Involvement in Learning revisited: Lessons we have learned

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

Interestingly enough, the student orientation of the faculty has its strongest correlation (r = .78) with the institution's social activism and community orientation. This latter measure reflects the extent to which the institution is seen as being committed to goals such as teaching students how to change society, developing leadership ability among students, helping to solve major social and environmental problems, developing a sense of community among faculty and students, helping students to understand their own values, and facilitating student involvement in community service activities. Talk about "affective" values!

As would be expected, one is most likely to find a strongly student-oriented faculty in a private four-year college and a strongly researchoriented faculty in a public university. What kinds of effects do these two different faculty measures have on student development? Let's start with research orientation. We will consider the negative effects first, because these are stronger than the positive effects. The strongest negative effect is on student satisfaction with faculty. Research orientation also has negative effects on the student's leadership, public-speaking skills, and interpersonal skills and reduces the student's likelihood of being elected to a student office or tutoring other students. Still other negative effects occur with college GPA, completion of the bachelor's degree, graduation with honors, participation in cultural activities, and satisfaction with the quality of instruction and the overall college experience. The only positive effects of research orientation are on the student's GRE and LSAT scores and on satisfaction with the institution's physical facilities. In short, with the exception of these last effects, there is a significant institutional price to be paid, in terms of student development, when the faculty puts a great emphasis on research.

Student orientation of the faculty produces a very different pattern of effects. Its strongest positive effects are on satisfaction with faculty, the quality of instruction, individual support services, opportunities to take interdisciplinary courses, and the overall college experience. The Student orientation of the faculty also has a number of positive effects on academic outcomes: bachelor's degree attainment, graduation with honors, intellectual self esteem, and growth in writing skills, critical-thinking abilities, analytical and problem-solving skills, preparation for graduate school, and overall academic development. Additional positive effects of student orientation are on leadership, election to a student office, and participation in cultural activities. In short, this pattern of results suggests that having a strongly student-oriented faculty pays rich dividends in terms of the affective and cognitive development of the undergraduate.

Even though research orientation and student orientation are substantially correlated in a negative direction (r = -.69), and have opposite patterns of effects on student development, it is important to realize that they are to a certain extent independent and that each contributes independently to predicting student outcomes. What this means, in effect, is that it is possible for some institutions to score high on both factors and for others to score low on both factors. A weak emphasis on research is thus not an inevitable consequence of having a studentoriented faculty, nor is a weak commitment to student development an inevitable consequence of having a strongly research-oriented faculty.