Examining the Ways Institutions Create Student ... - CiteSeerX

Examining the Ways Institutions Create Student Engagement: The Role of Mission Adrianna Kezar

Jillian Kinzie

This article reviews the results from an in-depth multi-site case study of 20 institutions examining approaches to student engagement exploring differences by mission. The research questions pursued were: Is mission related to distinctive approaches for creating an engaging environment for students? If so, in what ways? The results demonstrate a set of relationships between institutional mission and the five benchmarks of effective educational practice identified by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Implications for institutional policy are reviewed. Within American higher education there has long been concern about whether campuses effectively create engaging learning environments, especially as they have grown in size. For example, in the earlier part of the last century students and outside commentators noted the increased reliance on the lecture method, increasing separation of faculty and students, and decline of interaction among faculty and students as problematic (Altbach, 1997). These concerns re-emerged each decade and by the 1960s students were protesting the impersonal environments that had developed. In the 1980s, several national reports were released again raising the same criticisms of a largely impersonal and passive learning environment that was less than ideal for fostering learning. However, these national reports had more credibility as they were based on research that illustrated that the large,

impersonal, and passive learning environments are less likely to create learning (Astin, 1993; Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Knefelkamp, 1991; Love & Love, 1995; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). As a result of these concerns and on-going problems, there has been greater dialogue about the role campuses play in helping students succeed. In the last fifteen years, as campuses have begun to take greater responsibility for student learning, leaders and change agents have attempted to identify the elements of a quality/effective learning environment (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). They are well aided in this task as there is a plethora of research on improving undergraduate education (Knefelkamp, 1991; Kuh, Douglas, Lund, & Ramin Gyurnek, 1994; Love & Love, 1995). A report from Education Commission of the States (ECS, 1995), summarized the key components within three areas: (a) Quality begins with an organizational culture that values high expectations, respect for diverse learning styles, and emphasis on the early years of study; (b) Quality undergraduate curriculum requires coherence in learning, synthesizing experiences, on-going practice of learned skills, and integrating education with experience; and (c) Quality undergraduate instruction builds in active learning, assessment and prompt feedback, collaboration, adequate time on task, and out of class contact with faculty. The report goes on to note that

Adrianna Kezar is Associate Professor in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Jillian Kinzie is Associate Director, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research & National Survey of Student Engagement Institute for Effective Educational Practice.

MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

149

Kezar & Kinzie

the 12 attributes of good practice will lead to improved student performance and satisfaction. These principles of a quality undergraduate education have recently been termed “student engagement” (Kuh, 2001). Student engagement is defined as the time and energy that students devote to educationally purposeful activities and the extent to which the institution gets students to participate in activities that lead to student success (Kuh, 2003). All of the activities and practices, whether it be contact with faculty, collaboration, integrating education and experience, or high expectations, are all mechanisms that create engagement, which leads to learning (Kuh, 2001). The research conducted in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s has been used to develop a systematic tool for measuring student engagement, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Similar to the report by ECS in the 1990s, the NSSE survey used research on effective educational practices to create five benchmarks (rather than three key components) of an engaged campus: (a) academic challenge, (b) student interactions with faculty, (c) active and collaborative learning, (d) enriching educational experiences, and (e) supportive campus environment (Kuh, 2001). Although there is a large measure of agreement as to what practices lead to a quality/effective undergraduate education and improved student learning, there is less agreement about how institutions create an engaging environment (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). For example, does active learning or academic challenge look the same on every campus? Also, can campuses use alternative means for achieving academic challenge? Does aligning mission with the approach to engagement create a more promising approach? Empirical data is needed

150

to identify important institutional differences that might affect the way that engagement is created among vastly different institutional types and sectors. Research from organizational theory suggests that practices differ based on the institutional mission, which is often denoted by sectorial difference or institutional type, and that colleges and universities that align their mission with their policies and programs are more effective and efficient (Birnbaum, 1991; Bolman & Deal, 1991). The purpose of this article is to combine what we know from student learning and engagement (a set of policies and practices) with what we know from organizational theory (that these engagement policies and practices will likely differ based on mission and will be more successful if the institutions align programs and mission). The goal of this paper is to demonstrate and document some of the meaningful differences in the ways institutions create engagement so that institutions of higher education can further examine the degree of congruence between their mission and the practices that promote student learning and can better implement approaches to student engagement. The research questions pursued were: Does mission relate to distinctive approaches for creating an engaging environment for students? If so, in what ways? Does alignment of mission and approaches to student engagement matter? This paper draws from and complements research results of the Documenting Effective Educational Practices (DEEP) project conducted by the NSSE Institute for Effective Educational Practice in partnership with the American Association of Higher Education (AAHE). The DEEP initiative examined the everyday workings of a variety of educationally effective colleges and universities to learn what they do to promote student success. The

Journal of College Student Development

Student Engagement and Mission Alignment

institutions chosen included various types of institutions to explore whether there were differences in the policies and practices needed to create an engaging environment based on unique mission/institutional type. Case studies of 20 high-performing colleges and universities, including large, small, urban, and special mission institutions, demonstrated that there are many roads to engagement based on institutional differences and that institutions share common approaches to achieve high levels of student engagement (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005). This article focuses on some of the nuanced differences that might be ignored if one focuses only on the common approaches. This paper proceeds as follows. First, the conceptual underpinnings of student engagement are outlined. Second, organizational theory that demonstrates how a different organizational mission often results in distinctive policies and practices for meeting this mission and related operations is reviewed. Third, the methodology for the study is reviewed, and an interpretation of the results related to mission and student engagement is presented.

Student Engagement The National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) is based on the Seven Principles of Good Practice in Undergraduate Education, which states “that level of academic challenge, time on task, and participating in other educationally purposeful activities directly influence the quality of student learning and their overall educational experience” (Kuh, 2001, p. 12). The principles were developed in 1986 at a Wingspread conference to distill the research findings on teaching and learning in higher education. In 1998, after a decade of continued dialogue about the importance of revising undergraduate teaching and

MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

learning practices (in addition to several national reports critiquing higher education), the NSSE survey was developed to provide a tool for campuses to understand their performance and a mechanism for creating change (Kuh, 2003). Participating institutions are provided data about performance on key measures that lead to student learning. In 1999 the survey was piloted with 70 institutions. After four years, more than 725 different colleges and universities have participated in the survey. The dramatic rise in use over a short period of time demonstrates that NSSE is a tool that campuses see as valuable for facilitating student success and for campus improvement. Because it is being so widely used, it is important for campuses to be able to examine their results and to make accurate assessments of ways to make interventions on their campuses. The NSSE initiative is aimed to further institutions’ efforts to develop a culture of evidence to inform campus dialogues and action about the quality of undergraduate education. In order to better understand the concept of student engagement, it is important to review NSSE’s benchmarks in more detail. The first benchmark, level of academic challenge, refers to the importance of academic effort and setting high expectations for student performance. Items in this cluster of activities include preparation for class, number of assigned textbooks, number of written papers or reports more than 20 pages, and coursework emphasizing synthesizing and organizing ideas, information, and experiences. The second benchmark, student interaction with faculty members, is the amount and quality of time spent by students in and out of the classroom with faculty. The result is usually that faculty become role models, mentors, and guides for continuous life-long learning. This benchmark includes items such as discussed career plans

151

Kezar & Kinzie

with a faculty member or advisor, discussed ideas from a reading or class with faculty members outside of class, or received prompt feedback from faculty on academic performance. The next benchmark is active and collaborative learning, by which students learn more because they are intensely involved in their education and are asked to think about and apply what they are learning in different settings. Activities that represent active and collaborative learning are: making a class presentation, working with other students on projects during class, tutored or taught other students, or participating in a community based project. The enriching educational experiences benchmark refers to the complementary learning opportunities inside and outside classrooms that augment the academic program. Internships, capstone classes, and use of technology are examples of this benchmark. Sample questions from the survey include: talking to students with different religious beliefs, political opinions, or values; and using technology to discuss or complete an assignment. The last benchmark, supportive campus environment, relates to research showing that students perform better and are more satisfied at colleges that are committed to their success and cultivate positive working and social relations among different groups on campus; examples include: quality of relationships with other students, campus environment helps students cope with their non-academic responsibilities, and quality of relationships with administrative personnel and offices.

Organizational Theory A plethora of organizational theorists have noted the importance of culture/mission for organizational functioning and the effect of mission/culture on programs, policies, and practices of an institution (Bolman & Deal, 1991; Martin, 1992; Morgan, 1997; Schein,

152

1985; Smirich, 1983). Culture relates to the symbolic elements of an organization such as its values, mission, and philosophies (Bolman & Deal; Kuh & Whitt, 1988; Schein, 1985). There are many different definitions of culture. Some researchers believe culture is deeply embedded patterns of organizational behavior and the shared values, assumptions, beliefs, or ideologies that members have about their organization or its work (Peterson & Spencer, 1991). Others describe culture as providing meaning and context for a specific set of people (Berquist, 1992; Schein, 1985). Still others note it is made up of complex layers— subcultures and fragmented individuals can even be conceived of as culture (Martin). Although there is no single definition or understanding of culture, definitions all allude to values, assumptions, meaning, and people. The mission of the institution is one of the most visible and powerful articulations of the culture and usually relates to values and meaning for a campus and provides guidance for people to act. Thus, many researchers have identified a connection between the mission statement and resultant practices, programs, and activities of an organization (Birnbaum, 1991; Bolman & Deal, 1991; Leslie & Fretwell, 1996; Morgan, 1997; Tierney, 1991). Mission refers to the overarching, long-term purposes of the institution that represent what an institution is and aspires to be (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005). As Kuh et al. (2005) note: “The mission establishes the tone of a college and conveys its educational purposes, whether based on religious, ideological, or educational beliefs, giving direction to all aspects of institutional life, including the policies and practices that foster student success” (p. 25). Every campus has a mission statement that communicates the overarching goals, outcomes, and values of the organization. Because mission is formally



articulated and long-standing, it is usually noted as one of the most significant elements of culture. For this reason, mission became the focus of this paper as a way to demonstrate whether variation among campuses’ mission makes a difference to the way that institutions approach the process of creating student engagement. The processes of an organization operate uniquely based on the mission the organization is created to fulfill and the values and philosophies it chooses to meet the mission (Bolman & Deal, 1991). Different missions also affect institutional processes. For example, in an organization that serves an ever-changing environment, staff development might be a greater priority within the organization. In an organization that serves a stable on-going mission—for example, hospitals—upholding professional ethical principles and codes might be more important to staff development than on-going activities. In higher education, the mission of the institution (which is also related to institutional type) is a critical cultural factor that has been demonstrated to affect institutional operations (Birnbaum, 1991). In liberal arts colleges that have a mission that is focused more on teaching/local service and traditions/customs, the distinctive mission and values affect budget allocations with more resources for the instructional side of the house. Research universities value research and national service and allocate money for research and administrative staff to support research and national service. However, not all campuses appear to be driven by their mission, as Leslie and Fretwell (1996) identified in their study of college campuses in hard times. Successful campuses allocate resources and make strategic choices based on their mission statement. One of the major failings of campuses is losing touch with their mission or not aligning campus processes

MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

with the institutional mission (Blanchard, Waghorn, & Ballard, 1997; Diamond, 2002). Similarly, Tierney (2002) noted that, all too often, campus mission falls into the background and the operations become scattered, draining resources and human talent. Therefore, not only are institutions likely to differ in policies and practices based on their mission, but differing is a successful practice as that allows the institution to better focus on their mission by modifying their policies and practices. This difference between the stated mission of the institution and whether faculty, administrators, and staff act in ways that reflect this mission is often termed the living mission versus the espoused mission (Kuh et al., 2005). When an institution has a mission but very few people use it to guide their work, then this is often referred to as the espoused mission. Often this is what a school or college writes about itself in its mission statement. The second type of mission is the school’s lived or active mission—what the institution actually does and whom it serves. The lived mission guides the daily actions of those on campus in all their activities in the classroom, in residence halls, and in policymaking. The espoused mission can be a lived mission, but often it is not aligned with the practices of individuals within the institution (Kuh et al., 2005). For example, a university’s mission statement might refer to a commitment to teaching and mentoring undergraduates, but its lived mission strongly emphasizes graduate students and doctoral education. This lack of alignment between the espoused and the lived mission is important to an institution’s success (Leslie & Fretwell, 1996). As the literature suggests, educational institutions that lack alignment between their espoused and lived mission may be less effective and efficient. Within higher education, mission can be

153

Kezar & Kinzie

examined from two different perspectives: (a) unique, individual mission; and (b) institutional mission according to type or sector. This study examines both levels of mission. Several studies have examined mission from these two different levels (e.g., Berquist, 1992; Birnbaum, 1991, Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Tierney, 1988). The advantage of examining mission from these two perspectives is that each one examines an important way that people make sense of the role and identity of their institution, but each perspective operates in different ways. Every institution has a distinctive mission that it notes within its mission statement and that is “hopefully” lived through the values, assumptions, and practices of faculty, staff, and administrators. In addition to the unique institutional mission, every institution has evolved within a particular institutional model/type. For example, liberal arts colleges tend to focus on the mission of teaching, while research universities focus more on research. Urban institutions tend to serve commuter and adult students and provide graduate and professional education and outreach. Special mission institutions emerged to serve special populations underserved by other sectors of higher education. The institutional types that have evolved represent distinctive purposes that have emerged historically within the higher education system. Both types of mission have been shown to affect institutional operations (Birnbaum). The purpose of this paper is to focus on mission and its role in understanding how institutions might approach the process of creating student engagement on campus. It should be noted that student outcomes do not differ significantly by institutional mission or type; however, the way that institutions achieve these outcomes can differ, and this is the distinction this article seeks to identify.

154

METHODOLOGY This article draws from the DEEP research project (Kuh et al., 2005; Project DEEP, n.d.). Project DEEP was conducted by a team of two dozen researchers from Indiana University and other institutions across the United States in cooperation with the American Association for Higher Education (AAHE). The methodology for the project was a multi-site case study focused on describing practices related to student engagement. Case study methodology allowed the 24-member research team to explore the various aspects of the campus environment in depth and identify distinctive programs, practices, and policies that account for better than predicted levels of student engagement and graduation rates among a diverse set of institutions. The project was conducted over a 2-year period. This article expands on the results from DEEP in order to understand how institutional type/characteristics affect student engagement. Sample Several criteria were used to identify the institutions in DEEP. First, a regression model was used to identify baccalaureate granting institutions that had higher-than-predicted scores on the five clusters of effective educational practice used by NSSE. These indicators are level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student interaction with faculty members, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environment. A second regression model was used to determine the predicted graduation rates of these schools, and compared them against their actual reported 6-year graduation rate. Both regression models took into account student characteristics and institutional features such as size, selectivity, and location. Thus, “higher-than-predicted” means that the institutions generally had scores



that exceeded what they were expected to be given their respective combination of student and institutional characteristics. Higher-thanpredicted levels of engagement and graduation represent something meaningful beyond what students bring to college. Arguably, such colleges and universities have created learning environments that benefit their students. That is, students are taking advantage of the opportunities the institutions provide for their learning, and the institutions devote effort (and occasionally resources) to encourage students to take part in educationally purposeful activities (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005). The inside- and outsidethe-classroom activities are related to various measures of student success including learning, cognitive development, personal development, satisfaction, and persistence to graduation. The 20 institutions in this study are among a larger number that met these two key criteria. They were selected in part to represent the diversity of American higher education institutions. Nine are private institutions, 11 are public. Some are large, public research-

intensive universities; others are focused exclusively on undergraduate education. Some are residential in nature; others are predominantly commuter and enroll substantial numbers of part-time students. They range in enrollments from fewer than 700 undergraduate students to more than 20,000 undergraduates. In addition, institutional mission was a criterion for choosing institutions. For example, five are research universities, four are commuter campuses, three are mastero:’s degree-granting institutions, eight are liberal arts colleges, two are historically Black colleges and universities, two are Hispanic-serving institutions, and two are women’s colleges. Please see Table 1 for a list of the institutions in the study. As noted in the review of the literature, the main institutional characteristic examined in this paper is mission. The institutions varied in institutional mission from primarily research, to institutions that balance teaching and research, to institutions that have a predominantly service and teaching mission. As mentioned above, research,

TABLE 1. Institutions Participating in the Documenting Effective Educational Practices Study Institution Type

Institution Name

Institution Type

Institution Name

Doctoral Extensives

University of Kansas

Liberal Arts

Macalester College

Doctoral Intensives

Master’s Granting

University of Michigan

Sweet Briar College

George Mason University

The Evergreen State College

Miami University (Ohio)

University of the South (Sewanee)

University of Texas at El Paso

Ursinus College

Fayetteville State University

Wabash College

Gonzaga University

Wheaton College (MA)

Longwood University

Wofford College

Baccalaureate General Alverno College

In Transition

California State, Monterey Bay

University of Maine at Farmington Winston-Salem State University MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

155

Kezar & Kinzie

commuter and urban, liberal arts, master’s and special mission (women’s college, historically black, etc.) missions were specifically chosen and represented the main types of institutional missions examined in the analysis. In addition, each campus had a unique mission statement based on its founding and history. For example, one campus was focused on developing diverse leadership for the nation, another on internationally informed citizens, and a third on responsible individuals for the world of work.

Data Collection The general DEEP data collection approach is reviewed first, followed by specific details of the process (see Project DEEP, n.d., and Kuh, et al., 2005 for additional information). Subsets of the research team (typically three to five people) conducted two multiple-day visits to each of the 20 campuses over a 2-year period. Team members were experienced researchers and practitioners who went through extensive orientation and training for the project and met at regular intervals throughout the project. Countless documents and websites were reviewed prior to, during, and after site visits. In total, more than 2,300 people were interviewed—many of them more than once—in an effort to learn what these schools do to promote student success. After the first visit, an interim report was prepared for the campus and feedback sought as to the accuracy of findings and to identify areas about which the research team needed to learn more. The second visit was used to address shortcomings in the interim report and to probe areas where researchers were still unclear about the policies and practices that promote student success at that particular institution. The second “final report” was sent to the institution with a request for corrections and additions, once again to make sure the factual infor-

156

mation was as accurate as possible (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Associates, 2005). There were four different data collection techniques: document analysis, interviews, focus groups, and observation. First, campus documents were collected by an institutional informant and sent to the research team. Institutional documents included accreditation reports, planning documents, NSSE results, and descriptions of programs and policies related to campus engagement. Second, a research team of three to four individuals visited the campuses for two multiple-day visits. On the first site visit approximately 40-80 individuals were interviewed. The team interviewed upper-level administrators (provost, president, and cabinet), middle-level administrators (department chairs and deans), staff (from across most campus offices including counseling, residence life, advising, multicultural affairs, etc.), faculty (representatives from humanities, social sciences, sciences, and professional and preprofessional programs, etc.), and students (both involved as part of campus activities or government and uninvolved) on every campus. The focus of the interviews was understanding what policies and practices accounted for better than predicted engagement scores and graduation rates. Focus groups were also used to capture data from groups such as committees on retention or improving education. In addition, focus groups were used to obtain data from students, who were more open to talk in groups. Observation of classes, residence halls, activities and events, campus governance, and other events took place during the site visit. The campus informant helped identify and schedule observations of classes and major campus meetings. Informal observation in the residence halls, for example, also occurred. A report developed from the first site visit was sent to campus officials for broad input



and review. Each report contained a detailed analysis of the campus context and institutional environment and was distributed to members of the campus for review and comment. On the second visit, the research team contained some members of the original as well as new members with “fresh eyes.” Focus groups and debriefing sessions were held with various groups on campus to get their feedback on the draft report. A final report was developed from the second round of interviews, observations, and feedback from debriefing sessions and focus groups. Interviews and focus groups were taped, and observation and document analysis protocols completed. Data from all team members was forwarded to the team leader for incorporation into the report. The report was circulated to each team member for review before going to the campus for final review. The reports were organized into the following sections: history and context, institutional mission, structure and culture of the campus, overview of effective practices, and five separate sections on programs and policies that contributed to the high performance on each benchmark. Teams gathered data on policies, programs, and practices, but also examined campus ethos and philosophy, traditions, and aspects of the environment that relate to engagement such as the size or location.

Data Analysis Several sources of data were used to conduct cross case analysis for the DEEP project and in the examination of research questions for this study of institutional mission: (a) 20 interim and 20 final reports for the campuses, (b) institutional documents, and (c) interviews and observations from each campus. The main source of data used for analysis was the set of institutional reports. However, to supplement

MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

these reports the documents and individual interviews and observations were also reviewed and analyzed. The data were entered into the Nud*ist data management software program and coded based on a set of themes developed from meetings of the research team. To conduct the examination of mission and student engagement reported here, each final institutional report was coded across the five benchmarks and institutional differences related to mission were distinguished. Patterns related to the mission were first identified across benchmarks. For example, if it was much more common for liberal arts colleges to use co-curricular experiences as an approach to create faculty and student interaction, this trend was noted and examples pulled. Relationships between mission and benchmarks were charted. A pattern was identified in two ways: For institutions with a unique institutional mission, it was identified if it was mentioned by all groups (faculty, administrators, staff, and students) on the campus and repeated within half of the interviews. For institutional mission/sector, it was documented if it transcended all the campuses within that type of institutional mission. For institutional type, Masters degree-granting institutions did not show distinctive patterns and are therefore not described. Baccalaureate institutions tended to have similar trends to liberal arts colleges. In addition to comments made specifically by individuals interviewed, documents and observation were used as support data of trends and patterns. Also, some trends were identified by review of the data across institutions, and then the data were reviewed to see if individual responses supported this trend. The trends presented were noted by the interviewees and were not solely the researcher’s impression or interpretation. Trustworthiness was obtained through several procedures. First, data were

157

Kezar & Kinzie

triangulated from several different sources including interviews, documents, and observation. Second, campus reports were memberchecked for accuracy. Reports were sent out to the entire campus community for feedback, and focus groups were held with campus stakeholders representing the different groups interviewed (faculty, staff, administrators, and students). In addition, the second site visits attempted to check earlier interpretations and obtain feedback.

Limitations The main limitation of the study is the sample size. Although 20 institutions examined intensively through case study is a very rigorous methodology, there was a compromise between complexity/depth (unique mission and various institutional types) and numbers of institutions/breadth that fit into each area examined. The more conditions (research, commuter, liberal arts colleges, single serving institutions, and Master’s degreegranting institutions) examined, the fewer institutions that could be explored for each issue. A second limitation is that the data rely heavily on perceptions of members of the institution about what conditions or causes accounted for their high scores on NSSE. Although the research team developed independent interpretations based on observations, documents, and other forms of analysis, there was a heavy emphasis on the views of institutional participants. There might be a tendency for people to believe there was an alignment between mission and practices since this is a desirable quality. Since this was not an ethnography, the research team could only become somewhat familiar with the nuances of the campus and test out individuals’ perceptions. Some researchers would consider this a limitation and others would not, but

158

we are making it apparent for the reader. A third limitation of the study is that the data can identify trends in relationships but cannot establish causality. Although the trends suggest that alignment of mission helped to account for campuses’ success in creating student engagement and higher than predicted graduation rates, there is no established causality through the study methods used. In addition, the trends might be an artifact of conventional wisdom; administrators and faculty might believe that alignment of mission with activities would result in better practice without there actually being an impact. However, it is less likely that the students would be familiar with this conventional wisdom, and they also identified this trend.

RESULTS This study focused on understanding the relationship between mission (in terms of institutional type as well as unique institutional mission) and student engagement. Findings suggest that the unique mission of campuses appeared to be a richer analytic tool for understanding the ways campuses enacted the program, policies, and practices related to engagement rather than institutional type (e.g., research, commuter, or liberal arts). The mission represented through institutional type appeared to affect several benchmarks, but there were fewer trends in this area and it was not as pervasive or deep as the unique mission. Mission related to institutional type appeared to be a less powerful analytic tool than individual institutional mission. Mission: Unique Institutional Environment The unique mission of each campus appeared to be related to the way campuses enacted engagement across each benchmark. A detailed review of two benchmarks where this trend



was particularly strong, enriching educational environment and academic challenge, will be used to illustrate this point. However, it should be noted that the mission of the institution was related to the way that these institutions develop faculty-student interaction, active and collaborative learning, and supportive campus environments. Enriching Educational Environment. The unique mission was related to approaches for achieving the benchmark enriching educational environment. Campuses that scored highly on this benchmark were more likely to offer experiences that were directly related to their mission. In addition, they were more likely to see the explicit connection between their mission and campus activities or policies. Some aspects of mission were not always expressed explicitly in a mission statement, but as one faculty member offered: “Faculty members here understand that this (servant leadership) is a part of our mission, even if it isn’t written down somewhere.” In the data presented below, the explicit connection between mission and policy and practices are described. As one administrator noted: “Our mission is communicated every step of the way to new and current community members. Our resources are devoted to effective teaching learning strategies for students and connections between students and faculty that contribute [to] student growth.” As a result, members of the community focus on activities that advanced the institution rather than argued about what the mission should be. One caveat is important. Consistency and alignment do not mean absence of disagreement about institutional mission and philosophies. Although there is widespread agreement about important educational matters, these campuses also allowed for and were flexible about including different voices. In exploring why the relationship between

MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

mission and educationally enriching experiences was so critical, respondents noted, “The mission is an area that the campus had focused resources, both human and financial. Therefore, we realize we can make more powerful experiences by focusing our efforts.” The campuses were following the advice within the literature on mission that states that organizations that are successful tend to align policies and practices with mission. The capacity created through this concentration of resources enabled more robust experiences to be created. In addition, respondents relayed that the institution had a legacy and history related to the mission which provided for a myth or stories to be created that gave these experiences more meaning. Students feel they were part of something special; these opportunities were not available on another campus.

Lastly, the mission was a focal point for faculty, staff, administrators, and students and an area of common understanding. Building key complementary programs around this focal point ensured that people on campus comprehended the value and were committed to its success. In the words of one faculty member: The mission has been a lightening rod for our efforts to improve the learning experience of students. You can go in so many different directions and there are so many different ideas right now— learning communities, service learning, collaborative learning, civic education, cooperative learning, multicultural approaches, active learning—the list goes on. But, we found a way to hone our efforts and it has really paid off—we hear it from the students. They like that the programs are focused on the themes that brought them to this campus in the first place.

Several examples will demonstrate the

159

Kezar & Kinzie

relationship of mission to enriching educational experiences and the diverse strategies campuses can utilize. Although only select examples are given, these trends were apparent on every campus. However, campuses where there was more alignment tended to have more positive feedback from students, providing some support that alignment was an important concept. At a small, liberal arts college dedicated to teacher education and training in the professions, the enriching educational experiences focus was on providing ways for students to have field-based experiences. As one faculty member was quick to point out: “It is not uncommon for students to have a 90-hour practicum followed by a 600-hour internship experience that is consistent with their job aspirations.” An example of field experiences is Literacy Block, which includes two practicums. The first provides early exposure to the field, solidifies the student’s choice of major, and provides opportunities for relevant, applied learning. The second practicum is focused on the task of integrating the latest curriculum and methods related to reading and language arts into elementary schools. Another faculty member went on to say: “In addition to going off-campus, the student work initiative provides opportunities for students to get work experiences on campus working with faculty on research in their chosen field, demonstrating the relationship between what they are studying and work possibilities.” Students also have a capstone experience/senior project, presented at the spring symposium, that entails putting together a portfolio that relates to their understanding of their profession and reflects the learning they feel they have accomplished over the four years. One student commented about this experience: The effort to connect the institutional

160

commitment to obtain practical work experience to all of our learning experiences has made a difference for me. If the professional connection had been only a program, activity, or single event, I would not have had the learning that occurred through these concentration of programs.

Another institution had a commitment to creating citizen leaders as their primary mission. As a result of this mission, the campus created a host of programs related to service learning and leadership development. As one administrator noted: Service is fostered in the religious-based campus clubs and through the career center that has a central clearinghouse for volunteer projects. Leadership development happens through formal programs and through involvement and running of student organizations—[leadership development] is happening everywhere. The formal leadership development program brings together 30–40 students throughout the year and ends in a major retreat where they reflect on what they have learned. So some are more intensive, but everything is aimed at the goal of citizen leader.

Many of these students assume positions of leadership on campus or serve in student government. A student reflected on her commitment to developing citizen leaders: Student government is particularly strong on this campus and students learn to model the citizen leaders they hope to be when they graduate. For us, being a citizen leader means involvement, thus, students are encouraged and are usually part of 5–6 clubs, groups or communities.

Although a midsize campus, it has over 125 academic, honor, religious, and social clubs focused on leadership. Students made comments that reflected the involvement motto: “Pretty much everyone on campus is involved



in developing as a citizen leader; it is part of who we are. I was shy, but as a leader, now, I cannot be off on my own. . . . I must work with others.” The relationship with the community is critical to developing citizen leaders and has become the focus of the enriching educational experiences offered by the campus. As one faculty member mentioned: We have consciously built our connections with the community and this has resulted in powerful learning experiences for students. We have always had these relationships, but we have increased and deepened them and use them more intentionally. We have really focused on this as a mission related set of initiatives.

Community service is a required component and integrated into many courses. Students noted that service “made them aware of what it meant to live and breathe the campus mission.” At a master’s level institution, the mission of developing leaders among first-generation college students to serve and uplift their communities guided its development of enriching experiences. The university developed a host of out-of-classroom activities, programs, and opportunities to promote student leadership for communities, particularly among various racial communities outside the institution. One administrator described with enthusiasm a unique event: We offer a bi-national leadership development program in conjunction with another university that also serves an ethnically diverse student body. At the program, they [administrators and faculty] engage in conversations about ethnic and racial concerns in both locales and how to contribute to their communities. These are powerful and dramatic experiences that students end up coming back to campus years later to reflect on.

MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

Another program, the student leadership institute, trains students to be peer educators helping incoming students adjust to college life. The 12-week training course focuses on group dynamics, communication/collaboration skills, and leadership development. One faculty member commented on this program: By the time [students] leave here, they will be extremely skilled in serving as leaders in the community. It is not enough to have content knowledge; we aim for leaders among first-generation college students.

Each complementary educational experience is an opportunity to explore students’ leadership potential and to give back to other students and the community. A student noted the way these opportunities were important for learning: I knew coming here that I wanted to develop as a community leader and every opportunity here has helped to increase my skills. I hear that from lots of students . . . this place concentrates its efforts and delivers!

To develop diverse individuals with personal responsibility, trust, and a philosophy of independence grounded in the liberal arts, was the unique mission of another college that had a matching set of educational enriching experiences. As an administrator revealed: The campus does not have any formal leadership programs; instead the opportunities for development are created by the students themselves who have fostered a large number of clubs and organizations that they run, rather than having any administrative liaison.

The students have an active student senate that, once again, has no administrative oversight. Instead, administrators and faculty create traditions and foster an ethos where

161

Kezar & Kinzie

students take responsibility for developing programs and activities. An enriching educational environment becomes one where students are charged to create experiences on their own to challenge each other. Students described how these experiences seemed to resonate with the campus mission: “This campus draws people who are independentminded and who want to be challenged in personal growth. All of the activities reinforce this mission.” Academic Challenge. Academic challenge was another benchmark in which the practices varied based on the specific mission of the institution and the unique approach seemed critical to the success of these campuses. Each campus in the study defined academic challenge differently based on the specific mission it was developed to serve (i.e., leadership of first-generation students or development of community activists); had they all maintained the same definition of challenge, students would not have been engaged or performed as well. It was clear from student comments that they thrived on the campuses because of the unique definitions of challenge that empowered students with varied talents. In the words of one student: This campus engages me because it provides a unique challenge. It recognizes my specific learning needs. They do not strive to be another campus, but are true to their mission.

For some campuses, creating challenge involved creating a set of traditional intellectual experiences such as critical thinking/ logic and focusing on heavy workloads. On other campuses, academic challenge was personalized and the student allowed to define challenge for him or herself. Yet, at another institution, academic challenge was redefined in an innovative way as involving students in

162

new experiences such as service learning and interdisciplinary knowledge. On others, challenge was always coupled with the idea of support. The distinctive definitions of challenge that emerged to meet the needs of the unique mission impacted the types of programs, policies, and practices used by the institutions to meet this benchmark/goal. An example of aligning mission to challenge is a comprehensive, state university with a mission dedicated to serving first-generation and non-traditional aged college students through support, innovative experiences, and rich external resources. Within this mission the faculty and staff defined challenge as being a combined philosophy of challenge and support. Their official mission and philosophy is that “everyone can succeed here; our work is to bring out every student’s potential.” The departmental and school initiatives worked in support with this overarching philosophy/ mission. For example, the school of engineering developed study groups for first-year students and for challenging courses in the curriculum, and provides opportunities for students to meet faculty, so that students can obtain all the personalized support needed to meet the intensive experience. Because the campus caters to many non-traditional aged and first-generation college students, it has many older students. There is a conscious effort to use the expertise of older students with work experience to create a more challenging classroom environment. One faculty member reflected on this commitment: We have a very different group of students here and you could easily alienate them if you did not reflect on the institutional mission and values. There is such a strong trend for institutions to all be the same— chase the money and publish, but that is not going to help meet our specific mission.



Challenge was also aligned with the commitment to innovation. The campus had one of the first writing across the curriculum projects in the country as well as an innovative college that offers interdisciplinary, outcomesbased education. It was one of the first campuses to develop learning communities and first-year interest groups, and it conducted assessment of courses and departmental and school learning in order to ensure students are performing highly and to keep the level of challenge high. As one administrator commented: “Innovation related to our mission has made us successful in truly meeting the learning needs of students.” Lastly, the institution capitalized on its unique location near a metropolitan hub to create learning challenges that no other campus could provide, such as internships at international organizations, world-renowned speakers in classes, and research opportunities with national and international research organizations. These many programs, policies, and practices developed a sense of challenge that is aligned with the distinctive mission at this campus. As noted earlier, one of the institutions studied had a commitment to creating citizen leaders as its primary mission. This affected its approach to academic challenge. It was the third institution within the country to develop an honor code run by student leaders. Challenge is defined as university citizens taking responsibility for their own learning, and students are constantly reflecting on the amount of effort they put into their studies. Because holding leadership positions is one of the most coveted activities on campus, administrators noted that: They have developed an attendance policy and requirement to hold a certain GPA to be involved in campus leadership. This policy was a major driver for student

MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

performance and to push themselves to do better than they might normally since students reflected that being able to hold leadership positions was their most important goal.

The campus had an intensive writing requirement that focused on how to be a citizen leader. Students noted this as the most difficult part of the curriculum and made them realize the complexity involved in leadership: We are really challenged to enhance our writing skills, and I think the nature of the topic made it easier for me to engage, because it is something I care about and one of the reasons I came to this campus. I am not sure I would have challenged myself if there was not this connection to being a citizen leader.

Additionally, the institution has an internship, research, or community service requirement that provided an opportunity for it to demonstrate its growing commitment to the development of citizen leaders. Students saw this experience as a personal challenge—one student captured the perspective of many students, faculty, and administrators: It [the requirement] is a place to measure our progress toward our ultimate goal of being a citizen leader since this is usually taken half way through our studies. Citizen leaders mean challenge is a 24/7 experience, not just in the classroom, thus the co-curricular experiences are aimed at developing our leadership potential and are extremely demanding.

Another state university had a mission to serve first-generation college students by building a multicultural learning community in which students contribute productively, responsibly, and ethically to the state and the global community. To make this contribution, students must “understand diversity and fusion/interdisciplinarity, develop critical

163

Kezar & Kinzie

consciousness/civic responsibility, and aspire to apply knowledge within a set of competencies/outcomes.” Administrators noted that “based on this mission and beliefs, academic challenge was defined as understanding diverse viewpoints, recognizing the interdependence of phenomena, being able to apply knowledge, and challenging the status quo interpretation of events.” Faculty had programs and practices that met this unique definition of challenge. Faculty members capitalized on the assets of diverse students to enrich the classroom; this was both observed as well as identified in syllabi and assignments. This unique approach to defining academic challenge is also demonstrated in the problembased, interdisciplinary, service-oriented curriculum. One faculty member commented: As you have probably come to see, every student has a service-learning requirement and most classes are interdisciplinary and field-based. But the challenge of understanding fusion—a sense of connections and interdependence—extends beyond the notion of interdisciplinarity and it defines the campus experience—collaboration and connections abound from joint programs, cross-divisional communications, and no separation between the campus and community. These programs and practices reinforce our mission of interdependence of knowledge.

An emotional air and passion characterizes the learning environment; this is not a place of challenge marked by passive book learning and critical reflection/abstraction. Students noted how “academic challenge is about connecting to an issue you are passionate about and wanting to become a change agent for this issue”—this was noted by faculty and staff as the development of critical consciousness. The service-learning requirement helped to connect students to the mission of critical consciousness, but it was also reinforced by

164

individual faculty pedagogical approaches. In summary, the power of the institutional mission was captured by an administrator: “Our vision is like a virus; here everyone gets infected.” The significance of mission to academic challenge can be demonstrated at a liberal arts college devoted to developing individuals with personal responsibility, trust, and a philosophy of independence grounded in the liberal arts. The sense of personal responsibility led to a definition and approach to academic challenge that was highly individualized, rather than embedded in the curriculum. An administrator reviewed this process: Faculty communicate high expectations as a part of meeting the campus goals and mission, trusting students to choose the best learning opportunities to meet their individual needs. Students were also socialized (unwritten practice) by each other to the sense of academic challenge, which means intensive, competitive intellectual involvement, based on your unique talents.

This approach was reinforced by the freshmen tutorial where older students teach the firstyear students “how to be students” within this institution. In addition, each student takes an intensive cultures and traditions seminar focused on developing self-knowledge and related to personal responsibility. One student noted that “the high expectations around writing and number of assignments is possible within this small campus environment with a mission of high academic challenge, people know what they are getting into when they come here.” Challenge unfolded in a more individualized manner on this campus.

Mission: Institutional Type In examining the ways the mission of research, commuter/urban, masters, or liberal arts



affected engagement, some differences are noted. A summary of differences is presented in Table 2. Research Universities. Research universities were more likely to focus engagement activities around research. The ethos of research and discipline-based learning was more likely to pervade forms of engagement. Academic challenge is defined uniquely within research universities in terms of discipline-based firstyear seminars. Students noted that this

emphasis pleased them as they chose to attend these institutions for these types of researchand discipline-based opportunities. Facultystudent interaction and collaborative and active learning are fostered through undergraduate research, learning communities, and mentor programs often focused on research. In addition, learning communities or mentoring programs are embedded within student majors and intellectual interests. Several faculty and administrators at research universities were

TABLE 2. Summary of Differences by Institutional/Sector Mission Type of Mission

Research

Urban Commuter Liberal Arts

Academic Challenge Research- and discipline-based firstyear seminars and undergraduate research

Single-Serving

Student experiences and diversity; parttime faculty knowledge; external resources

Intensive reading and Focused on empowerment writing; number of assignments— through teaching expectations Small classes; cocurricular activities; sense of community; intensive mentoring

Small classes; cocurricular activities; sense of community; intensive mentoring

Faculty Student Interaction

Undergraduate research and mentoring; learning communities

Technology

Collaborative and Active Learning

Learning communities often related to research themes; technology

Service learning and Service learning Technology; using empowerment external resources for matching the activities character internships and development mission cooperative experience

Enriching Educational Environments

Related to mentoring Leadership and Focused on research Drawing on activism community resources and character activities development; tended to follow unique mission of campus here more than research university and commuter or urban institutions

Supportive Campus

Minimal relationships found between mission and this benchmark

MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

Student centered philosophy – open when students are available; understanding of community and stakeholders.

Intimate size; high degree of facultystudent interaction for advising and mentoring; philosophy of family

Intimate size; high degree of facultystudent interaction for advising and mentoring; philosophy of family

165

Kezar & Kinzie

aware of and noted that “faculty-student interaction often centers around research whether it be undergraduate research, discussion of faculty research interests, or students’ research interests. Research is a common focus for interaction.” Enriching experiences tended to be research projects or capstones within the major. A faculty member at a research university commented: “Why not capitalize on our strength for creating engagement? We are a world class research institution, and we can provide expertise and opportunities for research that are unparalleled.” There seems to be a synergy between the stated mission and the type of activities used to engage students on these campuses that were strong in creating student engagement. Commuter/Urban Institutions. Commuter/ urban campuses varied in the ways that the benchmarks were enacted. For example, academic challenge was fostered through embracing the assets students brought to the classroom—these campuses tended to have a diverse student body in terms of age and race/ ethnicity. Although engaging diversity was important on many campuses for learning, commuter campuses tended to have the most varied student populations and could intentionally and fruitfully utilize this resource. Like research universities, commuter/urban campuses were capitalizing on a strength inherent within this type of institution. One faculty member commented on this distinctive approach: Our mission is to be student centered, to meet unique students’ needs; urban universities have a long history of addressing the needs of adult, part-time students. But, some institutions have forgotten their past or lost their way. We haven’t and we really capitalize on the mission to design programs and to guide decisionmaking.

166

Commuter campuses used technology more so than other institutional types to create faculty-student interaction and active and collaborative learning. On one commuter campus, a website called the open forum linked all faculty, staff, and students who engage in regular discussion about campus events/opportunities, politics, and speakers. Although this practice is probably a practice that could be used within other institutions with different missions, it was particularly important for commuter campuses that are created to serve a part-time, adult population with limited time on campus. As one student described: I feel really connected to the faculty here, and I may not see them very much, but I get email messages, talk with them on the discussion board, I hear that I have much more contact than friends at other campuses.

Commuter and urban institutions were also usually located in urban areas that provided a host of external resources that they used to foster active and collaborative learning; they also capitalized on external resources to provide enriching educational environments. The business, industry, and social institutions of the urban environment created partners for service learning, career placements, capstone projects, and the like. Furthermore, museums, libraries, major social centers, and international communities provided enriching opportunities that many other campuses could not provide. Part-time faculty bring in more of the external resources of the community to class in terms of guest speakers, their own work experience, and projects and activities that took place in business or the community. A student commented on the way that commuter/urban campuses could harness their mission to enrich student learning and engagement:



I have noticed the way that this campus uses faculty from the field, guest speakers, and field trips to create a better learning environment. I have friends at other local institutions and the campuses do not do any of these things and they are really disappointed. It just makes sense given the location.

Although other institutions can use this approach, it was particularly appreciated by students in these institutions who had substantial work and real-life experience. A last trend related to creating a supportive campus environment: Commuter campuses have a strong connection to the external community and used this to build the supportive campus environment. For example, advisory boards of community leaders helped commuter and urban campuses to understand challenges that students face and ways they can be better supported in services provided. An example from one urban community is that several ethnically based community organizations provided input on the specific needs of students from their immigrant populations. Liberal Arts Colleges. Liberal arts colleges’ missions focus on teaching, character development, and creating community. These institutions capitalized on their intimate size and often isolated settings to create engagement. When liberal arts colleges were founded, they were often located outside of population centers to allow for a sense of community to develop that often fosters character by developing mentoring relationships with faculty –(Cohen, 1998). This original mission and purpose (learning through community and character development, for example) continues to be reflected today as many of the campuses easily create greater degrees of faculty-student interaction and support for students based on the intimate setting and size. As one faculty member commented:

MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

The students and faculty share an intimate intellectual experience that goes beyond the curriculum and beyond the classroom—small classes, intense interactions between students and faculty, and widespread involvement of students, faculty, and staff in a variety of out of classroom activities create a common experience, no matter what the curriculum. These close-knit campus cultures almost compel students, faculty members, and staff to put their personal lives into the academic and intellectual fabric of these colleges.

Liberal arts colleges’ mission of teaching resulted in academic challenge typically involving high levels of writing, reading, and assignments in general. Faculty are expected to spend more time grading and providing feedback, based on the mission. In the words of one faculty member: Students come here for the personal experience, the relationships, mentoring, and interaction. Luckily, we remember that in all the ways we create learning opportunities and keep these as central to our planning. Students know we will remember them for letters of recommendations and that we are here to help them with those identity challenges they often face in college.

Collaborative and active learning often focused on service learning since this approach is aligned with the character development mission of most liberal arts colleges. One administrator commented on this distinctive use of values and philosophy: Large campuses often have to restructure and redesign themselves to engage students to meet their mission, but here we need to fuel and revisit our values often to create a consciousness of our mission. New people come and they need to be introduced to our mission; long-time

167

Kezar & Kinzie

faculty need to be reminded of our mission.

Liberal arts colleges also tended to use philosophy and values more so than official programs in order to create academic challenge (such as verbalizing high expectations) or support (we are all family here). Active and collaborative learning depended less on structured programs, such as learning communities or undergraduate research programs, and campuses could take advantage of their small class size to engage students in conversation and activities, which was important within a campus devoted to a teaching mission. Single-Serving Institutions. Since singleserving institutions are also liberal arts colleges, there was a high degree of overlap between these two institutional sectors, whereas most others sectors, for instance, research universities, were fairly distinctive. Single-serving institutions have a history of working with groups that have been disempowered and dispossessed, such as Blacks and women, and as a result tend to frame practices in ways that emphasize empowerment, service, and leadership. This unique mission affected the way they enacted three of the five benchmarks (academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, and enriching educational experiences). In terms of academic challenge, faculty, staff, and students all emphasize that challenge was connected to empowerment through practices such as reiteration that these students are highly talented and will succeed in higher education, encouraging student voice in the classroom and affirming their comments, and meetings with advisers to ensure that individuals are being challenged in ways that are related to their specific talents. One faculty member commented on the ways that staff intentionally try to link empowerment with challenge:

168

There is an understanding among faculty and staff that we are working with students that have often faced great challenges in order to get to higher education. They might not believe in themselves and we try to boost their efficacy and build their strength making them feel challenged, but in ways that do not make them lose their spirit.

In terms of active and collaborative learning, these institutions focused on practices related to service, such as service learning. In addition, when engaging in collaborative learning, the group projects would be empowering rather than competitive in function and orientation. For example, faculty would hand out ground rules for group projects so that a sense of community is developed between members of the project. There were high degrees of intentionality around making the active and collaborative learning process based on equality and community. The enriching educational experiences at single-serving institutions usually focused on leadership development and activism. Because these groups have been historically marginalized within society, the institution felt it was part of their mission to ensure that individuals graduating from these institutions could play a leadership role and might engage in community and political activism. These institutions had numerous leadership development and service learning programs and opportunities. They also believed that students who attended these institutions were more engaged in education when they could see the way that their education and role in society when they graduate might lead to social change. As one student described: Before I went to college I was not that connected to education, and it was only through participation in the leadership developments programs that I could see the connection between my education



and things I cared about like creating a better society for people like me; I now have really embraced learning.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION There are many different roads to being an engaging institution (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt & Associates, 2005). Campus leaders need to be cognizant that certain programs, policies, and approaches may work better based on their institution’s mission. This may seem an obvious finding to scholars of organizational theory, but in reading through the research and literature on teaching and learning, such as learning communities, service learning, active and collaborative learning, and technology, there is almost no attention given to institutional differences and how this might affect the implementation of a particular program or engagement strategy. Certainly, most strategies can work in almost all institutions, but the mission of particular institutions means that some strategies might work better than others. This research challenges the conventional wisdom that engagement is identical across contexts that can be found across the literature on various learning innovations and learning theory (e.g., Driscoll, Holland, Gelmon, & Kerrigan, 1996; Eyler & Giles, 1996; Stage, Muller, Kinzie, & Simmons, 1998). The study addressed the research question of whether an institution’s mission is related to distinctive approaches for creating an engaging environment for students. The data presented demonstrate that policies and practices did indeed differ based on unique institutional mission and institutional type/ mission. The trends were clear across the interviewee responses and trends in the institutions. The article documents meaningful differences based on mission that can be used to guide institutions to create congruence

MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

between their mission and the practices that promote student learning and to better implement approaches to student engagement. An important empirical finding is that the individual, distinctive mission of a campus appears to impact more policy and practices related to student engagement and success than the broad institutional mission related to institutional type (yet there is no way to tell if prevalence leads to it being more effective). Although a few trends were identified related to institutional type, the majority of differences were found at institutions responding to their unique institutional mission. There is no literature that documents what aspect of mission is most salient for policy and program development. This finding helps to build support for the way mission is related to particular institutional processes. This finding can be tested in studies examining other institutional processes in the future. The research provides empirical support for the hypothesis derived from organizational theory that institutions that align their mission with their policies and programs are more effective and efficient (Birnbaum, 1991; Bolman & Deal, 1991). As noted earlier, the study addressed the research question: Does alignment of mission and approaches to student engagement matter? It appears from the data collected across these institutions, particularly the data collected from students, that alignment of mission was believed to enhance the learning experience of students. As noted in the results section, those campuses where there was more alignment tended to have more positive feedback from students, providing some support that alignment is an important concept. The campuses in this study aligned their espoused mission and their enacted mission, becoming consistent and having what is termed “a mission that is alive” guiding the activities and work of students,

169

Kezar & Kinzie

staff, and faculty. The mission is helpful in that it provides a constancy of purpose and direction; individuals used it to explain their behavior and to talk about what the institution is, the direction it is heading, and how their work contributes to these goals. Because the study was not comparative of institutions that did not align their mission with engagement practices, it is hard to definitively address this question of the degree to which alignment matters; instead, an empirical trend can be noted and the perspectives of individuals offered in support of this hypothesis. More data are needed to further support this emerging theoretical concept. In addition to these theoretical contributions, the paper’s research findings have implications for leaders attempting to develop an engaging campus. Campuses in this study appeared to be successful by developing programs and activities to provide enriching educational experiences that aligned with their particular mission. Planning efforts around supplemental learning activities might be more successful if change agents begin by examining the mission and ways that programs can be developed that relate specifically to enriching that mission and student learning. This can prove beneficial to campuses in tight budget times. Rather than develop a host of different programs, this study showed that honing in on a few areas is better than a smorgasbord of experiences. Furthermore, the findings challenge conventional wisdom that more and more programs are simply better. Instead, focused and fewer programs prove successful. Recently critics are questioning the proliferation of programs on campus that are considered ways to attract more students and for marketing purposes rather than for purely educational purposes (Hersch & Merrow, 2005). It has also been suggested that these programs are driving up the tuition of colleges

170

and universities. This study suggests that leaders may want to focus on strengthening the association between undergraduate programs and mission. In addition, campuses that defined challenge in relationship to the students they claimed to serve in their mission were more successful in their efforts. For example, if an institution asserted that first-generation college students was their primary focus, then designing challenge in relation to the unique needs of this group made them more successful. In addition, academic challenge also looks different based on the intended mission or purpose of the institution. Creating citizen leaders requires a different type of challenge than preparing students for a life as critically conscious change agents. Although related, each individual mission linked to slightly different notions of challenge. Again, these campuses were judicious with funding and aligned approaches to academic challenge that connected with their mission. Although the results of this paper focused on showing the benefit of aligning mission with only two benchmarks, this finding was also reflected in the other benchmarks such as creating a supportive campus environment or approaches to faculty-student interaction. In terms of the implications of the results based on institutional type/missions, commuter and research universities may increase their success in creating an engaging environment if they focus on their strengths and work to overcome some of the challenges of their environments. Commuter campuses can utilize the diversity of their student body, parttime faculty, and location to create a particularly engaging environment. Research universities can use their research activities and the plethora of campus resources (e.g., museums, labs) to create an environment of unparalleled challenge, active learning, and



interaction. Both can overcome the challenge of their large and sometimes impersonal environments by focusing on their strengths inherent in their mission. Single-serving institutions need to keep focused on their student body and the challenges they face in society. Many Blacks, Hispanics, and women have faced hurdles that have made it difficult for them to fully benefit from education. Emphasizing empowerment, service, leadership, and activism as part of engagement was an important strategy. In conclusion, in times

MARCH /APRIL 2006

◆ VOL

47

NO

2

of financial constraint and accountability, institutions need to do a better job of aligning institutional program and policies with the campus mission. Effective educational institutions that excel in student engagement were sensitive to their mission and used it to enhance student engagement strategies. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adrianna Kezar, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, 703C Waite Phillips Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90089-4037; [email protected]

171

Kezar & Kinzie

REFERENCES Altbach, P. (1997). Student politics in America. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? San Francisco: JosseyBass. Berquist, W. (1992). The four cultures of the academy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Birnbaum, R. (1991). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Blanchard, K., Waghorn, T., & Ballard, J. (1997). Mission possible: Becoming a world class organization whilst there’s still time. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1991). Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39, 3-7. Cohen, A. (1998). The shaping of American higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Diamond, R. (2002). The mission-driven faculty reward system. In R. Diamond & B. Adam (Eds.), Field guide to academic leadership (pp. 113-128). San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Driscoll, A., Holland, B., Gelmon, S., & Kerrigan, S. (1996). An assessment model for service-learning: Comprehensive case studies of impact on faculty, students, community, and institution. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 3, 66-71. Education Commission of the States (ECS). (1995). Making quality count in undergraduate education. Denver, CO: Author. Eyler, J., & Giles, D. (1996). Where is the learning in service learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hersch, R., & Merrow, J. (Eds.). (2005). Declining by degrees. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or cultural responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460. Knefelkamp, L. (1991). The seamless curriculum. CIC Deans Institute: Is this good for our students? Washington, DC: Council for Independent Colleges. Kuh, G. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change, May/June, 10-18. Kuh, G. (2003). How are we doing at engaging students? About Campus, 8(1), 9-16.

172

Kuh, G. D., Douglas, K. B., Lund, J. P., & Ramin Gyurnek, J. (1994). Student learning outside the classroom: Transcending artificial boundaries (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 8). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC. Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J., Whitt, E., & Associates (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kuh, G., & Whitt, E. (1988). The invisible Tapestry. Washington, DC: ASHE ERIC Report, George Washington University. Leslie, D., & Fretwell, E. (1996). Wise moves in hard times: Creating and managing resilient colleges and universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Love, P. G., & Love, A. G. (1995). Enhancing student learning: Intellectual, social, and emotional integration (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4). Washington, DC: ASHEERIC. Martin, J. (1992). Culture in organizations. New York: Oxford Press. Morgan, G. (1997). Images of organization. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Peterson, M., & Spencer, M. (1991). Understanding academic culture and climate. In M. Petereson (ed.). ASHE Reader on Organization and Governance. (p. 140-155). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster. Project DEEP Research Approach. (n.d.). Retrieved October 30, 2005 from http://www.iub.edu/~nsse Schein, E. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Smirich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 339-358. Stage, F., Muller, P., Kinzie, J., & Simmons, A. (1998). Creating learning centered classrooms: What does learning theory have to say? (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 26-4). Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC. Tierney, W. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 59, 2-21. Tierney, W. (1991). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essentials. In M. Peterson (Ed.), ASHE Reader on Organization and Governance (pp. 126-139). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn. Tierney, W. (2002). Mission and vision statements: An essential first step. In R. Diamond & B. Adam (Eds.), Field guide to academic leadership (pp. 49-58). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
