A Roadmap for Meeting Institutional Retention Goals

1
A Roadmap for Meeting Institutional Retention
Goals Helping More Students Succeed
ACT Enrollment Planners Conference, Chicago, IL
July 20, 2006
2
UMR STUDENT RETENTION
UMR Graduation Rates 2000 2005 General
Student Body 52 64
3
UMR Succeeding at Student Success

• Retention Rates
• 2000 2005
• General Student Body 82 87
• Female Students 88 88
• Minority Students 94 92
• CAMPUS GOAL N/A 90
• Graduation Rates
• 2000 2005
• General Student Body 52 64
• Female Students 66 71
• Minority Students 41 73
• CAMPUS GOAL N/A 70

4
Background on Building the Student Retention and
Graduation Plan
5
Executive Primer on Student Persistence and
Retention

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

ADAPTED FROM DANA Center Retention Report, 1998
6
How to Start a Retention Roadmap Appoint Campus
Champions and Set Goals
7
ACTs 2006 Retention Recommendations colleges
(should) create a structured, comprehensive
retention program geared to assist students as
they make the transition to college life.

• Designate a visible, senior-level individual on
  campus to coordinate retention activities.
• Analyze student characteristics and needs and
  then implement a formal retention program that
  best meets those needs and the needs of the
  institution.
• Take an integrated approach to retention efforts
  that incorporates both academic and non-academic
  factors.
• Implement an early-alert assessment and
  monitoring system to identify students at risk of
  dropping out.

SOURCE ACT Retention Research Report, 2006
http//www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/college_retenti
on.pdf
8
DANA CENTER RETENTION REPORT, 1998

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

9
Management Guidelines for Improving Retention

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

SOURCE Bean and Hossler, 1990
10
How Did We Do It?
11
What is UMR?

• A Top 50 Technological Research University
• 5600 students 4300 Undergrad, 1300 Graduate
• 90 majoring in Engineering, Science, Comp. Sci.
• Ave. Student ACT/SAT upper 8-10 in nation
• 40 of Freshmen from upper 10 of HS class
• 24 Out of State Enrollment
• 96 5 Year Average Placement Rate within 3 months
  of Grad
• Ave. Starting Salary in 2005 49,300

12
Undergraduate Demographics

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

13
UMR's Academic Major Distribution by Headcount
14
Life as an Outlier
15
UMR ENROLLMENT
16
Expecting 3rd Largest Class in UMR History Fall
2006 970
17
Enrollment by Academic Quality
18
UMRs Key Performance Indicators and Instruments
for Retention Audit

• Freshmen to sophomore persistence rate
• Six-year graduation rate
• Students leaving identified on early warning
  system
• Withdraw surveys interviews
• Non-returning follow-up telephone surveys
• Freshman academic profile, specifically GPA,
  course work completed, and ACT/SAT scores.
• Student satisfaction levels
• Faculty evaluations
• Stop-out Rate Students who withdraw and return

SOURCE UMR Retention Committee and Enrollment
Development Team Recommendations, 2000-2002
19
BENCHMARKING
Did UMR Have a Retention Problem?
20
UMR Compared to National Data

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

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

• Who is leaving?

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


Status in Fall Semester After Six Years Status in Fall Semester After Six Years Status in Fall Semester After Six Years Status in Fall Semester After Six Years Status in Fall Semester After Six Years Status in Fall Semester After Six Years
Degree () 55 55 52 57 55 60 63 64
Still here () 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 4
Left () 41 41 43 39 41 38 34 32
25
(No Transcript)
26
(No Transcript)
27
First-time freshmen statistics
  First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)   First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)
  FS97 FS98 FS99 FS00 FS01 FS02 FS03 FS04  
Count 693 721 680 674 693 788 871 839  
HS GPA Not tracked Not tracked 3.52 3.53 3.46 3.48 3.55 3.59  
Rank 84.6 84.5 83.6 83.4 80.5 80.3 80.8 80.9  
ACT 28.2 28.0 27.7 27.3 26.8 27.3 27.2 27.1  
UMRGPA 2.88 2.87 2.88 2.90 2.91 3.03 N/A N/A  
NOTE Fewer high schools are providing class
rankings. Rank reflects the class rank of
students from high schools providing a class rank.
28
Comparison Stayed and Left
First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking) First-time freshmen class (full-time, degree seeking)
FS97 FS97 FS98 FS98 FS99 FS99 FS00 FS00 FS01 FS01 FS02 FS02 FS03 FS03 FS04 FS04
Status Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left Stayed Left
Count 576 117 607 114 562 118 557 117 584 109 652 136 737 134 733 106
83.1 16.9 84.2 15.8 82.6 17.4 82.6 17.4 84.3 15.7 82.7 17.3 84.6 15.4 87.4 12.6
HS GPA Not tracked Not tracked Not tracked Not tracked 3.56 3.32 3.57 3.34 3.5 3.25 3.52 3.27 3.59 3.35 3.62 3.41
Rank 85.9 78.2 85.9 76.8 85.1 76.5 84.7 76.8 82.1 71.6 81.5 74.0 82.4 71.9 82.0 73.7
ACT 28.4 27.1 28.1 27.4 28 26.2 27.4 26.8 27.1 25.3 27.5 26.5 27.4 26.3 27.2 26.2
UMRGPA 3.01 2.22 2.98 2.26 3.02 2.21 3.03 2.26 3.04 2.18 3.16 2.41 3.21 2.35 3.26 2.62
NOTE Fewer high schools are providing class
rankings. Rank reflects the class rank of
students from high schools providing a class rank.
29
Summarizing the non-returning freshmen data

• The average student leaving UMR is a good a
  student ACT upper 20 in nation, High School
  Class Rank upper 25
• The non-returning students scored on average 1.16
  points lower than those returning students on the
  ACT (range is 0.6-1.8)
• Non-returners averaged 8.8 percent lower in class
  rank than their staying counter parts (range is
  7.5 to 10.5)
• Non-returners scored on average .24 points lower
  in HS GPA (range is .21 - .25)
• Non-returners earned an average UMR GPA of .775
  lower than their returning counterparts (range is
  .64 - .86)
• Non-returners also averaged almost a full point
  lower UMR GPA when compared to their HS GPA while
  their counterparts averaged less than a .5 drop
  from their HS GPA to their UMR GPA.

30
Do you plan to return to UMR?

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

31
Would you recommend UMR to another student?

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

32
Common themes (1)

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

33
Common themes (2)

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

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

• Around 95 of UMR graduates secure a position in
  their field/area of choice within 3 months of
  graduation.
• Average starting salary of 2005 graduates
  exceeded 49,000.00

41
What We Learned

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

42
Primary Student Fears

• Flunking out of college
• Not making friends

43
Successful Students/Graduates Recommendations for
New Students

• Go to Class
• Learn to Study
• Ask for Help

44
Key Understandings

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

45
Policy/System Changes to Improve
Retention/GraduationUMRs Low Hanging Fruit

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

46
ONGOING RETENTION STRATEGIES

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

47

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

48
0

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

49
Improving Student Success Models at UMR
0

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

50
Undergraduate Graduate Studies
0

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

51
Student Retention Graduation Strategies

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

52
Student Retention Graduation Strategies, cont..

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

53
Academic Advising Program
0
UMR Advisor Network
Programs Promote Student Success Faculty Recogni
tion Best Practices UMR Reputation
Academic Advising
Academic Advising Resources
UMR Advisor Recognition
Academic Advising Conferences
54
The First Year Experience
0
FYE
Hit the Ground Running
Programs Promote Student Adjustment Student
Involvement Student Integration Commitment to
the Educational Process Student Success
Honors Program
Voyager
101 Courses
Master Student Fellowship Program
55
Hit The Ground Running
Participants

• A 3-week summer learning program to help students
  sharpen and enhance their academic skills
• Students learn about coursework expectations,
  campus life, and community involvement
• Students develop leadership skills, make new
  friends and develop constructive strategies for
  succeeding academically at UMR.

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

• UGSmonthly On Line Newsletter
• (http//campus.umr.edu/ugs/)

64
Questions?Dr. Harvest CollierVice Provost for
Undergraduate and Graduate StudiesUniversity of
Missouri-Rollahcollier_at_umr.edu573-341-4390Jay
W. GoffDean of Enrollment ManagementUniversity
of Missouri Rollagoffjw_at_umr.edu573-341-4378
0
65
ACT Report References

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

66
ACT Report References, Cont.

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

67
ACT Report References, Cont.

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

68
ACT Report References, Cont.

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

69
ACT Report References, Cont.

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

70
ACT Report References, Cont.

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

71
Additional References

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

72
References Continued

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