A Roadmap for Meeting Institutional Retention Goals - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – A Roadmap for Meeting Institutional Retention Goals PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 67fbc4-M2IwZ



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

A Roadmap for Meeting Institutional Retention Goals

Description:

A Roadmap for Meeting Institutional Retention Goals & Helping More Students Succeed ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:75
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 73
Provided by: JayW88
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: A Roadmap for Meeting Institutional Retention Goals


1
A Roadmap for Meeting Institutional Retention
Goals Helping More Students Succeed
ACT Enrollment Planners Conference, Chicago, IL
July 20, 2006
2
UMR STUDENT RETENTION
UMR Graduation Rates 2000 2005 General
Student Body 52 64
3
UMR Succeeding at Student Success
  • Retention Rates
  • 2000 2005
  • General Student Body 82 87
  • Female Students 88 88
  • Minority Students 94 92
  • CAMPUS GOAL N/A 90
  • Graduation Rates
  • 2000 2005
  • General Student Body 52 64
  • Female Students 66 71
  • Minority Students 41 73
  • CAMPUS GOAL N/A 70

4
Background on Building the Student Retention and
Graduation Plan
5
Executive Primer on Student Persistence and
Retention
  • Retention rates commonly measure the percentage
    of freshmen that re-enroll the next academic year
    as sophomores. The primary reason that retention
    rates, along with graduation rates, are important
    is that retention rates are perceived as
    indicators of academic quality and student
    success.
  • In addition to retention, persistence, a
    student's continuation behavior leading to a
    desired goal, helps describe processes related to
    student goal achievement.
  • Generalizations about retention can be misleading
    because each school is dynamically unique in
    terms of academic emphasis and culture. Retention
    issues can be further complicated because of the
    necessity to understand students' educational
    goals in assessing whether leaving school is a
    negative or positive decision.

ADAPTED FROM DANA Center Retention Report, 1998
6
How to Start a Retention Roadmap Appoint Campus
Champions and Set Goals
7
ACTs 2006 Retention Recommendations colleges
(should) create a structured, comprehensive
retention program geared to assist students as
they make the transition to college life.
  • Designate a visible, senior-level individual on
    campus to coordinate retention activities.
  • Analyze student characteristics and needs and
    then implement a formal retention program that
    best meets those needs and the needs of the
    institution.
  • Take an integrated approach to retention efforts
    that incorporates both academic and non-academic
    factors.
  • Implement an early-alert assessment and
    monitoring system to identify students at risk of
    dropping out.

SOURCE ACT Retention Research Report, 2006
http//www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/college_retenti
on.pdf
8
DANA CENTER RETENTION REPORT, 1998
  1. Typically four-year schools have higher retention
    rates than do two-year schools.
  2. In general, studies indicate that financial aid
    helps increase persistence for students who need
    and receive financial aid.
  3. Studies indicate that certain student
    populations, such as older students, African
    Americans and Hispanics, students who work more
    than 30 hours weekly, and first generation
    college students often have persistence problems.
  4. According to research studies, a few factors that
    influence persistence include the intent to
    persist, institutional and student commitment,
    college grades, high school academic experience,
    and social and academic integration.
  5. Schools can improve retention rates by more
    accurately determining when and why students
    withdraw. Having more up-to-date information
    could help administrators determine better
    strategies for increasing retention rates.
  6. Recommend increasing retention rates by
    encouraging schools to develop and implement
    their unique retention plans and by strengthening
    freshmen-year instruction.

9
Management Guidelines for Improving Retention
  • Develop a database. Find out who stays and
    leaves.
  • Do not treat all students alike.
  • Make sure students have the skills and abilities
    necessary to do the academic work.
  • Provide curriculum students want.
  • Understand supportpsychological, emotional, and
    financial when the support is lacking or
    withdrawn, attrition will likely increase.
  • Admit students who are likely to fit and help
    them adjust.
  • Make everyone aware of the importance of
    attitudes toward school in influencing retention.
  • Provide activities to enhance students' loyalty
    to the institution.

SOURCE Bean and Hossler, 1990
10
How Did We Do It?
11
What is UMR?
  • A Top 50 Technological Research University
  • 5600 students 4300 Undergrad, 1300 Graduate
  • 90 majoring in Engineering, Science, Comp. Sci.
  • Ave. Student ACT/SAT upper 8-10 in nation
  • 40 of Freshmen from upper 10 of HS class
  • 24 Out of State Enrollment
  • 96 5 Year Average Placement Rate within 3 months
    of Grad
  • Ave. Starting Salary in 2005 49,300

12
Undergraduate Demographics
  • Average Age 21.6 years old
  • Gender
  • 23 Female
  • 77 Male
  • First Generation College Students
  • 2005-06 37
  • Residency
  • Missouri Residents 76
  • Out-State Students 24
  • Ethnicity
  • African-American 4
  • Asian-American 3
  • Caucasian 83
  • Hispanic 2
  • Native-American 1

13
UMR's Academic Major Distribution by Headcount
14
Life as an Outlier
15
UMR ENROLLMENT
16
Expecting 3rd Largest Class in UMR History Fall
2006 970
17
Enrollment by Academic Quality
18
UMRs Key Performance Indicators and Instruments
for Retention Audit
  • Freshmen to sophomore persistence rate
  • Six-year graduation rate
  • Students leaving identified on early warning
    system
  • Withdraw surveys interviews
  • Non-returning follow-up telephone surveys
  • Freshman academic profile, specifically GPA,
    course work completed, and ACT/SAT scores.
  • Student satisfaction levels
  • Faculty evaluations
  • Stop-out Rate Students who withdraw and return

SOURCE UMR Retention Committee and Enrollment
Development Team Recommendations, 2000-2002
19
BENCHMARKING
Did UMR Have a Retention Problem?
20
UMR Compared to National Data
  • UMR 13 drop out rate after the first year
  • 23.8 drop out rate for public Ph.D. granting
    institutions (July 2001 ACT National Collegiate
    Dropout and Graduation Rates report)
  • 18.6 drop out rate for selective
    institutions (average ACT 22-27) (July 2001 ACT
    National Collegiate Dropout and Graduation Rates
    report)
  • 31 of all students enrolled in science,
    mathematics, engineering and technology either
    transferred to a non-SMET degree or dropped out
    of school completely. (September 2001 Center for
    Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis)
  • 13.4 of students at the participating
    institutions ranked as highly selective (ACTgt24)
    dropped out. This number is lower than UMRs
    dropout rate. (September 2001 Center for
    Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis)

21
UPDATE Percentage of First-Year Students at
Four-Year Colleges Who Return for Second Year 
No. of Institutions No. of Institutions 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Public 505 70.7 70.4 70.7 71.4 71.7 71.6 71.9 71.7 71.4 71.0 71.4 71.2 71.9 72.1 71.9
Private 1135 75.7 76.2 76.4 76.2 76.2 76.2 76.0 75.2 74.8 74.1 74.1 74.7 75.1 75.1 74.9
All 1640 74.2 74.5 74.7 74.8 74.9 74.8 74.8 74.1 73.8 73.1 73.3 73.6 74.1 74.2 74.1
22
UPDATE Percentage of Students at Four-Year
Colleges Earning a Degree Within Five Years of
High School Graduation 
No. of Institutions No. of Institutions 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Public 457 48.5 48.0 48.2 47.9 46.6 46.7 46.3 45.6 46.1 44.6 44.2 42.9 42.2 41.9 41.9
Private 994 58.4 58.1 58.0 57.8 57.7 57.6 57.7 57.2 57.5 57.1 56.6 56.2 55.8 55.5 55.1
All 1451 55.5 55.2 55.1 54.9 54.4 54.4 54.3 53.7 54.0 53.3 52.8 52.1 51.6 51.2 50.9
23
INSTITUTIONAL REASEARCH TRACKING
  • Who is leaving?

24
Full-time, Degree Seeking FreshmenRetention
after One and Six years
92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04
Status in Fall Semester After One Year Status in Fall Semester After One Year Status in Fall Semester After One Year Status in Fall Semester After One Year Status in Fall Semester After One Year Status in Fall Semester After One Year
Stayed () 80 78 78 80 79 83 84 83 83 84 83 85 87
Left () 20 22 22 20 21 17 16 17 17 16 17 15 13


Status in Fall Semester After Six Years Status in Fall Semester After Six Years Status in Fall Semester After Six Years Status in Fall Semester After Six Years Status in Fall Semester After Six Years Status in Fall Semester After Six Years
Degree () 55 55 52 57 55 60 63 64
Still here () 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 4
Left () 41 41 43 39 41 38 34 32
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
First-time freshmen statistics
  First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)
  FS97 FS98 FS99 FS00 FS01 FS02 FS03 FS04  
Count 693 721 680 674 693 788 871 839  
HS GPA Not tracked Not tracked 3.52 3.53 3.46 3.48 3.55 3.59  
Rank 84.6 84.5 83.6 83.4 80.5 80.3 80.8 80.9  
ACT 28.2 28.0 27.7 27.3 26.8 27.3 27.2 27.1  
UMRGPA 2.88 2.87 2.88 2.90 2.91 3.03 N/A N/A  
NOTE Fewer high schools are providing class
rankings. Rank reflects the class rank of
students from high schools providing a class rank.
28
Comparison Stayed and Left
First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)
FS97 FS97 FS98 FS98 FS99 FS99 FS00 FS00 FS01 FS01 FS02 FS02 FS03 FS03 FS04 FS04
Status Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left
Count 576 117 607 114 562 118 557 117 584 109 652 136 737 134 733 106
83.1 16.9 84.2 15.8 82.6 17.4 82.6 17.4 84.3 15.7 82.7 17.3 84.6 15.4 87.4 12.6
HS GPA Not tracked Not tracked Not tracked Not tracked 3.56 3.32 3.57 3.34 3.5 3.25 3.52 3.27 3.59 3.35 3.62 3.41
Rank 85.9 78.2 85.9 76.8 85.1 76.5 84.7 76.8 82.1 71.6 81.5 74.0 82.4 71.9 82.0 73.7
ACT 28.4 27.1 28.1 27.4 28 26.2 27.4 26.8 27.1 25.3 27.5 26.5 27.4 26.3 27.2 26.2
UMRGPA 3.01 2.22 2.98 2.26 3.02 2.21 3.03 2.26 3.04 2.18 3.16 2.41 3.21 2.35 3.26 2.62
NOTE Fewer high schools are providing class
rankings. Rank reflects the class rank of
students from high schools providing a class rank.
29
Summarizing the non-returning freshmen data
  • The average student leaving UMR is a good a
    student ACT upper 20 in nation, High School
    Class Rank upper 25
  • The non-returning students scored on average 1.16
    points lower than those returning students on the
    ACT (range is 0.6-1.8)
  • Non-returners averaged 8.8 percent lower in class
    rank than their staying counter parts (range is
    7.5 to 10.5)
  • Non-returners scored on average .24 points lower
    in HS GPA (range is .21 - .25)
  • Non-returners earned an average UMR GPA of .775
    lower than their returning counterparts (range is
    .64 - .86)
  • Non-returners also averaged almost a full point
    lower UMR GPA when compared to their HS GPA while
    their counterparts averaged less than a .5 drop
    from their HS GPA to their UMR GPA.

30
Do you plan to return to UMR?
  • 38 of the 56 (68) students do not plan to return
    to UMR
  • 14 of the 56 (25) plan to return
  • (Stop-outs this includes students leaving for
    military service)
  • 4 of the 56 (7) were not certain of their plans

31
Would you recommend UMR to another student?
  • 21 of the 56 (38) would recommend UMR to another
    student unconditionally
  • 22 of the 56 (39) would recommend for
    engineering/science/math only
  • 2 of the 56 (4) would recommend UMR with a
    caveat (its not for everyone, if they wanted to
    go away)
  • 3 of the 56 (5) said no

32
Common themes (1)
  • Why did you leave UMR
  • Changed majors(9 in FS01, 7 in FS02, 12 in FS03,
    15 in FS04)
  • Financial / too expensive (10 in FS01, 4 in
    FS02, 9 in FS03, 4 in FS04)
  • Low Grades (8 in FS01, 4 in FS02, 1 in FS03, 1
    in FS04)
  • Rolla is boring / too small (8 in FS01, 2 in
    FS02, 2 in FS03, 2 in FS04)

33
Common themes (2)
  • What would have kept you at UMR
  • Nothing would have kept me at UMR(9 in FS01, 5
    in FS02, 19 in FS03, 12 in FS04)
  • More money or financial aid (6 in FS01, 6 in
    FS02, 8 in FS03, 4 in FS04)
  • More majors or non-engineering degrees (5 in
    FS01, 3 in FS02, 5 in FS03, 4 in FS04)
  • Higher or better grades (4 in FS01, 3 in FS02, 0
    in FS03, 2 in FS04)

34
Improving Student SuccessRetention Strategies
STRATEGIC PLAN GOAL 67-70 Graduation Rate
35
(No Transcript)
36
Proportion of Engineering Majors at Comparator
Institutions
Institutions Total Engineering Majors UG Engineering Majors Total Engineering Students UG Engineering Students All Students All UG Students
UMR 72.7 71.4 3811 2750 5240 3849
GEORGIA TECH 56.8 55.1 9355 6308 16481 11456
ILL INST OF TECH 30.2 50.1 1870 955 6199 1905
MIT 42.7 36.1 4408 1507 10317 4178
MICHIGAN TECH 54.6 54.9 3615 3246 6619 5909
RPI 47.2 50.4 3621 2590 7670 5136
TEXAS A M 16.8 15.6 7569 5725 45083 36775
37
Student Persistence Levels Among Comparator
Institutions
  6 year graduation 6 year graduation 2 year retention  
MIT MIT 91 98 98
Cal Tech Cal Tech 85 96 96
Washington University Washington University 89 96 96
Carnegie Mellon Carnegie Mellon 82 94 94
Harvey Mudd Harvey Mudd 79 95 95
Case Western Reserve Case Western Reserve 76 91 91
Rose-Hulman Rose-Hulman 74 93 93
Worcester Poly Inst. Worcester Poly Inst. 75 91 91
U of ILL - UC U of ILL - UC 80 92 92
GA Tech GA Tech 68 89 89
Stevens Inst of Tech Stevens Inst of Tech 64 88 88
UMR UMR 64 87 87
Co School of Mines Co School of Mines 62 86 86
ILL Inst of Tech ILL Inst of Tech 62 86 86
Pell Data 2002 Century Foundation Issue Brief,
Retention Need Data 2003 US News College
Rankings
38
Financial Need Academic Persistence Levels
Among Comparator Institutions
               
  Pell Recipients Pell Recipients Pell Recipients 6 year grad rate 6 year grad rate 2 year retention Unmet Need
Washington University Washington University 8.0 8.0 8.0 89 96 0
Carnegie Mellon Carnegie Mellon 11.4 11.4 11.4 82 94 17
Harvey Mudd Harvey Mudd 11.5 11.5 11.5 79 95 0
MIT MIT 12.4 12.4 12.4 91 98 0
GA Tech GA Tech 12.5 12.5 12.5 68 89 34
Case Western Reserve Case Western Reserve 13.6 13.6 13.6 76 91 10
Co School of Mines Co School of Mines 13.9 13.9 13.9 62 86 0
St. Louis University St. Louis University 14.6 14.6 14.6 71 87 29
Rose-Hulman Rose-Hulman 14.8 14.8 14.8 74 93 17
Worcester Poly Institute Worcester Poly Institute 14.9 14.9 14.9 75 91 9
Cal Tech Cal Tech 15.3 15.3 15.3 85 96 0
U of ILL - UC U of ILL - UC 15.6 15.6 15.6 80 92 13
ILL Inst of Tech ILL Inst of Tech 19.2 19.2 19.2 62 86 16
Stevens Inst of Tech Stevens Inst of Tech 23.4 23.4 23.4 64 88 22
UMR UMR 26.3 26.3 26.3 60 84 15
Pell Data 2002 Century Foundation Issue Brief,
Retention Need Data 2003 US News College
Rankings
39
Private college graduation rates
UMR graduation rate
Public college graduation rates
UMR receiving Pell
Public FTE receiving Pell
Private FTE receiving Pell
ADAPTED FROM John B. Lee, Everythings Up, the
Greentree Gazette, March 2003 DATA SOURCE
National average data from NCAA 2001 Division I
IPED data
40
Post Graduation Survey
  • Around 95 of UMR graduates secure a position in
    their field/area of choice within 3 months of
    graduation.
  • Average starting salary of 2005 graduates
    exceeded 49,000.00

41
What We Learned
  • Must focus on
  • Student-friendly policies,
  • Improving systems practices that impede
    general student persistence inside and outside of
    the classroom

42
Primary Student Fears
  • Flunking out of college
  • Not making friends

43
Successful Students/Graduates Recommendations for
New Students
  • Go to Class
  • Learn to Study
  • Ask for Help

44
Key Understandings
  • There is no Magic Bullet Retention programs
    must be designed to meet student needs and have
    an academic success focus
  • Retention programs must be multi-faceted
  • Do not ignore Socio-Economic Factors
  • Quick Improvements can be made by examining
    Processes and Points of Student Action
  • Need a true team effort IR, Academic Programs,
    Student Affairs, Enrollment Management, etc

45
Policy/System Changes to Improve
Retention/GraduationUMRs Low Hanging Fruit
  • Early Warning System Report
  • Incomplete grade time limit change
  • Repeat course GPA adjustment policy
  • Scholarship Reinstatement Policy
  • All BS degree programs reduced to between 124 to
    128 hours
  • Added 3 degree programs most often requested by
    existing students Business, IST, Technical
    Communication
  • Create better understanding of faculty and
    student expectations. Actively embrace the
    social norming concept.
  • Address group building (making friends) and study
    skills (not flunking out) in all orientation and
    opening week activities

46
ONGOING RETENTION STRATEGIES
  • Use the HPI to better identify at-risk UMR
    students for early alert and intervention
  • Improve the delivery and communication of student
    support services
  • Better connect students to campus resources and
    activities by further implementing an electronic
    communication and surveying system
  • Continue the retention audit and data collection
    process.

47
  • ACT Policy Report, The Role of Academic and
    Non-Academic Factors in Improving College
    Retention, indicates that many colleges'
    retention efforts are too narrowly focused.
  • Academic help alone is not enough to keep many
    students in school. These students also need
    individual support to feel connected to the
    campus community. Colleges, however, may focus on
    only academic or non-academic support, rather
    than both.

48
0
  • IMPROVING BEYOND THE AUDIT LOW HANGING FRUIT
  • A Long-Term Roadmap to Improving Student Success
  • An Implementation of the Critical Best Practices
    for UMR Students

49
Improving Student Success Models at UMR
0
  • Strategic Plan GoalIncrease student retention
    and improve the graduation rate at UMR
  • Undergraduate Graduation Rate2001 52
    Currently 64 Target 70
  • First-to-Second Year Retention Rate 2001
    82 Currently87 Target 90

50
Undergraduate Graduate Studies
0
  • ActionsHow are we going to achieve these
    goals?
  • Continually improve the educational
    environment
  • Continually enhance the learning outcomes of
    students

51
Student Retention Graduation Strategies
  • 1. Revised UMR Advising Program
  • Focus on faculty development for student
    formal and developmental advising, advisor
    recognition and advising program evaluation
  • 2. Learning Communities First Year Experience
    Programs
  • Focus to address student academic skills
    development and social engagement through group
    student life oriented events
  • 3. Experiential Learning
  • Focus to promote greater campus-wide learning
    by doing student engagement through
    undergraduate research, service learning, and
    student design project participation

52
Student Retention Graduation Strategies, cont..
  • 4. Strategic Retention Intervention
  • Focus on a rapid response Academic Alert
    System, on-line student communication system,
    advisor engagement and more quantitative
    knowledge of UMR student strengths
  • 5. Center for Educational Research and Teaching
    Innovation (CERTI)
  • Focus to address improving the UMR learning
    environment and student learning outcomes through
    collaborative learning, experiential learning,
    technology enhanced learning and educational
    research practices
  • 6. Pre-College Transition Program
  • Focus to promote greater student preparation to
    meet student and UMR academic expectations
    through a 3-week intense course Hit the Ground
    Running (HGR)

53
Academic Advising Program
0
UMR Advisor Network
Programs Promote Student Success Faculty Recogni
tion Best Practices UMR Reputation
Academic Advising
Academic Advising Resources
UMR Advisor Recognition
Academic Advising Conferences
54
The First Year Experience
0
FYE
Hit the Ground Running
Programs Promote Student Adjustment Student
Involvement Student Integration Commitment to
the Educational Process Student Success
Honors Program
Voyager
101 Courses
Master Student Fellowship Program
55
Hit The Ground Running
Participants
  • A 3-week summer learning program to help students
    sharpen and enhance their academic skills
  • Students learn about coursework expectations,
    campus life, and community involvement
  • Students develop leadership skills, make new
    friends and develop constructive strategies for
    succeeding academically at UMR.

56
Residential College
0
Program Promotes Strategic Initiatives
Collaborative Learning Student Involvement In
Campus Life Student Success
Residential College
Research
Womens Leadership
Entrepreneurship
57
Undergraduate Research Program
0
Programs Promote Experiential Learning Leadershi
p Development Collaborative Problem Solving Prof
essional Development
Freshman Intro to Research
Undergraduate Research
Sophomore Intro to Research
UMR Research Poster Day
OURE
Undergraduate Research Day at the Capitol
STEM Undergraduate Research Conference
OURE Undergraduate Research Symposium
58
Developing Center for Experiential Learning and
Student Design
0
Student Team Design Competition
Undergraduate Research
Student Service Learning
59
Center for Educational Research Teaching
Innovation (CERTI)
0
Collaborative Learning
CERTI
Programs Promote Improving UMRs Learning
Environment Improving Student Learning Outcomes
Experiential Learning
Educational Research
Technology- Enhanced Learning
60
Student Academic Skills Development Resources
0
Academic Skill Development Resources
Collaborative Learning Centers
LEAD
Tutoring
Study Groups
61
0
Faculty Focused Activities
Faculty Teaching Resource Center
Programs Promote Teacher Recognition Faculty Res
ource Development Faculty Resource Utilization
Faculty Focused Activities
Deans Teaching Scholars
CERTI
101 Course Instructors Group
New Faculty Teaching Scholar
Foundational Instructor Group
Freshman Faculty Forum
62
Strategic Model for Student Retention
0
Academic Intervention
Academic Performance Records Monitoring
Online Engagement (Pulse-Taking)
Intervention Planning
HPI ACT (AIM)
Engagement Intervention
Academic Alert Advisor Engagement
Intrusive Intervention
63
UGS Program Updates
0
  • UGSmonthly On Line Newsletter
  • (http//campus.umr.edu/ugs/)

64
Questions?Dr. Harvest CollierVice Provost for
Undergraduate and Graduate StudiesUniversity of
Missouri-Rollahcollier_at_umr.edu573-341-4390Jay
W. GoffDean of Enrollment ManagementUniversity
of Missouri Rollagoffjw_at_umr.edu573-341-4378
0
65
ACT Report References
  • ACT. (1997). ACT Assessment technical manual.
    Iowa City, IA Author.
  • ACT. (2002). ACT Assessment user handbook. Iowa
    City, IA Author.
  • Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the tool box
    Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and
    bachelors degree attainment. Washington, DC
    U.S. Department of Education.
  • Asera, R. (1998). Supporting student persistence.
    Black Issues in Higher Education,
  • 15(10), 104.
  • Barfield, M. A., Beaulieu, L. J. (1999). The
    changing nature of work in the south The
    polarization of tomorrows workforce. Mississippi
    State, MS Mississippi State University, Southern
    Rural Development Center.
  • Barefoot, B., Fidler, D., Gardner, J., Moore, P.,
    Roberts, M. (1999). A natural linkage The
    first-year seminar and the learning community. In
    J. H. Levine (Ed.), Learning communities New
    structures, new partnerships for learning
    (Monograph No. 26) (pp. 77-86). Columbia, SC
    University of South Carolina, National Resource
    Center for the First-Year Experience and Students
    in Transition.
  • Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover The
    synthesis and test of a causal model of student
    attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12(2),
    155-187.
  • Bean, J. P. (1983). The application of a model of
    turnover in work organizations to the student
    attrition process. Review of Higher Education,
    6(2), 129-148.
  • Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on
    class level in an explanatory model of college
    student dropout syndrome. American Educational
    Research Journal, 22(1), 35-64.
  • Belgarde M. J., LoRe, R. K. (2003). The
    retention/intervention study of Native American
    undergraduates at the University of New Mexico.
    Journal of College Student Retention Research,
    Theory Practice, 5(2), 175-203.
  • Braxton, J. M. (Ed.). (2000). Reworking the
    student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN
    Vanderbilt University Press.
  • Braxton, J. M., McClendon, S. A. (2002). The
    fostering of student integration and retention
    through institutional practice. Journal of
    College Student Retention Research, Theory
    Practice, 3(1), 57-71.
  • Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., McClendon, S.
    A. (2004). Understanding and reducing college
    student departure. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education
    Report, 30(3).
  • Cabrera, A. F., Casteneda, M. B., Nora, A.,
    Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between two
    theories of college persistence. Journal of
    College Student Development, 63(2), 143-164.
  • Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Castaneda, M. B.
    (1993). College persistence Structural equations
    modeling test of an integrated model of student
    retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64(2),
    123-139.

66
ACT Report References, Cont.
  • Carnevale, A., Desrochers, D. (2003). Standards
    for what? The economic roots of K16 reform.
    Princeton, NJ Educational Testing Service.
  • Chenoweth, K. (1999). HBCUs tackle the knotty
    problem of retention. Black Issues in Higher
    Education, 15(26), 38-41.
  • Collinson, M. (1999). The new complexion of
    retention services. Black Issues in Higher
    Education, 15(26), 34-37.
  • Colton, G. M., Connor, U. J., Jr., Shultz, E. L.,
    Easter, L. M. (1999). Fighting attrition One
    freshman year program that targets academic
    progress and retention for at-risk students.
    Journal of College Student Retention Research,
    Theory Practice, 1(2), 147-162.
  • Congos, D. H., Schoeps, N. (2003). Inside
    Supplemental Instruction (SI) One model of what
    happens that improves grades and retention
    revisited. Journal of Student Centered Learning,
    1(13), 159-170.
  • Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation,
    and school achievement An integrative review.
    Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171-200.
  • Dervarics, C., Roach, R. (2000). Fortifying the
    federal presence in retention. Black Issues in
    Higher Education, 17(3), 20-25.
  • Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories Their role in
    motivation, personality, and development.
    Philadelphia Taylor Francis.
  • Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A. (2002).
    Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual
    Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.
  • Education Commission of the States. (2004).
    Completion. Denver, CO Author.
    http//www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?issueid182sub
    issueID0
  • Fidler, P. P. (1991). Relationship of freshman
    orientation seminars to sophomore return rates.
    Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 3(1),
    7-38.
  • Fletcher, J. (1998). A study of factors affecting
    advancement and graduation for engineering
    students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
    Auburn University, Auburn.
  • Flowers, J. (1998). Improving female enrollment
    in Tech Ed. The Technology Teacher, 58(2), 21-25.
  • Fries-Britt, S., Turner, B. (2001). Facing
    stereotypes A case study of black students on a
    white campus. Journal of College Student
    Development, 42(5), 420-429.
  • Fries-Britt, S., Turner, B. (2002). Uneven
    stories Successful black collegians at a black
    and a white campus. The Review of Higher
    Education, 25(3), 315-330.
  • Gloria, A., Robinson-Kurpius, S. E. (2001).
    Influences of self-beliefs, social support, and
    comfort in the university environment on the
    academic nonpersistence decisions of American
    Indian undergraduates. Cultural Diversity and
    Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(1), 88-102.

67
ACT Report References, Cont.
  • Good, J., Halpin, G., Halpin, G. (2002).
    Retaining black students in engineering Do
    minority programs have a longitudinal impact?
    Journal of College Student Retention Research,
    Theory Practice, 3(4), 351-364.
  • Gore, P. A., Jr., Leuwerke, W. C., Turley, S.
    E. (in press). A psychometric study of the
    College Self-Efficacy Inventory. Journal of
    College Student Retention Research, Theory
    Practice.
  • Habley, W. R. (Ed.). (2004). The status of
    academic advising Findings from the ACT sixth
    national survey (Monograph No. 10). Manhattan,
    KS National Academic Advising Association.
  • Harvey, W. B. (2003). Minorities in higher
    education 2002-2003 annual status report.
    Washington, DC American Council on Education.
  • Hecker, D. E. (2004, February). Occupational
    Employment Projections to 2012. Monthly Labor
    Review, 127(2).
  • Hensen, K. A., Shelley, M. C., III. (2003). The
    impact of Supplemental Instruction Results from
    a large, public midwestern university. Journal of
    College Student Development, 44(2), 250-259.
  • Holmes, S. L., Ebbers, L. H., Robinson, D. C.,
    Mugenda, A. G. (2000). Validating African
    American students at predominantly white
    institutions. Journal of College Student
    Retention Research, Theory Practice, 2(1),
    41-58.
  • Hossler, D., Vesper, N. (1993). An exploratory
    study of factors associated with parental savings
    for postsecondary education. Journal of Higher
    Education, 64(2), 140-164.
  • Huffman, T. (2001). Resistance theory and
    transculturation hypothesis as explanations of
    college attrition and persistence among
    culturally traditional American Indian students.
    Journal of American Indian Education, 40(3),
    1-23.
  • Hurd, H. (2000). Staying power Colleges work to
    improve retention rates. Black Issues in Higher
    Education, 17(18), 42-46.
  • Hurte, V. J. (2002, October 24). Mentoring The
    forgotten retention tool. Black Issues in Higher
    Education, 19(18), 49.
  • Ishitani, T., DesJardins, S. (2002). A
    longitudinal investigation of dropout from
    college in the United States. Journal of College
    Student Retention Research, Theory Practice,
    4(2), 173-201.
  • Johnson, J. L. (2000). Learning communities and
    special efforts in the retention of university
    students What works, what doesnt, and is the
    return worth the investment? Journal of College
    Student Retention Research, Theory Practice,
    2(3), 219-238.
  • Karp, R., Logue, R. (2002). Retention
    initiative for unscheduled sophomores and
    unscheduled readmits. Journal of College Student
    Retention Research, Theory Practice, 4(2),
    147-172.

68
ACT Report References, Cont.
  • Kennedy, P. W., Sheckley, B. G., Kehrhahn, M.
    T. (2000, May). The dynamic nature of student
    persistence Influence of interactions between
    student attachment, academic adaptation, and
    social adaptation. Paper presented at the Annual
    Meeting of the Association for Institutional
    Research, Cincinnati, OH.
  • Kern, C. W., Fagley, N. S., Miller, P. M.
    (1998). Correlates of college retention and GPA
    Learning and study strategies, testwiseness,
    attitudes, and ACT. Journal of College
    Counseling, 1(1), 26-34.
  • Landry, C. C. (2002). Retention of women and
    people of color Unique challenges and
    institutional responses. Journal of College
    Student Retention Research, Theory Practice,
    4(1), 1-13.
  • Mangold, W. D., Bean, L. G., Adams, D. J.,
    Schwab, W. A., Lynch, S. M. (2003). Who goes
    who stays An assessment of the effect of a
    freshman mentoring and unit registration program
    on college persistence. Journal of College
    Student Retention Research, Theory Practice,
    4(2), 95-122.
  • Martin, W. E., Jr. (1998). Review of the College
    Adjustment Scales. In J. C. Impara B. S. Plake
    (Eds.), The Thirteenth Mental Measurements
    Yearbook. (pp. 274-277). Lincoln, NE Buros
    Institute of Mental Measurements.
  • Noel, L., Levitz, R., Saluri, D. (1985).
    Increasing student retention Effective programs
    and practices for reducing dropout rate. San
    Francisco Jossey-Bass.
  • Nora, A. (1993). Two-year colleges and minority
    students educational aspirations Help or
    hindrance? Higher Education Handbook of Theory
    and Research, 9, 212-247.
  • OBrien, C., Shedd, J. (2001, February).
    Getting through college Voices of lowincome and
    minority students in New England. Washington, DC
    The Institute for Higher Education Policy.
  • Ogden, P., Thompson, D., Russell, A. (2003).
    Supplemental Instruction Short and long-term
    impact. Journal of Developmental Education,
    26(3), 2-10.
  • Padgett, V. R., Reid, J. F., Jr. (2003). Five
    year evaluation of the Student Diversity Program
    A Retrospective quasi-experiment. Journal of
    College Student Retention Research, Theory
    Practice, 4(2), 135-145.
  • Pathways to College Network. (2004). A shared
    agenda A leadership challenge to improve college
    access and success. Boston Author.
  • Ramirez, G. M. (1997, Fall). Supplemental
    Instruction The long-term impact. Journal of
    Developmental Education, 21(1), 2-10.
  • Rendon, L. (1992). From the barrio to the
    academy Revelations of a Mexican American
    scholarship girl. New Directions for Community
    College, 80, 55-64.
  • Rinn, M. (1995, September 1). Surviving the first
    year of college. Hispanic Outlook in Higher
    Education, 6(1), 11-13.
  • Roach, R. (1997). Retention pacesetter
    University of Virginia. Black Issues in Higher
    Education, 14(20), 35.

69
ACT Report References, Cont.
  • Roach, R. (1999). Succeeding on white campuses.
    Black Issues in Higher Education, 15(26), 42-43.
  • Robbins, S. B., Davenport, M., Anderson, J.,
    Kliewer, W., Ingram, K., Smith, N. (2003). The
    role of motivation and self-regulatory behaviors
    on first-year college adjustment. Unpublished
    manuscript. Iowa City, IA ACT.
  • Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D.,
    Langley, R., Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do
    psychosocial and study skill factors predict
    college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological
    Bulletin, 130(2), 261-288.
  • Rodriguez, R. (1997). Learning to live a
    warriors life. Black Issues in Higher Education,
    14(20), 38-40.
  • Schnell, C. A., Doetkott, C. D. (2003). First
    year seminars produce long-term impact. Journal
    of College Student Retention Research, Theory
    Practice, 4(4), 377-391.
  • Schnell, C. A., Seashore Louis, K., Doetkott,
    C. (2003). The first-year seminar as a means of
    improving college graduation rates. Journal of
    the First-Year Experience and Students in
    Transition, 15(1), 53-75.
  • Sedlacek, W. E. Adams-Gaston, J. (1992).
    Predicting the academic success of student
    athletes using SAT and noncognitive variables.
    Journal of Counseling Development, 70(6),
    724-727.
  • Solberg, V, Gusavac, N., Hamann, T., Felch, J.,
    Johnson, J., Lamborn, S., Torres, J. (1998).
    The Adaptive Success Identity Plan (ASIP) A
    career intervention for college students. The
    Career Development Quarterly, 47(1), 48-95.
  • Stage, F. K. (1988). University attrition LISREL
    with logistic regression for the persistence
    criterion. Research in Higher Education, 29(4),
    343-357.
  • Swanson, M. (2003). Interview with Dorothy S.
    Fidler, founding editor of the Journal of the
    First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
    Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students
    in Transition, 15(1), 9-18.
  • Tatum, B. D. (1997). Why are all the black kids
    sitting together in the cafeteria? and other
    conversations about race. New York Basic Books.
  • Tatum. B. D. (2004, April 2). Building a road to
    a diverse society. The Chronicle of Higher
    Education, B7.
  • Ting, S. R. (1997). A report of the factor
    analysis of the First-Year Student Survey.
    Raleigh, NC North Carolina State University.
  • Ting, S. R., Robinson, T. L. (1998). First-year
    academic success A prediction combining
    cognitive and psychosocial variables for
    Caucasian and African American Students. Journal
    of College Student Development, 39(6), 599-610.
  • Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education
    A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
    Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
  • Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college Rethinking the
    cause and cures of student attrition. Chicago
    University of Chicago.

70
ACT Report References, Cont.
  • Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities
    Exploring the educational character of student
    persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 68(6),
    599-623.
  • Tracey, T. J., Sedlacek, W. E. (1984).
    Noncognitive variables in predicting academic
    success by race. Measurement and Evaluation in
    Guidance, 16(4), 171-178.
  • Tracey, T. J., Sedlacek, W. E. (1989). Factor
    structure of the Non-Cognitive Questionnairerevis
    ed across samples of black and white college
    students. Educational and Psychological
    Measurement, 49(3), 637-648.
  • Tucker, J. (1999). Tintos model and successful
    college transitions. Journal of College Student
    Retention Research, Theory Practice, 1(2),
    163-175.
  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Profile of the
    foreign-born population of the United States
    2000. Washington, DC Author.
  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Statistical abstract
    of the United States The national data book.
    2002. Washington, DC Author.
  • U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Digest of
    education statistics, 2000. Washington, DC U.S.
    Department of Education, National Center for
    Educational Statistics.
  • U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Descriptive
    summary of 1995-96 beginning postsecondary
    students Six years later. Washington, DC U.S.
    Department of Education, National Center for
    Educational Statistics.
  • U.S. Department of Education. (2003). The
    condition of education 2003. Washington DC U.S.
    Department of Education, National Center for
    Educational Statistics.
  • U.S. Department of Labor. (2000). The Outlook for
    College Graduates, 1998-2000. In Getting ready
    pays off! Washington, DC U.S. Department of
    Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
  • Wyckoff, S. (1998). Retention theories in higher
    education Implications for institutional
    practice. Recruitment and Retention in Higher
    Education, 12(2), 2-7.

71
Additional References
  • Abrams, Krotseng, Hossler. (1990). Using
    retention research in enrollment management. In
    Hossler, Bean, and Associates, The strategic
    management of college enrollments. Chap. 12,
    202-224. San Francisco Jossy-Bass.
  • Bean, J. P. (1990). Using retention research in
    enrollment management. In Hossler, Bean, and
    Associates, The strategic management of college
    enrollments Chap. 10, 170-185. San Francisco
    Jossy-Bass.
  • Bean, J. P. (1990). Why students leave Insights
    from research. In Hossler, Bean, and Associates,
    The strategic management of college enrollments
    Chap. 9, 147-169. San Francisco Jossy-Bass.
  • Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover The
    synthesis of a causal model of student attrition.
    Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.
  • Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Castañeda, M. B.
    (1993). College persistence Structural equations
    modeling test of an integrated model of student
    retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64(2),
    123-139.
  • Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Castañeda, M. B.
    (1992). The role of finances in the persistence
    process A structural model. Research in Higher
    Education, 33(5), 571-93.
  • Cabrera, A. F., Stampen, J. O. Hansen, W. L.
    (1990). Exploring the effects of ability to pay
    on persistence in college. The Review of Higher
    Education, 13(3), 303-336.
  • Charles A. Dana Center, The. (May, 1998).
    Increasing enrollment, retention, and graduation
    in Texas public higher education Four studies
    for the Texas Senate Education Committee. Austin,
    TX University of Texas at Austin.
  • Donahue, M. D. (1993). Variables associated with
    student success in a community college and high
    school concurrent enrollment program.
    Dissertation. University of Texas at Austin.
  • General Accounting Office. (1998). Higher
    education Students have increased borrowing and
    working to help pay higher tuition.
    (GAO/HEHS-98-63). Washington DC U.S. Government
    Printing Office.
  • General Accounting Office. (1997). Proprietary
    schools Poorer student outcomes at schools that
    rely more on federal student aid.
    (GAO/HEHS-97-103). Washington DC U.S. Government
    Printing Office.
  • General Accounting Office. (1995). Higher
    education Restructuring student aid could reduce
    low-income student dropout rate.
    (GAO/HEHS-95-48). Washington DC U.S. Government
    Printing Office.
  • Grosset, J. M. (1991). Patterns of integration,
    commitment, and student characteristics and
    retention among younger and older students.
    Research in Higher Education, 32(2), 159-78.
  • King, J. E. (1998). Too many students are holding
    jobs for too many hours. The Chronicle of Higher
    Education. May 1, A72
  • Mallette, B. I. and Cabrera, A. F. (1991).
    Determinants of withdrawal behavior An
    exploratory study. Research in Higher Education,
    32(2), 179-94.
  • Naretto, J. A. (1995). Adult student retention
    The influence of internal and external community.
    NASPA Journal, 32(2), 90-97.
  • Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among
    Chicano college students A structural model.
    Research in Higher Education, 26(1), 31-59.

72
References Continued
  • National Center for Education Statistics.
    (September, 1998). Stopouts or Stayouts?
    Undergraduates who leave college in their first
    year. (U.S. Department of Education Office of
    Educational Research and Improvement/NCES
    1999-087). Washington DC U.S. Government
    Printing Office.
  • National Center for Education Statistics. (June,
    1998). First generation students Undergraduates
    whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary
    education. (U.S. Department of Education Office
    of Educational Research and Improvement/NCES
    98-082). Washington DC U.S. Government Printing
    Office.
  • National Center for Education Statistics.
    (February, 1998). Postsecondary financing
    strategies How undergraduates combine work,
    borrowing, and attendance. (U.S. Department of
    Education Office of Educational Research and
    Improvement/NCES 98-088). Washington DC U.S.
    Government Printing Office.
  • National Center for Education Statistics. (June,
    1997). Transfer behavior among beginning
    postsecondary students 1989-94. (U.S. Department
    of Education Office of Educational Research and
    Improvement/NCES 97-266). Washington DC U.S.
    Government Printing Office.
  • National Center for Education Statistics. (1997).
    Findings from the condition of education 1997
    No. 13 postsecondary persistence and attainment
    (U.S. Department of Education Office of
    Educational Research and Improvement/NCES
    97-984). Washington DC U.S. Government Printing
    Office.
  • Okua, M. A., Benin, M., Brant-williams, A.
    (1996). Staying in college Moderators of the
    relation between intention and institutional
    departure. Journal of Higher Education, 67(5),
    577-596
  • Perna, L. W. (1998). The contribution of
    financial aid to undergraduate persistence.
    Journal of Student Financial Aid, 28(3), 15-40.
  • Peterson's. (1998). Peterson's Guide to Four-Year
    Colleges 1999. Princeton, NJ Peterson's.
  • Porter, O. F. (1990). Persistence in four-year
    colleges Are there differences in public and
    independent institutions? Preliminary finds for
    path analysis. Proceedings for the Seventh Annual
    Conference of the NASSGP/NCHELP Research Network,
    11-28. New Jersey Higher Education Assistance
    Authority Trenton.
  • Romano, R. M. (1995). First-year attrition and
    retention at a community college. Journal of
    Applied Research in the Community College, 2(2),
    169-177.
  • St. John, E. P., Starkey, J. B., Paulsen, M. B.
    Mbaduagha, L. A. (1995). The influence of prices
    and price subsidies on within-year persistence by
    students in proprietary schools. Educational
    Evaluation and Policy Analysis, (17) 2, 149-165.
  • St. John, E. P. (1990). Price response in
    persistence decisions Analysis of the high
    school and beyond senior cohort. Proceedings for
    the Seventh Annual Conference of the
    NASSGP/NCHELP Research Network, 29-56. New Jersey
    Higher Education Assistance Authority Trenton.
  • Texas Commission on a Representative Student
    Body TCRSB. (October, 1998). Online. Available
    internet (2/19/99) /www.uhsa.uh.edu/TCRSB/report.h
    tml.
About PowerShow.com