College Student Retention

College Student RetentionPresenters:

Priscilla AyalaDan Barker

Holly FischerLuke Wawaru

Why Care?1. The more successful amount of time a

student invests in college, the better she/he is prepared for the real life.

2. Education is a great equalizer across social and economic strata.

3. A vibrant nation’s economy is due in part to its attainment in education which also translates to a competitive advantage globally.

Some consequences of leaving prematurely.a) Precious time wasted.b) Financial loss to student (Loans and poor credit score).c) Financial loss to college (5000 x 10 = $50,000).d) Negative publicity which can impact recruitment. (Social

media damage)

-Even with additional programs and services retention in the first and second year has remained virtually the same over time even though logic dictates the opposite.

-This book addresses a number of areas critical to the retention of students

Chapter One: PAST TO PRESENT: A Historical Look at Retention

CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ON RETENTIONTerms that have evolved in meaning.a) Students: The supply of and types of students served has

changed over the years. In the beginning the student body consisted of a small, selective, generally homogenous group of privileged individuals. Currently the student body comprises of a diverse spectrum of individuals totaling to millions.

b) Campuses: This term has evolved to represent a diversified contemporary collection of campuses. (HBCUs included) with different environments to cater for specific populations.

CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ON RETENTION

c) Education Roles: The roles of faculty and other educators e.g. student affairs have changed. In the beginning the faculty (at times one or two) were a one stop shop doing everything from admission, teaching, discipline e.tc. Moved to specialized roles but there are a move to involve all educators in these efforts (MSU?)

d) Socioeconomic Conditions: These over time have also played a key role in affecting the development of retention. The demands placed on higher education by the society have increased as has the demand for college graduates with earned degrees. This exponential growth in higher education has increased concern for retention. Retention is a key outcome indicator placed on institutions by policymakers in many state-funded institutions.

CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ON RETENTION

e) Policies and Interventions : The federal governments Morrill Acts, GI Bill, Civil Rights, and financial aid have increased access. This access is aimed at degree attainment rather than just college attendance. Colleges have forged retention efforts to demonstrate that access will realize such goals. Retention used as driver to determine funding.

f) Knowledge Base: The empirical and conceptual knowledge base has grown and shaped retention efforts. The earliest studies on student mortality (retention) began in 1930s but it was 1960s that saw a systematic knowledge base begin to emerge. Early studies focused on single institutions but now the studies focus more on specific types of students of institutions.

CONTEXTUAL INFLUENCES ON RETENTIONg) Conceptualization of Retention: Retention was viewed

differently in different times.Some closely related but not synonymous terms.• Attrition: Student who fails to re-enroll in consecutive semesters.• Dismissal: A student who is not permitted to continue enrollment.• Dropout: A student whose initial educational goal was to complete at

least bachelor’s degree but did not.• Mortality: Failure to remain in college till graduation.• Persistence: The desire to remain in college from start to degree

completion.• Retention: Ability to retain a student from admission to graduation. • Stopout: Temporary withdrawal from institution or system.• Withdrawal: Departure of a student from college or university campus.Withdrawal may be voluntary or involuntary.

Historical OverviewAmerican colleges have existed for over 300 years during which missions and curriculum have changed and have affected the nature of retention. The historical stages below are just to serve as a map for understanding retention over the years.

a) Retention Pre-History (1600s – Mid 1800s)There was no need to consider retention as there were few students attending colleges and few were interested in graduating.

College church based and were primarily for meeting the local demand for pastors and missionaries. E.g. Harvard (1636), William and Mary (1693), and Yale (1701).

Historical Overviewb) Evolving Toward Retention (Mid 1800s-1900)• Although retention was still not a major concern, this era was characterized by an increase in degree attainment thus creating a complete collegiate experience. • Men from all religious denominations were admitted.•Sons from elite families enrolled to emulate their fahers.•No evidence that degree attainment was emphasized.•Collegiate education continued to expand leading to diversity in the student body which included women. Oberlin was the first to admit women.•Signing Morrill Land Grant Act (1862) happened in this era. •College transformed to university.•Institutional survival was emphasized than persistence.

Historical OverviewC) Early Developments (1900-1950)Constant enrollment growth. 1895: Big colleges had 2000 students. 1915: The same had 5000 students.

Why the growth? A) Industrialization (B) UrbanizationResults• Selective admissions and creation of new institutions • High attrition rates.• Post-WWII: Higher ED golden age of expansion.

d) Dealing with Expansion (1950s)•National Youth Administration & GI Bill expanded opportunity to 1.1million vets •Different pathway to achieve post secondary education e.g community college.•Attention was more to whys of retention than how to curb until early 1970s when decrease in enrollment was predicted.

Historical Overviewe) Preventing Dropout (1960s)•The post-World War expansion and diversity in student body due to Civil rights movement saw different challenges •Events of 1960s brought the issue of retention home. Unrests due to dissatisfaction with government and civil rights movement made colleges to start monitoring enrollments

f) Building Theory (1970s) •1970s dawned greater efforts to identify causes and solutions to the challenge of retention. •Spady (1971) published the sociological model of departure .•Vincent Tito built his interactionalist

g) Managing Enrollments (1980s) •This era was dominated by issues of enrollment management. • Retention was becoming diversified to types of students, graduate vs undergraduates, and even into community colleges.

Historical Overviewh) Broadening Horizons (1990s)•Retention had become a full fledged area of study •There was a re-emphasis on academics and student learning as well as retention. •Diversity in relation to color i) Current and Future Trends (Early 21st Century)• Retention is a major policy issue in higher education•Virtually every campus uses retention as a key indicator of institutional effectiveness.Conclusion: It is an open secret that retention was no concern during the first few hundred years but has rapidly grown to become a core indicator and major field of study in higher education. Diversity has also been embedded in this interesting study that will continue being as dynamic in the future

CHAPTER 2: MEASUREMENT OF PERSISTENCE

Voluntary school or college enrollment is not capricious and is ever becoming more costly.• Complicated to measure• Cohorts: A clearly defined group at one point in time, place,

and with demographic and enrollment characteristics.• Denominators: The initial number that is used to identify a

cohort and remains fixed throughout. • Numerators: The number that remains as the cohort

diminishes due to other factors. •HIGH SCHOOL PERSISTENCE AND GRADUATION •COLLEGE FRESHMAN-TO-SOPHOMORE PERSISTENCE RATES•BACHELOR’S DEGREE GRADUATION RATES.

CHAPTER 3: RETENTION THEORIES, MODELS, AND CONCEPTS

There is an abundance of studies about college student retention. 10 theories, models and concepts are presented in this chapter. John N. McNeely• Earliest study of attrition.•Gross mortality( Leaving after four years without obtaining a degree and may return later) and net mortality (students leave and fail to return at a later date). •McNeely did not incorporate ethnicity even though Howard was an HBCU.John Summerskill (1962)•His recognition of motivational factors related to student attrition grounded in psychological and sociological concepts and theory provided impetus for subsequent theory-based research in student retention.


Alexander W. Astin (1975, 1985)Recognized two main predictive factors on student retention.- Personal and environmental factors.William G Spady (1970)He suggested that student retention research fell into these 6 categories: Philosophical/theoretical (used assumptions and made recommendations to stop attrition), census (extent of attrition), autopsy (self-reported reasons on why student left.), case studies, descriptive, and predictive (how to admit those who will persist).John W Meyer (1970)His argument was that institutions of higher education were socializing organizations and that they had the ability to influence values, personality needs, and social roles or identities which he called charter.


David H Kamens (1971)He suggested that his research was an extension of Meyer’s (1970) sociological paradigm. The structural linkage to occupational and economic groups had the ability to bestow a social status which in turn impacted student retention and occupational choices.Vincent Tinto (1987)His theory was centered on individual departure from college.• He said there were three stages of progression in order to be

integrated into college community.- Separation from communities of the past - Transition between communities- Incorporation into the community of the college. He saw the impact of external events but saw them as secondary


John P Bean (1980)Unlike Tinto, he appeared to have placed emphasis on environmental factors on student retention.John P Bean and Barbara S. Metzner (1985)They argued that student retention theories from Spady (1970), Tinto (1975), and Pascarella (1980) focused heavily on social variables and contributed very little to nontraditional student retention.They hypothesized that the decisions to dropout for nontraditional students were influences by either academic, background, psychological, or environmental. Alan Seidman (2005)He based his theory on Tinto’s (1987) retention model.His retention formula: Retention = (Early Deficiency Identification + Intensive Intervention)Conclusion• It is not possible to analyze all student retention theories in a single chapter.• No single intervention will adequately prevent students from leaving college.

Chapter Four

Introduction:• The problems associated with an appropriate measurement

system are common to other often-researched outcomes in higher education.– The power to retain students remains the most crucial outcome if

students are to be successful in life.• Measuring college student retention remains complicated,

confusing, and context-dependent.• Chapter promotes the recognition and differentiation of different

types of college retention and promotes a more complex, rather than simplistic, measurement system within an environment that requires more differentiation.

Retention and Dropout• Most widely used dichotomous measures in

educational research and practice are retention and dropout.

– Retention: Staying in school until completion of a degree.

– Drop out: Leaving school prematurely.

Dropout, Graduation, Persistence, Retention, and Attrition

• A dropout may eventually return and transform into a non-dropout any time prior to death, thereby negating any earlier designations used from studies, research, or retention rates.

• Retention is an institutional measure.• Persistence is a student measure. • Attrition is the reduction in numbers of students

resulting from lower student retention.• Graduate: A former student who has completed a

prescribed course of study in a college or university.

Models of Retention• Tinto’s Integration Model• Student Attrition Model• Contemporary Retention Researcher, John

Braxton

Measuring Retention

• The US government has established a federal definition of graduation rate as part of the Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act.

– The graduation rate was defined as the percentage of full time, first time, degree seeking enrolled students who graduate after 150 percent of the normal time for completion: six years for four year colleges, and three years for two year colleges.

The Practices of Measurement

Two federal retention formulas employed :

RR less than 4 year=((number of students re-enrolled in the following fall+number of students who have completed)/(number of students in the fall cohort-exclusions))*100

IPEDS RR 4 year=number of students re-enrolled in the following fall/(number of students in the fall cohort-exclusions)*100

Common Data Set• The Common Data Set (CDS) is a joint effort by the higher education community and publishers

including the College Board, Peterson’s, US News and World Report, and others to establish and develop clear standard definitions on the data items to be used in educational research.

SCCR• The Research and Planning Group for California and the Transfer and Retention of Urban

Community College Students Project both support the use of the successful course completion ratio (SCCR).

Types of RetentionFour basic types:

1. Institutional Retention2. System Retention3. Retention within a Major 4. Retention within a Course

Problems with the Current Measures• The current definitions and formulas do not include all students

and as such may provide inaccurate measures of retention.• Furthermore, there may be a bit of university sleight of hand

associated with practices that reflect on reported figures.• The current formulas for retention include those students who

are more likely to persist and thus may provide an inflated figure less representative of the variation of student persistence.

• The formula excludes: part time students, returning students, transfers, and students who prematurely leave after the second year of enrollment.

Proposed FormulasNew proposed formulas

• Pure institutional persistence: Performed annually=Current total FTE degree-seeking enrollment-(current year newly enrolled students)/Past year’s fall FTE degree-seeking enrollment+(FTE enrollment of degree-seeking spring and summer)-FTE graduates

• Pure system persistence: Performed annually=Current total national FTE degree-seeking enrollment-(current year newly enrolled students)/Past year’s total national fall FTE degree-seeking enrollment+(FTE enrollment of degree-seeking spring and summer)-FTE graduates

Conclusion• Retention not only has a impact on the

individual and her or his family, but also produces a ripple effect on the postsecondary institutions, the work force, and the economy.

– College Effect– Work Effect– Economic Effect

Chapter Five

Introduction• Financing higher education has become a complex,

high stakes activity for students and their institutions.

• The chapter will examine some of the salient issues related to how students finance their education, the amount of debt they incur to finance their education, and the implications for institutions of higher education when students do not persist to graduation.

Current Fiscal Environment• Contemporary financing of higher education

has involved an increasing reliance on students and their families to provide revenues for colleges and universities.

• Students in turn increasingly are relying on financial aid to finance their education.

How Institutions of Higher Education are Financed

• One of the most important trends in higher education finance over the past two decades is the ever-increasing reliance that institutions of higher education have on tuition and fee revenue.

• Four year public institutions received 20% of their revenues from tuition and fees, compared to 78% at private not for profit institutions.– Public Institutions: Received in constant dollars $2133 per student in 2006-

2007.– Private, Not for Profit Institutions: Received in constant dollars from tuition

and fees per student in 2006-2007 $16, 676.– Private, for Profit Institutions: They rely more on tuition and fee income than

state supported institutions and private not for profit institutions. They do not receive state appropriations as do public institutions, and they receive very little income from investments when compared with private, not for profit institutions.

How Students Pay for Their Education

• Students use a variety of sources to pay for their postsecondary education, including savings, work, assistance from parents, and financial aid.

• Financial Aid: Large, complex enterprise.– In 2009-2010, financial aid to undergraduates totaled $154.46

billion, and the largest single source of this aid took the form of federal loans, $65.8 billion or 43% of all undergraduate aid.

– Four forms:• Grants• Loans• Tax Credits and Deductions• Work-Study

Institutional Costs for Non-Persistence

• Three Elements:– Immediate Direct Costs• Student Recruitment• Financial Aid• Lost Tuition Income• Other Lost Income

– Immediate Indirect Institutional Costs• Faculty and Staff Salaries• Facilities

– Long-Term Institutional Costs After Students Leave

Chapter Six

Introduction• Degree completion is one of the few student outcomes in higher

education in which virtually all constituents have a stake.• Three types of information that can be useful in estimating any

student’s chances of completing college: pre-college characteristics of the student, the characteristics of the college that the student attends, and environmental contingencies of attendance.

• Rely on multi-campus studies involving diverse samples of baccalaureate-granting institutions rather than studies conducted at single institutions.

Previous Research• A substantial portion of the

empirical research on undergraduate degree completion during the past 30 years has focused on the development and testing of theoretical models for explaining degree attainment.

Method and Data AnalysisMethod• The data for this study was drawn from a national sample of baccalaureate-granting

institutions that participated in the Cooperative Institutional Research Program’s annual survey of entering freshmen in the fall of 1994.

• A total of 90,619 students were selected at random from each of the 424 institutions in the original national sample.

• Degree attainment data was eventually received on 56,818 cases at 26 institutions.

Data Analysis• A series of weighted descriptive analyses were run to examine degree attainment differences

by institutional type, gender, and academic achievement.• Employed a series of stepwise linear regression analyses.• The dichotomous dependent variables used in the analyses were either: degree completion

within four years or degree completion within six years.• In each regression analysis of the independent variables were organized into three blocks

according to their presumed temporal order of occurrence: pre-college entering student characteristics, environmental contingencies, and institutional characteristics.

Results• Degree Attainment by Institutional Type, Gender, and High

School Grades

• Pre-college Characteristics Influencing Degree Attainment

• Environmental Contingencies Affecting Degree Attainment

• Institutional Characteristics that Affect Degree Completion

Ch. 7: The Community College

Retention Trends and Issues by:

Gloria Crisp and Liliana Mina

Overview of Community Colleges

• Community colleges’ highest degree: associate’s degree

• Serves 40% of nation’s students– Increased amount of minority and low-income

students• Biggest issue: Retention• Goal: To improve retention rates and other

measures of success

Historical development and functions of community college

• Original idea: to create junior college to rigorously help prepare students to transfer to a 4-year institution– Preparatory, pre-professional, terminal GenEd., & terminal

occupational purpose• Due to social forces over the years, led to demand

“open admissions policy”– Industrial revolution– Social movements (women’s, civil rights, baby boom)– G.I. Bill of Rights of 1944

Role of community colleges currently

• Purposes under “open policy”:– Redirects careers of seasoned workers– Offers Gen Ed. – Provides workforce development and training– Serves the gifted by offering dual credit classes– Serves first generation students– Serves students from low SES backgrounds

• Challenge: 1) Serving traditionally underserved populations, because need more assistance

for development, academic and social programs– Realities of low SES students backgrounds– Community colleges try to close performance gap

2) How to provide a rigorous curriculum for the gifted and for the academically underprepared.

The Role of Federal and State Government

• Community college purpose economically: Vital in training and retraining workforce while bringing growth in the communities they serve

• Concerns: Financial assistance– Funding has decreased, need has risen, thus

community colleges are educating more with less funding• American Graduation Initiative (AGI)• Carl Perkins Career and Technical Education Act• Pell Grants

Community College Students

• Community college serves a variety of students for different reasons

• Study: Beginning Postsecondary Longitudinal Study (BPLS)

• Community college students vs. 4-year degree students– Comm. College students tend to be:

• African American or Latino, independent, 1st generation, less academically prepared, work full time or part time during college, having lower degree aspirations, attend college part time, delaying enrollment into college after high school, receive less financial aid, and earning a lower GPA first year

Community College Students cont…

• Different types Comm. College students– Transfer students– Vocational – Developmental students– Community education students– Dual Credit– ESL

Community College Retention

• Reasons for differences in retention rates– The student

• Less likely to be academically prepared• Are the eldest, from a low SES background or minority, 1st generation,

single parent, lack social and cultural capital which can attribute for reasons to withdraw

• Not having a HS Diploma, rigor core in HS, financially independent, face financial concerns, delayed entry to IHE

– College Experience• More likely to drop out than 4-year students• Less integrated and involved socially and academically like 4-year students

– Community College Context• Different institutional practices such as part time instructors

Retention issues facing community college

• Issues:– Can’t increase their retention or graduation rate by raising

admission standards– Are required to offer remedial classes to underprepared– Have fewer time and opportunities to engage students– 4-yr students will enroll full time, live on campus, have

ample time to study outside of class to study with other students, participate in activities, speak with faculty, etc...

– Variety in reasons for attending community college– Not enough institutional resources to assess retention

issues, or resources for faculty development

Retention issues cont…- Other challenges: increasing enrollment, unreliable funding, and increasing

responsibility, lack of methodologically sound research being conducted to inform institutional policy and practiceo Not enough research on community college, and if so, its unpublished, not widely

disseminated and/or not peer-reviewed,o No scholars who attended 2 year colleges are conducting research limiting ability to

interpret or make sense of findingso Databases are limited in detail provided to provide about institutional characteristics and

practices to allow for evaluation of policies, programs, practices related to student success

o Persistence theory does not address diversity of students, the community college experience or context

o Retention theory claims that students withdrawal decisions can be explained by social and academic integration (Tinto 1975-1993) and involvement on campus (Astin, 1977, 1993)

- Must understand difficulties and limitations in measuring retention among community college students

Ch. 8: Pathways to a Four-Year Degree

By: Alberto F. Cabrera, kurt R. Burkum, Steven M. La Nasa, and Erin

W. Bilbo

Overview- Degree attainment rates of socioeconomically disadvantaged students

significantly still lag behind- Parents with low SES are less involved and/or have little knowledge

about college attainment, - Students from low SES are less likely to have be prepared academically

or college- Such student assistance programs like TRiO, Gear-Up, addresses

barriers to success for low SES by enhancing their access to academic preparation opportunities, college information, and assistance in completing the college application process

- Federal and state aid programs recognize high cost deter applicants - Postsecondary attendance and degree completion differ between

students with low and high SES

Pathways to a four year degree

- Determinants of a 4 year degree completion: (Based off HS Sophomore 1980 cohort Study)• Attending a 4 year IHE right out of high school than going to

2 year • College preparedness and academic resources students have

during high school ; GPA and rank, rigorous curriculum, and aptitude test scores

• Studies find that students from high SES were more likely to earn 4 yr. degrees than their less advantaged peers and more likely to secure a 4 yr. degree than their disadvantaged peers regardless academic preparation or port of entry

Determinants of degree completion

• Factors that influence 4-yr.degree completion:1. Background characteristics2. Supports received in high school3. Academic resources acquired prior to college4. Degree attainment aspirations5. Pathways to and through college6. Collegiate experiences 7. Financial aid 8. Parental responsibilities

Degree Completion and Pathways to and through College

• Factors should considered and addressed:– Delayed entry– Low SES students– Students engagement • Cognitive and affective development

– Commitment to academics and relationship building with faculty

– Parental responsibilities

What really facilitates degree completion

A) Supports Received in High School Having parent or peer support go to college increases students chances of earning a 4 year degree

B) Academic Resources Students’ academic resources had a big effect on their degree completion

C) Attainment Aspiration Students with college degree aspirations were 23% more likely to achieve their attainment goals

D) Pathways to and through college For those who first enrolled in a 4 year or 2 year institution were 46% and 18% more likely to earn a

college degree than those who initially enrolled at an institution. Offering less than 2 year degrees. Lowest SES who first enrolled in a 2 year or 4 year was 46% and 69% more likely to earn a 4 year

degree than their peers who first enrolled in a less than 2 year institution. i. More than 22% of low SES within the study began their postsecondary at a less than 2 year schoolii. Those who did not maintain continuous college enrollment were 23% less likely to earn a bachelor’s degree

What really facilitates degree completion

E) Collegiate Experiences Collegiate experiences had a positive impact on degree completion outcomes across all students within the study Factors:i. Academic performanceii. Curriculumiii. High quality instruction

F) Financial Aid Those who received grants and loans were more likely to complete a 4-year degree than peers who received no aid

i. Receiving grants increased students’ degree completion by 7%, and receiving loans increased attainment by 10%.

ii. Lowest SES students who received loans or grants increased their degree completion outcomes by 11% and 8%

G) Parental Responsibilities College students who needed to care for child or children were 22% less likely to complete a 4-year degree than peers

without any parental responsibilitiesi. Highest SES students with children who were 46% less likely to earn a 4-year degree than those without family

obligationsii. Lowest SES students with parental responsibilities were 13% less likely to complete their degrees than those

who did not need to care for children

Ch. 9 Online Student Retention

- Current realizations: 1. online and real-time deliveries of courses are not that different2. a blended approach may be best3. More students are wanting and already are taking the entire academic

program online because of convenience and access it offers- Technology advancement to view class lectures in the classroom or on

an electronic device does not change developmental needs that the student has, such as a quest for identity or finding a purpose in life

- Challenges: 1. retaining online students2. accommodating both digital natives and digital immigrants in distance

learning in their specific needs

The online student- internet is given ability to make distance learning

possible, and more IHE are making their content freely available

- A present time, higher education has not reached an academic singularity where everyone is connected

- Since complete academic programs are becoming more in demand, then more IHE need to re-examine their services to support the student experience, the online process and acknowledge paradoxes

Themes of Retention • Based off Bean (2005) study on online students• Themes of retention– Intentions– Relationship to the institution– Psychological processes and key attitudes– Academics– Social Factors– Organizational factors– External environment– Student’s background– Money and finance

Things to consider• How can higher education be retained, when

online education is getting more accessible?• What other services or programs help

community colleges? Students with low SES?• Are there any other factors you can think of

that attribute to degree completion?

Chapter 10: Student Persistence and Degree Attainment beyond the First Year in College

• The intense focus on the first year in college has shifted problems with attrition from the first year to subsequent years. According to a study in 2004:

• 12 percent of the entering cohort withdrew during the first year

• 16 percent withdrew during the second year• 6 percent dropped out after the second year

Purpose of Chapter and Research• The intent of the chapter is to provide an overview of research

specific to students’’ persistence decisions beyond the first year in college.

• Theoretical Frameworks Guiding Persistence Research• Many of the research used the following theories• Tinto’s model of student integration• Bean’s student attrition model• Astin’s student involvement perspective• Nora and Cabrera’s student adjustment model• The researchers combined and adjusted the models to

culminate in the creation of the student engagement model

The Study• The stud follows a cohort of students from 2003-2004 and

looks at their pre-college experiences, college enrollment behavior, and outcomes.

• Demographic Profile– Entering Cohort

• Females comprised 58% of students who entered postsecondary education

• 63% of the sample was white, 14% were African American, 13% were Hispanic, 5% were Asian American, and 5% were more than one race

• The average age of students was 22 years• Nearly 80% of students received some form of financial aid during the

first year of college and almost 31% had delayed enrolling in college after high school

Students Who Withdrew During the Second Year

– Roughly 16% persisted through the first year, but left before the end of the second year

– Students who were more likely to withdraw were more likely to be African American of Hispanic

– Students who withdrew were slightly older (23 vs 22)– Students who withdrew had lower educational

aspirations– Were more likely to have delayed entering college after

high school– Students were more likely to have a mother and father

not complete college

Students Who Withdrew from the Third Year

• 6% of the entering cohort persisted through the first and second years by withdrew before the end of the third year• White and Asian American students are least likely to

withdraw during the third year• A greater proportion of African American and Hispanic

students withdrew• A greater than average amount of the students were

married• Almost all of the characteristics were similar to the

second year

Profile of Pre-College Experiences– Entering Cohort• 27% of the students earned a GPA between a 3.5 and a

4.0• 26% earned a 3.0-3.4• 20% earned a 2.0-2.9• 2% had less than a 2.0• There was great variation between math completed

Profile of Pre-College Experiences Cont’d

• Students who withdrew during the second year of College– Only 11% of students who withdrew during the second year

had 3.5-4.0– Students with lower math performance were more likely to

not persist• Students who withdrew during the third year of college• The students who withdrew had lower high school GPAs,

were less academically prepared for college mathematics, and were less likely to have earned college credits during high school

Profile of College Experiences

– Entering Cohort• 49% of the entering cohort began their education at a

four-year institution• 51% were at a technical or community college• 63% were at a public institution• 23% attended a private not-for-profit• 14% enrolled at a private for-profit college• 77% enrolled full-time• 13% were part time• 10% were a combination of the two

Profile of College Experiences Cont’d

– Students who withdrew during the second year of college • Students who attended a technical or community college during

their first year were substantially more likely to withdraw during the second year (75%)

• A higher number that withdrew also came from proprietary institutions

• Students who attended college part-time were more likely to withdraw

– Students who withdrew during the third year of college• These students were found to be similar to the students from the

second year withdrawal students except• A higher number from this group were from public institutions

Additional Research• Demographics:

– Female students were 61% more likely to drop out during the 4th year– African American students had a higher risk of dropouts in year three than

white students– Students that come from a low SES household were more likely to drop out in

years 2 and 3• Financial Assistance

– Research suggests that receipt of financial aid may increase the odds that a student will remain in college

• Pre-College Factors/Experiences– 87% of the students who had completed an advanced high school curriculum

were still enrolled in an institution– Students who have the highest quartile of SAT scores were at a lower risk of

withdrawing relative to students who scored in the lower three quartiles

Additional Research Cont’d• Social and Academic Integration

– Students who received academic and personal and counseling and also attended an orientation program were much more likely to persist

– Social connectedness and commitment to college have direct positive effects on retention to the third year of college

• Environmental Pull Factors– Factors that have been found to “pull” students off campus include

• Living off campus!• Working more than twenty hours per week• And being a part-time student

– Students who had on-campus jobs were more likely to be retained– Students who lived on-campus were much more likely to persist

• Institutional Characteristics– Hispanic students that attend a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) were more likely to persist– Students who attended non-selective institutions were less likely to persist

•

Chapter 11: Moving from Theory into Action

• This chapter is laying the groundwork for the possibility of a theory for student success at an institution. The chapter starts with defining different aspects of retention and building upon different theories and research in retention

• Reflection on current debates of a theory of institutional departure• Defining Student Leaving

– Not all leaving is bad and may not be a failure• A student may see as transferring to another institution as a way to ensure their

success• Leaving may result as a response to external commitments that pull students

away from the institution– Theories about student leaving are only the rough material that predict

reasons student leave and guide retention efforts

Student Success• students are more likely to succeed when they find themselves

in settings that provide clear and high expectations for their success, provide needed academic, social, and financial support, provide frequent feedback, and actively involve them, especially with other students and faculty in learning

• this model sees student effort and learning as central to student success– It also sees the classroom as the critical ground upon which student

success is played out.– It is a model that seeks to highlight those aspects of institutional

environments that are amenable to direct institutional action that have been shown to influence success

Pedagogies of Engagement• The question here is: what should universities and colleges

do to teach and recognize student engagement?– Service learning: where students engage in service activities that

are connected to learning in the classroom– The use of learning communities that require students to enroll

in courses together and share the experience of learning a common coherent curriculum

– Classroom assessment techniques that provide students and faculty frequent feedback about student learning

– The use of supplemental instruction strategies where academic assistance is connected to specific courses and to specific student academic needs

Learning Communities– The author sees a very high importance in learning communities in particular

because accumulating evidence suggests that they offer a particularly effective way of addressing the learning needs of a range of students while also providing a structure for collaboration among faculty and between faculty and student affairs professionals

– LLCs serve to build academic and social experiences which promote a deeper, richer multidisciplinary learning that is typically not possible when courses are unrelated on to another

– Research has shown that learning communities yield a number of important benefits for students• Students tend to develop supportive peer groups• Students tend to spend more time together, in particular, more time studying together• In finding more support and spending more time studying, students I learning

communities become more involved in a range of learning activities, learn more, and persist more frequently than do students in more traditional learning settings

Chapter 12: Taking Action• Ret=EID+ (E+In+C)IV; That is, Retention=EarlyIdentification +

(Early+Intensive+Continuous)Interviention

• Over the years, colleges and universities have designed programs and services to help retain students by trying to ease student transition into the academic and social systems of the institution. These programs and services consist of orientation programs, counseling and student development, assessment, remedial and academic support services, and the development of educational communities within the classroom among others. Despite that, students are not retained at a higher rate than they were twenty or more years ago

Retention• When it comes down to it, retention equals Early Identification plus (Early plus

Intensive plus Continuous) Intervention. • This applies to all students: right out of high school, adults, and retirees• Positive experiences and interventions will reinforce persistence by heightening

individual intentions and commitments, whereas negative experiences will weaken intentions and commitments– Intentions can include the desire to earn a degree in a particular field of study, whereas

commitment is the student’s desire to complete that degree and willingness to spend the time and energy necessary to obtain it

• Therefore, the greater the individual student’s levels of integration into the social and academic systems of the college, the greater his or her subsequent commitment to the college

• The formula: Ret=EID+ (E+In+C)– It takes theoretical models a step further with one simple issue and way to solve the

issue

The formula• Early identification

– Is assessment of student skill levels– The assessment of skill can take place at the time of application, through the thorough examination

of academic records and types of courses taken in high school• Early intervention

– Is defined as starting an intervention at the earliest time possible after identification. – Intervention programs and services should be available as early in a student’s college career as

possible• Intensive Intervention

– Is defined as creating an intervention that is intensive or strong enough to effect the desire change– This can result in a student spending five days per week in an intervention program– The student must demonstrate that he/she has mastered the skills or social factors

• Continuous Intervention– Is defined as an intervention that persists until the change is effected– The intervention can continue throughout the student’s college career– Ideally, a student should not have to pass a course that makes them demonstrate skills they already

have

The Formula Cont’d• In summary, the aim of the Seidman formula is

to identify a student in need of assistance academically and/or socially as early as possible, assess student needs, prescribe interventions, and monitor, assess, and adjust interventions where necessary

Implementing the Formula• There is a two-pronged approach to implementing this

formula– First, term course prerequisites and course skill levels need to

be identified by the faulty– What are the skills necessary in reading, writing, and

mathematics in a foundational or college entry-level class for a student to be able to perform the work at a satisfactory level

– Second, the student side of the model• Student assessment is key• Once faculty have identified what skills are needed to be successful

in the foundational entry-level class they teach, the student skill levels must be determined

In Conclusion• Retention is complicated• There are many factors that go into it• There are many theories• It is more than just the first year• It is not as easy as it seems

Documents

College Student Retention