INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES AND STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

By Stephen R. Porter. 2006

188 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1bfb5c6da95ae8629c79d692dcf5adbb8b5229ad

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Student engagement: students' and teachers' perceptions (2014, background): “The institutional perspective considers institutions offering a wide range of learning support services (Pike, Smart, Kuh, & Hayek, 2006; Porter, 2006) and adapt to changing student expectations (McInnis, 2003; Yorke, 2006).”
Detecting selection bias, using propensity score matching, and estimating treatment effects: an application to the private returns to a master’s degree (2007, background): “Although selection bias has been addressed extensively in economics (e.g., Amemiya, 1985; Garen, 1984; Heckman, 1979; Maddala, 1983; McMillen, 1995; Olsen, 1980; Willis and Rosen, 1979), it has been not been adequately addressed in the higher education literature, according to several higher educati”
If and When Money Matters: The Relationships Among Educational Expenditures, Student Engagement and Students’ Learning Outcomes (2011, background): “Porter (2006) found extremely weak relationships between expenditures and student engagement.”
College Residence and Academic Performance: Who Benefits From Living on Campus? (2010, background): “In addition, student body size and institutional density (students per acre) have significant negative effects on student involvement (Porter, 2006).”
Do College Student Surveys Have Any Validity? (2011, background): “More selective institutions show higher levels of engagement (porter, 2006) due to the availability heuristic, not due to their selectivity.”
Two Cultures: Undergraduate Academic Engagement (2008, methodology): “1 NSSE findings on socio-demographic correlates of academic engagement were largely supported by Porter (2006) using a different data set, the Beginning Postsecondary Students Survey, and a measure of engagement focusing on participation in campus activities.”
Does Socioeconomic Diversity Make a Difference? Examining the Effects of Racial and Socioeconomic Diversity on the Campus Climate for Diversity (2013, methodology): “An ICC greater than 5% signals that a nontrivial proportion of the variance occurs across institutions, and, thus, the use of HLM is appropriate (Heck & Thomas, 2008; Porter, 2006).”
Improving student engagement: Ten proposals for action (2010, background): “Others highlight the way educators practise and relate to their students (Kuh, 2001; Umbach and Wawrzynski, 2005) and the roles of institutional structures and cultures (Porter, 2006).”