Content uploaded by Watson Swail
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Watson Swail on May 27, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
TO INCREASE STUDENT RETENTION
IN SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS PROGRAMS
AT MINORITY INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION
By
Watson Scott Swail
B.Ed. May 1985, University of Manitoba
M. Sc. August 1991, Old Dominion University
A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of
The School of Education and Human Development
of The George Washington University
in partial satisfaction of the requirements for
the degree of Doctor of Education
November 10, 1995
The George Washington University Page i
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT
Copyright 1995 by Watson Scott Swail
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmit-
ted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without
the prior written permission of the author.
The George Washington University Page ii
ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION
Although a number of studies have focused on the identification of factors impacting upon minority student
persistence at four-year colleges and universities, few have studied the specific factors that affect minority
persistence in science, engineering, and mathematics (SEM) departments at predominantly minority-
serving institutions. Furthermore, the available research does not attempt to bridge these causal factors
and prescriptive actions together to form a cohesive and comprehensive student retention system.
The main objectives of this study were to: (a) identify causal factors regarding minority-student attrition,
(b) identify successful retention practices and programs, and (c) develop a retention framework for admin-
istrators and practitioners to utilize during the planning and implementation stages of program development.
This study utilized a modified Delphi process to validate a conceptual framework for student retention that
was developed from an extensive review of related literature. A panel of 16 experts from across the coun-
try rated and commented on specific objectives within the framework during the two-round Delphi tech-
nique. This validation process allowed panelists to review commentary from other panelists between each
of the two Delphi rounds.
The result of the Delphi research was a student retention framework incorporating five components: Fi-
nancial Aid, Recruitment and Admissions, Academic Services, Curriculum and Instruction, and Student
Services. A collection of approximately 80 specific objectives were identified during this process and are
categorized within the five components. The framework is organized much like a menu of proven interven-
tions and programs to assist administrators and practitioners at college campuses with the planning, imple-
mentation, and monitoring of a comprehensive student retention program.
It is hoped that further research using this framework as a foundation will result in an instrument that is
reflective of the needs of four-year institutions, yet is flexible enough to conform to conditions that are
relative to individual campuses.
The George Washington University Page iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I must first acknowledge the faculty of The George Washington University, in particular, Dr. Dennis
Holmes, my dissertation chair and doctoral advisor. During the most poignant stages of this dissertation, he
provided me with the direction, guidance, and focus to continue working through what was to become a
very intensive and complicated study. Dr. Sal Paratore and Dr. Mary Hatwood Futrell, the remaining
panel members for this study, deserve mention due to their support and valuable input during critical junc-
tures of the study.
A special thank you must go to Floretta Dukes McKenzie for the opportunity to practice my learnings at
The McKenzie Group, and Bernard Charles, for his considerable insight and friendship. It was Mr.
Charles’ initial guidance that allowed this project to come to fruition--first by contributing his expertise dur-
ing the initial stages of project development, and secondly, by calling upon his network of colleagues and
friends to help form the Delphi panel. I am forever indebted to the contributions of these two individuals.
I reserve the final acknowledgments for my family, the true impetus for this work. My mother and father,
who instilled in me the desire and capability to achieve during my youth, and my brothers, who personified
the adage that hard work does pays off. During all stages of my graduate work, they have been my most
staunch supporters.
Of course, this study was not possible without the love and support from my wife Pam—my best friend—
whose endearing support helped me get through the many difficult times. My two sons have particular sig-
nificance to this study. Watson and Pearse, whose entrance into this world represented bookends to this
dissertation study, helped me realize the true essence of life.
To my other colleagues and friends across Canada, the United States, and beyond, I thank you as well.
My accomplishments are the result of everyone I have had the fortune of interacting with, socially or pro-
fessionally, during the past 33 years. Thank you all.
The George Washington University Page iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT i
ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
TABLE OF FIGURES vi
TABLE OF TABLES vii
CHAPTER ONE Introduction 1
Background....................................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem................................................................................................5
Purpose and Need for the Study ......................................................................................5
Research Questions ........................................................................................................6
Significance of the Study.................................................................................................7
Research Methodology....................................................................................................8
Delimitations...................................................................................................................8
Assumptions...................................................................................................................8
Definition of Terms.........................................................................................................8
Overview of Dissertation...............................................................................................10
CHAPTER TWO Review of Literature 11
Part I Factors Related to Retention 11
Why Students Leave College.........................................................................................11
Academic Preparedness................................................................................................14
Campus Climate ...........................................................................................................16
Goal and Institutional Commitment.................................................................................17
Social and Academic Integration....................................................................................18
Financial Aid ................................................................................................................21
Part II Program Strategies and Components 24
Academic and Social Interventions................................................................................. 24
Delivery of Interventions and Programs.......................................................................... 27
Recruitment and Admissions.......................................................................................... 29
Curriculum and Instruction.............................................................................................33
Monitoring Student Progress.......................................................................................... 34
Part III Program Development and Implementation 36
Characteristics of Effective Retention Programs............................................................. 36
Principles of Effective Retention Programs..................................................................... 38
Important Organizational Considerations in Developing an Institution-Wide Retention Program
....................................................................................................................................39
Role of the Key Players................................................................................................43
The Role of Campus Leadership.................................................................................... 44
The Role of Faculty ......................................................................................................45
Research Activities and Evaluation ................................................................................ 46
The George Washington University Page v
Chapter Summary.........................................................................................................47
CHAPTER THREE Research Methodology 51
Phase One: Framework Development............................................................................51
Phase Two: The Delphi Process.................................................................................... 52
Use of the Delphi Technique Within this Study................................................................53
CHAPTER FOUR Research Findings 62
Round One Findings 62
Institutional Components of Retention.............................................................................63
Retention Program Development ................................................................................... 89
Round Two Findings 93
CHAPTER FIVE Summary, Discussion, and Recommendations 97
Overview and Discussion 98
Final Conclusions 122
Recommendations 123
REFERENCES 126
APPENDICES 131
The George Washington University Page vi
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Educational Pipeline from High School Through Graduate Degree......................2
Figure 2. Anderson’s Force Field Analysis of College Persistence..................................12
Figure 3. The Hierarchy of Learning Improvement Programs ........................................26
Figure 4. Syracuse University Recruitment Process ...................................................... 32
Figure 5. Beal & Noel’s All-Campus Student Retention Effort.......................................44
Figure 6. Financial Aid Component...............................................................................57
Figure 7. Five Classifications for Campus-Wide Student Retention............................... 103
Figure 8. Financial Aid Framework Component........................................................... 105
Figure 9. Recruitment and Admissions Framework Component.................................... 108
Figure 10. Academic Services Framework Component ................................................. 112
Figure 11. Curriculum and Instruction Framework Component....................................... 116
Figure 12. Student Services Framework Component ..................................................... 120
The George Washington University Page vii
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1. Factors Relating to Minority Persistence in Engineering (NACME).................. 14
Table 2. Percentage of College-Bound Students Enrolled in Preparatory Math and Science
Courses, 1990...............................................................................................16
Table 3. Financial Strategies for Increasing the Number of Low-Income and Minority Stu-
dents Enrolled in Higher Education.................................................................23
Table 4. Major Components Identified Which Reduce Attrition for Minority Engineering
Students....................................................................................................... 38
Table 5. Organizational Steps of the Headway Model for Minority Medical Student Reten-
tion, Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine..................................... 40
Table 6. Tinto’s Seven Action Principles of Successful Implementation......................... 41
Table 7. Noel’s Steps for Increasing Student Retention in Higher Education .................42
Table 8. Levitz and Noel’s Objectives of a Comprehensive Retention Research Program
(1985) ..........................................................................................................47
Table 9. Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine Strategies for Evaluating Excel-
lence............................................................................................................ 47
Table 10. Delphi Panel Participants...............................................................................54
Table 11. Excerpt of Part II Response Instrument ......................................................... 58
Table 12. Excerpt of Stage 1 - Pre-Planning Response Instrument.................................. 59
Table 13. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Grants and Schol-
arships Objectives......................................................................................... 64
Table 14. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Student Loans
Objectives.................................................................................................... 65
Table 15. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Assistant-
ships/Work Studies Objectives....................................................................... 66
Table 16. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Financial Counsel-
ing Objectives............................................................................................... 68
Table 17. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Student Identifica-
tion Objectives.............................................................................................. 69
Table 18. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Admissions Objec-
tives.............................................................................................................70
Table 19. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Orientation Objec-
tives.............................................................................................................71
Table 20. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Academic Advis-
ing Objectives............................................................................................... 72
Table 21. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Supplementary
Instruction Objectives....................................................................................73
Table 22. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Tutor-
ing/Mentoring Objectives...............................................................................75
Table 23. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Research Oppor-
tunities Objectives.........................................................................................76
Table 24. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Pre-College Pro-
grams Objectives.......................................................................................... 77
Table 25. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Bridging Programs
Objectives.................................................................................................... 78
The George Washington University Page viii
Table 26. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Curriculum Re-
view and Revision Objectives ........................................................................ 79
Table 27. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Instructional
Strategies Objectives.....................................................................................80
Table 28. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Assessment
Strategies Objectives.....................................................................................81
Table 29. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Campus Climate
Objectives.................................................................................................... 83
Table 30. Means & Standard Deviations, and Highest-Rating Frequency Accessibil-
ity/Transportation Objectives ........................................................................85
Table 31. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Housing Objec-
tives.............................................................................................................86
Table 32. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Counseling Objec-
tives.............................................................................................................87
Table 33. Grand Means and Percentage of “Most Important” ratings for Individual Frame-
work Sections............................................................................................... 89
Table 34. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Retention Program
Development Benchmarks............................................................................. 90
Table 35. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Pre-Planning
Stage Benchmarks........................................................................................ 91
Table 36. Means & Standard Deviations of Planning Stage Benchmarks......................... 91
Table 37. Means & Standard Deviations of Program Monitoring Stage Benchmarks........ 92
Table 38. Beal and Noel's Organizational Chart for Student Retention............................. 93
Table 39. Top Five Financial Aid Objectives..................................................................94
Table 40. Top Five Recruitment & Admissions Objectives .............................................95
Table 41. Top Five Academic Services Objectives.........................................................95
Table 42. Top Five Curriculum & Instruction Objectives ................................................ 96
Table 43. Top Five Student Services Objectives.............................................................96
The George Washington University Page 1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
The issue of minority entrance into mathematics, science, and technology disciplines is attracting consider-
able attention at the national level. It is of such high-level interest that Goal Five of the GOALS 2000 Act,
which proposes that American students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement,
states that “the number of United States undergraduate and graduate students, especially women and mi-
norities, who complete degrees in mathematics, science, and engineering will increase significantly”
(GOALS 2000, 1994).
While recent studies have shown that minority students are achieving significantly higher ACT and SAT
scores and are attending college at higher rates than previously identified (Rodriguez and Nettles, 1993), a
study conducted by the National Science Foundation (1994) found that during the fifteen-year period from
1977 to 1991, the number of African American students receiving bachelors degrees in science, engi-
neering, and mathematics (SEM) fields declined 5.1 percent, Native Americans made only marginal gains
of 11.0 percent, and only the Latino population made steady gains of over 48 percent. Although the study
also reported that each of the minority groups noted made more significant gains in the attainment of doc-
toral degrees, it can safely be inferred that the support of this trend will be stagnated without the increased
enrollment of minority students into SEM undergraduate programs. Thus, the achievement of Goal Five of
the National Education Goals, although five years away from its target point, is already in jeopardy.
The purpose of this study is to respond to Goal Five of the National Education Goals by developing a con-
ceptual framework which minority institutions can utilize in the formulation of a campus-wide retention
program focusing on the sciences. As will be discussed in the background section of this chapter, retention
is a critical issue in the fight to increase the representation of underrepresented minorities enrolling and
persisting in the sciences.
Background
What is now known as the “pipeline issue” has become the focus of considerable attention in the past
decade. The pipeline refers to the pool of persons who are eligible to enter a particular field or occupation.
Mathematically speaking, the pipeline acts like a vortex, in which the entrance to the pipeline encompasses
a large majority of the population during their youth. As time goes on, however, various factors, including
socio-economics, motivation, and aptitude, pull people out of a particular pipeline, effectively reducing the
flow of persons toward the intended field or occupation. Figure 1 illustrates how quickly the pipeline is re-
duced.
In terms of science, engineering, and mathematics, the pipeline of minorities is considerably smaller than
that for white males by the time of high school graduation. The reduction of the SEM pipeline is affected
by a number of factors, and the scientific/mathematical talent pool, as Berryman (1983) refers to it, dimin-
ishes at successive points before, during, and after secondary school. An abundance of research has
shown that minority children and females are negatively influenced by the sciences early in life through
societal stereotypes (Berryman, 1983; Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe, 1992; Fennema and Sherman,
1976; Malcom, 1988; Matyas and Kahle, 1986; National Science Foundation, 1988; Silverman and
Pritchard, 1993). These researchers and others contend that a lifetime of social growth represents the act
of conditioning one’s expectations and place within society. As Clewell et al. (1992) state, the interest of
minorities and females in the sciences is essentially squelched by the time they reach the seventh grade.
The George Washington University Page 2
By the time minority students reach high school, many minority students are generally unsupported, un-
prepared, or simply unmotivated to take the types of SEM courses needed to proceed to a four-year insti-
tution. For many students who manage to complete the appropriate courses for matriculation into higher
education, other factors during secondary schooling, including poor teaching, inadequate laboratory facili-
ties, and lack of real-world application, make the transition to higher education most difficult (AAMC,
1992; Carmichael and Sevenair, 1991; Fullilove and Treisman, 1990).
Figure 1. Educational Pipeline from High School Through Graduate Degree
Source: Swail (1995). Data extracted from the Final Report of the Commission on the Higher Education of Minorities, Higher Education Research Institute,
Inc., Los Angeles, CA (1977).
The report of the Retention Task Force for the Commission on the Higher Education of Minorities (Landis,
1977) released data illustrating the pipeline problems of all students in higher education (See Figure 1). The
illustration shows the tremendous drop of students in the pipeline from high school through to graduate
study. Although the figures for white students are higher, the graphic illustration shows the similarity in the
shape of the curve among each of the groups shown, suggesting that the pipeline problem is equally felt by
all race/ethnic groups. While the most impressive decrease illustrated in the graph occurs between high
school and college matriculation, the decrease that is most relevant occurs between freshman matricula-
tion and graduation. While the SEM pipeline is expected to decline between high school and college, the
pipeline exodus occurring during the college years is more surprising. At best, 61 percent of students were
retained by the universities during the Commission study. However, these rates represent the retention
figures for white students. Minority students did not fair nearly as well in the Commission study, as repre-
sented by the 41 percent retention rate for African Americans, 32 percent for Chicanos, 28 percent for
Puerto Ricans, and 35 percent for Native Americans. As these figures suggest, at least two-thirds of mi-
The George Washington University Page 3
nority students leave college before graduation, causing a massive reduction in the educational pipeline for
minorities.
Although the number of minority students entering college has almost doubled since 1976 (NCES, 1994, p.
207), problems associated with high attrition rates continue to plague the SEM pipeline. Although we have
identified the significant attrition problems facing minority students in U.S. colleges and universities, the
issue of student retention plagues all student groups, regardless of race. Thus, the identification of retention
variables, development of intervention programs, and the creation of institutional policy to reduce student
attrition is an important area of study for all institutions of higher education.
Over the past twenty-five years, the issue of student retention in higher education has received much at-
tention in the educational policy arena, mostly due to the realization that the rate of student departure from
higher education is disturbingly high (Astin, 1982; Tinto, 1993). Benchmark studies by Tinto (1975), Astin
(1975), Pantages and Creedon (1978), Cope and Hannah (1975), Beal and Noel (1980), and others are
largely responsible for the elevation of student retention on the college agenda. In fact, while those authors
suggested that the literature regarding student retention in higher education was immense at the time of
their studies, the twenty years that have since passed has created an even greater dearth of research in
that area of study.
During this period, considerable discussion has centered around the identification of retention factors for
minority students in U.S. colleges and universities. Studies conducted by Astin (1982), Blackwell (1992),
Whimbey, Carmichael, Jones, Hunter, and Vincent (1980), and Fullilove (1990) have resulted in the pro-
posal of theories regarding minority retention in higher education. Research has also shown that the fac-
tors affecting minority students vary from that of white students, and has concentrated on such issues as
minority achievement and retention on predominantly white campuses (Burrell and Trombley, 1983; Gibbs,
1975; Loo and Rolison, 1986; Suen, 1983), achievement and retention on minority campuses (Lang and
Ford, 1988; Gates, 1989), and issues emphasizing the retention of SEM students, both on minority and pre-
dominantly-white campuses (Bagayoko and Kelley, 1994; Carmichael and Sevenair, 1991; Culotta, 1992).
During this time frame, there have been essentially three foci of the research conducted regarding student
retention. The first regards the size and breadth of the retention problem. Three studies in particular have
illuminated the retention rates of colleges and universities. The American College Testing Program (ACT)
and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS), in a joint three-year
study, found that only 53 percent of students graduated within five years of their entrance into college
(Beal and Noel, 1980). Findings of a second prominent study, the National Longitudinal Survey of the High
School Class of 1972, illustrated that 60 percent of all first-time students left before graduating (Eckland
and Henderson, 1981). A third study conducted by the National Institute of Independent Colleges and Uni-
versities (Lenning, Beal, and Sauer, 1980) found that only 41 percent of all students graduated with a
bachelors degree by the sixth year. With the exception of Asian Americans, the retention rates of other
minority groups, specifically Hispanics and African American students, were considerably lower than that
of white students (20.4 and 23.9 percent respectively). These retention figures have been substantiated by
more recent studies, including those conducted by the U.S. Student Association (1992) and the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (1994). Thus, while researchers are still exploring the size
and breadth of the retention problem within and across institutions, the presence of a significant retention
problem has been substantiated.
The second focus of retention research during this period has been on the determination of factors and
variables correlated with retention in higher education. Lenning (1982), in his synthesis of the studies of
Cope and Hannah (1975), Lenning, Beal, and Sauer (1980), Lenning, Sauer, and Beal (1980), Pantages
and Creedon (1978), and Ramist (1981), managed to categorize the retention factors presented by these
The George Washington University Page 4
researchers. The six categories developed by Lenning include student academic ability, demographics, as-
pirations and motivations, personality and values, institutional variables, and student/institution interaction.
Additional studies by Cross and Astin (1981), Astin (1982:1993), Landis (1985), and Lang (1986) have built
upon the previous retention studies by using the models developed by Tinto (1975) and others, but with a
minority perspective. Factors identified through the literature include the causal effects of campus climate
(Loo and Rolison, 1986; Suen, 1983), socio-economic backgrounds (QEM, 1990), and the presence of role
models and mentorships (Ugbah and Williams, 1989; Pinkston-McKee, 1990) on minority student retention.
The third focus of the research has been on the development of retention models and programs. Since the
introduction of pioneering retention models by Tinto (1975), Bean (1982), and Noel (1978), numerous re-
tention programs have been developed and implemented in colleges and universities across the United
States. Exemplary student retention programs include the Delaware State College Project Freshman Attri-
tion Reduction (FAR) Program (Gates, 1989), the University of California at Berkeley Mathematics
Workshop Program (Fullilove & Treisman, 1990), and the Baylor College of Medicine Science Enrichment
Program (Pinkston-McKee, 1990). These programs, in addition to others, incorporate such retention inter-
ventions as tutoring, skill development, counseling, mentoring, and research programs.
Most of the programs reviewed in the literature, such as those identified above, operate at the departmen-
tal level (e.g., Chemistry, Physics, English) and are focused on the freshman student population. In addi-
tion, retention programs are most often independent of each other and are not linked with other retention
efforts on campus. However, it is important to acknowledge that an extensive body of literature suggests
that institution-wide retention efforts are the most effective retention strategies to pursue (Pascarella,
1986; Noel, Levitz, and Saluri, 1985). Researchers, including Noel et al., have suggested that the most
successful retention programs have been institution-wide programs, rather than departmentally located or
individual interventions.
First, a retention effort should be viewed as a kind of gigantic, campus-wide problem-solving
exercise. It then naturally follows that there are certain steps that are logically and inevitably
taken. Second, the essential task is to find a way to mobilize the collective wisdom that already
exists on campus. The best solutions to the problems on a campus—and solutions do exist—for
the most part reside with its own people (Noel, Levitz, and Saluri, 1985, p. 454).
Other researchers concur with this statement, including Smith and Sprandel (1985):
In our experience over the past few years, we have now come to recognize clearly that retention
cannot be improved without involving the total campus system. This means involving everyone in a
planned change effort that will improve the quality of campus life by drawing upon our institutional
ability to function as a strong community (p. 369).
Pascarella (1986) suggests that institutions need to “organize salient constituencies” (p. 101) on campus to
orchestrate reform that evokes a positive change in student persistence. These comments from highly re-
garded retention experts strongly suggest that institutions must not only develop the capacity to assess their
current status, but also develop specific strategies to embed the retention program within institution opera-
tion. Although the studies by Noel et al. (1985) and Smith and Sprandel (1985) have discussed how institu-
tional change can support retention reform on campus, there has been very little focus upon the institu-
tional issues regarding retention programming.
The George Washington University Page 5
Statement of the Problem
In accordance with the Goals 2000 : Educate America Act, the expansion of the minority SEM pipeline
will require a significant effort in the development of institutional policy and programming to support in-
creased student retention. To achieve this goal, administrators at minority institutions of higher education
must address the issue of retention in a meaningful and successful way. Although individual intervention
programs have shown success in a variety of settings, the observation of Noel, Levitz, and Saluri (1985)
regarding institutionalization bears an important consideration in the design of a successful retention effort:
retention efforts are best made as an inclusive effort, both horizontally and vertically, across the entire in-
stitution.
Administrators are, however, hard-pressed to find literature regarding the planning, institutionalization, and
implementation of a retention program. During the retention program planning process, administrators and
their accompanying research departments are likely to come across an abundance of literature regarding
retention programs, student prediction, and factors affecting student retention and attrition. The search for
information regarding planning and implementation strategies will be less fruitful, thus leaving administra-
tors and faculty without the advantage of well-established, institutional processes for retention program
development.
Purpose and Need for the Study
The absence of supporting research regarding institutional policy and the development of a successful re-
tention program expressly for the purpose of increasing the number of minority students graduating with
SEM undergraduate degrees creates the foundation for this study. While previous research has focused on
theoretical and practical considerations that are important in this process, few relate exclusively to the in-
creased development of SEM degrees conferred at minority institutions of higher education.
The purpose of this study was to develop a conceptual framework that will aid the planning and develop-
ment of an institution-wide student retention program. The model in question, while developing ideas that
may benefit many different student groups and institutions, focuses specifically on science-based programs
at minority institutions.
The framework is structured much like a user’s guide so that institutions may use it for both reference and
direction during the pre-planning, planning, implementation, and monitoring stages of the program develop-
ment. Each of these stages provide specific areas to explore and administer toward the goal of increasing
student retention. In particular:
Stage 1 - Pre-Planning
• Analysis of size and scope of retention issue on campus
• Identification of student needs on campus
• Assessment of current retention strategies on campus
• Identification of institutional resources
• Identification of successful retention strategies through literature
Stage 2 - Planning
• Development of organizational strategies
• Identification of key stakeholders on/off campus and their roles within the retention process
• Assessment of Pre-Planning data
• Development of retention program components and operation strategies
The George Washington University Page 6
• Development of implementation plan
Stage 3 - Implementation
• Implement retention strategies according to plan
Stage 4 - Program Monitoring
• Data collection and analysis regarding the retention strategies
• Provide feedback to participants
• Conduct formative evaluations to offer continuous feedback on the implementation and progress
of the retention effort
The identification of the components of each of these stages and how they may be utilized and imple-
mented will be of prime usefulness to institutions of higher education. The stages developed in the concep-
tual framework form the working structure for the retention committee to develop its own comprehensive
program.
In addition to the framework suggested above, the instrument also defines specific areas of intervention to
increase student retention. Specific strategies for each area have been identified and outlined in the
framework.
Research Questions
The main research question for this study is:
What are the program components and implementation strategies that form an institu-
tion-wide, student retention model for minority institutions interested in increasing the
number of SEM graduates?
In the pursuit to answer the above research question, the following sub-questions will also be addressed:
1. What are the significant factors related to student attrition and retention at minority institutions?
2. What types of programs that have been successful in increasing retention rates at four-year
institutions, minority institutions, and in SEM areas?
3. What are the key elements to be considered in the development and implementation of an
institution-wide retention program?
3.1 What data does the institution need to collect and analyze to effectively develop its
retention program?
3.2 What organizational strategies best support the planning and implementation of a
student retention program?
3.3 Where should the authority and operation of an institution-wide retention program be
housed within the institution?
3.4 What are the roles of the faculty and staff in the development of an effective insti-
tution-wide student retention program?
The George Washington University Page 7
3.5 How will the administration monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of an institution-
wide retention program?
4. What policies are needed to support the development and implementation of an institution-wide
student retention program?
4.1 What policies are needed to support curriculum revision?
4.2 What policies are needed to support the development of better teaching practices?
4.3 What policies are needed to support academic support programs?
4.4 What policies are needed to support social support programs?
4.5 What policies are needed to support the administrative and organizational changes
involved in the institution-wide retention program?
Significance of the Study
This institution-wide retention model will provide administrators with a strategy and framework to build a
student retention plan that incorporates the individual needs of their students and institution. As previously
mentioned, the scarcity of specific literature regarding student retention policy development does not sup-
port the needs of program planners. This study will provide a well-defined framework answering many of
the questions raised by administrators and program designers in their quest to develop an institution-wide
retention program.
The result of this model will allow administrators and planners to devote more of their time to planning and
management rather than to the uncovering of research to support their actions. This is a most important
provision, as the literature is often equivocal. That is, it is difficult to assess the final meaning of the ag-
gregate research available on retention due to the large number of variables and other factors involved in
the individual studies. The product of this study will offer administrators a concise explanation of the key
variables that relate most specifically to minority institutions and SEM faculties.
With respect to program development and operation, an important aspect of the model will be the identifi-
cation of organizational strategies which best support the planning and implementation of the student reten-
tion program. Regardless of the knowledge acquired and assessed by the institution, the need to follow a
practical course of planning and implementation is essential to the ultimate success of any endeavor. Thus,
the identification of successful organizational and planning strategies is imperative to this study and to insti-
tutions interested in fostering systemic change. From an administrative perspective, this model will also
suggest alternatives for the administration of an institution-wide retention program, giving administrators a
better idea of where and how to house the operation of the program, and what major pieces of institutional
policy will become important factors in the success of the program.
Finally, this model will be particularly significant in providing an understanding of the various roles that will
be expected and required of administrators, faculty members, and staff members on campus if the pro-
gram is to be successful.
The George Washington University Page 8
Research Methodology
The study will incorporate a two-part process. The first part of the study consists of the development of a
formative retention framework based upon the findings of an extensive literature review. The second part
of the study will incorporate a modified Delphi process to further develop and validate the formative
framework. Upon the completion of the second round of the Delphi, a final conceptual framework will be
developed.
Delimitations
Although the basic attributes of the conceptual framework will contain many relevant features of most
institutions of higher education, this study will be limited to SEM-based education at minority institutions of
higher education. The selection of the Delphi panel will support this delimitation by including experts of mi-
nority student retention, higher educational administration, and SEM areas.
Assumptions
This study is based upon two basic assumptions affecting the validity of the research outcomes. First, the
original design of the policy-based retention framework, developed by the researcher following a review of
current literature, will be assumed to accurately reflect the scope and meaning of the relevant literature in
the area of SEM minority retention. A second assumption is in regard to the Delphi panel. It will be as-
sumed that the participants involved with the expert panel will provide feedback during the Delphi rounds
that is honest, pertinent to the study, and based upon their knowledge of the subject area and not of con-
jecture.
Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following terms have been defined to add clarity to the contents of this
document:
African American. A person having origins in any of the black racial groups in Africa. Normally
excludes persons of Hispanic origin except for tabulations produced by the Bureau of the Census.
Asian/Pacific Islander. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East,
Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands. This includes, for example, China,
India, Japan, Korean, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.
Attrition. Term used to describe the process of student departure from college.
Campus Environment or Culture. The social conditions present on a particular campus that create
an atmosphere that is reflected by the attitudes and actions of students, faculty, and administration.
Campus-wide. Involving all departments and administrative areas of the campus. Institution-wide
may also be used interchangeably.
Dropout. A student who leaves the institution and does not return for additional study at the college or
university level.
The George Washington University Page 9
Frontloading. Term used to describe the process of distributing services such that more assistance is
given during the formative stage of programming rather than a consistent distribution. Usually used
in terms of financial aid, where students may be given more money in their freshman year as
compared to subsequent years of their college experience.
Gatekeeper Courses. Sometimes called ‘gatekeepers.’ Refers to introductory-level courses within a
particular discipline that are prerequisite offerings for future course work. The term ‘gatekeeper’
is synonymous with the practice of using these courses as ‘sifters’ of the student population. That
is, to remove students who do not fair well in the traditional sense.
Hispanic. A person of Mexican, Puerto Rican Cuban, Central or South American, or other Spanish
culture or origin, regardless of race.
HBCU (Historically Black Colleges and Universities). Term used to describe the 105 institutions
established prior to 1964 with the principal mission of educating black Americans.
Institution. Refers to a four-year college or university.
Latino. A person who is either a native of Latin America or is a direct descendent of a Latin
American.
Matriculation. The process of admission into a college, university, or program.
Minority Institution. A college or university whose student population is predominantly non-white.
Minority. Students who are underrepresented as a proportion of their percentage of the overall U.S.
population.
Native American. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North America and
maintaining cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
Non-Cognitive Factors. Factors that affect the academic ability of students that are not directly
related to academics, such as socio-economics.
Persistence. Refers to the ability of a student or group of students to remain in college as opposed to
dropping out.
Persister. A student who continuously enrolls in a college or university during the period of study.
Pipeline. A term used to describe the track that people follow en route to a particular vocation (e.g.,
the pipeline of persons in graduate school extends back to all students in kindergarten and before).
Retention. Term used to describe the process of continued student attendance, finalized by
graduation. Antithetical to dropout.
SEM. Acronym for the academic areas of science, engineering, and mathematics. However, in terms
of this study, also represents the study of technology.
Socio-Economic. Referring to both social and economic factors. Usually in the context of a person’s
relative wealth to national averages.
The George Washington University Page 10
Stopout. A student who discontinues studies for a period of time, only to re-enroll at a later date.
Transfer. Students who transfer from SEM to another discipline or from one institution to another.
White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle
East. Normally excludes persons of Hispanic origin except for tabulations produced by the Bureau
of the Census.
Overview of Dissertation
Chapter I, The Introduction, introduces the reader to the background of the study, statement of the prob-
lem, purpose of the study, research questions, significance of the study, research methodology, delimita-
tions, assumptions, and definitions related to this study. Chapter II, the Literature Review, will provide the
reader with literature relevant to this particular study and provide them with adequate knowledge to com-
prehend the remainder of the study. Chapter III, Research Methodology, will provide a detailed layout of
the methodology used to develop and administer this research project. Chapter IV, Findings, will describe
the outcomes of the Delphi process and the development of the policy-based retention framework. Finally,
Chapter V, Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations, will provide a synopsis of the previous chap-
ters, formulate concluding remarks regarding the study, and provide recommendations for both use of the
study and for the future areas of research to support this effort.
The George Washington University Page 11
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter will attempt to define the critical areas and issues related to student attrition and program de-
velopment as identified in the review of related literature. Part I of the chapter will focus primarily on fac-
tors related to student retention. After an introductory discussion on why students leave college, a more in-
depth discussion regarding the key factors related to student departure at four-year institutions will be con-
ducted. Part II of the chapter will then build upon the knowledge of factors related to attrition by discuss-
ing the interventions, programs, and considerations to be made in developing a comprehensive retention
program. Part III will discuss the organizational strategies and concerns that foster campus change and
the implementation of an intensive retention program.
PART I FACTORS RELATED TO RETENTION
This section of the literature review will focus on five specific areas related to student persistence in col-
lege. The first discussion will look at the many factors that have been attributed to student departure, in-
cluding studies specific to minorities and to the sciences. The second discussion will focus on the academic
preparedness of incoming students and the problems that are faced by institutions dealing with this issue.
The climate and culture of the college or university and how it affects learning and living on campus will
be discussed, followed by a discussion of the importance of student goals and institutional commitment.
This section will conclude with a discussion of the social and academic integration process and the correla-
tion between financial aid and student persistence.
Why Students Leave College
The literature regarding minority student dropout from college abounds with details of why and when stu-
dents leave college. Supplied in the following pages are four “lists” of factors that researchers have identi-
fied as related to attrition. Many of the items resurface throughout the literature and are common to a
number of studies. In addition, many of the studies and literature reviews summarize similar sources and
thus supply similar conclusions. Landmark studies by Tinto (1975), Pantages and Creedon (1978), Cope &
Hannah (1975), Lenning, Beal, and Sauer (1980), and more recently, Cabrera, Nora, and Castaneda
(1993), have shaped how most researchers and practitioners view the issue of student retention and depar-
ture. In particular, Tinto’s attrition model has become a foundation for most research regarding student
departure. As the reader will find, these names come up frequently in this review.
The George Washington University Page 12
Figure 2. Anderson’s Force Field Analysis of College Persistence.
Source: Anderson, E. (1985). Forces Influencing Student Persistence and Achievement. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates (Eds.) Increasing Student Re-
tention (pp. 44-61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Although the previously mentioned studies as well as numerous others are worthy of mention in this re-
view, a few studies in particular are included because of their unique relevance to this study. One such
example is Anderson’s (1985) “Force Field Analysis of College Persistence” (see Figure 2). This model is
particularly interesting because it successfully and simply illustrates the various factors that researchers,
including those just mentioned, have identified through research. The Anderson model integrates factors
that are both external and internal to the student. Although many other studies (Lenning, 1982; Bean,
1985) are more comprehensive in identifying factors, they are not as efficiently represented as the Ander-
son model (see Appendix A for listing of Lenning’s factors). The result is a simple model that is easily un-
derstood.
Neisler (1992) focused on issues relating to African-American students in her discussion of retention. The
result was this 12-item list related to student departure:
1. Financial need and lack of financial aid
2. Lack of academic success
3. Personal, emotional, and family problems
4. Feelings of isolation, adjustment problems
5. Lack of commitment
6. Inadequate potential for success
7. Inadequate high school preparation
8. Inadequate language skills
9. Definition and attitudes about success
The George Washington University Page 13
10. Responsibility for learning/motivation
11. Maturity
12. Lack of student services, counseling, tutoring, etc. (Neisler, 1991, p. 6)
The factors identified by Neisler are common to much of the literature regarding minority retention. A
study conducted by Boone, Young and Associates (1984) for the Commission on Higher Education of mi-
norities reported the following streamlined list of factors which they claim inhibit the success of minority
students:
• unequal access to financial resources
• lack of success in obtaining faculty as mentors or advisors
• lack of role models
• inadequate support from administrators
• institutional insensitivity and indifference to minority student needs in general.
Although the factors identified above are more related to students at Predominantly White Institutions
(PWIs), issues of finance, mentoring, role models, and administrative support cross the barriers between
minority and majority institutions. The issue of institutional insensitivity may also remain a factor at minority
institutions, not only in terms of level of administrative support, but also with regard to the “new” minority:
white students on minority campuses.
Neisler (1992) also developed this list of factors pertaining directly to Historically Black Colleges and Uni-
versities.
1. Inadequate academic preparation
2. Financial aid and shortages of financial resources
3. Shortage of excellent faculty
4. Lack of choice and/or quality in curriculum
5. Problems with physical plant, buildings, etc. (p. 8)
The issue of finance is again identified as a key issue to retention. However, what differentiates this list
from the others is the focus on issues relating to student learning. Neisler (1992) mentions the issue of stu-
dent preparedness, shortage of excellent faculty, and quality of curricula as key variables in the choice and
ability of students to persist in higher education.
One final list of factors (See Table 1) is extracted from a National Action Council for Minorities in Engi-
neering document (Landis, 1985). This organization, established in the late 1970s, has been instrumental in
the dramatic increases in the number of minority students who have earned engineering degrees during the
past 20 years. In fact, between 1973 and 1992, the percent of minority students enrolled in freshman engi-
neering has increased from a 4.4 percent share to 16.4 percent of all engineering degrees earned. In addi-
tion, the total number of minority engineering students during that period has almost doubled, from 51,207
to 92,699 (Morrison and Williams, 1993).
The George Washington University Page 14
Table 1. Factors Relating to Minority Persistence in Engineering (NACME)
1. Motivation toward engineering
2. Math preparation prior to matriculation
3. Academic performance
4. Availability of adequate financial resources/aid
5. Self-confidence of students to do the work
6. Availability and quality of counseling
7. Availability and quality of tutoring
8. Personal/family problems
9. Admissions criteria
10. Existence of minority student organizations
11. Rigidity/flexibility of curriculum
12. Faculty attitude toward minority students
13. Availability of summer/permanent jobs in engineering
14. Social/economic background of students
15. Attitude of minority students toward majority faculty/students
16. Existence of minority faculty members
17. Change in career goals
18. School setting (rural vs. urban)
19. Attitude of majority students toward minority students
SOURCE: Landis, Raymond B. (1985). Handbook on Improving the Retention and Graduation of Minorities in Engineering. New York, NY: The National Action
Council for Minorities in Engineering.
NACME’s research identified factors related to student persistence in engineering fields. Table 1 is taken
from a 1977 study conducted by NACME regarding minority persistence in engineering. What separates
this list from the others identified in this review is the rank order attributed to each factor.
The literature presented in this section has illustrated many of the issues found to be significant contribu-
tors to student attrition at four-year colleges. The remainder of Part I will discuss the most significant of
these concerns in detail.
Academic Preparedness
One of the major issues in higher education stems from the underpreparedness of entering students. It is
estimated that between 30 and 40 percent of all entering freshman are unprepared for college reading and
writing (Moore and Carpenter, 1985) and approximately 25 percent of all college students enroll in reme-
dial math, writing, or reading courses (U.S. Department of Education, 1985). Without the prerequisite skills
needed to survive the rigorous curricula of most college campuses, many students are represented as un-
derachievers and leave college during their freshman year or before their sophomore year begins (Astin,
1975; Tinto, 1975; Richardson & Skinner, 1992).
The preparedness of students may also be illustrated through an assessment of recent statistics. In 1991,
the average score of African Americans on the math component of the SAT was 104 points below that of
The George Washington University Page 15
white students (385 vs. 489), and Native Americans scored 5 points below whites (437 vs. 489). The av-
erage score for Hispanic students fell in the range between African American and Native American stu-
dents (NSF Publication 92-303, 1992). In addition to this data, NAEP, ACT, and SAT scores combined
illustrate an inequity in science knowledge among U.S. students: African-American and Hispanics students
lagged between 18-30 percent behind white students (NSF Publication 93-22, 1992).
Part of this lack of preparedness for college and lack of interest in the sciences can be attributed to an
earlier stage in the student’s academic and social development. Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1992)
suggest that as early as age nine, minority students perform at lower levels in mathematics and science
than do White students, primarily due to lack of confidence in their SEM ability, linguistic and cognitive
factors, failure to take advanced-level SEM courses, and attitudinal factors, such as negative attitudes and
stereotypes (e.g., parents) towards these subjects.
Several studies point to the academic deficiencies among many minority students, and in particular the in-
ability of the school system to better serve underrepresented students (McDermott, Piternick, & Rosen-
quist, 1980; Fullilove & Treisman, 1990; Berryman, 1983; Astin, 1982; QEM, 1990). Astin (1982) has at-
tributed much of the poor preparation of minority students to the poor quality of elementary and secondary
education, while Berryman (1983) suggests that the public schools do not seem to serve any students par-
ticularly well in mathematics and science. The exposure to higher-order skill development is also a concern
for these students, the result of which is that they have not “developed the reasoning skills that are neces-
sary for acquiring science concepts, for organizing them into a conceptual framework, and for applying
them in appropriate situations” (McDermott, Piternick, and Rosenquist, 1980, p. 136). An NAEP study of
science skills of 17-year olds emphasized this lack of higher-order skills by finding that while 9 percent of
white students had the ability to integrate specialized scientific information, only 0.5 percent of African-
Americans and 1 percent of Hispanic students demonstrated this ability (American Association of Medical
Colleges, 1992). Further exacerbating this issue is the perception that minority students cannot succeed in
these higher-order disciplines. Bean (1985) found that teachers who thought this way were more likely to
send negative messages to their students regarding their ability in math or science.
Aside from the development of higher-order thinking skills, many minority students are lacking other criti-
cal skills essential to their success in college (American Association of Medical Colleges, 1992; Epps,
1979; Halpern, 1992; Hanau, 1979; Humphreys, 1980; Ortiz, 1974). Reading, writing, test-taking, vocabu-
lary, and study skills are often barriers to minority persistence in college. The underdevelopment of these
skills severely hampers a student’s ability to persevere through the onslaught of new information on a daily
basis in college.
The course selection of high school students is a key variable in both the desire of a student to pursue
study in the sciences and the preparedness of the student to persevere in post-secondary study. Studies by
Fullilove & Treisman (1990) and Anderson (1989) found that African-American students were less likely
than their white counterparts to take advanced courses, especially in physics and chemistry. Additionally,
Anderson found that African-American students scored nearly 70 points below the national norm on
achievement tests in physics, biology, and chemistry. Table 2 illustrates the gap between white students
and African-American students with regard to enrollment in college-preparatory courses. In every cat-
egory noted, African American students were less represented by percentage of their population in col-
lege-prep courses. The limited access of these “gatekeeper” courses to minority students severely ham-
pers any possibility of their achieving in the sciences let alone persisting in or selecting these courses.
The George Washington University Page 16
Table 2. Percentage of College-Bound Students Enrolled in Preparatory Math and Science Courses,
1990.
Course White African American
Algebra 97.0 95.0
Geometry 94.0 86.0
Trigonometry 56.0 43.0
Calculus 19.0 9.0
Biology 97.0 96.0
Physics 44.0 32.0
Honors Science 23.0 13.0
Source: National Science Foundation (Publication 92-303, 1992)
Campus Climate
The atmosphere or “climate” of a particular college is a factor that may either foster or inhibit the social
and intellectual growth of a student, especially freshman students. Campus climate, with respect to minor-
ity students, has been the focus of numerous research studies (Loo & Rolison, 1986; Suen, 1983; Astin,
1975). Findings from these studies generally conclude that the culture shock of minority students attending
PWIs can have a serious effect on their academic performance, social life, comfort level, and ultimately
their persistence in college (Astin, 1982; Gibbs, 1975; Remsik, 1979). Historically Black colleges lend Afri-
can-American students a more comfortable atmosphere in which to learn; an atmosphere that allows the
African-American student an opportunity to mature, gain self-confidence, and evolve both educationally
and socially (Whiting, 1988). Joyce Payne (1994), in her chapter in the ACE publication, Minorities in
Higher Education, discusses the important role that HBCUs play for African American students:
Historically, these colleges have institutionalized what John Dewey was talking about when he
said that “education is the means of social continuity of life, . . . each individual gets an opportunity
to escape from the limitations of the social group in which he was born, and to come into living
contact with a broader environment” (Dewey, 1966). Giving rise to the correspondence between
social responsibility and higher education, these institutions are places where social consciousness
and equal opportunity are “built in” the fabric of academic and research programs; where great
minds engage in democratic social relationships unalienated by ethnic and economic differences;
where intellect, talent, and creativity elevate man beyond the social malaises of the world; and
where strong precedents exist for the advancement of progressive ideology and liberal thought.
(Payne, 1994, p. 222).
In the case of HBCUs, enrollment figures are almost inversely proportionate to those of PWIs. In 1990,
82.6 percent of the students at HBCUs were African-American, while white students comprised 12.5
percent of the student population, and Hispanic, Asian-American, and Native American students repre-
sented 0.7, 0.7, and 0.1 percent respectively (NCES, 92-640, p.20). Although our previous discussion pre-
sents supporting evidence of the strong cultural support for the majority population, in this case, African
American students, HBCUs must still be concerned with ensuring that a positive campus climate exists for
all students, regardless of race or ethnicity.
The George Washington University Page 17
At Mount St. Mary’s College in Los Angeles, a small Catholic college of just over 1,000 students, the fac-
ulty, administration and staff of the university realized that campus climate was a major consideration in
the development of an effective retention program. St. Mary’s identified the following attributes important
to support their multicultural population:
1. Campus climate of warmth, trust, and general caring
2. Active concern for student needs
3. Sense of community
4. Counseling services
5. Campus housing
6. Social life of the student body. (Sawchuk, 1991)
The focus of all institutional action and service at St. Mary’s is oriented toward the support and nurturing
of the student, and that the campus culture is not as much an issue of race or ethnicity, but rather, an issue
of learning environment. St. Mary’s College has firmly adopted the ideal that a multicultural environment is
a strong positive force in the social and academic development of the student, and several other re-
searchers have come to similar conclusions. Astin’s (1993) recent study of minority colleges found that a
campus with a strong emphasis on diversity had positive effects on the student body, including their satis-
faction with the college experience, student life, facilities, and quality of instruction. Learning opportunities
in diversity and multiculturalism create a heightened cultural awareness, satisfaction, and reduced material-
ism while also increasing student commitment to promoting diversity issues on campus. Justiz (1994) sug-
gests that a campus climate which embraces “multicultural experiences, encourages diversity, and promul-
gates pluralism,” is also a campus which can evolve and change along with the changes in people and so-
ciety (p. 13). In addition, Justiz also states that these institutions are more likely to support the development
of a positive learning environment by emphasizing high standards of teaching and learning, encouraging
faculty to become role models and mentors to students, and by providing the necessary academic and so-
cial support services.
One other climatic issue relevant to this discussion is the overall shock most students experience as fresh-
men on campus, regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender. According to Wratcher (1991), students coming
from high school directly to college are expected to assimilate into their new environment with relative
ease. However, faced with the lack of institutional support they are accustomed to in high school, students
find the academic and social bridge difficult to cross. To help alleviate this assimilation period, Wratcher
took a cohort of students and conducted a Learning Styles Inventory test. After completion of the test,
students and faculty discussed the results. The findings of this study were that students who went through
the inventory and discuss process had a better understanding of their learning styles and were more under-
standing of their new environment and how they fit in.
Goal and Institutional Commitment
Tinto (1993) suggests that individual commitment to college takes two separate forms: goal commitment,
which refers to a person’s commitment to his occupational or educational goals; and institutional commit-
ment, referring to a person’s commitment to the institution in which he is enrolled. Tinto’s theory of goal
commitment has been found to be a great determinant in the persistence of students to degree completion,
and has been supported by other researchers (Astin, 1975; Cope and Hannah, 1975). Building upon Cope
and Hannah’s (1975) finding that “personal commitment to either an academic or occupational goal is the
The George Washington University Page 18
single most important determinant of persistence in college (p. 19), Tinto (1993) cites studies by Panos and
Astin (1968), Rossman and Kirk (1970), Astin (1975), Weingartner (1981), Bean (1982), Wilder and
Kellams (1987), and Rodgers and Pratt (1989) in support of the notion that educational or occupational
goals are important predictors of degree completion. In fact, Tinto claims that the level of one’s educa-
tional or occupational goals are positively correlated with the likelihood of degree completion.
The level of institutional commitment exhibited by a student is dependent upon the congruence between
the student’s educational goals and the institution’s educational mission. Although individuals may enter
college with educational goals that are, as Tinto (1975) states, “either more limited than or more extensive
than those of the institution (p. 33),” the level of incongruence between student and institution is a primary
factor in the student’s interest in persisting. Only when occupational or career goals are focused and clear
do students persist when their educational goals are incongruent with those of the institution. Tinto (1975)
also notes that as time progresses, a student’s goal and institutional commitment generally increases as the
degree completion becomes more focused.
Astin’s (1977) theory of a significant relationship between career goals and student persistence was illus-
trated by a study which found that students whose major fields were closely associated with their career
goals and objectives were more likely to persist to that goal than those students who did not have an identi-
fied career goal. In a subsequent study (1982), Astin built upon his previous finding and concluded that
career goals and intended major were the strongest predictor of students’ plans after intervals of two and
nine years. Thus, as Astin suggests, “the student’s initial choice of a career or major is not a random
event, and that it has considerable influence on the student’s long-range career development” (p.96).
In addition to career goals, a student’s values are also connected to persistence. Pantages & Creedon
(1978) concluded that when the student’s values, goals, and attitudes are in congruence with those of the
colleges, the more likely the student will persist until graduation. The incorporation of a particular occupa-
tional goal also increases this persistence factor in terms of providing additional motivation for the student.
Social and Academic Integration
Much of the literature regarding retention issues focuses on the social and academic integration of stu-
dents with the university. Tinto’s (1975) longitudinal model of student departure posited that the students’
level of academic and social integration with the university, in addition to their goal and institutional com-
mitment (described earlier), are the major factors in their ability to persist in college. Building upon Durk-
heim’s suicide theory, Tinto posited that, like suicide victims who were totally removed from the social fab-
ric of society, students who are likewise removed from the social fabric of the college community were
more likely to leave college than persist. As Tinto noted,
In Durkheim’s view, individual integration into the social and intellectual life of society and the
social and intellectual membership which that integration promotes are essential elements of social
existence in human society. Societies with high rates of suicide are those whose social conditions
are such as to constrain such membership. (Tinto, 1993, p. 102).
Thus, Tinto’s theory of individual departure suggests that the ability of the student to either conform or
integrate into the social and intellectual membership of the university is pivotal to their ability to persevere
through graduation. Griffin (1992), summarizing the attrition theories of Terenzini & Wright (1987), Spady
(1970), Terenzini & Pascarella (1984), and Tinto (1975), further theorized that early integration into the
social and academic fabric of the institution is not only correlated with persistence in college, but is also
The George Washington University Page 19
conducive to the academic and social growth of the student. Rootman (1972) and Astin (1987) also sub-
scribe to the theory of social and academic integration, but suggest that the important issue to be consid-
ered is the student’s environmental “fit” into the social confines of the institution. How a student’s values
fit in with the institutional values and those of the faculty and student population will reflect on the student
by way of the quality of that relationship.
There are a variety of ways that students actually “fit” into the college environment, and also a number of
ways that the college can assist that integration. The development of new friendships and peer interaction
is perhaps the most recognized method of social integration. This development can help students bridge the
often traumatic first weeks of the freshman year and offer other areas of personal and academic support.
Several studies, including those conducted by Tinto (1975), Pantages & Creedon (1978), and Astin (1977),
have found that friendship support is directly related to persistence in college, and that college dropouts
perceive themselves as having less social interaction than those students who persist in college. For Afri-
can-American students, students who engage in social activities become a part of the social environment
and are more likely to persist (Griffin, 1992).
The process of becoming socially integrated into the fabric of the university has also been found to be both
a cumulative and compounding process. Terenzini & Wright (1987) suggest that the level of social integra-
tion within a given year of study is part of a cumulative experience that continues to build throughout one’s
college experience. Therefore, the experiences that a student encounters in his freshman year will influ-
ence and support their integration in subsequent years.
HBCUs have also been found to provide more positive social support for African-American students that
predominantly white institutions offer. Berg & Peplau (1982) concluded that African-American students
on black campuses exhibited fewer adjustment problems, engaged in more social activities through their
student networking, had higher GPAs, exhibited greater satisfaction in their college experience, and had
higher occupational expectations than their counterparts at PWIs.
The establishment of peer relations during college also supports a student’s academic integration into the
university. Capella, Hetzler, and MacKenzie (1983) found that a positive peer influence favorably influ-
enced the study habits of college students. Several studies, including a 1983 study of exemplary pre-
college science, engineering, mathematics, and computer science intervention programs for female and
minority students, concluded that peer relationships were important in keeping students interested in the
sciences (Matyas, 1991; Malcom, 1983). Many intervention programs build upon this theory of peer sup-
port, including UCBerkeley’s Mathematics Workshop Program, Xavier’s Project SOAR, and UCSan
Diego’s Summer Bridge Program, all of which encourage group interaction and peer integration.
The development of role models and mentors has also been defined in the literature as important factors of
student integration, both academically and socially. A positive role model provides students with a number
of equally positive experiences. As Tinto (1993) suggests, the availability of role models extends beyond
the social integration of the student.
...it is not surprising that a number of studies have found that social interaction with the college’s
faculty is related to persistence in college. Spady (1971) suggested that these findings arise from
the fact that interaction with the faculty not only increases social integration and therefore
institutional commitment but also increases the individual’s academic integration. (Tinto, 1993, p.
109)
The George Washington University Page 20
On the college campus, the important role as role model is often played by faculty members. The interac-
tion between faculty and student has been identified as a major factor in the ability of students to persist in
college while also increasing their level of satisfaction (Astin, 1977; Beal & Noel, 1980; Terenzini and
Pascarella, 1979). Positive role models provide guidance, direction, and most importantly, a good example
for students to learn from. Even more beneficial to students is faculty/student interaction outside of class
time. Informal contact between students and faculty members have been found to increase the persistence
of the student (Ugbah & Williams, 1989; Griffen, 1992; Astin, 1982). Endo & Harpel (1982) concluded
that informal contact with faculty was a foundation for the development of friendly relationships between
students and faculty and became a positive influence on students in terms of their personal, social, and in-
tellectual development (Griffen, 1992). Terenzini and Pascarella (1977, 1980) had similar findings, but
were unable to duplicate the outcomes at another campus, concluding that each individual campus may
react differently to the interactions of variables (Pascarella, 1984).
With regard to underrepresented minorities at the university level, the contact with positive role models is
even more significant than for majority students. A study of a mentoring program at Ohio University in
Athens, Georgia, found that 91 percent of the African American protégés felt more confidence in them-
selves as a result of their mentor (Ugbah & Williams).
Unfortunately, the availability of positive minority role models on campus and in our society is not at a level
that adequately represents these populations on a national scale. On PWIs, the number of minority faculty
is a minute fraction of the white faculty. In Fall of 1987 less than 11 percent of faculty positions were filled
by minority persons, the largest representation being 3.2 percent by African Americans (NCES, 1994). In
addition, African American instructional faculty in the natural sciences consisted of only 2 percent and less
than 0.5 percent in engineering. The other minority groups, with the exception of Asian faculty, had lower
representations. Equally disturbing is the fact that minority faculty hold less prominent positions in college
and are less likely to receive tenure (The Commission on Minority Participation in Education and Ameri-
can Life, 1988). Even among administrators, this deficiency of minority representation is very evident. Of
the 3,800 post-secondary institutions in the nation, only 100 are headed by African Americans (2.6 per-
cent), of which half are HBCUs (Mooney, 1988). These figures, converted to percentage figures, describe
an underrepresentation of African American administrators equivalent to only 2.6 percent among all col-
leges, compared with a national population representation of 12.1 percent (Commission on Professionals in
Science and Technology, 1994). Considering that half of these positions are held in HBCUs, the figure of
2.6 percent is more accurately reflected as 1.35 percent of the all non-HBCU colleges (approximately
3,700 in total).
At HBCUs, although the number of African American faculty is higher than at PWIs, there is still a short-
age of prepared minority faculty to fill the roles required for students. In fact, if we look at the nation’s
public schools as an indicator of occupational choice, we clearly must concede that the representation of
minority teachers is embarrassing low. The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, in their A
Nation Prepared document, predicted that the nation would fall 50,000 minority teachers short in 1994. In
addition, Rudner (1987) also accurately predicted a decline in the numbers of minority teachers from 12
percent to 5 percent in 1992. Thus, if the figures presented for public schools are assumed to be commen-
surate with those of higher education, the promise for an increase in minority faculty at the college level
must be a concern.
As Franklin (1988) informs, the lack of positive role models, advocates, and mentors, students has an im-
pact upon students and their ability to do well in elementary and secondary schools. Also, their risk of leav-
ing school is much higher. Therefore, the importance of informal faculty/student contact is more important
The George Washington University Page 21
than ever, and institutions must work diligently to provide positive faculty role models for the students
(Justiz, 1994).
The process of academic and social integration is also more likely to occur for students who live on cam-
pus. Several studies have shown the positive effects of on-campus residence (Pascarella, 1984; Chicker-
ing, 1974; Astin, 1977; Pantages & Creedon, 1978). Pascarella found that even when background traits
and institutional controls were held constant, on-campus living was positively correlated with higher student
interaction, although he was not able to significantly determine the academic affects. Astin (1977) also
found a greater interaction with faculty and peers, and in addition also found that students were more sat-
isfied with college, had more focused career and educational goals, and in turn were more likely to persist
to graduation.
Financial Aid
The research regarding how finances impact upon a student’s ability or decisions to persist in college is
somewhat equivocal. Several researchers, including Astin (1975), Slater (1960), and Spady (1967), have
argued that finance plays a significant role in student persistence, especially in terms of socio-economics.
These studies have found that students with affluent backgrounds persist at much higher rates than stu-
dents from lower SES backgrounds. But critics of this viewpoint, including Pantages and Creedon (1978)
and Tinto (1993), suggest that finance is not a key factor in determining persistence, but that other factors
which happen to coincide with finance, such as lower academic ability, lack of role models, and poor learn-
ing environments play a major role in student persistence. Thus, according to these critics, issues of fi-
nance are given much more credit than they deserve. Tinto (1993) suggests that citing financial aid as the
cause of departure is often a polite way of students saying that they are dissatisfied with their social and
academic life on campus.
Regardless, there is considerable research supporting the implication that finances do cause students to
leave college, especially for students with lower socio-economic backgrounds, including a large number of
minority students. Hamlen (1992) describes a longitudinal study conducted by Boston Public Schools to
determine the factors correlated with the poor college graduation rates of their high school graduates. In
that study, financial aid was found to be a critical factor to the retention of African-American students
more than any other racial/ethnic group. Further, African-American students in the study received less
financial aid than any other group, supporting similar findings found in other studies (Copeland, 1984;
Council of Graduate Schools in the U.S., 1984; Smith, 1980).
Murdock’s meta-analysis (1990) of financial aid studies found that financial policies at the institutional and
national level are achieving their objective—assisting low SES students to persist at a rate almost equal to
middle and upper SES students, although minority retention is still below that of white students. However,
Murdock also concludes that financial aid is only one side of a trilateral solution to minority attrition, and
that academic preparation and socio-cultural adjustment must also become major concerns on campus. In
addition, Murdock also notes that if the main concern of financial aid is to remove economic barriers, then
funding and award amount policies must keep pace with inflation in order for students to better meet their
financial needs, regardless of whether emphasis is placed on increased grants or loans.
Research has also found that type of financial aid supplied to a student is a factor in his ability to persist.
Studies by Pantages and Creedon (1978), Nora and Rendon (1988), Thomas (1986), and Astin (1975,
1982) are among the literature which suggest that financial aid in the form of grants and scholarships tend
to facilitate persistence. Nora and Rendon found that Pell grants in particular have the greatest effects on
The George Washington University Page 22
student retention, with loan and work-study programs second. Thomas (1986) suggests that loans made to
minority students are a negative influence on persistence because of the fear of financial indebtedness
held by the families.
Four recommendations specific to the financial aid were developed by the Commission on the Higher Edu-
cation of Minorities, which supported Astin’s 1982 study regarding minority progress and persistence in
higher education. These recommendations are as follows:
(a) students be given grants rather than loans whenever possible;
(b) students given enough aid so they do not need to work more than half time;
(c) if given financial aid through work study, they work less than half-time and on-campus;
(d) federal and state legislators and policy makers support expanded grant and work-study programs.
(Astin, 1982).
Although the recommendations are legitimate, they perhaps reflect the hopes of a prosperous 1980s gen-
eration rather than the fiscal realities of the United States in 1995 and the 103rd Congress. The Commis-
sion asks legislators and policy makers to support expanded grant and work-study programs, but expan-
sions are quite unlikely during this decade.
Work studies are another reasonable alternative to grants, scholarships, and loans. Work studies, especially
those within the major field area of the student, allow the student to earn money while conducting college
studies, and also support their learning and encourage further participation in the field. Astin (1975) found
that work studies of under 25 hours increases persistence by 15 percent. That rate is even higher if the
employment is on campus. When the work becomes the focus of the student, however, persistence is
negatively influenced (Astin, 1982; Tinto, 1993).
Another factor that has become a barrier to student aid is the bureaucracy involved in filling out the appro-
priate aid forms. Collison (1988) suggests that the forms are so complicated that many students never
complete the forms, thus eliminating them from the possibility of receiving much aid. Astin’s study (1982)
concurred with Collison’s finding, and went further by suggesting that first-generation students in particular
were discouraged from applying for financial aid due to the sheer complexity of the process. For this rea-
son and others, Martin (1985) claims that the packaging of student aid resources is one of the most impor-
tant duties of the financial aid office at any university, and that the caring attitude of the staff can make
the complexity of financial issues a more tolerable, bearable process. In fact, Martin suggests that the fi-
nancial aid office should go much further in its social support of students. “We all enjoy feeling that some-
one cares about us and that we are more than simply a matriculation number or a typed name on an award
letter” (p. 212). Personal phone calls, money management support, and job-placement services are also
reasonable services that should be offered through the financial aid offices at colleges and universities.
Several strategies have been identified in the literature regarding how institutions may develop appropriate
financial aid policy. Hauptman and Smith (1994) discuss six strategies for increasing the participation of
low-income and minority students in higher education (Table 3). The authors cite low tuition prices as the
greatest form of student financial aid that this country offers, allowing most students to consider attending
college. Although not all students could afford to pay ivy league tuition rates, state colleges and universities
still provide a reasonable tuition price for students. Hauptman and Smith also suggest that financial pro-
grams focus on minority students, but quickly acknowledge the political realities of the 1990s in terms of
earmarking public dollars based on race and ethnicity.
The George Washington University Page 23
Table 3. Financial Strategies for Increasing the Number of Low-Income and Minority Students En-
rolled in Higher Education
(1) Creating or expanding aid programs designed for minority students only: posits that aid
programs for minority students would increase their representation, but also notes that it is
difficult to achieve funding for programs that are based on the color of ones skin. Pell
grants are more popular because they are based upon SES and financial need.
(2) Maintaining low tuition policies at public institutions: Low tuition is greatest single resource
of financial support in American higher education and is the main factor why public
institutions have historically enrolled higher proportions of minority students than private
college.
(3) Increasing the amount of grant aid that disadvantaged students receive: Feds presently
spend over $5 billion year on Pell Grants and other federal grant programs. Ensuring that
any increases are aimed at lower SES students and not to raise the median line of funding.
(4) Providing students with earlier awareness of their aid eligibility: students who know that
they will be covered financially early on are better off;
(5) Pursuing policies that increase student retention and persistence: apply additional support
for support services such as tutoring and counseling. and
(6) Neutralizing the negative impact of borrowing.
Source: Hauptman, A. and Smith, P. (1994). Financial Aid Strategies for Improving Minority Student Participation in Higher Education. In Justiz, Wilson, and
Björk (Eds.) Minorities in higher education. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press and ACE. pp. 78-106.
The National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (1983) established a set of guidelines for
developing financial aid policy at institutions. Within their ten recommendations, the NASFAA proposed
that it was important for institutions to adopt equitable packaging policies identifying the types of aid avail-
able, the amounts, and the process involved in attaining student aid. In addition, student aid should be de-
termined using an approved need analysis system and be awarded to students that are truly considered to
have the greatest need for the assistance. The bottom line of the association’s recommendations is the
responsibility on the part of the institution to develop consistent policy and practice that support equity in
student aid and student assistance.
Finally, there are other alternatives to supporting students through college. Recently, many states and insti-
tutions have developed savings plans and bond issues to save for a child’s future education. In Michigan,
the Michigan Education Trust Tuition Prepayment Plan (MET) allows parents or anybody else to pay col-
lege tuition costs in advance by purchasing a certificate redeemable for four years’ tuition and fees at any
of the state’s 15 public four-year colleges and universities or 29 community colleges (Carter, 1989). Wyo-
ming has a similar system which makes it possible for parents to lock in the current tuition and room and
board costs by setting money aside now. The in-state rate of $5,114 per year (1989) will escalate to
$24,272 by the year 2003, but parents who lock in will only have to pay the original amount . Some institu-
tions are developing their own prepayment plans: USC in California allows students and families to avoid
inflation by prepaying a four-year educational program through cash payment or loans. Congress has also
introduced bills that provide for national education savings bank, where parents can buy bonds.
The issue of financial aid is a serious issue to many students. How it relates to student persistence is not
altogether clear, as has been suggested in the literature. Regardless, institutions must concern themselves
with the financial well-being of the students to ensure that their concentration is on studies rather than fi-
nances.
The George Washington University Page 24
PART II PROGRAM STRATEGIES AND COMPONENTS
Part II of the literature review will focus more on the practices and interventions that have been developed
and implemented in order to positively affect student persistence at college. Discussion in this section will
include interventions to support the academic and social integration of students, issues involving the re-
cruitment and admissions offices of the university, the development of curricula and pedagogy in the sci-
ences, and student monitoring practices.
Academic and Social Interventions
Review of the literature reveals several interventions and programs which help ameliorate the effects of
academic unpreparedness and increase the social and academic integration of the student on campus. In
this section we will briefly discuss five of these activities: Counseling, tutoring, mentoring, orientation, and
social support.
COUNSELING
Although counseling is not new to colleges and universities, there is a new realization of the importance of
counseling. Richardson and Skinner (1992), Padron (1992), and Justiz (1994) all found that counseling, in
addition to mentoring and tutoring activities, were extremely beneficial to first-generation college students,
and may help enhance the first-year experience. Counseling practices may also be an important part of
student tracking exercises by the university in providing an ongoing liaison between the student and the
university (Palmer, 1990). Steinmiller & Steinmiller (1991) illustrate that the counseling department at
Henderson State University is key to the success of their retention program for at-risk students, where
students must submit weekly reports to the Academic Assistance Program Retention Office and schedule
numerous appointments with faculty, counselors, and advisors during the semester.
It is important, however, that “counseling” not be oversimplified. There are four basic types of counseling
that are encouraged in institutions interested in increasing retention: academic, career, social, and financial.
Academic counseling provides students with advise and information regarding their course selection and
progression throughout their college career. The academic counselor is responsible for assisting the stu-
dent with the most prudent choices during their academic career. Astin (1994) suggests that in association
with student screening practices, academic counselors place students in courses that are appropriate to
their level of ability. Habley (1981) found that African-American students perceived academic counseling
as their most important campus resource. Career counseling works together with academic counseling to
ensure that students are studying what they are truly interested in as well as making the appropriate ma-
neuvers to ensure that they reach their goals. Social counseling resides more in the traditional realm of
psychological and sociological science, and provides students with the psychological support necessary.
Finally, financial counseling helps students seek additional financial support in addition to helping students
budget their money appropriately.
These counseling practices are an important aspect of the minority students experience. As Trippi &
Cheatham concluded in their 1989 study of a large PWI, the following counseling services were the most
beneficial to their academic performance:
(a) establishing a counseling relationship soon after freshman matriculation
(b) actively resolving specific, concrete, short-range concerns using action-oriented interactions
(c) maintaining an ongoing counseling relationship that engaged interactions addressing long-term
development activities (e.g. academic skills development); and
The George Washington University Page 25
(d) recognizing the limited utility of “intrusive” counseling.
TUTORING/MENTORING
Tutoring, as with counseling, has also been an important part of college life. By providing students with an
opportunity to work with someone who has a firm grasp of the material, students in an individual or small
group format can work through many of their academic difficulties if given appropriate time. Studies have
found that the use of tutoring personnel on campus can make significant improvements in students’ work
and is directly correlated with an increase in persistence (Wepner, 1985). In addition, active tutoring at
universities can assist students with difficulties in budgeting time, studying effectively, and put in perspec-
tive the source of their academic problems (Bandalos & Sedlacek, 1985; Jones, Harris, and Hauck, 1975).
Tutoring is often provided by peers who are more established in the university, perhaps experienced un-
dergraduates or teaching assistants. While the use of peer tutors is almost considered a tradition in U.S.
schools (Gahan-Rech, Stephens, & Buchalter, 1989), it is also an important resource for colleges. The use
of peer tutors has a double impact on students: not only does it assist the student academically with course
work, but it also integrates students into the academic and social fabric described earlier. Programs such
as Uri Treisman’s Mathematics Workshop Program utilize peer groups and interaction to form strong, co-
hesive study groups that encourage academic excellence and problem solving (Fullilove & Treisman,
1990).
As noted, tutoring is most often used to assist students with specific academic difficulties. However, the
breadth of tutoring is beyond basic course work. Many tutoring programs also focus on study skills, note
taking, listening skills, communication, and other factors that are equally important to academic success in
college. Several studies have shown that the development of prerequisite academic skills are important to
the mastery of specific discipline content (Martin & Arendale, 1990). In terms of minority students, Sheri-
dan’s (1982) study found that the development of efficient study skills were highly correlated to persis-
tence rates among nontraditional students.
The Supplemental Instruction program developed at University of Missouri-Kansas City (UKMC) by
Deanna Martin in 1974 is an excellent example of an academic support system that, while not labeled as a
tutoring program, contributes tutoring-like experiences for students on campus. At UMKC, the program is
structured to support the hierarchy of student learning as defined by Martin et al. (1990) and illustrated in
Figure 3. Dr. Martin describes the hierarchy in terms of its effectiveness. Remedial courses, for instance,
are the least effective method of meeting students needs. Tutoring is a second level intervention, providing
moderate success. Level III provides for learning activities to reinforce learning, and Level IV requires a
revision of teaching strategies and curriculum. The UMKC SI program, which is being used at over 1,100
institutions nationwide, provides three weekly sessions of academic support for students beginning the first
week of class and is open to all students on a voluntary basis. Surprisingly, participation in SI at UKMC
has been equal across all levels of students, with the same number of students from low and high ACT
composite score quartiles enrolling, but the program targets classes with 30 percent or higher rates of D
and F grades. By developing the students’ concepts of how to learn with knowing what to learn, the SI
program has been known to reduce the number of Ds and Fs in addition to the number of course with-
drawals by up to 50 percent.
The George Washington University Page 26
Figure 3. The Hierarchy of Learning Improvement Programs
IV
Comprehensive
learning systems
IV
Course-related
learning services
IV
Learning assistance
for individual students
IV
Remedial Instruction
Lower potential
Higher potential for
improved learning and
instructional change
Source: Martin & Arendale (1990)
ORIENTATION PROGRAMS
Freshman student orientation is an important occasion in terms of a student’s college experience. Unfortu-
nately, according to Tinto (1993), most orientation programs stress information dissemination and disregard
issues of social importance to the student. Tinto also suggests that orientation programs fail to provide in-
formation in such a way that it fosters the development of social relations with faculty and peers. A more
appropriate orientation program according to Tinto would be the following:
Here in the realm of interpersonal affiliation lies one of the keys to effective orientation programs,
indeed to effective retention programs generally. Namely, that they go beyond the provision of
information per se to the establishment of early contacts for new students not only with other
members of their entering class but also with other students, faculty, and staff. In this manner,
effective orientation programs function to help new students make the often difficult transition to
the world of the college and help lay the foundation for the development of the important personal
linkages which are the basis for eventual incorporation of the individual into the social and
intellectual life of the institution (Pascarella, Terenzini, and Wolfle, 1985). (Tinto, 1993. p. 159)
What Tinto espouses is the importance of orientation programs in regard to the social integration of the
student. Building upon his theory of academic and social integration, the immediate forging of bonds be-
tween freshman students and faculty assists the development of a social comfort that helps bridge the gap
from high school to college. Orientation programs can assist in bridging other gaps as well, including the
adjustment from rural life to urban, small schools to large institutions, and other equally potentially difficult
adjustments for students.
Several colleges and universities across the country have developed successful orientation programs to
help ameliorate the adjustment process for students. The University of South Carolina’s Freshman Semi-
nar Program, entitled University 101, was developed to help retain African-American students through
their freshman year (Fidler and Godwin, 1994). As opposed to many orientation programs which consist of
a few days at the beginning of the semester, University 101 begins with a one-day summer advisement
session where students learn about course sequence and registration. During the fall, students then volun-
teer to take the 3-credit hour offering, which includes discussion of freshman issues, guest speakers, intro-
duction to on-campus resources, field trips, and social functions. Students enrolled in the USC program
The George Washington University Page 27
historically return to the university in their sophomore years at a rate 6 percent higher than non-
participants.
The use of the Learning Styles Inventory at Carnegie Mellon University described earlier is also a unique
method of orienting students to their new culture (Wratcher, 1991). By meeting with students and discuss-
ing their learning preferences and introducing the support systems on campus, the student becomes more
aware of his or her potential on campus and where they may find support.
Summer bridge programs also offer an excellent way of orienting future students to the campus environ-
ment. The Summer Bridge Program at UC San Diego brings admitted students to the campus for a three-
week residence program the summer before they enroll. In addition to providing additional academic ex-
periences, students become familiar with the campus surroundings, resources, and begin to form relation-
ships before the stress of fall classes begins (Levin & Levin, 1991).
SOCIAL SUPPORT
Although campuses exist for the academic growth of its students, no campus is exempt from the responsi-
bility of providing an appropriate social environment for the student. As we have seen from our review, the
impact of social environment on student persistence is well documented. Colleges and universities can fos-
ter this social growth by providing opportunities for students to assemble and mix. Allowing and coordinat-
ing Student Associations, fraternities, and other student groups can assist this process (Billson & Terry,
1982; Astin, 1977; Slocum, 1956). In fact, student groups can be used to help develop other social efforts
that promote social integration and college persistence. Upcraft (1985) recommends that student govern-
ment, special interest groups, and other groups be called upon to help develop, promote, and implement
student activities on campus. Upcraft’s rationale is that the involvement of students will create a greater
ownership over the events as opposed to a university-generated event. Astin (1977) attributes athletic pro-
grams, student government, student-faculty interaction, social fraternities and sororities, and on-campus
residence with greater persistence and social integration. The campus can be instrumental in providing all
of these opportunities by: setting up inter-school and intramural athletic activities; incorporating the role of
student government into structure of the university; creating opportunities for faculty to meet with students
informally; establishing a fraternity row and allowing fraternity activities on campus; and providing the ca-
pacity for students to live on campus, especially freshman.
Delivery of Interventions and Programs
The delivery of retention interventions and programs may happen in any of a number of ways, but quite
often they may be categorized as either a pre-college, summer bridge, freshman year, or continuous type
of intervention. The title of these categories refers only to the time of delivery, and has little or nothing to
do with the content of the program. In fact, many of the interventions discussed previously, such as tutor-
ing and mentoring, may be an important feature of all delivery systems. Following is a brief explanation of
each category.
PRE-COLLEGE PROGRAMS
Pre-college programs are delivered to elementary and secondary students, and while they cannot be con-
sidered “retention” efforts, they are important components of a university’s recruitment program. Not only
does the pre-college program identify potential students, but it is an effective student motivator. In terms of
the sciences, pre-college programs may be an important tool in motivating nontraditional science students
(i.e., girls, minority children) toward a science-related career through fun activities. In addition, pre-college
The George Washington University Page 28
programs may provide academic support, career counseling, role modeling, and an introduction to college
life for the participants.
Examples of pre-college programs that have been extremely effective in these regards include the MSEN
program out of University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (grades 6-12), the MESA program in California
(grades 4-12), and Xavier University’s ChemStar, BioStar, and MathStar programs (High School). Further
information regarding these programs may be found in Appendix B.
SUMMER BRIDGE PROGRAMS
Summer bridge programs are offered to students who have already been admitted to the university, but
who either chose to or were required to take the bridge for academic reasons or because it is a required
portion of freshman year. Summer bridge programs act as an excellent orientation for the fall semester,
and allow students to get comfortable on campus before the onslaught of students in late August. Primar-
ily, summer bridge programs focus on academic skill development, such as study, note taking, time man-
agement, writing, and listening skills, but may also include particular discipline-related instruction or reme-
diation, such as pre-calculus or physics.
Xavier University is well recognized for its bridge program. Project SOAR (Stress On Analytical Reason-
ing) is an intervention tool designed to increase minority freshman retention by increasing students’ per-
formance levels in introductory courses. In addition, Project SOAR also provides motivating activities,
field-trips, career counseling, and social activities (Ryan, Robinson, and Carmichael, Jr., 1980).
FRESHMAN YEAR PROGRAMS
Freshman year programs operate within the freshman year, and often are conducted either within the first
several weeks of school or the first semester. In addition to applying the academic support activities evi-
dent in other interventions, freshman year programs most often deal with issues related to the freshman
year, such as social adjustment issues for students. They may operate completely separate from the aca-
demic calendar or be designed into the calendar. University of South Carolina’s “University 101” program
referred to earlier is an example of a freshman year program which is given academic credit (3-credit
hours). The Supplemental Instruction developed out of the University of Missouri-Kansas City provides an
example of an academic program designed almost exclusively for freshman students (89 percent fresh-
man). Freshman programs act as excellent diversions to attrition and support Braddock’s (1992) claim that
intervention is most effective at the stage where the greatest exodus of students from the university oc-
curs.
MAINSTREAM
The mainstream retention efforts at colleges are generally open to most students and are provided at any
time during the student’s college career. Student academic support in the form of tutoring, peer learning
activities, and supplemental instruction are common mainstream offerings, as well as social programs such
as counseling, social functions, and extracurricular activities. The University of Minnesota operates an
academic support program for minority students within the technology areas(engineering and sciences),
which includes tutoring, study skills, and other interventions to support students during the academic year
(Birmingham, 1995).
The George Washington University Page 29
Recruitment and Admissions
The recruitment stage may be the most critical phase of the college years for both student and institution.
Stated previously was the importance of goal congruence between the two. The recruitment stage is the
point where students and institution formally acknowledge their goals and missions and establish a relation-
ship to determine whether the “fit” is good between the two. As Tinto (1993) suggests, recruitment and
admission is the “first formal contact” with the institution for the student, and therefore is where students
form their first impression of the social, academic, and intellectual character of the campus. Unfortunately,
Tinto acknowledges that many institutions paint a “rosy” picture of their campus to gain enrollment figures,
rather than focus on attaining goal congruence. Thus, institutions should “recruit for retention” rather than
for enrollment figures (Noel, 1978). The impact of inappropriate recruitment is felt later when attrition
rates balance out the equation for this lack of congruence.
Many institutions utilize what is called a “blanket recruitment” approach. As described by Cota-Robles
(1992), this approach “employs traditional efforts such as widespread distribution of posters and brochures,
name exchanges, and participation in graduate fairs” (p. 104). Unfortunately, Cota-Robles also contends
that this is a very ineffective method of recruitment, which is also substantiated by Thomas, Clewell, and
Pearson (1992). Rather than blanket recruitment, many institutions have been effective with more personal
contacts with students. Students should be given the opportunity to gain a better understanding of the cam-
pus. Ihlanfeldt (1985) contends that the strategic planning objective of the university should be to create a
better fit between the institution’s environment and various markets (i.e., potential students) and then
communicate this fit to the student. This will allow the institution to fulfill its mission while also engaging
students who fit this mission. Thus, as Ihlanfeldt remarks, the admissions department must play the role as
communicator rather than the sales force.
In terms of marketing for recruitment, Ihlanfeldt (1985) clarifies the types of markets available to universi-
ties. In particular, Ihlanfeldt uses the terms “national,” “regional,” and “local” to describe high schools in
terms of the geographic location that they send their students to college. A high school that send students
to colleges around the country are termed national schools. A national high school sends students to uni-
versities all over the nation, and will send between 90 and 95 percent of their graduating class on to higher
education. As may be inferred, these schools are found in the more affluent neighborhoods of the nation.
Ihlandfeldt describes a school that sends students to colleges within the state (generally within 200-300
miles of their home) as regional. The regional school sends between 40 and 60 percent of their graduating
class to higher education. A school that send students almost exclusively to the local area college or uni-
versity is described as a local school. The local school is located in the same town as the university or col-
lege, and will send only 20 or 30 percent of its graduating class on to college. As we work down each
category, the socio-economic status of the student and family also work down the scale, with local schools
having the lowest SES. Universities are similarly categorized. Very simply put, there are the national uni-
versities which recruit across the nation (Ivy League and others), regional universities which recruit within
a 200-300 mile radius, and local universities, or “commuter” universities, which recruit locally. The point of
Ihlanfeldt’s discussion is that the university must identify which classification it is in or wants to be in, and
develop a marketing strategy to ensure that the appropriate market is attracted. Many of the minority insti-
tutions fall into the regional market, and therefore should focus on students who fall into the regional cate-
gory rather than spend greater dollars per recruit marketing beyond their scope. As Ihlanfeldt explains,
A regional institution should focus nearly all of its efforts within its primary market area except for
a limited direct mail effort in secondary markets, and Alumni should be used to follow up on a
personal basis in the secondary markets. (p. 197)
The George Washington University Page 30
In order to develop an appropriate strategy for this market, Ihlanfeldt offers the following strategies:
(1) Focus upon the primary market within 300-mile radius
(2) Develop an early contact program to increase the name recognition and visibility of the institution
(3) Develop a database of freshmen and sophomore addresses by market, school.
(4) Use direct mail as frequently as necessary
(5) Develop an alumni admissions program in five to ten cities.
(6) Make a limited number of well-targeted secondary school visits n the spring. Should be directed
toward sophomore and juniors.
(7) Reduce number of secondary school visits.
(8) Offer on-campus Sunday programs in the fall and spring for prospective students and their parents
who live within the immediate area, and a Sunday to Monday overnight for students outside
immediate area.
(9) Use enrolled students to contact prospective students locally.
(10) Host off-campus programs in a neutral environment (hotel).
(11) Host on-campus workshops for teachers and counselors from high schools and community
colleges (transfer students).
(12) Visit homes on a selective basis of talented prospects
(13) Establish a hometown news release program that sends mail on a timely basis.
(14) Summer camp programs and corporate workshops on campus can offer great opportunities to
promote the institution. (p. 200).
As can be seen by the list, an important part of the recruitment process is the personal nature of the con-
tact. Direct mail, extensive use of the alumni, incorporation of high school teachers and counselors, visiting
homes, and hometown news release programs are all an essential part of establishing a personal relation-
ship with the prospect. This approach follows the research of Tinto (1975), Pantages and Creedon (1978),
and Beal and Noel (1980), who are among many researchers who suggest that personal concern is an im-
portant factor in the social integration of the student.
Braddock (1992) suggests that there are seven basic stages to the recruitment process that a university
must follow:
1. Define the pool of qualified individuals
2. Recruit applicants
3. Screen out applicant who do not meet the qualifications
4. Select the most acceptable applicants
5. Persuade recruits to accept offers to pursue careers or advanced study in a field
6. Train and socialize recruits
7. Provide opportunities for recruits to make a smooth transition.
Braddock (1992) notes that this seven-stage process is both cyclical and cumulative, and that barriers that
for minority candidates at any stage may constrain their availability at other stages in the process (p. 36).
In addition, the pipeline of students that are available in the first stage (‘Defining the pool’) will dwindle
down to only a few candidates by stage 7. Thus every stage is critical to keeping the pool active in the
recruitment process. As John Hope Franklin (1993) states in The Inclusive University,
The George Washington University Page 31
If colleges and universities were to beat the bushes for bright young blacks the way they do for
strong young blacks—that is, if they pursued scholars as zealously as they do athletes—the pool of
college-bound youth would be much larger. (p. 20).
It is the responsibility of the university to ensure that the pool, or market using Ihlanfeldt’s terminology, is
actively recruited to the university and department. This responsibility will surely become more important
and more of a concern for recruitment and admission personnel in the next decade considering the 30 to
40 percent drop in eighteen- to twenty-four-year olds across the country since 1985 (Ihlanfeldt, 1985).
This drop in the overall size of the college pool will dramatically affect each discipline, department, and
university drawing from that pool.
Several universities have established interesting and effective recruitment strategies for minority popula-
tions. The University of Florida organized a special department to recruit new students into the teaching
profession, called The Office of Recruitment and Outreach (Johnson, 1988). A key component to the Uni-
versity of Florida strategy is the ‘outreach’ component, which involves contacting local fraternities, sorori-
ties, churches, and other organizations to help generate student interest in teaching. Contacting educators
at community colleges and high schools as well as attending regional conferences were strategies utilized
by the ORO. Institutions such as Syracuse University (The Lubin House Experience) (Elam, 1989) and
Project Uplift at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill (are examples of efforts that take the uni-
versity out to the community rather than rely on internal visitations and traditional methods (See Appendix
B). The use of ‘mixers’ and social events to attract both students and parents to universities may be suc-
cessful information dissemination exercises when executed effectively. At Lubin House in New York
City, social evenings are planned to aid families that have neither the time or money to travel to Syracuse
University.
The use of innovative and aggressive recruitment methods at both Syracuse University and UNC help at-
tract the minority student to those two institutions. One method used at both universities is that of the
‘mini-university.’ For one weekend, senior high school students are given the opportunity to visit the cam-
pus, sleep in the dormitories, eat in the dining halls, and attend special events, classes, and orientations.
This effort provides the student with a ‘feel’ for the campus, and these well-organized events often act as
a catalyst to the final college selection for these students.
Since recruitment for the academically successful minority students among universities is very competitive,
recruitment must begin long before high school graduation. At Syracuse, the Lubin House experience be-
gins when the students are in their junior year (see Figure 4). The three stage recruitment program begins
with an ‘exploration’ phase during initial contact, providing important information for the students and par-
ents regarding the program offerings, financial aid, and campus life. The second stage, called the ‘sele c-
tion’ phase, takes place in senior year and establishes further contact with the family while also providing
more detailed information regarding program requirements and support. The final ‘commitment’ stage, as
with the previous selection phase, further delineates the program information toward the specific needs of
the student. Fine details are taken into consideration at this point, including course selection, establishing
financial aid, and living conditions. Although the university makes great efforts to recruit the top minority
students, students who have shown the potential to succeed in higher education, but would not normally be
selected through formal application processes, are forwarded to the Higher Education Opportunity Pro-
gram (HEOP) at the University, which provides financial support to students who fit the appropriate de-
scription.
The George Washington University Page 32
Figure 4. Syracuse University Recruitment Process
Junior Year
Senior Year
Admitted
Applicants
Exploration
Phase
Commitment
Phase
Selection Phase
Non-enrollmentEnrollment
Source: Elam, 1989
Other programs to be discussed later in this document include academic enrichment programs offered at
both the elementary and secondary levels of education by institutions of higher education. This practice
has become much more common in the past decade, and has been utilized as a successful recruitment ap-
proach by Xavier University, the University of North Carolina, and the University of California at Berkeley
among many others. These institutions have come to realize that the successful recruitment of students
depends on expansion of services to the preliminary sectors of the pipeline. By providing students with
opportunities in their formative years, students develop better academic skills, an increased desire in the
sciences, an increased appreciation for the education process and learning, and become more aware of the
opportunities that come with a college degree. While there is no guarantee that these students will gradu-
ate from high school and go on to the originating college, these enrichment programs have proven to in-
crease the SEM pool nationwide. However, the unique advantage of these types of programs, as far as
the institution is concerned, is familiarizing the student with the character of the university campus. After
spending six weeks on a college campus, 12-year old students often develop affinities for that institution,
and long for the opportunity to become a full-fledged college student.
One final note is regards the use of standardized admission testing. Astin (1994) has long been an oppo-
nent of the misuse of standardized instruments as predictors for college persistence and excellence, and
states that the use of high school grades and test scores for prediction of college success do not hold up
under scrutiny. Specifically, African American and Hispanic students are put at a competitive disadvan-
tage on such tests compared with other students. Astin cites a study conducted by Harris (1970) which
concluded that because a student receives mediocre grades in a particular course offering does not con-
clude that the student did not learn as much as another student who scored higher. Based on this observa-
tion, Astin suggests that a “talent development” viewpoint be developed at institutions to incorporate the
net academic development of a student during their course work. That is, a “before and after look” at their
progress in college. This way, an institution could be rated on how well it “develops” a student based on
their ability at admittance.
The George Washington University Page 33
Curriculum and Instruction
Much of the literature review has focused on issues related to issues of student integration, both academi-
cally and socially. One issue that must not be forgotten in all of this is the underlying rationale for the uni-
versity—learning. Between the curricula offered in higher education and the instruction of that curricula
carries the potential of students’ achievement after they graduate from college.
Universities have not been noted for their use of exemplary instruction techniques, and perhaps the tradi-
tional lecture method is most connotated with higher education. Sheila Tobias, in her book They’re not
dumb, they’re different (1990), discusses the problems with science instruction in college. The poor in-
struction of introductory, or “gatekeeper” courses, which as Tobias exclaims are “unapologetically com-
petitive, selective and intimidating, designed to winnow out all but the ‘top tier” (p. 9), is a factor that has
received considerable attention in the past few years. Traditionally, professors and instructors force feed
students and leave the entire learning process in their hands rather than supporting and encouraging stu-
dents to persist in the sciences (especially when many students have not identified majors at the freshman
stage). As Tobias comments,
For many scientists...it seems more logical to begin with pure substances, (the nation’s six-year-
olds) and uniform initial conditions, than to flounder in the messy bog of motivation, attributes, and
prior training exhibited by postsecondary students in their early years at college (p. 9).
Roueche & Roueche (1985) suggest that the instructor is the most pivotal contact in the educational proc-
ess, and regardless of other important impacts and considerations, must become and remain the key ingre-
dient to a solid educational foundation.
No matter the organizational or programmatic efforts made to set higher standards and to more
closely evaluate educational outcomes, the unquestionable pivotal point in the educational system
has been, and will always be, the teacher (p. 283).
Roueche and Roueche (1985) identify three “human and professional” criteria that instructors need to pos-
sess in order to foster teaching excellence. First is the love and concern for others. It is highly unlikely that
a teacher will exhibit much caring for either course content or the course participants if there is not a
good-natured attitude within the individual. Second, the teacher must have the ability to create a positive
learning environment. This involves entertaining some of the factors identified by Tobias, including motiva-
tion and a comprehension of students’ previous learning. Third, the teacher must be committed to teaching
as a profession, rather than as an aside to research. Although research institutions may have a different
set of priorities—a set that does not elevate teaching to the zenith—they must change their attitude toward
the teaching process and begin to support the academic and social needs of the students.
In a 1985 study of the attributes related to personal excellence, Bloom studied 120 superstars—athletes,
musicians, artists, and scientists—to identify what similar experiences they had during their lives to support
their climb to greatness. The findings exhibited that there were similar experiences among this class of
people, most important of which was the ‘child oriented’ philosophy of their parents. The parents of almost
all participants in Bloom’s study made personal sacrifices for their children and encouraged their children
to participate in activities (Hyman, 1988). Bloom, based on these findings, reasons that a teacher must
have these same attributes: they must be caring, responsible people who “must be almost like a wonderful
mother; nurturing, supporting, and encouraging” (p. 71). Although this example relates more to the adoles-
cent child, there is no reason to believe that these same attributes are not necessary components and con-
ditions of an effective learning environment. The hands-on interest of a faculty member, as discussed by
The George Washington University Page 34
Tinto (1993) and others, can have positive ramifications on the student’s self concept and progress. Of
course, it is equally important to note that the institution must support and encourage this type of activity on
the part of the instructor. The push for tenure at many institutions also implies the ability to acquire re-
search grants, write publications, and promote the university. Xavier University in New Orleans has made
a point of rewarding their teaching faculty for prowess in the classroom rather than just in their ability as
researchers (Petersdorf, Nickens, and Ready, 1990). Other such reward structure revision is imperative if
university instructors are to take more responsibility in their instructional techniques and the outcomes of
their students (Justiz, 1994; Sawchuk, 1991).
Many individuals and institutions have also decided to make changes to the traditional methods of college
instruction. Again, Xavier University is among those institutions which have revamped their pedagogical
methods to support student academic needs. Xavier redesigned their approach to instruction based upon
Piagetian theory and a format designed by Karplus (1977) entitled “Learning Cycle format,” which incor-
porates three distinct phases of learning: exploration, invention, and application (Whimbey, Carmichael,
Jones, Hunter, and Vincent, 1980). This effort works contrary to the lecture methods prominent in higher
education by first exposing students to situations and letting them experiment and ford their own theories
as to why certain events occurred. This ‘hands-on’ approach has been successfully introduced at many
colleges. Fullilove and Treisman (1990) developed a program at the University of California at Berkeley
built around the use of small learning groups and focused learning activities. The Mathematics Workshop
Program uses worksheets, homework, and active learning labs to develop an enhanced atmosphere of
learning at Berkeley. The program was developed after research showed that African American students
often studied in a void, as compared to Asian American students who studied in cohort groups. As antici-
pated, the Asian students earned much better grades and were more comfortable with the content than
their African American counterparts. Thus, the MWP program pulls students into peer groups and en-
courages group interaction and studying. Evaluations of the program have documented the apparent suc-
cess of the program, and Treisman has moved to the University of Texas at Austin to replicate the pro-
gram, which has also shown similar success.
The use of small group instruction, according to Hyman (1988), allows an individual learner to become
comfortable with the group and develop a sense of belonging, progressing Tinto’s (1975) theory of social
integration. Through these peer groups, learners can experiment with new methods of analysis and prob-
lem-solving that they otherwise would not have been subjected to. In addition, such group interaction pro-
motes heterogeneity on campus. Levin and Levin (1991) also support the use of integrated study skills ap-
proaches, and suggest that these approaches are successful because they destroy a student’s false per-
ception regarding his academic problems.
Monitoring Student Progress
The issue of student monitoring, or “tracking,” as it is sometimes referred to, is becoming an increasingly
important factor in providing students with the resources and interventions required to aid their persistence
at the college level. The use of monitoring system allows several events to take place. First, it allows uni-
versity personnel to follow a student’s progress and anticipate an expected need on behalf of the student.
For example, a student’s downward spiral of grades in physics, if identified by a faculty member or other
staff member, can issue a warning that the student requires tutorial assistance and support in order to get
back on track. However, unless someone or some department is privy to the appropriate information, this
student, like countless others, are likely to “fall through the cracks.”
The George Washington University Page 35
A student monitoring system is also necessary in terms of assessing the impacts of interventions and other
retention strategies. Tinto (1993) suggests that the development of such a system must first be student-
centered. That is, it must collect information on every aspect of student development and focus on that
progress. The collection of information provides the institution with a “snapshot” of student progress, and
according to Tinto, should detail the social and academic experiences of the student, “as understood by
students” (p. 214).
Tinto’s (1993) description of a retention assessment system emphasizes three main requirements in order
to be successful: the system must be comprehensive, longitudinal, and recursive. Tinto suggests that the
system incorporate both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection to ensure that a representa-
tive portrait is developed of each student. Surveys and other instruments can collect important information
on student progress, but are susceptible to low response rates. The use of qualitative methods, in the form
of focus groups, interviews, and other designs help fill information gaps and triangulate the information.
The use of unobtrusive techniques is also an interesting method of gaining insight into student progress.
Tinto gives the example of residence hall staff who are responsible for noting the frequency of home visits
by a student per semester and of how many visits from the parents are made. In addition, noting the wall
hangings and paraphernalia in a students room and dorm hallways may also be an indicator of certain stu-
dent issues or needs.
The second criteria of Tinto’s (1993) is the longitudinal process. As Tinto states, since the process of stu-
dent withdrawal from higher education is longitudinal in nature, so must student assessment. Therefore,
collection and monitoring of student progress must involve more than the freshman experience, and pref-
erably commence before students are officially admitted to the college. The advantage of this practice is
that school officials may become aware of potential needs before the student comes to the campus. Thus,
the college can prepare in advance for the social and academic needs of each student. Tinto also ac-
knowledges an important aspect of pre-enrollment information. The collection of student information be-
fore matriculation allows researchers (administrators) to separate the effect of pre-entry attributes from
the effects of college life on the student. This is an important part of the retention and student assessment
process.
The third criteria for a student retention system is that it must be recursive. That is, the process cannot
stop after one particular cohort of students, but rather, must be part of a continuing process of data collec-
tion in order to develop university-wide trends among the student body. This step will allow for the con-
stant improvement on the part of the institution. Several universities have either developed systems to
monitor student progress or are in the process of this development. The Colorado Commission for Higher
Education developed a student cohort tracking system in 1989-90 to assist the increased participation of
minority students in higher education (Colorado Commission on Higher Education, 1990). The system com-
prises all of Tinto’s three criteria for an assessment system, in that it compiles information on every stu-
dent enrolled in post-secondary studies within the state and updates that information on a semester basis.
Where the system lacks the ability to incorporate much of the qualitative and personal information de-
scribed earlier, it makes up for this inadequacy in the sheer breadth of the process. The major files (or re-
cords) coordinated in the system include a master file in addition to files describing enrollment, financial
aid, degrees granted, and undergraduate applicant information for both freshman and transfer student.
In developing the system, the CCHE followed five specific steps: (1) determine the purposes of the sys-
tem; (2) determine what data would be collected and priorities; (3) establish procedures for extracting and
manipulating data; (4) establish procedures for maintaining and manipulating the database; and (5) present
results so that decisions can be made about academic policy.
The George Washington University Page 36
The University of Wisconsin-Madison has also developed a new data control system that automates and
tracks information regarding graduate student progress (Steinich and Beecham, 1993). The Graduate
Academic Satisfactory Progress (GASP) system has an automatic inputting system of new information
through automated reports. GASP allows for the automatic updating of Ph.D. preliminary exam informa-
tion, graduate student information transactions, and the monitoring of students grades.
PART III PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
The development, organization, and implementation of a retention program is perhaps the most significant
effort that a college and university will make. As will be described, the development of a program will rely
on the ability of the campus to recognize the problem and choose to act. But that is only part of the issue.
In addition to the recognition and development of a retention program, the implementation of the program
is critical to any success that may be garnered in the future. This section of the literature review will dis-
cuss these issues and synthesize some of the most influential advice and conclusions relating to these is-
sues.
Characteristics of Effective Retention Programs
A number of studies have suggested the classifications, categories, or types of programs to include in a
retention program. But before these issues are discussed, it is important to understand other issues regard-
ing retention programs. For instance, when should the retention program begin at the college level? Arm-
strong-West and de la Teja (1988) suggest that a comprehensive retention program should start with pre-
admission exercises and continue through to post-graduation, with particular emphasis on the freshman
year (“frontloading”). By beginning a retention program before matriculation, the institution has a great
opportunity to identify, mold, and prepare students for the academic and social conditions of their campus.
Building upon what Tinto (1993) suggested regarding retention assessment and student monitoring, all pro-
grams and interventions that are conducted at the pre-college stage (i.e., summer bridge programs as well
as high school, middle school, and even elementary school interventions) give the institution an opportunity
to sew the seeds of future cohorts of students. In terms of student data, institutions can continually monitor
students at the secondary level, even though college admissions does not know the future decisions regard-
ing the students. In terms of the conclusion of the program, it is difficult to say when a program should
conclude. The pursuit of institutional quality and commitment to the student would suggest that the out-
comes of student learning would not truly to be measurable until it is seen what that learning provides the
student in “the real world.” With this concept in mind, Tinto (1993) suggests that programs follow the stu-
dent beyond graduation, and coordination with alumni groups and alumni associations is a unique method of
continuing any tracking.
The retention program should also be targeted not only to those that expressly need it, but to all students.
Although it is often necessary to develop specific programs targeted to different populations on campus
(Tinto, 1993), most programs will relate to most students. However, flexibility must be built in to all pro-
grams to support the individual nature of the student and their race, ethnicity, socio-economic status, and
other factors.
In terms of commitment, Flannery et al. (1973) state that any effort to reduce attrition must be “viewed as
a total effort and related to all personnel policies and procedures. Smith, Lippitt, and Sprandel (1985) sug-
gest that the various subparts of a campus must work together in order for a retention effort to be suc-
The George Washington University Page 37
cessful. These reports and others support the inclusiveness of all faculty toward the goal of the program.
The issue of bringing all “subparts” together will be discussed later.
There is much literature pertaining to the structure or components of a retention program (Levitz & Noel,
1985; Armstrong-West and de la Teja, 1988; Tinto, 1975, 1987, 1993; Cope and Hannah, 1975; Astin,
1975; Pantages and Creedon, 1978; Edmonds and McCurdy, 1988). Most of the literature focuses on pro-
grams or interventions involving one or many of the following activities: orientations, academic bridge,
mentoring and tutoring, peer counseling, diversity training, student-faculty interaction, academic advising,
extracurricular activities, study skills, exam reviews, curriculum and instructional strategies, and many oth-
ers. In fact, the preceding sections discussed many of these strategies. Two models in particular are worth
noting—not because they are better, but because they offer a different view of the issue of educational
excellence, campus change, and student retention.
The first model was developed by Forrest (1982) and is extracted from Levitz and Noel’s Increasing Stu-
dent Retention (1985). Forrest identified six operational features for institutional change, and not specifi-
cally devoted to retention support, although the two are somewhat synonymous. The six features are:
• Substantive academic advising and orientation
• Sufficient depth and breadth of general education component
• Instruction focused on relevant skill development
• Student-oriented goal statements and proficiency examinations
• Campus-centered environment during the freshman year
• Evaluation of the institution’s ability to increase student competence. (Levitz & Noel, 1985, p. 348)
The Forrest model was included because of its simplicity. Although it does not get into the depths of insti-
tutional change, it does state the key ingredients to student support and institutional evolution. The factors
that create the foundation for change, according to Forrest, are the student-oriented and campus-centered
factors. Keeping these two factors at the center of change will ensure that change is directed and fo-
cused.
The George Washington University Page 38
Table 4. Major Components Identified Which Reduce Attrition for Minority Engineering Students
The Retention Task Force of the Committee on Minorities in Engineering entitled “Retention of
Minority Students” in 1977, identified the following factors in rank-order:
• Tutoring supplemental to that normally provided
• Advising supplemental to that normally provided
• Minority engineering student organizations
• Career guidance
• Work experiences—co-ops
• Pre-college summer programs
• Faculty involvement
• Commitment of administration/faculty to program
• Adequate financial aid/scholarships
• Merit awards
• Recognition banquets and awards
• Reduced course loads when appropriate
• Academic year programs for high school students
• Diagnostic testing/effective placement procedures
• Effective first-year curriculum
• Effective recruiting/admissions policies to increase overall minority enrollment
• Minority professional engineers as role models
• Extensive personal contact with students by faculty and program staff.
SOURCE: Landis, Raymond B. (1985). Handbook on Improving the Retention and Graduation of Minorities in Engineering. New York, NY: The National Action
Council for Minorities in Engineering.
The second model is supplied by the Retention Task Force of the Committee on Minorities in Engineering
(Landis, 1985). Developed in 1977, this model focuses on minority students in engineering, thus providing a
focused view that related to the populations involved herein. In this model (See Table 4), the Task Force
suggests the implementation of solid pre-testing, placement, advising, and tutoring programs and strategies
to assist the first-year student. Career guidance, work experience, summer programs, and an effective
first-year curriculum would support students in the transition year from high school. In addition, the Task
Force also notes the importance of faculty/administration involvement and commitment to the retention
effort. Personal contact with students as support agents and role models are important contributors to stu-
dent retention. Recognition banquets and merit awards for both students and faculty should be established
to reinforce the effort. This model is inclusive of many of the key ingredients of solid institutional retention
programs discussed previously, and also regards them in a rank-ordered fashion in terms of importance.
Principles of Effective Retention Programs
“It’s impossible to really innovate unless you can deal with all aspects of a problem. If you can only deal
with yolks or whites, it’s pretty hard to make an omelette’ (Quote of Gene Amdahl, President of Amdahl
corporation, Levitz & Noel, 1985, p. 351).
The above philosophy is key to any success that a retention program may have at any university. The look
at the “big picture” is an important need as suggested by much of the literature. Martin (1985) suggests
that too many schools have focused on admission exercises and recruitment programs instead of focusing
resources on an institution-wide program to reduce attrition. In order to put things in the right perspective,
Astin (1994) states that educators must do two things: (1) look at issues from a system perspective rather
than an institutional perspective; and (2) view educational institutions in the same light as other public ser-
The George Washington University Page 39
vices providers, such as hospitals and clinics. Astin’s point is that higher education must start looking at the
“big picture” and anticipate the needs of society as a whole and match that with the needs of the student.
Tinto (1993) developed three principles of an effective retention program. First and foremost is that any
program must be committed to the students that they serve. The focus of program attention should be to
the targeted population, and not to other factors that may cause the direction of the program to go “out of
focus.” Second, an effective retention program must be committed to the education of all students, and not
just some. Thus, a retention program, while it may incorporate special interventions for special populations,
must address the needs of all students in order for the institution to meet its mission of providing quality
education to all. Third, Tinto states that an effective retention program must be committed to the develop-
ment of supportive social and educational communities on campus. Again, ensuring the social and aca-
demic integration of students is, according to Tinto, the most important issue to contend with in terms of
student persistence.
Important Organizational Considerations in Developing an Institution-Wide
Retention Program
The development of any program at any university requires a multi-faceted process incorporating all indi-
viduals involved. In terms of an institution-wide project, the advice of Flannery et al. (1973) must be re-
membered: that the entire institution must take part. From an institutional point of view, there are many
things that must happen on campus to ensure that positive change can take place. Several researchers
have identified their “lists” of appropriate actions. Included here is a brief discussion of the lists that are
appropriate to this discussion.
Clewell and Ficklen (1986), in their examination of effective institutional practices at four-year institutions,
identified the following characteristics which each of the institutions employing effective practice shared:
(a) the presence of a stated policy;
(b) High level of institutional commitment;
(c) Institutionalization of the program;
(d) Comprehensive services, dedicated staff, and strong faculty support;
(e) Atmosphere that loors students to participate without feeling stigmatized; and
(f) Collection of data to monitor student progress.
Institutional focus is the key ingredient of the above set of characteristics. Stated policy, institutional com-
mitment, comprehensive service, supportive atmosphere, and the ability to assess progress all point to the
importance of a collected vision and ownership on the part of the entire campus, including administration,
faculty, staff, and especially students. As will be discussed, leadership and faculty ownership are key vari-
ables in a successful equation, and the message that is sent down from the top is critical to the support
from underneath.
The George Washington University Page 40
Table 5. Organizational Steps of the Headway Model for Minority Medical Student Retention, Ohio
University College of Osteopathic Medicine
• Define a need: Describe the problem and suggest the need for a program
• Describe a population: Describe which population(s) should be served
• Demonstrate the need: Convince the administration to address the needs of the population
through this program.
• Assess existing resources: Analyze the existing sources, especially human resources, for
potential assistance with the program.
• Explore funding sources: Determine the accessibility of outside grants and the feasibility of
internal funding.
• Identify goals and roles: Determine goals and roles for the individual teams that will make
up the program (e.g. English department).
• Develop systems to monitor students: Develop a comprehensive information sheet to
monitor student achievement.
• Plan and implement systems for intervention: Ensure that the referral service is appropriate
and meeting the needs of the students.
• Evaluate and adapt the program: Solicit quarterly evaluations for the team and make
appropriate changes. (Cooper et al., 1992)
Cooper, Williams, and Burnett (1992) developed a retention program at the Ohio University College of
Osteopathic Medicine directed at minority students. In an attempt to create a replicable model, the authors
developed a step-by-step analysis of the program development process (See Table 5). The first part of the
Cooper model is focused on identifying the need and providing a rationale for the program. Secondly, the
assessment of available resources and possible support funding is conducted. Third is the identification of
the roles and responsibilities of the involved parties. At this point, the shift of the program goes from plan-
ning to implementation. The development and implementation of monitoring systems and intervention ac-
tivities become the core of the program, while the evaluation instrumentation and process acts as the qual-
ity control instrument for the entire project. This model looks at the project from a typical “grant perspec-
tive.” That is, it describes the project in terms of how an external group would view it in terms of ac-
knowledging the need and supplying support.
A very useful set of action principles for implementation of a retention program are offered by Tinto
(1993: See Table 6). As has been established by other models, the importance of assessment, ownership,
collaboration, institution-wide coverage, and commitment are essential to Tinto’s principles. In addition, the
development of appropriate skills by the faculty and staff is acknowledge, as well as the principle of front-
loading the program for freshman students.
The George Washington University Page 41
Table 6. Tinto’s Seven Action Principles of Successful Implementation
1. Institutions should provide resources for program development and incentives for program
participation that reach out to faculty and staff alike.
2. Institutions should commit themselves to a long-term process of program development.
3. Institutions should place ownership for institutional change in the hands of those across the
campus who have to implement that change.
4. Institutional actions should be coordinated in a collaborative fashion to insure a systematic,
campus-wide approach to student retention.
5. Institutions should act to insure that faculty and staff possess the skills needed to assist
and educate their students.
6. Institutions should frontload their efforts on behalf of student retention.
7. Institutions and programs should continually assess their actions with an eye toward
improvement. (Tinto, 1993)
The issue of institution-wide change and the coordination of effort across all departments and levels is es-
sential to real change. However, as Kanter (1983) notes, any change at the institutional or individual level
is a complex phenomenon. In describing the interdependent nature of campus change, Smith, Lippett, and
Sprandel (1985) discuss the organizational nature of the college institution. In their discussion, the authors
describe a set of four interdependent parts of the higher education structure which must interact in order
to support change. First is a vertical set of relations between the system levels. The strata of higher edu-
cation includes such levels as the Trustee level, administrative level, and faculty level. Second is a set of
horizontal relations between departments, administrations, student organizations, and others. The third part
is the elements of the past, present, and future. Smith et al. claim that the tradition of the past, the practice
of the present, and the goals and perspectives of the future all must be dealt with. Finally, the relation of
the system and the environment, including political, physical, and economic, provides the final interdepend-
ent component.
The George Washington University Page 42
Table 7. Noel’s Steps for Increasing Student Retention in Higher Education
a. Establish an institution wide retention steering committee
b. Determine the dropout rate
c. Conduct a dropout study to determine why students are leaving
d. Conduct an institutional self-study to determine where the institution is successful and
where it needs improvement
e. Establish retention task committees within each of the unites or departments to determine
appropriate student-oriented action programs
f. Make concerted efforts to increase faculty and staff awareness of factors related to retain-
ing students; encourage a campus-wide attitude of servicing students
g. Build a sound marketing approach into the recruiting program; recruit for retention
h. Develop a good orientation program for entering freshmen and transfer students
i. Build a student counseling and advising program from admissions through job placement
j. Provide a special career- planning program for students who are undecided about educa-
tional major or vocational choice
k. Provide a range of academic-support services for students with marginal academic cre-
dentials (every college has a bottom quarter of its entering freshman class)
l. Build a so-called early warning system to identify students who are likely to drop out
m. Set up a simple but sensitive exit-interview process
n. Institute a tangible reward system for good teaching and faculty advising.
SOURCE: Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates (1985). Increasing Student Retention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
The pursuit of institutional change, according to Smith et al. (1985), is dependent upon the ability of those
leading the change to orchestrate all of the parts described above, a process which often takes too much
of the project energy. These different interdependent parts of the organization are barriers to change. In
addition, they also become barriers to communications: communications between colleagues and levels.
Regardless of the structure of institutional change, Smith et al. (1985) also acknowledge the process of
change. In particular, the four levels of readiness that must be ascended in order to produce desired re-
sults, and must involve each of the four parts already acknowledged. Level one is a stage of latency. As
suggested, there is no action at this point, and no leadership or sanction. Not until the institution has
reached Level Two, the Awareness level, is there much acknowledgment of the project. At this level, the
need for system-wide action is realized, and Smith et al. note that this rarely happens without the input of
either an outside or inside consultant. Level Three is the Intent to Act stage. Leadership lends its support
publicly at this point, sending out supportive and formal messages. Finally, Level Four is the Energy stage,
where the project is put into action.
The four levels just described set the stage for campus involvement, as well as interpret the timing of
campus leader involvement. The next section of roles will describe the importance of leadership in any
campus change.
Before that discussion, however, one more model should be mentioned. Noel (1978) developed a set of
institutional actions that need to be enacted to produce an increase in student persistence in higher educa-
The George Washington University Page 43
tion(See Table 7). This model provides institutions a map of actions to pursue in the development of a re-
tention program.
Role of the Key Players
The role of campus officials and faculty is an important part of any retention program. The expected be-
haviors and involvement to be followed must be communicated in order to meet the needs of any imple-
mentation strategy.
Beal and Noel (1980) developed a organizational chart which they consider to be the most effective design
to support the implementation and development of a retention program (See Figure 5). The chart illustrates
the key figures in the college hierarchy and the flow of authority and leadership. At the top end of the
chart is the presidential directive. The rationale to the directive, as Beal and Noel claim, is the “greatest
need” concept. A directive from the top shows that the effort is being supported by the administration,
especially when the directive is passed through the vice presidential offices, in this case, the offices of stu-
dent and academic affairs. Identifying a retention coordinator is an important part of project direction and
acceptance. The establishment of a permanent position also sends a message to the faculty and staff as to
the importance of the program. A directive sent down without the financial or organizational support gen-
erally sends a message to those further down the hierarchy that this is not an important goal of the admin-
istration and therefore is not to be taken seriously. The commitment of the university to orchestrate change
through a retention coordinator is an essential step.
Beal and Noel (1980) also acknowledge the importance of a steering committee to be “charged with the
responsibility of giving ongoing direction to the analysis of attrition/retention on the campus and to the for-
mulation of intervention strategies” (p. 91). Important to the success of this direction is the inclusion of the
various campus constituencies, including departments, faculty, and students. Going back to Smith et al.’s
(1985) discussion of four interdependent parts of the college campus, each of these parts would have to be
represented in order to ensure that the entire campus constituency “buys in” to the program. At the bottom
(but no less important) end of the hierarchy are the remaining constituents of the college campus: faculty,
staff, students, executive departments, and others.
The George Washington University Page 44
Figure 5. Beal & Noel’s All-Campus Student Retention Effort
Presidential Directive
The Role of Campus Leadership
Leadership is a crucial role of any institutional change, whether that leadership stems from the president’s
office, the dean, or the director of retention. As was just illustrated through the Beal and Noel model
(1980), the presidential directive is an important feature in creating the atmosphere for change through a
clear message of direction and support. Gone is the top-down decision-making process of the 70s, and in
are the cooperative organizational styles that management philosophies such as Total Quality Management
(TQM) are about.
The TQM philosophy just mentioned, while it has its supporters and detractors, has established a new way
of looking at management and leadership. TQM is based on the concept of continual improvement of
product and service. With regard to higher education as a service agency (Astin, 1994), the new role of
leadership in terms of TQM is to remove the barriers that prevent people from conducting and improving
their service (Chaffee and Sherr, 1992; Justiz, 1994). The Leadership must pave the way for any im-
provement through goal specification and clarification and the elimination of obstacles, especially when
dealing with an institution-wide change. When the change process comes from the bottom up, however,
the leadership must be in a position that they can identify this grass-roots support and provide appropriate
support and guidance (Smith et al., 1985). However, it is important to stress the cooperative approach in
any managerial style. Cooperation and a shared vision based on a foundation of shared experience and
values is pivotal to real change on a post-secondary campus (Wolverton and Richardson, 1992). Research
also suggests that leadership must also address the issue of adequate resources for change, including the
positioning of a full-time director of retention (Beal and Noel, 1980; Schexnider, 1992). Again, this assign-
ment will send out a message of institutionalization and legitimacy to all faculty and staff.
The George Washington University Page 45
Wolverton and Richardson (1992), in their Ford Foundation study regarding faculty behaviors and student
success, emphasized the important role of campus leadership and issued the following recommendations:
• Empower others by clarifying values and providing the vision that guides organizational behavior.
• Share the vision and its meaning for the organization with others through clear communication,
which includes a willingness to listen
• Build seeds of understanding, identity and commitment into the very processes which create
organizational strategies.
• Model the behavior he/she wants to see by building trust, through honesty and integrity, and
confidence through respect.
• Set high expectations for him/herself and for those around him. That is, expect good performance,
recognize and reward excellence, and balance desires for individual achievement with the
cooperative effort of all.
• Create an atmosphere that encourages risk-taking and recognize mistakes and failures as
pathways to success.
• Search for synergies that not only add value but multiple it
• Provide faculty, staff and administrators with the tools needed for self-leadership through
professional development, training and education, and feedback.
• Encourage continuous, incremental improvement and innovation by promoting divergent thinking
that is grounded in the interdependence of shared responsibility and authority. (p. 18)
In conclusion, the leadership of the campus must pull the various factions on campus together (Smith et al.,
1985) through coalition building and collaborative processes (Chaffee and Sherr, 1992) and through the
clear statement of goals and expectations (Wolverton and Richardson, 1992).
The Role of Faculty
In their book, What Works in Student Retention, Beal and Noel (1980) cite Flannery et al. (1973) who
state: “It is the instructors who ultimately make the educational system effective and relevant, and they
must accept the responsibility of using the resources of the college to help the students” (p. 13). Subscrib-
ing to this theory would precipitate the need to give faculty more power or a more defined role in the evo-
lution of a college or university. Ainsworth (1985) regards the faculty role as an important aid to the devel-
opment of policy and practice on campus:
They help decide upon the issues and policies of admission, graduation, and curriculum. They are
in a position to influence policy regarding the establishment of auxiliary programs, the solicitation
of industry contributions, and the management of project grants. They can provide connections to
higher administration and can significantly contribute to the success or failure of a program
through their advocacy or hostility. (p. 105).
But how do faculty fill their role as defined by both Ainsworth and Flannery et al.? Perhaps the influential
role of faculty occurs through their instruction, participation on campus committees, and deliberations in
departmental meetings. However, to make the faculty feel a part of any campus effort to deal with attri-
tion, Toy (1985) suggests that three fundamental points must be clarified by the leadership. First, the fac-
ulty must be convinced that attrition is a serious problem on campus and that change must occur. Second,
faculty must also be convinced that their participation is pivotal to the success of any retention effort. And
third, the faculty must also be able to identify institutional and administrative support from above, and not
The George Washington University Page 46
be stranded with the prospect of trying to evoke change when it is not a legitimate priority of the admini-
stration, or the upper levels of the vertical hierarchy (Smith et al., 1985). These ideals are important, as
Beal and Noel (1980) concluded in their study of 944 campuses incorporating a retention project. Twenty
percent of campuses surveyed described lack of faculty support as a key barrier to any successful reten-
tion effort.
The overall role of the faculty in a retention program, however, is the role as mentor, adviser, and friend
(Toy, 1985; Pantages and Creedon, 1978; Beal and Noel, 1980; Astin, 1977). The development of stu-
dent/faculty interaction is deemed as the most important strategy in creating the social and academic inte-
gration theorized by Tinto (1975) and others. As Toy exclaims, “The importance of first impressions sup-
ports the contention of Pantages and Creedon (1978, pp. 95-96) that we need to find new ways to maxi-
mize faculty-student interaction during the freshman year, including greater faculty involvement in the ori-
entation program and more care in the assignment of faculty advisers” (p. 384). However, Toy also is
quick to note that faculty are rarely given time to incorporate these activities into their already busy sched-
ules. Toy contents that if the college is serious about its retention efforts, they must illustrate this impor-
tance by establishing a revised reward structure for faculty who take their role seriously as opposed to
focusing on the traditional “tenure related” activities, such as research and publishing.
Research Activities and Evaluation
Research is an important role in a retention strategy. Research must be used to identify areas of student
need, organize an inventory of current services and programs, and assess the effect of programs, both cur-
rent and future. The first two areas are critical to the planning of any retention strategy. As Levitz and
Noel (1985) advise, “...one cannot get better at what one is doing if one does not know how one is doing”
(p. 351). Perhaps this should be noted as the theory of ‘ones,’ but the point is that the program developers
must be fully cognizant of student issues and campus climate in order to either deliver new services or re-
vamp existing services to the benefit of all populations. Levitz and Noel (1985) identify the research proc-
ess as three separate stages of activity: the analysis of student enrollment behavior, the assessment of stu-
dent interactions with the environment, and the evaluation of program effectiveness. However, Levitz and
Noel’s research phases only incorporate on-campus deliberations between student and the institutional
climate. A more fundamentally useful process would include knowledge of student attributes before ma-
triculation (Tinto, 1993; Armstrong-West and de la Teja, 1988). This knowledge would allow administra-
tors and retention designers to formulate programs based on the perceived needs of the student body. In
terms of TQM, this would result in a focused direction toward a continual improvement in the campus en-
vironment. Hale (1991) supports this concept, suggesting that the inventory of campus culture and envi-
ronment be built around the identification of perceived problems and barriers to success for the entire
campus population.
Table 8 outlines Levitz and Noel’s (1985) list of objectives of a comprehensive retention research pro-
gram. The baseline philosophy behind this set of objectives is the emphasis on student-centered and pro-
gram-centered research.
The George Washington University Page 47
Table 8. Levitz and Noel’s Objectives of a Comprehensive Retention Research Program (1985)
1. To study success—to find out what the institution is doing well in order that it may do more
of it.
2. To pinpoint campus services that need further attention so that they may become the type
of student resources of which the institution can be proud.
3. To determine the type of intervention programs and practices that are linked to student
success and student persistence.
4. To follow those students who receive special attention or participate in special programs to
determine whether the intervention is having the desired impact.
5. To target students who will benefit from interventions known to have a positive impact.
6. To provide validation of the outcomes the institution is striving to achieve. Levitz & Noel
(1985). p. 350.
The Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine’s retention project (Cooper et al., 1992) identified
specific data sets which became the research base for their project (Table 9). This table gives precise
actions for either the institutional research department or the research office of the retention project to
undertake in order to assess the need and evaluate the effectiveness of the program.
Table 9. Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine Strategies for Evaluating Excellence
1. Student scores on standardized examinations of locally constructed examinations
2. Performance of graduates in graduate school
3. Pre- and post-testing of students;
4. Achievement in general education;
5. Performance of graduates of professional programs on licensure examinations;
6. Placement of graduates of occupational programs in positions related to their fields of
preparation;
7. Financial soundness and stability;
8. Adequacy and use of institutional resources (assets);
9. Rate of job placement for graduates; and
10. Rate and quality of placement in graduate or professional education. (p. 3)
Source: Cooper, N.L., Williams, S.Y., and Burnett, P.A. (1992). Headway: A multi-disciplinary approach to retain black students in an osteopathic medical
school. In Lang and Ford’s (Eds.) Strategies for retaining minority students in higher education. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, Publisher, pp. 108-121.
Chapter Summary
The literature review has uncovered an enormous amount of information regarding factors related to stu-
dent attrition, retention programs, and organizational factors related to campus change. Because of the
mass of information produced in this chapter, it is important to summarize the key issues presented within.
PART I: FACTORS RELATED TO RETENTION
As expressed in Part I, there are dozens of factors which contribute to a student’s decision or ability to
persist at college. A review of significant research resulted in the identification of five key areas which are
believed to impose the greatest force of this decision-making process. The academic preparation of stu-
dents is a key impediment to long-term college success and retention. In particular, Moore and Carpenter
(1985) suggested that between 30 and 40 percent of students are underprepared for their freshman year.
The George Washington University Page 48
Socio-economics, poor learning environments, and the social-stigma attached to women and minority
groups regarding ability and place in society have become major barriers to students’ development of aca-
demic tools and motivation to pursue post-secondary education and science-based careers. The selection
of appropriate college-preparatory courses and prerequisites is also an important consideration for students
before college.
The climate and culture of a campus is a prerequisite to student success, both academically and socially.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities have been found to offer a more congenial atmosphere for
minority students compared to the often hostile and isolated environment offered to minority students at
predominantly white institutions. However, transition from high school (or work force) into college is quite
often a difficult time for students of all races or ethnic backgrounds, regardless of institution type. The op-
portunity for social integration, on-campus housing, and adequate socia l support services are all key ele-
ments of a positive campus culture.
The student’s goal and institutional commitment is a large determinant in the persistence of a student.
Tinto (1993) claims that the personal commitment to an academic or career goal is the most important fac-
tor related to student persistence. As well, the institution’s ability to assess the student’s commitment and
match with the mission of the college is a key element to the success of the student.
The level of social and academic integration into the college environment is also strongly related to re-
tention. Spady (1970) and Tinto (1975) utilized Durkheim’s theory of suicide to develop a theory which
suggests that the isolation of students within the social fabric of an institution is a key factor in their depar-
ture. The campus climate and goal commitment are important considerations in determining the “fit” be-
tween the student and the institution, and the level of academic and social integration of the student must
be a major concern for college administrators and faculty.
Finally, the last major factor identified was the issue of finance. Although the research on the effect of
financial aid on students is equivocal, several studies have suggested that the lack of or difficulty in attain-
ing financial support is a major barrier perceived by minority students, especially African American stu-
dents. Even when aid is available, the type of aid package offered can have various affects on persis-
tence. For instance, studies have shown that grants typically increase the ability of students to persist,
while loans have no significant positive or negative effect. Other forms of aid, including work studies and
internships, have also been found to support student retention when students work on or close to campus,
work with faculty members, and work within their discipline.
PART II: PROGRAM STRATEGIES AND COMPONENTS
Five areas were identified in the literature which appear to be important considerations for institutional fo-
cus regarding the development of campus-wide retention efforts. Although separate and isolated efforts
may have a positive effect on student retention, only through the holistic incorporation of all five areas de-
scribed in the literature review can support the improvement of campus-wide student retention.
Academic and social interventions developed by the college can help ameliorate many of the issues
that were described in Part I. The use of counseling (academic, career, social, and financial) services to
support the needs of the student body can help guide and direct students, especially during the freshman
year. Tutoring and mentoring programs have been found to be extremely beneficial in the academic
and social development of the student. Peer tutoring and the use of support groups are excellent methods
of supporting the academic needs of the student while also developing the social side of college life. Pre-
freshman orientation programs, when conducted in an appropriate and meaningful way, can help stu-
The George Washington University Page 49
dents bridge the gap between high school and college, or even between work and college, whichever is the
case. Orienting students to the services available on campus can comfort students and supply them with
information that may be important to them during their college experience. Finally, social support ser-
vices, such as extracurricular activities, may provide students with the opportunity to become a part of the
social fabric of the university.
The delivery of programs described above may occur through a number of interventions and activities.
Pre-college programs can provide students at the high school, middle school, and even elementary
school ages with the academic preparation necessary for college, while also providing the necessary moti-
vation that many young students are missing during their pre-college years. In addition, pre-college pro-
grams also allow institutions an opportunity to track (monitor) students on their path towards college.
Summer bridge programs are excellent opportunities for the institution to assist students who are en-
rolled in the following academic year at the college. These programs are usually academically oriented, but
also orient the student to the campus before the fall schedule begins. Freshman year programs are held
during the academic year and focus on the development of the freshman student. Academic, social, and
extended orientation programs are often the major focuses of this type of delivery. Finally, mainstream
support programs offer ongoing academic and social service to students throughout their college experi-
ence.
The recruitment and admission policies of an institution often defines the campus culture and atmosphere.
At the recruitment stage, the institution has the opportunity to assess the “fit” between the student’s goals
and the institution mission. By accurately recruiting and admitting students who do fit the institutional mis-
sion, the college has a much better chance of serving the student well. In order to do this, colleges must
consider the type of student they wish to attract and how to best market their programs to that population.
In addition, the college must assess their current use of evaluation criteria, such as standardized tests and
other techniques. Recent literature suggests that the use of non-cognitive instruments, such as portfolios
and interviews, are more conducive to identifying students for success.
The revitalization and revision of the curriculum and instructional techniques was identified as an im-
portant component related to student persistence and progress. Science, engineering, and mathematics
courses have been notorious for their inability to develop appropriate connections between theory and
practice. High rates of course drops in the gatekeeper courses suggest that current approaches to instruc-
tion is not meeting the needs nor learning strategies of students. Recent developments have seen the use
of instructional techniques more attune to K-12 courses than in higher education, with more widespread
use of learning cycles, group strategies, hands-on activities, and research projects. Each of these learning
strategies have been shown to improve the capabilities and persistence of students in the sciences.
One other important strategy that was identified through the review process was the need to monitor
student progress. Although many colleges review records of students on a periodic basis, today’s col-
lege must develop a student monitoring system that is much more sophisticated than those in use at most
institutions. The advantages of monitoring students using both qualitative and quantitative techniques on a
consistent timeframe can support the development of an early warning system while also acting as a con-
stant ‘quality control inspection’ during a student’s college career.
PART III: PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
Factors including the institutionalization, organizational considerations, roles of program stakeholders, and
program evaluation and monitoring were identified through the literature as important considerations in the
effective development and implementation of a campus-wide retention program.
The George Washington University Page 50
Much of the literature supported the sentiment that an effective retention program must be institutional-
ized. That is, it must become a regular part of campus service. Institutionalized programs must not be reli-
ant on ‘soft’ moneys (e.g., grants) to operate, and should support the practices and mission of the college.
The literature also suggests that inclusion of the entire campus in the development of the program is im-
portant to the eventual effectiveness of the program. Organizational strategies to develop this involvement
is perhaps the most important piece of the developmental process. The proper distribution of top-down and
grass-roots development and support is essential to the continued development and acceptance of change.
Although top-down management practices have been found to be largely ineffective, the need for a clear
message from the administration to faculty and staff regarding the importance of the retention program is
required to illustrate the administrative support for the program.
Researchers tend to agree that the various stakeholders have much different roles in the development and
implementation of a retention program. The role of campus leadership is to create the atmosphere for
change and support the needs of those involved in the development and implementation of the program.
The ability of campus leadership to empower others, create a vision that extends to all corners of the insti-
tution, and develop the coalition between factions on campus are important roles for administration. The
faculty, however, has the most important role, for they often become the agent through which policies and
programs are implemented on campus. Without the support and assistance of this group, there is little hope
for the successful implementation of any program on campus. More importantly, the faculty play a direct
role in many of the interventions that have been identified in the literature. Role modeling and mentoring,
faculty/student interaction, and classroom/lab instruction are areas which require supportive faculty in-
volvement. Thus, an effective organizational plan will offer much power and authority to the faculty.
Finally, the monitoring and evaluation of a retention plan is imperative to its success. Developers and
researchers who are given the opportunity to design an assessment system to gauge the effectiveness of
program components and implementation strategies before implementation have a better chance of creat-
ing a system which will accurately depict the true essence of implementation and program effectiveness.
The development of this system or strategy will provide the necessary feedback to improve programs and
alter directions dependent upon the data collected.
The George Washington University Page 51
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The methodological portion of this study involved the use of a modified Delphi technique. The Delphi is a
research method drawing information in the form of analysis and description from experts in relevant
fields. For this particular project, the Delphi utilized the expertise of higher education experts from around
the nation to comment and validate a retention framework designed specifically for this study.
The Delphi process required a two-phase research process: the development of the initial framework and
the incorporation of the Delphi technique. The remainder of this chapter describes in detail these two
phases.
Phase One: Framework Development
The development of an initial retention framework was conducted by the researcher with the support of an
extensive literature review. The information identified from the literature review was analyzed by the re-
searcher based on several criteria. First, in the case of research intensive studies, an analysis of the re-
search validity was conducted by the researcher to determine their internal and external validity. The re-
searcher reviewed sample sizes, uniqueness of sample, and the methodology used to analyze the data to
determine the validity of the research studies. Because the studies were incongruent in terms of their
scope and type, studies were not compared per se, but rather, individually scrutinized using the above crite-
ria. In addition to research studies, the researcher relied on previously conducted literature reviews by ex-
perts in the particular fields being studied. In the case of information gleaned from these reviews, the re-
searcher verified findings through the original studies whenever possible. Although the use of a meta-
analysis was at first considered, further research of methodological approaches for this study found that a
meta-analysis would be unfeasible for a variety of reasons (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991). First, the di-
versity of dependent and independent variables across the literature makes the use of meta-analytical
techniques difficult to administer in a way that promotes the validity of the final analysis. Secondly, as
Pascarella and Terenzini state, “meta-analytical techniques have come under close and often critical scru-
tiny in terms of their producing a truly objective and meaningful synthesis of evidence” (p. 84). Thus, the
decision of how to review the broad spectrum of available research studies is based on those authors’ in-
terpretation of the problems related to such an intensive review. Therefore, this study also relied on a nar-
rative explanatory synthesis as the primary method of assessing the literature, and assessed the overall
outcomes of the research through the “weight of evidence” of the aggregate research (p. 84). The proc-
ess of sorting and assessing the collected information was made easier through the use of matrix analytical
techniques, such as those described by Smith (1980), Campbell (1983), and Miles and Huberman (1984)
(cited by Patton, 1990). The availability of previously conducted literature reviews by experts on student
retention, such as Tinto (1975), Pantages and Creedon (1978), and Beal and Noel (1980), further sup-
ported the review process.
In regard to this study, two separate parts of the framework were developed to cover issues of retention
program content and development and implementation. Based upon the literature review, a content
framework was developed which identified key strategies related to financial aid, student services, aca-
demic services, recruitment and admissions, and curriculum and instruction. Under each of these compo-
nents, several categories were identified from the literature, as was appropriate to cover the breadth of the
The George Washington University Page 52
component. To further delineate the retention program content, specific objectives were developed for
each category. The result of this process was a five-part content framework covering the components
defined above (See Appendix C). In all, 20 categories were defined for the 5 components, from which 80
specific objectives were developed. This became the major component (Part II) of the first-round instru-
ment.
The second part of the framework related to the development and implementation of the program. As de-
scribed in Chapter I, the format followed this outline:
a) Pre-Planning Stage
b) Planning Stage
c) Implementation Stage
d) Monitoring Stage
Based upon the literature review, the researcher developed criteria for each stage identified above. The
result was a set of four lists which outlined necessary considerations for administrators and faculty mem-
bers in regard to the development and implementation of a student retention program. This data was util-
ized for Part III of the first-round instrument.
Phase Two: The Delphi Process
The validation of the model generated in the first phase of the study was conducted through the use of the
Delphi technique. The following section provides a brief background and description of the Delphi process
employed.
BACKGROUND
The Delphi technique, developed in the 1950s by the Rand Corporation, involves the surveying of experts
in the field of study relevant to the research study (Skutsch and Hall, 1973; Whaley, 1987). Named after
an ancient site in Greece, Greek mythology helped Delphi attain a status of wisdom and knowledge, and
through this status grew the development of the richest cultural center in ancient times. Thus, the Delphi
technique was named after this region to describe the type of knowledge that the Delphi approach at-
tempts to gain: expert opinion based upon consensus.
Most Delphi designs are used to create future scenarios and future forecasting, but they have also been
used to identify focus areas in the development of strategic plans for corporations and institutions, the es-
tablishment of goals, aims, and objectives for educational institutions, hiring of officials, and curriculum
planning (Skutsch and Hall, 1973; Whaley, 1987). In particular, the Delphi technique is often employed to
combat potential conflict among a partic ular group.
The Delphi often succeeds where other techniques fail (Skutsch and Hall, 1973). Many topics or issues in
which conflict or indecision is expected are particularly well served by the Delphi technique. Skutsch and
Hall identified three main advantages to using the Delphi technique. First, group judgments are superior to
individual judgments. The reliance on the “pooling” of information and resources among team members
supports the notion that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The synergy that evolves from the
Delphi process is expected to create a strong sense of purpose among the participants and a more reliable
product. Secondly, the factor of anonymity among the participants protects them from the threat of group
disparagement and retribution from others within the field. Regardless of political correct beliefs and theo-
ries, participants are free to reveal their true beliefs in relation to the Delphi questions. The third principle
The George Washington University Page 53
identified by the authors is that of group pressure. The Delphi technique tends to consolidate group opinion
to produce one clear statement or statements. The consensus-driven aspect of the Delphi requires that
individual participants succumb to an “unspoken group pressure” to conform (p. 7).
The use of the Delphi technique requires that three specific steps be conducted by the researcher. First is
the development of the research instrument. As described above, the Delphi approach may be used to re-
spond to a variety of issues or needs. Therefore, the actual instrument used in the process is extremely
flexible in its design. Although the Delphi may use forced-answer questions, the power of the Delphi re-
sides in its open-ended nature, such that respondents may include their thoughts and beliefs in regard to
any question or discussion. As in scenario developments, Delphis are most noted for their ability to incor-
porate the opinions of several experts into one consensual product. The analysis of the instrument may
allow for quantitative techniques, but the support of qualitative analysis is the strong suit of the Delphi.
The second step of a Delphi study is the selection of the Delphi panel. This panel usually consists of ap-
proximately 10 to 30 experts in the field of study. The advantage of using a large panel is the broad view
that may be cast regarding a certain subject. However, a larger panel makes it more difficult to reach con-
sensus regarding a subject, which is one of the main goals of a Delphi study. Therefore, the researcher
must carefully assess the potential panelists and decide on the size of the panel relative to the scope and
timeline of the study.
The third component of the Delphi process is the dissemination, administration, and collection of the re-
search instrument to the expert panel. This process is referred to as a Delphi “round.” It is usually re-
peated two to four times during the research process. Upon collection of the instrument after the first
round, the researcher analyses the data and revises the framework to incorporate the responses of the
participants. This process results in the fine-tuning of the framework and is aimed at bringing the scope of
discussion toward group consensus. When the revised instrument is redistributed to the panel, participants
are given the opportunity to review peer responses from the previous round, albeit in an anonymous fash-
ion (Anonymity is important in a Delphi study, as it allows panelists to respond without fear of retribution
from their peers). Panelists can then make further comments and alterations to their original responses.
The Delphi process is concluded when consensus has been achieved regarding the initial goals of the
study. In the event that respondents are forced to answer questions outside their realm of expertise, panel
members are encouraged to “join in with the consensual or prevailing opinion (Skutsch and Hall, 1973, p.
4). The great advantage of the Delphi technique is that through this consensus-building process, ideas and
philosophies contained in the original model can be modified to more accurately reflect the current atmo-
sphere of expertise.
Use of the Delphi Technique Within this Study
In terms of this study, the research methodology required several steps to prepare and administer the Del-
phi process, including the identification and selection of the Delphi panel, the preparation of the research
instrument to be distributed to the panel, the dissemination and collection of the material, and the analysis
of data from the Delphi panel.
IDENTIFICATION OF DELPHI PANEL
The Delphi panel was identified and selected through two methods: (a) review of the literature; and (b)
suggestion from experts within the field.
The George Washington University Page 54
Experts were identified from a broad scope of education across the country, including educational re-
searchers and practitioners who have enjoyed success in a wide practice or through publications. In addi-
tion, it was decided that the panel should also represent that various ethnic, racial, and gender groups that
make up the university populations. The first round of panel identification resulted in a list of 30 potential
panelists. Discussion with his advisor and other researchers led the researcher to believe that a panel of
approximately 12 expert participants would be best for the study. The rationale for this number was to in-
corporate enough expert testimony and feedback to produce a meaningful and useful outcome for the
study, while limiting the panel to 12 also allowed the researcher to analyze the data in a reasonable fash-
ion. It was felt that too many more panelists would make any consensus difficult.
In the end, 16 panelists were included as part of the Delphi panel. The number steadily grew from 12,
mostly due to the urging of panelists to include persons who they felt would strongly add to the study. Of
the 16 panelists, the researcher was responsible for identifying and contacting 10, while the remaining 6
panelists were identified by Mr. Bernard Charles, an associate of the researcher and a well-respected
practitioner and policy-maker in higher education.
The composition of the Delphi panel was deliberately designed to incorporate for the many nuances of
higher educational reform and for the specific expertise of student retention, college teaching, science-
based study, and policy development. Five of the panelists currently hold positions where educational re-
search is their primary responsibility. The other panelists may be more accurately described as practitio-
ners due to the type of work that they conduct. Ten of the 16 panelists were men, and the racial/ethnic
composition of the panel is distributed as follows: 8 African American, 3 White, 3 Hispanic, 2 Native
American. The panel participants and a brief description of their experience is detailed in Table 10.
Table 10. Delphi Panel Participants
Arrington, Pamela Director, National Retention Project, AASCU, Washington, DC
Dr. Arrington is Director of the AASCU/Sallie Mae National Retention Project. In operation since
1991, the National Retention Project’s main goal is to help state colleges and universities in the
pursuit of improving student retention. Previously, Dr. Arrington was professor in the Human
Resource Development Program at Bowie State University.
Blackburn, Ronald President, ASPIRA, Washington, DC
Dr. Blackburn has held the post of president of ASPIRA since 1994. Responsibilities include
serving as national spokesperson for the organization as well as providing leadership and
management services. Previous professional experience includes service as Coordinator of Student
Academic Enrichment for The College Board’s EQUITY 2000 program and Special Assistant to the
President of the Ana G. Mendez University System in Puerto Rico.
Charles, Bernard Senior Executive, The McKenzie Group, Washington, DC
Mr. Charles current serves as a Senior Executive for The McKenzie Group, Inc., in Washington,
D.C. Chief responsibilities include the management of two NSF-funded projects: The Model
Institutions for Excellence program and the Urban Systemic Initiative. Previously, Mr. Charles held
positions as Senior Vice President of the Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) network in
Washington and Senior Vice Program Officer of the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Ford, Clinita Director, National Higher Education Conference on Black Student
Retention, Tallahassee, FL
Dr. Ford is the Founder and Director of the National Higher Education Conferences on Black
Student Retention, sponsored annually by Florida A&M University. Dr. Ford received her Ph.D. from
Kansas State University in Nutrition and Biochemistry, and is co-editor of the book Strategies for
Retaining Minority Students in Higher Education.
The George Washington University Page 55
Gagnon, Gerald Vice President, Oglala Lakota College, Martin, SD
Dr. Gagnon is the Vice President for Instructional Programs for the Oglala Lakota College, based on
Martin, South Dakota, and currently serves as one of the principal coordinators for the College’s
Model Institutions for Excellence grant from NSF. Dr. Gagnon held a visiting professor position at
the University of Wisconsin at Madison and received his Ph.D. in History from the University of
Maryland.
Hope, Richard Vice President, Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Foundation, Princeton, NJ
Responsibilities with WWFF includes the direction of the Woodrow Wilson Program in Public Policy
and International Affairs and also oversees higher education programs. Previous experience
includes: Executive Director of the Quality Education for Minorities project at MIT, Director of
Intercultural Studies Center and Full Professor at Indiana University, and Professor of Sociology at
Morgan State University.
Jones, Vinetta National Director, The College Board’s EQUITY 2000 Program, New York,
NY, and Washington, DC
Dr. Jones has held current position since 1990. Main responsibilities include the provision of
leadership and direction for EQUITY 2000, which links school districts, universities, and the private
sector in an effort to close the gap in college-going and academic success of students in urban
school districts nation-wide. Previously served as Dean of the School of Education and Urban
Studies at Morgan State University and Director of the MSEN program in North Carolina.
Morrison, Catherine Director of Research, National Action Council for Minority Engineers (NACME), New
York, NY
Currently serves as Director of Research for NACME in New York. NACME has developed
exemplary college programs which have increased the number of minority students who have
graduated from engineering programs around the country.
Perkins, James President, CYS Inc., Jackson, MS
Dr. Perkins is a former Dean of the School of Science and Technology at Jackson State University
in Jackson, Mississippi, and is currently President of CSY, Inc., an educational firm specializing in
the development of computerized and digitized instructional systems. The latest development of
CSY is the Minorities in Science program, a videodisk-based program which is aimed at motivating
minority students toward the pursuit of science careers. Dr. Perkins has also taught Chemistry,
Physics, and Algebra at the public school level.
Rendón, Laura Associate Research Professor, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ
Dr. Rendón is an associate research professor in the Division of Educational Leadership and Policy
Studies at Arizona State University, where her research focuses on educational partnerships, higher
education, community colleges and cultural diversity in education. She is the author of numerous
articles, and is affiliated with the ASU Hispanic Research Center. She is currently a member of the
National Board of Directors of the American Association for Higher Education, The National Advisory
of the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Foundation, and the Technical Advisory Board of the Quality
Education for Minorities (QEM) Network. Dr. Rendón earned her Ph.D. in higher education from the
University of Michigan.
Rhodes, George Chairman, Department of Educational Administration and Policy in the
School of Education, Howard University, Washington, DC
In his present position, Dr. Rhodes has been actively involved in the study and implementation of a
comprehensive student retention program for the predominantly minority student population at
Howard University. Dr. Rhodes previous experience has included Director of the Center for
Academic Reinforcement at Howard and a 15-year position with the Department of Education in
Washington, D.C.
Rodriguez, Carlos Senior Researcher, Pelavin & Associates, Washington, DC
The George Washington University Page 56
Dr. Rodriguez has served as Senior Researcher with Pelavin & Associates in Washington, D.C., for
the past two years. Dr. Rodriguez’ dissertation, completed in 1993 at The University of Arizona,
studied the patterns of minority students in undergraduate science and engineering programs.
Seymour, Elaine Director, Bureau for Sociological Research, Boulder, CO
Dr. Seymour is the Director of the Ethnography and Assessment Research Department within the
Bureau for Sociological Research at the University of Colorado. Talking About Leaving, an
ethnographic study about factors contributing to student departure in science, mathematics, and
engineering undergraduate programs, is one of Dr. Seymour’s most recent contributions to the
understanding of student progress in the sciences. Other experience includes a Fulbright
Scholarship at Corpus Christi, Texas, and Evaluation Project Director for Project Kaleidoscope.
Tashiro, Jay Director, Center for Environmental Sciences, Northern Arizona University,
Tempe, AZ
Dr. Tashiro is currently Director of the Center for Environmental Sciences at Northern Arizona
University, and has been an active faculty member at NAU since 1990. Dr. Tashiro was Director of
the Institute for the Teaching of Mathematics and Science to the American Adolescent at Simon’s
Rock College. Consulting experience includes work for the Quality Education for Minorities project,
the National Science Foundation, and Project Kaleidoscope. Dr. Tashiro received an A.B. degree in
Biology and Chemistry, and a Ph.D. in Ecology and Statistics.
Treisman, Uri Director, Charles A. Dana Center for Mathematics and Science Education,
University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX
In addition to serving as Director of the Dana Center, Dr. Treisman is also a professor of
Mathematics at UT Austin. Dr. Treisman is well-known academically for his study of Black student
achievement in calculus courses at UC Berkeley. This study became the foundation for the
Emerging Scholars Program (ESP), which emphasizes the use of peer study groups and other
learning practices to enhance student learning. Dr. Treisman currently serves on the Advisory Board
of the NSF in addition to a number of other appointments.
Wilson, Reginald Senior Scholar, American Council on Education, Washington, DC
Mr. Wilson is a senior scholar at the American Council on Education, where he has previously held
the position as Director of the Office of Minority Concerns. In addition to his position as president of
Wayne County Community College in Detroit, Mr. Wilson has also co-authored numerous
publications and serves on the editorial board of The American Journal of Education and The Urban
Review.
PREPARATION OF AND DISSEMINATION OF ROUND ONE
The first-round instrument was developed to incorporate as much detail regarding the framework as possi-
ble. However, the researcher had a difficult time trying to balance how much material to pass on to the
panelists: enough material to answer the research questions but not too much that would dissuade the pan-
elists from participating. Unfortunately, by the time the conceptual framework was developed, the size of
the instrument increased dramatically. The researcher was worried about the impact that an instrument of
this size (approximately 40 pages) would have on the response rate. Although it was felt that impact would
be largely negative, the researcher decided to risk the longer length of the instrument rather than water
down the content of the framework.
The first-round instrument contained five parts covering the framework content and the implementation
process. Below is a brief explanation of each component of the instrument, which may also be reviewed in
Appendix C at the end of this document.
The George Washington University Page 57
Part I: Introduction. This component was provided to give the panelists a brief review of the theoretical
underpinnings about student retention. In particular, the introduction discussed the impact of academic,
social, and institutional components on student retention. Panelists were asked to comment on this four-
page section, but it was not considered to be the major focus of the study.
Part II: Institutional Components of Retention. This component introduced the conceptual frame-
work to the panelists. The framework, as described earlier, was divided into five separate components:
financial aid, recruitment and admissions, academic services, curriculum and instruction, and student ser-
vices. Each component was divided up into separate categories (See Figure 6 and Appendix C). For in-
stance, financial aid was divided into four categories, including grants and schola rships, loans, assistant-
ships and work studies, and financial counseling. These categories were then further divided up into spe-
cific objectives. Again, an example of an objective for grants and scholarships was “maximize availability
of grants and scholarships compared with student loans.” Each category had between two and six obje c-
tives listed.
Figure 6. Financial Aid Component
2.3 Orientation
2.3.1 Provide early orientation
activities for families
2.3.2 Provide opportunities for
pre-college students to
live on campus
2.3.3 Provide satellite
orientations for non-local
students
2.3.4 Involve all campus
departments in the
orientation process
2.3.5 Ensure personal
communications with
students and families via
phone and visitations
2.1 Student Identification
2.1.1 Work with pre-college
programs to identify
potential recruits
2.1.2 Attempt to match student
academic and career
goals with the institu-
tional mission of the
campus
2.1.3 Monitor the participation
of students enrolled in
pre-college programs.
2.1.4 Develop and focus
outreach programs on
the prime-targeted
population of the
university
Recruitment &
Admissions
2.2 Admissions
2.2.1 Incorporate portfolios,
interviews, and other
non-cognitive assess-
ments
2.2.2 Reduce the weight of
SAT, ACT, and other tests
Part II contained both quantitative and qualitative response sections to be completed by each panelist (See
Table 11 and Appendix C). The response section, which was divided up by component and category, listed
each objective of the model, followed by a brief rationale for its inclusion into the framework. Panelists
were then asked to complete a four-point Likert-like scale relating the level of importance for that partic u-
lar objective. A four-point system was used to make the choices simpler and quicker, especially consider-
ing the size of the framework and the 80 objectives listed. An even number of points was used in the in-
strument to force panelists to make a positive or negative choice regarding each objective. The instructions
simply stated that the digit ‘1’ represented a rating of ‘Not Important,’ while a ‘4’ represented ‘Most Im-
portant.’ No descriptors were given for the two mid-digits. The purpose of the Likert-like scale was to
allow the panelists to rate data in rank order. That is, to develop a relative picture of how each objective
The George Washington University Page 58
compared with others. By keeping the number of options low, the instrument was easier to complete, while
still collecting data that would allow for comparison during analysis.
Table 11. Excerpt of Part II Response Instrument
2.1 Student Identification
2.1.1
Work with pre-college
programs to identify po-
tential recruits
The pre-college programs devel-
oped by colleges are excellent
methods of recruiting and moni-
toring students during their ele-
mentary, middle, and high school
years.
1 2 3
4
Comments:
Please note—the physical proximity of the spaces illustrated in the figure have been changed to fit the parameters of this page. See Appendix C for exact speci-
fications.
In addition to the Likert-like scale, panelists were also given space and encouraged to add specific com-
ments for each objective. Following each category (e.g., grants and scholarships), a space was also added
for panelists to add general comments or ‘additions’ to the framework.
From the outset of the study, panelists were strongly advised that the main strength of this study was the
commentary offered by panelists. Therefore, panelists were reminded throughout to focus on written
commentary rather than only on the quantitative portion. While the Likert-like scale would become an im-
portant criteria in establishing the second-round instrument and the final framework, the commentary
would direct the alteration of further framework designs.
Part III: Retention Program Development. This part of the instrument detailed five separate areas
covering particular aspects of program development and implementation, including:
1) Global Components/considerations required to develop an effective student retention program—
This section identified potential considerations that administrators and practitioners should consider
as benchmarks during the development of a student retention program.
The following areas outlined specific considerations regarding each stage of retention planning and im-
plementation.
2) Stage 1 - Pre-planning
3) Stage 2 - Planning
4) Stage 3 - Implementation; and
5) Stage 4 - Program Monitoring.
The data was supplied in a similar pattern to that of Part II. Again, participants were asked to rate each
consideration on a four-point Likert-like scale, and then add specific comments in the space provided (See
Table 12).
The George Washington University Page 59
Table 12. Excerpt of Stage 1 - Pre-Planning Response Instrument
1. Analyze the size and scope of retention issue on cam-
pus 1 2 3 4
2. Identify student needs on campus 1 2 3 4
3. Assess the status and effectiveness of current retention
strategies and programs on campus 1 2 3 4
4. Identify institutional resources that may be utilized or
redirected 1 2 3 4
5. Identify successful retention strategies at other cam-
puses 1 2 3 4
Others:
Please note—the physical proximity of the spaces illustrated in the figure have been changed to fit the parameters of this page. See Appendix C for exact speci-
fications.
Part IV: Organizational Strategy for Campus Personnel. This part of the instrument illustrated an
organizational chart originally developed by Beal and Noel in 1980 (See Appendix C). The purpose of this
inclusion was to solicit reaction regarding the organizational/hierarchical management required to coordi-
nate a campus-wide retention plan. No identification or credit was given to the authors in an attempt to
solicit an unbiased response toward their approach to retention management. Panelists were simply asked
to provide feedback regarding the organizational chart.
PILOT TESTING
Before the instrument was administered to the entire panel, a pilot test was first run to fine tune the in-
strument. The researcher distributed a draft copy of the round-one instrument to four persons—three ex-
pert panel members and one external participant—to validate the appropriateness of the instrument. Their
comments and suggestions were then used to modify the instrument for Round 1. Input from this audience
included suggestions to add more detail to the rationale sections of Part II; rework the layout of the re-
sponse instrument; limit the Likert-like scale to four points from five; and rewrite the instruction section.
These and other advisements were incorporated into the final round-one instrument.
DISTRIBUTION OF THE ROUND-ONE INSTRUMENT
The first-round instrument was distributed midway through the month of May to each participant. Included
in the packet were: (a) instructions on procedures and guidelines to be followed, including details on what
to focus on and how to comment on the framework; (b) the framework; (c) a response instrument to re-
turn to the researcher; and (d) mailing procedures and supplies for the return of the material, including
self-addressed-stamped envelopes (See Appendix C).
ANALYSIS OF ROUND-ONE RESPONSES
To control the amount of data that was collected in the round one process, two computer applications
were used. To coordinate all of the qualitative data, the researcher created a special and unique database
set with the aid of Filemaker Pro 2.0 software for the Macintosh. This program allowed the researcher to
input information from each panelist on a separate file, or record, as it is termed in Filemaker Pro lan-
guage. By doing this, the researcher was able to export data in a flexible pattern that would allow for
analysis across items and across panelists. The quantitative data extracted from the scaled items were
The George Washington University Page 60
placed into a spreadsheet file using Microsoft Excel 5.0. This powerful spreadsheet program allowed the
researcher to sort data and make statistical calculations.
The qualitative and quantitative data were compiled to create a general sense of how the panelists felt
about the specific details regarding the conceptual framework. This data was used first to generate the
second-round instrument, and then to develop and confirm the final framework design. The numerical data
compiled from round one (the Likert-like data) was averaged and sorted to produce a hierarchical order of
objectives under each category. This data refined the order of objectives as presented in the round-one
instrument (See Appendix C). Although some objectives received low ratings, there was decision at this
time to eliminate them from the framework.
The qualitative data collected from round one was categorized using the software package described ear-
lier. The researcher combined comments to form themes regarding specific categories and objectives.
This information resulted in the addition of several new objectives which were presented to the panel in
round two. Most additions from round one were added to the framework, but the researcher did eliminate
some additions due to (a) their redundant nature in comparison to objectives already in the framework, and
(b) the lack of supportive data from the panelist or available in the literature to include the addition.
PREPARATION OF AND DISSEMINATION OF ROUND TWO
The round two instrument focused on the framework portion of the study. That is, the Part II component
from round one which dealt with the objectives. The reason for this decision was two-fold: first, by focus-
ing on this portion of the study, panelists were more able to focus their thoughts on one particular aspect of
retention programming and implementation rather than the several components presented in round one.
The researcher, advisors, and colleagues all agreed that reducing the scope of the study in round two
would produce results that would be more useful to administrators and practitioners. Second, it was de-
cided that the data compiled from Part I, III, and IV from round one was significant enough not to re-issue
the data for a second round. Additionally, the decision to reduce the size of round two was a politically
sound venture considering the length of round one and the time that was requested of the panel.
The purpose of the second round (See Appendix E) was to assess the hierarchical order given to the
framework objectives as defined by the round-one responses. The researcher, through the analysis of
round one responses regarding level of importance, reordered the order of the objectives to correlate with
the average importance rating given by the panel in round one. Thus, the panel was asked to validate the
new order of the objectives. If they did not agree with the order, they were to reorder the set of objectives
and provide rationale for the change. The researcher also added new objectives that were identified in the
round one instrument. In this case, the panelists were asked to rate the new objective on the same four-
point Likert-like scale as used in round one. The final direction given to the panel was to select the three
most critical objectives from each component. That is, panelists had to choose three objectives from each
component and present in order of their importance. This request was made to develop a priority level of
action for universities in terms of establishing a student retention program. Finally, as always, panelists
were also instructed to add any additional comments they felt compelled to add.
Enclosed with the six-page instrument was a cover letter introducing the panel to the second round (and
thanking them for the first round), the appropriate return mailing materials, and a copy of the qualitative
responses from round one, coded so not to exploit any particular person, but also coded so that individual
participants could review their own comments. This was provided for their own interest. The instrument
was mailed out at the end of June, and respondents were asked to return it before July 14.
The George Washington University Page 61
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES FOR ROUND TWO
The data from round two was also entered into both the database file and the spreadsheet file. The quali-
tative data was synthesized to provide an inventory of the commentary from the expert panel. These syn-
thesis may be found in Chapter Four. The commentary provides some feedback from the panel that is ex-
tremely important to the meaning of a particular objective. As was found repeatedly during the first two
rounds, although an objective may seem plausible as stated, there are many issues that must be considered
in how each objective is developed and implemented. Therefore, the commentary is as important to the
final framework as is the hierarchical order or the inclusion of the objectives, such that they should be
bonded together in some fashion.
The reordering that was instructed of the panel was not conducted properly or completely by a number of
participants. Only a few of the panelists completed this instruction properly, and a number of panelists did
not proceed with this task at all. Therefore, this portion of the ordering process was eliminated in place of
the use of previous data compiled from round one. In the case of the new objectives added to the round
two instrument, the scaled data was introduced with previous data to develop a new hierarchical ordering
of the objectives.
The data collected regarding the top three objectives for each component of the framework were also
compiled in the spreadsheet. This data was inversely coded as to its rated importance, such that first
choices were given ‘3’ points, second choices ‘2’, and the third choice was given ‘1’ point. When calc u-
lated, the numerical figure resulting produced a rank order of the most important objectives for each com-
ponent.
The results of round one and two are presented in Chapter Four. The redeveloped framework is then pre-
sented in its final form in Chapter Five.
The George Washington University Page 62
CHAPTER FOUR
RESEARCH FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to develop a conceptual framework to aid the planning and development of
an institution-wide student retention program. To support this effort, it was deemed necessary to develop a
framework which would incorporate the needs of an institution relating to student retention as well as a
model for the planning and implementation process. In particular, this latter part was delineated as the pre-
planning, planning, implementation, and monitoring stages of the program development.
To collect data appropriate to the purpose of this study, a two-round Delphi process was used. Each round
of the Delphi was administered to an expert panel of 16 persons, from which 13 responses were received
in each of the two rounds. The instruments themselves were developed to answer the researcher ques-
tions identified in Chapter One, of which the main question was:
• What are the program components and implementation strategies that form an institution-wide,
student retention model for minority institutions interested in increasing the number of SEM
graduates?
In addition, the following sub-questions were addressed:
• What are the significant factors related to student attrition and retention at minority institutions?
• What types of programs have been successful in increasing retention rates at four-year
institutions, minority institutions, and in SEM areas?
• What are the key elements to be considered in the development and implementation of an
institution-wide retention program?
• What policies are needed to support the development and implementation of an institution-wide
student retention program?
The round one and two instruments were designed to solicit responses from the panel that would answer
the above questions. However, due to the design of the instrument and the logical progression that was
built into both rounds of this study, the presentation of data findings will not be based upon the questions as
written, but rather, by the design of the first and second round instruments. This method will make better
sense of the large data set that was derived from the study. Therefore, this chapter will be divided up into
two larger sections: Round One findings and Round Two findings. These two sections will then be divided
up based upon the instrumentation design utilized for each Delphi round.
ROUND ONE FINDINGS
The description of the round one findings is divided up into two broad sections: Part I - Institutional Com-
ponents of Retention; and Part II - Retention Program Development.
Part I will discuss the five components identified which are main focus areas for retention programming:
financial aid, recruitment and admissions, academic services, curriculum and instruction, and student ser-
vices. The findings of each of each component will be presented and described.
The George Washington University Page 63
Part II will focus on the five-part component of the framework which focused on the planning, implemen-
tation, and institutionalization of the framework design.
Institutional Components of Retention
In Round One of the study, the panel was first introduced to a five-component framework for student re-
tention. As described above, these components included financial aid, recruitment and admissions, aca-
demic services, curriculum and instruction, and student services. Each component was divided into several
categories which further defined the component. Typically speaking, each component, such as financial
aid, had three to five categories. Each category was then further delineated by a listing of specific obje c-
tives relating to actions that could be considered for each category, and ultimately, each component. The
role of the panel in this component of the instrument was to rate each objective on a four-point Likert-like
scale and add specific comments.
This part of the chapter will present the panel findings regarding the 80 objectives identified in the Round
One framework. The presentation of each component’s findings will be divided up by each of the catego-
ries within that component. For purposes of clarity and focus, a listing of major findings for each category
is first presented, followed by a discussion of these and other findings.
It should be remembered that the panel rated all objectives on a four-point scale. The mean ratings pre-
sented in this section range from 2.2 to 3.9. To help communicate the relative importance of these ratings,
three classifications have been created: a high mean rating refers to values of 3.6 and above; moderate
mean ratings fall between 3.0 and 3.6; and those values below 3.0 are considered low mean ratings.
COMPONENT ONE - FINANCIAL AID
The Financial Aid component, the lowest rated of the five components (GM=3.2), was divided up into four
categories: Grants and Scholarships; Student Loans; Assistantships and Work Studies; and Financial
Counseling.
GRANTS AND SCHOLARSHIPS
Major Findings
• Communications between the college and student/family regarding grants and scholarships
received a high mean rating (M=3.8).
• Maximizing the availability of grants and scholarships received a high mean rating (M=3.7).
• Panelists emphasized that fear of debt was an important issue related to student attrition.
• Frontloading grants and scholarships (M=2.8) received mostly negative comments from the panel.
The George Washington University Page 64
Table 13. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Grants and Scholarships Ob-
jectives
Objective M SD
Identify and Inform students & family members of the availability of grants
and scholarships and the appropriate steps that must be taken to apply for
funding.
3.8 0.60
Maximize availability of Grants and Scholarships compared with Student
Loans.
3.7 0.63
Frontload grants and scholarships to provide more support in the early years
of college.
2.8 1.25
Grand Mean 3.5 0.93
Discussion
As illustrated in Table 13, identifying and informing students and families was the highest-rated objective in
the grants and scholarship category (M=3.8). In total, 11 of the 13 panelists gave this objective a ‘most
important,’ or ‘4’ rating on the Likert-like scale. One panelist stated that the awareness factor was espe-
cially critical for first-generation college students, while another panelist felt that if students were ade-
quately identified and informed, elaborate retention efforts would not be needed. However, other com-
ments from the panel suggested that: (a) families do not plan in advance; and (b) financial aid offices do
not always know what aid is available or how to inform families. One panelist suggested that, although this
was an important area of concern, it was beyond the role or scope of the university and that high school
counselors held the ultimate responsibility of connecting students with aid packages.
The second highest-rated objective was the maximization of grant and scholarship availability
(M=3.7). Panel comments again suggested that families do not plan well for college, but also added that
institutions are not always aware of the issues related to grant/scholarship availability. One panelist noted
that the current over-dependence on student loans has “lead to a classist structure among colleges and
universities,” mainly due to the inequity among colleges and universities in ability to offer grants and schol-
arships. Two panelists specifically referred to the fear of loan debt as a deterrent to student persistence,
and in one instance, the panelist stated that his college did not even offer loans to students because of the
debt load incurred by students and their inability to repay them. Therefore, the panel recognizes that the
availability of grants and scholarships is directly related to student persistence in college.
The panel responses regarding frontloading grants and scholarships were not very supportive, with a mean
rating of only 2.8 and a standard deviation of 1.25, illustrating that the responses were scattered across the
four-point scale. Panel comments were representative of the dispersion of scores, with panelists opting
both for and against the use of frontloading practices, which simply refers to the practice of skewing fi-
nancial aid payments such that student receive more funds during the early years of their college experi-
ence. One panelist stated that frontloading student aid would reduce the need for work and therefore af-
ford the student more time on task. However, the majority of comments regarding frontloading were nega-
tive. Panelists felt that students need money every year of college and that many students need more
money in the later years due to the expense of books and increased responsibilities.
STUDENT LOANS
The George Washington University Page 65
Major Findings
• The entire category of student loans received the lowest support of any category within this study
(GM=2.8).
• Informing students and families of loan information was the highest-rated objective in the category
(M=3.2).
• The panel believed that streamlining of forms has made progress in recent years, much to do with
computer-aided applications and information.
• Frontloading student loans was not a popular option among panelists, yielding a mean rating of only
2.2.
Table 14. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Student Loans Objectives
Objective M SD
Inform students & family members of availability and responsibilities
related to Loans.
3.2 1.11
Streamline bureaucracy & forms to simplify the application process. 3.1 1.16
Frontload loan payments to provide more support in the early years of
college.
2.2 1.32
Grand Mean 2.9 1.23
Discussion
The category of student loans was not highly regarded by the panel, as can be attested by the grand mean
rating of 2.8 (See Table 14). Panelists were very critical of loans for students, suggesting that students are
fearful of not being able to repay them because of the difficulty in finding jobs after college. One panelist
acknowledged the additional pressure that fear of loan repayment can put on women as opposed to men.
As explained, the extra pressure of pregnancy and child-rearing often forces women to leave college. Re-
gardless, panelists felt that the communication of viable options was an important aspect of college plan-
ning, especially with regard to first-generation students. One panelist suggested that colleges should be
providing parents and students with information illustrating the long-term benefits of a college degree by
projecting earnings of college graduates versus high school graduates.
Streamlining the financial application process was moderately rated by the panel (M=3.1), but there was
concensus that progress has been made in this area recently. It was suggested by one respondent that
workshops and computer application software for parents and students would be very useful.
The response ratings regarding frontloading of loans (M=2.2) was negatively skewed, with 5 of the 13
panelists rating it ‘least important,’ and only two panelists rating it ‘most important.’ This response may be
attributed to the overall negative view the panel held toward loans. Although a few panelists felt that front-
loading would allow students to concentrate completely on their studies during the freshman year, others
said that students need more support during the concluding stages of their degree, therefore opposing the
practice of frontloading.
One additional objective suggested by a panelist was to make emergency loans available to students in
times of need.
ASSISTANTSHIPS/WORK STUDIES
The George Washington University Page 66
Major Findings
• The category ‘Assistantships/Work Studies’ received a grand mean rating of 3.5 for the entire
category, highest of the four categories under financial aid.
• Increasing the availability of assistantships and work studies received a high mean rating of 3.9
and elicited 12 ‘most important’ ratings from the 13 panelists.
• Faculty participation in assistantships and work studies received a high mean rating of 3.8 and also
elicited 12 ‘most important’ ratings from the 13 panelists.
• Keeping student assistantships and work studies below 25 hours per week was highly rated by the
panel (M=3.8).
Table 15. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Assistantships/Work Studies
Objectives
Objective M SD
Increase availability of assistantships and work study programs for under-
graduate and graduate students.
3.9 0.28
Increase faculty participation with regard to student assistantships. 3.8 0.55
Keep assistantships and work studies under 25 hours per week for full-time
students.
3.8 0.62
Develop partnerships with local area business to forge work and research
opportunities for students.
3.1 0.79
Attempt to design assistantships and work study programs on or close to
campus.
2.8 1.03
Grand Mean 3.5 0.8
Discussion
The top three objectives found in Table 15 were rated highly by the panel, receiving mean ratings of 3.9,
3.8, and 3.8 respectively. In fact, 12 of 13 respondents gave the top two objectives ‘most important’ rat-
ings, while the third objective garnered a respectable 10 of 13 responses from the panel. Panelists reported
that relevant, hands-on experiences are important for students, and allow students to become aware of
potential academic and career opportunities while also allowing them to learn “the system.” One respon-
dent suggested that assistantships should support more research-related opportunities as opposed to teach-
ing in order to develop relevant, hands-on experience within a student’s chosen field.
The respondents supported the multitude of research that suggests faculty should increase their participa-
tion with students in assistantship programs (M=3.8). However, panelists advised that these situations
were a “luxury” at large institutions, and that a revised reward system would have to be initiated to gain
acceptance by faculty.
Panelists also were very supportive of keeping assistantships and work study programs under 25 hours per
week for full-time students (M=3.8). In fact, two panelists suggested even less time, especially at research
universities. One of the panelists was prompted to state this comment: “Fifteen hours per week at a re-
search university is suicidal.” Conversely, there were also comments about the reality of finances for stu-
dents with inadequate funding. It was suggested that student earnings from assistantships/work studies had
to be substantial enough to cover basic needs. If not, students would have to supplement their wages with
The George Washington University Page 67
other employment opportunities. Another panelist agreed, stating that “poor students (especially those with
children) can’t survive on less than 30-35 hours at low wages.
The last two objectives, “developing partnerships” and “designing on-campus assistantships” (See Table
15), received below average ratings of 3.1 and 2.8 respectively. Although the panel ratings were dispersed
across the rating scale as compared to the clustering of higher-rated objectives, the comments regarding
these two objectives were positively skewed. In terms of partnerships and coops with local area business
and industry, one panelist noted that coops were more applicable in some majors than in others, and that
engineering was one area in which students benefited greatly. Another panelist suggested that the devel-
opment of internship arrangements that allow students to work into full-time positions are excellent oppor-
tunities. However, one panelist duly noted that the limitations that some communities face due to availabil-
ity can limit their access to these types of business opportunities.
Panelists were least inclined to support the need to design assistantships and work study programs near or
close to campus. One panelist framed the issue by saying, “The main issue is relevance, not distance.”
Other agreed, saying that better or most appropriate opportunities may not be close by, and that experi-
ence is more important than distance. Only one panelist commented positively, stating that research by
Astin and others found evidence for increased involvement in campus life when working on campus.
FINANCIAL COUNSELING
Major Findings
• Informing students and families of financing college received a high mean rating from the panel
(M=3.9).
• Training of financial counselors to be sensitive to issues related to race and ethnicity received a
moderate mean rating (M=3.3).
• Money management training for students and families as well as monitoring student money usage
both received below average mean ratings (M=2.9 and 2.4 respectively), and the later received
extremely negative commentary from the panel.
Discussion
Similar to the findings regarding grants, scholarships, and loans, panelists were very supportive of the need
to communicate the financial aid processes to students and families (M=3.9; See Table 16). One panelist
suggested that colleges take the initiative to educate families about financial aid by getting them to think of
loans as an investment for the future. Additionally, informing families of potential incomes through projec-
tions of high school, undergraduate, and graduate students would also help families make important deci-
sions regarding college. Another panelist was surprised and/or disappointed that information to families
was a problem area: “This should not even be an issue. Why is this not done?”
The George Washington University Page 68
Table 16. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Financial Counseling Objec-
tives
Objective M SD
Inform students and families of all available options related to the financ
ing of
college.
3.9 0.30
Train financial counselors to be sensitive to issues related to race and eth-
nicity.
3.3 1.06
Provide money management training to students and families. 2.9 0.90
Monitor student money usage during college. 2.4 0.84
Grand Mean 3.1 0.97
The panel gave the “sensitivity training” objective a moderate rating (M=3.3). Many panelists felt that this
objective was too ambiguous and misdirected, and needed to provide more specifics. “This is a class-
sensitive rather than race-sensitive issue. A red herring. Need is need is need.”
Providing money management training to families and monitoring student money usage received extremely
low ratings by the panel (M=2.9 and M=2.4 respectively). In terms of the first objective, some panelists
thought that it was not the role of the university to provide this type of training, while others added com-
ments such as “easier said than done” and “good idea, but...” Monitoring student money usage raised
questions from the panel. The panel felt that this practice could be both intrusive and threatening to stu-
dents. As well, many panelists asked whether such monitoring was even legal.
COMPONENT TWO - RECRUITMENT AND ADMISSIONS
The Recruitment and Admissions component was the fourth highest-rated component in the framework,
and was divided up into three categories: Student Identification, Admissions, and Orientation.
STUDENT IDENTIFICATION
Major Findings
• Working with pre-college programs to identify potential students received a high mean rating of
3.8, as did monitoring student participation in these programs.
• Matching student goals with those of the institution (M=3.5) received extremely positive
comments and support from the panel.
• Ratings regarding the focusing of outreach programs were mixed due to confusion about the
meaning of ‘prime targeted.’
• The panel recommended using alumni networks to identify and recruit students.
The George Washington University Page 69
Table 17. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Student Identification Objec-
tives
Objective M SD
Work with pre-college programs to identify potential recruits. 3.8 0.39
Monitor the participation of students enrolled in pre-college programs. 3.8 0.39
Attempt to match student academic and career goals with the institutional
mission of the campus.
3.5 0.67
Develop and focus outreach programs on the prime-targeted population of
the university.
2.8 1.23
Grand Mean 3.5 0.81
Discussion
Panelists were very supportive of utilizing existing pre-college programs as a recruitment tool (M=3.8; See
Table 17). Several panelists felt that this was an excellent way to recruit “motivated, well-developed stu-
dents,” and, as one panelist in particular expressed, “the earlier you start this initiative the better.” Others
identified programs such as HSF Young Scholars, Minority Biomedical Research Support Program
(MBRS), Southeastern Consortium for Minorities in Engineering (SECME), and the Mathematics and Sci-
ence Education Network (MSEN), are examples of programs which could be used to identify new re-
cruits. However, one panelist cautioned that pre-college programs vary in quality and could be counterpro-
ductive to the intent of this objective.
Monitoring student participation in pre-college programs was also highly rated by the panel (M=3.8), al-
though panel members were wary of the ability or need to tightly monitor all programs. Some panelists felt
that the variability of program types would make this type of monitoring difficult, and as one panelist men-
tioned, “not all (programs) need tight monitoring.” Other panelists supported the practice, suggesting that
the college develop an “active on-going articulation with the local school system” in order to facilitate
monitoring needs.
Matching student academic and career goals with the institutional mission did not rate as high as the previ-
ous two objectives (M=3.5), but received mostly supportive comments from the panel. The panel indicated
their belief that current practices do not reflect this particular objective. In particular, the panel was con-
cerned about the lack of career counseling given to students, the availability (lack of) of goal-setting pro-
grams for students, and the number of colleges with vague institutions missions. In support of this objec-
tive, one respondent suggested that institutions should not wait until the student matriculates to determine
whether the goals and mission are in harmony. Other panelists simply added comments like “very impor-
tant” and “absolutely!!”
The objective regarding focusing outreach programs on the prime-targeted population was unfortunately
mis-communicated to the panel. The vagueness in which it was written (in particular, the use of the term
“prime-targeted”) confused many panelists. Therefore, any worthwhile comment that the panel may have
offered regarding this objective was spoiled.
Additional objectives offered by the panel included (a) the use of alumni networks to increase outreach
and enrollment, and (b) the use of work study students and student teachers to make visitations to middle
and high schools to inform students of needs, promote learning, and preparing for college.
The George Washington University Page 70
ADMISSIONS
Major Findings
• Alternative methods of assessment, including portfolios and interviews, received a mean rating of
3.4 from the panel.
• Panel response to SATs was negative skewed.
Table 18. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Admissions Objectives
Objective M SD
Incorporate portfolios, interviews, and other non-cognitive assessments. 3.4 1.00
Reduce the weight of SAT, ACT, and other tests. 3.3 0.95
Grand Mean 3.4 0.95
Discussion
The utilization of student portfolios, interviews, and other non-cognitive assessments as screening instru-
ments received a moderate mean rating of 3.4 from the panel, with 8 of 13 panelists rating it ‘most impor-
tant’ (See Table 18). Aside from two comments negating the use of SATs, the most relevant comment
was the advise to use a college’s institutional research department to study the predictive factors of ad-
missions and base admissions strategies upon the results. Another panelists supported this advise, mention-
ing that some colleges currently conduct this research effectively, and have “gotten the balance down”
between the different assessment methods. Attempting to ensure that not only quantitative methods were
used to screen students, one panelist advised that the focus should be on personal assessments by people
who know the students, rather than the standard assessments that are currently used by departments.
ORIENTATION
Major Findings
• The orientation category was the highest-rated category within the admissions and recruitment
component (GM=3.6).
• On-campus living opportunities for pre-college students was rated highly by the panel (M=3.8).
• Providing early orientations for families and the involvement of the total campus in orientations
both received mean ratings of 3.7.
• Satellite orientations, although noted as a viable method of orientation and garnering a moderate
mean rating of 3.5, received a cool response from the panel.
• Suggested additions include a mandatory freshman orientation program for credit.
Discussion
Most of the objectives within this category were highly rated by the panel. In fact, only one objective
scored under the mean for all 80 objectives (GM=3.5 for the entire framework) within the study (and this
by only 0.1). As listed in Table 19, giving students an early campus experience (M=3.8), providing orienta-
tions for families (M=3.7), and involving the entire campus in the orientation activities (M=3.8) were rated
very high by the panel.
The George Washington University Page 71
Several panelists supported on-campus experiences for students, suggesting that they Table 19. Means
& Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Orientation Objectives
Objective M SD
Provide opportunities for pre-college students to live on campus. 3.8 0.44
Provide early orientation activities for families. 3.7 0.63
Involve all campus departments in the orientation process. 3.7 0.63
Provide satellite orientations for non-local students. 3.5 0.69
Ensure personal communications with students and families via phone and
visitations.
3.4 0.67
Grand Mean 3.6 0.64
work well and help develop a “sense of belonging” for the student. Three panelists in particular cited
summer bridge programs as evidence of the success of these types of programs can have on student
learning and acclimation to the campus.
Panelists were supportive of early orientations for entire families, especially for families whose parents
had not attended post-secondary institutions (educational legacy). As one panelist described, early orienta-
tion opportunities “reduce the anxiety of parents as well as students.” However, two panelists noted that
family participation is often difficult, and distance can often prohibit such involvement.
Another objective in this category, the use of satellite orientations as an alternative opportunity for out-of-
town families, raised more questions than support, even though it received moderate ratings from the panel
(M=3.5). Panelists asked about the logistical and technological constraints regarding satellite orientations,
including facilities, timing, and the technological ability to do it. One panelist in particular did not believe the
objective was well suited for campus orientation, stating that “students should be on-campus.”
Providing personal communications with students and families (M=3.4) was supported by the panel, but
comments were laden with queries about the constraints and practicality. One panelist supported the ob-
jective by stating that “personal contact is absolutely essential!” Another panel member, while asking
whether this objective was practical for contacting families far from campus, quickly suggested using
alumni contacts to assist in these cases.
In terms of additions to this category, one panelist suggested that a freshman orientation class should be
mandated on campus. The class should be scheduled for a minimum of one term, but preferably one year.
Additionally, students should receive credit for the orientation course.
COMPONENT THREE - ACADEMIC SERVICES
The Academic Services component received the highest average mean rating of all five components
within the framework, and was divided up into six categories: Academic Advising, Supplementary Instruc-
tion, Tutoring/Mentoring, Research Opportunities, Pre-College Programs, and Bridging Programs.
The George Washington University Page 72
ACADEMIC ADVISING
Major Findings
• Regular academic advising and counseling for students received a high rating from the panel
(M=3.8).
• Panel comments suggest that faculty members should be utilized and trained for academic
advising whenever possible.
• Logging student-faculty interactions received mixed reviews from the panel and a moderate mean
rating (M=3.1).
Table 20. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Academic Advising Objectives
Objective M SD
Provide academic advising and counseling for students on regular basis. 3.8 0.38
Provide appropriate training in academic advising for faculty. 3.8 0.38
Use faculty for the academic advising students when possible. 3.8 0.62
Keep log of student/faculty-staff interactions in a computerized monitoring
system.
3.1 1.24
Grand Mean 3.6 0.78
Discussion
The panel responses regarding the provision of regular advising and counseling services were very positive
(M = 3.8, See Table 20). In particular, the panel felt these issues were very important, especially early on
the college career. One panel member stated that a “pro-active system required to schedule meet-
ings/advisements with students could catch problems before they develop.” Other panelists, however,
were dubious of the outcome of the advisements. The quality of the advise given to students (“Does the
advice have an evidentiary basis?”) and student attitudes toward advisements were identified as con-
straints. One panelist suggested looking at how good liberal arts colleges conduct their advisement sessions
compared with larger institutions.
The panel strongly supported the use of faculty members for academic advising purposes (M=3.8). In do-
ing so, they also identified a number of issues which should be considered, including faculty training, im-
plementation of an effective faculty incentive system, and the importance of defining the faculty role. Pan-
elists advised that institutions should not strive to utilize all faculty as advisors, as some are effective in this
role while others are not. However, the panel underscored the importance of utilizing faculty members in
this role because they are the people committed to students and also know the academic infrastructure of
the university.
The panel also acknowledged the importance of faculty training (M=3.8) with regard to academic advis-
ing. Panelists identified issues related to tenure and ability as potential barriers to success. One panelist
commented, “Students report that faculty do not know the answers--and may give wrong information, with
unhappy consequences (esp. re: degree requirements).” Thus, it would seem that training and screening of
faculty advisors would be an important consideration.
Most of the response generated by the computerized monitoring system was, as mentioned, skeptical. One
respondent in particular summed his thoughts up this way: “You’re kidding--very expensive and would hin-
der spontaneity--I see 30 students informally a week.” Others felt the idea would be too time consuming,
have little impact, and become, as one panelist described, “paperwork for paperwork.” There were posi-
The George Washington University Page 73
tive comments supporting the objective, but even these had conditions: “Interesting idea—faculty will
worry about accountability, access to records, academic freedom”; “OK—but faculty commitment is the
key.”
One panel member felt that this area was “hopelessly shallow,” and that the issue of student advising was
based on the “management and interaction of the different messages that students receive.” Another
member stated that the non-verbal communications from faculty were particularly important.
SUPPLEMENTARY INSTRUCTION
Major Findings
• Supplementary Instruction was one of the highest rated categories in the study, with an grand
mean rating of 3.7.
• Twelve of thirteen respondents rated the use of peer study groups as ‘most important,’ resulting in
a mean rating of 3.9.
• Using a variety of instructional practices in supplementary instructional courses was highly rated
(M=3.9), but panelists raised questions about practicality.
• Utilizing student peers as instructional personnel was highly rated by the panel (M=3.8).
• The panel response concluded that study courses and other learning skills should be offered
through supplementary instruction courses (M=3.7).
Table 21. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Supplementary Instruction Ob-
jectives
Objective M SD
Encourage the use of peer study groups to foster learning and incorporate
more labs with glass work.
3.9 0.28
Incorporate a variety of instructional methods to support student learning 3.9 0.32
Utilize peers as instructional personnel for supplementary instruction when
possible to assist students.
3.8 0.62
Offer supplementary courses that focus on academic support skills (e.g.,
study skills, note taking, listening, writing, reading, time management) and
academic content (e.g., biology, calculus, etc.).
3.7 0.47
Monitor all supplementary instruction activities by students and log into the
computerized database.
3.2 1.03
Grand Mean 3.7 0.62
Discussion
The category of “supplementary instruction” was one of the highest-rated categories in this study, with a
mean rating of 3.7 listed (See Table 21). In fact, the lowest-rated objective in this category, “monitoring
supplementary activities,” still received a moderate rating of 3.2 from the panel. All other objectives rated
3.7 or above and elicited ‘most important’ responses from at least 3/4 of the panel members.
The use of peer study groups and peer instructional personnel were well supported (M=3.9 and M=3.8
respectively). Panelists cited the work of Treisman and Slavin as positive examples of collaborative learn-
The George Washington University Page 74
ing in practice. In terms of peer groups, panel members commented that peer groups should be organized
even if students didn’t want them. However, one panelist stated that the research is not conclusive in
terms of the acceptance of group learning from different minority groups. In particular, the panelist cited a
study which found that same-minority group peers supported failure and under-achievement among black
males. Panelists also supported peers as instructional personnel, and suggested that they be chosen care-
fully, be paid decently, and receive proper training. In terms of training, one panelist stated that the peers
must be cognizant of the academic infrastructure and be connected to the faculty. Another panelist sug-
gested that some study groups should be led by faculty and trained graduate students as well.
Focusing supplementary courses on academic support skills and academic content generated a broad
range of comments while still maintaining support (M=3.7). One panelist stated that students find these
types of courses very valuable, and that students “report regret in not ‘discovering’ these services
sooner.” Another panelist suggested that these courses be required for all students, while another stated
that the organization and placement of these courses within the institution is the key to their success. One
respondent disagreed with this concept: “I disagree with this concept that there is a deficiency in ‘ability.’
NO! The ability is there! It is the ‘experiences’.”
Panelists cautioned against the monitoring of supplementary courses. Two panelists noted that monitoring
may have cultural and economic implications. Other comments supported monitoring as an interesting con-
cept “that could be part of a larger information system” and may help catch students before they “slip
through the cracks.”
Additions to this category included an early assessment of student learning styles to support a variety of
instructional approaches.
TUTORING/MENTORING
Major Findings
• The tutoring/monitoring category was also one of the top-rated categories in this study, with a
grand mean rating of 3.7.
• Panelists rated the provision of regular-scheduled tutoring activities highly (M=3.9), but suggested
that students’ attitudes toward these services were barriers to use.
• The use of RAs, TAs, and exemplary undergraduates as tutors (M=3.8), in addition to
incorporating peer tutoring and group studying (M=3.7), were highly supported by the panel.
• Faculty time with students outside of class is an important component of academic support
(M=3.8).
The George Washington University Page 75
Table 22. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Tutoring/Mentoring Objectives
Objective M SD
Provide regularly scheduled and easy access tutoring for students with re-
gard to course work.
3.9 0.29
Use Research Assistants (RA), Teaching Assistants (TA), and exemplary
undergraduates as tutors.
3.8 0.44
Encourage faculty to support the academic needs of students outside of
class time.
3.8 0.44
Encourage peer tutoring and group studying within class population. 3.7 0.49
Identify and encourage the identification and use of minority students, fac-
ulty, and staff as mentors for students.
3.5 0.78
Grand Mean 3.7 0.52
Discussion
Panelists were very supportive of the Tutoring and Mentoring category (GM=3.7; See Table 22), and
gave some fruitful advise in regard to the specific objectives outlined under this category. In terms of pro-
viding regularly scheduled tutoring, panelists suggested that: (a) tutoring was directly related to the
courses/departments; and (b) there is an emphasis on immersive rather than remedial instruction. The
most generalized comment from the panel was the need to get students to the session. Panelists suggested
that student attitude, and not accessibility, was the most critical barrier to the use of these services. One
comment in particular suggested that tutoring courses will not attract students if they are referred to as
‘remedial.’ Another panelist identified funding as another barrier for student access to tutoring, comment-
ing that many students have to pay for tutoring at the present.
The use of research assistants (RAs), teaching assistants (TAs), and exemplary undergraduates as tutors
was also strongly supported by the panel (M=3.8), but the issue of pay and funding was identified as a pit-
fall. One constraint observed by a panelist was that TA and RA use is limited by departmental budgets
and course needs within departments.
Respondents were not positively motivated about the issue of faculty involvement. Some panelists felt that
the burden upon faculty to assist students outside of class time was already heavy, while another simply
stated that it would be “hard to do.”
The comments regarding peer tutoring and group studying (M=3.7) were supportive, but cautiously opti-
mistic. Questions regarding the identification and recruitment of peers were levied, as well as concerns
about the positive nature of peer groups. Two respondents felt that caution should be exercised because of
the ability of some groups to be more destructive than supportive, thus potentially polarizing groups.
The comments regarding the use of minority members as tutors and mentors (M=3.5) was also cautiously
stated by the panel. One panel member stated that this role is already a burden on faculty and students of
color and hinders some persons who are trying to excel. This objective has important policy implications,
including that of faculty tenure and reward structures. Other panelists questioned whether race/ethnicity or
gender consideration is absolutely necessary when compared with ability and knowledge. As one panelist
The George Washington University Page 76
remarked, “Strong evidence exists suggesting that some women faculty regret the approach of younger
women looking for help.”
Additions to this category include the addressing of rewards for faculty who monitor students and the use
of residence halls in the programming of supplementary instruction activities.
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
Major Findings
• Faculty involvement with students on research projects was highly rated by the panel (M=3.8).
• Panelists mentioned the importance of incorporating real-world applic ation and hands-on learning
in math and science activities.
• Utilizing research as a curricular activity was highly rated by the panel (M=3.6).
Table 23. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Research Opportunities Objec-
tives
Objective M SD
Support faculty to work with students on research projects. 3.8 0.38
Integrate regular research activities into curricula. 3.6 0.65
Develop industry partners for research opportunities. 3.5 0.66
Encourage business and industry to participate on campus through in-class
demonstrations and experiments.
3.3 0.85
Grand Mean 3.6 0.67
Discussion
The panel was very supportive of further developing the research agenda in terms of student learning.
Supporting faculty to work with students was the highest-rated objective (M=3.8; See Table 23), and the
integration of regular research activities into the curricula would, as suggested, “get students thinking about
research as a viable career path.”
Panel members suggested that hands-on experience, the application of math and science to real-world
problems, and the networking exposure of research opportunities developed through industry partnerships
were important considerations. One panelist cautioned that the “spatial heterogeneity of ‘appropriate’
businesses” makes the development problematic. In terms of business and industry participation on cam-
pus, one comment suggested that student organizations, such as women’s organizations and some ethnic
organizations (e.g., NACME), already do this well and should be promoted on campus.
PRE-COLLEGE PROGRAMS
Major Findings
• Developing pre-college programs at the elementary and secondary education levels was highly
rated by the panel (M=3.7).
• The panel expressed concern over the future funding of pre-college programs.
The George Washington University Page 77
Table 24. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Pre-College Programs Objec-
tives
Objective M SD
Develop pre-college programs at the elementary and secondary education
levels.
3.7 0.49
Monitor student progress in pre-college programs. 3.6 0.51
Offer pre-college programs on and off-campus. 3.5 0.66
Grand Mean 3.6 0.55
Discussion
The concept of pre-college preparatory and motivational programs at the elementary and secondary edu-
cation levels received high ratings by the panel (M=3.7; See Table 24). Some panelists identified some
exemplary pre-college programs, including MESA, MSEN, SECME, and PRIME, illustrating their aware-
ness of pre-college benefits. One panelist believed that pre-college programming was an important part of
making students aware of what courses they need to take for optimal preparation. However, it was also
commented that most colleges, universities, “and also the mind-set of faculty” would have to undergo ma-
jor reform to institutionalize the need to work at the pre-college level.
The nature of a pre-college program is an essential element to its success, commented one panelist. “It’s
the character of these programs that matters--there are many expensive counterproductive ones.” In
terms of when to start a pre-college program, one panel member simply stated, “you can not start too
soon.”
Further commentary on the objectives in this component was limited. However, panelists did make brief
comments, suggesting that pre-college programs be held on campus and questioning how these programs
would be funded in “austere times.”
BRIDGING PROGRAMS
Major Findings
• Panel response for the category “Bridging Programs” was the highest in the entire study, with a
grand mean rating of 3.8.
• Providing students with on-campus residency opportunities during bridging programs received a
high mean rating of 3.9.
• Panelists rated the inclusion of academic and social support programming during bridge programs
high (M=3.9) and provided examples of exemplary programs which they felt provided this support.
The George Washington University Page 78
Table 25. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Bridging Programs Objectives
Objective M SD
Provide on-campus residency for students during bridging programs. 3.9 0.28
Provide summer academic and social support for admitted students before
the commencement of the freshman year.
3.9 0.29
Monitor all student progress in bridging programs. 3.5 0.90
Grand Mean 3.8 0.58
Discussion
The panel was very supportive of the inclusion of bridging programs, as evidenced by the 3.8 grand mean
rating attributed to this category (See Table 25). Throughout the comment section for this category, panel-
ists cited several examples of exemplary bridging programs that have been developed by the NSF, NIH,
DOE, and NACME. It was commented that these types of bridging programs would offer good opportuni-
ties to orient students to the services, expectations, and other factors of college life. However, another
panel member suggested that researchers and colleges need to isolate characteristics of effective pro-
grams in order to fully understand what works well and what doesn’t. Otherwise, it is possible that poor
programs could be replicated on campuses. The panel also supported the concept on-campus residency
during the bridging program was supported, and it was suggested that an offshoot of this could be the de-
velopment of a peer group for first-year support.
There were very few comments regarding the monitoring of student progress in bridging programs, making
it difficult to identify if there were any specific concerns from the panel. In lieu of comments, the panel did
raise questions, including: “How do we create a culture that seeks data for pedagogical and curricular de-
cision making. Creating data without it is an expensive waste.” “Need specifics on everything selected to
be monitored;” “Sure, but how?”
COMPONENT FOUR - CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
The Curriculum and Instruction component was the third highest-rated component on the five components,
and was divided up into three categories: Curriculum Review & Revision, Instructional Strategies, and As-
sessment Strategies.
CURRICULUM REVIEW AND REVISION
Major Findings
• Developing an ongoing review and revision process for curricula was highly rated by the panel
(M=3.9), with 12 of 13 respondents giving it a ‘most important’ rating.
• The panel cautioned against overemphasizing ‘interdisciplinary’ and ‘real-world learning’ in place
of solid foundations and theoretical knowledge.
• The panel commented that redesigning curricula with instructional media in mind was limited by
the resources allocated for faculty development.
The George Washington University Page 79
Table 26. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Curriculum Review and Revi-
sion Objectives
Objective M SD
Develop an ongoing review process of curricula utilizing faculty input and
outside consultation.
3.9 0.28
Design curricula with interdisciplinary and real-world emphasis to stimulate
interest and deeper understanding on behalf of the students.
3.5 0.67
Design curricula with knowledge of computer-aided instructional techniques
and other technological innovations for instruction.
3.4 0.67
Grand Mean 3.6 0.59
Discussion
An ongoing review process of university curricula was the highest-rated objective under the category of
Curriculum Review and Revision (M=3.9; See Table 26), with 12 of the 13 panelists rating it ‘most impor-
tant’ on the four-point Likert-like scale. One panelist outlined areas to be addressed during this process,
including the inclusion of certain elements, such as the inclusion of writing practices in every class across
the curriculum. Additionally, he suggest that curricula should be developed to incorporate all core compe-
tencies of a department into the first two years of a program. One other major comment that was gener-
ated by the panel regarded research-based curriculum reform. The panel member suggested that the re-
view and revision process should be linked directly to research in teaching and learning to ensure validity.
The objective regarding interdisciplinary and real-world instruction, although moderately rated by the panel
(M=3.5), raised questions regarding recent trends in these areas. “This (real-world) can be over-
emphasized” and “this has been over-played” were examples of comments collected from the panel. Pan-
elists suggested that students needed more balance in their learning and required theoretical underpinnings
of a discipline before relevance could have impact. Comments from supporters of this objective also identi-
fied potential barriers to its effectiveness, including the limited experience of faculty in developing these
areas of expertise. The development of an interdisciplinary center for faculty development was identified
by the panel as a proactive method of introducing this and other objectives into the institution.
The utilization of computer-aided instruction and technology was given a cautious welcome by the panel,
although it also received a moderate mean rating of 3.4. Several panelists felt that educational technologies
were currently being overplayed. One panelists in particular made a valid technical point, noting that prac-
tices like instructional technologies do not increase quality, but rather, improve quality. He further added:
“Let us not imply that this is ‘the answer to it all.” Panelists also questioned the relevance of instructional
technologies to student persistence, the implied reduction of teacher-learner contact, and, as one respon-
dent cited, the implication of “unintended effects on access” to technology. Among the supporters, there
were comments noting the importance of linking educational technologies to current research as well as
faculty training to implementation.
Additional comments by the panel at the end of the category implied that they understand the scope of the
problem in many of today’s college classrooms and how instructional technologies may be utilized to revise
this practice. One panelist acknowledged that the “dullness” of material taught and the poor organization
of materials presented in lectures are serious, common problems, and that this “turns off bright students.”
The George Washington University Page 80
Another comment suggested that the Internet and other telecommunications technologies could be utilized
to communicate with other practitioners around the world who are addressing similar issues.
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES
Major Findings
• Professional development opportunities related to instructional strategies was highly rated by the
panel (M=3.8).
• Panel comments suggest that methods used for professional development is an important
consideration in fostering professional growth.
• The use of highly interactive and active instructional strategies were highly rated by the panel
(M=3.7).
• The panel often commented on the need for a balance of instructional techniques and strategies
throughout all of the objectives in this category.
Table 27. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Instructional Strategies Objec-
tives
Objective M SD
Provide appropriate instructional training for teaching faculty. 3.8 0.40
Incorporate interactive, relevant, hands-on, exploratory instructional prac-
tices, utilizing individual and small/large group strategies to maximize learn-
ing and motivate students.
3.7 0.48
Provide homework, out-of-class assignments, and in-class assignments for
students.
3.4 0.90
Utilize educational technologies to complement instruction. 3.4 0.51
Grand Mean 3.6 0.61
Discussion
Professional development was the highest-rated objective in this category (M=3.8; See Table 27), and was
seen as an important aspect of improving curricula and pedagogy in colleges and universities. One panelist
suggested that if instructional training and change doesn’t happen now, “nothing new will be initiated or
sustained.” Another supporter suggested coupling professional development and teaching to college crite-
ria for promotion and tenure on campus as a means of raising the importance of this area within academia.
One comment in particular seemed to sum up the importance and concerns associated with faculty train-
ing: “Teaching faculty and TAs how to teach is an urgent matter. However, their willingness to accept the
need to learn is even more urgent. Their attitudes towards education departments and the knowledge they
could offer is generally very negative--but this is an important resource.” One panelist was particular sen-
sitive to this issue and suggested that the objective itself was biased against the faculty by using the term
“training.” He added that a proactive model should build on the strengths of faculty members and should
respect the way they learn.
Balance was seen as a critical issue in terms of the incorporation of interactive, relevant, hands-on, ex-
ploratory instructional practices. Comments suggested that a balance of methods is perhaps the most opti-
mal technique, and as one panelist stated, the real issue would be trying to persuade the faculty to try
The George Washington University Page 81
them. Other panelists emphasized the need to connect instructional reform with K-12 efforts, such as the
NCTM standards.
A balance of practices was also suggested in terms of providing homework and in/out of class assign-
ments for students. Again, the issue raised by one panelist reinforced the need to persuade faculty to learn
about new techniques of teaching and to risk trying them. As well, one panelist remarked, “The difficulty is
creating a ‘multi-directional’ learning experience while maintaining coherence, depth, and breadth in cur-
ricula.” Thus, panel comments suggest that faculty development is a key aspect to the success of this ob-
jective.
One panelist suggested that the importance of professional development and infusion of instructional tech-
nologies into instructional reform necessitates the creation of a separate category in this framework enti-
tled “faculty development/resources.” The panelist identified the development of centers for teaching ex-
cellence, funding of grants for classroom research, and the redefinition of the faculty reward system as
important areas to consider. Another panelist added that the university, and in particular the instructors,
must work to “sell” the environment, whether it be through lecture, coaching, facilitating, or other models,
to students.
ASSESSMENT STRATEGIES
Major Findings
• Increasing the use of student assessments which require and support higher-level thinking was an
issue that was well supported by the panel (M=3.8), although panelists thought it could have been
taken much further.
• There was no distinct correlation between the importance of extensive, regular assessment with
the need to utilize this data for analysis of student development.
• Panel members linked the level of knowledge required by faculty to undertake these objectives
with the prerequisite need for faculty development.
Table 28. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Assessment Strategies Objec-
tives
Objective M SD
Develop assessment instruments that ask students to synthesize and
transpose information to new situations.
3.8 0.39
Conduct extensive student testing and assessment on a regular basis to
monitor student progress.
3.8 0.45
Utilize a variety of assessment techniques to encourage a diverse assess-
ment strategy that allows for differences in student preferences. (e.g., paper-
pencil, observation, homework, lab work, portfolio development, etc.).
3.7 0.49
Develop computer monitoring capability for instant trend analysis for student
growth and development in terms of student assessment.
3.2 1.07
Grand Mean 3.6 0.7
The George Washington University Page 82
Discussion
As can be seen in Table 28, three of the four objectives listed received high mean ratings from the panel
(3.8, 3.8, and 3.7 respectively). However, the panel’s commentary was quite critical toward the simplistic
phrasing of the objectives. For instance, in terms of the first objective regarding developing higher-order
assessment instruments, two panelists specifically questioned the reduction of the learning taxonomy to
two distinct intellectual skills. One of the panelists said this: “Sure, but how about analyze? How about
imagine? How about challenge? Why just synthesize and transpose?” Therefore, in light of the mean rat-
ing of 3.8 given to this objective, the commentary suggested that the objective does not cover enough
ground to be entirely useful or plausible.
Interesting enough, the objectives regarding extensive student testing and the use of a computer monitoring
system received far different reactions from the panel, as illustrated by the mean ratings provided by the
panel (M=3.8 and M=3.2 respectively). While there were no distracters to extensive assessments, there
was not much support for utilizing this data for analyzing student development and outcomes. It may have
been expected that if the panel supported the first objective they would probably support the latter. How-
ever, panel comments suggested that monitoring and analysis, at least in light of how they read into the
objective, is premature considering the current capacity of colleges in this area. One panelist commented:
“Unless we get the nature of student assessments addressed, there is no point recording the outcome.”
Illustrating the diversity of the panel, a supporter rejected this viewpoint and suggested that relational data-
bases and on-going monitoring should be incorporated into the framework.
The panel comments regarding the use of a variety of assessment techniques were mostly positive, corre-
sponding positively with the high mean rating of 3.7. One panelists commented “Very, very good!,” while
others offered advice, such as to “include frequent written and oral communication opportunities in all
courses.” However, one panelist argued against this objective suggesting that student learning preferences
was a weak reason for modern assessment.
There were several comments throughout this category identifying the need to incorporate professional
development with the implementation of new assessment strategies. Panel members often identified fac-
ulty knowledge as the barrier to success in terms of implementation.
In offering additions to this category, one panelist suggested that there are a list of priorities that are impor-
tant here, including:
(a) persuading faculty that weeding out is not the main objective of student testing methods in the
earlier years;
(b) giving faculty access to learning theory and practical options for student testing (e.g., developing
contacts with education faculty skilled in the teaching of science and mathematics); and
(c) encouraging faculty to see pedagogical reform as a professional priority, and supporting their
attempts to change, including addressing remuneration, tenure, promotion and other rewards-for-
change issues.
The George Washington University Page 83
COMPONENT FIVE - STUDENT SERVICES
The Student Services component, the second highest rated of the five components within the framework,
was divided up into four categories: Campus Climate, Accessibility -Transportation, Housing, and Counsel-
ing.
CAMPUS CLIMATE
Major Findings
• Campus climate was one of the highest-rated categories in the entire study (grand mean rating =
3.7), with four objectives rated 3.8 or greater.
• Seventy-nine percent of panel ratings in this category were ‘most important,’ resulting in a low
standard deviation.
• Providing a pluralistic environment was the highest-rated objective in this category (M=3.9).
• Three objectives had mean ratings of 3.8: supporting the need of a safe campus, harboring social
activities and opportunities for students, and providing non-classroom interactions for faculty
members and students.
Table 29. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Campus Climate Objectives
Objective M SD
Provide and support a pluralistic environment for students by promoting di-
versity and multiculturalism through special programs, activities, and curric-
ula.
3.9 0.28
Provide a safe campus environment for all students, faculty, staff, and visi-
tors.
3.8 0.38
Provide non-classroom opportunities for faculty-student interaction. 3.8 0.58
Provide social opportunities for students through entertainment, sports, ex-
tracurricular activities, special events, and academic-related social events.
3.8 0.45
Support the organization of student clubs, associations, and fraternal or-
ganizations on campus.
3.3 0.78
Grand Mean 3.7 0.54
Discussion
The findings of the panel in regard to campus climate was extremely supportive (M=3.9; See Table 29). In
fact, this category was one of the four highest-rated categories in the entire framework, with a grand
mean rating of 3.7 for all 5 objectives. The support for the objectives may also be measured by the con-
centration of the ratings along the four-point scale. In terms of all ratings given in this category, 79 percent
of all panel ratings were ‘most important.’
The provision and support of a pluralistic environment was the highest-rated objective by the panel
(M=3.9). The predominant theme in terms of the panel comments was to ensure that multiculturalism was
“real” and did not create a false sense of diversity. As one Native American panelist stated, “care to have
multiculturalism be real rather than ‘let’s have a pow-wow for the Indians’.” Another panelist warned that
universities should be mindful of the backlash that may occur when diversity is “oversold.” A third warning
The George Washington University Page 84
suggested that how pluralism and diversity is conducted on campus is of major importance: “Almost all
campuses say they do the above, yet many a chilly environment exists.” The panel also commented on
how to maintain such an environment. One comment stated that diversity must be valued and clearly evi-
dence throughout the curriculum, while the second panelist pointed toward the need for multicultural train-
ing for all campus security staff.
Some interesting comments were included in the discussion regarding social opportunities for students.
One panelist urged that departmental initiatives are more important than institution-wide activities, in that
they tend to create a stronger bond to the student’s major. Another interesting point raised was the impor-
tance of integrating off-campus students into mainframe activities on campus. Also added was the need to
integrate non-traditional students in similar activities.
Providing a safe campus environment, non-classroom opportunities for faculty-student interaction, and so-
cial opportunities for students all received mean ratings of 3.8 from the panel. One particular panel com-
ment remarked that “safe” should also connote freedom from racial/ethnic discrimination. Comments re-
garding the latter two objectives including the need to think departmentally rather than institution-wide, and
that peer group acceptance is an important goal of an institution.
Although one panelist supported the incorporation of student-led organizations as an important part of
campus life, not all panelists held this viewpoint. “One that integrates does not segregate,” replied one
panelist, while another added, “Some fraternal organization experiences can be distracting and detrimental
to focus on academics.” Still another panelist stated that the support depending on the relation of the
‘clubs’ to the institutional mission and integration of students into campus life. This panelist suggested that
students could gain greatly from the opportunity to network and build career focus with their peers.
ACCESSIBILITY/TRANSPORTATION
Major Findings
• Flexible scheduling was the highest-rated objective in this category (M=3.8).
• Providing accessibility to the university via transportation systems received a high rating (M=3.7),
from which panelists suggested that this objective was key to integrating students into the
community.
• The benefits of distance learning practices were disputed between panelists, as evidenced by the
moderate mean rating of 3.3.
The George Washington University Page 85
Table 30. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Accessibility/Transportation
Objectives
Objective M SD
Offer classes in a variety of timeslots to permit flexible scheduling by stu-
dents.
3.8 0.39
Ensure transportation link with local area metro system for increased ac-
cess to campus.
3.7 0.49
Offer classes in subsequent semesters to allow for student flexibility in
scheduling.
3.6 0.67
Offer classes on weekends and special Friday-Saturday combinations. 3.5 0.80
Utilize distance learning technologies to allow for a broader audience and
support those students who cannot attend on -campus classes.
3.3 0.75
Grand Mean 3.6 0.65
Discussion
As can be seen in Table 30, the use of flexible scheduling patterns, such as offering course sections in a
number of different time slots, was the highest-rated objective in this category (M=3.8). However, like
other objectives within this category, it did not elicit much commentary from the panel. In fact, the only
comment added was, “Good idea—we have run into problems, mostly logistical.”
Commentary regarding the transportation link with the local area metro system was also rated high, and
one panelist suggested that it was an important part of integrating students into the “community of learn-
ers.” Another panelist found in her own study that this issue was very important for commuter campuses
and disabled students. In particular, she noted that there was a serious misfit between bus services and
class schedules.
Although listed as an important objective, comments from the panel regarding offering classes in subse-
quent semesters (M=3.6) suggest that the issue is more about the ability of faculty to properly advise stu-
dents rather than alter scheduling. One panelist said that course selection across semesters was a very
serious problem for students, “added to by erroneous faculty advice.” Another panelists simply added,
“Not necessary if advising is good.” A logistical comment added another element of difficulty: “I only have
so many faculty. So many rooms for lecture or labs.”
The issue of offering classes on weekends and special Friday-Saturday combinations received a moderate
mean rating from the panel (M=3.5). The comments from the panel were divided along faculty-student
lines. One panelist focused on the faculty side of the issue, by commenting that the institution would have
to rethink its faculty commitments and “commitments to personal and material life.” However, another
panelist looked at this issue purely from the student’s viewpoint in suggesting that this was an important
objective to mature students, working students, and single parents.
In light of the recent increases in the use of distance learning technologies, the low mean response from
the panel was somewhat of a surprise (M=3.3). Several panelists were cautious in their support of dis-
tance technologies as an answer to logistical problems. One panelist responded that there is a need for
more work describing the effective of the technologies, instructional strategies, and faculty professional
The George Washington University Page 86
development. Additionally, the problem of faculty resistance is another potential barrier to the proper use
of distance education, replied another panelist. Distance learning was also described as a tool that is not
equitable to the needs of students: “Distance learning is not good for academically challenged students
who thrive on personalized contact. Good for advanced students.”
HOUSING
Major Findings
• The affordability of on-campus housing and meals was the highest-rated objective of this category
(M=3.7).
• On-campus housing for students received a mean rating of 3.6 from the panel, and it was noted
that this is especially important for the increased student population with families.
• Panelists gave housing patterns a below average rating (M=3.1) and cited possible issues of
segregation and tracking as potential implications.
Table 31. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Housing Objectives
Objective M SD
Ensure affordability of housing and meal plans. 3.7 0.48
Encourage on-campus housing for students. 3.6 0.65
Provide an appropriate number of housing slots to meet the needs of the
student body.
3.5 0.66
Develop housing patterns that may incorporate choice of major or other
demographic issues.
3.1 1.08
Grand Mean 3.5 0.76
Discussion
There was not much conjecture concerning the issue regarding affordability of on-campus room and board
among the panel, as can be seen by the high mean rating of 3.7 for that particular objective (See Table
31). One panelist mentioned that many minority students received full assistance anyway, so he did not see
the affordability of room and board as a major issue regarding persistence.
There was a mixed reaction on the panel regarding encouraging on-campus housing for students (M=3.6).
The original objective was added as a result of research findings stating that on-campus housing was an
important component of the social integration process for students. In fact, one panelist identified the stud-
ies of Astin, Boyer, Fleming, Nettles, and Morris et al in support of this objective. Another panelist con-
curred by suggesting that this objective was “critical during the freshman/sophomore years.” However,
other panelists were not allied with this objective, offering that the aging college population and students
with children have redefined the college experience for many students. In terms of providing appropriate
numbers of housing slots on campus (M=3.5), one panelist added that more family housing was needed for
graduate students on campus.
Developing housing patterns among students based upon a number of variables, including possibly cultural
or academic divisions, was not strongly supported by the panel (M=3.1). The panel felt that the issue hous-
ing patterns was too broad and needed to be broken down. Other panelists suggested that this was a form
The George Washington University Page 87
of “tracking” and could promote segregation. However, the panelist who offered the latter comment also
noted that it is a concern that is generally raised by non-minorities.
Of the additions provided for this category, one panelist suggested that academic support services could be
conducted within housing units to encourage use by students.
COUNSELING
Major Findings
• Three objectives within this category received mean ratings of 3.8, suggesting that colleges
provide psychological, social, and career counseling to students with sensitivity toward cultural and
racial issues.
• Panelists commented that providing counseling services sensitive to cultural and racial issues was
perhaps the most important function of minority program officers.
• Making available a variety of counseling techniques was described by the panel as a possible
barrier to students in deciding which resource to use for what purpose.
Table 32. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Counseling Objectives
Objective M SD
Provide psychological and social counseling to students to support added
stresses in society.
3.8 0.44
Provide career counseling to ensure that students, in accordance with aca-
demic advising, are following the proper path to reach their goal.
3.8 0.44
Provide counseling services that are cognizant of the cultural and racial is-
sues facing students.
3.8 0.44
Develop and disseminate appropriate publications, brochures, and mailings
that inform students of issues and programs.
3.4 0.96
Offer a variety of counseling opportunities and techniques, including individ-
ual, group, computer, video counseling sessions.
3.3 0.98
Grand Mean 3.6 0.7
Discussion
Table 32 illustrates the equal distribution of ratings from the panel regarding the first three obje ctives
(M=3.8; SD=0.44). The provision of psychological and social counseling to students, the use of career
counseling, and the necessary sensitivity of counselors toward racial and cultural issues were highly rated
by the panel. In terms of the first objective, one panelist advised that the objective should not stop with just
added stresses, “but include new roles and responsibilities” as well. Other comments described the impor-
tance of service delivery to students. In particular, one panel member suggested that students wanted a
“one-stop service” for their needs, a sign of today’s society.
While panelists thought that career counseling was a very important issue for students, it was suggested
that most career counseling is “far too late” in the students academic career, and that pre-college institu-
tions and counselors must be up-to-date on the reality of the work force. One panelist thought that this
was a strong role for advisors and mentors at the college level rather than counselors.
The George Washington University Page 88
There was no disagreement among the panel regarding counseling services cognizant of cultural and racial
issues were positive. Panelists exclaimed “Absolutely essential!!!” and “Very important” in their support.
In particular, one panelist suggested that this may be one of the most important functions of minority pro-
gram officers.
Although the development of appropriate publications did not elicit substantial commentary from the panel.
Panel feedback did include the suggestion that a handbook of services was an important feature of a cam-
pus.
Finally, the only point of contention within this category regarded the use of a variety of counseling tech-
niques for students. As one panelist described, students now “complain that they can’t find which resource
to go to for what purpose.” Therefore, careful planning would have to take place to ensure a cohesive
menu of opportunities for students.
SUMMARY OF ROUND ONE FRAMEWORK
In sum, the five components of the framework were highly supported by the panel. As expected, not all
categories or objectives within each component received the same level of support, but in general terms,
the framework was well received. Table 33 presents data that allows us to make comparisons across the
framework. The second and third columns present the grand mean figures and standard deviations for
each of the five components. The grand mean figures represent the average of all objective ratings within
each component. The final column presents the frequency of ‘most important’ responses from the panel
for each component. For example, Table 33 informs us that Financial Aid generated a grand mean rating
of 3.2, a standard deviation of 0.99, and a frequency of 56 percent responses at the ‘most important’ rating
level. What Table 33 manages to show us is the relative perceptions of the panel to each component of the
framework (NOTE: a higher grand mean rating in the table does not necessarily suggest with a higher
level of relative importance, but only that the individual objectives within a component received higher rat-
ings than others).
The most highly-rated component of the framework was that of Academic Services (GM=3.7). The
combination of a low standard deviation (0.62) and high percent of panel support (74 percent ‘most impor-
tant’) illustrate a cohesive pattern of support among the panel. Recruitment and Admission, Curriculum
and Instruction, and Student Services received approximately two-thirds of the support from panelists at
the ‘most important’ level, as evidenced by frequency ratings of 66, 66, and 68 percent respectively. Fi-
nancial Aid was the only component that received below average ratings, yielding only a 3.2 grand mean
rating and a higher variance of responses (SD=0.99).
The George Washington University Page 89
Table 33. Grand Means and Percentage of “Most Important” ratings for Individual Framework Sections
Section Grand
Mean Rating
Standard
Deviation
% of
‘Most Impor-
tant’
Ratings
Financial Aid 3.3 0.99 56
Recruitment and Admissions 3.5 0.75 66
Academic Services 3.7 0.62 74
Curriculum and Instruction 3.6 0.64 66
Student Services 3.6 0.67 68
Retention Program Development
The Round-One instrument also contained a component dealing with the organizational and implementation
issues related to retention program development. Six areas were developed for this area, including a listing
of program benchmarks, four stages of development, and the discussion of an organizational management
system.
RETENTION PROGRAM BENCHMARKS
The feedback regarding benchmarks of a student retention program was generally quite positive. In fact,
the lowest rated item still managed to score a respectable 3.3 points on the four-point Likert-like scale
(See Table 34). Of the top five benchmarks, the panel identified three items which are consistent with the
need to “institutionalize” the retention process: (a) institutionalization of the program, (b) not based on soft
money, and (c) involve the entire campus. Additionally, the other two top-five spots incorporated the need
to focus on student needs. Throughout the Delphi process, panelists consistently remarked on the need to
focus on the student.
The George Washington University Page 90
Table 34. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Retention Program Develop-
ment Benchmarks
Benchmarks M SD
1. Be institutionalized and become a regular part of campus service 3.9 0.28
2. Be student-centered 3.8 0.39
3. Be sensitive to student needs and to diverse populations 3.8 0.44
4. Be cost effective, and not reliant on soft moneys 3.8 0.45
5. Involve all campus departments and all campus personnel 3.6 0.51
6. Provide extensive and appropriate retraining of staff 3.6 0.65
7. Suit the particular needs of the campus 3.5 0.66
8. Be supported by a comprehensive student monitoring system that will
become the foundation of all institutional research on campus and sup-
port every department
3.5 1.00
9. Be based on proven research 3.3 0.95
10. Take into consideration the dynamics of the change process 3.3 0.79
Other comments from panelists included the need for the administration to “mandate” the program for
greatest impact and be inclusive of student empowerment.
STAGE 1 - PRE-PLANNING
The panel rated five benchmarks related to the retention program pre-planning stage (See Table 35). As
with the retention program benchmarks illustrated above, these too were highly rated by the panel. The
highest rating went to the identification of student needs (M=3.9), with analysis of student retention issues
(M=3.8), effectiveness of current strategies (M=3.8), and the identification of potentially useful institutional
resources (M=3.8) following close behind.
One panel member reminded that it is imperative for the planners to know who the student population is,
why they enter or leave, and what the attrition/retention rates are at any given point. Another panel mem-
ber added this equally important point: “What works at one campus will not necessarily give the same re-
sults at another campus, unless the institutional characteristics are the same. Retention should be custom-
ized to the respective institution.” It was also suggested that the identification of institutional resources also
include the development of resources as required.
The George Washington University Page 91
Table 35. Means & Standard Deviations of Panel Ratings Regarding the Pre-Planning Stage Bench-
marks
Benchmarks M SD
1. Identify student needs on campus 3.9 0.29
2. Assess the status and effectiveness of current retention strategies and
programs on campus
3.8 0.38
3. Identify institutional resources that may be utilized or redirected 3.8 0.38
4. Analyze the size and scope of retention issue on campus 3.8 0.39
5. Identify successful retention strategies at other campuses 3.5 0.66
STAGE 2 - PLANNING
Although five of the six planning stage benchmarks received high mean ratings from the panel (See Table
36), four of the thirteen panel members felt that this area was either not clear or too vague to be entirely
useful. The only specific comment that was issued regarded the revision of the college’s mission state-
ment. The panel member stated that missions or goals should not be redesigned to fit the plan, but rather
the plan should fit the mission and goals of the institution.
Table 36. Means & Standard Deviations of Planning Stage Benchmarks
Benchmarks M SD
1. Development of implementation plan 3.8 0.38
2. The development of retention program components and operation strate-
gies
3.7 0.48
3. The development of organizational strategies 3.7 0.49
4. The identification of key stakeholders on/off campus and their roles
within the retention process
3.7 0.49
5. The assessment, presentation, and discussion of Pre-Planning data 3.7 0.65
6. The refinement or enhancement of the college mission statement and
goals
2.8 1.03
STAGE 3 - IMPLEMENTATION
This section of the framework only solicited four remarks from the panel. Two of these remarks focused
on the need to involve people who are dedicated and “have a passion for assisting students” at the fore-
front of the implementation process. It was offered that faculty dedication is key to program success.
Other comments echoed earlier benchmarks: Institution-wide involvement, incentives and awards, and the
need for measurable objectives. One panelist also suggested that the college needed to ensure long-term
financial commitments.
STAGE 4 - PROGRAM MONITORING
The panel was given only three objectives to choose from in Stage 4, all of which received high mean rat-
ings and low standard deviations (See Table 37). Although the collection of data for program and student
evaluation was ranked highest of objectives within Stage 4 (M=3.8), one panelist warned that “any serious
The George Washington University Page 92
practitioner will tell you about the politics of data in this volatile arena,” suggesting that an institution must
be careful with how numbers are used to prove or disprove programs. Another panel member expanded
benchmark number three by suggesting that dissemination cover feedback to faculty regarding the effec-
tiveness of their teaching strategies, the monitoring of curriculum changes, the effectiveness of faculty and
staff incentives, and the hiring practices of minority faculty members. A key comment in this section, again
regarding the third benchmark, suggested that the key stakeholders should be involved in determining what
items should be monitored.
Table 37. Means & Standard Deviations of Program Monitoring Stage Benchmarks
Benchmarks M SD
1. Data collection and analysis of program components and student per-
formance
3.8 0.38
2. Ensure that conclusions based on program monitoring are incorporated
in program revisions
3.8 0.44
3. Dissemination of data to stakeholders 3.5 0.69
ORGANIZATIONAL PATTERNS
The remarks regarding the organization/management chart that was included with the first-round instru-
ment only solicited responses from 6 of the 13 panelists, making it difficult to identify any clear trend in the
response patterns. However, although the response may not be statistically significant, it is nonetheless
interesting to note that the responses that were offered were generally not positive. This is interesting
mostly because the model included in round one (See Table 38) was extracted from a major student reten-
tion document by Beal and Noel (1980). Although this document was seen as a major piece of work in the
area of student retention, the panel members in this study clearly do not agree with this pattern 15 years
later. One panelist urged: “Universities are not business. Check out Change Magazine for the failure of
TQM, CQI, PQR, etc., in higher education. You need a model that is congruent with the true functioning
of the beast you’re trying to reform.” Another panelist wondered why the chart was so linear. Others
suggested that administrative services be added to the hierarchy, and that institutional pla nning and re-
search be moved much closer to the top.
The George Washington University Page 93
Table 38. Beal and Noel's Organizational Chart for Student Retention
Steering Committee
Retention Coordinator
Vice President
Student Affairs Vice President
Academic Affairs
Presidential Directive
RETENTION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Most of the objectives or benchmarks identified in this section were given moderate or high ratings from
the panel. The first five areas in this section define certain criteria that must be considered in the develop-
ment and implementation of an effective student retention program.
The discussion and findings regarding organizational management did not bring any clarity to the issue of
management structure for this type of framework. Therefore, findings from this particular section must be
considered insignificant.
ROUND TWO FINDINGS
Round two was limited to two specific tasks: (a) rating new objectives added to the framework based on
first-round comments by the panel, and (b) reaffirming the status or importance of particular objectives
first introduced in round one. The areas of program development and implementation were left out of the
second round to add focus to the issue of specific objectives related to a student retention program.
In terms of the first task, the panel was simply asked to complete the Likert-like scale for each new objec-
tive, similar to their task in round one. The data collected was then added to the original spreadsheet, from
which the objectives were recalculated and sorted due to their mean response rating. This data then
formed the order of objectives presented in the final framework found in Chapter Five.
The second task of round two, the identification of critical objectives to each framework component, was
perhaps the most interesting part of the second round. Panelists were asked to identify, in order of impor-
tance, the three most significant objectives for each of component of the framework. The data collected
was calculated through a simple formula which gave each first-ranked item a ‘3’ point rating, second-
ranked items ‘2’ points, and third-ranked items ‘1’ point. The sum of these calculations resulted in a final
The George Washington University Page 94
number which was used to represent the final ranking of objectives. The following section discusses the
findings associated with this component of the round-two instrument.
FINANCIAL AID
The task of identifying and informing students and families of grant/scholarship availability was rated the
most significant objective under the financial aid heading (See Table 39). Five of twelve panel members
rated this objective ‘most important,’ with only one other panelist rating it second. The second and third
objectives related to the opportunities for students through work studies and grants/scholarships. While
work studies was rated second, it did manage to elicit a total of eight votes—tied for the most top-three
responses of any objective within this study. “Frontloading grants and scholarships...” was rated fifth, but
that rating was only dependent upon two votes in total. The issue of frontloading was criticized by several
panelists during round one, many complaining that students need more money when their studies get more
formidable toward the end of their degree. However, it still managed to make the top five objectives within
this component.
Table 39. Top Five Financial Aid Objectives
Ranking Objective
1 Identify and Inform students & family members of the availability of grants and
scholarships and the appropriate steps that must be taken to apply for funding.
2 Increase availability of assistantships and work study programs for undergradu-
ate and graduate students.
3 Maximize availability of Grants and Scholarships compared with Student Loans
4 Inform students and families of all available options related to the financing of
college
5 Frontload grants and scholarships to provide more support in the early years of
college
RECRUITMENT AND ADMISSIONS
Utilizing existing pre-college programs to enlist potential students was highly rated in round two, soliciting
five first-place votes. However, the following two objectives, ‘incorporating alternative assessment strate-
gies’ and ‘using students as advocates,’ managed to elicit 6 and 5 panel votes respectively. Living on cam-
pus and developing credit-based orientation courses/opportunities ranked fourth and fifth.
The George Washington University Page 95
Table 40. Top Five Recruitment & Admissions Objectives
Ranking Objective
1 Work with pre-college programs to identify potential recruits
2 Incorporate portfolios, interviews, and other non-cognitive assessments
3 Use work study and teacher prep students to make visitations to middle and
high schools to recruit students, and inform students about the need for study
skills, good academic preparation, and advantage of taking AP courses
4 Provide opportunities for pre-college students to live on campus
5 Create freshman orientations that are required and for credit
ACADEMIC SERVICES
Academic advising and counseling rated high with the panel. In round two, four panelists ranked it as the
most important objective, which is no surprise considering that eleven panelists gave it a ‘4’ rating during
round one. The next three objectives identified by the panel received at least four votes. Faculty use of a
variety of instructional methods was the second highest rated objective, while pre-college programs (ele-
mentary, secondary, and summer before freshman year) took the third and fourth spots. The encourage-
ment of faculty to support academic needs of students outside of class was ranked fifth.
Table 41. Top Five Academic Services Objectives
Ranking Objective
1 Provide academic advising and counseling for students on regular basis
2 Incorporate a variety of instructional methods to support student learning
3 Provide summer academic and social support for admitted students before the
commencement of the freshman year
4 Develop pre-college programs at the elementary and secondary education levels
5 Encourage faculty to support the academic needs of students outside of class
time
CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
The last two components of the framework, “Curriculum and Instruction” and “Student Services,” re-
ceived the most top-three votes from the panel, which suggests a more convergent pattern regarding
which objectives were most important. Of the top five objectives, the first two received seven votes. On
top was the issue of developing interesting and motivating pedagogical techniques in the classroom/lecture
hall, eliciting five first-place votes. Placing second was the ongoing curriculum review process, while in-
structional training for teaching faculty ranked third. Closing out the top five for Curriculum and Instruction
were the establishment of an appropriate faculty reward system and the utilization of diverse approaches
to student assessment.
The George Washington University Page 96
Table 42. Top Five Curriculum & Instruction Objectives
Ranking Objective
1 Incorporate interactive, relevant, hands-on, exploratory instructional practices,
utilizing individual and small/large group strategies to maximize learning and mo-
tivate students
2 Develop an ongoing review process of curricula utilizing faculty input and outside
consultation
3 Provide appropriate instructional training for teaching faculty
4 Develop an appropriate faculty reward system
5 Utilize a variety of assessment techniques to encourage a diverse assessment
strategy that allows for differences in student preferences. (e.g., paper-pencil,
observation, homework, lab work, portfolio development, etc.)
STUDENT SERVICES
Providing a pluralistic environment for students tied for the most top-three votes in this study, five of which
were first place rankings. Establishing a variety of timeslot offerings for courses (specifically gatekeepers)
ranked second, with an equal number of votes in the first, second, and third place categories. Career coun-
seling and non-classroom faculty-student interaction both received eight points, while affordability of room
and board carried enough support to keep it in the top five.
Table 43. Top Five Student Services Objectives
Ranking Objective
1 Provide and support a pluralistic environment for students by promoting diversity
and multiculturalism through special programs, activities, and curricula
2 Offer classes in a variety of timeslots to permit flexible scheduling by students
3 Provide career counseling to ensure that students, in accordance with academic
advising, are following the proper path to reach their goal
4 Provide non-classroom opportunities for faculty-student interaction
5 Ensure affordability of housing and meal plans
The George Washington University Page 97
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Although the number of minority students entering post-secondary education programs has steadily in-
creased over the past several decades (Rodriguez and Nettles, 1993), the numbers of students within this
population receiving bachelors degrees in science, engineering, and mathematics programs has either de-
creased, stagnated, or made marginal increases during this same time period (with the exception of Latino-
Americans) (NSF, 1994). Compounding the problem is the poor rate of student persistence among minority
students at four-year colleges. Several studies conducted during the past fifteen years have shown that
only about half of minority students who enter college graduate within five years of matriculation, and Af-
rican American and Hispanic students graduate at much lower rates (Beal and Noel, 1980; Lenning, Beal,
and Sauer, 1980; U.S. Student Association, 1992; AASCU, 1994).
Goal Five of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Public Law 103-227, 103rd Congress, 1994) states
that “the number of United States undergraduate and graduate students, especially women and minorities,
who complete degrees in mathematics, science, and engineering will increase significantly” (GOALS 2000,
1994). However, in light of the studies cited above, it is difficult to imagine that Goal Five can be attained
without significant intervention into the development of minority scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and
technologists.
A majority of the studies conducted in the past twenty-five years regarding student retention have focused
on the isolation of specific variables, such as counseling, instruction, campus culture, or student behaviors.
Many of these studies have explored the effects of intervention programs aimed at curbing the attrition of
students in undergraduate and graduate programs. Although these studies have led to many reforms in the
development of student retention programs, these programs are generally mutually exclusive of other pro-
grams and activities on campus. Little effort has been placed on the development of a comprehensive stu-
dent retention program from a campus-wide perspective—a perspective that requires the specific and
unique elements of a campus to be explored and involved to best suit student needs.
The purpose of this study was to identify the program components and implementation strategies that
would form an institution-wide student retention model for minority institutions, with specific focus on sci-
ence, engineering, and mathematics (SEM) areas. During the identification process, four sub-questions
were also developed to support the main purpose. These questions included:
• What are the significant factors related to student attrition and retention at minority institutions?
• What types of programs have been successful in increasing retention rates at four-year
institutions, minority institutions, and in SEM areas?
• What are the key elements to be considered in the development and implementation of an
institution-wide retention program?
• What policies are needed to support the development and implementation of an institution-wide
student retention program?
A Delphi technique was used to collect data from a panel of 16 experts in fields pertaining to this study.
The instrument administered to the panel consisted of a two-round process: the first round formed the
foundation of the study by allowing panelists to comment on a conceptual framework based upon a broad
The George Washington University Page 98
review of pertinent literature; the second round focused on ranking the importance of specific components
of the framework. The findings related to these instruments were presented in Chapter Four.
The purpose of this chapter is to present and discuss the results of the study relating to the research ques-
tions. In particular, the chapter is divided into two sections: Overview and Discussion, and Conclusions and
Recommendations. The Overview and Discussion section focuses on the significant details of the frame-
work and the policy implications related to the development and implementation of a institution-wide stu-
dent retention program. The Conclusions and Recommendations section offers directions for further study
and practice.
OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION
The literature review preceding this study identified variables and strategies regarding two areas important
to the development of a student retention program. The first areas incorporated research related to the
organization and management of a retention program. The second area concerned the development of a
framework of strategies or components which promoted student persistence. During the two Delphi
rounds, panelists rated and commented on both of these issues, further shaping the final framework and
implementation plan presented in Chapter Four. The following section will focus on the policy issues relat-
ing to the organization for program development and the final retention program framework.
BENCHMARKS FOR PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
The development and implementation of a comprehensive student retention program requires that faculty
and staff acknowledge and adhere to a common set of “benchmarks” or “norms.” These benchmarks en-
sure that certain standards and considerations are adhered to during program development. Through both
the literature review and Delphi panel responses, a set of benchmarks regarding the development and
management of a student retention program were identified. The ten benchmarks that follow will help se-
cure a foundation that fosters campus ownership, the development of appropriate interventions and prac-
tices, and identifies the student as the focus of all institution efforts.
1. INSTITUTIONALIZE ALL RETENTION PROGRAM EFFORTS IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM A PART OF
REGULAR OPERATIONS
The panel strongly supported the institutionalization of program operations. Clewell and Ficklen (1986)
are among the researchers who suggest that institutionalization is an important part of program
development. By institutionalization, it is meant that program operations must become mandated and
supported by the campus administration and ultimately become standard campus practice. This
requires that financial resources are earmarked for program operations, and that campus personnel
are cognizant of and users of the programs.
2. FOCUS ON THE STUDENT
A student retention program should place the needs of the student at the center of all operations and
planning. The complicated nature of the four-year institution makes it possible to place other
organizational or politically motivated needs at the focus of program development, but as Tinto (1993)
suggests, other factors may allow the direction of the program to go out of focus. Program managers
The George Washington University Page 99
and stakeholders must take special effort to ensure that student needs are always the pinnacle of
consideration.
3. OPERATE IN A COST EFFECTIVE MANNER AND RELY ON APPROPRIATED FUNDS
The institutionalization of a retention program is dependent upon the allocation of funding and the
expectation that funding will be continued. Programs that are dependent upon grant money often are
too sensitive to political and economic pressures from the private and government sectors. Therefore,
the goal of retention programs should be the institutionalization of program funding into the operations
budget of the college or university. Additionally, current cutbacks in government funding force
institutions to run their programs in a cost-effective method, utilizing all funding in an appropriate and
efficient way.
4. BE SENSITIVE TO THE NEEDS OF A DIVERSE STUDENT BODY
The panel supported research that suggested the importance, especially for Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (HBCUs) and other minority campuses, of placing diversity and campus culture at the
forefront of program consideration. HBCUs have long been noted for their social community and
support of students (Payne, 1994), and research has shown that a culture of warmth, trust, and
multicultural experience supports student persistence and social integration (Astin, 1993; Justiz, 1994;
Sawchuk, 1991). Program developers should encourage and establish diversity as a common element
in all operations, ensuring that all students have equal opportunity, access, and representation.
5. INVOLVE ALL CAMPUS DEPARTMENTS AND PERSONNEL
The alienation of campus groups, departments, or individuals can result in the failure of any
implementation effort. Involvement of key stakeholders from all facets of the organization is essential
to ultimate success. Smith and Sprandel (1985) noted the importance of involvement and “community”
in retention program development and operation, and the panel also acknowledge this important
benchmark. However, this involvement also necessitates careful planning by program managers, who
must coordinate the involvement of all faculty members, departments, staff, and other personnel
(including students and families). It should be expected that the central management group (or
department) that will be coordinating this program may require additional funding to properly staff the
department and provide support that promotes campus interconnectivity.
6. PROVIDE EXTENSIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
The importance of professional development opportunities for faculty and staff with regard to retention
programming is a critical issue in the success of the program, as was suggested by several studies
(Tinto, 1993; Clewell and Ficklen, 1986; Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates, 1985) and supported by
the panel. The administration or development team must incorporate the financial and human
resources to ensure that staff have the capacity to provide retention support to students. This, in turn,
will illustrate the support and leverage of campus administration. The multiplicity of program
operations involved in a campus-wide retention program requires that professional development be
placed among the highest priorities for campus involvement.
7. SUIT THE PARTICULAR NEEDS OF THE CAMPUS
All campuses are unique entities, separate in nature from other campuses sharing similar attributes.
Noel et al. (1985) stressed the importance of conducting an institutional self-assessment of resources
and practices before formal development commences. Institutions must parlay this as a “given” in any
fundamental change to program operations, as it is unrealistic to assume that any organization can
make valid improvements without knowledge of the nature of the campus and the efficiency/success
of current programs. This is especially an important consideration when institutions attempt to replicate
The George Washington University Page 100
programs that have proven successful at other institutions. Developers must take into consideration the
variables on the successful campuses and relate them to the specific variables on their campus.
Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the campus is required for planning.
8. UTILIZE A COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING SYSTEM FOR PROGRAM AND STUDENT MONITORING
It is difficult to apply academic and social interventions when information regarding individual student
achievement and program effect is unavailable or untimely. In order to intervene in student practice
before it is too late, practitioners require up-to-date student data on a continual and “need-to-know”
basis. Quite often, mid-terms are the first time instructors have any feedback regarding student
achievement and program effect. Therefore, a comprehensive system of student/program evaluation
and assessment is required to collect data that can allow practitioners to: (a) develop more suitable
methods of programming and evaluation, and (b) alter current programs within a particular semester to
meet the timely needs of students. A campus-wide computer network capable of constant updating of
student and program information and for retrieval of data is an essential part of this plan.
9. BE BASED UPON CURRENT RETENTION RESEARCH AND LITERATURE
Program efforts should be based upon previous research and applied to meet the particular needs of
the campus. In addition, practitioners and administrators should routinely review literature to improve
programming practices and options. Research may also consist of on-campus research regarding
programs and practices. A campus must ensure that data collection and analytical procedures are
conducted effectively and accurately, and that results are delivered back to classroom instructors.
10. TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE DYNAMICS OF THE CHANGE PROCESS
The human dynamics that are part of any institutional change must be given serious consideration and
focus by campus administrators. People, because they develop a sense of comfort with the day-to-day
operations of an organization, may be adverse to any action that may destroy that comfortability.
Therefore, developers must: (a) be cognizant of the sociological considerations regarding
organizational change; and (b) identify and implement program management strategies that can
support the specific needs of the faculty and staff. Ultimately, program developers and managers must
weigh the cost of implementation frustration and chaos with potential program outcomes to determine
the political reality of implementation.
FOUR STAGES OF RETENTION PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT
From the literature review, four stages regarding the planning and implementation process for a student
retention program were identified. The panel assisted in developing a hierarchy of importance for the is-
sues related to each stage.
STAGE 1 - PRE-PLANNING
The major component of the pre-planning stage is to collect information which will paint a picture indica-
tive of the campus and student population. Panel members in the study concurred with research by Cooper
et al. (1992), Noel et al. (1985), and others which place the integration of campus research and planning as
paramount activities in the development of a successful retention program. Program planners must be pre-
pared to conduct needs assessments of current campus operations, from curriculum practices to housing
operations. If an institution has a respectable institutional research operation, these areas are continuously
being explored and monitored. However, for campuses without the technical or human resources for this
The George Washington University Page 101
task, the implementation of such methods should be a primary consideration. In particular, five areas were
identified and validated in this study that are important considerations to program developers:
1. IDENTIFY STUDENT NEEDS OF CAMPUS
Each campus has a unique student population that is unlike any other study body across the nation.
The students have particular reasons for attending a specific campus. As well, students have a history
which they bring with them to the campus that impacts upon their academic success. In order to
provide appropriate services to students, the institution must become knowledgeable about the entering
students and their needs. High school data, interviews, focus groups, and surveys are some methods
and resources that can be used to obtain an understanding of who the campus is servicing. This
information, in turn, is crucial to identifying what programs, practices, and interventions should be
considered or revised on campus.
2. ANALYZE THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF RETENTION ISSUES ON CAMPUS
Institutions must collect and analyze data regarding student persistence and attrition. When are
students dropping out? What courses have traditionally high rates of drop out or incompletion? These
are the types of questions that must be answered and recognized by program developers. The
college’s institutional research department should be involved in the planning process to assist with the
collection and analysis. If the data is not currently being collected, systems must be implemented to
allow for this important data compilation.
3. ASSESS THE STATUS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF CURRENT RETENTION STRATEGIES AND PROGRAMS
ON CAMPUS
Proper planning for retention should involve an assessment of current programming and practice.
From this information, developers can see what types of programming and practice have proven useful
and which have not. Current programs may be expanded, others eliminated, and areas where no
programming exists can be implemented. However, without a full-scale assessment of current activity
and effectiveness, it is difficult to envision future needs.
4. IDENTIFY INSTITUTIONAL RESOURCES THAT MAY BE UTILIZED OR REDIRECTED
A needs assessment, such as one described above for assessing current retention programming, can
also assist developers in identifying institutional resources that can be used or redirected for program
use. These resources may be human, financial, or material. A needs assessment may find that some
resources are out of sync with the current needs of the campus, and therefore can be redistributed to
a more efficient use.
5. IDENTIFY SUCCESSFUL RETENTION STRATEGIES AT OTHER CAMPUSES.
Program developers should keep a keen eye on retention efforts at other campuses. This practice can
help developers identify potentially successful programs for their own use, and may also warn of
programs that do not work. In conducting these ongoing reviews, researchers should no only focus on
institutions like their own, but also look at what other institutions with different characteristics are
doing in student retention.
Planners must have a very clear picture of what the issues are on campus. Although this may seem to be
an obvious consideration, the implication of this knowledge has ramifications on the effectiveness of any
program operation. Campuses must ensure that the unique nature of the campus is an important considera-
tion in the development of any plan. It is for this reason that the plan illustrated in this chapter is called a
“framework” rather than a model. All objectives and goals must be reworked to address the specific
The George Washington University Page 102
needs of the campus. Otherwise, the implementation of an inflexible model will become burdensome and
fall short of expectations.
STAGE 2 - PLANNING STAGE
The planning stage should bring together the work conducted in pre-planning to build a plan, both politically
and logistically, that reflects campus needs. Key stakeholders must be identified and invited to participate,
and should reflect the composition of the entire campus. Smith, Lippett, and Sprandel (1985) suggested
that it is important that institutions of higher education look at the vertical and horizontal set of relations on
campus in organizing change. Persons should be included that represent each strata of the institution,
which may include the trustee level, administrative level, and the faculty level. Additionally, connections
should also be made horizontally, which looks at relations between departments, administrations, and stu-
dent organizations, as an example. This practice can help ensure that all connections are identified during
planning, and that political and practical considerations are made.
STAGE 3 - IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation process essentially must follow the prescription of the planning team in Stage 2. How-
ever, effective implementation is dependent upon the support from administration. The leadership, direc-
tion, and support from campus officials is necessary to send a message across to faculty and staff that the
new retention programs are important and are being supported (Wolverton and Richardson, 1992).
STAGE 4 - PROGRAM MONITORING
The data collection and assessment that was conceptualized in Stage 1 becomes an important practice in
Stage 4. Proper program implementation requires that institutions and departments monitor the implemen-
tation process to ensure that the program is being implemented according to plan. An important caveat of
this practice is the ability to quickly reassess program strategies based upon unrecognized needs that come
up during the implementation process. This allows for fine tuning during implementation. Additionally, such
monitoring should become a standard practice of all programs, and data should be collected which can be
analyzed to assess program components and student achievement. The conclusions generated from this
data must then be part of a cyclical process of program revision and fine-tuning for administrators and
practitioners.
FRAMEWORK DESIGN
The retention framework presented in Chapter Four is classified into five components based upon an ex-
tensive review of current literature (See Figure 7). Four of the five components, Financial Aid, Recruit-
ment & Admissions, Academic Services, and Student Services, are generally major departments in most
four-year institutions. The fifth component, Curriculum & Instruction, is receiving more attention and con-
sideration at colleges, and was added to this study because of the direct impact it has on student retention.
The framework components are further broken down into categories that provide areas of specialization.
An example under the component of Financial Aid would be the category of Grants and Scholarships. Fur-
ther, each category is then broken down into specific objectives. During this research study, the Delphi
panel either validated or detracted from the objectives offered to them in the conceptual framework, as
well as suggested new or revised versions of objectives.
The George Washington University Page 103
Figure 7. Five Classifications for Campus-Wide Student Retention
Admissions
Student
Monitoring
System
An important consideration for practitioners is the relationship of the framework components to each
other. As stated in the benchmarks discussion, a campus-wide effort is a requirement of an effective
campus-wide retention program (Noel et al., 1985; Smith and Sprandel, 1985). The ability of campus de-
partments to work together toward common goals and to focus on student needs is ultimately as important
as any specific objective. From a organizational perspective, it is difficult to imagine how each component
could work effectively without the linkage of other areas. For instance, Financial Aid departments often
work very closely with Recruitment and Admissions, while Academic Services and Curriculum & Instruc-
tion are obvious composites. This framework attempts to develop additional linkages, such as those be-
tween Student Services and Academic Services, where the notion of Tinto’s theory of academic and so-
cial integration (1975) is most relevant. The linkage of recruitment practices with pre-college academic
support programs is a good example of how a campus-wide support network can help students persist to-
ward graduation. The interrelation of each of the five components within the framework should be a major
consideration to practitioners and developers.
As viewed in Figure 7, the five areas are bridged by a student monitoring system. The system, as identified
from literature and panel discussion as an important benchmark, is a resource that helps to develop the
linkage just discussed. Such a system, when developed to capture data which reflects the true details of
student and faculty life on campus, provides an institution with a snapshot of students in terms of academic
and social development (Tinto, 1993). It is with this knowledge that campus departments and personnel
can generate more appropriate methods of supporting student needs.
The discussion that follows will focus on the five components identified in Figure 7. The purpose of the
discussion is to provide both summary and conclusion with regard to each component based upon an
analysis of the findings presented in Chapter Four. Discussion for each component will follow this format:
(1) Description — a brief presentation of the organization, content, and background for each component,
as defined initially from the literature and then validated and refined by the Delphi panel based upon their
knowledge and experience. Further details regarding the framework design can be found in Chapter Four
and in the Appendix section of this study.
The George Washington University Page 104
(2) Major Issues — a brief discussion of the specific objectives rated highest by the panel during the
second Delphi round. Comments focus on the rationale for each issue in addition to conditions or practices
which should be considered by practitioners.
(3) Policy Implications/Considerations — a discussion of issues within the framework that require the
particular attention of policymakers and practitioners involved in the development of a student retention
program.
COMPONENT ONE: FINANCIAL AID
DESCRIPTION
Four categories were used to describe financial aid (See Figure 8). The use of grants and scholarships,
student loans, financial counseling, and assistantships/work study programs were all identified in the litera-
ture and supported by the panel to be important factors in student retention. Although research has shown
that grants are a much better predictor of student persistence compared to loans (Astin, 1982), the finite
limitations on grant/scholarship availability suggest that loans and work studies must remain open avenues
upon which students can gain access into the nation’s post-secondary institutions. However, the provision
of relevant and important information to students and families regarding selection criteria and availability
remains an important consideration.
Loans, although not positively correlated to student persistence (especially for African Americans, Tho-
mas, 1986), are often the only available option for many students. Thus, it is important that institutions
carefully devise an equitable and supportive loan operation for students and families. The delivery of accu-
rate and easy-to-follow information regarding loan availability and regulations is an important factor for
families. In addition, the process for application must also be designed such that it does not deter families
from completing applications (Astin, 1982; Collison, 1988). Students should also be able to access ‘emer-
gency’ loans for specific situations while enrolled in college. Such considerations may include the need to
buy books, health care, or travel money.
The George Washington University Page 105
Figure 8. Financial Aid Framework Component
1.1 Grants & Scholarships
1.1.1 Identify and Inform students & family
members of the availability of grants and
scholarships and the appropriate steps
that must be taken to apply for funding.
1.1.2 Maximize availability of Grants and
Scholarships compared with Student
Loans.
1.1.3 Frontload grants and scholarships to pro-
vide more support in the early years of
college.
1.3
1.3.1 Increase availability of assistantships and
and graduate students.
1.3.2 Increase faculty participation with regard
to student assistantships.
1.3.3 Keep assistantships and work studies un-
der 25 hours per week for full-time stu-
dents.
1.3.4
ropolitan areas, or businesses that pro-
vide a mechanism for work after gradu-
1.3.5 Develop partnerships with local area
portunities for students.
1.3.6 Attempt to design assistantships and
work study programs on or close to cam-
pus.
1.2 Loans
1.2.1
need
1.2.2 Inform students & family members of
availability and responsibilities related
to Loans.
1.2.3 Streamline bureaucracy & forms to sim-
plify the application process.
1.2.4 Frontload loan payments to provide
more support in the early years of col-
lege.
1.4 Financial Counseling
1.4.1 Inform students and families of all avail-
able options related to the financing of
college.
1.4.2
tive to issues related to race and
1.4.3 Provide money management training to
students and families.
Assistantships and work studies are an important part of a student’s college education, especially for sci-
ence majors. Astin (1975) found that work study programs could increase student persistence by 15 per-
cent. These opportunities provide students with money, experience in the field, and perhaps most impor-
tant, networking capabilities for future employment and research possibilities.
Financial counseling becomes the foundation for each of the three areas previously defined under the fi-
nancial aid component. Counseling allows campuses to reach out to families and students and offer a vari-
ety of avenues to finance college attendance. Because the financing of college is one of the most impor-
tant and costly endeavors that a family may make, it is important that financial aid departments are trained
to deal with sensitive issues in a professional and supportive way.
MAJOR OBJECTIVES
1) INFORMATION DISSEMINATION
Information must get to students and families before any other issue becomes relevant. The use of
new technologies to deliver this information, such as computer networks and computer-interactive
systems can help families plan for college and learn more about the college environment and
The George Washington University Page 106
requirements. Institutions must devise efficient and coherent communication paths to interested
families in a method that is both informative and supportive.
2) INCREASE AVAILABILITY
Colleges should attempt to revise current lending practices to increase availability of grants,
scholarships, work studies, and loans to families. This availability is inextricably linked to the ability of
institutions to identify possible recipients and communicate options to students and families. The
revision of current national lending policies, although out of the realm of an individual college’s control,
may be a crucial area for college associations to focus on.
3) CONSIDERATION OF FRONTLOADING AID PACKAGES
Research has shown that frontloading student aid packages (i.e., coordinating financial disbursement
so that students receive more money during the freshman year with diminished amounts in subsequent
years) results in a more efficient use of loan money (GAO, 1995). Additionally, it broadens the
capacity of the program to include a greater number of persons that may receive loan opportunities.
The panel responses regarding frontloading practices were predominantly negative. However,
panelists did give it an extremely high ranking with regard to its relative importance to other objectives.
This suggests that although panelists may not agree conceptually with the frontloading process, they do
see it as a viable option in a time of decreasing funding for college students.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS
• INFORMATION ACCESS
The ability of colleges to remain at the cutting edge of financial aid policy and practice is dependent
upon their ability to access information regarding funding policies from the various government
departments. Campuses must either hire staff with qualified backgrounds in financial aid or provide
comprehensive departmental training. The staff must be committed to providing an important service
to the student population, and therefore must understand the need to be knowledgeable about financial
aid policy and be able to transfer this policy to practice.
• COMMUNICATIONS PROCESSES
Colleges should develop the most efficient and productive methods of communicating with families.
Panel comments included the incorporation of computer networks, such as the College Board’s “Fund
Finder,” which help families establish their financial need as well as determine their eligibility for many
of the scholarship, grant, and loan opportunities available. However, the personal nature of
communication was seen as an important consideration for financial aid departments. Employees must
be trained to communicate with parents and students in a supportive, understanding, and amiable
fashion.
• ALTERNATIVE FINANCIAL AID PROGRAMS
Colleges must incorporate alternative or non-traditional financial aid packages to meet the needs of a
diverse student population. The financial aid department should have a broad scope of possibilities for
families to consider and make available all possible avenues of college entrance for students,
especially for those with financial difficulty. Campuses may want to depart from the exclusive use of
Federal financial aid programs and try and establish local methods of funding student attendance. The
expansion of work-study programming and business linkages may support this need. The process of
uncovering new ways for students to afford and attend college should be a continuing process for
departments and a basic goal that guides practice.
The George Washington University Page 107
• FINANCIAL MONITORING
Colleges may develop unobtrusive methods of monitoring student money usage through the use of on-
campus counseling services for students. Issues of personal privacy must be considered in the type of
monitoring that is conducted by departments, as was raised by the panel. Regardless, institutions must
be able to justify who receives financial aid, whether it is being used appropriately, and which students
still face financial crises after receiving aid. Current systems of financial aid monitoring, however
bureaucratic and time consuming, fail to answer any of these questions.
• PARTNERSHIPS/AGREEMENTS
Colleges should encourage and support the development of partnerships with business, industry, and
research groups that would provide a direct link between classroom theory and real-world practice.
Panelists pointed out the particular importance of this to engineering schools. However, not all colleges
are located in areas that have local access to an industrialized sector, as are most urban colleges. In
these situations, faculty and administration must become more creative in how they develop practical
application for their SEM majors. Currently, several minority-serving colleges have developed working
relationships with national labs, such as the Jet Propulsion Lab, Sandia National Laboratory, and the
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
• FACULTY INVOLVEMENT
Colleges should design policies that encourage faculty to involve students in research projects or to link
students with outside researchers and business. The panelists supported current literature suggesting
that faculty involvement was a major factor in the retention of students in the sciences. Role modeling,
mentoring, and monitoring of student activity are positive spin-offs of this involvement. However, how
an institution creates and “frees-up” faculty for this type of work is a policy concern that directly
relates to the mission of the university and the definition of faculty role. Issues such as reward
structures and tenure must be revised or clarified.
COMPONENT TWO: RECRUITMENT AND ADMISSIONS
DESCRIPTION
The three categories under the classification of recruitment and admissions include student identification,
admissions, and orientation (See Figure 9).
Tinto (1993) and others (Astin, 1975; Cope and Hannah, 1975) are among the researchers who discuss the
importance of linking student goals/expectations to the institutional mission relative to student persistence.
This being held true, the role of the Recruitment and Admissions departments must be clarified to: (a) first
identify students whose career and educational goals are closely matched to the institutional mission; and
(b) admit those students to the college. The objectives within the Recruitment and Admission component
reflect this current view held by practitioners and researchers.
The findings of this study supported research suggesting that best methods for identifying students include:
the recruitment of students who have been involved in pre-college programming conducted by the institu-
tion; promotional visits to local-area secondary schools; the development of outreach programs within the
target area of the institution (geographically speaking); and the utilization and promotion of alumni clubs to
recruit students.
The George Washington University Page 108
Although the traditional practice of college admissions includes the evaluation of a student to see if they fit
the ‘mission’ of the institution, colleges must accept the reciprocal responsibility of ensuring that the institu-
tion fits the needs of the student. Colleges should utilize a number of assessment/evaluation practices in
the admissions department to get a clearer conception of student-institution congruence. Although SATs
and other norm-referenced tests have become standard practice for admission, current questions regarding
the validity and equity of these approaches substantiate the need to diversity the admissions process.
Finally, the orientation component of this area is an important part of student integration, both socially and
academically, with the college. Orientations should look beyond the student and offer opportunities to
families and significant others, as the college experience is truly an experience for the entire family and not
just the person in attendance. The Lubin House experience at Syracuse University (Elam, 1989) remains
an exemplary model of satellite orientation practice and should be studied carefully by prospective col-
leges. Additionally, on-site orientations and extensive communications with families should become stan-
dard practice of any college.
MAJOR OBJECTIVES
1) PRE-COLLEGE PROGRAMS
To ensure the efficiency of campus departments related to student recruitment, coordinators should
capitalize on student data and involvement in pre-college programs offered by the institution. Students
in these programs generally have already shown college aspiration, academic potential, and have been
oriented to the college. Therefore, pre-college programs have a number of long-term benefits for the
college, including the opportunity to assess student ability based upon these programs and having a
built-in recruitment system by way of pre-college programming.
Figure 9. Recruitment and Admissions Framework Component
2.1 Student Identification
2.1.1
tify potential recruits.
2.1.2 Monitor the participation of students en-
rolled in pre-college programs.
2.1.3 Attempt to match student academic and
career goals with the institutional mis-
sion of the campus.
2.1.4 Use work study and teacher prep stu-
dents to make visitations to middle and
high schools to recruit students, and in-
form students about the need for study
skills, good academic preparation, and
2.1.5 Develop and focus outreach programs
2.1.6 Further coordinate recruitment with the
Alumni association to identify future stu-
dents
2.2 Admissions
2.2.1 Incorporate portfolios, interviews, and
other non-cognitive assessments
2.2.2
other tests
2.3 Orientation
2.3.1 Provide opportunities for pre-college
students to live on campus.
2.3.2 Provide early orientation activities for
families.
2.3.3 Involve all campus departments in the
orientation process.
2.3.4 Provide satellite orientations for non-lo-
cal students.
2.3.5 Ensure personal communications with
students and families via phone and visi-
tations.
2.3.6 Create freshman orientations that are re-
quired and for credit
The George Washington University Page 109
2) ALTERNATIVE ASSESSMENT METHODS
Colleges should revise current selection criteria to include a variety of assessment techniques,
including portfolios, interviews, and perhaps other non-traditional methods of pre-testing. Several
panelists supported literature suggesting that the use of SATs for admissions was culturally biased and
problematic for non-white students (Kalechstein, Pearl et al., 1981; Dreisbach et al., 1982), therefore
not an equitable method of admission. However, current research still supports the SAT as the best
available predictor of student success, especially in SEM and medical education (Sedlacek and Prieto,
1990). Thus, institutions would be advised to provide a number of assessment methods, such as
student portfolios and interviews, in response to the research findings.
3) VISITATIONS TO SCHOOLS
The use of work study students, graduate assistants, and other student personnel to make visits to local
high schools (especially alma maters) in the capacity of recruiter is a cost-effective way of reaching
out to the community. Additionally, this practice is appealing because of the close connection between
college students and high school students as opposed to trying to bridge the gap via recruitment
personnel. This practice can help generate a peer relationship between the college and high school that
may be an important part of a student’s decision to attend a particular campus.
4) ON-CAMPUS LIVING ORIENTATION
Providing high school students involved with pre-college programs with on-campus experiences,
including living opportunities, was strongly supported by the panel as a method of recruitment and
orientation. This practice has practical application for both students and colleges by giving students an
opportunity to test the college environment and become more familiar and comfortable with the
college, while the colleges enjoy the dividend of having a much better chance of recruiting students
who have experienced their campus.
5) FRESHMAN ORIENTATIONS COURSE CREDIT
The panel suggested that orientations should be given course credit in order to justify its importance to
students in relation to their academic pursuits. Some universities have designed three-credit hour
programs for first semester students, while others have designed one-credit hour orientation
opportunities. Although the establishment of mandatory orientations without credit is a standard
practice on many campuses, it is possible that these practices develop a resentment within students
regarding the use of their time. This is particularly true when orientations are poorly planned and offer
students little in terms of increased knowledge regarding university services and regulations.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS
• INTER-DEPARTMENT COOPERATION
Academic Departments must develop cooperative agreements to share information between pre-
college programs and recruitment offices. This includes sharing of enrollment information, and when
applicable, student outcomes. The possible bureaucratic headaches anticipated by faculty members
regarding this ‘micro-management’ can easily be overcome by establishing an ongoing practice of
student and program monitoring with the aid of a comprehensive student-tracking system. New
hardware and software has made this task much more manageable, user-friendly, and time sensitive
than previously available. Apart from monitoring activities, recruitment offices may want to become
actively involved in the planning and operation of pre-college programs to support recruitment and
orientation practice.
The George Washington University Page 110
• STUDENT INFORMATION
In order for colleges to match student goals and aspirations with the college’s mission, colleges and/or
departments must develop information collection practices that produce a legitimate understanding of
individual student’s goals, needs, and abilities. Colleges must begin to move away from the ‘fast-food’
attitude of education, where focus is on recruitment rather than service, and begin to employ new
methods of facilitating student learning from the student’s perspective. To do this, institutions need to
implement systems capable of coordinating the type of information required. University personnel,
meanwhile, need to rethink what information is of most value to them and how they can access and
utilize it. However, as one panelists duly noted, institutions should remember that the informal
conferences and discussions between students and faculty are often the most valuable, so care should
be taken not to reduce everything to a number in response to empiricism.
• EXPANSION OF ALUMNI NETWORK
Panelists supported both research and practice that utilizes alumni associations or networks as a
communications tool for new recruits. Because these methods are extremely cost effective, alumni
networks and services should be expanded to provide this service for colleges and universities.
Although alumni clubs can be expensive to operate in terms of mailing and phone charges, anticipated
gifts and donations can far exceed the operational cost when effective alumni programs are
developed. Therefore, colleges can serve both their alumni community and the needs of the
recruitment and admissions offices at the same time.
• LINKING DEPARTMENTS TOGETHER FOR ORIENTATION
Effective orientations must link campus departments together to create a cohesive unit that represents
the diversity and uniqueness of the entire campus. Although departments may, and possibly should,
have specific orientation activities, these and other activities should be incorporated into the broad
scope of campus orientation. If, as the research concludes, the entire campus needs to be involved in
the development and operation of retention programming (Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates, 1985;
Smith and Sprandel, 1985), the orientation process, as a component of student retention services,
should also be practiced in similar terms.
• REVISION OF CREDIT SYSTEM
In response to the panel support of “for-credit” orientation sessions, institutions must re-evaluate how
this extra credit would impact upon their graduation requirements. Does credit mean that institutions
must force students to take an extra course within a four-year program, or is it simply a matter of
changing the numbers around? Institutions must address these issues and develop appropriate policy to
eliminate ambiguity regarding academic requirements and student planning.
COMPONENT THREE: ACADEMIC SERVICES
DESCRIPTION
The Academic Services component is the most diversified and expansive component explored within the
framework (See Figure 10). The focus of Academic Services in terms of student retention and persistence
is on providing supplementary support to students in addition to classroom/lecture practice. This component
is divided into six categories, including: academic advising, supplementary instruction, tutoring/mentoring
activities, research opportunities, pre-college programming, and bridging programs.
The George Washington University Page 111
Academic advising is important to the direction that students will follow during their college experience.
Forrest (1982) and Beal (1978) are among those researchers suggesting that academic advising is an im-
portant part of an effective student retention program. To be effective, it is important that students receive
guidance that reflects their needs while also incorporating the knowledge of campus programming and bu-
reaucratic practices. It therefore follows that candidates for advising be trained accordingly to handle the
multi-faceted issues that may come up during advising sessions.
Beal (1978) also noted the importance in using faculty as student advisers. This has many potential bene-
fits, including role modeling and mentoring in addition to the academic guidance that may be offered.
However, as one panel member of this study noted, there is a major difference between formal advise-
ments that are scheduled and informal advisements that take place in hallways and classes. Both practices
are important and should be supported by institutions and departments to ensure that students receive ade-
quate academic advising during their college careers.
Supplementary instruction programs, such as the one of the same name developed out of the University of
Missouri-Kansas City by Deanna Martin in 1974, are becoming more prominent in colleges and universi-
ties. More colleges are beginning to develop alternative learning activities beyond that of regular classes to
aid student comprehension of subject matter. However, whereas institutions have developed supplemen-
tary systems to support learning in college classes, institutions should strive to work closely with curriculum
and instructional groups to develop sessions and materials to supplement instruction rather than perform
remedial activities. Instructors of supplementary sessions should be trained to monitor the progress of stu-
dents and identify potential problems.
Tutoring and mentoring practices form another support network for students. Colleges must make tutoring
support available and affordable to students with such need. Faculty members should also make them-
selves available for academic assistance. Again, this “out-of-classroom” contact between students and
faculty members has been substantiated by many researchers as an important factor in student persistence
(Ugbah & Williams, 1989; Griffen, 1992; Astin, 1982), and has ramifications on the student’s personal,
social, and intellectual development (Griffen, 1992).
Students in science, engineering, and mathematics programs also benefit greatly from research opportuni-
ties. The link between classroom theory and real-world practice has positive implications upon a student’s
retention of knowledge while also making them more marketable upon their graduation. The development
of local business partnerships and encouragement of on-campus research can create excellent opportuni-
ties for students.
Pre-college programs have long been an effective educational practice by post-secondary institutions. The
MESA (California) and MSEN (North Carolina) programs are examples of how pre-college programs can
help build the science pipeline by motivating students toward those areas. Colleges can benefit greatly
from the establishment of these programs.
Bridging programs are an off-shoot of the pre-college program, but are more specific in nature. Colleges
can utilize a student’s senior year, or summer before matriculation, to help develop the learner’s knowl-
edge and ability to meet freshman program requirements. Study skills, time management, and course-
related study are possible content considerations.
The George Washington University Page 112
Figure 10. Academic Services Framework Component
3.1 Academic Advising
3.1.1 Provide academic advising and coun-
seling for students on regular basis.
3.1.2 Provide appropriate training in aca-
3.1.3 Use faculty for the academic advising
students when possible.
3.1.4
actions in a computerized monitoring
system.
3.2 Supplementary Instruction
3.2.1 Encourage the use of peer study groups
to foster learning and incorporate more
labs with classwork.
3.2.2 Incorporate a variety of instructional
methods to support student learning.
3.2.3 Utilize peers as instructional personnel
for supplementary instruction when
possible to assist students.
3.2.4 Offer supplementary courses that focus
on academic support skills (e.g., study
skills, note taking, listening, writing,
reading, time management) and aca-
etc.).
3.2.5 Monitor all supplementary instruction
activities by students and log into the
computerized database.
3.4 Research Opportunities
3.4.1 Support faculty to work with students
3.4.2
curricula.
3.4.3
opportunities.
3.4.4
ticipate on campus through in-class
demonstrations and experiments.
3.6 Bridging Programs
3.6.1 Provide on-campus residency for stu-
dents during bridging programs.
3.6.2 Provide summer academic and social
support for admitted students before the
3.6.3 Monitor all student progress in bridg-
ing programs.
3.3
3.3.1 Provide regularly scheduled and easy access tutoring for students with regard to course
work.
3.3.2
tutors.
3.3.3 Encourage faculty to support the academic needs of students outside of class time.
3.3.4 Encourage peer tutoring and group studying within class population.
3.3.5 Create reward structure for faculty involvement as mentors
3.3.6
as mentors for students.
3.5 Pre-College Programs
3.5.1 Develop pre-college programs at the el-
ementary and secondary education lev-
els.
3.5.2 Monitor student progress in pre-college
programs.
3.5.3 Offer pre-college programs on and off-
campus.
MAJOR OBJECTIVES
1) ACADEMIC ADVISING
Colleges should implement a regular and standard practice of academic advising for students that is
required by each department. The panel noted that the issue of student attitude is an important issue
related to the success of an advising program, and that a pro-active system would require scheduled
meetings to catch problems before they occur. However, as also suggested by the panel, it is
The George Washington University Page 113
ultimately the “substance and organization of the advising” that is most crucial. Therefore, the
organization of the advising as well as the preparation (training) for advising are essential elements for
the institution to assess and revise as necessary.
2) DIVERSITY IN INSTRUCTION
Supplementary instruction programs should utilize a combination of successful instructional techniques
that support learning preferences of the entire student audience. The panel supported related literature
suggesting that a diverse assortment of teaching methods were more effective in reaching students
whose learning preferences are even more diverse (Whimbey et al., 1977; Hyman, 1988).
3) BRIDGING PROGRAMS
Colleges should focus on developing academic bridge programs between senior year in high school
and the freshman year in college. This on-campus intervention programs affords students a number of
potential benefits, including the opportunity to (a) become acclimated to the campus, (b) work through
some of the freshman problems before the fall semester begins, (c) receive academic support in areas
of weakness; and (d) become accustomed to the pace associated with academic learning at the
college level.
4) PRE-COLLEGE PROGRAMS
To help develop the pipeline of students interested in attending college, institutions should place
considerable resources into the development of pre-college programs. These programs, provided at
levels as early as elementary school, help motivate students and get them thinking about the possibility
of college. Clewell, Anderson, and Thorpe (1992), in their study of barriers to women and minorities in
science, stated that the middle school years were particularly decisive points in a adolescent’s life
regarding whether they follow through with science or disregard it as a field of study. Colleges and
universities can help expose students to the excitement of science while also exposing them to college
life. As one panel member stated, “You can not start too soon.”
5) ENCOURAGE INFORMAL FACULTY-STUDENT CONTACT
Colleges should try and promote informal contact between faculty members and students to build trust,
support, and motivation during the college experience. Out-of-class contact with a student can create
a bond and a sense of self-worth that can positively effect a student’s locus of control and impact
future decisions regarding college attendance and major. Extra assistance on projects, informal
discussions regarding academic subjects, and special social gatherings can encourage this type of
interaction.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS
• FACULTY TRAINING
Appropriate steps must be made to ensure that faculty and other advisors are prepared to advise
students in an appropriate fashion. Training and professional development must be institutionalized to
ensure that faculty practice is held at an accepted standard and can evolve with changes in faculty,
student population, and societal needs as a whole. Additionally, policies should be developed to identify
faculty members who would be excellent advisors and eliminate those faculty who would not excel in
that capacity.
• REWARD STRUCTURES
The panel was quick to note that new reward structures would have to be developed and implemented
in order to encourage faculty to become involved in advising, tutoring, and mentoring activities.
The George Washington University Page 114
Although some faculty will do this automatically, time commitments often prohibit faculty members
from this type of involvement. Therefore, many issues must be considered to develop supportive policy
related to the issue of faculty rewards structure, including the redefinition of faculty roles on campus
and a discussion of an incentive system and its relationship with current tenure contracts.
• STUDENT MONITORING
The monitoring of advisements and student growth in supplementary programs (of all types) is an
important part of developing an accurate picture of who a student is. The collection of data in all areas
of this component must be taken into consideration when developing a campus-wide data collection
system. Institutions must conduct feasibility studies regarding the cost benefit and appropriateness of
new systems designed to monitor student achievement. Equally important is to acknowledge and deal
with a faculty culture which is renown for its inability and indifference in tracking and monitoring
student progress.
• DEVELOPMENT OF LINKAGES
The continued process of curriculum development and instructional practice must be articulated in the
design of supplementary programming. Alternative programming, such as supplementary instruction
and bridging, should be seen as vehicles for curriculum and instructional revision. Programs such as
Deanna Martin’s Supplementary Instruction or Treisman’s Emerging Scholars Program are two
exemplary examples where direct linkages are developed between the supplementary or alternative
program and the academic course work, to the extent that course instructors are often involved in the
creation of the supplementary program. This link ensures a direct correlation between lecture and
practice.
• ON-CAMPUS PROGRAMMING OF PRE-COLLEGE ACTIVITIES/COURSES
An emphasis should be placed on offering pre-college programs on-campus whenever possible.
Although this presents particular logistical problems to an institution (and school system, in many
cases), such as transportation, housing (for summer and weekend programs), and food, the use of on-
campus programming has positive spin-offs far beyond the academic development that students
experience. Programs such as MESA in California and MSEN in North Carolina have shown
tremendous motivation and social development in their students. This anticipatory development of
young students set in motion the desire and motivation to attend college after high school.
• LINKAGES WITH PRIVATE/PUBLIC SECTOR
The college must work diligently to develop appropriate links with local business and industry that will
in turn provide opportunities for students to experience research opportunities related to their in-class
learning. Faculty and administrators must receive the proper motivation and reward to develop these
relationships, as they can initially take considerable time to generate and organize. Institutions need to
reach out to the community, while businesses should be encouraged to take a stake in the education of
college students at the local or national scale.
COMPONENT FOUR: CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION
DESCRIPTION
The continued development of curricula and pedagogical practice is perhaps the most important and fun-
damental need that colleges must address in terms of student retention (See Figure 11). The need to revise
The George Washington University Page 115
current practices, especially in gatekeeper courses, stems from what Tobias (1990) acknowledges as the
practice of designing courses that are “unapologetically competitive, selective and intimidating, [and] de-
signed to winnow out all but the ‘top tier’ ” (p. 9). To combat some of these issues, the curriculum and
instruction component has been divided into four categories: curriculum review and revision, instruction
strategies, assessment strategies, and faculty development and resources.
Of primary importance to academic departments should be the continuous process of curriculum review
and revision. This process should, in fact, become a mainstream part of curriculum development. Espe-
cially in terms of science, engineering, and mathematics, academic content must reflect the current dy-
namics of practice in the work place to be worthwhile and effective. Therefore, to prepare students for
employment within SEM fields in the near future, it follows that SEM curricula must not only relate to cur-
rent industry trends and practices, but also anticipate future practices and procedures (e.g., cutting edge
technology/research). Equally stated, colleges must attempt to gain access to new equipment and provide
instruction that utilizes state-of-the-art instructional technologies to ensure that materials are presented in a
fashion that is commensurate with student learning preferences. The communication age has radically al-
tered traditional learning and teaching styles, especially for students currently in elementary and secondary
classrooms. Computers are second nature to new students matriculating to college or attending pre-college
programs. Within a few years, virtual reality, a technology embodied as the ultimate in applied scientific
and medical training, will also be second nature to undergraduates. Thus, colleges must allocate resources
to the development of new teaching strategies which incorporate the latest in educational and industrial
technology. Without these considerations, students may find that their knowledge is antiquated with the
needs of society upon their graduation, when they should be on the cutting edge.
With the revision of curricular and instructional approaches also comes the need for a revision of assess-
ment practices on campus. If new curricular practices are focusing on a higher level of knowledge and
understanding on the part of the learner, assessment practices must be able to assess this higher learning.
Thus, traditional methods of student evaluation are not appropriate to meet the needs of emerging teaching
practice. The incorporation of instruments which: a) measure student comprehension rather than memori-
zation; and b) use of a variety of assessment methods, including short answer, essay questions, and obser-
vation, may offer a more accurate picture of student development and comprehension.
The instructional capacity of faculty to deliver materials in an exciting, interesting, and motivating manner
is also essential to the quality of education delivered by an institution. The use of diverse strategies by
teaching faculty should be representative of institutional practice. Research has shown that student pro-
gress benefits from the use of smaller classes and group practice. The hands-on and group collaborative
approach made popular by the Emerging Scholars Program at Berkeley (Fullilove and Treisman, 1990) has
shown that students, with specific reference to African Americans, are more inclined to produce academi-
cally at higher levels than students not involved in these programs. In effect, instructors must begin to em-
ploy practices more popularly related to K-12 education in order to reach students effectively.
Finally, if the three previous areas covered in this component are to become practice, faculty must receive
appropriate training and support. Faculty development activities, with specific reference to teaching and
assessment strategies, must become standard practice at colleges. Additionally, faculty should be re-
warded and given opportunities to develop new techniques that may benefit other educators.
The George Washington University Page 116
MAJOR OBJECTIVES
1) INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
Colleges should attempt to utilize various methods of delivering content to students, focusing on
comprehension rather than rote memorization. The use of hands-on, exploratory, and peer learning
groups are a few methods of motivating students to learn. An important comment from the panel
suggested that a good balance between several methods is the optimum in style, allowing students to
learn through a variety of ways rather than traditional rote memorization.
Figure 11. Curriculum and Instruction Framework Component
4.1 Curriculum Review & Revision
4.1.1 Develop an ongoing review process of
curricula utilizing faculty input and out-
side consultation.
4.1.2 Design curricula with interdisciplinary
and real-world emphasis to stimulate in-
terest and deeper understanding on be-
half of the students.
4.1.3 Design curricula with knowledge of
and other technological innovations for
instruction.
4.3 Assessment Strategies
4.3.1 Develop assessment instruments that
require students to utilize higher order
thinking skills.
4.3.2 Conduct extensive student testing and
assessment on a regular basis to moni-
tor student progress.
4.3.3 Utilize a variety of assessment tech-
niques to encourage a diverse assess-
ment strategy that allows for differences
cil, observation, homework, lab work,
portfolio development, etc.).
4.3.4 Develop computer monitoring capabil-
ity for instant trend analysis for student
growth and development in terms of stu-
dent assessment.
4.2 Instructional Strategies
4.2.1 Incorporate interactive, relevant, hands-
on, exploratory instructional practices,
group strategies to maximize learning
and motivate students.
4.2.2 Provide homework, out-of-class assign-
ments, and in-class assignments for stu-
dents.
4.2.3 Utilize educational technologies to
complement instruction.
4.4 Faculty Development/Resources
4.4.1 Provide appropriate instructional train-
4.4.2 Develop an appropriate faculty reward
system
4.4.3 Develop a center for teaching excel-
lence to support teacher development
4.4.4 Make available and identify grant op-
2) CURRICULA REVIEW
Colleges should develop an integrated process of curriculum review to ensure that all curriculum
pieces are up-to-date and relevant to the society’s needs. At many universities, individual faculty
members are left in isolation to decide what to include in a course syllabus, leaving much to be desired
in terms of “quality control.” This is a greater issue considering that most faculty have little or no
background in learning theory or educational practice. Therefore, a systemic and cyclical review
process that allows for faculty to review all curricula on a rotating basis would help control the content
delivered in classes. Additionally, it also serves to keep curricula current.
The George Washington University Page 117
3) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Colleges need to provide extensive and ongoing professional development to faculty and staff to
incorporate new teaching strategies and assessment techniques. With regard to the discussion of
curriculum revision and assessment, faculty cannot be expected to teach specific, if not more standard,
courses without opportunities to share and learn from others with different experience. The panel was
extremely supportive of the substantial literature regarding professional development, and one panelist
in particular suggested that the absence of professional development activities would restrict any new
initiatives from taking hold. If colleges and universities are serious about teaching as a focus of their
mission, then it is incumbent upon them to provide support for their instructional staff.
4) FACULTY REWARD STRUCTURE
The development of a faculty reward structure as a specific objective was an addition to the
framework by the panel. Throughout the study, panelists discussed the importance of building in
rewards for faculty to motivate them to change. Apart from the development of a cohesive policy
statement regarding reward structures, the administration must actively participate in revision of the
institutional mission, and ultimately the reward structure, to generate long-term support from the staff.
Faculty and staff need to see that their efforts are rewarded and taken seriously by administration.
5) ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
Campuses should design and implement new assessment techniques which are multi-faceted and
regard the integrity of human learning and understanding. Teaching and learning practices that require
students to evaluate, synthesize, analyze, and create, among others, also require new methods of
assessing student progress (Ryan & Kuhs, 1993; Bird, 1990). Although the literature suggests that
these practices are important, the panel questioned the capability and the readiness of the faculty to
become this deeply involved. As one panelist asked, how is a college that has not taken teaching
seriously going to take to higher level assessment practices? With this in mind, it is evident that
colleges currently struggling with similar issues must work to develop a foundation upon which further
reform can take place. The faculty must be swayed to the new ways, and this requires support in
terms of training, leadership, rewards, and the freedom to make mistakes.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS
• REWARD AND RISK
Faculty members may require a reward structure emphasizing the importance of curriculum revision
and instructional reform to motivation them to alter current teaching practices. For faculty members to
accept this shift in practice respectfully, they will need to see that the administration takes reform
seriously, which can be measured by what administrators actually say and do. Additionally, faculty
members will have to be assured that they are safe to take risks in new development and practice, and
that failure in trying does not affect tenure or other rewards.
• INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY
Faculty members will need to have access to the latest in instructional technologies in order to fully
take advantage of new methods of teaching and learning. Therefore, colleges must budget
considerable capital investments for lab and classroom instructional equipment. For SEM areas, this
can be more specialized than in other departments. Currently, some colleges are implementing
broadband cable into their buildings to support real-time video support for classroom instruction as well
as distance-learning equipment.
The George Washington University Page 118
• TIME ON TASK
The development and practice of the new teaching strategies discussed herein require a considerable
time investment by faculty members and other instructional staff. The use of multiple methods of
assessment, especially those which are more appropriate for measuring comprehension, require more
time on task by instructors. Colleges that require faculty to teach more than three courses per
semester will have a difficult time taking on these new responsibilities. While colleges may stretch the
budget in the short term by exercising its option to have large teaching loads, the 3,800 post-secondary
institutions across the country are in keen competition for a shrinking student population, therefore
suggesting that supply and demand will require institutions to provide outstanding service to its
clientele—the student.
• STUDENT/PROGRAM MONITORING
Colleges must develop intricate monitoring systems to explore the progress of institutional practices
and programs and student growth. Institutions of higher education, of all types of institutions, should be
expected to utilize exemplary practices of program and student monitoring. To adequately assess how
a program is faring, or how students are progressing in their studies, an effective system of monitoring
is required to collect data that in turn can be quickly analyzed and distributed to individuals responsible
or affected by the data. This not only requires hardware and software, but also personnel to plan and
employ the research. Also required is policy regarding the use of the data. The collection of data for
data purposes is a waste of institutional resources. Institutions must plan how they can use the data
before any action is taken.
COMPONENT FIVE: STUDENT SERVICES
DESCRIPTION
As Tinto (1993) and others have suggested, the “social integration” of students with the institution is an
important factor in their ability to persist. The role of the student services department has evolved with this
theory to attempt to deal with many of the issues facing students on campus. The atmosphere and climate
of a university, reflected by how the institution treats and supports students and by the positive nature of
peer relations on campus, is important to the self-esteem and confidence a student generates about him or
herself. Neisler (1992) concluded that personal, emotional, and family problems, in addition to feelings of
isolation and adjustment to college life, are strong barriers to retention for African American students.
Therefore, the campus must focus on developing an atmosphere that is supportive, safe, and pluralistic.
The outcomes of this study found that campus climate, accessibility to campus, campus housing, and ca-
reer and personal counseling are areas that should be considered in terms of their effect on student reten-
tion.
Campus climate is not some intangible, abstract concept that ‘just happens.’ More accurately stated, cam-
pus climate is the development of the beliefs and practices of the administration, faculty, staff, and stu-
dents belonging to that institution. Therefore, it can be created, and to some degree, controlled. To develop
a positive campus climate supportive of learning and human development, campuses should promote diver-
sity on campus and extol the virtues of shared culture (Justiz, 1994). This practice allows colleges and uni-
versities to better reflect the changes in society and promote pluralism. Ensuring safety for students and
providing social opportunities for students to forge new friendships and build trust with their fellow class-
mates are examples. The existence of student groups and organizations can also support a positive climate
by integrating students into the campus environment.
The George Washington University Page 119
Accessibility to campus is also an important concept for institutions to consider. Administrators must con-
sider the use of flexible scheduling practices to allow students with different schedules to be able to enroll
in classes that they need for graduation. The use of weekends and evenings are alternative methods for
class scheduling, and offering classes in subsequent semesters rather than flip-flopping semesters can
make the path to graduation much more palatable to students. An additional consideration is the linkage of
public transportation systems to campus. Students who have difficult times accessing the campus are less
likely to persist. However, the utilization of distance learning technologies can also help alleviate these
problems.
On-campus housing is an important element directly related to student persistence due to the integration of
the student to the campus (Pascarella, 1984; Chickering, 1974; Astin, 1977; Pantages and Creedon, 1978).
However, colleges must ensure that housing is accessible and affordable for the student population, and
offer choices in terms of type of housing. Additionally, campuses should also consider the changing demo-
graphics of college students. Native Americans, for example, are well known for the advanced age of
their college students (unofficial reports of 28-years of age). This trend in the advancing age of the student
population suggests that institutions must start thinking in terms of average student age on campus and add
housing for spouses and children.
Finally, counseling services are also related to student retention. Studies of the effects of counseling and
at-risk students (Steinmiller & Steinmiller, 1991), African Americans (Trippi and Cheatham, 1989), and
first-generation students (Richardson and Skinner, 1992; Padron, 1992; Justiz, 1994), confirm that counsel-
ing services are important components of student retention programs. Colleges need to deal with the added
stress and burden that today’s students bring with them to campus. Counseling services should provide
support for students in terms of social needs and career counseling. In providing these services, colleges
must make the services accessible to the student population and provide alternative methods of counseling
to suit particular needs of the population.
The George Washington University Page 120
Figure 12. Student Services Framework Component
5.1 Campus Climate
5.1.1 Provide and support a pluralistic envi-
ronment for students by promoting di-
versity and multiculturalism through
ricula.
5.1.2 Provide a safe campus environment for
5.1.3 Provide non-classroom opportunities for
faculty-student interaction.
5.1.4 Provide social opportunities for students
ricular activities, special events, and aca-
demic-related social events.
5.1.5
nizations on campus.
5.2
5.2.1 Offer classes in a variety of timeslots to
permit flexible scheduling by students.
5.2.2 Ensure transportation link with local area
metro system for increased access to
campus.
5.2.3 Offer classes on weekends and special
Friday-Saturday combinations.
5.2.4 Offer classes in concurrent semesters to
allow for student flexibility in schedul-
ing.
5.2.5 Utilize distance learning technologies to
allow for a broader audience and sup-
port those students who cannot attend
on -campus classes.
5.3 Housing
5.3.1 Ensure affordable housing and meal
plans.
5.3.2 Encourage on-campus housing for stu-
dents.
5.3.3 Provide an appropriate number of hous-
ing slots to meet the needs of the stu-
5.3.4 Develop housing patterns that may in-
corporate choice of major or other de-
mographic issues.
5.4 Counseling
5.4.1 Provide psychological and social coun-
seling to students to support added
5.4.2 Provide career counseling to ensure that
students, in accordance with academic
advising, are following the proper path
to reach their goal.
5.4.3 Provide counseling services that are cog-
nizant of the cultural and racial issues
facing students.
5.4.4 Develop and disseminate appropriate
publications, brochures, and mailings
that inform students of issues and pro-
grams.
5.4.5 Offer a variety of counseling opportuni-
ties and techniques, including indi-
ing sessions.
MAJOR OBJECTIVES
1) DIVERSITY AND MULTICULTURALISM
Colleges can build a pluralistic environment by promoting diversity and multiculturalism through special
programming and activities. Studies by Astin (1993) and Justiz (1994) found that campuses that
embraced diversity and multiculturalism had student populations and cultures that were very positive,
capable of change, and had high levels of academic quality. Although the panel was extremely
supportive of this objective, they were also cautious, noting that the experience must be real and not
just exist by name. As one panelist stated, “almost all campuses say they do the above,” but few act
upon such need.
The George Washington University Page 121
2) FLEXIBLE SCHEDULING
Allowing the scheduling of classes in a variety of timeslots allows a broader constituency of students
to attend classes. Many universities have fixed schedules which allow for little flexibility in course
selection, mostly because of budget reasons. However, there are instances when this occurs due to
the inflexibility of faculty to try different schedules. Adding Saturday courses, or moving courses
around the schedule, may allow students to enroll in more of the classes they need during a semester
rather than wait for a rotation where they have no conflict.
3) CAREER COUNSELING
Colleges must ensure that students are sent on an academic track that will direct them toward their
career destination. Occasionally, students are advised to take certain courses that in reality are poor
choices and may extend their attendance. Career and academic counselors need to be well-versed in
the requirements, schedules, and policies regarding graduation as well as a keen knowledge of what
business and industry are looking for. This can only be done through a expansive knowledge of the
student by qualified counselors.
4) FACULTY-STUDENT INTERACTION
Informal contact between faculty members and students are part of a rich atmosphere of sharing and
caring at college campuses. Students feel much more relaxed and cared for when faculty are
committed to their success. The sister version of this objective was presented under the academic
services component. As stated previously, the social integration of students is paramount to student
persistence, enjoyment, and achievement in college. The willingness and acceptance of staff to “rub
shoulders” with students beyond the confines of the classroom can have long-lasting effects.
5) ROOM AND BOARD
Affordability and comfortability are important considerations for students in terms of housing and
meals. Campuses should look at numerous plans which allow students to choose the type of housing
which best meets their financial ability and living requirements. This affects the mature student with
family, the economically disadvantaged student, and the student living far from home.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS
• SAFETY
A safe campus must be supported by a fully-funded police/security department. Problems associated
with gang violence, data rape, and other issues that plague many campuses must be alleviated if
campuses are to enjoy a trusting, comfortable campus that supports academic and social growth.
Programs and initiatives such as door-to-door escort services for students and emergency
alarms/phones are practices that many campuses are implementing to assist with the fight against
campus crime.
• STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS
Colleges must be supportive of student clubs, organizations, and government to develop an inclusive
student population who are empowered to effect the climate of their campus. However, while the
literature suggested that clubs based on race or major had a positive effect on campus, the panel
suggested the opposite—that clubs “integrate and not segregate.” This suggests that the campus must
decide what works best for them. As with many of the objectives within this framework, perhaps
balance is the best advice—allow a little of everything to support diversity, freedom, and choice.
The George Washington University Page 122
• COURSE SCHEDULING
Campuses must carefully coordinate the retooling of class schedules to meet the needs of a diverse
student population. While adding classes or moving them around the schedule may be beneficial to
students, it may have ramifications in terms of departmental budgeting and faculty hiring. Departments
should conduct an assessment of current scheduling and attendance practices in relation to student
preferences to determine what changes should be made. If new patterns of course scheduling are
implemented, issues related to faculty schedules may have to be discussed and amendments made.
• DISTANCE LEARNING
Campuses new to distance learning practice must develop policies that prescribe standards for the
conduct of such classes in terms of attendance, student involvement, course work, and assessment.
The distance learning campus is a new and evolving practice that is beginning to change how post-
secondary institutions serve their clientele. This new method does not allow for traditional methods of
class involvement or assessment. However, distance learning is opening up new opportunities in these
areas, including the use of the Internet for conferencing and research. Regardless, institutions must
apply new policies to deal with these issues.
• HOUSING
Colleges must focus on developing acceptable housing for students on campus. Housing must be
conducted such that it is affordable to students but also does not draw from the university budget. On-
campus housing should be a self-sufficient component of campus service, if not money making.
Administrators must begin to think of campus housing not just as rooms for students, but as living units
where students spend a considerable amount of time. For many freshman students, this is their first
foray away from home, so the concept of “home” and “comfort” is very important. This is an
important consideration for housing managers to instill into their daily operations.
• COUNSELING
The Generation X population, with conceivably more pressure and less future than previous
generations, brings to college lower levels of self-esteem, locus of control, and academic preparedness
in many cases. To meet the need of future student populations, institutions will require a significant
increase in counseling staff. This again has implications regarding budgeting and staffing.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS
The framework just presented is, in effect, a set of conclusions and recommendations based upon the
study findings. The framework offers institutions an effective set of options to consider during program
development. However, the following additional conclusions draw upon issues that were found to be global
needs in terms of student retention.
• The development and implementation of a campus-wide student retention program is a complex
issue requiring the involvement of the entire campus. Although departments may conduct their
own programs, it is not until the entire campus directs a unified effort at reducing attrition that
large-scale changes can be seen. To do this, the program must have leadership and support from
the President’s or Provost’s office, involve the entire campus in shaping program operations, and
keep ideology focused on the student.
The George Washington University Page 123
• The role of faculty and the issue of reward structures must be reconsidered to meet the needs of
the student. Current reward systems at a majority of institutions are structured in a way that
deters faculty from focusing on teaching or from the student. Most universities have three implicit
and explicit focuses for faculty in which their tenure is often determined. These include the ability
of faculty to: 1) publish articles; 2) attract grant money; and 3) provide community service. None
of these three areas discuss either teaching practice or the student, illustrating the most apparent
problem facing colleges and universities today. It is not that faculty are not interested in working to
help students achieve and persist, but the pressure to produce in other non-academic areas
restricts involvement. If faculty are to turn more of their attention to student needs and teaching as
a whole, the institution must incorporate these actions into the tenure structure. Antithetically
speaking, the absence of these details in tenure contracts and reward structures sends an
immediate and explicit message to faculty that teaching is not highly regarded during the
consideration of tenure.
• The nature of a student retention program must be specific to the nature of the campus itself.
Retention programs that work well on one campus will not necessarily work well on another
campus. The student body, faculty, and staff bring different aspects to the campus that make it
unique and special. Additionally, the mission of the campus and the environment and culture of the
institution are also unique, suggesting that retention programs, although able to borrow from
programs, must retool them to meet specific campus needs.
• Institutional research should become a standard part of campus operation that supports the
improvement of teaching and learning on campus. Currently, many institutional research
departments are small departments that provide only global explanations of how the campus
operates, with little of this data filtering back to the practitioners. In reality, teaching faculty and
administrators should embody the practice of research to ensure that programs are fulfilling the
desired need. Institutional research departments, in response, must be organized and managed in a
way that provides practitioners with the kind of data that can support campus improvement. This
suggests that communication between institutional researchers and practitioners must be
progressive and focused on the needs of the student population and campus.
• The college or university must strive to institutionalize the new practices and programs by way of
policy initiatives. By entrenching the program into college policy, it ensures the continued operation
of programs and requires line-item budgeting that is not as susceptible to variations in soft-money
(i.e., grants, gifts) allocations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The framework and information contained within this study form a set of prescriptive actions that can be
utilized as an effective guide for organizing and developing a student retention program. The framework
has been organized to fit the organizational patterns of most four-year institutions and has taken into con-
sideration many of the practices that have been found to positively affect student persistence. The primary
recommendation of this study is for institutions seriously interested in the pursuit of higher student persis-
tence at their college to utilize the framework presented in this study as a working guide during the plan-
ning stages of program development. The benchmarks identified at the beginning of this chapter can help
institutions focus on specific needs and requirements during the entire process. Because the development
of a campus-wide program is an immense task, the components and objectives laid out in the retention
The George Washington University Page 124
framework can assist by illustrating specific target areas to focus on, especially during the early stages of
planning. Once practitioners in related areas or departments are brought into the planning and development
cycle, they can request considerations or ideas that more appropriately reflect campus needs.
In recommending this framework as a guide for program development, it is especially important to remind
users that the use of the framework as anything more than a set of possible guides or considerations may
be deconstructive to their mission. Just like a hiker or hunter may use a compass to help direct them
through a deep brush or forest, program planners can use the guide only as an instrument to provide direc-
tion. This instrument cannot be expected to tell planners what to do or how to do it, but it can provide them
with the foundation from which the program can be forged.
In keeping these issues in mind, the key to any retention programming on campus is the use of on-campus
research to identify the specific needs of the campus. As stated in the program benchmarks, an institution
cannot expect to replicate programs and expect the same success that other institutions have. The nature
and culture of the campus which makes it unique must be woven into the fabric of every program. All ac-
tions on campus should be considerate of the needs of the students, faculty, and staff, and focused on the
constant redevelopment and enhancement of campus life and academic learning.
Therefore, this framework can provide the first steps for program development. The remainder of the mis-
sion must be taken by the individuals on campus who understand the complexities of their institution.
The George Washington University Page 125
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Three recommendations in particular have been identified regarding further study based upon the findings
of this research study.
• The framework developed and presented in this study should be applied at an institution and
assessed to its validity and usefulness in the planning stage of program development. Findings
from these studies could be used to refine the framework to closer meet the needs of institutions.
• A guidebook should be written describing in detail the issues related to the components and
objectives described in the framework. Other than a very few publications which explain some of
the dynamics of student leaving and retention, it would be useful to provide a document which
describes more fully the details regarding the components and objectives presented in the
framework. This guidebook could be used in tandem with the framework.
• Because the organizational and management approaches of a campus are such an important part
of campus change, an important area for researchers to investigate is the identification of
management structures and strategies that can address the needs of this type of program
implementation. Although this study originally planned to address this issue in more detail, it
became apparent early on that an independent, full-scale study regarding management and
structure was required.
The George Washington University Page 126
REFERENCES
Association of American Medical Colleges (1992). Project 3000 by 2000. Technical Assistance Manual: Guidelines for Action. Wash-
ington, DC: AAMC.
American Association of State Colleges and Universities (1994). AASCU/Sallie Mae National Retention Project: 1993 Survey Results.
Washington, D.C.: AASCU.
Anderson, Edward (1985). Forces Influencing Student Persistence and Achievement. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates (Eds.)
Increasing Student Retention (pp. 44-61). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Armstrong-West, S., and de la Teja, M. (1988). Social and Psychological Factors Affecting the Retention of Minority Students. In
Terrell and Wright (Eds.) From Survival to Success: Promoting Minority Student Retention. Monograph Series Volume 9.
Washington, D.C.: NASPA.
Astin, A. (1994). Educational Equity and the Problem of Assessment. In Justiz, Wilson, and Björk (Eds.) Minorities in Higher Educa-
tion (pp. 44-63). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press and ACE.
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing Students from Dropping Out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Astin, Alexander W. (1977). Four Critical Years. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Astin, Alexander W. (1982). Minorities in American Higher Education. Recent Trends, Current Prospects, and Recommendations. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Astin, Alexander W. (1993, March/April). Diversity and Multiculturalism on the Campus: How Are Students Affected? Change.
Bagayoko, Diola, and Kelley, Ella (1994, Fall). The Dynamics of Student Retention: A Review and a Prescription. Education, 115 (1).
Bandalos, D.L., and Sedlacek, W.E. (1985). A Profile of Incoming Freshmen at the University of Maryland, College Park (Research
Report No. 8-86).
Beal, Philip E., and Noel, Lee (1980). What Works in Student Retention. American College Testing Program.
Bean, J.P. (1982). Student Attrition, Intentions, and Confidence. Research in Higher Education, 17, 291-320.
Beane, D.B. (1985). Mathematics and Science: Critical Filters for the Future of Minority Students. Washington, DC: Mid-Atlantic
Center for Race Equity.
Bean, John P. (1986, March). Assessing and Reducing Attrition. New Directions for Higher Education, 14(1), 47-61.
Berg, J. H., and Peplau, L. A. (1982). Loneliness: The Relationship of Self-Disclosure and Androgyny. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 8, 524-630.
Berryman, Sue E. (1983, November). Who Will Do Science? Minority and Female Attainment of Science and Mathematics Degrees:
Trends and Causes. Paper presented for the Rockefeller Foundation.
Billson, J.M., and Terry, M.B. (1982, Fall). In Search of the Silken Purse: Factors in Attrition Among First-Generation Students. Col-
lege and University, 58, 57-75.
Bird, Tom (1990). The School Teacher’s Portfolio: An Essay on Possibilities. In Millman and Darling-Hammond (Eds.) The New
Handbook of Teacher Evaluation (pp. 241-256). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Birmingham, D. (1995, April 12). A personal interview with Donald Birmingham of Project Power at the University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, MN.
Blackwell, James E. (1992). Suggested Research on the Future of Minorities in Graduate Education. In Jones, Goerts and Kuh (Ed.),
Minorities in Graduate Education: Pipeline, Policy and Practice (pp. 122-129). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Boone, Young and Associates (1984). Minority Enrollment in Graduate and Professional Schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Braddock II, J. H. (1992). Plugging the Dikes and Filling the Pool: Issues and Strategies for Increasing the Participation of Tradition-
ally Underrepresented Student Subgroups in Graduate Education. In Jones, Goerts and Kuh (Eds.) Minorities in Graduate Educa-
tion: Pipeline, Policy and Practice. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Burrell, Leon F., and Trombley, Toni B. (1983). Academic Advising with Minority Students on Predominantly White Campuses. Jour-
nal of College Student Personnel, 24, 121-126.
Cabrera, Alberto F., Nora, Amaury, & Castaneda, Maria B. (1993). College Persistence: Structural Equations Modeling Test of an Inte-
grated Model of Student Retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 124-139.
Capella, B., Hetzler, J., and MacKenzie, C. (1983, Winter). The Effects of Positive Peer Influence on Study Habits. Reading Improve-
ments, 20(4), 229-302.
Carmichael, J. W., Jr.; Sevenair, John P. (1991). Preparing Minorities for Science Careers. Issues in Science and Technology, 7(3), 55-
60.
Carter, G.F. (1989). Financial Aid and Tuition: Factors Contributing to the Decline of Black Student Enrollment in Higher Education.
In Niba & Norman’s (Eds.) Recruitment and Retention of Black Students in Higher Education (pp. 89-129). Lanham, MD:
NAFEO Research Institute and University Press of America, Inc.
Chaffee, E. E., and Sherr, L. A. (1992). Transforming Postsecondary Education. Washington, DC: Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Chickering, A.W. (1974). Commuting Versus Resident Students: Overcoming the Educational Inequities of Living Off Campus. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Clewell, B., and Ficklen, M. (1986). Improving Minority Retention in Higher Education: A Search for Effective Institutional Practices.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
The George Washington University Page 127
Clewell, Beatriz Chu, Anderson, Bernice T., and Thorpe, Margaret E. (1992). Breaking the Barriers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Inc.
Collison, M. (1988, July 6). Complex Application Form Discourages Many Students From Applying for Federal Financial Aid. Chroni-
cle of Higher Education, A19, A30.
Colorado Commission on Higher Education (1990). Case Study for Ford/SHEEO Project on System-wide Database and Institutional
Support for Minority Student Achievement. Colorado: Colorado Commission on Higher Education.
Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology (1994). Professional Women and Minorities. Washington, DC: CPST.
Commission on the Higher Education of Minorities (1977). Final Report of the Commission on the Higher Education of Minorities.
Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute, Inc.
Cooper, N.L., Williams, S.Y., and Burnett, P.A. (1992). Headway: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Retain Black Students in an Os-
teopathic Medical School. In Lang and Ford’s (Eds.) Strategies for Retaining Minority Students in Higher Education (pp. 108-
121). Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, Publisher.
Cope, R., and Hannah, W. (1975). Revolving College Doors: The Causes and Consequences of Dropping Out, Stopping Out, and Trans-
ferring. New York, NY: Wiley.
Copeland, Elaine J. (1984). Trends in Black Participation in Graduate Education: Barriers to Access, Possible Alternatives (Paper pre-
sented at the second National Conference on Issues Facing Black Administrators at Predominantly White Colleges and Univer-
sities. Cambridge, MA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Cota-Robles, Eugene H. (1992). Institutional Policy and Practice in Doctoral Graduate Student Affirmative Action. In Jones, Goerts
and Kuh (Eds.) Minorities in Graduate Education: Pipeline, Policy and Practice (pp. 103-107). Princeton, NJ: Educational
Testing Service.
Council of Graduate Schools in the U.S. (1984). Committee on Minority Graduate Education. Survey of Minority Graduate Education.
Columbus, OH: Ohio State Universities.
Cross, Patricia H., and Astin, Helen S. (1981). Factors Affecting Black students’ Persistence in College. In Thomas (Ed.) Black St u-
dents in Higher Education. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Culotta, Elizabeth. (1992, November 13). Minorities in Science, The Pipeline Problem. Black Colleges Cultivate Scientists. Science,
1216-1218.
Dreisbach, Melanie et al. (1982). Testwiseness as a Factor in Readiness Test Performance of Young Mexican-American Children. Jour-
nal of Educational Psychology, 74(2), 224-229.
Eckland, B., and Henderson, L. (1981). College Attainment Four Years After High School. Washington, D.C.: National Center for
Educational Statistics.
Edmonds, M., and McCurdy, D. (1988). Academic Integration: Tools for Minority Retention. In Terrell and Wright (Eds.) From Sur-
vival to Success: Promoting Minority Student Retention. Monograph Series Volume 9. Washington, D.C.: NASPA.
Elam, Julia C. (Ed.) (1989). Blacks in Higher Education: Overcoming the Odds. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Endo, J., and Harpel, R. (1982). The Effects of Student-Faculty Interaction on Students’ Educational Outcomes. Research in Higher
Education, 16, 115-135.
Epps, A. C. (1979). Summer Programs for Undergraduates in a Professional Medical Educational Environment. In Medical Education:
Responses to a Challenge. Mount Kisco, NY: Futura Publishing Company, Inc.
Fennema, E., and Sherman, J. (1976, February). Sex-Related Differences in Mathematics Learning: Myths, Realities, and Related Fac-
tors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston.
Fidler, Paul P., & Godwin, Margi A. (1994, Spring). Retaining African-American Students through the Freshman Seminar. Journal of
Developmental Education, 17(3), 34-40.
Flannery, J., and others (1973). Final Report from the Ad Hoc Committee to Study Attrition at Miami-Dade Community College,
North Campus. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 085052).
Forrest, A. (1982). Increasing Student Competence and Persistence: The Best Case for General Education. Iowa City, IA: American
College Testing Program National Center for Advancement of Educational Practices.
Franklin, J. (1988). The Desperate Need for Black Teachers. The Educational Digest, 53(7), 14-15.
Franklin, J. H. (1993). The Inclusive University. Washington, DC: Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies Press.
Fullilove, Robert E., and Treisman, Philip U. (1990). Mathematics Achievement Among African American Undergraduates at the
University of California, Berkeley: An Evaluation of the Mathematics Workshop Program. Journal of Negro Education, 59(3),
463-478.
Gahan-Rech, J., Stephens, L., and Buchalter, B. (1989). The Effects of Tutoring on College Students’ Mathematical Achievement in a
Mathematics Laboratory. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 22(2), 18-21.
Gates, Rebecca T. (1989). Project Far: A Blueprint for College Student Retention. In Niba, Johnson N. and Regina Norman (Eds.),
Recruitment and Retention of Black Students in Higher Education. National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Edu-
cation, Research Institute.
Gibbs, J.T. (1975). Use of Mental Health Services by Black Students at a Predominantly White University: A Three Year Study.
American Journal of Ortho Psychiatry, 45, 430-445.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Public Law 103-227, 103rd Congress (1994).
Griffen, Oris T. (1992). The Impacts of Academic and Social Integration for Black Students in Higher Education. In Lang and Ford’s
(Eds.) Strategies for Retaining Minority Students in Higher Education (pp. 25-44). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publish-
ers.
Habley, W. R. (1981). Academic Advising: The Critical Link in Student Retention. NASPA Journal, 18(4), 45-50.
The George Washington University Page 128
Halpern, Diane et al. (1992). A Cognitive Approach to Improving Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics. Chapter in
Halpern, Diane (Ed.) Enhancing Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum As-
sociates.
Hamlen, B. (1992). The Fenway Retention Consortium Model: Progress to Date and Lessons Learned. In Lang and Ford’s (Eds.)
Strategies for Retaining Minority Students in Higher Education (pp. 77-84). Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, Publisher.
Hanau, Laia (1979). Improving Your Study/Learning Skills. Medical Education: Responses to a Challenge. Mount Kisco, New York:
Futura Publishing Company, Inc.
Hauptman, A. and Smith, P. (1994). Financial Aid Strategies for Improving Minority Student Participation in Higher Education. In
Justiz, Wilson, and Björk (Eds.) Minorities in Higher Education (pp. 78-106). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press and ACE.
Humphreys, Sheila M. (1980). Women and Minorities in Science: Strategies for Increasing Participation. Papers Presented at the An-
nual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, January 1980, San Francisco, CA.
Hyman, A.K. (1988). Group Work as a Teaching Strategy in Black Student Retention in Higher Education. In Lang & Ford’s (Eds.)
Black Student Retention in Higher Education (pp. 71-82). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Ihlanfeldt, W. (1985). Admissions. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates (Eds.) Increasing Student Retention (pp. 183-202). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Johnson, S.O. (1988). Recruiting and Retaining Black Students: A Plan That Works. In Lang & Ford’s (Eds.) Black Student Retention
in Higher Education. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Jones, J.C., and Harris, L., and Hauck, W.E. (1975). Differences in Perceived Sources of Academic Difficulties: Black Students in Pre-
dominantly Black and Predominantly White Colleges. Journal of Negro Education, 44, 519-529.
Justiz, Manuel (1994). Demographic Trends and the Challenges to American Higher Education. In Justiz, Wilson, and Björk (Eds.)
Minorities in Higher Education (pp. 1-21). Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press and ACE.
Kalechstein, Pearl et al. (1981). The Effects of Instruction on Test-Taking Skills in Second Grade Children. Measurement and Evalua-
tion in Guidance, 13(4), 198-201.
Kanter, R.M. (1983). The Change Masters: Innovation for Productivity in the American Corporation. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Karplus, R. (1977). Science Teaching and Development of Reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 169.
Landis, Raymond B. (1985). Handbook on Improving the Retention and Graduation of Minorities in Engineering. New York, NY: The
National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering.
Lang, M. & Ford, C. (Eds) (1988). Black Student Retention in Higher Education. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, Publishers.
Lang, M., and Ford, C. (Eds.) (1992). Strategies for Retaining Minority Students in Higher Education. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Tho-
mas, Publishers.
Lang, Marvel (1986). Black Student Retention at Black Colleges and Universities: Problems, Issues and Alternatives. Western Journal
of Black Studies, 10(2).
Lenning, Oscar T. (1982). Variable-Selection and Measurement Concerns. In E. Pascarella (Ed.) Studying Student Attrition. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Lenning, Oscar T., Beal, Philip E., and Sauer, Ken (1980). Retention and Attrition: Evidence for Action and Research. Boulder, CO:
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
Levitz, R., and Noel, L. (1985). Using a Systematic Approach to Assessing Retention Needs. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates
(Eds.) Increasing Student Retention (pp. 345-365). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Loo, C. M. and Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of Ethnic Minority Students at a Predominately White University. Journal of Higher
Education, 57(1), 58-77.
Malcom, S.M. (1983). Equity and Excellence: Compatible Goals. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Malcom, Shirley (1988). Brilliant Women for Science, Mathematics and Engineering: Getting More Than We Deserved? In Dreyden,
Julia (Ed.) Developing Talent in Mathematics, Science and Technology: A Conference on Academic Talent. (Durham, North
Carolina, March 28-30, 1988). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 307 775)
Martin, D.C., and Arendale, D. (1990). Supplemental Instruction: Improving Student Performance, Increasing Student Persistence.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 327 103)
Martin, Jr., A.D. (1985). Financial Aid. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates (Eds.) Increasing Student Retention. (pp. 203-220). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Massey, Walter E. (1992, November 13). A Success Story Amid Decades of Disappointment. SCIENCE, 258, 1177-1179.
Matyas, M. L., and Kahle, J. B. (1986). Equitable Pre-college Science and Mathematics Education: A Discrepancy Model. (Paper pre-
sented at the Workshop on Underrepresentation and Career Differentials of Women in Science and Engineering, Washington,
D.C., October 1986).
Matyas, Marsha Lakes (1991). Women, Minorities and Persons with Physical Disabilities in Science and Engineering: Contributing
Factors and Study Methodology. In M. Matyas (Ed.) Investing in Human Potential: Science and Engineering at the Crossroads
(pp. 13-36). Washington, DC: AAAS.
McDermott, Lillian C., Piternick, Leonie K., and Rosenquist, Mark L. (1980, January). Helping Minority Students Succeed in Science.
Journal of College Science Teaching, 135-140.
Miles, M. and Huberman, A. M. (1984, May). Drawing Valid Meaning from Qualitative Data: Toward a Shared Craft. Educational Re-
searcher, 20-30.
Mooney, C. (1988). The College President. Chronicle of Higher Education, 34(29), 14-16.
The George Washington University Page 129
Moore, W. Jr., and Carpenter, L.C. (1985). Academically Underprepared Students. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates (Eds.) In-
creasing Student Retention (pp. 95-115). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Morrison, Catherine, and Williams, Lea (1993, May). Minority Engineering Programs: A Case for Institutional Support. NACME
Research Newsletter, 4(1).
Murdock, Tullisse A. (1990, Spring). Financial Aid and Persistence: An Integrative Review of the Literature. NASPA Journal, 27(3)
213-221.
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (1983). Standards for the Development of Policy Guidelines for Packag-
ing Need-Based Financial Aid. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Aid Administrators.
National Center for Education Statistics (1992). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education (92-
640).
National Center for Education Statistics (1994). Digest of Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
National Science Foundation (1988). Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering. Washington, DC: National Science Founda-
tion.
National Science Foundation (1992). Diversity in the Scientific and Technological Workforce. Washington, DC: National Science
Foundation. (NSF Publication 93-22)
National Science Foundation (1992). Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering: An Update. Washington, DC: National Sci-
ence Foundation. (NSF Publication 93-303)
National Science Foundation (1994). Science and Engineering Degrees by Race/Ethnicity of Recipients: 1977-1991. Washington, DC:
National Science Foundation. (NSF Publication 94-306)
Neisler, O.J. (1992). Access and Retention Strategies in Higher Education: An Introductory Overview. In Lang and Ford’s (Eds.)
Strategies for Retaining Minority Students in Higher Education (pp. 3-21). Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas, Publisher.
Noel, L. (1978). Reducing the Dropout Rate. New Directions for Student Services, Number 3. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Noel, Lee, Levitz, Randi S., and Saluri, Diana (1985). Increasing Student Retention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Nora, A. & Rendon, L. (1988). Hispanic Student Retention in Colleges: Reconciling Access with Outcomes. In L. Weis. (Ed.), Class,
Race, and Gender in American Education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Ortiz, Gilbert., Kendler, Karen Seed (1974). The New York Medical College Summer Program: Remedial Education for Medical School
Admission. Journal of Medical Education, 49(7), 694-695.
Padron, Eduardo J. (1992, Winter). The Challenge of First-Generation College Students: A Miami-Dade Perspective. New Directions
for Community Colleges, (80) 71-80.
Palmer, Jim (1990). The President’s Role in Student Tracking. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320 638).
Pantages, Timothy J., and Creedon, Carol F. (1978, Winter). Studies of College Attrition: 1950-1975. Review of Educational Re-
search, 48, 49-101.
Pascarella, E., and Terenzini, P. (1991). How College Affects Students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Pascarella, Ernest T. (1984). Reassessing the Effects of Living On-Campus Versus Commuting to College: A Causal Modeling Ap-
proach. The Review of Higher Education, 7(3) 247-260.
Pascarella, Ernest T. (1986). A Program for Research and Policy Development on Student Persistence at the Institutional Level. Jour-
nal of College Student Personnel, 27(2) 100-107.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Petersdorf, R.G., Turner, K.S., Nickens, H.W., and Ready, T. (1990). Minorities in Medicine: Past, Present, and Future. Academic
Medicine, 65, 663-670.
Pinkston-McKee (1990). Student Support Services Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 321 645)
Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) (1990). Education that Works: An Action Plan for the Education of Minorities. Cambridge,
MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ramist, L. (1981). College Student Attrition and Retention. (College Board Report no. 81-1). New York, NY: College Board. (Eric
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 200 170)
Richardson, Richard C., Jr., Skinner, Elizabeth F. (1992, Winter). Helping First-Generation Minority Students Achieve Degrees. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 20(4) 29-41.
Rodriguez, Esther M., and Nettles, Michael T. (1993). Achieving the National Education Goals: The Status of Minorities in Today’s
Global Economy. A Policy Report of the State Higher Education Executive Officers. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services
No. ED 360 443)
Rootman, I. (1972). Voluntary Withdrawal From a Total Adult Socializing Organization: A Model. Sociology of Education, 45, 258-
70.
Roueche, J.E., and Roueche, S.D. (1985). Teaching and Learning. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates (Eds.) Increasing Student
Retention (pp. 183-202). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Rudner, L. (1987). What’s Happening in Teacher Testing: An Analysis of State Teacher Testing. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Ryan, Joseph M. and Kuhs, Terese M. (1993, Spring). Assessment of Preservice Teachers and the Use of Portfolios. Theory Into
Practice, 32(2) 75-81.
Ryan, Mary A., Robinson, Donald, and Carmichael, J. W. Jr. (1980). A Piagetian-Based General Chemistry Laboratory Program for
Science Majors. Journal of Chemical Education, 57(9), 642-645.
Sawchuk, M. (1991). Access and Persistence: An Educational Program Model. Celebrating Cultural Diversity in Higher Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 350 898)
The George Washington University Page 130
Schexnider, Alvin J. (1992). Black Student Retention: The Role of Black Faculty and Administrators at Traditionally White Institu-
tions. In Lang and Ford’s (Eds) (1988) Black Student Retention in Higher Education (pp. 125-147). Springfield, IL: Charles C.
Thomas, Publishers.
Sheridan, E.M. (1982). Traditional Skills for Nontraditional Students. Improving College and University Teaching, 30(3) 138-141.
Silverman, Suzanne, and Pritchard, Alice M. (1993). Building Their Future: Girls in Technology Education in Connecticut. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 362 650)
Skutsch, Margaret, and Hall, Diana (1973). Delphi: Potential Uses in Educational Planning. Chicago, IL: Chicago Board of Education.
Slater, J. M. (1960). Influences on Students’ Perception and Persistence in the Undergraduate College. Journal of Educational Research,
54, 3-80.
Slocum, W.L. (1956). Social Factors Involved in Academic Mortality. College and University, 32, 53-64.
Smith, L., Lippitt, R., and Sprandel, D. (1985). Building Support for a Campuswide Retention Program. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and
Associates (Eds.) Increasing Student Retention (pp. 366-382). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Spady, W. (1970). Dropouts from Higher Education: An Interdisciplinary Review and Synthesis. Interchange. 1, 64-85.
Steinich, D., and Beecham, L. (1993). Graduate School Degree and Satisfactory Progress Tracking System. Paper presented at the 38th
Annual College and University Computer Users Conference (CUMREC), May 9-12, 1993, San Antonio, Texas.
Suen, K. Hoi (1983). Alienation and Attrition of Black College Students on a Predominantly White Campus. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 24, 117-121.
Terenzini, P.T., and Pascarella, E.T. (1984). Freshman Attrition and the Residential Context. The Review of Higher Education, 7(2),
111-124.
Terenzini, P. and Wright, T. (1987). Influences on Students’ Academic Growth During Four Years of College. Research in Higher Edu-
cation, 26(2), 161-178.
Thomas, G., Clewell, B., and Pearson, W. (1987). Case Study of Major Doctoral Producing Institutions in Recruiting, Enrolling, and
Retaining Black and Hispanic Graduate Students. A Report to the Graduate Record Examination Board. Princeton, NJ: GREB.
Thomas, Gail E. (1986). The Access and Success of Blacks and Latinos in U.S. Graduate and Professional Education. A Working Paper
prepared for the National Research Council.
Tinto, Vincent (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research. Review of Educational Research,
45, 89-125.
Tinto, Vincent (1987). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago
Press.
Tinto, Vincent (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (Second Edition). Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Tobias, S. (1990). They’re Not Dumb, They’re Different. Tucson, AZ: Research Corporation.
Toy, T.J. (1985). Increasing Faculty Involvement in Retention Efforts. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates (Eds.) Increasing Stu-
dent Retention (pp. 383-401). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Trippi, J., and Cheatham, H.E. (1989). Effects of Special Counseling Programs for Black Freshmen on a Predominantly White Cam-
pus. Journal of College Student Development. 30, 144-151.
U.S. Department of Education (1985). Many College Freshman Take Remedial Course. National Center for Education Statistics Bulle-
tin. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Student Association (1992). Student Retention Study. Washington, DC: USSA.
Ugbah, Steven, and Williams, Shirley Ann (1989). The Mentor-Protégé Relationship: Its Impact on Blacks in Predominantly White
Institutions. In Julia C. Elam (Ed.), Blacks in Higher Education: Overcoming the Odds (pp. 29-42). Lanham, MD: The Univer-
sity Press of America.
Upcraft, M.L. (1985). Residence Halls and Student Activities. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and Associates (Eds.) Increasing Student Reten-
tion (pp. 383-401). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Wepner, G. (1985). Successful Math Remediation: Training Peer Tutors. College Teaching, 33, 165-167.
Whaley, Charles, E. (1987). Futures Studies: Personal and Global Possibilities. Toronto, ON: Trillium Press.
Whimbey, Arthur, and Carmichael, J.W. Jr., Jones, Lester WI, Hunter, Jacqueline T., Vincent, Harold A. (1980, October). Teaching
Critical Reading and Analytical Reasoning in Project SOAR. Journal of Reading. 6-9.
Whiting, A.N. (1988). Standing at the Crossroads:Traditionally Black Colleges Today. In Minorities in Public Higher Education: At a
Turning Point (pp. 45-64). Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
Wolverton, M., and Richardson, R. (1992). Leadership Strategies to Improve Teaching and Learning. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education (Minneapolis, MN, October 29-November 3, 1992).
Wratcher, Marcia A. (1991, July). Helping Freshmen to Maximize Their Learning Potential. Journal of College Student Development.
32, 380-381.
The George Washington University Page 131
APPENDICES
The George Washington University Appendices
APPENDIX A
LENNING’S FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENT PERSISTENCE
The George Washington University Appendices
LENNING’S FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENT PERSISTENCE
Lenning (1982) synthesized the studies of Cope and Hannah (1975), Lenning, Beal, and Sauer (1980), Len-
ning, Sauer, and Beal (1980), Pantages and Creedon (1978), and Ramist (1981) as follows:
SDEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
Age Older student more mature, highly motivated. Older students “rustier” on
their skills, less able to adapt quickly to changing conditions
Sex Men more likely to dropout at large nonselective universities and because of
academic reasons; Women more likely to dropout when male-female ratio is
large and because of non-academic reasons
Socioeconomic Status Low SES students have higher dropout rate
Ethnic Background Blacks and American Indians dropout more often than other students, but
these differences disappear when SES, ability test scores, and motivation are
controlled. Hispanics tend to dropout more often, irrespective of controls
used.
Marital Status Increases men’s chances and decreases women’s chances of persisting until
graduation
Hometown Location Rural area students tend to dropout more often, while size and nature of
college may make a difference in this rate
STUDENT ACADEMIC FACTORS
Aptitude Test Scores Lower college-admissions test scores are related to higher attrition
High School Achievement High school GPA and class rank have been found to have a higher relation to
attrition than any other single predictor
Study Habits and Attitudes Students with poor study habits and attitudes tend to drop out more often
Subjects and Number of Courses
Taken in High School Those who took college-prep programs tend to persist more.
College Program Student’s major may relate to attrition, but this differs from college to col-
lege
College Grades Dropouts tend to have lower grades, but may have satisfactory or even ex-
cellent grades in many cases.
INITIAL STUDENT ASPIRATIONS AND MOTIVATIONAL VARIABLES
Degree Aspiration Aspiration to professional or doctoral degrees relates positively to persis-
tence
Termination/Completion Plans Intention upon entrance to dropout suggest than attrition is likely
Commitment to the College Positively related to persistence
Vocational and Occupational Goals Positively related to students in these types of programs only
Familial Aspirations for College Strong parental aspirations relates positively to student retention.
STUDENT PERSONALITY AND VALUE VARIABLES
Maturity and Responsibility High maturity and responsibility relates positively to retention and comple-
tion
Independence and Autonomy Relationship between a student’s independence and the college atmosphere
is related. When the two are conversely related, attrition is higher; when the
two are positively correlated, retention is higher.
Intellectual Orientation Intellectual students will persist in intellectual college atmospheres. When
that atmosphere does not exist, students may leave in disgust.
The George Washington University Appendices
Creativity Creative students may leave if the campus does not provide a creative at-
mosphere.
Self-concept Positive self-concepts and self-confidence are positively correlated to persis-
tence
Anxiety Anxiety about success can lead to persistence, but only if it is not too great
Assertiveness Related to persistence to a certain level
Value Orientation Positive relationship to persistence when the values of the student and col-
lege are similar
Student Concern about Finances Although finances are a very real concern, the relationship to persistence is
generally more perceptual than in reality.
The George Washington University Appendices
INSTITUTIONAL VARIABLES
Prestige Completion rates higher at more prestigious universities
Size Less student involvement at larger universities, negatively affecting persis-
tence
Control Privately controlled college tend to have higher student retention
Type Four-year more persistence than two-year; single-sex colleges higher than co-
educational institutions
Affiliation Religious affiliation tends to be attributed to higher retention and persistence
Selectivity The more selectivity, the higher retention rate
Housing Residential campuses have higher retention rates than commuter campuses,
as do on-campus fraternities and sorority houses
Student Services The availability, quality, and use of student services (e.g. counseling, advis-
ing, etc..) tend to promote student retention
Institutional Mission Clear communication of an institutions mission and goals are attributed to
higher persistence
INTERACTION VARIABLES
Student Satisfaction Positively correlated to persistence
Social Integration/Peer Group Rela-
tions Frequency and quality of interactions relates to retention
Family-College Relationship Commitment of parents to the college is attributed to student retention
Out-of-Class Interactions with Fac-
ulty Frequency and quality of interactions relates to retention
Faculty Concern for Students and
Teaching Genuineness and strength of faculty’s interest and concern is directly corre-
lated to persistence
Institutionally Generated Student
Development Student growth, especially in terms of academics, is positively correlated to
persistence
Commitment to the College and
Graduation Positively related to student persistence
Extracurricular Involvement On-campus extracurricular activities are positively correlated to student
persistence, except when overdone
Responsiveness to Student Com-
plaints and Expressed Needs Ability of the institution to respond efficiently to student needs
Student Expectations and Realities Degree of congruence or discrepancy between student expectations and cam-
pus and academic realities are significant
Academic Program Involvement
and Success Honors programs, foreign study programs, tutoring/peer counseling, in-
structional assisting, academic program review, and other involvement in
academic life of campus all contribute to student persistence
Learning-Preferences and Teaching-
Method Congruence Matches and mismatches in teaching/learning styles may affect retention
Compatibility Between Student and
Institutional Values Congruence or discrepancy between student and institutional values are
related to retention
Student-Body Characteristics Student similarities, in terms of religion, race, and geographic background
are attributed to retention
The George Washington University Appendices
Student Participation in Student
Services Student need and participation in student services affect persistence
Student Ability and College De-
mands Ability of student to meet the demands of college and derive satisfaction
from that challenge is positively correlated to retention
Student and Comfortable Environ-
ment When college environment and atmosphere is comforting to the student,
while also academically challenging, is related to persistence
SOURCE: Lenning, Oscar T. (1982). Variable-Selection and Measurement Concerns. In E. Pascarella (ed.) Studying Student Attrition. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass Inc. (pp. 17-33)
The George Washington University Appendices
APPENDIX B
INFORMATION ON INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
The George Washington University Appendices
INFORMATION ON INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
The following is a listing of information from eight successful retention programs extracted from the litera-
ture. For a further listing of exemplary programs, see Diana Saluri’s Case Studies and Successful Programs in
Noel et al.’s Increasing Student Retention (Jossey-Bass Inc.).
Baylor College of Medicine
Science Enrichment Program
Program beneficiaries’ educational level: Rising sophomore and junior, college students
Selection criteria for program participants: Open to all minority students whose academic record indicates the
need to improve their grades and standardized test-taking ability in order to ensure competitiveness as medical
school applicants. Applicants with a college GPA greater than 3.5 and combined SAT score greater than 1100 were
not admitted. Of the 116 participants studied form 1980-1984, 57 percent were African American, 41 percent Mexican
American, and 2 percent Native American.
End goal of program: To increase the size of the minority applicant pool and to increase the competitiveness of
program participants for medical school admission.
Selected interventions: Personal and group counselling regarding the medical school application process, adjust-
ment to the medical school environment, and sources of financial aid.
Program description: 8 week summer session, offering:
• basic science (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) curriculum along with some clinical and laboratory experience
in academic medical center
• personal and group counselling regarding:
-the medical school application process
-adjustment to the medical school environment
-sources of financial aid.
Evidence of program’s success: Of the 378 students who participated in the program through 1984, 68 percent ap-
plied to medical school. Seventy-three percent (73 percent) of those who applied were accepted to a U.S. medical
school (50 percent of the 378 participants).
Information Source(s): Pavlik, V., Rankin, B., Ballbona, C., Bacon, R., and Tristan, M. (1991). Factors Related to
Medical School Application and Acceptance in Minority Summer Enrichment Program Students. Journal of the Na-
tional Medical Association. 83 628-632.
Chicago State University
Student Support Services Program
Program beneficiaries’ educational level: College students: new entrants and continuing students
Selection criteria for program participants: Skill-deficient, low income, first-generation, or physically handicapped
— as identified by admissions information and diagnostic testing.
End goal of program: To increase the retention and graduation rates of the university’s students.
Selected interventions: Note-taking; test-taking; writing; problem-solving; counselling; mentoring; instruction in
English and mathematics; tutoring; field trips; career workshops.
Program description: An academic year program (plus six-week summer component in math and writing) for 210
students per year, offering:
The George Washington University Appendices
• monitoring academic progress of new entrants
• instruction in mathematics and English
• laboratories in math and writing (small group and individual tutoring and practice, application of math to
problem-solving)
• study skills workshops (plus self-study tapes and software): note-taking, library usage, test-taking, stress
reduction, and time management
• academic and personal counselling — plus student mentors and peer counselors
• motivational activities: cultural enrichment field trips, career workshops, use of career-identification in-
struments, graduate and professional school workshop.
Evidence of program’s success: As of Fall 1988 the retention rate for students who had participated in SSSP as
freshmen was higher than the retention rate for all students who entered as freshmen the same year — despite the
disadvantages with which the participants entered. Of all 1987 entrants, 51 percent were retained, compared with 79
percent of SSSP participants. Similarly, retention rates were 34 percent (all) and 45 percent (SSSP) for 1986 entrants,
and 24 percent (all) and 36 percent (SSSP) for 1985 entrants.
Information source(s): Pinkston-McKee (1990). Student Support Services Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 321 645)
Delaware State College
Project Freshman Attrition Reduction (FAR)
Program beneficiaries’ educational level: College freshmen
Selection criteria for program participants: All freshmen enter first and second components of program. All are
invited to enter third component. Those at risk of dropping out are urged to participate in the third component.
End goal of program: Retention of entering students at Delaware State College.
Selected interventions: Counselling; tutoring.
Program description: During academic year, three components:
• Preventive Component: one-credit weekly orientation required for all freshmen
• Early Warning System: use of Dr. Alexander Astin’s dropout predictor instrument to identify students likely
to drop out
• Rehabilitative Component: counselling, tutoring, human development workshops, dormitory counselling.
Focus: self concept, educational values, and study attitudes
Evidence of program’s success: Freshman attrition rate fell from 41 percent in 1976 to 16 percent in 1981. Freshman
probation rate went from 56.5 percent in 1976 to 31.9 percent in 1979. The number of freshmen who graduated four
years later rose 22 percent. The program has been replicated at 40 colleges.
Information source(s): Gates, Rebecca T., “Project Far: A Blueprint for College Student Retention,” in Niba, Johnson
N. and Regina Norman, editors, Recruitment and Retention of Black Students in Higher Education, National Asso-
ciation for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education, Research Institute, 1989.
Harvard College
Decentralized Advising System
Program beneficiaries’ educational level: Freshman through Senior, with special emphasis on freshmen students.
Selection criteria for program participants: All entering freshman.
End goal of program: To provide maximum support for the diversity of students at the college.
Selected interventions: Advising; counseling; orientation; student housing
Program description: During the freshman year, the dean of freshmen and staff of over seventy full- and part-time
advisers provide advising services. Faculty and senior administrative staff in the faculty of arts and sciences serve
as nonresidential advisers and as members of the board of freshmen advisers. Entering freshmen have a designated
The George Washington University Appendices
adviser who works with the student in academic counseling, personal support, and provides referrals to whichever
resources may be necessary to ensure the smoothest transition to the life of the college. The freshman dean and
staff coordinate housing for freshman prior to matriculation, coordinate a full week of orientation activities for
students, hold an annual retreat for all adivsers, produce a handbook for freshman advisers, hold weekly lunch-
eons for nonresident advisers in addition to evening meetings. Primary aspect of support services for first-year
students involves preparation for entering the sophomore year.
Evidence of program’s success: Extremely low freshman attrition rate, approximately 1 percent.
Information source(s): Saluri, Diana (1985). Case Studies and Successful Programs. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and As-
sociates (Eds.) Increasing Student Retention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. (pp. 402-447).
Meharry Medical College
Biomedical Science Program (BSP)
Program beneficiaries’ educational level: Most post-freshmen, -sophomores, and -juniors. some precollege. a few
postbaccalaureate.
Selection criteria for program participants: Self-selection. Result: 99 percent African American, mostly from pre-
dominantly black colleges in southeastern U.S.
End goal of program: To “increase the pool of properly prepared minority applicants for medical and dental
schools.”
Selected interventions: Reading comprehension; mentoring; supplemental instruction; tutoring; seminars; field
trips.
Program description: Summer program, generally enrolling about 60 students. Offered to each student for three
consecutive summers (usually taken for one).
• all students pretested and post-tested
• daily classes in each of four subjects: biology, chemistry, reading, and mathematics or physics
• weekly laboratory sessions and seminars
• field trips to health facilities
Evidence of program’s success: As of 1973, 90 former participants should have been eligible for entry into profes-
sional school. Of these, at least 45 (and possibly as many as 58) applied to medical school. Thirty-one (53 percent to
69 percent of the applicants) were accepted. This compares favorably with the 35 percent acceptance rate of the ap-
plicants to all U.S. medical schools. As of 1980, “approximately 480” students had participated in the program. Of
these, 265 (55 percent) responded to a survey. Of the respondents who had applied to dental and medical schools, 85
percent (47 percent of the 480 participants) reported that they had been accepted.
Information source(s): Murphy, Lucy P., McNair, E. Wesley (1981). Summer Program in Medical School Environ-
ment for Undergraduate Students: An Evaluation. Journal of Negro Education. 50(4) 407-14.
Birch, Janet S. and Wolfe, P.H.(1975, November). An Enrichment Program for Minority Students. Journal of Medical
Education. 50 1059-1060.
University of California at Berkeley
The Mathematics Workshop Program (MWP)
Program beneficiaries’ educational level: College freshmen
Selection criteria for program participants: Eighty percent of the participants are African American or Latino. Par-
ticipants are selected by the staff of the Professional Development Program via rosters from the Office of Admis-
sions and Records. The MWP program recruits the best of minority students in the mathematics fields. These stu-
dents score two full standard-deviations above the national average for minorities on SATs.
End goal of program: To promote high levels of academic performance among African American and other minor-
ity students in mathematics courses.
The George Washington University Appendices
Selected interventions: Working with groups; problem-solving; motivation; support groups; test-taking; conceptu-
alization
Program description: In mathematics labs, students are divided up into groups of 5-7 students who work together
for approximately two hours, twice a week. Worksheets are the primary component of these labs, and students are
enticed to help and support each other in solving the worksheet problems. Students spend approximately half of
their lab time working independently and the other half in their support groups.
Evidence of program’s success: Statistics from a study of 646 African American undergraduates at UCB between
1973 and 1984 show that those who were involved with the MWP significantly outperformed their non-MWP peers
with similar or better standardized test scores. During the 1983-84 year, 58 percent of MWP students earned a B- or
better in mathematics 1A compared to only 23 percent for non-MWP students. Similarly, during the period from
1978-82, 54 percent of MWP students earned a B- or better compared to only 16 percent of non-MWP students en-
rolled in the same course. The graduation rate or continued enrollment of MWP students by the spring of 1985
stood at 65 percent. Only 41 percent of the non-MWP students had graduated or were still in school. Students were
observed to: a) create academically oriented peer groups whose participants value success and academic achieve-
ment; b) commit themselves to hard work to achieve success; c) spend more time on learning tasks; and d) persist
in college longer than non-MWP participants due to social and study skills acquired during the workshop.
Information source(s): Fullilove, Robert E., and Treisman, Philip U. (1990). Mathematics Achievement Among Afri-
can American Undergraduates at the University of California, Berkeley: An Evaluation of the Mathematics Work-
shop Program. Journal of Negro Education. 59 (3) 463-478.
University of Notre Dame
First Year of Studies (FYS) Program
Program start date (year): 1969
Program beneficiaries’ educational level: Freshman students.
Selection criteria for program participants: All freshman students required to enroll in course offerings.
End goal of program: Two main goals: 1) provide a freshman curriculum which provides a strong general educa-
tion and gives freshment he opportunity to explore before making a commitment to a major; and 2) provide a sup-
port system appropriate to the needs of the freshman student.
Selected interventions: Supportive curriculum; career guidance, advising, and counseling; scoial occassions.
Program description: The Freshman Year of Studies (FYS) Program is a first-year program for all entering fresh-
men, regardless of major. In fact, students do not choose a major until their sophomore year. A separate curriculum
was designed by the faculty to support the academic needs of the students, and student support systems, such as
guidance, advising, and the learning resource center provide the necessary support ingredients to complement the
curriculum. The individual attention given students in the FYS program makes it virtually impossible for students
to “simply leave the university.” Strong communications between campus and parents and parent orientations,
agressive counseling, newsletters, regualr contact by the FYS staff and the faculty and residence hall staffs are im-
portant features. Most importantly, however, is the freshman curriculum. While all students take the same format
of courses, they do not necessarily take the same courses. Course selection may be toward the expected major, but
data from the past 12 years show that 60 percent of students change their major at least once during their freshman
year.
Evidence of program’s success: Although there is no pre-program data, the current attrition rate in the freshman
year is only 1 percent, and from freshman to senior is 8 percent.
Information source(s): Saluri, Diana (1985). Case Studies and Successful Programs. In Noel, Levitze, Saluri and As-
sociates (Eds.) Increasing Student Retention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc. (pp. 402-447).
Unspecified Institution
The George Washington University Appendices
An experiment on the effects of Supplemental Instruction (SI)
Program beneficiaries’ educational level: College (89 percent freshmen)
Selection criteria for program participants: (1) enrollment in a first-semester calculus course for business and eco-
nomics majors, (2) availability of complete high school and college records, and (3) no prior enrollment in a first
semester business calculus course or its equivalent. (Result: 14 percent minority students.)
End goal of program: To isolate the effect of SI on student performance to determine its significance.
Selected interventions: Study skills; note-taking; test-taking; team building; instructional techniques.
Program description: SI as developed by D.C. Martin at University of Missouri-Kansas City. In the context of a cal-
culus discussion group, the experiment provided 83 students with the following (in addition to the assistance nor-
mally provided in discussion groups):
• group work on practice tests
• advice on test preparation
• post-examination surveys about in-class tests
• models and instruction sheets on note-taking.
Evidence of program’s success: The 50 students who attended at least 60 percent of the SI sessions performed better
than the 51 students who attended at least 60 percent of the discussion sessions without SI. They received a higher
mean course grade in first-semester business calculus, and they earned a higher mean semester grade point aver-
age. These differences were statistically significant, even when adjusted for the effect of mathematics aptitude,
prior academic achievement, and attendance rate.
Information source(s): Kenney, Patricia A. (1989). Effects of Supplemental Instruction on Student Performance in a
College-Level Mathematics Course. Paper presented at the 1989 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Re-
search Association, San Francisco, CA, March 1989.
The George Washington University Appendices
APPENDIX C
FIRST-ROUND INSTRUMENT
The George Washington University Appendices
APPENDIX D
FIRST-ROUND DATA
The George Washington University Appendices
APPENDIX E
SECOND-ROUND INSTRUMENT
