Do “Top” Universities the Best in Everything? How the Status and the Size of Russian Universities Correlate to Student Engagement

The characteristics of the university that issued the higher education diploma are an important signal for the employer, indicating the quality of the graduate’s training. However, it remains unknown to what extent top Russian universities really differ in the quality of the educational process from other universities, and do not simply use their ability to admit the most talented and motivated students. This paper attempts to answer this question using student engagement indicators, which are considered worldwide as a valid tool for assessing the quality of higher education. The article aims to examine the relationship between student engagement and two institutional characteristics of universities (a special status and the size of the university) by employing survey data on 16,143 students studying at 401 Russian universities. The results demonstrate that students studying at federal, national research and flagship universities have comparatively lower class engagement and social engagement compared to students from universities without special status. In addition, students at institutions with a size between 1,000 and 3,500 students were the most engaged in class activities and, at the same time, disengaged, while a size of less than 1,000 students  was  negatively  associated  with  disengagement.  The  results  obtained,  on  the  one  hand, require  further  research  into  the  relationship  between  institutional  characteristics  and  student engagement. On the other hand, they indicate the need to increase the weight of indicators of the quality  of  the  educational  process  in  universities  in  government  excellence  initiatives  aimed  at identifying leading universities and supporting them, as well as the importance of developing valid indicators of the quality of the educational process that can be used as a criterion in such government competitions.

1. Roshchin, S.Y., Rudakov, V.N. (2016). The Effect of University Quality on Graduates’ Wages. Voprosy Ekonomiki = The Economics Issues. No. 8, pp. 74-95, doi: doi: 10.32609/0042-8736-2016-8-74-95 (In Russ.).

2. Rozhkova, K.V., Roshchin, S.Y., Solntsev, S.A., Travkin, P.V. (2023). The Differentiation of Quality in Higher Education and Graduates’ Wages in Russia. Voprosy Obrazovaniya = Educational Studies Moscow . No. 1, pp. 161-190, doi:10.17323/1814-9545-2023-1-161-190 (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

3. Milla, J. (2018). The Canadian University Selectivity Premium. Review of Economic Analysis. No. 10, pp. 313-349. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3387420 (accessed: 21.10.2023).

4. Mountjoy, J., Hickman, B. (2020). The Returns to College (s): Estimating Value-Added and Match Effects in Higher Education. National Bureau of Economic Research . Working Paper No. 29276. Available at: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29276/w29276.pdf (accessed: 21.10.2023).

5. Drantusova, N.V., Kniazev, E.A. (2013). Institutional Landscape of the Higher Education in Russia: Vectors of Development. Vestnik mezhdunarodnikh organizatsiy: obrazovanie, nauka, novaya ekonomika = International Organisations Research Journal. Vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 264-273. Available at: https://iorj.hse.ru/data/2013/04/10/1297550928/12.pdf (accessed: 21.10.2023). (In Russ.).

6. Agasisti, T., Shibanova, E., Platonova, D., Lisyutkin, M. (2020). The Russian Excellence Initiative for Higher Education: A Nonparametric Evaluation of Short-Term Results. International Transactions in Operational Research. Vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 1911-1929, doi: 10.1111/itor.12742

7. Platonova, D., Semyonov, D. (2018) Russia: The Institutional Landscape of Russian Higher Education. In: J. Huisman et al. (eds.), 25 Years of Transformations of Higher Education Systems in Post-Soviet Countries . Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education. Pp. 337-362, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6_13

8. Westrick, P.A., Le, H., Robbins, S.B., Radunzel, J.M., Schmidt, F.L. (2015). College Performance and Retention: A Meta-Analysis of the Predictive Validities of ACT® Scores, High School Grades, and SES. Educational Assessment . Vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 23-45, doi: 10.1080/10627197.2015.997614

9. Pascarella, E. (1996). Cognitive Effects of Community Colleges & Four-Year Colleges. Community College Journal. Vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 35-39, doi: 10.2307/1164271

10. Loyalka, P., Liu, O.L., Li, G., Kardanova, E., Chirikov, I., Hu, S., et al. (2021). Skill Levels and Gains in University STEM Education in China, India, Russia and the United States. Nature Human Behaviour. Vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 892-904, doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01062-3

11. Ovchinnikov, M.N. (2012). The Evaluation of University Activity and Indicators of Effectiveness in Programs of Development. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz = University Management: Practice and Analysis. No. 1, pp. 25-30. Available at: https://www.umj.ru/jour/article/view/553/554 (accessed: 21.10.2023). (In Russ.).

12. Astin, A.W. (1997) What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 512 p. ISBN-10: 078790838X. ISBN-13: 978-0787908386.

13. Chickering, A.W., Reisser, L. (1993). Education and Identity (2nd Ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 576 p. ISBN-10: 1555425917, ISBN-13: 978-1555425913.

14. McCormick, A.C. (2009). Toward Reflective Accountability: Using NSSE for Accountability and Transparency. New Directions for Institutional Research. Vol. 2009, no. 141, pp. 97-106, doi: 10.1002/ir.289

15. McCormick, A.C., Kinzie, J., Gonyea, R.M. (2013). Student Engagement: Bridging Research and Practice to Improve the Quality of Undergraduate Education. In: M.B. Paulsen (Ed.) Higher education: Handbook of theory and research. Vol. 28. The Netherlands: Springer. Pp. 47-92, doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5836-0_2

16. Pace, R.C. (1980). Measuring the Quality of Student Effort. Current Issues in Higher Education . Vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 10-16.

17. Pace, C.R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences: An account of the development and use of the college student experiences. questionnaire. University of California, Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of Education. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED255099.pdf (accessed: 21.10.2023).

18. Astin, A.W. (1984). Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education. Journal of College Student Personnel . Vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 297-308.

19. Kuh, G.D. (2003). What We’re Learning about Student Engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for Effective Educational Practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. Vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 24-32, doi: 10.1080/00091380309604090

20. Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J.L., Buckley, J.A., Bridges, B.K., Hayek, J.C. (2006). What Matters to Student Success: A Review of the Literature (Vol. 8). Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative. 151 p. Available at: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=c7816b087310dffc85c425873a4b82485fbc2578 (accessed: 21.10.2023).

21. Krause, K.L., Coates, H. (2008). Students’ Engagement in First-Year University. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 493-505, doi: 10.1080/02602930701698892

22. Kuh, G.D. (2007). What Student Engagement Data Tell Us about College Readiness. Peer Review. Vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 4-8. Available at: https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/harris-memorial-college/education/what-student-engagement-data-tell-us-about-college-readiness/57134058 (accessed: 21.10.2023).

23. Pike, G.R., Kuh, G.D. (2005). A Typology of Student Engagement for American Colleges and Universities. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 185-209, doi: 10.1007/s11162-004-1599-0

24. Hu, S., Kuh, G.D. (2002). Being (Dis)Engaged in Educationally Purposeful Activities: The Influences of Student and Institutional Characteristics. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 555-574, doi: 10.1023/A:1020114231387

25. Kuh, G.D., Hu, S. (2001). Learning Productivity at Research Universities. The Journal of Higher Education. Vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 1-28, doi: 10.1080/00221546.2001.11778862

26. Pascarella, E.T., Wolniak, G.C., Cruce, T.M., Blaich, C.F. (2004). Do Liberal Arts Colleges Really Foster Good Practices in Undergraduate Education? Journal of College Student Development . Vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 57-74, doi: 10.1353/csd.2004.0013

27. Zhao, C.M., Kuh, G.D. (2004). Adding Value: Learning Communities and Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 45, no. 2. pp. 115-138, doi: 10.1023/B:RIHE.0000015692.88534.de

28. Choi, B.K., Rhee, B.S. (2014). The Influences of Student Engagement, Institutional Mission, and Cooperative Learning Climate on the Generic Competency Development of Korean Undergraduate Students. Higher Education. Vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1007/s10734-013-9637-5

29. Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

30. Pascarella, E.T., Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 848 p. ISBN-10: 0787910449, ISBN-13: 978-0787910440.

31. Toutkoushian, R.K., Smart, J.C. (2001). Do Institutional Characteristics Affect Student Gains From College? Review of Higher Education . Vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 39-61, doi: 10.1353/rhe.2001.0017

32. Porter, S.R. (2006). Institutional Structures and Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education . Vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 521-558, doi: 10.1007/s11162-005-9006-z

33. 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. Vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 81-106, doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9183-2

34. Abramova, M.O., Barannikov, K.A., Gruzdev, I.A., Zhikharev, D.A., Leshukov, O.V. et al. (2021). Quality of Education in Russian Universities: What We Understand in the Pandemic Period . Ed. by E.A. Sukhanova, I.D. Froumin. Tomsk: Tomsk State University Publishing House. Available at: http://docs.io.tsu.ru/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/KO_doklad.pdf (accessed: 21.10.2023). (In Russ.).

35. Maloshonok, N.G. (2023). Student Engagement as an Instrument of Assessing the Quality of Education in Russian Universities. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz = University Management: Practice and Analysis. Vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 45-58, doi: 10.15826/umpa.2023.02.012. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.).

36. Gilardi, S., Guglielmetti, C. (2011). University Life of Non-Traditional Students: Engagement Styles and Impact on Attrition. The Journal of Higher Education . Vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 33-53, doi: 10.1080/00221546.2011.11779084

37. Shcheglova, I., Gorbunova, E., Chirikov, I. (2020). The Role of the First-Year Experience in Student Attrition. Quality in Higher Education. Vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 307-322, doi: 10.1080/13538322.2020.1815285

38. Chickering, A.W., Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin. Vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 3-7.

39. Hartikainen, S., Rintala, H., Pylväs, L., Nokelainen, P. (2019). The Concept of Active Learning and the Measurement of Learning Outcomes: A Review of Research in Engineering Higher Education. Education Sciences. Vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 276, doi: 10.3390/educsci9040276

40. Tinto, V. (2022). Exploring the Character of Student Persistence in Higher Education: The Impact of Perception, Motivation, and Engagement. In: A.L. Reschly, S.L. Christenson (eds.) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Cham: Springer. Pp. 357-379, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-07853-8_17

41. Wulf, C. (2019). From Teaching to Learning: Characteristics and Challenges of a Student-Centered Learning Culture. In: H.A. Mieg (ed.), Inquiry-based Learning–Undergraduate Research . Pp. 47-55, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-14223-0_5

42. Brint, S., Cantwell, A.M. (2014). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Analyzing the Characteristics of Academically Disengaged Students: Results from UCUES 2010. Journal of College Student Development. Vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 808-823, doi: 10.1353/csd.2014.0080

43. Bowman, N.A. (2010). Can 1st-Year College Students Accurately Report Their Learning and Development? American Educational Research Journal. Vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 466-496, doi: 10.3102/0002831209353595

44. Conway, J.M., Lance, C.E. (2010). What Reviewers Should Expect from Authors Regarding Common Method Bias in Organizational Research. Journal of Business and Psychology . Vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 325-334, doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6

45. Zilvinskis, J., Masseria, A.A., Pike, G.R. (2017). Student Engagement and Student Learning: Examining the Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the Revised National Survey of Student Engagement. Research in Higher Education . Vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 880-903, doi: 10.1007/s11162-017-9450-6

46. Ro, H.K., Terenzini, P.T., Yin, A.C. (2013). Between-College Effects on Students Reconsidered. Research in Higher Education. Vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 253-282, doi: 10.1007/s11162-012-9269-0