名古屋高等教育研究

第 7 号（2007）

Beyond Classroom Walls:
Students Out-of-class Peer Experiences and
Implications for Teaching and Learning
Kerri-Lee Krause
ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ＜Abstract＞
Students㵭 engagement with learning is closely connected to their
participation in learning communities within and beyond the classroom. This paper examines the nature of students㵭 out-of-class peer
experiences. It reports on a study of Australian undergraduate students across three year levels in a research-led university. The mostcommon reason for making contact with peers was to discuss assignments. There was a strong connection between satisfaction levels
and frequency of peer interaction. The study contributes to an understanding of the changing nature of the student experience beyond
formal classroom contexts. The paper concludes by considering implications for teaching and learning in higher education.

1．Introduction
Students㵭 engagement with learning in higher education is an issue ofgrowing research interest internationally, and at the national and institutional levels in many countries. The United States has led the way in thisregard through the well established National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE, 2005). However, other nations, including Australia (seefor example Krause et al., 2005) are now developing their own context-specific approaches for investigating this important dimension of the

Director and Professor, Griffith Institute of Higher Education, Griffith
University, Australia

301

undergraduate student experience.
Engagement with learning results from a combination of factors including classroom experiences, coursework and curricular patterns, andout-of-class experiences (Terenzini & Reason, 2005). While classroom
experiences and coursework patterns are relatively easy to observe anddocument, students㵭 out-of-class experiences pose a greater challenge forthe higher education researcher. This paper reports on a study of commuter students㵭 out-of-class peer experiences across three year levels in
one academic department of a public research-led university in Australia. 

2．Student engagement and learning communities
Kuh (2003) defines engagement as active participation in activities that
promote student learning, including time-on-task, collaborative learningand interaction with faculty. However, as the character of the so-called 㵬Y
Generation㵭 (Krause, 2005b) of the 21st century emerges, so our understanding of the changing nature of student engagement with university
must evolve to take account of the increasingly complex nature of student
commitments and priorities. Student engagement with higher learning
appears to be in a state of flux. In Australia, undergraduate students 㵨
predominantly commuter students 㵨 are typically spending less time on
university campuses (Krause et al., 2005). Similar trends are evident internationally. Across the US, the average first year student reports
spending less time studying per week (HERI, 2002; see also NSSE, 2005;
Sax et al., 2002); while in the UK, students are spending less time on
campus and on their studies (see for example, Macdonald, 2001; Tangney &Pugh, 2002).
The time and energy students devote to educationally purposeful activities is the single best predictor of their learning and personal development (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Learning communities
are pivotal to fostering such activities. In learning communities, students
build networks with peers which provide both academic and social support(Tinto, Love & Russo, 1993). However, as King and Wooten (2003) note,
there are several obstacles to building community, particularly on com-302

Beyond classroom walls: Students㵭 out-of-class peer experiences and implications for teaching and learningmuter campuses which are the norm in the Australian higher education,and in many other countries, including the UK and Japan. These obstacles
include: the time required to build community; the increasing diversity andfragmentation of the student population (Levine, 1998); the growing use of
information and communication technologies (ICTs) which can lead toisolationism and individualism; student pragmatism and a career focus
which makes them question spending time on anything but the essentials
of study and assignments; and the apparent apathy of the Y Generation
which results in fewer students taking part in campus-based activities.

3．Out-of-class experiences in higher education
Traditionally, out-of-class experiences have been defined as taking place
within an institutional context, relating to students㵭 academic endeavours,
and contributing to student learning outcomes (Terenzini et al., 1995).
Out-of-class experiences span diverse contexts including formal andinformal interaction with peers and faculty, involvement in campus cultural, sporting and social events and co-curricular activities such as orientation events and programs. They include intangible elements such as
the culture of a campus or faculty and the hidden curriculum evident in
the values of an institution.
Positive out-of-class experiences promote student engagement and integration in higher education, enhancing satisfaction and retention (Light,
2001; Tinto, 1993). A significant determinant of the quality of the student
experience is the extent and nature of peer interactions with the learning
community.

4．Peers in the university learning experience
Peer interaction is a key to the success and dynamic nature of learning
communities (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Social interaction
with peers is positively related to the quality of student effort and in turn,satisfaction, learning and persistence (Krause, 2005a; Tinto, 1993). Students
who fail to find their niche in their university㵭s social and academic303

system tend to have low levels of institutional commitment and degreecompletion (Astin, 1993). Involvement with peers is a significant factor inperceived institutional and peer support and a positive predictor of involvement with faculty (Milem & Berger, 1997). In the first year experience, particularly, friendship networks are a key to successful adjustment(Krause & Duchesne, 2000).
There are many opportunities for peer interaction and collaboration in
university learning environments, yet it seems that a surprisingly large
proportion of students do not take advantage of them. A recent national
trend study of first year students in Australian universities found thatover two-thirds of students hardly ever, or never, work with other students on areas of study where they have problems, while fewer than half(40%) regularly spend time discussing subject-related issues with peers(Krause et al., 2005).

5．ICTs and the changing nature of social interactions
A significant force shaping social interactions on university campuses isthat of ICTs. These include mobile technologies, such as mobile phones or
ipods, laptop computers, wireless internet access, and online discussion.
These forms of media and communication have the potential to transformthe face of teaching and learning in higher education, and in some cases,
this is already taking place (see for example, Krause, 2004a, 2004b,
forthcoming; Kuh & Vesper, 2001; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998).
Computer-mediated communication (CMC) comes in several forms, themost commonly used of which are email and, to a lesser extent, bulletinboards or online discussion fora in educational settings (Krause et al., 2005).
While the benefits of ICTs and CMC are widely acknowledged (Chin &Carroll, 2000), there appears to be a gulf between the possibilities and thepractical realities in terms of student usage of them. For example, Krause
et al. (2005) found that more than half of Australian first year undergraduates (56%) had not participated in course-related online discussion
groups. Closer study of the types of technologies students use and theirimpact on the quality of learning and interactions is warranted.

304

Beyond classroom walls: Students㵭 out-of-class peer experiences and implications for teaching and learning

Compelling evidence points to the changing nature of student engagement (Yorke, 2003) and the student experience (Krause, 2005b). Given
the demonstrated increase in students㵭 off-campus commitments and theimportance of social interaction in fostering a sense of belonging to thelearning community, this study investigates the frequency and nature ofundergraduate students㵭 peer interactions in the changing higher education context.

6．Method
6.1

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study is drawn from the widely
acknowledged college impact research in the United States (e.g., Astin,
1993; Kuh & Vesper, 1997; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998, 2005), along withextensive national research data on the university experience in Australia.
The framework for the study is based on the conceptual model of Terenzini and Reason (2005) depicting the reciprocal relationships between
students㵭 classroom experiences, their coursework and curricular patterns and out-of-class experiences in the institutional context. The model
also proposes that students㵭 pre-college/university traits have a direct
bearing on each of these variables, which in turn affect learning outcomes.
6.2

Participants

All undergraduate students in a single academic department of a large
Australian research-led public university were surveyed. The department
falls into the broad disciplinary category of humanities and social sciences.
In light of the importance Terenzini and Reason (2005) attach tocoursework and curriculum patterns, the sample was chosen on thepremise that it represents a relatively cohesive learning community inwhich students move through a three-year degree in cohort groups withina tightly structured coursework program. At the time of data collection,
coursework in this department was offered in traditional face-to-face mode,with all students required to attend weekly on-campus lectures and tutorials. The online components of the coursework were either supple-

305

mentary lecture materials available on the web, or communication facilities such as discussion fora and email. No subjects were delivered solely
online.
The sample comprised a greater proportion of males (57%) than females(43%) with ages ranging from 17 to 47 years (mean age 21 years). Only six
per cent were non-traditional age students (that is, older than 25 years).
The majority were enrolled full time (96%) and were commuter students(94%). Approximately one third of the sample were international students(predominantly south-east Asian), for whom English is a second language.
First year students comprised 38 per cent of the sample. One quarter(25%) of students were in their second year of study, and third (final) year
students made up 37 per cent of the group. Further details of the sample
are presented in Table 1.
Table 1

Sample demographics

GenderAge

Male

FemaleTraditional

Non-

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

Traditional

Total

279

209

461

27

Sample

(57%)

(43%)

(94%)

(6%)

n (%)

Home Location

Study Mode

International

Local

Full-timePart-time

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

Total

160

328

468

20

Sample

(33%)

(67%)

(96%)

(4%)

6.3

Design, Procedure and Analysis

A paper survey was distributed to all students across three undergraduate year levels (Years 1 to 3), attending lectures in the department
early in Semester 2 of the academic year. The survey comprised mainly
closed Likert-type items, with two open-ended questions at the end. It

306

Beyond classroom walls: Students㵭 out-of-class peer experiences and implications for teaching and learning

included items on: i. demographic background; ii. part-time paid workcommitments; iii. attitudes to and perceptions of university experience;and iv. the extent and nature of out-of-class peer interactions. Students
completed the survey in approximately 10 minutes during nominatedlectures and 488 were returned. Approximately two-thirds of all undergraduate students in the department were present at the lectures and the
response rate among those in attendance was extremely high 㵨 100 per
cent in some cases.
Quantitative data were analysed using SPSS software. After collating
descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations were undertaken. Independentt-tests and chi-square tests were conducted to determine significancelevels of relationships between nominated variables. All significance levels
are reported at p<0.01. Qualitative data collected via the two open-ended
questions are not reported in this paper.

7．Results and Discussion
7.1

Interacting with peers in the learning community

Across the three year groups sampled, the most common form of peerinteraction was to discuss assignments with peers. A substantial majority(81%) of all students had contact with peers for this purpose on a daily or
weekly basis. The majority of students (64%) met with peers socially atleast weekly. This included chatting over coffee or lunch, or meeting in an
extracurricular club setting. Such engagement with the learning community in both academic and social activities is much more apparent inthis sample of students than it is at the national level in Australian universities (see Krause et al., 2005). Reasons for this may include the strong
cohort effect and the nature of collaborative assignments within thisdepartment, though there may be other explanations. Additional forms ofpeer interaction are shown in Table 2, in order of frequency of occurrence.

307

Table 2

Forms of peer interaction in order of frequency of occurrence(expressed as a percentage of total sample)

Form of interaction

Percentage of students

Percentage of students

who

who

interact daily or weekly

never interact in thisDiscussing an assignment

81%

2%

Meeting socially with peers in the course

64%

8%

Collaborating on a project

62%

5%

Working on a course area where I have

way

41%

12%

bl
Borrowing course materials from friends

34%

15%

Studying for a test or exam

27%

16%

Emailing another student about the course

10%

50%

Using online discussion groups in the course

8%

72%

7.2

Peer interactions and student satisfaction

Several significant interrelationships emerged between students㵭 attitudes and perceptions and the extent and nature of their peer interactions. There was a statistically significant relationship between the frequency of out-of-class peer interactions and student satisfaction with their
university experience and enjoyment of their course overall. Students whointeracted with peers regularly were more likely to report positive perceptions of their ability to cope with their study load and to balance study
with other aspects of their life, including paid work off campus.
Those students reporting the greatest level of satisfaction with theiracademic progress were typically the ones interacting with peers mostfrequently and for an array or reasons, including academic 㵨 studying fora test or exam, discussing an assignment, collaborating on a project, andmeeting socially. Those least satisfied with their academic progress weresignificantly more likely to restrict their peer interactions to borrowing
course materials from friends.
Students were asked to indicate how satisfied they felt with how they
were balancing study with other aspects of their lives, such as paid work,

308

Beyond classroom walls: Students㵭 out-of-class peer experiences and implications for teaching and learning

sport, and household commitments. Those indicating the highest levels ofsatisfaction in this area reported engaging with peers, both socially andacademically, more frequently than their less satisfied classmates. In otherwords, they met socially with peers in their course and discussed assignments significantly more often than their peers. Notably, the students
most satisfied with their ability to balance commitments were also theones who used email and online discussions more than other students inthe course.
On the other hand, students who felt under pressure in their course
most of the time typically socialised with peers in their course least often.
They also had a greater tendency to borrow course materials from friends.
These students㵭 peer interactions were limited to working on a course
area where they had problems, or studying for tests or exams with peers.
The data depict two patterns of interaction which are closely related to
students㵭 sense of coping and satisfaction with their study and the place it
occupies in their lives. Students who feel under pressure typically restrict
out-of-class peer interactions to task-focussed activities. They demonstratea 㵰just-in-time㵱 mentality which, while accomplishing short-term academic
goals, such as studying for a test or solving a course-related problem, does
not necessarily foster satisfying longer-term learning experiences. Students indicating higher levels of satisfaction with their academic progress
and their ability to manage study and other dimensions of their lives,
typically interact with peers in a combination of social and academic
contexts. They demonstrate a 㵰just-in-case㵱 approach, building up social
networks beyond the short-term academic tasks. Such an approach is
positively associated with developing a greater sense of belonging in thelearning community.
7.3

Group differences in peer interactions

Year group differences
Year group cohorts are a feature of the degree structure in this academic department. First year students collaborated significantly morewith peers on projects, and consulted with peers about course-related309

problems significantly more than their second and third (final) year
counterparts. Second year students participated significantly less than did
other year groups in peer collaboration on projects, and they consulted
less frequently with peers when they encountered course difficulties.
Students in their second year of study also studied less with peers thanfirst and third years, and participated less in the use of computer-mediatedcommunication (CMC). Yet they met socially somewhat more than theirfirst and third year counterparts. A summary of year group differences inpeer interaction among this sample is presented in Figure 1. The 㵰second
year slump㵱 phenomenon is a noteworthy one, pointing to the uniqueexperiences and needs of students in their second year of university study(see Schreiner & Pattengale, 2000).
Figure 1.

Year level differences in peer interaction
Year Group Differences

100
90
80
70
60

Year 150

Year 240

Year 330
20
100
study for collaborate discuss
test/exam on project* assignment

work onproblem
area*

email
student incourseonlinediscussion

borrowmaterials

meetsocially* indicates significant difference (p<0.01) between first years (significantly more) andthe rest of the sample, and between second years (significantly less) and the sample.

Gender differences
There were no significant gender differences in the ways students in-310Beyond classroom walls: Students㵭 out-of-class peer experiences and implications for teaching and learning

teracted with their peers, however some trends are evident. Males tended
to work with peers on task-specific areas such as studying for a test,
working on a project or discussing assignments. Females on the other
hand typically approached peers more frequently when they hadcourse-related problems or when they needed to borrow course materials.
Females also socialised slightly more than males. In terms of CMC, males
used email somewhat more than females, while the reverse was true in thecase of online discussion groups.
Achievement level differences
There was a significant statistical relationship between achievement
and the way students related to peers in their course. Those in the mid tohigh achievement bands (i.e., with a course average of 71-80%), typicallycollaborated with peers and discussed assignments and course-related
problems more frequently than did students with lower achievementscores, regardless of year level. Conversely, those scoring below average
grades in the course tended to discuss assignment-related issues significantly less than did their peers across all year levels.
Terenzini et al. (1995) commented on the need for closer investigation of
the kinds of social interactions which proved educationally beneficial forlearners in higher education. These findings go some way towards highlighting the value of time spent interacting with peers in course-related
discussions.
International and local student differences
International students made up just over one third of the total sample,
reflecting the national trend. The majority of these students were fromsouth-east Asian countries and English was not their native language.
Table 3 summarises key differences between the peer interactions ofinternational and domestic Australian students in the sample. In thisdepartment, international students sought out peers, to discuss course
areas where they were encountering difficulties, significantly more thanlocal students, yet they met socially with classmates significantly less thantheir peers. International students typically made greater use of CMC on a311

regular basis. They also tended to study with peers for tests and exams,
and borrowed course materials more than their local peers. This investigation did not examine whether these interactions were predominantlywith other international students, but this will be the subject of future
investigations. Broadly, the international students in this sample typicallyengaged with peers in task-focussed academic activities, rather than insocial settings. These differences in demographic subgroup peer interactions align with Tierney㵭s (1992) findings regarding the role of culturaldifferences in students㵭 social interactions. Krause et al. (2005) expressed
concern at the apparently lower level of social integration of international
compared to local students in a national first year sample. The integrationof international students into university learning communities has becomea priority in many Australian institutions.
Table 3

International and local student differences in peer interaction(expressed as a percentage of international (n=163) and local (n=325) sample respectively)
Form of interaction% of international students
who interact daily or weekly% of local students whointeract

daily

or

weeklyStudying for a test or exam

29%

26%

Collaborating on a project

61%

62%

Discussing an assignment

77%

83%

Working on a course area where I have

54%

36%*

Emailing another student about the course

12%

9%

Using online discussion groups in the course

9%7%

Borrowing course materials from friends

39%

31%

Meeting socially

53%

69%**

*indicates significant difference (p<0.01) and ** (p<0.05) between international and local sample

7.4

Differences in use of computer-mediated communication (CMC)

Computer-mediated forms of communication did not feature strongly as

312Beyond classroom walls: Students㵭 out-of-class peer experiences and implications for teaching and learninga means of interaction among students in this sample. There was little
evidence of students interacting online for discussion purposes, or via
email. A large proportion (72%) of students surveyed had never engaged in
online discussion groups for academic purposes, while half had neveremailed another student about their course. First year students who were
19 years or younger (that is, recent school graduates) reported using online
discussion groups to collaborate significantly more than did students inother age groups. This is consistent with the increasing familiarity withand widespread use of ICTs in school learning contexts from which theseyoung people come (see Prensky, 2001).
A significant relationship was found between use of CMC and student
achievement. Those with university entrance scores in the lower
achievement bands used email to correspond with peers in their course
significantly more than did higher achievers. One reason for this includes
the anonymity afforded by electronic forms of communication. It is acknowledged that CMCs provide a 㵰safe㵱 vehicle for communicating withfaculty and peers, particularly when students feel nervous or insecure
about asking questions or contributing in face-to-face group contexts(Krause & Duchesne, 2000). In particular, students with lower achievementlevels may feel insecure and lack confidence in the presence of their peers
and/or teachers. CMC can provide an avenue of communication that may
build these students㵭 confidence and encourage them to contribute to andparticipate more fully in the learning community (Gatz & Hirt, 2000).
Notably, students who felt most overwhelmed by their study workload
tended to use electronic forms of communication in the form of email andonline discussion more - and to meet socially with peers less frequently than peers who felt they were coping with the workload. Conversely, thosemost satisfied with how they were coping with their subject load in thecourse typically reported more frequent face-to-face socialising withclassmates, and less frequent email and online discussion activity withpeers than those who felt they were not coping well. While these patterns
need to be explored more fully, they contribute to the growing debate
regarding the limitations of CMC as a poor substitute for face-to-face interactions (Krause, forthcoming). Those who feel they are coping best with313

their studies appear to capitalise on opportunities for face-to-face social
engagement. Students who report being overwhelmed with their study
workload may use online communication for a number of reasons, including perceived lack of time or feelings of intellectual or social inadequacy within their peer group. While online communication serves animportant purpose, it should be seen as only one of a raft of communication
forms, rather than as a substitute for students engaging with peers
face-to-face.

8．Implications and Future Directions
Two key implications for teaching and learning are proposed as a resultof this study. First is the need to develop community through interactivity
in the classroom. This may be accomplished through active learningtechniques, group assignments, or teamwork, to name a few. Interactivity
must extend beyond the classroom walls to online environments. Faculty
may explore the possibilities of communication via online discussion,
podcasting, text messaging, blogs and the like. The technology promises
much, but is a useless tool unless faculty develop skills to harness its
power (Kirkwood & Price, 2005). Mann (2005) draws attention to the importance of dialogue and communication in the learning environment,
between learner and learner, and between learner and teacher. She contends that faculty need to be more aware of students㵭 desires, interestsand fears, as well as their current approaches to study and learning, andtheir experience of learning as a whole. This requires a keen awareness of
how students live their lives beyond the classroom.
A second implication of this study pertains to the need to engage andstimulate students intellectually within the learning community. The
importance of intellectual stimulation as part of the integration process iswell established (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). While peer interaction is
one vehicle towards this end, engagement with the broader researchcommunity is another. We are yet to fully explore the avenues for connecting students with research and research communities from early intheir first year (Krause, 2005c, see also Vest, 2005). Connecting students to314

Beyond classroom walls: Students㵭 out-of-class peer experiences and implications for teaching and learning

the research community enriches their intellectual experience and provides them with a sense of belonging to an intellectual research community including faculty, fellow students and a broader disciplinary community of researchers worldwide.
This study is limited by the fact that it represents the experiences ofundergraduate students in a single department of one Australian university. Caution is also needed in interpreting results from the point ofview of frequency counts alone. The extent to which students engage in aparticular form of interaction does not necessarily equate with quality.
Nevertheless the results point to the value of investigating the variable
nature of students㵭 peer experiences across year levels and groups, andbeyond the classroom.

References
Astin, A., 1993, What matters in college?

Four critical years revisited, San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chin, G., & Carroll, J. M., 2000, 㵰Articulating collaboration in a learning
community㵱, Behaviour and Information Technology, 19(4): 233-45.
Gatz, L. B., & Hirt, J. B., 2000, 㵰Academic and social integration in cyberspace:
Students and e-mail㵱, The Review of Higher Education, 23(3): 299-318.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI), 2002, The American Freshman: Na-tional Norms for Fall 2001 (http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/heri.htm)
King, N. S., & Wooten, B. M., 2003, 㵰Building community on a commuter
campus㵱, T. L. Skipper & R. Argo (Eds.), Involvement in campus activities
and the retention of first-year college students , Monograph 36: 51-62,
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for
The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Kirkwood, A., & Price, L., 2005, 㵰Learners and learning in the twenty-first
century: What do we know about students㵭 attitudes towards and experiences of information and communication technologies that will help us design courses?㵱, Studies in Higher Education, 30(3): 257-74.
Krause, K. (forthcoming), 㵰E-learning and the e-generation: The changing faceof higher education in the 21st Century㵱, J. Lockard & M. Pegrum (Eds.),

Brave new classrooms: Educational democracy and the internet, New York:315

Peter Lang Publishing. (expected March 2006)
Krause, K., 2005a, "Serious thoughts about dropping out in first year: Trends,
patterns and implications for higher education. Studies in Learning,

Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 2(3): 55-67.
(http://sleid.cqu.edu.au/)
Krause, K., 2005b, The changing student experience: Who's driving it andwhere is it going? Keynote presented at the Student Experience Conference, Charles Sturt University, NSW, 5-7 September 2005.
(http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/Krause.html)
Krause, K., 2005c, The changing face of the first year: Challenges for policy andpractice in research-led universities. Keynote presented at the University of
Queensland Annual Teaching and Learning Week, First Year Forum.
University of Queensland, QLD, 31 Oct 2005.
(http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/Krause.html)
Krause, K., 2004a, Online learning experiences: Implications for quality

learning and teaching in higher education, Association for the Study ofHigher Education Conference, 2-7 November, Kansas City, USA.
Krause, K., 2004b, e-Education and the changing student experience: Policy

implications. Paper accepted for the International Conference on Computersin Education, Nov 30-Dec 3, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia.
Krause, K., & Duchesne, S., 2000, With a little help from my friends: Social

interactions on campus and their role in the first year experience. Paper
presented at the Fourth Pacific Rim Conference: First Year in Higher
Education – Creating futures for a new millennium, 5-7 July, Brisbane,
Australia.
Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C., 2005, The first year experiencein Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies.
Canberra: Australian Department of Education, Science and Training.
Kuh, G., 2003, What we’re learning about student engagement from
NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices, Change 35.
Kuh, G. D., & Vesper, N., 1997, “A comparison of student experiences with goodpractices in undergraduate education between 1990 and 1994”, The Review

of Higher Education, 21: 43-61.
Kuh, G.D., & Vesper, N., 2001, 㵰Do computers enhance or detract from student
learning? 㵰, Research in Higher Education, 42: 87-102.
Levine, A., 1998, When hope and fear collide, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Light, R. J., 2001, Making the most of college: Students speak their minds,

316

Beyond classroom walls: Students㵭 out-of-class peer experiences and implications for teaching and learning

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Macdonald, D., 2001, The debt trap. Guardian Unlimited.
(http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/story/0,9860,547840,00.html)
Mann, S. J., 2005, 㵰Alienation in the learning environment: A failure of community?㵱, Studies in Higher Education, 30(1): 43-55.
Milem, J. F., & Berger, J. B., 1997, 㵰A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring the relationship between Astin㵭s theory of involvement
and Tinto㵭s theory of student departure㵱, Journal of College Student De-

velopment, 38(4): 387-400.
National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), 2005, Exploring different

dimensions of student engagement: 2005 Annual Survey Results, Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P., 2005, How college affects students, Vol.2., San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P., 1998, 㵰Studying college students in the 21st
century: Meeting new challenges㵱, The Review of Higher Education, 21(2),151-65.
Prensky, M., 2001, 㵰Digital natives, digital immigrants㵱, On the Horizon, 9(5).
(http://www.rutherfordschools.org/rhs/social/hermitagefiles/Prensky1.pdf)
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., Keup, J. R., Bryant, A. N., & Plecha, M., 2002,
㵰Findings from the 2001 pilot administration of Your First College Year(YFCY): National norms㵱, Higher Education Research Institute, Universityof California, Los Angeles.
(http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/yfcy/yfcy̲report̲02.pdf)
Schreiner, L. A., & Pattengale, J. (Eds.), 2000, Visible solutions for invisible

students: Helping sophomores succeed (Monograph NO. 31), Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year
Experience and Students in Transition.
Tangney, S., & Pugh, R., 2002, Term time employment and its impact on

student learning. (http://www.agcas.org.uk/publications/phoenix/summer̲2002/
term̲time̲employment.htm)
Terenzini, P., & Reason, R., 2005, Parsing the first year of college: A conceptual

framework for rethinking college impacts. Paper presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education, November 19, 2005, Philadelphia, PA.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A., 1995, 㵰Influences
affecting the development of students' critical thinking skills㵱, Research inHigher Education, 36:: 23-39.

317

Tierney, W. G., 1992, 㵰An anthropological analysis of student participation incollege㵱, Journal of Higher Education, 63(6): 603-18.
Tinto, V., 1993, Leaving college: Rethinking causes and cures of student at-trition (2nd ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V., Love, A. G., & Russo, P., 1993, 㵰Building community㵱, Liberal learning,
79(4): 32-5.
Vest, C. M., 2005, Pursuing the endless frontier: Essays on MIT and the role ofresearch universities. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Yorke, M., 2003, Transition into higher education: Some implications for the㵬employability agenda㵭. Liverpool John Moores University: Learning andTeaching Support Network Generic Centre.
Acknowledgments
Thank you to Malcolm Anderson and Cindy Welle for assistance with data
analysis. Some of these data have appeared in papers presented at the SRHE
(2002) and ASHE (2003) conferences.

318

教室の壁を越えて−学生の課外体験が教育・学習にもたらす意味−
ケリー・リー・クラウズ

ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ᴾ ＜要旨＞

学生の学習への取り組みは、教室の内外における学習コミュニティ
への参加と大きく結びついている。本稿は授業時間外における学生間
コミュニケーションの特徴について検討する。その内容は、オースト
ラリアの研究大学の学部３年生を対象に実施した調査結果に基づく。
学生間コミュニケーションの動機として最も一般的なのは、授業の課
題について話し合うことであった。大学での学習・生活に対する満足度とコミュニケーションの頻度には大きな関連性がある。考察の結果、教室空間の外側で学生の学習経験に変化が起こりつつあることが明らかとなった。最後に、この変化が大学の教育・学習にもたらす意味
について結論をまとめる。

オーストラリア グリフィス大学高等教育研究所長

319