economy

Summary

I believe that requiring students to live on campus increases learning and overall engagement between students and the university. Students who live off campus show lower levels of student engagement than those who live on campus in residence halls and who are near events happening on campus and classes. There have been multiple studies that have shown that students who live on campus show higher levels of student learning and overall engagement with the university.

“Problem” or issue of concern

When students are not in close proximity to classes, meetings, extracurricular activities, and various campus amenities, student engagement on campus suffers both in and out of the classroom. Students will seek the path of least resistance when subconsciously determining the level at which they engage in activities centered around the college campus. Students who commute to campus are not fully receiving the full experience that college has to offer. Living on campus gives students the chance to interact with other students and offers the convenience of being in walking distance to the library, campus dining facilities, classes, and any collegiate organizations who have meetings on campus. The vast majority of students who commute to and from campus don’t participate in extracurricular activities to the extent that on campus students do simply because of proximity and convenience.

Literature Review

The Student Engagement Theory originated with the work of Pace (1984), Astin (1984-1985), and Kuh with his associates (1989,1991). Their research strongly indicates that “engagement is positively related to objective and subjective measures of gains in general abilities and critical thinking”. Student engagement is directly linked to grades in a positive manner. This claim is supported by (Astin, 1977, 1993; Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, 2002; Pike, Schroeder, and Berry, 1997). In many studies that have been conducted in regards to student engagement, the Carnegie Classification System has served as the framework for those studies in order to measure student engagement. Student Engagement is measured with multiple variables taken into account. These variables include things such as race, national origin, sex, employment status, and commuter status as well. This paper looks at student engagement accounting for all variables while specifically looking at the effects of living on campus versus commuting and the level of student engagement and student performance resulting from that.

While the works of Pace, Astin, and Kuh focus primarily on student engagement, it is the policies and practices set forth by the institution which have the greatest effect on the levels of student engagement on campus. A study was conducted measuring student engagement on campus and the different types of student engagement. The data for this study was released in 2001 by the College Student Report. The study took place in 2001 which included 177,103 college freshmen and seniors as respondents randomly chosen from 321 universities and colleges. Four colleges were removed from the study due to either low response rates or highly specialized missions. There were six different factors that showed an 80% variance in means of institutions. These six factors were extracted and used to determine student engagement types. The study took into account information technology, diversity, collaborative learning, interpersonal environment, course interaction, out of class interaction, higher order thinking, etc..

The results from this study concluded that university policies mandating students living on campus positively influenced levels of student engagement. Counter to conventional beliefs, the study did not favor liberal arts colleges.

Incentive Structure of Major Players: Current

· Students want to be actively engaged and involved with activities on campus in the most convenient manner.

· Institutions want students to be actively involved in extracurricular activities on campus and engaged in the classroom.

Policy Proposal

To mandate that all students shall live on campus or within a predetermined radius of campus that is within walking distance to the university unless there are conflicts with medical issues or a student’s religious beliefs.

Incentive Structures of major players: post policy change

· Students will still want to be actively engaged and involved on campus but with factors as to what they are engaged with changing from convenience to other factors.

· Institutions will still want students to be actively involved in extracurricular activities on campus and engaged in the classroom.

Expected Outcome of Policy Implementation

I expect that the level at which students engage in organizations on campus and on school work will increase. Though I expect the quality of on campus residence halls to remain relatively unchanged, I do expect there to be more live and learn types of communities forming on campus as a result of this policy change. Additionally, I expect that students will become healthier as a result of walking to everything rather than driving. Commuter Parking would also become less of an issue.

Proposed Measures of Policy Effect

Measures of the policy effect can include class room attendance, organizational involvement, and attendance of events on campus. Everything from attendance at career fairs to football games could be used as a measure of the effectiveness of this policy. Additionally, GPA could be used as a determinant of engagement in the classroom and/or in school work overall.

Criticisms

To be completed

Responses

To be completed

Conclusion

To be completed

References

Lanasa, S. M., Olson, E., & Alleman, N. (2007). The Impact of On-campus Student Growth on First-year Student Engagement and Success. Research in Higher Education,48(8), 941-966. doi:10.1007/s11162-007-9056-5

Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A Typology of Student Engagement for American Colleges and Universities. Research in Higher Education,46(2), 185-209. doi:10.1007/s11162-004-1599-0