Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ACT Enrollment Planners Conference, Chicago, IL July 20, 2006
A Roadmap for Meeting Institutional Retention Goals & Helping More Students Succeed
UMR STUDENT RETENTIONStatus in Fall Semester After One Year
70
75
80
85
90
Year
Perc
ent S
till E
nrol
led
UMR Graduation Rates 2000 2005
General Student Body: 52% 64%
UMR Succeeding at Student Success
• Retention Rates 2000
2005– General Student Body: 82% 87% – Female Students: 88% 88%– Minority Students: 94% 92%– CAMPUS GOAL: N/A 90%
• Graduation Rates 2000 2005
– General Student Body: 52% 64% – Female Students: 66% 71%– Minority Students: 41% 73%– CAMPUS GOAL: N/A 70%
Background on Building the Student Retention and
Graduation Plan
Executive Primer on Student Persistence and Retention
• Retention rates commonly measure the percentage of freshmen that re-enroll the next academic year as sophomores. The primary reason that retention rates, along with graduation rates, are important is that retention rates are perceived as indicators of academic quality and student success.
• In addition to retention, persistence, a student's continuation behavior leading to a desired goal, helps describe processes related to student goal achievement.
• Generalizations about retention can be misleading because each school is dynamically unique in terms of academic emphasis and culture. Retention issues can be further complicated because of the necessity to understand students' educational goals in assessing whether leaving school is a negative or positive decision.
ADAPTED FROM: DANA Center Retention Report, 1998
How to Start a Retention Roadmap: Appoint Campus Champions and Set Goals
ACT’s 2006 Retention Recommendations: “colleges (should) create a structured,
comprehensive retention program geared to assist students as they make the transition to college life.”
1. Designate a visible, senior-level individual on campus to coordinate retention activities.
2. Analyze student characteristics and needs and then implement a formal retention program that best meets those needs and the needs of the institution.
3. Take an integrated approach to retention efforts that incorporates both academic and non-academic factors.
4. Implement an early-alert assessment and monitoring system to identify students at risk of dropping out.
SOURCE: ACT Retention Research Report, 2006 http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/college_retention.pdf
1. Typically four-year schools have higher retention rates than do two-year schools.
2. In general, studies indicate that financial aid helps increase persistence for students who need and receive financial aid.
3. Studies indicate that certain student populations, such as older students, African Americans and Hispanics, students who work more than 30 hours weekly, and first generation college students often have persistence problems.
4. According to research studies, a few factors that influence persistence include the intent to persist, institutional and student commitment, college grades, high school academic experience, and social and academic integration.
5. Schools can improve retention rates by more accurately determining when and why students withdraw. Having more up-to-date information could help administrators determine better strategies for increasing retention rates.
6. Recommend increasing retention rates by encouraging schools to develop and implement their unique retention plans and by strengthening freshmen-year instruction.
DANA CENTER RETENTION REPORT, 1998
Management Guidelines for Improving Retention
1. Develop a database. Find out who stays and leaves. 2. Do not treat all students alike. 3. Make sure students have the skills and abilities
necessary to do the academic work. 4. Provide curriculum students want. 5. Understand support—psychological, emotional, and
financial; when the support is lacking or withdrawn, attrition will likely increase.
6. Admit students who are likely to fit and help them adjust.
7. Make everyone aware of the importance of attitudes toward school in influencing retention.
8. Provide activities to enhance students' loyalty to the institution.
SOURCE: Bean and Hossler, 1990
How Did We Do It?
What is UMR?
• A Top 50 Technological Research University• +5600 students: 4300 Undergrad, 1300 Graduate• 90% majoring in Engineering, Science, Comp. Sci.• Ave. Student ACT/SAT: upper 8-10% in nation• +40% of Freshmen from upper 10% of HS class• 24% Out of State Enrollment• 96% 5 Year Average Placement Rate within 3
months of Grad• Ave. Starting Salary in 2005: $49,300
Undergraduate Demographics• Average Age: 21.6 years old
• Gender: – 23% Female– 77% Male
• First Generation College Students:
– 2005-06: 37%
• Residency:– Missouri Residents: 76%– Out-State Students: 24%
• Ethnicity: – African-American: 4% – Asian-American: 3% – Caucasian: 83% – Hispanic: 2% – Native-American: 1% – Non-resident, International: 2%– Not Disclosed: 5%
UMR's Academic Major Distribution
by Headcount
Engineering Majors, 73%
Arts & Science
Majors, 22%
Management & Business Majors, 5%
Engineering Majors
Arts & ScienceMajors
Management &Business Majors
Technological Institutions: Enrollment Mix
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
% Engineering, Business, Science & Math Enrollment
% E
ng
ine
eri
ng
En
rollm
en
t
UMR
Stevens
Cal Tech
Col. Sch. Mines
Georgia Tech
Michigan TechWorcester
RPI
MIT
S.D. Mines
N.M. Mining
Technological Institutions
Mizzou
"On the bubble"
Science / Tech. Based Comprehensive
Brooklyn Poly
IIT
DrexelCarnegie Mellon
Michigan
N.C.State
Iowa State
NJIT
Case Western
VT
Purdue
Texas Tech
RIT
Lehigh
LT
Life as an Outlier
UMR ENROLLMENT
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
Fall
Tota
l Num
ber
of Stu
den
ts
On - Campus Other Programs
Other Programs 308 314 227 355 412 456 476 471 501 600
On - Campus 4,719 4,673 4,517 4,393 4,575 4,848 4,983 4,936 5,101 5,400
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20052006 Goal
Expecting 3rd Largest Class in UMR History Fall 2006: +970
Full-time, First-time, Degree Seeking Freshmen
787 784 807 779693 721 680 674 715
815897 877 914
0
450
900
93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 4 5
Enrollment by Academic Quality
Average ACT Composite Score by Year: 1990 - 2005 First-time Freshmen
2021222324252627282930
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Year
Avera
ge A
CT S
core
Series1 Series2
UMR’s Key Performance Indicators and Instruments for Retention Audit
• Freshmen to sophomore persistence rate• Six-year graduation rate• Students leaving identified on early warning system• Withdraw surveys & interviews• Non-returning follow-up telephone surveys• Freshman academic profile, specifically GPA,
course work completed, and ACT/SAT scores.• Student satisfaction levels • Faculty evaluations• Stop-out Rate: Students who withdraw and return
SOURCE: UMR Retention Committee and Enrollment Development Team Recommendations, 2000-2002
BENCHMARKING:
Did UMR Have a Retention Problem?
UMR Compared to National Data• UMR: 13% “drop out” rate after the first year• 23.8% “drop out” rate for public Ph.D. granting institutions
(July 2001 ACT National Collegiate Dropout and Graduation Rates report)
• 18.6% “drop out” rate for “selective” institutions (average ACT 22-27) (July 2001 ACT National Collegiate Dropout and Graduation Rates report)
• 31% of all students enrolled in science, mathematics, engineering and technology either transferred to a non-SMET degree or dropped out of school completely. (September 2001 Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis)
• 13.4% of students at the participating institutions ranked as highly selective (ACT>24) dropped out. This number is lower than UMR’s dropout rate. (September 2001 Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis)
UPDATE Percentage of First-Year Students at Four-Year Colleges Who Return for Second Year
No. of Institutions*
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Public 505 70.7 70.4 70.7 71.4 71.7 71.6 71.9 71.7 71.4 71.0 71.4 71.2 71.9 72.1 71.9
Private 1135 75.7 76.2 76.4 76.2 76.2 76.2 76.0 75.2 74.8 74.1 74.1 74.7 75.1 75.1 74.9
All 1640 74.2 74.5 74.7 74.8 74.9 74.8 74.8 74.1 73.8 73.1 73.3 73.6 74.1 74.2 74.1
UPDATE Percentage of Students at Four-Year Colleges Earning a Degree Within Five Years of High School Graduation
No. of Institutions*
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Public 457 48.5 48.0 48.2 47.9 46.6 46.7 46.3 45.6 46.1 44.6 44.2 42.9 42.2 41.9 41.9
Private 994 58.4 58.1 58.0 57.8 57.7 57.6 57.7 57.2 57.5 57.1 56.6 56.2 55.8 55.5 55.1
All 1451 55.5 55.2 55.1 54.9 54.4 54.4 54.3 53.7 54.0 53.3 52.8 52.1 51.6 51.2 50.9
INSTITUTIONAL REASEARCH TRACKING
Who is leaving?
Full-time, Degree Seeking FreshmenRetention after One and Six years
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
Status in Fall Semester After One Year
Stayed (%) 80 78 78 80 79 83 84 83 83 84 83 85 87
Left (%) 20 22 22 20 21 17 16 17 17 16 17 15 13
Status in Fall Semester After Six Years
Degree (%) 55 55 52 57 55 60 63 64
Still here (%) 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 4
Left (%) 41 41 43 39 41 38 34 32
Full-time, Degree Seeking Freshmen Retention after One year
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
Per
centa
ge
of S
tuden
ts
Stayed
Left
Full-time, Degree Seeking Freshmen Retention after Six years
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Per
centa
ge
of S
tuden
ts
Degree
Still here
Left
First-time freshmen statistics
First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)
FS97 FS98 FS99 FS00 FS01 FS02 FS03 FS04
Count 693 721 680 674 693 788 871 839
HS GPA
Not tracked
Not tracked
3.52 3.53 3.46 3.48 3.55 3.59
% Rank 84.6 84.5 83.6 83.4 80.5 80.3 80.8 80.9
ACT 28.2 28.0 27.7 27.3 26.8 27.3 27.2 27.1
UMRGPA
2.88 2.87 2.88 2.90 2.91 3.03 N/A N/A
NOTE: Fewer high schools are providing class rankings. % Rank reflects the class rank % of students from high schools providing a class rank.
Comparison: Stayed and LeftFirst-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)
FS97 FS98 FS99 FS00 FS01 FS02 FS03 FS04
Status Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left
Count 576 117 607 114 562 118 557 117 584 109 652 136 737 134 733 106
% 83.1% 16.9 84.2 15.8 82.6 17.4 82.6 17.4 84.3 15.7 82.7 17.3 84.6 15.4 87.4 12.6
HS GPA
Not tracked Not tracked 3.56 3.32 3.57 3.34 3.5 3.25 3.52 3.27 3.59 3.35 3.62 3.41
% Rank
85.9 78.2 85.9 76.8 85.1 76.5 84.7 76.8 82.1 71.6 81.5 74.0 82.4 71.9 82.0 73.7
ACT 28.4 27.1 28.1 27.4 28 26.2 27.4 26.8 27.1 25.3 27.5 26.5 27.4 26.3 27.2 26.2
UMRGPA
3.01 2.22 2.98 2.26 3.02 2.21 3.03 2.26 3.04 2.18 3.16 2.41 3.21 2.35 3.26 2.62
NOTE: Fewer high schools are providing class rankings. % Rank reflects the class rank % of students from high schools providing a class rank.
Summarizing the non-returning freshmen data
• The average student leaving UMR is a good a student: ACT: upper 20% in nation, High School Class Rank: upper 25%
• The non-returning students scored on average 1.16 points lower than those returning students on the ACT (range is 0.6-1.8)
• Non-returners averaged 8.8 percent lower in class rank than their staying counter parts (range is 7.5 to 10.5)
• Non-returners scored on average .24 points lower in HS GPA (range is .21 - .25)
• Non-returners earned an average UMR GPA of .775 lower than their returning counterparts (range is .64 - .86)
• Non-returners also averaged almost a full point lower UMR GPA when compared to their HS GPA while their counterparts averaged less than a .5 drop from their HS GPA to their UMR GPA.
Do you plan to return to UMR?
• 38 of the 56 (68%) students do not plan to return to UMR
• 14 of the 56 (25%) plan to return (“Stop-outs”: this includes students leaving for military service)
• 4 of the 56 (7%) were not certain of their plans
Would you recommend UMR to another student?
• 21 of the 56 (38%) would recommend UMR to another student unconditionally
• 22 of the 56 (39%) would recommend for engineering/science/math only
• 2 of the 56 (4%) would recommend UMR with a caveat (it’s not for everyone, if they wanted to go away)
• 3 of the 56 (5%) said no
Common themes (1):
• Why did you leave UMR…– Changed majors
(9 in FS01, 7 in FS02, 12 in FS03, 15 in FS04)
– Financial / too expensive (10 in FS01, 4 in FS02, 9 in FS03, 4 in FS04)
– Low Grades (8 in FS01, 4 in FS02, 1 in FS03, 1 in FS04)
– Rolla is boring / too small (8 in FS01, 2 in FS02, 2 in FS03, 2 in FS04)
Common themes: (2)
• What would have kept you at UMR… – “Nothing would have kept me at UMR”
(9 in FS01, 5 in FS02, 19 in FS03, 12 in FS04)
– More money or financial aid (6 in FS01, 6 in FS02, 8 in FS03, 4 in FS04)
– More majors or non-engineering degrees (5 in FS01, 3 in FS02, 5 in FS03, 4 in FS04)
– Higher or better grades (4 in FS01, 3 in FS02, 0 in FS03, 2 in FS04)
Improving Student Success
Retention Strategies STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL: 67-70% Graduation Rate
Freshmen Return & Graduation Rates
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03
Entering Fall
1 Yr 2 Yrs 4 Yrs 6 Yrs
Institutions
Total % Engineering Majors
UG % Engineering Majors
Total Engineering Students
UG Engineering Students
All Students
All UG Students
UMR 72.7% 71.4% 3811 2750 5240 3849
GEORGIA TECH 56.8% 55.1% 9355 6308 16481 11456
ILL INST OF TECH 30.2% 50.1% 1870 955 6199 1905
MIT 42.7% 36.1% 4408 1507 10317 4178
MICHIGAN TECH 54.6% 54.9% 3615 3246 6619 5909
RPI 47.2% 50.4% 3621 2590 7670 5136
TEXAS A & M 16.8% 15.6% 7569 5725 45083 36775
Proportion of Engineering Majors at Comparator Institutions
Student Persistence Levels Among Comparator Institutions
Pell Data: 2002 Century Foundation Issue Brief, Retention & Need Data: 2003 US News College Rankings
6 year graduation
2 year retention
MIT 91% 98%
Cal Tech 85% 96%
Washington University 89% 96%
Carnegie Mellon 82% 94%
Harvey Mudd 79% 95%
Case Western Reserve 76% 91%
Rose-Hulman 74% 93%
Worcester Poly Inst. 75% 91%
U of ILL - UC 80% 92%
GA Tech 68% 89%
Stevens Inst of Tech 64% 88%
UMR 64% 87%
Co School of Mines 62% 86%
ILL Inst of Tech 62% 86%
Financial Need & Academic Persistence Levels Among Comparator Institutions
Pell Recipients 6 year grad rate 2 year retention Unmet Need
Washington University 8.0% 89% 96% 0%
Carnegie Mellon 11.4% 82% 94% 17%
Harvey Mudd 11.5% 79% 95% 0%
MIT 12.4% 91% 98% 0%
GA Tech 12.5% 68% 89% 34%
Case Western Reserve 13.6% 76% 91% 10%
Co School of Mines 13.9% 62% 86% 0%
St. Louis University 14.6% 71% 87% 29%
Rose-Hulman 14.8% 74% 93% 17%
Worcester Poly Institute 14.9% 75% 91% 9%
Cal Tech 15.3% 85% 96% 0%
U of ILL - UC 15.6% 80% 92% 13%
ILL Inst of Tech 19.2% 62% 86% 16%
Stevens Inst of Tech 23.4% 64% 88% 22%
UMR 26.3% 60% 84% 15%Pell Data: 2002 Century Foundation Issue Brief, Retention & Need Data: 2003 US News College Rankings
More Pell dollars, lower graduation rates
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1st Pell Qunitile 2nd Pell Qunitile 3rd Pell Qunitile 4th Pell Qunitile 5th Pell Qunitile
Public FTE receiving Pell
Public collegegraduation rates
Private collegegraduation rates
Private FTE receiving Pell
UMR graduation rate
UMR receiving Pell
ADAPTED FROM: John B. Lee, “Everything’s Up, “the Greentree Gazette, March 2003 DATA SOURCE: National average data from NCAA 2001 Division I IPED data
Post Graduation SurveyPost Graduation Survey
• Around 95% of UMR graduates secure a position in their field/area of choice within 3
months of graduation. • Average starting salary of 2005 graduates
exceeded +$49,000.00
What We Learned
Must focus on:
• Student-friendly policies,
• Improving systems & practices that impede general student persistence inside and outside of the classroom
Primary Student Fears
• Flunking out of college
• Not making friends
Successful Students/Graduates Recommendations for New Students
• Go to Class
• Learn to Study
• Ask for Help
Key Understandings
• There is no Magic Bullet – Retention programs must be designed to meet student needs and have an academic success focus
• Retention programs must be multi-faceted• Do not ignore Socio-Economic Factors• Quick Improvements can be made by examining
Processes and Points of Student Action• Need a true team effort: IR, Academic Programs,
Student Affairs, Enrollment Management, etc
Policy/System Changes to Improve Retention/Graduation
UMR’s “Low Hanging Fruit”1. Early Warning System Report 2. Incomplete grade time limit change3. Repeat course GPA adjustment policy 4. Scholarship Reinstatement Policy5. All BS degree programs reduced to between 124 to 128
hours6. Added 3 degree programs most often requested by
existing students: Business, IST, Technical Communication7. Create better understanding of faculty and student
expectations. Actively embrace the “social norming” concept.
8. Address group building (making friends) and study skills (not flunking out) in all orientation and opening week activities
ONGOING RETENTION STRATEGIES
• Use the HPI to better identify “at-risk” UMR students for early alert and intervention
• Improve the delivery and communication of student support services
• Better connect students to campus resources and activities by further implementing an electronic communication and surveying system
• Continue the retention audit and data collection process.
• ACT Policy Report, The Role of Academic and Non-Academic Factors in Improving College Retention, indicates that many colleges' retention efforts are too narrowly focused.
• Academic help alone is not enough to keep many students in school. These students also need individual support to feel connected to the campus community. Colleges, however, may focus on only academic or non-academic support, rather than both.
IMPROVING BEYOND THE AUDIT & LOW HANGING FRUIT
A Long-Term Roadmap to Improving Student Success:
An Implementation of the Critical Best Practices for UMR Students
Improving Student Success Models at UMR
Strategic Plan Goal:
Increase student retention and improve the graduation rate at UMR
• Undergraduate Graduation Rate:2001= 52% Currently= 64% Target = 70%
• First-to-Second Year Retention Rate: 2001= 82%Currently=87% Target = 90%
Undergraduate & Graduate Studies
• Actions:How are we going to achieve these goals?
• Continually improve the educational environment
• Continually enhance the learning outcomes of students
Student Retention & Graduation Strategies
1. Revised UMR Advising Program Focus on faculty development for student formal and developmental
advising, advisor recognition and advising program evaluation
2. Learning Communities & First Year Experience Programs
Focus to address student academic skills development and social engagement through group student life oriented events
3. Experiential Learning Focus to promote greater campus-wide “learning by doing” student
engagement through undergraduate research, service learning, and student design project participation
Student Retention & Graduation Strategies, cont..
4. Strategic Retention Intervention Focus on a rapid response “Academic Alert System”, on-line student
communication system, advisor engagement and more quantitative knowledge of UMR student strengths
5. Center for Educational Research and Teaching Innovation (CERTI)
Focus to address improving the UMR learning environment and student learning outcomes through collaborative learning, experiential learning, technology enhanced learning and educational research practices
6. Pre-College Transition Program Focus to promote greater student preparation to meet student and
UMR academic expectations through a 3-week intense course – Hit the Ground Running (HGR)
Academic Advising Program
Academic Advising
UMR Advisor Network
Academic Advising Resources
Academic Advising Conferences
UMR Advisor Recognition
Programs Promote
Student Success
FacultyRecognition
Best Practices
UMR Reputation
The First Year Experience
FYE
Hit the Ground Running
Voyager
HonorsProgram
Master StudentFellowship Program
“101”Courses
Programs Promote
Student Adjustment
Student Involvement
Student Integration
Commitment to the
Educational Process
Student Success
Hit The Ground Running
• A 3-week summer learning program to help students sharpen and enhance their academic skills
• Students learn about coursework expectations, campus life, and community involvement
• Students develop leadership skills, make new friends and develop constructive strategies for succeeding academically at UMR.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2004 2005
# Participants
Residential College
Residential College
Research
Entrepreneurship
Women’s Leadership
Program Promotes
Strategic Initiatives
CollaborativeLearning
Student InvolvementIn Campus Life
Student Success
Undergraduate Research Program
Undergraduate Research
Sophomore Intro to Research
*STEMUndergraduate
ResearchConference
OUREUndergraduate
Research Symposium
Undergraduate Research Day at the Capitol
*UMR Research Poster Day
Freshman Intro to Research
Programs Promote
Experiential Learning
Leadership Development
Collaborative ProblemSolving
Professional Development
OURE
Developing Center for Experiential Learning and
Student Design
UndergraduateResearch
StudentService
Learning
Student TeamDesign Competition
Center for Educational Research & Teaching Innovation (CERTI)
CERTI
Collaborative Learning
Experiential Learning
Technology-Enhanced Learning
Educational Research
Programs Promote
Improving UMR’sLearning Environment
Improving StudentLearning Outcomes
Student Academic Skills Development Resources
Academic Skill Development Resources
CollaborativeLearningCenters
TutoringStudyGroups
LEAD
Faculty Focused Activities
FacultyFocused Activities
CERTI
“101” Course Instructor’s Group
Foundational Instructor Group
Freshman Faculty Forum
Dean’s Teaching Scholars
New Faculty Teaching Scholar
Programs Promote
TeacherRecognition
FacultyResourceDevelopment
FacultyResourceUtilization
FacultyTeachingResource
Center
Strategic Model for Student Retention
EngagementIntervention
AcademicIntervention
IntrusiveIntervention
InterventionPlanning
HPIACT (AIM)
Academic Performance
RecordsMonitoring
OnlineEngagement
(Pulse-Taking)
Academic AlertAdvisor Engagement
UGS Program Updates
• UGSmonthly – On Line Newsletter
(http://campus.umr.edu/ugs/)
Questions?
Dr. Harvest CollierVice Provost for Undergraduate and
Graduate StudiesUniversity of Missouri-Rolla
Jay W. GoffDean of Enrollment Management
University of Missouri – [email protected]
ACT Report ReferencesACT. (1997). ACT Assessment technical manual. Iowa City, IA: Author.ACT. (2002). ACT Assessment user handbook. Iowa City, IA: Author.Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree
attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Asera, R. (1998). Supporting student persistence. Black Issues in Higher Education,15(10), 104.Barfield, M. A., & Beaulieu, L. J. (1999). The changing nature of work in the south: The polarization of tomorrow’s
workforce. Mississippi State, MS: Mississippi State University, Southern Rural Development Center.Barefoot, B., Fidler, D., Gardner, J., Moore, P., & Roberts, M. (1999). A natural linkage: The first-year seminar and
the learning community. In J. H. Levine (Ed.), Learning communities: New structures, new partnerships for learning (Monograph No. 26) (pp. 77-86). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155-187.
Bean, J. P. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the student attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 6(2), 129-148.
Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 35-64.
Belgarde M. J., & LoRe, R. K. (2003). The retention/intervention study of Native American undergraduates at the University of New Mexico. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 5(2), 175-203.
Braxton, J. M. (Ed.). (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.Braxton, J. M., & McClendon, S. A. (2002). The fostering of student integration and retention through institutional
practice. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1), 57-71.Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college student departure.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 30(3). Cabrera, A. F., Casteneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between two theories of
college persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 63(2), 143-164.Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations modeling test of an
integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 123-139.
ACT Report References, Cont.
Carnevale, A., & Desrochers, D. (2003). Standards for what? The economic roots of K–16 reform. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Chenoweth, K. (1999). HBCUs tackle the knotty problem of retention. Black Issues in Higher Education, 15(26), 38-41.Collinson, M. (1999). The new complexion of retention services. Black Issues in Higher Education, 15(26), 34-37.Colton, G. M., Connor, U. J., Jr., Shultz, E. L., & Easter, L. M. (1999). Fighting attrition: One freshman year program
that targets academic progress and retention for at-risk students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 1(2), 147-162.
Congos, D. H., & Schoeps, N. (2003). Inside Supplemental Instruction (SI): One model of what happens that improves grades and retention revisited. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 1(13), 159-170.
Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200.
Dervarics, C., & Roach, R. (2000). Fortifying the federal presence in retention. Black Issues in Higher Education, 17(3), 20-25.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.Education Commission of the States. (2004). Completion. Denver, CO: Author. [http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?
issueid=182&subissueID=0]Fidler, P. P. (1991). Relationship of freshman orientation seminars to sophomore return rates. Journal of the Freshman
Year Experience, 3(1), 7-38.Fletcher, J. (1998). A study of factors affecting advancement and graduation for engineering students. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn.Flowers, J. (1998). Improving female enrollment in Tech Ed. The Technology Teacher, 58(2), 21-25.Fries-Britt, S., & Turner, B. (2001). Facing stereotypes: A case study of black students on a white campus. Journal of
College Student Development, 42(5), 420-429.Fries-Britt, S., & Turner, B. (2002). Uneven stories: Successful black collegians at a black and a white campus. The
Review of Higher Education, 25(3), 315-330.Gloria, A., & Robinson-Kurpius, S. E. (2001). Influences of self-beliefs, social support, and comfort in the university
environment on the academic nonpersistence decisions of American Indian undergraduates. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(1), 88-102.
ACT Report References, Cont.
Good, J., Halpin, G., & Halpin, G. (2002). Retaining black students in engineering: Do minority programs have a longitudinal impact? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(4), 351-364.
Gore, P. A., Jr., Leuwerke, W. C., & Turley, S. E. (in press). A psychometric study of the College Self-Efficacy Inventory. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice.
Habley, W. R. (Ed.). (2004). The status of academic advising: Findings from the ACT sixth national survey (Monograph No. 10). Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advising Association.
Harvey, W. B. (2003). Minorities in higher education: 2002-2003 annual status report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Hecker, D. E. (2004, February). Occupational Employment Projections to 2012. Monthly Labor Review, 127(2).Hensen, K. A., & Shelley, M. C., III. (2003). The impact of Supplemental Instruction: Results from a large, public
midwestern university. Journal of College Student Development, 44(2), 250-259.Holmes, S. L., Ebbers, L. H., Robinson, D. C., & Mugenda, A. G. (2000). Validating African American students at
predominantly white institutions. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 2(1), 41-58.Hossler, D., & Vesper, N. (1993). An exploratory study of factors associated with parental savings for postsecondary
education. Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 140-164.Huffman, T. (2001). Resistance theory and transculturation hypothesis as explanations of college attrition and
persistence among culturally traditional American Indian students. Journal of American Indian Education, 40(3), 1-23.
Hurd, H. (2000). Staying power: Colleges work to improve retention rates. Black Issues in Higher Education, 17(18), 42-46.
Hurte, V. J. (2002, October 24). Mentoring: The forgotten retention tool. Black Issues in Higher Education, 19(18), 49.Ishitani, T., & DesJardins, S. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of dropout from college in the United States. Journal
of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(2), 173-201.Johnson, J. L. (2000). Learning communities and special efforts in the retention of university students: What works,
what doesn’t, and is the return worth the investment? Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 2(3), 219-238.
Karp, R., & Logue, R. (2002). Retention initiative for unscheduled sophomores and unscheduled readmits. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(2), 147-172.
ACT Report References, Cont.Kennedy, P. W., Sheckley, B. G., & Kehrhahn, M. T. (2000, May). The dynamic nature of student persistence:
Influence of interactions between student attachment, academic adaptation, and social adaptation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Cincinnati, OH.
Kern, C. W., Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1998). Correlates of college retention and GPA: Learning and study strategies, testwiseness, attitudes, and ACT. Journal of College Counseling, 1(1), 26-34.
Landry, C. C. (2002). Retention of women and people of color: Unique challenges and institutional responses. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(1), 1-13.
Mangold, W. D., Bean, L. G., Adams, D. J., Schwab, W. A., & Lynch, S. M. (2003). Who goes who stays: An assessment of the effect of a freshman mentoring and unit registration program on college persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(2), 95-122.
Martin, W. E., Jr. (1998). Review of the College Adjustment Scales. In J. C. Impara & B. S. Plake (Eds.), The Thirteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook. (pp. 274-277). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (1985). Increasing student retention: Effective programs and practices for reducing dropout rate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nora, A. (1993). Two-year colleges and minority students’ educational aspirations: Help or hindrance? Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 9, 212-247.
O’Brien, C., & Shedd, J. (2001, February). Getting through college: Voices of lowincome and minority students in New England. Washington, DC: The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Ogden, P., Thompson, D., & Russell, A. (2003). Supplemental Instruction: Short and long-term impact. Journal of Developmental Education, 26(3), 2-10.
Padgett, V. R., & Reid, J. F., Jr. (2003). Five year evaluation of the Student Diversity Program: A Retrospective quasi-experiment. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(2), 135-145.
Pathways to College Network. (2004). A shared agenda: A leadership challenge to improve college access and success. Boston: Author.
Ramirez, G. M. (1997, Fall). Supplemental Instruction: The long-term impact. Journal of Developmental Education, 21(1), 2-10.
Rendon, L. (1992). From the barrio to the academy: Revelations of a Mexican American “scholarship girl.” New Directions for Community College, 80, 55-64.
Rinn, M. (1995, September 1). Surviving the first year of college. Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education, 6(1), 11-13.Roach, R. (1997). Retention pacesetter: University of Virginia. Black Issues in Higher Education, 14(20), 35.
ACT Report References, Cont.Roach, R. (1999). Succeeding on white campuses. Black Issues in Higher Education, 15(26), 42-43.Robbins, S. B., Davenport, M., Anderson, J., Kliewer, W., Ingram, K., & Smith, N. (2003). The role of motivation and
self-regulatory behaviors on first-year college adjustment. Unpublished manuscript. Iowa City, IA: ACT.Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill
factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.Rodriguez, R. (1997). Learning to live a warrior’s life. Black Issues in Higher Education, 14(20), 38-40.Schnell, C. A., & Doetkott, C. D. (2003). First year seminars produce long-term impact. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 4(4), 377-391.Schnell, C. A., Seashore Louis, K., & Doetkott, C. (2003). The first-year seminar as a means of improving college
graduation rates. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 15(1), 53-75.Sedlacek, W. E. & Adams-Gaston, J. (1992). Predicting the academic success of student athletes using SAT and
noncognitive variables. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(6), 724-727.Solberg, V, Gusavac, N., Hamann, T., Felch, J., Johnson, J., Lamborn, S., & Torres, J. (1998). The Adaptive Success
Identity Plan (ASIP): A career intervention for college students. The Career Development Quarterly, 47(1), 48-95.Stage, F. K. (1988). University attrition: LISREL with logistic regression for the persistence criterion. Research in
Higher Education, 29(4), 343-357.Swanson, M. (2003). Interview with Dorothy S. Fidler, founding editor of the Journal of the First-Year Experience and
Students in Transition. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 15(1), 9-18.Tatum, B. D. (1997). “Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?” and other conversations about race.
New York: Basic Books.Tatum. B. D. (2004, April 2). Building a road to a diverse society. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B7.Ting, S. R. (1997). A report of the factor analysis of the First-Year Student Survey. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State
University.Ting, S. R., & Robinson, T. L. (1998). First-year academic success: A prediction combining cognitive and psychosocial
variables for Caucasian and African American Students. Journal of College Student Development, 39(6), 599-610.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the cause and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago.
ACT Report References, Cont.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6), 599-623.
Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1984). Noncognitive variables in predicting academic success by race. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 16(4), 171-178.
Tracey, T. J., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Factor structure of the Non-Cognitive Questionnaire—revised across samples of black and white college students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 49(3), 637-648.
Tucker, J. (1999). Tinto’s model and successful college transitions. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 1(2), 163-175.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Profile of the foreign-born population of the United States: 2000. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Statistical abstract of the United States: The national data book. 2002. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Digest of education statistics, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Descriptive summary of 1995-96 beginning postsecondary students: Six years later. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). The condition of education 2003. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2000). The Outlook for College Graduates, 1998-2000. In Getting ready pays off! Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Wyckoff, S. (1998). Retention theories in higher education: Implications for institutional practice. Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education, 12(2), 2-7.
Additional References• Abrams, Krotseng, Hossler. (1990). Using retention research in enrollment management. In Hossler, Bean, and
Associates, The strategic management of college enrollments. Chap. 12, 202-224. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass. • Bean, J. P. (1990). Using retention research in enrollment management. In Hossler, Bean, and Associates, The
strategic management of college enrollments: Chap. 10, 170-185. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass. • Bean, J. P. (1990). Why students leave: Insights from research. In Hossler, Bean, and Associates, The strategic
management of college enrollments: Chap. 9, 147-169. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass. • Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher
Education, 12, 155-187. • Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castañeda, M. B. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations modeling test of an
integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 123-139. • Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castañeda, M. B. (1992). The role of finances in the persistence process: A structural
model. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 571-93. • Cabrera, A. F., Stampen, J. O. & Hansen, W. L. (1990). Exploring the effects of ability to pay on persistence in
college. The Review of Higher Education, 13(3), 303-336. • Charles A. Dana Center, The. (May, 1998). Increasing enrollment, retention, and graduation in Texas public higher
education: Four studies for the Texas Senate Education Committee. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. • Donahue, M. D. (1993). Variables associated with student success in a community college and high school
concurrent enrollment program. Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin. • General Accounting Office. (1998). Higher education: Students have increased borrowing and working to help pay
higher tuition. (GAO/HEHS-98-63). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. • General Accounting Office. (1997). Proprietary schools: Poorer student outcomes at schools that rely more on federal
student aid. (GAO/HEHS-97-103). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. • General Accounting Office. (1995). Higher education: Restructuring student aid could reduce low-income student
dropout rate. (GAO/HEHS-95-48). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. • Grosset, J. M. (1991). Patterns of integration, commitment, and student characteristics and retention among younger
and older students. Research in Higher Education, 32(2), 159-78. • King, J. E. (1998). Too many students are holding jobs for too many hours. The Chronicle of Higher Education. May
1, A72 • Mallette, B. I. and Cabrera, A. F. (1991). Determinants of withdrawal behavior: An exploratory study. Research in
Higher Education, 32(2), 179-94. • Naretto, J. A. (1995). Adult student retention: The influence of internal and external community. NASPA Journal,
32(2), 90-97. • Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A structural model. Research in Higher
Education, 26(1), 31-59.
References Continued• National Center for Education Statistics. (September, 1998). Stopouts or Stayouts? Undergraduates who leave
college in their first year. (U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement/NCES 1999-087). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• National Center for Education Statistics. (June, 1998). First generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. (U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement/NCES 98-082). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• National Center for Education Statistics. (February, 1998). Postsecondary financing strategies: How undergraduates combine work, borrowing, and attendance. (U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement/NCES 98-088). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• National Center for Education Statistics. (June, 1997). Transfer behavior among beginning postsecondary students: 1989-94. (U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement/NCES 97-266). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Findings from the condition of education 1997: No. 13 postsecondary persistence and attainment: (U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Research and Improvement/NCES 97-984). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
• Okua, M. A., Benin, M., & Brant-williams, A. (1996). Staying in college: Moderators of the relation between intention and institutional departure. Journal of Higher Education, 67(5), 577-596
• Perna, L. W. (1998). The contribution of financial aid to undergraduate persistence. Journal of Student Financial Aid, 28(3), 15-40.
• Peterson's. (1998). Peterson's Guide to Four-Year Colleges 1999. Princeton, NJ: Peterson's. • Porter, O. F. (1990). Persistence in four-year colleges: Are there differences in public and independent institutions?
Preliminary finds for path analysis. Proceedings for the Seventh Annual Conference of the NASSGP/NCHELP Research Network, 11-28. New Jersey Higher Education Assistance Authority: Trenton.
• Romano, R. M. (1995). First-year attrition and retention at a community college. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 2(2), 169-177.
• St. John, E. P., Starkey, J. B., Paulsen, M. B. & Mbaduagha, L. A. (1995). The influence of prices and price subsidies on within-year persistence by students in proprietary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, (17) 2, 149-165.
• St. John, E. P. (1990). Price response in persistence decisions: Analysis of the high school and beyond senior cohort. Proceedings for the Seventh Annual Conference of the NASSGP/NCHELP Research Network, 29-56. New Jersey Higher Education Assistance Authority: Trenton.
• Texas Commission on a Representative Student Body: TCRSB. (October, 1998). [Online]. Available internet (2/19/99) /www.uhsa.uh.edu/TCRSB/report.html.
