The purpose of this study was to measure the relationship between High-Impact Practices (HIPs) and engagement at community colleges. The research question guiding this study was: Accounting for student background and institutional characteristics, how do student-level individual participation and institution-level average participation in HIPs relate to engagement measures of institutional practices and student behaviors at community colleges?
Methods:
Using data from 79,755 respondents to the Community College Survey of Student Engagement from 455 institutions, the relationship between HIP participation and engagement was tested via hierarchical linear modeling. This analysis measured the relationship for both student participation (student-level) and institutional average (institution-level) with three measures of engagement: academic challenge, support for learners, and student-faculty interaction.
Results:
Almost all student-level HIPs were statistically, significantly, and positively related to these measures; however, the magnitude of specific practices such as class attendance, tutoring, and service-learning held the highest practical significance. Institution-level measures held similar, positive relationships with engagement; however, these relationships were not as wide-spread across all HIPs.
Contributions:
For the last decade, researchers have related participation in high-impact practices (HIPs) to engagement among students at 4-year institutions. The same fundamental understanding for community colleges was not addressed in the literature until this research. From these results, the student-level relationships advance a fundamental understanding between HIP participation and engagement, whereas the institutional-level relationships highlight specific experiences to guide community college policy and practice. Equity concerns of underrepresented students’ participation are also presented.
AngellL. R. (2009). Construct validity of the community college survey of student engagement (CCSSE). Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 33(7), 564–570.
2.
AstinA. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.
3.
BahrP. R.ChenY.BoeckC. A.Clasing-ManquianP.CumminsP. (2025). In what institutional contexts do adult community college students prosper?Community College Review, 53(1), 105–133.
4.
BaileyT. R.JaggarsS. S.JenkinsD. (2015). Redesigning America’s community colleges: A clearer path to student success. Harvard University Press.
5.
BergB.LeeS.RandolphB.RyuM.ShapiroD. (2023). Current term enrollment estimates: Spring 2023. National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
6.
BonetG.WaltersB. R. (2016). High impact practices: Student engagement and retention. College Student Journal, 50(2), 224–235.
7.
BowmanN. A. (2011). Examining systematic errors in predictors of college student self-reported gains. In HerzogS.BowmanN. A. (Eds.), New directions for institutional research: No. 150. Validity and limitations of college student self-report data (pp. 7–20). Jossey-Bass.
8.
BrotonK. M.MohebaliM.LingoM. D. (2022). Basic needs insecurity and mental health: Community college students’ dual challenges and use of social support. Community College Review, 50(4), 456–482.
9.
BrownellJ. E.SwanerL. E. (2010). Five high impact practices: Research on learning outcomes, completion and quality. Association of American Colleges & Universities.
ButlerA.ChristofiliM. (2014). Project-based learning communities in developmental education: A case study of lessons learned. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 38(7), 638–650.
12.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2013). A matter of degrees: Engaging practices, engaging students (high-impact practices for community college student engagement). The University of Texas at Austin, Community College Leadership Program.
13.
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2014). A matter of degrees. Practices to pathways: High-impact practices for community college student success. University of Texas at Austin, Program in Higher Education Leadership.
14.
ChanH. Y.WangX. (2016). Interact for what? The relationship between interpersonal interaction based on motivation and educational outcomes among students in manufacturing programs at two-year technical colleges. Community College Review, 44(1), 26–48.
15.
ChickeringA. W.GamsonZ. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 3–7.
16.
CrispG. (2016). Promising practices and programs: Current efforts and future directions. In CrispG.HatchD. K. (Eds.), New directions for community colleges: No. 175. Promising and high-impact practices: Student success programs in the community college context (pp. 103–110). Jossey-Bass.
17.
DikaS. L.WangY.D’AmicoM. M.SerrataC.BohligE. M. (2024). A critical examination of perceptions of supportive institutional environment among transfer-seeking community college students. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 48(7), 453–470.
18.
DowdA. C.SawatzkyM.KornR. (2011). Theoretical foundations and a research agenda to validate measures of intercultural effort. Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 17–44.
19.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138.
20.
EthingtonC. A. (1997). A hierarchical linear modeling approach to studying college effects. In SmartJ. C. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (12th ed., pp. 165–194). Agathon.
FinleyA. P.McNairT. (2013). Assessing underserved students’ engagement in high-impact practices. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
23.
FongC. J.FathiZ.AdelugbaS. F.GarcíaA. J.GarzaM.PintoG. L. (2025). Belongingness moderates student mindsets’ influence among first-generation, community college students of color. Social Psychology of Education, 28(1), 1–17.
24.
GarveyJ. C.BrckaLorenzA.LatopolskiK.HurtadoS. S. (2018). High-impact practices and student–faculty interactions for students across sexual orientations. Journal of College Student Development, 59(2), 210–226.
25.
GonyeaR. M.MillerA. (2011). Clearing the air about the use of self-reported gains in institutional research. In HerzogS.BowmanN. A. (Eds.), New directions for institutional research: No. 150. Validity and limitations of college student self-report data (pp. 99–111). Jossey-Bass.
26.
HatchD. K. (2012). Unpacking the black box of student engagement: The need for programmatic investigation of high impact practices. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 36(11), 903–915.
27.
HatchD. K. (2016). A brief history and a framework for understanding commonalities and differences of community college student success programs. In CrispG.HatchD. K. (Eds.), New directions for community colleges: No. 175. Promising and high-impact practices: Student success programs in the community college context (pp. 19–31). Jossey-Bass.
28.
HatchD. K. (2017). The structure of student engagement in community college student success programs: A quantitative activity systems analysis. AERA Open, 3(4), 1–14.
29.
HatchD. K.CrispG.WesleyK. (2016). What’s in a name? The challenge and utility of defining promising and high-impact practices. In CrispG.HatchD. K. (Eds.), New directions for community colleges: No. 175. Promising and high-impact practices: Student success programs in the community college context (pp. 9–17). Jossey-Bass.
30.
HatchD. K.GarciaC. E. (2017). Academic advising and the persistence intentions of community college students in their first weeks in college. Review of Higher Education, 40(3), 353–390.
31.
HoxJ. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Lawrence Erlbaum.
32.
HurleyR. G. (2009). Formation of community college clusters using the CCSSE benchmarks for extra-large community colleges. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 16(2), 31–36.
33.
JaegerA. J.EaganM. K.Jr. (2009). Unintended consequences: Examining the effect of part-time faculty members on associate’s degree completion. Community College Review, 36(3), 167–194.
34.
JohnsonS. R.StageF. K. (2018). Academic engagement and student success: Do high-impact practices mean higher graduation rates?Journal of Higher Education, 89(5), 753–781.
35.
JonesW. A. (2013). The relationship between student body racial composition and the normative environment toward diversity at community colleges. Community College Review, 41(3), 249–265.
36.
JonesW. A. (2016). Factors correlated with the interactional diversity of community college students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(1), 81–94.
37.
KilgoC. A.Ezell SheetsJ. K.PascarellaE. T. (2015). The link between high-impact practices and student learning: Some longitudinal evidence. Higher Education, 69(4), 509–525.
38.
KilgoC. A.LinleyJ. L.RennK. A.WoodfordM. R. (2019). High-impact for whom? The influence of environment and identity on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer college students’ participation in high-impact practices. Journal of College Student Development, 60(4), 421–436.
39.
KiskerC. B.CohenA. M.BrawerF. B. (Eds.). (2023). The American community college (7th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
40.
KuhG.O’DonnellK.SchneiderC. G. (2017). HIPs at ten. Change, 49(5), 8–16.
41.
KuhG. D. (2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges & Universities.
42.
KuhG. D.CruceT. M.ShoupR.KinzieJ.GonyeaR. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 79, 540–563.
KuhG. D.O’DonnellK.ReedS. (2013). Ensuring quality and taking high-impact practices to scale. Association of American Colleges & Universities.
45.
LaiM. H. C.KwokO. M. (2015). Examining the rule of thumb of not using multilevel modeling: The “design effect smaller than two” rule. Journal of Experiential Education, 83(3), 423–438.
46.
LundbergC. A.KimY. K.AndradeL. M.BahnerD. T. (2018). High expectations, strong support: Faculty behaviors predicting Latina/o community college student learning. Journal of College Student Development, 59(1), 55–70.
47.
MaasC. J. M.HoxJ. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86–91.
48.
MartiC. N. (2008). Dimensions of student engagement in American community colleges: Using the community college student report in research and practice. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 33(1), 1–24.
49.
MartinezE. (2018). Changes, challenges, and opportunities for student services at one baccalaureate degree–granting community college. Community College Review, 46(1), 82–103.
50.
MayhewM. J.RockenbachA. N.BowmanN. A.SeifertT. A.WolniakG. C. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works. Wiley.
51.
McBrideP. E. (2019). Addressing the lack of mental health services for at-risk students at a two-year community college: A contemporary review. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 43(2), 146–148.
52.
McCarrellK.SelznickB. (2020). (Re)measuring community college student engagement: Testing a seven-factor CCSSE model. Community College Review, 48(4), 400–422.
53.
McClenneyK. M. (2004). Redefining quality in community colleges: Focusing on good educational practice. Change, 36(6), 16–21.
54.
McClenneyK. M. (2006). Benchmarking effective educational practice. In SeybertJ. A. (Ed.), New directions for community colleges: No. 134. Benchmarking: An essential tool for assessment, accountability, and improvement (pp. 47–55). Wiley.
55.
McClenneyK. M. (2007). Research update: The community college survey of student engagement. Community College Review, 35(2), 137–146.
56.
McClenneyK. M.MartiC. N. (2006). Exploring relationships between student engagement and student outcomes in community colleges: report on validation research (Working paper). Community College Survey of Student Engagement, Community College Leadership Program, University of Texas at Austin.
57.
McClenneyK. M.MartiC. N.AdkinsC. (2006). Student engagement and student outcomes: Key findings from CCSSE validation research. Community College Leadership Program, University of Texas at Austin.
58.
McCormickA. C.KinzieJ.GonyeaR. M. (2013). Student engagement: Bridging research and practice to improve the quality of undergraduate education. In M. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 47–92). Springer.
59.
McCormickA. C.McClenneyK. (2012). Will these trees ever bear fruit? A response to the special issue on student engagement. Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 307–333.
60.
MillerA. L.RocconiL. M.DumfordA. D. (2018). Focus on the finish line: Does high-impact practice participation influence career plans and early job attainment?Higher Education, 75(3), 489–506.
61.
MuseusS. D.LePeauL. A. (2023). The devil in the details: How high-impact practices can miss the mark. New Directions for Student Services, 2023(181), 7–17.
62.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Undergraduate enrollment. Condition of education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
63.
National Survey of Student Engagement. (2006). Engaged learning: fostering success for all students. Annual report 2006. ERIC Number: ED512619.
64.
NiehausE.CampbellC. M.InkelasK. K. (2014). HLM behind the curtain: Unveiling decisions behind the use and interpretation of HLM in higher education research. Research in Higher Education, 55(1), 101–122.
65.
NoraA.CrispG.MatthewsC. (2011). A reconceptualization of CCSSE’s benchmarks of student engagement. Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 105–130.
66.
NunnallyJ.BernsteinI. (Eds.). (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
67.
PaceC. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2, 10–16.
68.
ParlierT. R.RocconiL. M.SkolitsG.DavidsonC. T. (2022). The effect of learning community participation on community college students’ perceptions of learning gains and engagement. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 46(4), 272–283.
69.
PascarellaE. T.SeifertT. A.BlaichC. (2010). How effective are the NSSE benchmarks in predicting important educational outcomes?Change, 42(1), 16–22.
70.
PayneS. L.KleineK. L. M.PurcellJ.CarterG. R. (2005). Evaluating academic challenge beyond the NSSE. Innovative Higher Education, 30(2), 129–146.
71.
PikeG. R. (2013). NSSE benchmarks and institutional outcomes: A note on the importance of considering the intended uses of a measure in validity studies. Research in Higher Education, 54(2), 149–170.
72.
PikeG. R.RocconiL. M. (2012). Multilevel modeling: Presenting and publishing the results for internal and external constituents. In LottJ. L.AntonyJ. S. (Eds.), New directions for institutional research: No. 154. Multilevel modeling: Techniques and applications in institutional research (pp. 111–124). Jossey-Bass.
73.
PorterS. R. (2011). Do college student surveys have any validity?Review of Higher Education, 35(1), 45–76.
74.
QuayeS. J.HarperS. R.PendakurS. L. (Eds.) (2019). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. Routledge.
75.
RiberaA. K.MillerA. L.DumfordA. D. (2017). Sense of peer belonging and institutional acceptance in the first year: The role of high-impact practices. Journal of College Student Development, 58(4), 545–563.
76.
RomeroE. (2012). Participation in learning communities as a predictor of student success at a community college. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 20(1), 33–40.
77.
SaenzV. B.HatchD.BukoskiB. E.KimS.LeeK. H.ValdezP. (2011). Community college student engagement patterns: A typology revealed through exploratory cluster analysis. Community College Review, 39(3), 235–267.
78.
SassM. S.CollK. (2015). The effect of service learning on community college students. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 39(3), 280–288.
79.
SavageJ. S.SmithA. B. (2008). General and specific goal orientations as correlates of adult student degree completion: Lessons from the community college of the air force. Journal of College Student Retention Research Theory and Practice, 9(4), 461–485.
80.
SchuddeL. (2019). Short- and long-term impacts of engagement experiences with faculty and peers at community colleges. Review of Higher Education, 42(2), 385–426.
81.
SchuetzP. (2008a). A theory-driven model of community college student engagement. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 32(4-6), 305–324.
82.
SchuetzP. (2008b). Developing a theory-driven model of community college student engagement. In SchuetzP.BarrJ. (Eds.), New directions for community colleges: No 144. Are community colleges underprepared for underprepared students? (pp. 17–28). Wiley.
83.
SnijdersT. A.BoskerR. J. (2011). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage.
TintoV. (Ed.). (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
86.
TownsendB. K.WilsonK. B. (2009). The academic and social integration of persisting community college transfer students. Journal of College Student Retention Research Theory and Practice, 10(4), 405–423.
87.
TurnquestK. N.FanW.Snodgrass RangelV.DyerN.MasterA. (2024). Student engagement, school involvement, and transfer student success. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 79(102322), 105–133.
88.
ValentineJ.PriceD.YangH. (2021). High-impact practices and gains in student learning: Evidence from Georgia, Montana, and Wisconsin. Lumina Foundation. ERIC Number: ED611259.
89.
WangX. (2017). Toward a holistic theoretical model of momentum for community college student success. In PaulsenM. B. (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 259–308). Springer.
90.
WangX. (2024). Delivering promise: Equity-driven educational change and innovation in community and technical colleges. Harvard Education Press.
91.
WangX.WangY.WickershamK.SunN.ChanH. Y. (2017). Math requirement fulfillment and educational success of community college students: A matter of when. Community College Review, 45(2), 99–118.
92.
WangY. (2024). Advancing community college student engagement and success: Validation study of community college survey of student engagement (CCSSE). (Publication No. 31238690). [Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
93.
WolniakG. C.EngbergM. E. (2019). Do “high-impact” college experiences affect early career outcomes?Review of Higher Education, 42(3), 825–858.
ZilvinskisJ.BrotonK. M.PangburnM.SchooleyI. (2025). Unmet needs: Campus support for community college students in need of food and housing assistance. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2025(212), 125–135.
96.
ZilvinskisJ.KinzieJ.DadayJ.O’DonnellK.Vande ZandeC. (2022). Delivering on the promise of high-impact practices: Research and models for achieving equity, fidelity, impact, and scale. Stylus.
97.
ZilvinskisJ.MasseriaA. A.PikeG. 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, 58(8), 880–903.
