STUDENT RETENTION AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS - ufv.ca · Student Retention and Academic Success ‐...

STUDENT RETENTION AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS

Discussion Paper Two

Prepared by the Offices of the

Vice-President (Academic) & Provost and Enrolment Management

STUDENT RETENTION AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS

Students’ success in their academic studies is the primary goal of universities. Two fundamental ways

universities measure student success are graduation rates and retention rates. The first, graduation

rates, are determined after students have completed an entire program, say, a four‐year degree

program. The second, retention rates, are measured while students progress through various stages and

levels within a program. The most frequently measured and publicly reported levels are retention after

an academic term, such as a semester, and after an academic year.

Fortunately, the majority of students who begin their studies are successful and graduate. However,

many students do not. These students are called in the popular vernacular “drop‐outs”. There are many

reasons why students drop‐out, and one of our objectives in this discussion paper is to examine the

research literature in order to derive general causes of or reasons for students’ attrition from their

programs. A second objective is to learn from the research findings what universities are doing to

encourage and enable students to persist in their studies and to graduate. Some students drop‐out

because of circumstances beyond the influence of the university. Nonetheless, there is considerable

research evidence to suggest that universities can mitigate significantly some of the causes of or reasons

for student attrition.

A third objective in this discussion paper is to represent through charts, tables, and graphs the retention

and graduation rates of our students in our academic programs and to determine what they can tell us

about those factors or influences that encourage and enable students to remain in university and to

graduate from our programs.

Student Retention and Academic Success ‐ Discussion Paper 2 1

MANY PATHWAYS TO GRADUATION

As students progress from admission to graduation, a complex interaction of four major factors –

personal, social, academic, and institutional‐shape the quality of their educational experiences. While

these factors interact in ways unique to each student, studies across populations of students over time

reveal there are patterns of behaviours associated with retention that can be distilled to serve as lessons

about retention generally in post‐secondary education. From these lessons, we are able to make

predictions about what things we can do that enable student success. However, there are many

challenges when measuring retention rates. Institutional rates are limited by the quality of the data

collected. For instance, students move through post‐secondary using many paths on the way to

graduation and strict retention definitions may provide a more negative view than the reality. A recent

study by Finnie and Qiu (2009) in Atlantic Canada shows that some students “switch” institutions over

the course of their studies or stop‐out for a period of time. Of those who stop‐out, they found that after

one year of dropping out, over 20% of college students and more than 35% of university students

returned to post‐secondary institutions. Some students may apply for a particular term, not show up at

their scheduled registration date, and then enter at a later date. Students’ taking what is called a “gap”

year or two after high school before registering in a post‐secondary institution make up increasingly

large portion of new students.

A conversion rate refers to the percentage of students who apply, are admitted and who actually

register. In a preliminary analysis of our university’s conversion rates, which includes all new and

continuing students, an average of 60% of total applicants enroll directly from high school (Table 1).

However, many students enter at a later term than they originally applied for, which confounds the data

we seek.


Table 1: UFV Application and Conversion Rates by Entering Fall Term

Fall Started

# of applicants # enrolled

Conversion Rate

# enrolled in later term

Average age* % female*

% direct entry*

1999 3217 1897 59% 465 23.1 54% 38%

2000 3044 1795 59% 465 22.9 57% 40%

2001 3543 2093 59% 508 22.9 57% 39%

2002 3598 1995 55% 499 22.5 54% 40%

2003 3557 2147 60% 424 21.4 55% 42%

2004 3497 2034 58% 475 22.8 58% 41%

2005 3408 2067 61% 387 22.3 59% 46%

2006 3094 1949 63% 302 22.3 60% 45%

2007 2890 1716 59% 290 22.4 56% 43%

2008 2855 1885 66% 82 22.7 56% 39%

Total Average 3270 1958 60% 22.5 57% 41%

*Includes only those students enrolled Institutional retention rates that measure students who transition directly from high school and

complete their degree in four years may provide a simplified and misleading picture of the paths that

students take to program completion. In many cases, students leave and may return at a later date to

the same, or different, institution (Grayson and Grayson, 2003). This pattern of participation may

account for what is called “positive attrition”. In “positive attrition” situations, students have achieved

their goals prior to completing their program, and possibly gained employment. Alternately, students

may have realized that a course or program is not appropriate to their needs and aspirations. However,

they would be grouped with the rest of the drop‐outs and thus create a somewhat misleading over‐all

institutional picture (McGivney, 2003).

Our university provides an array of credentials and entering points, and students take multiples paths to

completion. Therefore, a “fall to fall” measure of counting retention does not necessarily reflect an

accurate retention picture. Therefore, traditional retention definitions must be adapted to fit our


institutional student profile and program mix. As a starting point, in Table 2 we provide an initial analysis

on entering students and their completion rates. It is important to note that all of our data must be

interpreted with caution. Our data utilize a specific definition of retention that cannot account for

variances among the many and diverse pathways that students pursue.

Table 2: UFV Retention Rates by Entering Fall Term

Fall Started Head Count

% cont’d to 2nd Yr

% cont’d to 3rd Yr

% graduated in 4 Yrs or less

% cont’d to 5th Yr

% graduated in 5 yrs


% graduated in 6 Yrs



1999 1897 50% 29% 25% 15% 6% 5% 4% 2% 1%

2000 1795 48% 34% 25% 12% 6% 8% 5% 4% 4%

2001 2093 48% 31% 24% 12% 6% 7% 4% 5%

2002 1995 49% 34% 23% 13% 7% 9% 6%

2003 2147 50% 34% 25% 15% 7%

2004 2034 48% 33% 22%

2005 2067 48% 33%

2006 1949 48% 37%

2007 1716 51%

2008 1885

Total Average 1958 49% 33% 24% 13% 6% 7% 5% 4% 3%

Note: The % continued to 2nd year is lower than previously reported. This includes students in certificate and transfer programs (Engineering). The students who graduated from certificate programs are included in the graduated totals.

LESSONS FROM THE LITERATURE ON STUDENT RETENTION

The dominant theoretical model in the research literature is the Student Integration Model, originally

developed by Vincent Tinto in the 1970s (Figure 1). Simply put, according to Tinto, students do not

persist in their studies because of a lack of integration into the educational community. Persistence is a

function of the interactions between an individual student and the educational environment. Therefore,


the degree of “fit” between the student’s motivation to learn and academic ability and the institution’s

characteristics is a significant factor in determining the likelihood of a students’ decision to persist.

Tinto argues that students enter post‐secondary schooling with a variety of pre‐entry characteristics that

are associated with their family background (i.e. socio‐economic status) and varying degrees of skills,

abilities and high school preparation. These factors are directly related to their initial goals and

commitments when they enter post‐secondary. After they begin their journey into post‐secondary, they

are exposed to numerous institutional experiences that Tinto groups into four main areas – grade

performance, intellectual development, peer‐group interactions, and faculty interactions. These

interactions within the academic system characterize the social and academic integration. Through this

process, a student formulates emerging goals and commitments that ultimately affects their decisions to

stay or leave.

Tinto’s model was not designed to explain all reasons for student departure but to highlight the

complexities within the formal and informal academic and social systems within an educational

institution. The model recognizes that students may leave because of external factors, failure to meet

academic requirements, or other reasons beyond an institution’s control. The focus is on the institution

itself and its impact on departure behaviour of students (Tinto,1982). Therefore, it presents policy and

procedural questions about how an institution can change in order to try and reduce student attrition.


Figure 1: An adaption of Tinto’s Model of Institutional Departure (1993, p. 115)

Although Tinto’s model is not without its share of critics, many researchers who have tested and built

upon the framework have addressed its areas of weakness. For Grayson and Grayson (2003), the model

was able to explain limited amounts of variance in attrition. They said that “despite the claims of some

of the critics the important explanatory variables in the model were useful in explaining attrition in both

commuter and residential institutions and in both two‐ and four‐year institutions” (p. 14).


Bean and Metzer (1980) also developed a model of student attrition (Figure 2) as an alternative in

explaining student persistence. They argue that attrition is similar to turnover in work environments.

They also emphasize the importance of students’ behavioral intentions. Students’ behavior is shaped by

their beliefs and attitudes which are in turn affected by their experiences within the institution.

One notable characteristic of Bean and Metzer’s model is their emphasis on factors external to the

institution that play a major role in affecting a students’ decision to persist or not in their studies. The

external factors includes social‐psychological (goals, utility, alienation, faculty contact, social life),

academic (pre‐matriculation academic performance, academic integration) and environmental

(finances, opportunity to transfer, outside friends). Consistent with Tinto’s model, the socialization

(integration) factors include grades, institutional fit, and student commitment, although it recognizes

the direct influence of the environmental factors regardless of the experiences within the institution.

Figure 2: Student Attrition Model (Bean and Metzer, 1985)


Zepke and Leach (2005), after summarizing over 140 studies on retention and persistence, found two

main discourses in the research community, one dominant; the other emerging. The first, based

primarily on Tinto’s work, centres on what institutions are doing to integrate and “fit students into their

existing cultures” (p. 46). The other suggests that cultures should be adapted to “better fit the needs of

increasingly diverse students” (p. 46). This is called student integration model. “The student integration

model indicates that academic integration, social integration, institutional commitment, and goal

commitment have the greatest impact on retaining students. By comparison, research based on the

student attrition model indicates that the intent to persist, attitudes, institutional fit and external factors

like family approval, encouragement of friends, finances and perceptions about opportunity to transfer

elsewhere affect decisions to stay or leave the institution” (Grayson and Grayson p. 16).

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Once students enroll in university, their actual experiences within the first year are better predictors of

persistence and retention than are their entering characteristics. The degree of connectedness between

students and their institution, especially with their educational programs, is what is called student

engagement. Engaged students are very connected. They are more likely to persist in their studies and

be successful. Their engagement can mitigate against their entering characteristics that place them at

risk of having success and perhaps of dropping out. The literature on student engagement is extensive.

In a report commissioned and written for the National Symposium on Post‐Secondary Student Success,

Kuh et al. (2006) identify two critical and general factors that enhance student engagement:

1. The amount of time and effort students put into their studies and other educationally purposive

activities, and


2. The ways the institution deploys its resources and organizes its curriculum, other learning

opportunities, and support services to induce students to participate in activities that lead to the

experiences and desired outcomes such as persistence, satisfaction, learning and graduation.

From this literature on student engagement, there are six specific lessons that can guide our

understanding:

Student academic preparedness and motivation to learn

The students’ academic preparation and motivation are the best predictors of student

persistence (Adelman, 2006; Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005). Based upon an extensive review of

the literature, Swail (2006) notes that approximately one‐third of all first year students are not

prepared for post‐secondary reading and writing levels. Adelman (2006), a leading American

expert on high school transitions, emphasizes this point and notes that “the academic intensity

of the student’s high school curriculum still counts more than anything else in precollegiate

history in providing momentum toward completing a bachelor’s degree” (p.18). This is

particularly important in mathematics, and the higher the level of understanding that a high

school student can achieve is a key factor in subsequent persistence and success. While this

relationship is so significant, many students are not prepared for successful achievement in

university mathematics. For Adelman, “the math gap is something we definitely have to fix”

(p.19).

Transitioning into the campus climate

Out of the students who drop‐out, approximately half leave within the first year (Grayson and

Grayson, 2003). Because of this, many institutions developed strategies that address the first

year experience and have created more opportunities for students to acquire dual credit for

courses taken during their final time in high school. If they can enter post‐secondary with a head


start, the likelihood of persistence is greater. Adelman (2006) recommends that students should

achieve at least 20 credits by the end of their first year to create momentum and to carry them

forward.

Commitment to educational goals and the institution

Universities may provide many opportunities for students to become engaged, but students

must take advantage of these opportunities. Similar to any other community, there will always

be those who choose to not participate. However, if we expect our students to become engaged,

we must demonstrate a commitment to this goal and lead them through our own example. We

cannot expect them to commit if it is something we are not prepared or willing to do ourselves

(Tinto, 1993).

Students who are committed to the institution and have greater confidence in their own ability

in planning their educational and career goals are more likely to persist. Obviously, the best

scenario for retention is a combination of high institutional commitment to students and a high

commitment to learning from students. Institutional interventions for students with low levels of

engagement may include efforts such as advising, learning communities and mentoring programs

(Williford and Wadley, 2008).

Alignment of expectations and experience

Students must have a clear understanding of what the university’s expectations are and must see

their “fit” with the institution. Braxton, Vesper, and Hossler (1995) argue that students whose

expectations align with their actual experience are more likely to persist and graduate. They

caution that the expectations of students attending residential versus commuter institutions can

be quite different. According to Pascarella and Chapman (1983), students attending a commuter


campus do not have as high of expectations for social involvement compared to students who

live in residence.

Students’ expectations will vary depending on their entering characteristics and the type of

institution in which they are enrolled (Astin, 1993). Braxton et al. (1995) found that first

generation traditional students tend to have expectations that do not match what they actually

experience during their initial period of study.

Social and academic integration

Students who become socially and academically integrated into the institutional community are

more likely to persist (Tinto, 1993). Social connections they make in their first year of study are

especially important (Thomas, 2000). According to Astin (1993), their peers have considerable

influence on their decisions to persist and asserts that “ the student’s peer group is the single

most potent source of influence on growth and development during the undergraduate years”

(p.398).

Affordability

Students’ decisions to enroll and persist in their studies are related to the availability of

financial aid (Finnie and Qiu, 2009; Swail, 2006). However, measuring the effects of this variable

is difficult (Grayson and Grayson, 2003). Students who borrow rather than work to finance their

education are more likely to attend full‐time, work less, and engage more in the institutional

community. In a study of BC high school graduates conducted by the Canadian Millennium

Scholarship Foundation, students who did not have the intentions of pursuing post‐secondary

tended to inflate the cost of going to school. Forty percent of students who did not intend to

attend university did not even provide a financial estimate at all (McElroy, 2008). McElroy found


that, along with costs of education, commuting distance to a postsecondary institution is linked

to both the delay of entry and choice of institution (McElroy, 2008).

STUDENTS’ REASONS FOR LEAVING

When asked directly, students are not likely to say that they dropped out because of lack of

engagement. In a summary of the literature, Grayson and Grayson (2003) found that there are so many

differences between institutions it is difficult to generalize findings across research studies. Nonetheless,

students will often cite both financial and academic reasons for leaving an institution. Grayson and

Grayson also note that students who depart at different points in their program will provide different

reasons for leaving.

In 2003, a Short Stay survey, conducted by the Ministry of Advanced Education’s Outcomes Working

Group, was administered to students at six BC institutions (including the University College of the

Cariboo and Okanagan University College). Students who completed between 9 and 23 course credits

and had left their institution were included in the survey.

The students said that there were three main reasons for leaving: 1) they completed the credits they

required or wanted; 2) they changed their mind about their program or job goals; or 3) they transferred

or qualified for admission elsewhere.

When comparing those with low GPAs to those with high GPAs, the low GPA short stay students were

more likely to provide finances, loss of interest in studies, lack of goals or motivation, disappointment in

their own performance, program difficulty, changing their mind about their programs or goals, attaining

a job, or deciding to work as reasons for leaving. When these students were asked to provide the main

reason for leaving, 23% indicated that they had completed the courses they wanted or needed, 16%


specified that they had left for employment or work, and 11% said their decision was related to finances

or affordability. Although these students left without completing a credential, three‐quarters described

their experience as worthwhile and were satisfied with their overall experience with the program.

In 2008, a sample of our student population participated in the Canadian University Survey Consortium

(CUSC) undergraduate survey. Similar to other studies that we have participated in, UFV tends to rank

higher in many areas compared to our peers. Some of these areas are considered to be key factors in

retaining students. However, according to the respondents of the study, there are some areas that have

room for improvement.

Post‐secondary institutions participating in the CUSC study are grouped into three main categories. UFV

is included in group 1, which consists of universities that offer primarily undergraduate studies and have

smaller student populations. A total of 520 UFV students responded to the web based survey: a 52%

response rate.

It is worth mentioning how the demographics of UFV differ from the other universities in group 1: UFV’s

respondents were older, with the average age 24.9 years compared to 21.8 for the other participating

institutions; a higher proportion of UFV respondents were also more likely to be married (14% higher

than the overall average) and have children (10% more than the overall average); similar to findings in

the CUSC 2007 report, parental education levels were generally lower than those of students attending

other post‐secondary institutions; and UFV students are more likely to work off campus (60% compared

to 35% at the other institutions) and to work for more hours during the week (see Appendix A for

supporting tables).

Compared to respondents from peer institutions, UFV students attend considerably fewer on‐campus

events outside of their formal learning activities; notably in the areas of special lectures, social events,


athletic events, cultural events, and recreation and sports events. The area of greatest participation for

our students was in student clubs.

Table 3: Involvement in campus activities (% often/very often) All

students n=11,981

Group UFV (n=520) 1

n=6,861 2

n=2,294 3

n=2,826 b. Attended campus lectures (in addition to regular classes)

23% 23% 23% 21% 15%

a. Attended campus social events 21% 27% 15% 14% 7%g. Attended home games of university athletic teams

16% 21% 11% 8% 3%

c. Attended campus cultural events (theatre, concerts, art exhibits, etc.)

14% 18% 9% 10% 7%

f. Participated in on-campus student recreational and sports programs

22% 23% 20% 20% 5%

e. Participated in student clubs 20% 23% 16% 17% 11%d. Participated in student government

7% 7% 5% 8% 3%

While UFV students are not as involved in campus activities as their peers in other universities, they did

participate at a similar rate in volunteering activities (Table 4). The exception to this is volunteering in

on‐campus community service/volunteer activities. Although UFV students participated in social events

less than most, overall, the majority feel that they are part of the university (75%). Nonetheless, this is

lower than our direct peer group (group 1) by 8% (see Appendix A for further details).

Table 4: Involvement in community service/volunteer activities (% often/very often) Q17 All

students n=11,981

Group UFV (n=520) 1

n=6,861 2

n=2,294 3

n=2,826 i. Participated in off-campus community service/volunteer activities

17% 18% 15% 15% 15%

h. Participated in on-campus community service/volunteer activities

12% 14% 9% 10% 5%

Participated in on/off-campus community service/volunteer activities

22% 24% 19% 19% 17%


The majority of our students reported using the services of academic advising (77%), and 90% indicated

they were satisfied or very satisfied with the service. Compared to our peers, a larger portion of our

students used career counseling services, but fewer used employment services. With the exception of

tutoring services, our students were more satisfied with these services than students from the other

institutions.

Table 5: Use of special services Q14 All

students n=11,981

Group UFV (n=520) 1

n=6,861 2

n=2,294 3

n=2,826 a. Academic advising 71% 75% 69% 63% 77%l. Services for students needing financial aid

34% 38% 32% 26% 36%

b. Tutoring services 21% 21% 22% 21% 12%s. Employment services 21% 22% 18% 21% 14%p. Career counselling services 20% 21% 19% 18% 39%q. Study skills/learning support services 19% 22% 17% 15% 18%n. Work experience programs 16% 13% 23% 17% 20%o. Personal counselling services 15% 17% 15% 12% 14%k. International student services 10% 10% 10% 11% 8%j. Services for students with disabilities 7% 7% 5% 5% 7%m. Services for First Nations students 3% 4% 3% 3% 3%

Table 6: Satisfaction with special services (% satisfied/very satisfied) Q14 All

students Group UFV

1 2 3 q. Study skills/learning support services 85% 87% 79% 82% 85%s. Employment services 83% 83% 85% 83% 80%o. Personal counselling services 81% 84% 78% 77% 85%b. Tutoring services 81% 82% 80% 79% 78%a. Academic advising 80% 83% 79% 74% 90%k. International student services 79% 78% 73% 87% 80%l. Services for students needing financial aid

79% 80% 74% 79% 88%

n. Work experience programs 79% 78% 81% 78% 81%p. Career counselling services 79% 80% 76% 77% 83%j. Services for students with disabilities 71% 70% 70% 75% 71%m. Services for First Nations students 62% 59% 59% 69% 65%Note: Percentages are based on those who have used the service.


Overall, our student responses were in line with our peer institutions (group 1). A large majority

indicated their professors were encouraging and accessible to them. It is probably fair to assume that

group 1 fared better than the other two peer groups due, in part, to the benefits of smaller class sizes.

Table 7: Perception of professors (% agree/strongly agree) Q15 All

students (n=11,981)

Group UFV

(n=520) 1 n=6,861

2 n=2,294

3 n=2,826

g. Most of my professors encourage students to participate in class discussions

92% 95% 89% 88% 94%

j. Most of my professors are reasonably accessible outside of class to help students

92% 94% 89% 88% 94%

c. My professors show sensitivity to racial issues

89% 92% 86% 85% 93%

b. My professors show sensitivity to gender issues

86% 90% 82% 82% 91%

h. At this university, professors treat students as individuals, not just numbers

84% 92% 77% 73% 93%

e. My professors generally look out for students' interests

84% 89% 79% 75% 89%

d. Some professors at this university have had a major positive influence on my academic career

81% 84% 76% 75% 85%

a. Some of my professors have taken a personal interest in my academic progress

74% 81% 66% 63% 80%

f. I feel free to turn to some of my professors for advice on personal matters

49% 55% 41% 40% 53%

Students were asked to select the top three areas they would like to see improved, specifically in regard

to facilities and academic areas. Facilities, parking and food services were areas identified. As indicated

in the following table, these top three responses were the same for all institutions in our peer group. It

is important to note that UFV students ranked “sense of community among students” as the number

one (42%) area of all areas requiring improvement.


Table 8: Areas requiring improvement: top three Q16

All students n=11,981

Group UFV (n=520) 1

n=6,861 2

n=2,294 3

n=2,826 a. Emphasis on teaching excellence (ability)

47% 40% 53% 59% 40%

h. University spending on financial aid 41% 44% 38% 37% 34%b. Sense of community among students

33% 31% 36% 34% 42%

c. Emphasis on academics 25% 24% 26% 27% 28%g. Work study opportunities 25% 25% 21% 26% 26%i. Use of technology in the classroom 23% 23% 23% 22% 28%j. Work opportunities on campus 22% 24% 22% 18% 15%f. Student employment services 22% 23% 21% 21% 15%d. Opportunities for a social life 22% 22% 23% 19% 29%e. Opportunities for study abroad 21% 22% 16% 20% 20%Other mentions 8% 9% 8% 8% 9%Note: Respondents could provide more than one answer. Therefore, columns will not sum to 100%.

For the most part, students are satisfied with their experiences, and their responses are either in line

with our peer groups or slightly higher. However, the student involvement results (Tables 3 and 4)

provoke some immediate questions such as: Why are students not getting involved? Are we offering

enough of the right kind of opportunities for students in number and variety? What are the most

effective ways to encourage student involvement?

INCREASING STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

There is no shortage of examples and summaries in the literature offering approaches to increase

student engagement. Using data gathered from the College Student Expectations Questionnaire (CSEQ),

the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), and the Community College Survey of Student

Engagement (CCSSE), Kuh et al. (2006) offers seven conclusions associated with students’ persistence,

satisfaction, and success:


1. Student engagement in educationally purposeful activities is positively related to both academic

grades and persistence.

2. Though smaller schools generally engage students more effectively, in colleges and universities

of similar sizes engagement can vary widely.

3. Student engagement varies more within any given school or institutional type than between

schools or institutional types.

4. Student engagement in effective educational practice is unrelated to the selectivity of the

institution in terms of admission standards.

5. Some students are more engaged than others. Characteristically, the students engaged the

most:

are women

study full‐time

live on campus

are Aboriginal (those who start at and graduate from the same school)

are involved in learning communities

are international

have diverse experiences

6. Some single‐mission institutions instill engagement in their students.

7. The single best predictor of student engagement is the degree to which they perceive the

institutional environment is supportive of their academic and social needs.


PRINCIPLES INTO PRACTICE

Strauss and Volkwein (2004) caution that the results from retention research from four‐year institutions

cannot automatically be generalized to two‐year institutions. In their study, the biggest differences

between the two types of institutions was that the “classroom experience is a more influential predictor

at two‐year institutions, while social integration has more impact on institutional‐commitment scores

for students at four‐year institutions” (p.219). Although much of the research has been based on

institutions that do not have a mandate that are similar to ours, there are key lessons worth noting:

Encourage high levels of faculty‐student interactions

In their highly quoted article, Chickering and Gamson (1987) cite seven principles of good

practice in undergraduate education that will work for many different types of students.

Although they note that the principles are good common sense, Chickering and Gamson (1987)

determine that high‐quality practice in education includes: contact between students and

faculty; reciprocity and cooperation among students; active learning techniques; prompt

feedback to students; emphasizes time on task, communicates high expectations, and respects

diverse talents and ways of learning. To increase engagement, contact between faculty and

students must be regular and meaningful and occur both inside and outside the classroom

(Zepke and Leach, 2005).

Encourage peer interactions, peer mentoring participation and participation in institutional activities

Students who form a broad network and develop ties with other students are most successful

educationally, are more satisfied and most persistent in their studies. It is important for

institutions to encourage and promote these ties so that students “develop a portfolio of

relations that can provide key resources (academic as well as social)” over the freshman year


(Thomas, 2000). Students who become involved will develop more commitment to the

institution and their education goals and, in turn, are more likely to persist through to

graduation.

Create a student‐centered campus environment that supports learning and encourages involvement

The campus environment plays a role in increasing the likelihood of students’ integration into the

learning community. For Strange and Banning (2001), “a measure of any educational institution’s

environmental capacity to encourage and sustain learning is the degree to which it provides the

conditions (in real and virtual form) for students’ inclusion, safety, involvement, and full

membership in a community.” (p. 200) For example, strategically placed study areas and

academic support facilities can either enhance or inhibit student involvement with social and

academic activity.

Institutional environments send non‐verbal messages to students that have the potential to

invite, or unfortunately, exclude student involvement. The environment ideally should promote a

greater sense of students’ sense of belonging. These non‐verbal messages are understood, as it

were, not only by students studying at the institution, but also by those considering the

possibility of studying there if and when they visit the campus.

Develop a variety of effective academic and social programs that increases the likelihood of persistence

There are many effective programs and practices identified in the literature that have a positive

impact on students’ persistence. Kuh et al (2006) identify orientation, transition courses and

first‐year seminars, learning communities, intrusive advising, tutoring, supplemental instruction,

peer tutoring, study groups and summer bridge programs, study skills workshops, mentoring and

student support groups, student‐faculty research, and senior capstone projects as among those


that are effective. However, they caution that “simply offering such programs and practices does

not guarantee that they will have the intended effects on students’ behaviors. Institutional

programs and practices must be of high quality, carefully designed to meet the needs of students

they are intended to reach, and firmly rooted in a student success‐oriented campus culture”

(p.57).

Close the gap between secondary and post‐secondary

Because students’ academic preparedness and motivation are the best predictors of their

completion and graduation, alignment of the curriculum and standards of performance of the

high school curriculum and those expected at a post‐secondary institution has the potential to

reduce an already steep learning curve for students admitted directly from high school. Students

who do not obtain essential university levels in math and literacy in high school will be less likely

to be academically successful in their academic studies.

Create clear pathways and ensure entering students know what to expect

Students transitioning into post‐secondary for the first time have developed a frame of

reference that is not based upon any direct in‐depth experiences in universities and colleges.

They may form false or possibly idealistic portrayals of the experience that could differ

considerably from reality. This is more often true for first generation students who often have

no parental or other role models upon which to shape their expectations. Students need to feel

comfortable with the institutional processes and in the organizational culture (Zepke and Leach,

2005). For example, transitioning high school students are familiar with a highly structured time

and course learning environment and need to adapt to a post‐secondary environment that is

considerably more fluid and flexible in both.


Students must understand the real costs, including those beyond the price of admission and

financial aid options available to them.

Develop learning communities that emerge from the classroom The classroom environment plays an important role in a student’s learning experience. This is

particularly the case at commuter campuses since it is the primary venue for students to

acquire knowledge and develop skills. Although there are many communities within one

institutions that are interrelated and overlap each other, the “process of academic and social

integration (involvement) can be understood as emerging from student involvement with

faculty and student peers in the communities of classrooms” (Tinto, 1997, p.617). A student’s

experience is enhanced when the learning process is one which requires being actively involved

in a positive and connected way (Astin, 1993). At its root, the learning experience is shaped

through the curriculum structure and classroom experiences which can then influence a

student’s level of involvement in the academic and social fabric of the institution.

Use reliable information to determine where to focus efforts on student success

Much is now known about the factors and their interplay that shape students’ degrees of

engagement in their studies and the organizational life of their universities. These research

conclusions coupled with the data base that each university develops should be a basis for

individualized institutional strategies for student retention.

Participating in international surveys such as the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)

provides valuable insights into why students choose to leave university before completing their

programs.

Create an institutional commitment to the goal of increasing retention and maintain high expectations


If an institution is to succeed in increasing student engagement, there must be a willingness to

invest in the resources necessary to implement effective interventions (Kuh et al, 2006; Swail,

2004; Tinto, 2003). Institutions must clearly hold high expectations for their students to

succeed. High expectations of success ultimately will result in higher rates of student retention.

While high expectations alone do not guarantee high engagement, they set a tone, as it were,

within the organizational culture and motivate all to explore the many ways to create the

conditions for students’ success.

Focus on student learning and the places they are expected to learn

The many places where students’ learn – those formal, classrooms, laboratories, libraries, and

those informal, cafes, lounges, studies, for example ‐ are settings where the essential

integration of the academic and the social dimensions of learning occur. The quality of this

directly correlates with students’ academic achievement, one correlation necessary for

enhanced student engagement and ultimately success. At the heart of any strategic retention

plan is the learning setting –places where students learn. The quality of the educational

experiences students have in their learning settings is the most influential in shaping their

decisions to leave, or not to leave.

CREATING A STUDENT RETENTION PLAN

A student retention plan must be designed to fit the particular characteristics of the institution and its

student body. However, one lesson from the literature teaches us that to ensure success, the plan

requires the participation of all: faculty, staff, and administrators. It is also critical that the

implementation of the plan be regularly assessed (Swail, 2004). (Appendix B includes a detailed list of

the framework recommended by Swail.)


To guide us in the development of a strategic plan, Tinto (1993) offers the following advice:

Institutions should provide resources for program development and incentives for program

participation that reach out to faculty and staff alike.

Institutions should commit themselves to a long term process of program development.

Institutions should place ownership for institutional change in the hands of those across the

campus who have to implement that change.

Institutional actions should be coordinated in a collaborative fashion and insure a systematic,

campus‐wide approach to student retention.

Institutions should act to insure that faculty and staff possess the skills needed to assist and

educate their students.

Institutions should front‐load their efforts on behalf of student retention.

Institutions and programs should continually assess their actions with an eye toward

improvement.

FIRST STEPS TOWARDS A RETENTION PLAN

The most effective way to increase retention of university students is to recruit academically prepared

and motivated students who will attend post‐secondary full‐time. However, growing numbers of

students combine work with their studies or take a reduced number of courses each term. In an open‐

access institution such as our own, many of our students are characterized by factors that put them at a

higher risk of dropping out. Nonetheless, we have learned that there is much we can do to mitigate risk

factors and to provide the conditions necessary for their engagement and ultimate success. In the words

of Tinto:


“Institutions that are committed to the goal of increasing student retention, especially among

excluded groups, seem to find a way to achieve that end. But institutional commitment is more than

just words, more than just mission statements issued in elaborate brochures; commitment is the

willingness to invest the resources and provide the incentives and rewards needed to enhance

student retention. Institutional commitment translates in turn to expectations for student success.”

(Tinto, 2003, p.3)

There are many factors that encourage and enable students to become engaged with their studies and

their university. There are other factors that distance students to the point that they leave. In both

instances, the factors having influence are rarely mutually exclusive but rather interrelated and

interactional. These factors can be thought of as either enabling or hindering. Some factors that could

hinder students’ in their efforts to become engaged, such as work and family, lie beyond an institution’s

control. However, higher levels of engagement can be achieved through strategic interventions. These

interventions have considerably more impact, of course, when they are integrated into a cohesive,

integrated strategic retention plan.

Our departments, schools, and services already practice many of these interventions to considerable

success. Students, for example, have access to academic support through the Writing and Math Centres;

receive personal advising and financial services through Student Services; benefit from employment

assistance through the Career Centre; and receive technical support from Instructional Media Services.

Opportunities for students to become socially integrated into the life of the university are available

through Student Life, Athletics, and numerous student run clubs and organizations. Four strategic

interventions that have had considerable success are: the University 101 course; CHARTS (cohort

learning in first‐year Arts); and Supported Learning Groups.


Many of our students are deeply engaged in the lift of our university; many have successfully graduated;

the majority report high levels of satisfaction during their educational journey with us. However, not all

graduate; not all are successful; not all are satisfied. Our attrition rates are higher than we want. We

have always addressed the learning needs and aspirations of our students to the best of our abilities.

Nonetheless, the research on student engagement teaches us that more can be done; it clearly reveals

intervention strategies that can enhance the degree of student engagement; and it offers a compelling

case for the strategic implementation of the intervention strategies that are tightly coupled together

into an integrated whole; that is, a strategic retention plan.

A next step for us is to develop a strategic plan that will guide the university forward to achieve its goals

of being the institution of choice for the students of the Fraser Valley and beyond and of providing our

students with Canada’s best undergraduate educational experience.


REFERENCES

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school to post‐secondary. USA: US Department of Education.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. USA: Jossey‐Bass.

Bean, J.P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155‐187.

Braxton, J.M., Vesper, N. and Hossler, D. (1995). Expectations for college and student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 36 (5), 595‐611.

Cabrera, A.F., Castaneda, M.B., Amaury, N. and D. Hengstler. (1992). The convergence between two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 63 (2), 143‐164.

Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., M.B. Castaneda. (1993). College persistence: Structural equations modeling test of an integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64 (2), 123‐139.

Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin (March).

Finnie, R. and Qiu, T. (2009). Moving through, moving on: Persistence in postsecondary education in Atlantic Canada. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Grayson, J.P. and Grayson, K. (2003). Research on retention and attrition. Canada: Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

Kuh, G.D., J. Kinzie, J.A. Buckley, B.K. Bridges, and Hayek, J.C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Commissioned report for the National Symposium in Postsecondary Student Success.

Kuh, G.D., J. Kinzie, J.H. Schuh, Whitt, E.J. (2005). Assessing the conditions to enhance educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success. USA: Jossey‐Bass.

McElroy, L. (2008). In pursuit of postsecondary education. Canada: Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

McGivney, V. (2003). Staying or Leaving the course: Non‐completion and retention of mature students in further and higher education. UK: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.

Outcomes Working Group (OWG).(2003). Short stay summary report. BC Ministry of Advanced Education.

Pascarella, E.T. (2001). Identifying excellence in undergraduate education: Are we even close? Changes, May/June, 19‐23.


Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. USA: Jossey‐Bass.

Strange, C.C. and Banning, J.H. (2001). Educating by design: Creating campus learning environments that work. USA: Jossey‐Bass.

Strauss, L.C. & J.F. Volkwein. (2004). Predictors of student commitment at two‐year and four‐year institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 75 (2), 203‐227.

Swail, W.S. (2004). The art of student retention: A handbook for practitioners and administrators. USA: Educational Policy Institute.

Thomas, S.L. (2000). Ties that bind: A social network approach to understanding student integration and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 71 (5), 591‐615.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. USA: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the educational character of student persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68 (6), 599‐623.

Tinto, V. (2003). Establishing conditions for success. In Improving completion rates among disadvantages students,p.1‐10. Edited by Thomas, L. Cooper, M, and Quinn, J. UK: Trentham Books Ltd.

Williford, A.M. & Wadley, J.Y. (2008). How institutional research can create and synthesize retention and attrition information. USA: Association for Institutional Research.

Zepke, N. and L. Leach. (2005). Integration and adaption: Approaches to the student retention and achievement puzzle. Active Learning in Higher Education, 6 (1), 46‐59.


APPENDIX A: TABLES FROM CUSC 2008 UNDERGRADUATE SURVEY

Table 1: Personal profile

All students

(n=11,981)

Group UFV (n=520) 1

(n=6,861) 2

(n=2,294) 3

(n=2,826) Gender Q38

Male 29% 26% 37% 32% 23%Female 62% 66% 55% 59% 64%

Age Q3918 years or younger 17% 20% 16% 13% 12%19 years of age 15% 17% 13% 12% 8%20 years of age 15% 15% 11% 16% 8%21 years of age 13% 13% 12% 14% 10%22 years of age 9% 7% 10% 10% 10%23 to 25 years of age 12% 9% 19% 13% 16%26 years of age or older 10% 10% 10% 12% 23%Average age 21.8 21.6 22.0 22.3 24.9

Marital status Q45Single 48% 49% 48% 49% 35%In a relationship 34% 34% 35% 32% 28%Married or common-law 9% 9% 9% 10% 23%

Children Q46/Q47Yes 6% 6% 4% 5% 16%- 5 years or younger 3% 3% 2% 3% 7%- 6 to 11 years 2% 2% 1% 2% 6%- 12 years or older 2% 3% 2% 2% 8%

Language first learned and still understand Q49English 75% 83% 73% 60% 77%French 5% 2% 3% 13% <1%Other 11% 7% 17% 18% 10%

Disability Q53Total self-identified 8% 8% 7% 6% 7%

Visible minority Q52*Total self-identified 19% 12% 27% 28% 18%

Aboriginal Q52**Total self-identified 3% 4% 2% 4% 2%Note: * 'Visible minority' includes respondents that self-identified themselves as belonging to an ethnic/cultural group other than 'Aboriginal', 'Inuit', 'Métis' or 'White'. ** 'Aboriginal' includes respondents that self-identify themselves as 'Aboriginal', 'Inuit' or 'Métis'.


Table 2: Employment status


Group UFV (n=520) 1

n=6,861 2

n=2,294 3

n=2,826 Currently employed Q26 (all respondents)

Yes, both on and off campus 3% 4% 3% 3% 3%Yes, on campus 10% 13% 8% 6% 4%Yes, off campus 35% 31% 39% 41% 60%No, but seeking work 12% 11% 12% 13% 5%No, not seeking work 32% 33% 31% 29% 15%

Number of hours worked per week Q27*10 hours or less 37% 41% 30% 33% 24%11 to 20 hours 38% 35% 43% 40% 33%21 to 30 hours 15% 14% 15% 16% 22%Over 30 hours 11% 10% 11% 11% 20%Average number of hours 16.8 16.2 17.7 17.6 21.3

Negative impact of non-co-op related employment on academic performance Q28*None 39% 42% 33% 35% 33%Some 32% 33% 31% 32% 33%Moderate 18% 16% 20% 21% 22%Significant 7% 6% 10% 8% 8%Substantial 3% 3% 4% 4% 3%Note: * Only students who are currently employed were asked how many hours they work per week and whether their employment has a negative impact on their academic performance.

Table 3: Agreement level: I feel as if I am part of the university Q15Q


Group UFV (n=520) 1

n=6,861 2

n=2,294 3

n=2,826 Agree strongly 16% 22% 9% 8% 12%Agree 61% 61% 63% 60% 63%Disagree 20% 15% 24% 27% 24%Disagree strongly 3% 2% 4% 5% 2%No response <1% <1% <1%


Table 4: Top three suggested improvements Q14

All students

(n=11,981)

Group UFV

(n=520) 1

(n=6,861)

2 (n=2,294)

3 (n=2,826)

t. Food services 35% 38% 33% 29% 39%g. Parking facilities 33% 32% 37% 31% 50%a. Academic advising 30% 27% 32% 37% 28%v. Library facilities 26% 28% 24% 26% 27%c. Computer facilities 18% 15% 20% 23% 17%d. Athletic facilities 17% 18% 16% 14% 10%i. Campus book stores 16% 17% 16% 15% 13%l. Services for students needing financial aid

15% 15% 15% 15% 12%

u. University residences 12% 15% 9% 9% 3%n. Work experience programs 12% 11% 13% 13% 13%p. Career counselling services 10% 9% 9% 12% 13%b. Tutoring services 9% 8% 10% 12% 8%s. Employment services 8% 8% 9% 10% 8%r. Campus medical services 8% 9% 7% 6% 3%h. University-based social activities 8% 8% 8% 7% 11%f. Facilities for student associations, clubs, etc.

8% 7% 7% 8% 8%

w. Student life program 6% 6% 6% 6% 9%e. Other recreational facilities 6% 7% 5% 5% 8%q. Study skills/learning support services

6% 5% 6% 7% 6%

j. Services for students with disabilities 5% 6% 4% 3% 2%o. Personal counselling services 4% 4% 4% 5% 3%k. International student services 3% 2% 3% 3% 2%m. Services for First Nations students 2% 2% 1% 2% <1%Note: Respondents could provide more than one answer. Therefore, columns will not sum to 100%.


APPENDIX B: FRAMEWORK FOR RETENTION PLAN

Swail (2004) provides a framework for institutions to implement a retention plan and reduce some of

the barriers noted in the literature around persistence. The objectives are divided into the following

categories:

Financial aid

Disseminate information

Increase availability of need‐based aid (i.e. grants, scholarships, work study programs)

Recruitment and admissions

Precollege programs

School visitations

On campus living orientation

Freshman orientation

Academic services

Provide regular and structured academic advising and counseling to students

Diverse instruction

Supplementary instruction

Tutoring/mentoring programs

Research opportunities for undergraduate students

Bridging programs between senior year and highschool

Precollege programs

Informal faculty‐student contact

Curriculum and instruction



Instructional practices – use of various methods of delivering content to students, focusing on

comprehension rather than memorization

Curricular review – develop an integrated process to ensure that all pieces of the curriculum are

up to date and relevant to society’s needs

Professional development – provide extensive and ongoing professional development to faculty

and staff to incorporate new teaching strategies and assessment techniques

Assessment – design and implement new multifaceted assessment techniques that regard the

integrity of human learning and understanding

Student Services

Diversity and multiculturalism – can be promoted through special programming and activities

Flexible scheduling – allows a broader constituency to attend classes

Career counseling – students need to be sent on an academic track that will direct them toward

their career destination

Faculty‐student interaction – informal contact that promotes an atmosphere of sharing and

caring

Room and board – comfortable housing and affordable meals

Date post:	24-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

STUDENT RETENTION AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS - ufv.ca · Student Retention and Academic Success ‐...

Documents