No abstract

This paper explores whether or not students in higher education settings are using creative cognitive processes, how these processes are related to deep approaches to learning, and in what types of settings and students these processes are most prevalent. Data collected from 8,724 students at 17 institutions participating in the 2010 National Survey of Student Engagement suggests that first‐year and senior students employ several different creative cognitive processes in their everyday activities. Results from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggest two distinct types of processes: deliberate creative processes and intuitive cognitive processes. Additional analyses indicate significant positive relationships between both types of creative processes and deep approaches to learning, as well as statistically significant differences in the use of creative processes based on gender, enrollment type, and type of institution. Potential reasons for and implications of these findings are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: Based on the growing number of transfer students in higher education and the concern that transfer students are not as engaged as their peers, specifically in participation in high-impact practices (HIPs), this research asks, “Is there a significant direct or indirect relationship between transfer status, student engagement, and HIP participation?” Method: The current study employed a general latent variable model to explore the relationship between community college transfer student status, student engagement, and participation in HIPs. Using data from the 2014 administration of the National Survey of Student Engagement, 22,994 senior student responses were examined to measure the association between transfer status (students who transferred from a 2-year to 4-year institution compared with nontransfer students), student engagement (collaborative learning, student–faculty interaction, and supportive campus environment), and HIP participation (learning community, service-learning, research with a faculty member, internship, study abroad, and culminating senior experience). Results: Although each of the student engagement indicators significantly mediated HIP participation for transfer students, only the effect for student–faculty interaction was nontrivial. Contributions: The results from this study indicate the importance of faculty in advocating for and supporting transfer students, while presenting questions about the degree to which these students may need additional institutional support to recognize HIPs in a 4-year context. Implications for enhancing student–faculty interaction among transfer students, as a means to increase HIP participation, are discussed.