Journal | References | Discussio



Journal \| References \| Discussion Group \| Slide Shows \| Issues \| Consulting \| Companies \| Jobs/Conferences \| Affiliates \| Home

About the Center
Contact Us

Retention Revisited: RET = E Id + (E + I + C)Iv.
A Publication By Alan Seidman

Seidman, A. (1996, Spring). Retention Revisited: RET = E Id + (E + I + C)Iv. College and University, 71(4), 18-20.

Abstract

Colleges have developed many intervention programs and services over the years to help students become academically and socially integrated into the college setting. How successful have these programs and services been to help students become acculturated into the college and help retain them? This article will look at the data, suggest retention/attrition definitions and provide a formula for student success.

How do you spell retention? Retention (R) equals Early (E) Identification (Id) + Early (E) & Intensive (In), Intervention (Iv).

The Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993) model of retention/attrition has been widely examined, tested and accepted by the educational community since it was first published in 1975 (Halpin, 1990; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983; Pascarella et al, 1983; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1980). Simply stated the theory posits that individual pre-entry college attributes (family background, skill and ability, prior schooling) form individual goals and commitments. The individual’s goals and commitments interact over time with institutional experiences (the formal and informal academic and social systems of an institution). The extent to which the individual becomes academically and socially integrated into the formal and informal academic and social systems of an institution determines the individual’s departure decision (Tinto, 1993).

Colleges and universities have designed programs and services to ease student transition into the academic and social systems of the institution. These programs and services consist of orientation programs (Green, 1987), counseling and student development (Seidman, 1992a; Seidman, 1992b), assessment, remedial and academic support services (Seidman, 1995; Seidman, 1993; Crockett, 1984) and the development of educational communities within the classroom (Tinto et al, 1994), among others. Yet with the general acceptance of the Tinto theory and the implementation of programs and services over the past twenty years, have we done any better retaining students? According to data gathered by the 1992 ACT Survey (Tinto 1993) institutional rates of first year attrition (between the first and second year is used as a benchmark since the majority of attrition occurs between these years) for full-time students entering four-year public institutions in the fall 1990 was 28.3% while at four year private institutions the rate was 24.0%. At public two-year colleges the first year attrition rate for full-time students was 47.9%.

Conversely, when we look at completion rates, again using ACT Survey data (Tinto 1993), after six years for four-year colleges and over three years for two-year colleges (six years and three years are used for four-year and two-year colleges respectively since the Department of Education used this as a benchmark to measure institutional effectiveness) gives us another view of retention and attrition and shows whether there has been any changes over time. The data shows that for full-time students entering four-year colleges in 1977 six years later in 1983, 52.6% graduated; those that entered in 1980 by 1986, 48.4% graduated; those that entered in 1984 by 1990, 47.9% graduated; and those who entered in 1986 by 1992, 46.7% graduated. The students who entered four-year public colleges in 1977 to those that entered in 1986 there has been a decline in completion rates.

There are similar results for four-year private institutions. Students entering four-year private institutions in 1977 by 1983, 59.6% graduated; those who entered in 1980 by 1986, 58.4% graduated; those who entered in 1984 by 1990, 57.4% graduated; and those who entered in 1986 by 1992, 57.6% graduated. Students who entered in 1977 to those that entered in 1986 there was a decline in completion rates although there was a very slight increase in completion rates for those who entered in 1986 over those that entered in 1984.

When we look at students who enrolled in two-year colleges full-time we get similar data. Students who entered college in 1980 by 1983, 40.0% graduated; those who entered in 1983 by 1986, 37.9% graduated; those who entered in 1987 by 1990, 38.6% graduated and those who entered in 1989 by 1992, 38.7% graduated. Again, students who entered in 1980 to those who entered in 1989 there was a decrease in completion rates although there was a slight increase for those who entered in 1989 to those who entered in 1987.

We would assume that with all the programs, services and interventions developed over the years that the data would show a steady increase in retention and completion rates. So, what’s up? Is the Tinto model wrong? Are we defining retention/attrition meaningfully? Are we looking at retention and attrition too narrowly? Are we expecting too much from our interventions?

Is the Tinto model wrong? I do not think so. It is sociological based with a firm foundation. There have been numerous studies over the past twenty years which indicate that the model is a good predictor of student departure behaviors. It just makes a lot of sense. Are we defining retention/attrition meaningfully to give us an opportunity to measure our results accurately? I do not think so. There is no standard definition of retention and until we develop one and apply it nationally, we will continue to get conflicting and inaccurate results of our interventions.

Are we looking at retention and attrition too narrowly? Perhaps. I would like to suggest that retention/attrition should be defined and looked at from three different perspectives. Looking at retention broadly gives us a better picture of what happens in the classroom and colleges to our students. Retention should be defined as course, program and student retention.

Course retention would measure the number of students enrolled in each college course after the course census date and how many successfully completed the course with an A-D grade at the end of the semester. Looking at course retention/attrition gives an overall picture of retention and does not distinguish between full and part-time students. Up to this point, retention/attrition has almost always looked at first time full-time students. Using course retention we can look at all courses regardless whether the student is enrolled full or part-time, or is a freshman or junior. Courses with higher then average retention/attrition rates can be examined to try to determine the reason. Perhaps it is due to inappropriate course placement or advisement or course content etc.? In any case this data can prove very valuable to the college.

Program retention/attrition data is the current traditional way to look at retention/attrition. It looks at the traditional full-time first-time student and tracks him/her over a period of time (usually six years for four-year colleges and three years for two-year colleges) to ascertain whether or not the student graduated in the intended major at entry.

Student retention/attrition data would ascertain whether or not the student attained his/her academic and/or personal goals at exit. If a student misses two consecutive semesters, excluding summer sessions, he/she would be sent a questionnaire to try to determine if he/she achieved his/her academic and/or personal goals while enrolled. This obviously is the hardest data to gather since it relies on a questionnaire, although the student can be called. In addition, it is a way to keep in contact with the student to help provide needed resources even though the student is no longer enrolled. This would be providing a community service to the student and show him/her that the college really does care about his/her academic and social growth and development.

Are we expecting too much from our interventions? Perhaps, but we may not be using them effectively. For an intervention to be effective it must be powerful enough to affect change. Interventions must start early and be intensive enough to make a difference. A student who is having a problem in writing cannot be diagnosed in mid semester and referred to the writing center and be expected to improve enough to pass courses by the end of the semester. Consequently a student with social adjustment problems probably cannot overcome them after they have surfaced a number of times over the semester without an intervention.

Early identification and early and intensive intervention may make a difference in whether or not the student will leave the institution prematurely. Colleges have the data now to identify the characteristics of students who were unsuccessful in past semesters and years. Using this data, a profile of unsuccessful students can be developed. As students apply and are accepted, profile data can be used to identify "at risk" students and intervention strategies could be developed and implemented at the first available time, even prior to actual enrollment and continued throughout the semester or student’s college career. This early and intensive intervention can then be measured to see whether or not it has made a difference in course, program and student retention.

Data collection is a key to identification of "at risk" students which may vary at each individual institution based on profile data. Family information, which is usually not now collected, is important and could include socioeconomic level, parent educational level and household makeup (Seidman, 1995).

Indeed, we can make a difference in students attaining their academic and social goals and aspirations and thus improving our retention rates. Remember, R = E, Id + E & In, Iv. That is, Retention (R) equals Early (E) Identification (Id) + Early (E) & Intensive (In), Intervention (Iv).

References

Crockett, D. S. (1984). Advising skills, techniques, and resources. Iowa City, Iowa: ACT National Center for the Advancement of Educational Practice.

Green, E. (1987). At many colleges, orientation has become a serious introduction to campus life. Chronicle of Higher Education, 34(6), 41-43.

Halpin, R. L. (1990, Spring). An application of the Tinto model to the analysis of freshman persistence in a community college. Community College Review, 17(4), 22-32.

Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D. W. (1983, Spring). A multiinstitutional, path analytic validation of Tinto’s model of college withdrawal. American Educational Research Journal, 20, No. 1, 87-102.

Pascarella, E. T., Duby, P. B., & Iverson, B. K. (1983). A test and reconceptualization of a theoretical model of college withdrawal in commuter institution setting. Sociology of Education, 56, 88-100.

Seidman, A. (1995, May/June). The community college: A challenge for change. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 19(3), 247-254.

Seidman, A. (1993, April/May). Needed: A research methodology to assess community college effectiveness. Community College Journal, 63(5), 36-40.

Seidman, A. (1992a). Integrated admission counseling: Impact on enrollment. The Freshman Year Experience Newsletter, 4:6.

Seidman, A. (1992b). Academic advising can have a positive impact on student enrollment. The results of an integrated admissions and counseling process on student enrollment. Colleague. State University of New York, 36-42.

Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Towards the validation of Tinto’s model of college student attrition: A review of recent studies. Research in Higher Education, 12, No. 3, 271-282.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of the recent literature. A Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). 2nd Edition. Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V., Russo, P., Kadel, S. (1994, February/March). Constructing educational communities: Increasing retention in challenging circumstances. Community College Journal, 64(4), 26-29.