In the US, retention analysis is a major preoccupation in higher education (and has been a concern since the 1960s, see for example Knoell, 1960). Data from the end of the century suggested that 16% of students who entered a four-year institution left during the first year or did not return for their second year (Horn and Carroll, 1998). The rates were higher in two-year colleges. A third of the 16% are lost permanently but the other two-thirds returned to a college within six years. However, these students took a longer time to degree and were less likely to earn a bachelor’s degree (Choy, 2002).
6.2.1 Best practice
There is a national symposium on student retention sponsored by the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE) at the University of Oklahoma (2005). Among other things, this annual conference addresses retention issues and theory, showcases effective strategies and promotes dialogue between CSRDE members. In addition, the large Association of Institutional Research (AIR) annual conference has many papers on retention issues.
Challenging and Supporting the First-Year Student: A Handbook for Improving the First Year of College (Upcraft et al., 2004) is a compilation of 29 contributions on the policies, strategies, programmes and services designed to support students through the first year, enable a successful transition as well as challenge them and fulfil their educational and personal goals. This follows from an earlier book on the same topic The Freshman Year Experience: Helping Students Survive and Succeed in College (Upcraft, Gardner, and Associates, 1989), which is a follow-up to The Freshman Year Experience (Gardner et al., 1985) the Proceedings of the February 1985 USA National Conference of the same name. Many of the papers described practical examples of successful courses, welfare structures, induction, innovation in teaching and learning designed to reduce student attrition in the first year. There were also papers on research to identify factors in withdrawal decisions. Two major events prompted this review at the time: the large-scale onset of computer technology, and the publication of the US National Institute of Education and Association of American Colleges reports on ‘Integrity in the College Curriculum’.
A more recent book in the same vein is Achieving and Sustaining Institutional
Excellence for the First Year of College (Barefoot, Gardner (Ed.) et al., 2005), which provided case studies of 13 ‘institutions of excellence’ that placed a high priority on the first-year experience. The case studies illustrated best practice and lessons learned in teaching, assessing, and retaining first-year college students. Broadly, these texts argued that students in their first term need help in three areas: academic skills; skills for living; and knowledge about the institution and higher education. There is a substantial web-based grey literature on first-year student retention, as American universities have whole departments dedicated to retention activities. Some institutional sites reported reviews of good practice such as Valdosta State University (2003), which reported a study by a task force that concluded with recommendations for improvement including strengthening the advising process; integrating all facets of the enrolment management process, expanding support and supplemental instruction. Some sites are guides to first year students (for example, State University of New York College at Brockport, 2004.
In the UK, the Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, LTSN website also has a section devoted to student retention and offers examples of good practice: it refers, for example, to the Scottish Higher Education Retention Forum; the Student Retention Project at Napier University; and M-Power, student mentoring at the University of Edinburgh. In addition, the website pointed lecturers towards tools and materials they could use to improve retention rates within their own institutions. The site referred to Jefferson Community College’s (undated) website page that offered ideas for improving retention through student interaction, classroom management, student-initiated activities and faculty-initiated activities.
The Higher Education Funding Council for England FDTL3 Student Progression and Transfer (SPAT, 2006) project offers materials for both students and staff to support retention-enhancing initiatives, ranging from ‘culture shift’ through ‘key skills’ to ‘partnership’. A similar project (not on the LTSN website) from the University of Ulster (2006), ‘Student Transition and Retention’ (STAR) addressed the needs of students at a variety of stages, for example: prior to entry; induction processes and flexible progression. Each of these stages and associated retention strategies are exemplified through case studies. These projects, then, are based on whole university programmes and are not specific to certain subjects or skill sets. The project has also developed an audit for higher education institution staff to help them identify their current practices, covering, pre-course information, student recruitment, induction, personal tutors and personal development planning, the curriculum; academic support; student learning; extra curricular activities, staff-student contact outside class, administrative leadership and institutional research.
Thomas et al. (2001) and Thomas and Yorke (2003) reported a HEFCE-funded ‘Action on Access’ project that investigated six institutions that had performed particularly successfully in widening participation and retention, with the intention of identifying factors that contributed to that success. Semi-structured interviews were held with senior staff in each of the institutions, resulting in the production of brief vignettes covering widening participation and retention. Key interventions to encourage retention appeared to be: a supportive and friendly institutional climate especially support leading up to, and during, the critically-important first year of study; an emphasis on formative assessment in the early phase of programmes; a
recognition of the importance of the social dimension in learning activities; a recognition that the pattern of students’ engagement in higher education was changing, and the preparedness to respond positively to this in various ways. Although the institutions involved in the research appeared to be successful not all staff were involved or committed to the philosophy of widening participation and to supporting the success of more diverse student cohorts. Thomas (2003) also considered the role student services could play in increasing the number and diversity of students participating in higher education from a widening participation perspective.
There is, as noted above (sections 4.3.1 and 5.6), some research that suggests a link between participating in campus activities and retention. Skipper and Argo’s (2003) monograph went beyond the retention debate and argued for a broadened definition of campus activities that would lead to heightened social and intellectual engagement for college students and provided examples of successful academic and student affairs partnerships for designing and delivering educationally purposeful out-of-class activities. They addressed cognitive and developmental impact of campus
involvement, the changing needs of today’s college student, building community on commuter campuses as well as how to engage distance learners. The text also
provided models for developing leadership programmes and changing campus culture.
6.2.2 Retention data and reporting
American universities have departments monitoring retention. Compiling statistics on retention and graduation is an intrinsic part of the office of institutional research in US universities. Such offices have extensive reporting requirements to the US
government and produce copious tables of statistical data, much of which are posted on web sites. The University of Florida (undated), for example, on its ‘Degrees, Grades, and Graduation/Retention Rates’ web page lists inter alia tables on
‘Retention and Graduation Rates for All First Time in College (FTIC) and Community College AA Transfer Students (1986-2004)’ and ‘6-Year Graduation/Retention Rates by Department for 1998 First Time in College (FTIC) Students’. While institutions collect the information, not least for government reporting purposes, it is not clear how it is used locally, if at all, to affect changes or influence institutional policy. Morehead State University (2006) provided a limited set of retention data with no supporting discussion. The Ohio University (undated) site provided breakdowns of retention by years, campus, age, gender, high school rank, living arrangement and so on. As a member of the Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange, Ohio participates in its annual survey and the university’s retention and graduation data is compared to CSRDE data.
The Ohio office of institutional research also reported a study to enhance retention of first-years (Williford and Schaller, 2005). Findings indicated that students who leave and those who return have different perceptions and needs. If the university does not address these needs, especially the process of adjustment, they are likely to leave. The report suggested that the following help to meet student needs: early
intervention of at-risk students; increasing services to larger classes of first year students; developing more learning communities; focusing more on student socialisation and adjustment; providing more student support.
Mutch (2005) undertook an analysis of 300 internet sites offering advice to new university or college students. The largest category was the advice provided by professors, deans, lecturers, advisors and counsellors, usually as part of an
orientation package on an authorised university website. The advice ranged across the spectrum from planning a course of study, getting to know your way around campus and keeping a balanced lifestyle, to a range of study tips. The top twenty tips for new students (Table 3) can be grouped under six headings: time management; important things to know; study habits; involvement; collegiality; and life skills. Ability to manage time was considered a high priority by teaching staff. Most advice suggested students construct different kinds of schedules. There should be a long- term overview, a weekly planner and a daily schedule. It was also mentioned that a student needs to realise that the time between, before and after classes is much more important than at high school and needs to be used more effectively. Staff also emphasised relevant rules and regulations such as the university’s code of conduct. Knowledge of the campus and its facilities was also important.
Table 3: Advice on university web sites (% of sites mentioning advice)
Advice %
Plan and manage your time 95
Get involved and feel included 72
Get to know faculty, advisors, career counsellors 68
Develop good study habits 68
Learn the prerequisites, regulations, requirements and expectations for your course of study 53 Know your way around campus and use its facilities 38 Look after your health and balance your lifestyle 33
Be prepared 32
Don’t be afraid to ask for help 30
Organise a study group 27
Have a positive attitude 25
Create a purposeful study environment 23
Go to class 23
Take time to socialise (but don’t overdo it) 20
Participate actively in class 20
Organise finances, set up and keep to a budget 20
Set personal and academic goals 15
Be prepared for life to be different 15
Be an active listener 13
Schedule yourself breaks and find ways to reward yourself when you have achieved a goal 13 Adapted from Much (2005)
6.2.3 Summary of encouraging and monitoring retention
There is a published literature on best practice designed to minimize withdrawal and improve student performance in the first year. Some of this is based on research evidence and some report strategies and activities (that work in a given setting) and which have, to some extent been taken for granted.
•
Although a significant proportion of people who drop out of a course return to higher education they clearly take longer to get a degree and perhaps do not perform as well as those who do not drop out.•
Best practice covers strategy, process and organisation but highlights the need for constructive interventions.•
Reporting and monitoring of retention is an established activity in USinstitutions and websites report data. Some report interpretations of data, give advice to students and some undertake analyses and indicate changes to institutional processes and structures.