Involvement in Learning revisited: Lessons we have learned

Journal of College Student Development, Sep/Oct 1999 by Astin, Alexander W

It is gratifying to realize that several of these recommendations have already been implemented on literally hundreds of campuses across the country. For example, since the report appeared, there has been a tremendous growth of interest in "Freshman 101" courses and similar devices for front-loading more resources into the first year or two of undergraduate work. There has also been a growing interest in active teaching modes and learning communities, especially in the area of cooperative learning. Although there has been a virtual explosion in the use of new learning technologies (especially personal computers) since our report was issued, it is not entirely clear whether these technologies are really being used to enhance student-faculty contact. From certain perspectives it could be argued that computer technology has actually reduced the amount of such contact. And although we still have a long way to go in making better use of the cocurriculum to enhance involvement, there are some highly promising and exciting developments, such as the University of Houston's "Scholars Community" for parttime and commuter students.

Although the Involvement in Learning Study Group obviously cannot take all the credit for the "assessment movement" that seems to be sweeping our campuses, it is clear that much of what we recommended in the way of more and better assessment is now happening on many campuses. All of the regional accrediting associations-not to mention many state governments and even the federal government-are now actively promoting assessment on the campuses. And one of our major national organizations, the American Associates for Higher Education, has been operating a highly popular Annual Assessment Forum for the past 7 years.

Perhaps the biggest question mark concerns our eight recommendations regarding "high expectations." Certainly our recommendation for defining "scholarship" more broadly (Recommendation-14) is highly consistent with Boyer's Scholarship Reconsidered (1990). But whether colleges are more likely to make public statements of their learning goals for students or to make sure that curriculum content is consistent with these learning goals is more difficult to say. Also, our advocacy for more "liberal arts" courses, which was surely one of our most controversial recommendations, has probably not been implemented. This recommendation, interestingly enough, is one of the few that was not really grounded in prior research.

WHAT DOES RECENT RESEARCH TELL US?

To what extent has the Higher Education Research Institute's more recent research on student development reinforced or confirmed the original recommendations in Involvement in Learning? Much of this newer research is summarized in What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited (Astin, 1993b). This study provided us with an unprecedented opportunity to examine many educational questions that simply had not been researchable in earlier studies for lack of sufficient data. By a happy coincidence of multiple funding from public and private sources (primarily the Exxon Education Foundation and the National Science Foundation), we were able to put together what is probably the most comprehensive longitudinal, multi-institutional database on college student development ever assembled.