Untitled

Beekhoven, S.; Jong, U. de; Hout, J.F.M.J. van

doi:10.1023/a:1020166215457

Cited by 70 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in line with the study of Berger and Milem (1999) but in contrast with the studies of Beekhoven et al (2002) and Eimers and Pike (1997). In these studies, majority students showed either a higher or lower levels of interaction.…”

Section: Discussion Of the Main Findingssupporting

confidence: 86%

“…In the literature, we find different definitions and operationalization of the concepts academic and social integration (Beekhoven, De Jong, & Van Hout, 2002;Berger & Milem, 1999;Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000;Cabrera, Nora, & Al, 1992;Eimers & Pike, 1997;Pascarella, Duby, & Iverson, 1983). For example, Cabrera et al (1992) measure academic integration by students' academic experience and performance and social integration by their friendship with peers.…”

Section: Student Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of ICT by second-year college students and its relation with their interaction and sense of belonging

Mohamedhoesein¹

2017

Open Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To cite this article: Nasser Mohamedhoesein (2017) The use of ICT by second-year college students and its relation with their interaction and sense of belonging, Open Review of Educational Research, 4:1, 177-191, DOI: 10.1080/23265507.2017 This study examines the use of technology for interaction by second-year college students in The Netherlands and its relationship with their integration and sense of belonging. The concepts of student integration and sense of belonging, as used in previous studies in The Netherlands, link student's persistence to their social interactions. Our findings reveal that technology use for interactions is positively correlated with students formal and informal peer interactions and with their sense of belonging in the college environment. The findings however, show no disparities between majority and minority students concerning their interactions, sense of belonging or ICT use. The overall results confirm that the use of new technology for communication benefits the interaction of students in college with peers and teachers and therefore it is also an important component for the persistence of minority students in higher education. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of the Main Findingssupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Student Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The use of ICT by second-year college students and its relation with their interaction and sense of belonging

Mohamedhoesein¹

2017

Open Review of Educational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In their study, integration was measured using a revised version of an integration scale developed by Pascarella and Terenzini (1980): academic integration items pertained to academic and intellectual development and social integration items pertained to interactions with peers and with faculty outside of the classroom environment. In another study, Kamphorst, Hofman, Jansen, and Terlouw (2015) measured integration using a subset of items from a scale developed by Beekhoven, De Jong, and Van Hout (2002) comparing male and female engineering students on several variables including integration. In their study, academic integration was measured using items pertaining to student satisfaction with the learning environments and faculty interactions, and social integration was measured using items pertaining to satisfaction with student interactions.…”

Section: Applications and Critiques Of Tinto's Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While Tinto's model has been widely used in educational research, it has faced criticism, especially regarding its application in diverse contexts as well as for its inconsistent use and measurement of the integration constructs (e.g., Ashar & Skenes, 1993;Bean & Metzner, 1985;Tierney, 1992;Beekhoven et al, 2002). Some of this criticism relates to Tinto's model specifically and the need for a new theoretical foundation, including critiques that (a) Tinto's model is only applicable for traditional students at residential institutions; and (b) Tinto's model lacks cultural considerations for racial and ethnic minorities.…”

Section: Applications and Critiques Of Tinto's Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of the Engineering Student Integration Instrument: Rethinking Measures of Integration

Lee

Godwin

Nave

2018

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is a need for engineering‐specific theories and constructs to advance our understanding of student development. Student integration, widely used in educational research, is a suitable construct; however, it has also received some criticism. These critiques can be addressed by rethinking student integration and its use in the context of engineering education. Purpose/Hypothesis This article re‐conceptualizes student integration and describes the development of the Engineering Student Integration Instrument (ESII), which measures integration, as well as provides evidence of its validity. Design/Method Preliminary items for the ESII were developed using open‐ended survey responses from undergraduate engineering students about the impact of co‐curricular support. These items were reviewed by multiple researchers to assess question phrasing, formatting, and face validity. The resulting instrument was administered electronically to students in the College of Engineering at a large East Coast public university. Data from 586 students were used to develop evidence of validity by conducting an exploratory factor analysis on half of the data and a confirmatory factor analysis on the other half. Results Evidence of validity indicates the appropriateness of the ESII for measuring integration and operationalizes integration constructs from the model of co‐curricular support (MCCS) for undergraduate engineering students, including academic, social, professional, and university integration. Conclusions Grounded in the MCCS, the ESII begins to address several critiques of student integration as originally defined by Tinto's model of institutional departure, those related particularly to the measurement of the integration constructs.

show abstract

“…Beekhoven, De Jong, & Van Hout, 2002;Van den Berg & Hofman, 2005) as registered by the university administration. More specifically, the following categories were used: "passed" (60 credits), "provisionally passed" (between 40 and 59 credits), "failed" (less than 40 credits), and "stopped" (average obtained credits in this group was 5).…”

Section: Academic Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early predictors of first-year academic success at university: pre-university effort, pre-university self-efficacy, and pre-university reasons for attending university

Herpen

Meeuwisse

Hofman

et al. 2017

Educational Research and Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early predictors of first-year academic success at university: pre-university effort, pre-university self-efficacy, and pre-university reasons for attending university Given the large number of dropouts in the 1st year at university, it is important to identify early predictors of 1st-year academic success. The present study (n = 453 first-year students) contributes to literature on the transition from secondary to higher education by investigating how the non-cognitive factors pre-university effort and pre-university academic self-efficacy influence 1st-year retention at university. In addition, we examined pre-university reasons for attending university and whether these reasons were related to 1st-year retention. Multinomial logistic regression analyses showed that pre-university effort positively predicted 1st-year retention, whereas pre-university academic self-efficacy did not. With exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis, we identified six pre-university reasons for attending university: career perspective, personal development, compliance with the social environment, attractiveness of the institution, recommended by others, and location. None of the pre-university reasons appeared to significantly predict 1st-year retention. Implications for research and practice are discussed. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 70 publications

References 16 publications

The use of ICT by second-year college students and its relation with their interaction and sense of belonging

The use of ICT by second-year college students and its relation with their interaction and sense of belonging

Development of the Engineering Student Integration Instrument: Rethinking Measures of Integration

Early predictors of first-year academic success at university: pre-university effort, pre-university self-efficacy, and pre-university reasons for attending university

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About