S T U D E N T E N G A G E M E N T / N U R S I N G E D U C AT I O N R E S E A R C H

Are Nursing Students Engaged in Learning?

A Secondary Analysis of Data
from the NATIONAL SURVEY OF STUDENT ENGAGEMENT
ANN M. POPKESS AND A N N A M C DA N I E L

L I T E R AT U R E S U P P O RT S THE LINK BETWEEN C E RTA I N

(Astin, 1985; Carini, Kuh, & Klein, 2004;

P R AC T I C E S A N D S T U D E N T E N G AG E M E N T
E D U C AT I O N A L BEST

Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005).
In particular, research on the practice of active learning strategies suggests that when stu-
dents are actively involved in thinking about what they do, improved student outcomes
result (Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000). The use of active learning strategies as a form
of engagement in learning activities has demonstrated positive effects on problem solving,
critical thinking, and persistence in college students (Braxton et al.; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley,
Bridges, & Hayek, 2007). H O W E V E R , the discipline of nursing lacks evidence that
evaluates student characteristics and engagement as a function of successful academic
outcomes based on best practice models. This lack of research is a concern for nursing
education. Understanding engagement as an indicator of student learning potential is
critical to understanding learning outcomes.

RESEARCH

A B S T R AC T Evidence in higher education supports the practice of active learning as a method of promoting student engagement
among college students that has positive effects on problem solving, critical thinking, and persistence. No studies have been reported that
evaluate the undergraduate nursing students’ level of engagement in college compared with other majors. The purpose of this study was
to determine if differences exist between levels of nursing students’ engagement and those of education and other health professional stu-
dents as measured by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). The NSSE is a self-reporting instrument consisting of 70 items
measuring level of academic challenge; student interactions with faculty; supportiveness of the campus environment; participation in active
and collaborative learning; and enriching educational experiences. Using a descriptive, correlation design, the study incorporated a second-
ary analysis of NSSE data collected from freshmen and seniors during 2003. Selected demographic data (freshman or senior status) and
NSSE data measuring five benchmarks of engagement were analyzed using ANOVA and t-tests to determine relationships. Freshmen were
found to be less engaged than seniors on four of five benchmarks. Nursing and other health profession majors perceived themselves to be
significantly less engaged in active and collaborative learning than education majors. Nursing students perceived themselves as significantly
more academically challenged than their peers in education and other health professions. Results indicate that although nursing students
are engaged in rigorous curricula, they do not perceive themselves to be engaged in student-centered and interactive pedagogies.
Implications for further research exploring potential barriers surrounding active and collaborative learning strategies are discussed.

March / April Vo l . 3 2 N o . 2 8 9
 S T U D E N T E N G A G E M E N T / N U R S I N G E D U C AT I O N R E S E A R C H
Surveys by the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary
Research in the form of the National Survey of Student
Engagement (NSSE) provide a rich source of national data on
student engagement. For this study, the NSSE 2003 dataset was
used to describe differences in student engagement between
nursing students and other pre-professional groups and to deter-
mine relationships between select student characteristics and
engagement. It is hoped that determining the extent of nursing
student engagement in college based on benchmarks of engage-
ment measures will support the development of teaching inter-
ventions that may ultimately improve student learning outcomes.
Conceptual Framework Astin (1985) defines involvement as
“the amount of physical and psychological energy that the stu-
dent devotes to the academic experience” (p. 134). Astin’s use
of the term involvement is synonymous with the definition of
engagement. The primary focus is on behaviors in which stu-
dents typically engage: attending classes, studying, working,
volunteering, and interacting with faculty and peers.
In his model of involvement, Astin (1984) explains how stu-
dents develop in college using three elements: input (character-
istics of the student at the time of college entry), environment
(programs, policy, faculty, peers, and educational experiences
the student is exposed to during college), and outcomes (the stu-
dent’s characteristics after exposure to the environment). The
model is based on five assumptions: a) Involvement requires
investment of energy in objects (tasks, people, activities). b) It
is continuous. c) It has both quantitative and qualitative fea-
tures. d) The amount of learning or development is directly pro-
Figure.
Adaptation of Astin’s (1984) Model of Inputs-Environments-Outputs
INPUTS
Freshman/Senior Status
Sex
Ethnicity
Major
9 0 N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n Pe r s p e c t i v e s
portional to the quality and quantity of involvement. e) The edu-
cational effectiveness of any policy or practice is related to its
capacity to induce student involvement. Simply stated, students
learn by becoming involved in academic activities.
Research has shown that different types of student engage-
ment/involvement produce varying learning outcomes. The
foundation for the conceptual framework for this exploratory
study is based on Chickering and Gamson’s (1987) principles of
good practice in undergraduate education and includes student-
faculty contact, cooperation among students, active learning,
prompt feedback, time on task, high expectations, and respect
for diverse talents and ways of learning.
Method DES IGN/S AMPLE The study examined the relation-
ship between student inputs (precollege traits) and college envi-
ronment (engagement levels) among baccalaureate students in
nursing and non-nursing professions. (See Figure.) A descrip-
tive, correlational design was used to analyze secondary data, a
subset of the 2003 NSSE data. The non-nursing professional
group consisted of two cohorts: a) education majors, including
students indicating elementary, secondary, special education, or
music and physical education as their primary major, and b)
health pre-professional majors, including those indicating med-
icine, dentistry, veterinary, pharmacy, allied health, therapy, or
social work as primary majors. Select student characteristics
were also examined.
A random sample of existing data totaling 3,000 subjects,
1,000 from each major category (nursing/other health profes-
sions/education) who completed the NSSE survey during the
ENVIRONMENTS
(Assessed by NSSE) (41 items) OUTPUTS
Level of academic challenge GPA
Student interactions with faculty Standardized test scores
Supportive campus environment Persistence
Active and collaborative learning NCLEX results
Enriching educational experiences
 S T U D E N T E N G A G E M E N T / N U R S I N G E D U C AT I O N R E S E A R C H

Table 1. week to avoid over- and undergeneralization. Individual identi-

Descriptive Data of Students in Sample by Major fiers are not used.
OTHER NSSE reliability reports reflect findings from analyses of
CLASSIFICATION NURSING EDUCATION HEALTH
IN COLLEGE PROFESSION survey results between June 1999 and August 2002. The col-
lege activities section (22 items) represents activities in
Freshman 442 445 448
Senior 406 458 426
which college students engage inside and outside the class-
Other/ room; Cronbach’s alpha for these items was .85. The 15 items
Unclassified 152 97 126 representing educational and personal growth assessment
have an alpha coefficient of .90. The 11 items representing
RACE students’ opinions about their school have an alpha coeffi-
White 787 895 830
cient of .84. Although not all survey items were analyzed for
Non-White 210 105 168
reliability, the majority of self-rated items have strong inter-
Missing 3 N/A 2
nal consistency among the variables represented (Kuh,
2002). Accepted reliability for instruments of this type is .80
GENDER
(DeVellis, 2003).
Male 57 142 137
S TATIS TICAL ANALYSIS For this secondary data analysis,
Female 941 856 860
Missing 2 2 3 one-way ANOVA was computed to determine if there was a
Note . Each sample consisted of 1,000 students. difference between baccalaureate nursing students and non-
nursing professional students on mean scores for the five
benchmark subscales: LAC (11 items), SFI (6 items), SCE (6
spring semester 2003 (Table 1), was extracted for this study. Each items), ACL (7 items), and EEE (11 items). Tukey’s post hoc
group of 1,000 subjects included 500 freshmen and 500 seniors; comparison was used to determine significant differences of
it was expected that these second-semester students would have multiple pair-wise comparisons. To adjust for multiple com-
sufficient experience and judgment to answer questions about parisons, MANOVA tests were computed for each of the ACL
common college experiences. Permission was obtained from the and LAC benchmarks. Further univariate tests were per-
Indiana University Institutional Review Board to conduct sec- formed for each item to examine differences between groups
ondary data analysis. on individual items that comprise the benchmarks.
INSTRUMENT The NSSE instrument was used to measure Additional analyses were performed to determine relation-
engagement on five subscales with a total of 41 items. The sub- ships between nursing student characteristics (academic
scales represent benchmarks of educational best practices lead- year, gender, race) and engagement levels. Significance level
ing to engagement: a) level of academic challenge (LAC); b) stu- was set at .05 for all analyses. Missing data comprised less
dent interactions with faculty (SFI); c) supportive campus envi- than 5 percent for the variables that were analyzed.
ronment (SCE); d) active and collaborative learning (ACL); and e)
enriching educational experiences (EEE). Items are scored on a Results DIFFERENCES IN ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN MAJORS
four-point Likert-type scale, with scores indicating the frequency Significant differences were found between group mean scores
students reported performing the behavior described in the item on the LAC and ACL benchmarks, F(2, 2986) = 16.50, p =
(1 = never, 4 = very often). .000 vs F(2, 2994) = 8.382, p = .000. Post hoc tests showed
The NSSE instrument relies on student self-reports and is that nursing students scored significantly higher (M = 58.71)
designed to reduce threats to validity through adherence to five on the LAC benchmark than either education (M = 55.22) or
general conditions shown to increase self-report validity other health majors (M = 56.14). In addition, although nursing
(Pascarella, 2001; Pike, 1995): question familiarity, clarity, (M = 46.44) and other health majors (M = 45.58) did not differ
recency of information, merit, and privacy of respondents. Recall significantly from one another on the ACL benchmark, both
is limited to the current academic year; time is measured using a were significantly lower than education majors (M = 48.59). No
simple rating scale, reporting the number of hours in a typical other significant differences were found in remaining NSSE

March / April Vo l . 3 2 N o . 2 9 1
 S T U D E N T E N G A G E M E N T / N U R S I N G E D U C AT I O N R E S E A R C H

Table 2. Univariate Analysis Mean Scores on LAC benchmark scores (SFI, SCE, EEE) among students in the
and ACL Benchmark Components by Major (p = .05) three groups.
MAJOR
The LAC benchmark was measured by 11 items; MANOVA
LAC COMPONE NT NURSING HEALTH E DUC ATI O N
revealed overall significant differences, lambda (22, 5776) =
PROF ESSIO NS
Synthesized and organized .920, p = .000. Univariate analysis of individual items
ideas, information 3.11**b,c 2.98**a 2.92***a demonstrated significant differences on nine of 11 component
Applying theories or concepts scale items (Table 2). Mean scores for nursing majors were
to problems or new situations 3.32***b,c 3.18***a 3.13***a significantly higher than education and other health majors
Making judgments about the value on the following items: “course work emphasized synthesiz-
of information 3.10***b,c 2.88***a 2.82***a
ing, making judgments, applying theories or concepts” and
Analyzing the basic elements of an “writing papers more than 20 pages in length.”
idea in a situation 3.31*c 3.22*a,b 3.07***a,c
Nursing and other health students indicated that they
Worked harder than you thought spent significantly more time studying than education majors.
you could to meet instructor’s
However, other health majors spent significantly more time
expectations 2.78 2.74 2.78
preparing for class than either nursing or education majors.
Number of assigned
The ACL benchmark was measured by seven items and
textbooks/books 3.37 3.38 3.35
demonstrated significant differences between the three
Number of written papers or reports
> 20 pages 1.52***b,c 1.34***a 1.39***a
groups. MANOVA revealed significant differences among
majors on overall scores of ACL benchmarks, lambda (16,
Number of written papers
5-19 pages 2.55***c 2.37**a,b 2.51**c
5918) = .925, p = .000. Follow-up univariate analysis of com-
ponent items indicated that nursing majors’ mean scores were
Number of written papers fewer
than 5 pages 3.03*c,***b 3.16*a,***b 3.45***a,c
significantly lower than education majors’ scores on three
ACL items: “asked questions in class,” “made class presen-
Hours spent preparing for class 4.13**c 4.41**a,***b 4.06***c
tations,” and “worked with other students on projects during
Spending significant amounts of time
class” (Table 2). Nursing students scored significantly lower
studying and on academic work 3.30***b 3.26***b 3.13***a,c
than education and other health majors on one item: “tutored
ACL COMPONE NT NURSING HEALTH E DUC ATI O N or taught other students, voluntary or for pay.” Nursing majors
PROF ESSIO NS
Asked questions in class or
scored significantly higher than both education and other
contributed to class discussion 2.91*b 2.90**b 3.01*a, **c health majors on one item: “participated in a community-
Made a class presentation 2.53***b 2.48***b 2.72***a,c based project as part of a regular course.”
NURSING STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS AND ENGAGEMENT
Worked with other students
on project during class 2.46***b 2.43***b 2.59***a,c The mean scores of freshman nursing students were signif-
icantly lower than those of seniors on four of five engage-
Worked with classmates outside
class to prepare assignments 2.54 2.58 2.55 ment benchmarks (Table 3). A significant difference was
Tutored other students 1.54***b,c 1.73***a,b 1.85***a,c
found between the scores on enriching educational envi-
ronments and race. Those nursing students identifying
Participated in community-
based project as part of course 1.95***b,c 1.66***a 1.72***a
themselves as white (n = 782) had a significantly lower
mean score than non-white students (n = 208) in this sam-
Discussed ideas from readings
outside class 2.79 2.77 2.78 ple, M = 44.11, SD = 15.26, t(988) = -2.775, p = .006.

p < .05* Discussion DIFFERENCES IN ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN MAJORS

p < .01**
Undergraduate nursing and other health majors demonstrat-
p < .001***
a. significantly different from nursing ed lower scores in active and collaborative learning com-
b. significantly different from education pared to their peers in education. Nursing and other health
c. significantly different from health professions

9 2 N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n Pe r s p e c t i v e s
 S T U D E N T E N G A G E M E N T / N U R S I N G E D U C AT I O N R E S E A R C H

Table 3.
t-Test (2-tailed) Data Comparing Freshman and Senior Nursing Students on Engagement Benchmarks (p = .05)
ENGAGEMENT CLASS MEAN SD df t p
BENCHMARK
LAC Freshman 54.07 13.60 844 -11.485 .000
Senior 64.76 13.44

ACL Freshman 38.43 13.51 781 -16.558 .000

Senior 55.76 16.64

SFI Freshman 33.35 17.88 846 -9.326 .000

Senior 45.03 18.62

EEE Freshman 43.34 15.38 842 -3.761 .000

Senior 47.40 15.92

SCE Freshman 61.67 17.70 838 .221 .825

Senior 61.39 18.68

majors in the sample saw themselves spending significantly ence, reflecting the National League for Nursing Hallmarks of
less time than education majors in activities such as con- Excellence (2004) and the American Association of Colleges of
tributing to class discussions, making presentations, working Nursing (2008) goal to expose students to opportunities to pro-
with other students in/out of class, and tutoring others. vide culturally competent, globally engaged health care as part-
One explanation for this finding is ners in the communities they serve.
that the schools of nursing participat- RESEARCH has demonstrated There were no significant differences
ing in the NSSE 2003 study did not an inconsistency between FACULTY between nursing and other disci-
utilize problem-based learning or pro- PERCEPTIONS of teaching plines in the three other engagement
mote active and collaborative strate- strategies and actual PHILOSOPHIES benchmarks (SFI, EEE, SCE). One
gies such as working in groups both in explanation is that forms of engage-
OF TEACHING.
and out of class. Educators in nursing ment vary, based on different vari-
DETERMINING BARRIERS to active
and health professions continue to ables or precursors. Each is a distinct
predominantly employ traditional, and collaborative learning of type of engagement that presumably
teacher-centered methods of instruc- BACCALAUREATE nursing students may result from different activities
tion, such as lecture, that do not nec- could help DETERMINE and, therefore, produce different out-
essarily encourage the active and col- NECESSARY INTERVENTIONS to comes.
laborative participation of students in S TUDENT CHARA CTERIS TICS The
improve curricular and
class discussions and out-of-class significant differences between
instructional strategies and
activities. Research has demonstrated freshman and senior nursing stu-
INCREASE student engagement.
an inconsistency between faculty per- dents on all but one benchmark of
ceptions of teaching strategies engagement are consistent with
employed and actual philosophies of teaching (Schaefer & findings in the literature. Freshmen see themselves as less
Zygmont, 2003). Determining barriers to active and collabora- involved with faculty, less challenged in their courses, and
tive learning of baccalaureate nursing students could help less involved in enriching or active and collaborative learning
determine necessary interventions to improve curricular and than upperclassmen (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Pike &
instructional strategies and increase student engagement. Kuh, 2005). The lack of significant findings based on gender
Nursing students perceived themselves as more involved in and race is not surprising. As reflected in the sample, minori-
community-based projects as part of their educational experi- ties and males continue to be highly underrepresented in

March / April Vo l . 3 2 N o . 2 9 3
 S T U D E N T E N G A G E M E N T / N U R S I N G E D U C AT I O N R E S E A R C H

schools of nursing, and significant differences between such
small groups are difficult to detect. This supports the fact that
nursing schools must continue efforts to recruit and retain
minority and male students and explains, in part, why non-
minority nursing students may perceive themselves as less
engaged in enriching environments, which are described as
engagement in culturally and technologically diverse learning
and living experiences in college.
Conclusion This study finds that nursing students see them-
selves as more academically challenged than education and
other health majors and less engaged in active and collabora-
tive learning than education majors. Further research into
what nursing students perceive as barriers to engagement in
active and collaborative learning would be useful to nurse
educators who strive to meet the challenges of developing stu-
dent-centered, interactive, and innovative curricula and pro-
duce successful graduates. NLN

Limitation Though the purpose of this pilot study was to com-

pare engagement benchmarks among other baccalaureate
majors and nursing students, one limitation is that learning out-
comes were not included in the analysis. The NSSE measures
outcomes of engagement as general gains in communication,
intellectual and interpersonal skills, and self-reported grades.
Engagement is only one factor that contributes to these out-
comes. Due to the operational definition of the outcomes in the
original dataset, this study is limited in its ability to analyze
other academic outcomes. Other limitations include those inher-
ent in secondary data analysis that may affect validity, such as
lack of control over sampling techniques and the possibility of
data entry and coding errors.
About the Author Ann M. Popkess, PhD, RN, is an assistant
professor of nursing at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.
Anna McDaniel, PhD, RN, FAAN, is Chancellor’s Professor and
associate dean, Center for Research and Scholarship, Indiana
University School of Nursing, Indianapolis. The authors
acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Robert Gonyea and the
Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research for provid-
ing access to the NSSE 2003 dataset. Contact Dr. Popkess at
apopkes@siue.edu.
Key Words Student Engagement – Active Learning – Nursing Education
– Student-Centered Learning – Baccalaureate Education

References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing.
(2008). Essentials of baccalaureate education for
professional nursing practice. Washington, DC:
Author.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A devel-
opmental theory for higher education. Journal of
College Student Development, 24, 297-308.
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational
excelelence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000).
The influence of active learning on the college
student departure process: Toward a revision of
Tinto’s theory. Journal of Higher Education, 71(5),
569-590. doi:10.2307/2649260
Carini, R. M., Kuh, G., & Klein, S. P. (2004). Student
engagement and student learning: Testing the link-
ages. San Diego, CA: American Educational
Research Association.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven
principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory
and application (2nd ed., Vol. 26). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kuh, G. (2002). The national survey of student
engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of
psychometric properties (pp. 1-26). Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary
Research and Planning.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B., & Hayek,
J. (2007). Piecing together the student success
puzzle: Research, propositions and recommenda-
tions. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(5). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J.
(2005). Student success in college: Creating condi-
tions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
National League for Nursing (2004). Hallmarks
of excellence in nursing education. Retrieved from
http://www.nln.org/excellence/
hallmarks_indicators.htm
Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Using student self-report-
ed gains to estimate college impact: A caution-
ary tale. Journal of College Student Development,
42(5), 488-492.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How col-
lege affects students: A third decade of research.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pike, G. (1995). The relationship between self-
reports of college experiences and achievement
test scores. Research in Higher Education, 36, 1-21.
doi:10.1007/BF02207764
Pike, G., & Kuh, G., (2005). First- and second-gen-
eration college students: A comparison of their
engagement and intellectual development. Journal
of Higher Education, 76(3), 276-300.
doi:10.1353/jhe.2005.0021
Schaefer, K. M., & Zygmont, D. (2003). Analyzing
the teaching style of nursing faculty:
Does it promote a student-centered or teacher-
centered learning environment? Nursing
Education Perspectives, 24(5), 39-48.

9 4 N u r s i n g E d u c a t i o n Pe r s p e c t i v e s