Search

Research and practice have recognized the importance of informal learning—a specific type of active learning—for higher education contexts. University students learn not only in formally organized courses, but also in a self-directed and intentional way from fellow students, through trial and error, and by reflection. However, there has been a lack of valid measures to operationalize students' informal learning. In this study, we thus develop the Informal Student Learning (ISL) scale for higher education, building on the Octagon Model of Informal Workplace Learning and the model's associated measure from the vocational learning context. Our scale contains eight components with three items each. Using three samples of university students (N = 545, N = 818, N = 310), we examined the model structure of ISL and the scale's validity in an international context. The results show that the conceptual structure of informal workplace learning and informal student learning is similar for intent to learn and reflection, but different for experience/action and feedback. Examining validity, we found evidence for concurrent validity in terms of study-related self-efficacy and academic performance, and for convergent and discriminant validity indicators of the eight ISL components. The scale has configural and metric measurement invariance for age, gender, and academic achievement, and additionally scalar invariance for age. Potential applications of the new measure in the context of active learning for research, for lecturers, and for students are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the need for data justice in higher education and how technology and data use in student affairs can be more equitable and student-centered. Topics discussed include the challenges of surveillance and data collection, the potential for harm from data-driven technologies, and the importance of transparency, trust, and empowerment in data use.

Some students cope with the conflicting demands of work, family, health, and college by engaging in adjustment-seeking behavior, whereby students try to persuade instructors to make the kinds of personalized adjustments needed to avoid the potential consequences of conflicts between academic responsibilities and their other responsibilities. Hypothesized here is that students’ adjustment-seeking behaviors are predicated by knowledge of students’ political skill and adjustment-seeking self-efficacy. Participants completed a survey measuring adjustment-seeking behavior, adjustment-seeking self-efficacy, and political skill. Multiple regression analysis revealed that students’ political skill and adjustment-seeking self-efficacy contributed significantly to the prediction of adjustment-seeking behavior, as hypothesized. Adjustment-seeking behavior was found to be more frequent among participating students with higher levels of political and self-efficacy skills. Implications for research and practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigates the initial development of groupwork skills through outdoor adventure education (OAE) and the factors that predict the extent of this development, using the first two levels of Kirkpatrick’s model of training evaluation. University students (N = 238) completed questionnaires measuring their initial reactions to OAE (Level 1 of the Kirkpatrick model) and learning from pre- to post-course (Level 2). There were high levels of enjoyment and satisfaction with OAE, and significant self-reported improvements in the use of groupwork skills, attitudes toward groupwork, and groupwork self-efficacy. Learning and intention to transfer learning to the university setting were both positively predicted by students’ perceived use of groupwork skills before OAE, course satisfaction, enjoyment, groupwork self-efficacy, and attitude toward groupwork. These findings demonstrate that OAE increases students’ use of interpersonal groupwork skills, and that this is predicted by positive beliefs at baseline and favorable reactions to the learning experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Students choose to go to university for many reasons. They include those with disabilities and those without. The reasons why students with disabilities go to university and how these reasons impact university experience, including coping (academic resourcefulness), adapting, academic ability beliefs (academic self-efficacy), and grades, are investigated. Results show that unlike non-disabled peers, first-year students with disabilities who go to university for internal reasons (e.g. for the challenge, because they like learning) show higher academic resourcefulness and self-efficacy, and that those disabled students who choose to go to university in order to get a better job show higher academic self-efficacy. Upper-year students with disabilities less often choose to go to university for others and in order to get a better job than counterparts without disabilities. Upper-year students with disabilities less often choose to go to university for the university features (e.g. student services) than first-year students with disabilities. Upper-year students with disabilities choosing to go to university in order to delay responsibilities are less adapted, and those choosing to go for the reason of getting a better job have lower grades. Recommendations on strategies to increase student coping and self-efficacy and the need for qualitative research are made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This phenomenological study investigated barriers to higher education faced by 11 college students labeled with learning disabilities (LD) using their voice as the primary data. Data were analyzed and interpreted through a disability theory perspective revealing barriers stemmed largely from external social causes rather than individual pathology. Barriers included being misunderstood by faculty, being reluctant to request accommodations for fear of invoking stigma, and having to work considerably longer hours than nonlabeled peers. Findings indicated barriers could be overcome through raising faculty awareness about LD issues, engaging the assistance of the college LD specialist, and participation in a LD democratic empowerment community on campus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]