Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Mediating Effects of Student Engagement on the Relationships Between Academic Disciplines and Learning Outcomes: An Extension of Holland’s Theory

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research examined the relationships among students’ academic majors, levels of engagement, and learning outcomes within the context of Holland’s person–environment theory of vocational and educational behavior. The study focused on the role of student engagement as a mediating agent in the relationships between academic majors and student learning. Drawing on data from a stratified random sample of 20,000 seniors who participated in the 2008 National Survey of Student Engagement, results revealed that students’ academic majors were significantly related to levels of engagement and learning outcomes. Student engagement was also significantly related to learning outcomes. Students’ academic majors generally were not indirectly related to learning outcomes through levels of engagement. An important exception to this result was found for students in Enterprising environments where indirect relationships among Enterprising disciplines and Enterprising learning outcomes were positive, statistically significant, and substantially larger than the direct relationship.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antony, J. S. (1998). Personality-career fit and freshman medical career aspirations: A test of Holland’s theory. Research in Higher Education, 36, 679–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 25, 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W. (1985). Involvement: The cornerstone of excellence. Change, 17(4), 35–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Astin, A. W., & Panos, R. J. (1969). The educational and vocational development of college students. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird, L. L. (1976). Using self-reports to predict student performance. New York: The College Board.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berdie, R. (1971). Self-claimed and tested knowledge. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 31, 629–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blimling, G. S. (1993). The influence of college residence halls on students. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. IX, pp. 248–307). New York: Agathon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cellini, S. R. (2008). Causal inference and omitted variable bias in financial aid research: Assessing solutions. Review of Higher Education, 31, 329–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • DesJardins, S. L., McCall, B. P., Ahlburg, D. A., & Moye, M. J. (2002). Adding a timing light to the “Tool Box”. Research in Higher Education, 43, 83–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, J. A., Ethington, C. A., & Smart, J. C. (2001). A further investigation of major field and person–environment fit: Sociological versus psychological interpretations of Holland’s theory. Journal of Higher Education, 72, 670–698.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, K. A., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (1999). Major field and person–environment fit: Using Holland’s theory to study change and stability of college students. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 642–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, K. A., Smart, J. C., & Ethington, C. A. (2008). Using Holland’s theory to study patterns of college student success: The impact of major fields on students. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 23, pp. 329–380). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellin, A. (2003). The effect of undergraduate student involvement on critical thinking: A meta-analysis of the literature, 1991–2000. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 746–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfriedson, G. D., & Holland, J. L. (1996). Dictionary of Holland occupational codes (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environment (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environment (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Y., & Healey, C. C. (1997). The relations of Holland-typed majors to students’ freshman and senior work values. Research in Higher Education, 38, 455–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishitani, T. T. (2010). Exploring the effects of congruence and Holland’s personality codes on job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 16–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling with ordinal variables using LISREL. Retrieved 5 Mar 2008 from http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/ordinal.pdf.

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). PRELIS 2: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2007). LISREL 8.8. Chicago: Scientific Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2001). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE. Change, 35(2), 24–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In R. Gonyea & G. Kuh (Eds.), Using student engagement data in institutional research (New Directions for Institutional Research Series, no. 141) (pp. 5–20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Hayek, J. C., Carini, R. M., Ouimet, J. A., Gonyea, R. M., & Kennedy, J. (2001). NSSE technical and norms report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Hu, S., & Vesper, N. (2000). “They shall be known by what they do:” An activities-based typology of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 228–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006, July). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Commission Report for the National Symposium on Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a Dialogue on Student Success. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

  • Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., et al. (1991). Involving colleges: Encouraging student learning and personal development through out-of-class experiences. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milem, J. F., Umbach, P. D., & Liang, C. (2004). Exploring the perpetuation hypothesis: The role of colleges and universities in desegregating society. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 688–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morstain, B. R., & Smart, J. C. (1976). Educational orientations of faculty: Assessing a personality model of the academic professions. Psychological Reports, 39, 1199–1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bonnett, N., Lind, S., & Stillwell, C. D. (1989). An evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulleting, 105, 430–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Survey of Student Engagement. (2008). Promoting engagement for all students: The imperative to look within. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Center for Postsecondary Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouimet, J. A., Bunnage, J. B., Carini, R. M., Kuh, G. D., & Kennedy, J. (2004). Using focus groups to establish the validity and reliability of a college student survey. Research in Higher Education, 45, 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2, 10–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences. An account of the development and use of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pace, C. R. (1985). The credibility of student self-reports. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., Seifert, T. A., & Blaich, C. (2010). How effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predicting important educational outcomes? Change, 42(1), 16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascarella, E. T., Whitt, E. J., Nora, A., Edison, M., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). What have we learned from the first year of the national study of student learning? Journal of College Student Development, 37, 182–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, D. S. (1974). The link is equitability. Research in Higher Education, 2, 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R. (1995). The relationship between self reports of college experiences and achievement test scores. Research in Higher Education, 36, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R. (2006a). Students’ personality types, intended majors, and college expectations: Further evidence concerning psychological and sociological interpretations of Holland’s theory. Research in Higher Education, 47, 801–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R. (2006b). Vocational preferences and college expectations: An extension of Holland’s principle of self-selection. Research in Higher Education, 47, 591–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R., & Killian, T. S. (2001). Reported gains in student learning: Do academic disciplines make a difference? Research in Higher Education, 42, 429–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., & Gonyea, R. M. (2003). The relationship between institutional mission and students’ involvement and educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 44, 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pike, G. R., Kuh, G. D., McCormick, A. C., Ethington, C. A., & Smart, J. C. (2011). If and when money matters: The relationships among educational expenditures, student engagement, and students’ learning outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 52, 81–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pohlmann, J., & Beggs, D. (1974). A study of the validity of self-reported measures of academic growth. Journal of Educational Measurement, 11, 115–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, D., Holmberg, K., & Holland, J. L. (1989). The college majors finder. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail: A study of the student as a person. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C. (1982). Faculty teaching goals: A test of Holland’s theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 180–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C. (2010). Differential patterns of change and stability in student learning outcomes in Holland’s academic environments: The role of environmental consistency. Research in Higher Education, 51, 468–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., Ethington, C. A., & Umbach, P. D. (2009a). Pedagogical approaches used by faculty in Holland’s model environments: The role of environmental consistency. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., Ethington, C. A., Umbach, P. D., & Rocconi, L. M. (2009b). Faculty emphasis on alternative course-specific learning outcomes in Holland’s model environments: The role of environmental consistency. Research in Higher Education, 50, 483–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & Feldman, K. A. (1998). “Accentuation effects” of dissimilar academic departments: An application and exploration of Holland’s theory. Research in Higher Education, 39, 385–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., Feldman, K. A., & Ethington, C. A. (2000). Academic disciplines: Holland’s theory and the study of college students and faculty. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & McLaughlin, G. W. (1974). Variations in goal priorities of academic departments: A test of Holland’s theory. Research in Higher Education, 2, 377–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & Thompson, M. D. (2001). The Environmental Identity Scale and differentiation among environmental models in Holland’s theory. Journal of Vocational behavior, 58, 436–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. C., & Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty and academic environments: Using Holland’s theory to explore differences in how faculty structure undergraduate courses. Journal of College Student Development, 48, 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, B. R. (1971). The hidden curriculum. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education. (1984). Involvement in learning: Realizing the potential of American higher education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1991). Twenty years of research on college students: Lessons for future research. Research in Higher Eduction, 32, 83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, M. D., & Smart, J. C. (1999). Student competencies emphasized by faculty in disparate academic environments. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, R. W. (1932). Service studies in higher education. Columbus, OH: Bureau of Educational Research, Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D., & Milem, J. F. (2004). Applying Holland’s typology to the study of differences in student views about diversity. Research in Higher Education, 45, 625–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46, 153–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidman, J. C. (1979). Nonintellective undergraduate socialization in academic departments. Journal of Higher Education, 50, 48–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weidman, J. C. (1989). Undergraduate socialization: A conceptual approach. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. V, pp. 289–323). New York: Agathon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolniak, G. C., & Pascarella, E. T. (2005). The effects of college major and job field congruence on job satisfaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 233–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University–Purdue University-Indianapolis, 1100 Waterway, Room 53, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA

    Gary R. Pike

  2. The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

    John C. Smart & Corinna A. Ethington

Authors
  1. Gary R. Pike
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John C. Smart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Corinna A. Ethington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary R. Pike.

Appendix

Appendix

Student Characteristics

  • Gender (female) [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

  • Asian/Pacific Islander [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

  • African American [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

  • Hispanic/Latino [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

  • Live on campus [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

  • First-generation student (neither father nor mother attended college) [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

  • Transfer student [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

  • Traditional-age student (less than 24 years of age) [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

Investigative Academic Environments

  • Biology; biochemistry or biophysics; botany; microbiology or bacteriology; zoology; other biological sciences; aero/astronautical engineering; civil engineering; chemical engineering; electrical or electronic engineering; astronomy; atmospheric science (including meteorology); chemistry; earth science (including geology); mathematics; physics; statistics; medicine; dentistry; veterinary science; anthropology; geography; and natural resources and conservation [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

Artistic Academic Environments

  • English (language and literature); speech; music or art education; and architecture [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

Social Academic Environments

  • History; philosophy; theology or religion; elementary/middle school education; special education; library/archival science; ethnic studies; political science (including government, international relations); social work; and family studies [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

Enterprising Academic Environments

  • Finance; international business; marketing; other business; business education; law; communications; parks, recreation, leisure studies, sports management; and public administration [0 = No; 1 = Yes]

Higher-Order Thinking

  • Coursework emphasizes analysis of the basic elements of an idea experience or theory [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.728)

  • Coursework emphasizes synthesis and organizing of ideas, information, or experiences into new, more complex interpretations and relationships [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.803)

  • Coursework emphasizes the making of judgments about the value of information, arguments, or methods [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.777)

  • Coursework emphasizes application of theories or concepts to practical problems or in new situations [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.758)

Course Effort

  • Working harder than you thought you could to meet an instructor’s standards or expectations [1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very often] (0.648)

  • Extent to which your examinations during the current school year have challenged you to do your best work [1 = Very little, 7 = Very much] (0.553)

  • Hours per week spent preparing for class (studying, reading, writing, rehearsing etc. related to academic program) [1 = 0, 2 = 1–5, 3 = 6–10, 4 = 11–15, 5 = 16–20, 6 = 21–25, 7 = 26–30, 8 = More than 30] (0.431)

  • Campus environment emphasizing time studying and on academic work [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.535)

Collaborative Learning

  • Made a class presentation [1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very often] (0.671)

  • Worked with other students on projects during class [1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very often] (0.541)

  • Worked with classmates outside of class to prepare class assignments [1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very often] (0.711)

Student–Faculty Interaction

  • Discussed grades or assignments with an instructor [1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very often] (0.651)

  • Talked about career plans with a faculty member or advisor [1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very often] (0.801)

  • Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with faculty members outside of class [1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very often] (0.783)

  • Worked with faculty members on activities other than coursework (committees, orientation, student-life activities, etc.) [1 = Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Very often] (0.631)

Interpersonal Environment

  • Quality of relationships with other students [1 = Unfriendly, Unsupportive, Sense of alienation, 7 = Friendly, Supportive, Sense of Belonging] (0.616)

  • Quality of relationships with faculty members [1 = Unavailable, Unhelpful, Unsympathetic, 7 = Available, Helpful, Sympathetic] (0.793)

  • Quality of relationships with administrative personnel and offices [1 = Unhelpful, Inconsiderate, Rigid, 7 = Helpful, Considerate, Flexible] (0.656)

Support for Student Success

  • Campus environment provides the support you need to help you succeed academically [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.755)

  • Campus environment helps you cope with your non-academic responsibilities (work, family, etc.) [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.721)

  • Campus environment provides the support you need to thrive socially [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.715)

Investigative Outcomes

  • Analyzing quantitative problems [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.911)

  • Thinking critically and analytically [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.447)

Artistic Outcomes

  • Thinking critically and analytically [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.569)

  • Writing clearly and effectively [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.931)

  • Speaking clearly and effectively [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.631)

Social Outcomes

  • Understanding yourself [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.802)

  • Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.777)

  • Contributing to the welfare of your community [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.763)

  • Working effectively with others [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.127)

Enterprising Outcomes

  • Speaking clearly and effectively [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.328)

  • Working effectively with others [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.749)

  • Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills [1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, 4 = Very much] (0.667)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pike, G.R., Smart, J.C. & Ethington, C.A. The Mediating Effects of Student Engagement on the Relationships Between Academic Disciplines and Learning Outcomes: An Extension of Holland’s Theory. Res High Educ 53, 550–575 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9239-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9239-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation