureate educational programs. This study develops and tests a conceptual model that is based on an expanded econometric theoretical framework using data from a nationally representative, longitudinal survey of bachelor's degree recipients. Theoretical Framework Building on research that has examined racial/ethnic group differences in undergraduate enrollment (Perna, 2000), this research develops and tests the appropriateness of an expanded econometric framework for understanding sex and racial/ethnic group differences in post-baccalaureate enrollment. …

Encouraging student involvement: An approach to teaching communication

Research demonstrates that students approach learning using the following strategies: (a) surface strategies (meeting requirements at a minimal level, usually through rote learning), (b) achieving strategies (striving to receive high grades, even if the subject is not of interest, by performing the activities typical of good students), or (c) deep strategies (working to develop competence and interest in the subject, such as trying to relate new knowledge to previous knowledge) (King, 1996). Most teachers would agree that the facilitation of meaningful, deep learning is the goal of instruction. How do we encourage our students to utilize deep learning strategies in the communication classroom? Deep learning is more likely in situations where students are highly involved and engaged in the learning process (Kember & Gow, 1994). In this article, I review Astin's theory of involvement and discuss the ways I use this theory to generate pedagogical practices designed to promote deep learning. ASTIN'S THEORY OF INVOLVEMENT Astin's (1984) theory of involvement posits that students learn more the more they are involved in both the and social aspects of the collegiate experience. Students who are involved devote significant energy to academics, spend time on campus, participate actively in student organizations and activities, and interact often with faculty. On the other hand, uninvolved students neglect their studies, spend little time on campus, abstain from extracurricular activities, and rarely initiate contact with faculty or other students (Astin, 1984). Importantly, the most persuasive types of involvement are academic involvement, involvement with faculty, and involvement with student peer groups (Astin, 1996, p. 126). This theory is consistent with student-centered teaching approaches in that the student plays an integral role in determining her or his own degree of involvement in various educational activities. According to Astin (1984), the quality and quantity of the student's involvement influences several educational outcomes including cognitive learning, satisfaction with the entire college experience, and increased rates of student retention (Astin, 1984, 1999). For a student to be deeply involved in the learning process, she or he must invest energy in relationships and activities. The amount of energy a student invests in these types of activities will vary based upon the student's interest, goals, and other commitments. Astin (1984) argues that instructors should use involvement theory to maximize student learning. To accomplish that goal, instructors must be aware of how motivated students are and how much time and energy they are devoting to the learning process. In the next section of this article, I explain the ways in which I use involvement theory to guide the pedagogical practices I employ in the classroom. Practical implications. There are several practical implications of Astin's theory of involvement. Chickering and Gamson (1987, 1991) offer the following pedagogical practices for facilitating student involvement and engagement: student-faculty contact, cooperation among students, active learning, prompt feedback, time on task, high instructor expectations for students, and respect for diverse talents and learning styles. Although I must admit that I have yet to master these practices, I use them as guiding principles in my teaching. In terms of student-faculty contact, communication educators have long known that this is a critical variable in the educational fortune of students. I attempt to foster that contact both within and outside of the classroom. I believe it is important that teachers do all they can to facilitate a supportive learning environment where the students feel comfortable to contribute to on-going discussions, debate competing points of view, and ask questions. Therefore, I get to know each of my students as individuals; I refer to them by their first names; I refrain from using intimidation, belittlement, or other anti-social behavior alteration techniques; I demonstrate my passion for the subject matter and teaching; and I challenge my students while offering the kind of support I think they need to be successful. …

Responsibility in instruction: Who is doing the learning here?

One of the most challenging elements of being a teacher is that we are considered responsible for our student's learning. And yet, we cannot learn for our students; student learning is an activity done by the student not by the teacher. So, how teachers are responsible for student learning becomes a relevant and interesting question. In what ways can we be responsible for an outcome which, ultimately, is not under our control? The essays by Central States Communication Association teaching award winners for 2002 provide some insights into this issue. Stephen Hunt (2003) argues that teachers are responsible for student learning by actively engaging in practices which research shows makes learning more likely while Lynn Bryant (2003) discusses the teacher's responsibility to not put barriers in the way of learning. Both focus on the processes of communication in and out of the classroom which create or hinder student learning. There is also a third factor affecting communication processes which is controlled by neither teacher nor student that affects learning: the environment in which instruction occurs. Proactive Practices Promoting Learning Much past instructional communication research has focused attention on such teacher communicative behaviors as non-verbal immediacy (e.g., McCroskey, Fayer, Richmond, Sallinen, & Barraclough, 1996), confirmation (e.g., Ellis, 2000), and clarity (e.g., Chesebro & McCroskey, 2001). We know that these behaviors are associated with student learning. Hunt, however, goes beyond a simple focus on individual teacher behaviors and argues that teachers are responsible for implementing communication processes that enable and support student learning. Hunt (2003) draws on Astin's theory of involvement to argue that student involvement facilitates student learning. We would expect that behaviors like nonverbal immediacy also promote involvement--and, in fact, Hunt refers to using such behaviors as an integral part of his pedagogical practices. But he goes beyond a focus on individual behaviors to draw attention to the fact that effective instructional communication is a process. His essay reflects on those pedagogical processes which promote interaction between faculty and student, active student learning, and cooperation among students. He highlights the joint nature of instruction by discussing exchanges of student questions and instructor feedback, instructor expectations and student performance. Hunt's (2003) essay is consistent with the growing emphasis, nationwide, on interactive instructional practices (Shelton, Lane, & Waldhart, 1999). Research has demonstrated that out-of-class faculty-student contact improves student motivation (Jaasma & Koper, 1999) and that instructor use of powerful language increases classroom interaction (Halenta, 1996). Hunt's focus on interactivity, however, argues for the joint responsibility of teacher and student to make learning a success. The teacher sets the stage for learning. It is up to the student to follow through. Avoidance of Barriers to Learning While instructional communication research has investigated factors which promote student learning, less attention has been paid to qualities which hinder student learning. Bryant (2003) draws on facework theory to explain why we might tend to avoid discussing our instructional errors. Her reflection on her own teaching mistakes highlights how a lack of student respect for the teacher can be a barrier to effective instruction. The ongoing tension between student liking and respect and instructor self-disclosure and respect are effectively illustrated in Bryant's analysis as is the role that professional distance plays in maintaining that respect. Bryant's (2003) essay is consistent with the literature on facework, including Kerson-Griep's (2001) analysis of the role that instructor behaviors play in threatening or supporting student face. …