shaping retention

J. COLLEGE STUDENT RETENTION, Vol. 9(3) 377-399, 2007-2008

SHAPING RETENTION FROM RESEARCH

TO PRACTICE

JOHN M. BRAXTON

ELLEN M. BRIER

Vanderbilt University, Tennessee

STEPHANIE LEE STEELE

Vanderbilt University, Tennessee

and Middle Tennessee State University

ABSTRACT

This article presents seven guidelines to direct professional practice aimed

toward the improvement of institutional student retention rates. For each

of the seven guidelines, specific recommendations to provide direction to

the enactment of the focal guideline are described. These seven guidelines

spring from empirical studies of campus-based interventions and from

recommendations for policy and practice advanced in empirical studies of

college student retention.

In 2006, The American College Testing Program reported that approximately

48% of students enrolled in two-year colleges departed during their first year

and that more than one out of every four students departed during the first year

from a four-year college or university. Moreover, these rates varied little between

1983 and 2006. Despite the long history of research on student departure that

spans over 75 years (Braxton, 2000), these rates of departure continue to persist.

Although the body of research on student departure has greatly increased our

understanding of the college student departure process, much work remains to be

377

� 2007, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: 10.2190/CS.9.3.g

http://baywood.com

done on the translation of theory and research into practice (Tinto, 2006-2007).

Tinto puts this need into sharp focus by stating that “unfortunately, most

institutions have not yet been able to translate what we know about student

retention into forms of action that have led to substantial gains in student

persistence and graduation” (Tinto, 2006-2007, p. 5).

Consequently, this article endeavors to translate research into a form amenable

to the shaping of day-to-day practice in colleges and universities. Day-to-day

practice becomes efficacious when college and university practitioners follow

guidelines rooted in empirical research. The guidelines advanced in this article

spring from two sources. The first source consisted of empirical studies of

interventions or campus-based programs designed to increase student retention

which have been studied and reported in the literature. The literature consulted

consisted primarily of articles in peer reviewed journals. The second source

includes recommendations for policy and practice gleaned from empirical studies

on college student retention focused on student retention. Such recommenda-

tions provide empirically derived approaches to reduce student departure. Many

articles published in refereed scholarly and professional journals contain

recommendations for policy and practice suggested by the authors of these

articles. The peer review process of refereed journals provides a warranty for

the credibility of the research conducted and signifies that the research reported

makes a contribution. For these reasons, the collection of recommendations

for policy and practice were restricted to articles published in refereed scholarly

or professional journals.

The terms student departure, attrition, student persistence, and student reten-

tion are used in this article. These terms are different sides of the same coin.

Departure refers to decisions made by students to voluntarily leave their college

or university. In contrast, student persistence and student retention refer to the

continued enrollment of students, usually fall to fall re-enrollment. Hagedorn

(2005) notes that the National Center for Educational Statistics states that

institutions retain students and students persist. Likewise, attrition pertains to a

reduction in the number of students attending a given college or university because

of lower student retention (Hagedorn, 2005). Thus, a reduction in the student

departure rate results in an increase in student retention.

GUIDELINES TO SHAPE PRACTICE

We first describe each guideline to shape practice. Following each description,

we present specific recommendations derived from the two sources previously

described that provided the genesis for the focal guideline. These specific recom-

mendations also provide direction for the enactment of each focal guideline. A

set of seven guidelines is advanced. Some institutional practitioners may already

follow some of these guidelines and accompanying specific recommendations

in their practice. They may regard them as “best practices.” For such individuals,

378 / BRAXTON, BRIER AND STEELE

the designation of guidelines and associated recommendations as evidenced-

based should instill in them a greater sense of confidence in their observance. For

other professionals, some of these guidelines and the accompanying specific

recommendations may help them see their professional practice in new and

different ways. Regardless, these guidelines and related specific recommendations

benefit from the warranty for practice that research provides. These guidelines

pertain to a wide range of institutional stakeholders including the central adminis-

tration student affairs professionals, academic advisors, faculty curriculum com-

mittees, and individual faculty members.

These guidelines are not presented in order of importance; they are of equal

importance. Moreover, the specific recommendations associated with each guide-

line are not exhaustive of ways to follow a guideline. However, the specific

recommendations provided were derived from recommendations for policy and

practice made by authors of empirical studies of college student retention or

student departure.

The seven guidelines to provide direction to professional practice are described

in the ensuing pages of this article:

1. Individuals who advise or teach undergraduate college students should

embrace an abiding concern for the career development of the students they serve.

Dungy (2003) describes career development as assisting students to find

satisfying and rewarding employment after graduation from college. She also

indicates that career development entails helping students explore various

careers. Within the organizational structure of colleges and universities, student

affairs typically include the career development office (Dungy, 2003). However,

academic advisors, individual faculty members, and curriculum committees also

share responsibility for following this principle.

The following specific recommendations for policy and practice generated

from empirical studies on college student retention provide direction to the

enactment of this guideline by academic advisors, curriculum committees, and

individual faculty members.

Bean (1982) recommends that academic advisors indicate to students the

practical value of their choice of a major. Presenting the importance of a major

to attaining post-graduation employment opportunities serves to demonstrate the

practical value of a particular major (Bean, 1982). Moreover, Perry, Cabrera, and

Vogt (1999) encourage academic advisors to provide career information and

employ decision-making strategies in working with undecided students.

The choice of a major and career looms particularly important for second

year students. Accordingly, Gohn, Swartz, and Donnelly (2000-2001) assert that

second year students must focus on careers and decisions regarding a major.

Academic advisors should assist second year students in this process.

Helping students to achieve their educational goals constitutes a primary

role for academic advisors (Dungy, 2003). Accordingly, Nauta and Kahn (2000)

counsel academic advisors to shape in students the perception that earning a

SHAPING RETENTION / 379

college degree will result in useful outcomes for them. Bean (1982) concurs as he

suggests that academic advisors outline the degree options in various fields and

the expected value of the degree.

Curriculum committees play a role in the career development of students

through the courses they prescribe and the guidelines for course content they

promulgate. For example, Nora (1987) recommends that community colleges

offer courses focused on career and academic goals. Student would take such

courses during their first semester of their first year of enrollment. Moreover, the

content of courses that fulfill general education and academic major requirements

should contain career information (Perry, Cabrera, & Vogt, 1999).

Faculty members also play a role in the career development of students

through the courses they teach by discussing the relevance of courses to future

employment. More specifically, Bean (1982) advises faculty members to demon-

strate how the subjects they teach relate to a future career. Polinsky (2002-2003)

concurs with Bean’s advice by suggesting that faculty should relate the content

of their courses to the “real world.” The most specific piece of advice comes

from Peterson (1993) who counsels faculty members to include information

about career planning and decision-making into their courses. Peterson’s research

focused on under prepared students in a commuter university.

Adherence to the guideline of the embracement of an abiding concern for the

career development of students served and the associated specific recommen-

dations described above reinforce the commitment of an institution to the welfare

of its students, a concept derived from theory on college student departure that

enjoys some degree of empirical affirmation (Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon,

2004; Hirschy, 2004). Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon (2004) posit that

an institution’s commitment to the welfare of its students influences student

departure decisions in both residential and commuter colleges and universities. An

abiding concern for the growth and development of its students comprises one

aspect of a college or university’s commitment to the welfare of its students

(Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, 2004). Attentiveness to the career development

of students strongly resonates with such a concern given that career exploration

and the formation of educational goals provide a basis for the selection of

appropriate courses and their sequences (Rendon & Nora, 1989).

This guideline also relates to the concept of academic integration, a core

construct in Tinto’s interactionalist theory of college student departure (1975,

1993). Academic integration pertains to the student’s perception that they

feel affiliated and congruent with the academic communities of a college or

university (Braxton & Lien, 2000; Tinto, 1975, 1993). Academic integration plays

a more salient role in student retention in commuter colleges and universities

than in residential colleges and universities (Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon,

2004; Braxton & Lien, 2000). Some research shows that career development

of students leads to their sense of academic integration (Perry, Cabrera, &

Vogt, 1999).


2. Demonstrate respect for students as individuals by being appropriately

sensitive to their needs and concerns.

All students should be treated with respect as individuals. Respect for all

students transpires when the administration of colleges and universities clearly

communicate social rules and policies to students (Berger & Braxton, 1998).

Such rules and policies should also be enforced fairly (Berger & Braxton, 1998).

Moreover, students should participate to some degree in the development of

social rules and policies (Berger & Braxton, 1998).

However, particular types of students require additional consideration of their

needs and concerns. For example, the particular needs of out-of-state students

attending a state supported institution of higher learning require some attention

particularly during the orientation period (Murtaugh, Burns, & Schuster, 1999).

Moreover, the issues of first-generation college students also require some thought

by academic advisors. Such issues include conflict with parents over college

attendance as well as feelings of “survivors guilt” if few peers are attending

college (Somers, Woodhouse & Cofer, 2004).

Moreover, Somers, Woodhouse, and Cofer (2004) stress the importance of

parents of first-generation college students having an understanding of the finan-

cial aid award process. Polinsky (2002-2003) urges the dissemination of infor-

mation about loans and college employment opportunities to community college

students who may need to take time off from college to work.

The needs and concerns of nontraditional students also merit consideration.

For example, staff development activities in community colleges should focus

on sensitizing employees to the mission of the community college (Mutter, 1992).

Such sensitization should emphasize the needs and concerns of nontraditional

students. Along similar lines, Sandler (2000) urges administrators and faculty to

develop collaborative relationships with other organizations to develop approaches

to helping nontraditional students feel like they belong in a college or university.

By embracing the external environment and the workplace in particular, non-

traditional students may come to feel apart from the academy (Sandler, 2000).

Single mothers also warrant attentiveness to their needs and concerns.

Approaches to reducing the departure of single mothers emanate from the research

of Austin and McDermott (2003-2004). They offer several recommendations.

These recommendations include expanding the availability of family housing

and on-campus day care services, family dinner programs for student-parents to

meet other student-parents, and special orientation programs for student-parents.

Austin and McDermott (2003-2004) also advise that an on-campus advocate serve

as an ombudsman to help single mothers negotiate the institutional bureaucracy.

Such an advocate might also work to raise faculty awareness of the issues faced

by single mothers (Austin & McDermott, 2003-2004).

Students of color also warrant attentiveness to their needs and concerns.

Evidenced-based recommendations center on African American, Hispanics,

Native Americans, and Bi-Racial students. Because African American students


are not disposed toward using counseling services, Glenn (2003-2004) encourages

the use of fall orientation to appraise students of the availability of academic,

financial, and personal counseling. The availability of such services must receive

continuous attention on bulletin boards, by faculty members, and student affairs

practitioners. Moreover, counseling services should also form social support

groups to provide a safe setting for African American students to discuss such

issues as racism, alienation, and discrimination (Gloria, Robinson-Kurpius,

Hamilton, & Willson, 1999).

Student peers also increase the comfort of African American students advises

Gloria et al., (1999). In particular, they recommend that upper division African

American students provide paraprofessional counseling and mentoring for

first-year and lower-division African American students.

LeSure-Lester (2003-2004) indicates that college counselors should understand

the different coping styles used by Hispanic students to handle stress. Counselors

should help Hispanic students to use more appropriate and positive stress coping

strategies. LeSure-Lester (2003-2004) also recommends that counselors assist

Latino students in balancing value differences between the Latino culture and

the culture of the college or university.

Evidenced-based advice on the retention of Hispanic students also focuses

on financial aid. A comprehensive financial advisement program constitutes one

piece of advice (Nora, 1990; Rendon & Nora, 1989). Such a financial advisement

program would focus on Hispanic students and their parents before graduation

from high school. Such programs would discuss costs and the availability of

financial aid as well as informing students and their parents about the completion

of financial aid applications and IRS forms.

Respect for Native American students as individuals as well as a sensitivity to

their needs and concerns entails the development of a Native American support

organization that would foster discussion among Native American students about

the acculturation process of being in college and the risks and benefits associated

with this process (Jackson, Smith, & Hall, 2003). Such support programs are

necessary as Native Americans raised on reservations have experienced a col-

lective approach rather than an individual approach to social interaction.

Native American juniors and seniors should also serve as peer mentors for

Native American students counsels Brown and Robinson-Kurpius (1997).

Jackson, Smith, and Hall (2003) offer similar advice and suggest that such peer

mentoring serves to reduce the isolation Native American students feel. Native

American peer mentors also provide a model for dealing with the conflicting

pressures of developing a bi-cultural identity (Jackson, Smith, & Hall, 2003).

Sensitivity to the needs and concerns of bi-racial students begins with the

college admissions application process. Based on findings from their research

regarding bi-racial students, Sands and Schuh (2003-2004) suggest the expansion

of the racial categories on admissions applications to permit students to select

more than one racial group. Sands and Schuh (2003-2004) astutely point out that if


a college or university does not permit bi-racial students to accurately register

their racial identity then such students have already experienced alienation from

the institution prior to their matriculation. In addition to admissions applications,

Sands and Schuh (2003-2004) urge the alteration of student tracking systems

to permit students to accurately record their bi-racial identity.

In addition to single mothers, African American, Hispanic, Native Americans,

and bi-racial students, the needs and concerns of gay, lesbian, and bisexual

students, students with disabilities, and Asian and Asian Pacific American

students should also receive consideration. Unfortunately, a paucity of research on

these student groups exists making it difficult to identify specific recommen-

dations for policy and research rooted in empirical research.

The thrust of this particular guideline and the panoply of specific empirically-

based recommendations that accompany robustly demonstrate both the high

value the institution places on students as groups and as individuals as well as

respect of students as individuals. The high value placed on students as individuals

and as groups and respect for students as individuals constitutes aspects a college

or university’s commitment to the welfare of its students (Braxton et al., 2004).

3. Develop and foster a culture of enforced student success.

A culture of enforced student success treats all students as if they are at-risk.

Key people believe in the promise of each student in a fervently held way.

Hermanowicz (2003) derived this concept of enforced student success from case

studies of four highly selective research universities that vary in their retention

rates. The university with the highest retention rate has what Hermanowicz terms

a culture of enforced success.

Student orientation characterizes a culture of enforced student success. Student

affairs professionals frequently assume responsibility for orientation and new

student programs. Such programs welcome new students to the institution (Dungy,

2003). Orientation programs acquaint students with the history, traditions,

academic programs and requirements, and student life at a college or university

(Dungy, 2003).

Recommendations derived from articles in refereed journals concentrate on

duration, participants, and topics. With regard to duration, orientation should

extend beyond a one time event preceding the start of the academic year counsels

(Pascarella, Terenzini, & Wolfle, 1986). The reinforcement and extension of the

initial orientation program would serve as the goal of such orientation efforts

(Pascarella, Terenzini, & Wolfle, 1986). Nippert (2000-2001) also makes a similar

recommendation for two-year colleges. These recommendation resonate with an

element in Seidman’s formula for student retention. In his formula, Seidman

(2005) identifies intensive interventions as an important contributor to student

success. Indeed, these recommendations call for an intensive intervention.

Faculty and academic counselors should participate in orientation programs

(Nippert, 2000-2001; Nora, 1987). For the two-year college, Nippert (2000-2001)

stresses the need for faculty involvement in orientation programs to foster early


faculty and student contacts. Instructor skills such as organization and clarity

should guide the selection of individuals who conduct programmatic sessions

during orientation (Braxton, Bray, & Berger, 2000).

Topics for orientation sessions include the use of e-mail as a medium for

communicating with faculty members, family, and friends (Duggan, 2004-2005).

The importance of counseling services should also receive stress during

orientation (Glenn, 2003-2004). A discussion of the types of problems that

students are likely to encounter during their college careers might also

occur during orientation. Upper class students, faculty, and staff might

participate in such sessions (Nippert, 2000-2001). The needs of out-of-state

students should also receive some emphasis during orientation (Murtaugh

et al., 1999).

In addition to student orientation programs, efforts to prevent student departure

spanning all of the undergraduate years constitute an aspect of a culture of

enforced success. Some theories of student departure and some institutional

efforts to reduce student departure focus on the first year of attendance. A focus

on the first year of attendance occurs because considerable student departure

occurs during the first year of attendance (American College Testing Program,

2006). Moreover, interventions to prevent departure are considered to be more

effective during the first year (Mortenson, 2005).

Although first year students certainly require institutional vigilance, students

in their second, third, and senior years also require attention. For second year

students, the choice of a major and a career, counseling about financial aid and

their ability to envision graduation require attention (Gohn et al., 2002-2001).

Gohn, Swartz, and Donnelly (2000-2001) also urge the development of degree

check systems so that students know the courses they have completed as well

as courses they need to take. The courses to be completed should be conveyed

in a semester-by-semester schedule. Gohn, Swartz, and Donnelly (2000-2001)

view it as important for the second year student to perceive that light is at the end

of the tunnel. Senior students need frequent contact and involvement with their

faculty advisors and other faculty members in their department (Mohr, Eiche,

& Sedlacek, 1998).

Institutional language also contributes to a culture of enforced student success.

For example, colleges and universities must change the language they use to

describe students who depart the institution. Woosley, Slabaugh, Sadler, and

Mason (2005) contend that using terms like leavers, withdrawals, and dropouts

may unintentionally communicate to such students that the institution no longer

wishes to serve them. The withdrawal of students should not be viewed as

terminal educational decisions as re-enrollment is possible (Grimes & Antworth,

1996). Such students may return as Woosley et al. (2005) found that 40% of

withdrawing students either re-enroll or intend to re-enroll. To facilitate the

re-enrollment of such students, institutions should develop policies and practices

to permit such returns with few obstacles (Grimes & Antworth, 1996). Although


Grimes and Antworth advance this recommendation for community colleges,

it applies to all types of colleges and universities.

Flexible financial aid practices also add to a culture of enforced success.

Suggestions for such financial aid practices entail giving working students more

scholarship aid to ease the burden of working to pay for college (Caison, 2204-2005),

packages with low amounts of loans for first-generation students (Somers et al., 2004)

and the award of loans and work-study to upper-division students to motivate them to

earn their degrees (St. John, Kirshstein, & Noell, 1991). However, Voorhees (1985)

counsels that no one campus-based aid program should be substituted for another

as grants, loans, and work-study all contribute to student retention. On-campus

employment opportunities should also be developed to assist students in paying for

college (Nora, Cabrera, Hagedorn, & Pascarella, 1996).

In addition to such packaging recommendations, empirically-based recom-

mendations for policy and practice counsel that financial aid policies should

provide opportunities for second-year students to renew lost scholarships (Gohn

et al., 2000-2001). The material needs of commuter students also require attention

in the formulation of financial aid policies. To elaborate, commuter students, on

occasion, need money, a car, or an appliance during a time of need counsels

(Skahill, 2002-2003). Other material needs include access to computers, books

and supplies, money for gas, or the loan of a vehicle (Skahill, 2002-2003).

Institutions need policies and resources in place to address such material needs.

4. Involve faculty members in programs and activities designed to reduce

student departure. Stress also the important role faculty play in facilitating

student retention through their teaching, their research, and their relationships

with students.

Programs and activities designed to reduce student departure should involve

faculty members early in the process. Faculty members should participate in

orientation programs in order to foster early contact between students and them-

selves (LeSure-Lester, 2003-2004; Milem & Berger, 1997; Nippert, 2000-2001).

Early contacts between faculty and students are particularly important for students

of color (Jackson et al., 2003; LeSure-Lester, 2003-2004). Faculty and student

out-of-class interaction should also extend beyond the fall orientation period.

Although such interactions might focus on discussion and questions outside of

class (Glenn, 2003-2004), they could also focus on problems students encounter

(Nippert, 2000-2001). Programs and activities devised to reduce student departure

should structure such opportunities for faculty and student interactions.

In addition, faculty members facilitate student retention through their teaching.

To reduce the departure of students in their second year, Gohn et al. (2000-2001)

suggest that courses designed for second year students require more additional

hours of outside preparation through more extensive use of the library and the use

of group projects. Through the type of examination questions given, faculty can

also make courses more challenging by reducing the number of knowledge-level

examinations questions (Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000).


Faculty teaching methods also play a role in fostering student retention.

Recommended teaching methods include the use of enhanced lectures in order to

apply active learning in large classes (Braxton et al., 2000). Enhanced lectures

consist of a series of short mini-lectures followed by specific active learning

exercises (Bonwell, 1996). When developing group activities for courses

enrolling non-traditional students, Ashar and Skenes (1993) urge the development

of groups consisting of students of similar levels of career maturity.

Faculty should also engage students in their research. Academic departments

can aid faculty members by developing programs that involve students in the

research of departmental faculty members. Nagda, Gregerman, Jonides, von

Hippel, and Leaner (1998) describe aspects of such programs. The duties of

students involved in faculty research include conducting bibliographic research

and literature reviews, formulating research questions and hypotheses, and

assisting in the execution of the study and analyses.

Nagda et al. (1998) also discuss the supplementation of student involvement in

faculty research through the formation of student research interest groups based on

common research themes. These groups should engage in such activities as skill

building workshops, the sharing of research experiences, hearing guest speakers,

discussing interesting and controversial issues in the field, and learning about

campus resources.

In addition to teaching and research, faculty relationships with students also

foster student retention. Advice concerning the treatment of students takes several

forms. Faculty should show an interest in their students (Polinsky, 2002-2003)

as well as be approachable and supportive of their needs (Lundquist, Spalding,

& Landrum, 2002-2003). Faculty should also give words of encouragement and

offers of support to students of color (Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella &

Hagedorn, 1999). In offering recommendations about the retention of African

American males, Glenn (2003-2004) counsels faculty to make themselves

available for discussions and questions outside of class. Glenn (2003-2004) notes

that many at-risk students do not make office appointments. These two pieces of

advice also apply to all students.

Moreover, faculty should use e-mail to increase and improve communication

with students enrolled in their courses (Duggan, 2004-2005). However, faculty

should respond to student e-mail messages in a timely way (Lundquist et al.,

2002-2003). Likewise, faculty should also return student telephone calls without

much delay (Lundquist et al., 2002-2003).

This principle and its associated recommendations for faculty action strongly

resonate with the construct of the commitment of the institution to student

welfare posited by Braxton et al., (2004). As previously indicated, an abiding

concern for the growth and development of its students forms one aspect of this

organizational attribute. The high value an institution puts on its students

constitutes another aspect of this organizational attribute. Both aspects find

reinforcement in this guideline and its associated specific recommendations


for the active participation of faculty in efforts to reduce institutional rates of

student departure.

Such faculty actions also contribute to the academic integration of students.

Whereas students in residential colleges and universities may benefit from such

actions, such actions tend to indirectly shape the persistence decisions of students

enrolled in commuter colleges and universities (Braxton et al., 2004).

5. Practice institutional integrity by assuring the congruence of institutional

actions with the goals and values espoused by the institution.

This guideline corresponds to the construct of institutional integrity posited by

Braxton et al. (2004) to influence student departure decisions in both commuter

and residential colleges and universities (Braxton et al., 2004). Institutional

integrity is defined as the degree to which a college or university is true to its

espoused mission and values (Braxton et al., 2004). Put differently, institutional

integrity obtains when the actions of college and university administrators, staff

members and faculty member are congruent with the stated missions, goals, and

values of the institution.

Student recruitment constitutes one area where institutional integrity looms

important given the role unfulfilled expectations for college play in student

departure decisions (Braxton, Vesper, & Hossler, 1995; Helland, Stallings,

& Braxton, 2001-2002). Empirically-based counsel on student recruitment

concentrates on the need for colleges or universities to accurately portray

the academic and social environments of the institution to prospective students

(Helland et al., 2001-2002; Pascarella, 1985). More specifically, Pascarella

(1985) recommends that recruitment policies and practices provide prospective

students with complete and accurate information concerning academic demands

and the nonacademic environment of the institution. He notes that college

publications often fail to include such information. Helland, Stallings, and

Braxton (2001-2002) concur as they suggest that accurate rather than desired

impressions of the social climate of the college or university be conveyed to

prospective students.

Helland, Stallings, and Braxton (2001-2002) also advise colleges and uni-

versities to invite prospective students to visit the campus. They also suggest

that campus visitation practices should give prospective students an opportunity

to meet a range of different students. Such practices should also include an

opportunity to spend a night in a residence hall. Helland, Stallings, and Braxton

(2001-2002) see such practices as a way to provide prospective students with

realistic expectations about student life at given college or university. Likewise,

information provided prospective students in the form of college catalogs, view-

books, fact sheets, conferences with high school guidance counselors, visits with

students during high school visits, and college fairs should accurately depict the

social climate of a college or university Helland et al. (2001-2002) counsel.

Many colleges and universities espouse the high value the institution places

on student diversity. Being true to this value takes institutional commitment and


focus. Being true to a high value placed on student diversity leads to the retention

of students of color. Being true to this value also contributes to the retention

of students with disabilities and gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual students. Specific

empirically-derived recommendations to provide direction to institutional action

supportive of the goal of student diversity follow below.

Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, and Hagedorn (1999) and Loo and

Rolison (1986) favor the development of supportive campus environments for

racial/ethnic minority students. More specifically, the residential, social, and

academic communities of a college or university should provide culturally

supportive environments for minority students (Loo & Rolison, 1986). Cabrera,

Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, and Hagedorn (1999) charge administrators and

faculty with the development of such supportive environments. They also recom-

mend such practices as cultural awareness workshops, multicultural courses,

collaborative learning as an instructional practice, and faculty development

activities focused on cultural diversity and sensitivity (Cabrera et al., 1999).

In addition to the need for supportive campus environments, child care and

finances also concern minority students. Accordingly, Nora et al. (1996) propose

that colleges and universities provide on-campus day care services for students

with children. They also urge the creation of on-campus job opportunities to

ease the financial burden of attending college.

Academic communities also contribute to the realization of the goal of diversity

by developing learning communities, designing courses, and setting requirements

for the curriculum. To elaborate, the academic communities of an institution

should form learning communities that strive to increase communication and

interaction among different student racial/ethnic groups (Cabrera et al., 1999).

Such communities seek an acceptance of differences among different racial/ethnic

groups (Cabrera et al., 1999). Courses on multiculturalism should also be

developed to reduce campus discrimination and prejudice (Cabrera et al., 1999).

Other courses such as ethnic studies courses and courses in cross-cultural com-

munication should also be offered (Brown & Robinson-Kurpius, 1997).

In addition to participating in learning communities and offering courses

focused on diversity, teaching approaches used by faculty also contribute to the

realization of the goal of diversity. Such approaches to teaching include the

use of group work and collaborative/cooperative learning (Brown & Robinson-

Kurpius, 1997; Cabrera et al., 1999).

Student affairs practitioners contribute to the goal of diversity by conducting

cultural awareness workshops (Cabrera et al., 1999) and through clear and fre-

quent communications about the availability of academic, financial, and personal

counseling services (Glenn, 2003-2004). In addition, Person and Christensen

(1996) urge student affairs practitioners to consider ways to help African

American students feel less invisible on campus. Such ways include academic

support services, cultural events, and social activities. Person and Christensen

(1996) contend that such activities and programs should become such an integral


part of campus life that it becomes unnecessary for each generation of African

American students to reduce their own invisibility. Pascarella (1985) adds to

these ways by recommending the appointment of African American males to

university and departmental committees.

6. Foster the development of student affinity groups and student friendships.

Communal potential acts an important force in the retention of students in

residential universities (Braxton et al., 2004). Communal potential refers to the

extent to which a student perceives that a sub-group of students exists at their

college or university with which that student shares comparable values, beliefs,

and goals (Braxton et al., 2004). Communal potential fosters the social integration

of students in residential colleges and universities (Braxton et al., 2004). For

students whose cultures of origin are quite different from the predominate culture

of the institution, finding a cultural affinity group facilitates the retention of

such students (Kuh & Love, 2000).

For these reasons, colleges and universities in general and student affairs

practitioners in particular need to encourage the formation of student affinity

groups, groups of students who share a similarity of values, beliefs, and goals.

Residents halls foster the development of student affinity groups. Living-learning

units offer one approach as such units encourage the development of student

peer groups that take classes together and live in the same residence hall

(Stoecker, Pascarella & Wolfle, 1988). Sands and Schuh (2003-2004) advise

the formation of learning communities comprised specifically of bi-racial

students. Such learning communities give students a chance to explore their

racial identities as well as become aware of the programs and services the

institution has for both bi-racial students and students of specific racial groups

(Sands & Schuh, 2003-2004). Sands and Schuh also suggest that such learning

communities would increase the comfort level of bi-racial students at a college

or university.

In addition to living-learning units, recommendations for residence halls

staffing and composition center on the use of Native American residence

hall advisors and the assignment of units or floors of residence halls to

Native American students to reduce their feelings of isolation (Brown &

Robinson Kurpius, 1997).

In addition to fostering affinity groups for students whose culture of origin

differs from the prevailing institutional culture, providing opportunities for

students to develop friendships looms important. For students in residential

colleges and universities, social integration wields a highly reliable indirect

influence on the retention of students (Braxton & Lee, 2005). Students in

commuter colleges and universities encounter ill-structured and ill-defined social

communities (Braxton et al., 2004). As a consequence, commuter college and

university students with high needs for social affiliation require opportunities

to develop friendships to lessen their chances of departure (Braxton et al., 2004;

Pascarella & Chapman, 1983).


Thomas (2000) views student activities as a vehicle for the development of

student friendships as he counsels that the design of student activities should foster

the formation of student friendships that cut-across the primary peer groups

of students. As he puts it, “students should develop a portfolio of relations.”

Such a “portfolio of student relations” provides students with key academic and

social resources during their first year (Thomas, 2000).

Student activities in commuter colleges strive to involve commuter students in

out-of-class aspects of campus life (Mutter, 1992). Voorhees (1985) recommends

the development of programs that encourage interactions among commuting

students. More specifically, Abrahamowicz (1988) points to a need to encourage

commuter students to participate in student organizations.

Other specific suggestions focus on recreational sports programs. Belch,

Gebel, and Maas (2001) contend that intramural sports during the first year foster

student interaction. Through participation in intramural sports, first-year students

may also find study partners.

7. Select and implement, as appropriate, retention interventions described

in the literature.

Adherence to this guideline requires some familiarity with the literature

on retention interventions. Interventions described in the literature include

instructional approaches to reducing attrition and support services aimed at

countering departure.

Instructional approaches to reducing student attrition abound in the literature

and represent a widely used class of attrition remedies (Boudreau & Kromrey,

1994; Davig & Spain, 2003-2004; Schnell & Doetkott, 2002; Williford, Chapman,

& Kahrig, 2000-2001). Instructional interventions include: courses, seminars,

orientation programs with an instructional component, such as an extended

seminar, and summer programs with academic components. These courses are

aimed at facilitating persistence and simultaneously fostering students’ academic

success. Indeed, improving retention and increasing students’ academic success

enjoy a symbiotic relationship.

Numerous instructional interventions take the form of courses. These courses

serve all three groups of students, first year students, high risk students, and

underrepresented students. The first year experience and transition provide a

focal point for many courses, seminars, and extended orientation programs.

Courses developed for the purpose of assisting students in the transition to higher

education often have grown out of orientation programs. These courses can

differ in content, duration, credit or non-credit, graded or non-graded, required

or elective. Davig and Spain (2003-2004) describe an extended orientation course

which was for a one credit, one hour per week, graded academic orientation course

taught by faculty. Orientation to university policies and procedures, program

requirements, and student skills, and orientation to university academic life

and career exploration provide course content. Similar approaches to extending


university orientations throughout a semester in the form courses are well

represented in the literature (Boudreau & Kromrey, 1994; Schnell & Doetkott,

2002-2003; Sidle & McReynolds, 1999, Williford et al., 2000-2001). Courses

known as the “first year seminar” and “university experience” serve a similar

purpose of facilitating students in their transition to university life. These first year

courses frequently combine developmental, transitional, and academic content

with the goals of integrating first year students into college life, promoting their

academic success, and retaining them beyond the first semester or the first year.

Since extended orientation courses and first year experience courses and seminars

have been offered across institutional types and have a growing history, they have

been examined longitudinally. Research indicates these first year courses have a

positive impact on persistence (Davig & Spain, 2003-2004, Schnell & Doetkott,

2002-2003). Studies of these courses indicate a positive impact on students’

performance as well (Colton, Connor, Shultz, & Easter, 1999; Sidle &

McReynolds, 1999; Williford et al., 2000-2001).

In addition to courses or instructional interventions centered on the first year

or university experience, courses and academic workshops targeting high risk

students have been successfully implemented. These efforts generally share

goals with extended orientation, first year, and university experience courses.

They ordinarily differentiate themselves by putting greater stress on academic

development and academic content including study and test-taking skills, textbook

reading, critical thinking skills, and grade point average improvement. Mann,

Hunt, and Alford (2003-2004) examine such a program for students on academic

probation and report a strong positive effect of this approach on these high

risk students’ academic performance and persistence. Examining a similar high

risk target population of students Engle, Reilly, & Levine (2003-2004) found a

positive impact on retention for student participants in a semester long counseling

driven academic and career skills workshop. Bowles and Jones (2003-2004)

found that supplemental instruction has a positive effect on retention. Another

instructional intervention which researchers found to have a positive effect on

students’ achievement and retention was learning style intervention (Nelson

et al., 1993) and learning strategies intervention (Levin & Levin, 1991). With

these approaches to student learning, students were taught how to study and

achieve given their learning styles.

Instructional interventions designed for high risk underrepresented minority

students also occupy a place in the literature (Belgarde & Lore, 2003-2004;

Giles-Gee, 1989; Levin & Levin, 1991). These studies stress the importance of

the role of students’ cultural and racial/ethnic background in the development

of retention interventions. Belgarde and Lore (2003-2004) make this point

particularly clear in their study of Native American undergraduates. Also these

studies tend to promote a multi-intervention approach to developing retention

interventions for underrepresented minority students.


Support services complementing instructional interventions have also been

popular approaches to countering student departure. They cover a wide range of

services including: advising, counseling, mentoring, and tutoring and span

academic, personal, and career development. These practices involve student

affairs professionals, faculty, and peers.

Many retention initiatives have a built-in counseling component. Counseling

addressing student retention can be guided by a philosophy that any student can

be an at-risk student and thus can benefit from intervention. Sievaking and

Perfetto (2000-2001) found that a clinically driven counseling intervention

designed for students who self-reported being at risk of withdrawing to be

effective. Academic counseling serves as a common approach to facilitating

student success and promoting student persistence and has been found effective.

Proactive counseling interventions aimed at fostering college student retention

often include both individual and group components and provide personal as

well as academic counseling and have been found to be effective (Engle et al.,

2003-2004; Giles-Gee, 1989; Mann et al., 2003-2004). Self-esteem and academic

skills development including test taking and study skills typically are essential

ingredients in counseling interventions. In addition to the personal and the

academic counseling, some programs have incorporated career counseling for

positive results (Mann et al., 2003-2004).

Advising with a focus on retention similar to counseling can offer support to

students in retention target populations. Advising can be embedded in counseling

services (Colton et al., 1999) or it can be a discrete support service (Giles-Gee,

1998). Advising, whether a subset of counseling or a free standing endeavor

has shown to be an effective service in facilitating student success and in con-

tributing to persistence (Ryan & Glenn, 2002-2003).

Mentoring programs also serve retention goals. Campbell and Campbell

(1997) as well as Mangold, Bean, Adams, Schwab, & Lynch, 2002-2003) found

that student participants in a faculty/student mentoring program experienced

greater academic achievement as reflected in grade point averages and persisted at

a greater rate than their non-mentored counterparts. In a similar study using

students in good standing as mentors for students at risk, Pagan and

Edwards-Wilson (2002-2003) and Colton et al. (1999) found similar positive

results. The at-risk population in their research showed improved academic

achievement along with improved rates of retention. All of these studies present

compelling evidence supportive of implementing mentoring programs to foster

college student retention.

In addition to counseling, advising, and mentoring, tutoring services have

contributed to retention efforts. Researchers have examined retention programs

which have incorporated tutoring. Evidence produced by these researchers

findings suggest that tutoring as a support service has a positive impact and

an important role in retention efforts (Colton et al., 1999; Giles-Gee, 1989;

Levin & Levin, 1991).


CONCLUSIONS

Two major conclusions emerge from the contents of this article. These conclu-

sions hold implications for institutional efforts to reduce student departure.

1. Student departure poses an ill-structured problem to practitioners (Braxton

& Mundy, 2001-2002; Braxton et al., 2004). Ill-structured problems resist a single

solution as they require a range of possible solutions each with an uncertain

possibility of solving the problem (Kitchener, 1986; Wood, 1983). Because

student departure takes the form of an ill-structured problem, each of the seven

guidelines to direct professional practice advanced in this article require serious

attention by colleges and universities desiring to reduce their rates of student

departure. Put differently, colleges and universities should follow most if not all of

these empirically grounded guidelines. Likewise, the bounty of recommendations

associated with each of the seven guidelines for practice also merit serious

consideration for implementation.

2. No single domain of a college or university bears responsibility for reducing

student departure. The seven guidelines and accompanying recommendations

demonstrate that efforts to reduce student departure apply to a range of functional

areas of colleges and universities. These functional areas include academic advis-

ing, academic program and faculty, administration, career development, orienta-

tion, residential life, and student activities. Thus, the central administration,

faculty, and student affairs professionals of colleges and universities play sig-

nificant roles in reducing student departure.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

This article closes with these thoughts. The best interests of both the student and

the institution may be served by the departure from a given college or university by

some students (Tinto, 1982). However, the seven empirically-grounded guidelines

described in this article aim to reduce unnecessary student departure, departure

that might occur without their observance. Moreover, student retention occupies

the attention of the administrations of many colleges and universities. The

management of enrollments and use of retention and graduate rates as indices of

college quality make student retention such a focus of attention. However, student

retention should not serve as a primary goal of a college or university. Although

persistence, academic achievement, and graduation are forms of student success,

the growth and development of college students remains a core function of higher

education practice.

REFERENCES

Abrahamowicz, D. (1988). College involvement, perceptions, and satisfaction: A study

of membership in student organizations. Journal of College Student Development, 29,

233-238.


American College Testing Program. (2006). National Collegiate Retention and Persistence

to Degree Rates, 2006 [On-line]. Available:

http://www.act.org/path/policy/pdf/retain_2005.pdf

Ashar, H., & Skenes, R. (1993). Can Tinto’s student departure model be applied to

nontraditional students? Adult Education Quarterly, 43(2), 90-100.

Austin, S. A., & McDermott, K. A. (2003-2004). College persistence among single mothers

after welfare reform: An exploratory study. Journal of College Student Retention:

Research, Theory and Practice, 5(2), 93-113.

Bean, J. P. (1982). Student attrition, intentions, and confidence: Interaction effects in a

path model. Research in Higher Education, 17(4), 291-320.

Belch, H. A., Gebel, M., & Mass, G. M. (2001). Relationship between student recreation

complex use, academic performance, and persistence of first-time freshmen. NASPA

Journal, 38(2), 254-268.

Belgrade, M. J., & Lore, R. V. (2003-2004). The retention/intervention student of Native

American undergraduates at the University of New Mexico. Journal of College Student

Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 5(2),175-203.

Berger, J. B., & Braxton, J. M. (1998). Revising Tinto’s interactionalist theory of

student departure through theory elaboration: Examining the role of organi-

zational attributes in the persistence process. Research in Higher Education, 39(2),

103-119.

Boudreau, C. A., & Kromrey, J. D. (1994). A longitudinal study of the retention and

academic performance of participants in freshmen orientation course. Journal of

College Student Development, 35, 444-449.

Bonwell, C. C. (1996). Enhancing the lecture: Revitalizing a traditional format. In

T. E. Sutherland & C. C. Bonwell (Eds.), Using active learning in college classes:

A range of options for faculty (pp. 31-44). New Directions for Teaching and Learning

No. 67. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bowles, T. J., & Jones, J. (2003-2004). The effect of supplemental instruction on retention:

A bivariate probit model. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory

and Practice, 5(4), 431-437.

Braxton, J. M. (2000). Introduction: Reworking the student departure puzzle. In J. M.

Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 1-8). Nashville, TN:

Vanderbilt University Press.

Braxton, J. M., Bray, N. J., & Berger, J. B. (2000). Faculty teaching skills and their

influence on the college student departure process. Journal of College Student Develop-

ment, 41(2), 215-227.

Braxton, J. M., & Lien, L. A. (2000). The viability of academic integration as a central

construct in Tinto’s interactionalist theory of college student departure. In J. M. Braxton

(Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 11-28). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt

University Press.

Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning on

the college student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto’s theory. Journal of

Higher Education, 71(5), 569-590.

Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2004). Toward understanding

and reducing college student departure. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Braxton, J. M. & Lee, S. D. (2005). Toward reliable knowledge about college student

departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for success

(pp. 107-127). Westport, CT: American Council on Higher Education/Praeger

Publishers.

Braxton, J. M., & Mundy, M. E. (2001-2002). Powerful institutional levers to reduce

college student departure. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and

Practice, 3, 91-118.

Braxton, J. M., Vesper, N., & Hossler, D. (1995). Expectations for college and student

persistence. Research in Higher Education, 36, 595-612.

Brown, L. L., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (1997). Psychological factors influencing

academic persistence of American Indian college students. Journal of College Student

Development, 38(1), 3-12.

Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagedorn, L. S. (1999). Campus

racial climate and the adjustment of students to college: A comparison between white

students and African-American students. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(2),

134-160.

Caison, A. L. (2004-2005). Determinants of systemic retention: Implications for improving

retention practice in higher education. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,

Theory and Practice, 6(4), 425-441.

Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects

on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38(6),

727-742.

Colton, G. M., Connor, U. J., Shultz, E. L., & Easte, 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 and Practice, 1(2) 147-162.

Davig, W. B., & Spain, J. W. (2003-2004). Impact on freshmen retention of orientation

course content: Proposed persistence model. Journal of College Student Retention:


Duggan, M. B. (2004-2005). E-mail as social capital and its impact on first-year per-

sistence of 4-year college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,


Dungy, G. J. (2003). Organization and functions of student affairs. In S. R. Komvies,

B. W. Dudley, Jr., & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the profession

(4th ed., pp. 339-357). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Engle, C. C., Reilly, N. P., & Levine, H. B. (2003-2004). A case study of an academic

retention program. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and

Practice, 5(4), 365-383.

Giles-Gee, H. F. (1989). Increasing the retention of black students: A multimethod

approach. Journal of College Student Development, 30(3), 196-200.

Glenn, F. S. (2003-2004). The retention of black male students in Texas public community

colleges. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 5(2),

115-133.

Gloria, A. M., Robinson-Kurpius, S. E., Hamilton, K. D., & Willson, M. S. (1999). African

American students’ persistence at a predominately white university: Influences of

social support, university comfort, and self-beliefs. Journal of College Student

Development, 40(3), 257-268.


Gohn, L., Swartz, J., & Donnelly, S. (2000-2001). A case study of second year student

persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 2,

271-294.

Grimes, S. K., & Antworth, T. (1996). Community college withdrawal decisions: Student

characteristics and subsequent reenrollment patterns. Community College Journal of

Research and Practice, 20, 345-361.

Hagedorn, L. S. (2005). How to define retention: A new look at an old problem. In

A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for success (pp. 89-105).

Westport, CT: American Council on Higher Education/Praeger Publishers.

Helland, P. A., Stallings, H. J., & Braxton, J. M. (2001-2002). The fulfillment of expec-

tations for college and student departure decisions. Journal of College Student

Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 3(4), 381-396.

Hermanowicz, J. C. (2003). College attrition at American research universities:

Comparative case studies. New York: Agathon Press.

Hirschy, A. S. (2004). Antecedents to social integration: Organizational influences on

college student persistence. Paper presentation at the meeting of the Association for

the Study of Higher Education, Kansas City, Missouri.

Jackson, A. P., Smith, S. A., & Hill, C. L. (2003). Academic persistence among

native American college students. Journal of College Student Development, 44(4),

548-565.

Kitchener, K. (1986). The reflective judgment model: Characteristics, evidence, and

measurement. In R. Mines & K. Kitchener (Eds.), Adult cognitive development. New

York: Praeger.

Kuh, G. D., & Love, P. G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In. J. M.

Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 196-212). Nashville, TN:

Vanderbilt University Press.

LeSure-Lester, G. E. (2003-2004). Effects of coping styles on college persistence decisions

among Latino students in two year colleges. Journal of College Student Retention:


Levin, M. E., & Levin, J. R. (1991). A critical examination of academic retention programs

for at-risk minority college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32(4),

323-334.

Loo, C. M., & Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a predominately

white university. The Journal of Higher Education, 57(1), 58-77.

Lundquist, C., Spalding, R. J., & Landrum, R. E. (2002-2003). College student’s thoughts

about leaving the university: The impact of faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal

of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 4(2), 123-133.

Mangold, W. D., Bean, L. G., Adams, D. J., Schwab, W. A., & Lynch, S. M. (2002-2003).

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:


Mann, J. R., Hunt, M. D., & Alford, J. G. (2003-2004). Monitored probation: A program

that works. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 5(3),

245-254.

Milem, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence:

Exploring the relationship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s theory

of student departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38(4), 387-399.


Mohr, J. J., Eiche, K. D., & Sedlacek, W. E. (1998). So close, yet so far: Predictors of

attrition in college seniors. Journal of College Student Development, 39(4), 343-354.

Mortenson, T. G. (2005). Measurements of persistence. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College

Student retention: Formula for success (pp. 31-60). Westport, CT: American Council

on Higher Education/Praeger Publishers.

Murtaugh, P. A., Burns, L. D., & Schuster, J. (1999). Predicting the retention of university

students. Research in Higher Education, 40(3), 355-371.

Mutter, P. (1992). Tinto’s theory of departure and community college student persistence.

Journal of College Student Development, 33, 310-317.

Nagda, B. A., Gregerman, S. R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., & Lerner, J. S. (1998).

Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. The

Review of Higher Education, 22(1), 55-72.

Nauta, M. M., & Kahn, J. H. (2000). The social-cognitive model applied to academic

performance and persistence. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American

Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Nelson, B., Dunn, R., et al. (1993). Effects of learning style intervention on college

students’ retention and achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 34(5),

364-369.

Nippert, K. (2000-2001). Influences on the educational degree attainment of two-year

college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice,

2(1), 29-40.

Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A structural

model. Research in Higher Education, 26(1), 31-59.

Nora, A. (1990). Campus-based aid programs as determinants of retention among

Hispanic community college students. The Journal of Higher Education, 6(3),

312-331.

Nora, A., Cabrera, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Pascarella, E. (1996). Differential impacts

of academic and social experiences on college-related behavioral outcomes across

different ethnic and gender groups at four-year institutions. Research in Higher

Education, 37(4), 427-451.

Pagan, R., & Edwards-Wilson, R. (2002-2003). A mentoring program for remedial

students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 4(3)

207-226.

Pascarella, E. T. (1985). Racial differences in factors associated with bachelor’s

degree completion: A nine-year follow-up. Research in Higher Education, 23(4),

351-373.

Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Wolfle, L. M. (1986). Orientation to college and

freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Journal of Higher Education, 57(2),

155-175.

Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D. W. (1983). Validation of a theoretical model of college

withdrawal: Interaction effects in a multi-institutional sample. Research in Higher

Education, 19(1), 25-48.

Perry, S. R., Cabrera, A. F., & Vogt, W. P. (1999). Career maturity and college student

persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 1(1),

41-58.

Person, D. R., & Christensen, M. C. (1996). Understanding black student culture and

black student retention. NASPA Journal, 34(1), 47-56.


Peterson, S. L. (1993). Career decision-making self-efficacy and institutional integration

of underprepared college students. Research in Higher Education, 34(6), 659-685.

Polinsky, T. L. (2002-2003). Understanding student retention through a look at student

goals, intentions, and behavior. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory

and Practice, 4(4), 361-376.

Rendon, L. I., & Nora, A. (1989). A synthesis and application of research on Hispanic

students in community colleges. Community College Review, 17(1), 17-24.

Ryan, M. P., & Glenn, P. A. (2002-2003). Increasing one year retention rates by focusing

on academic competence: An empirical odyssey. Journal of College Student Retention:


Sandler, M. E. (2000). Career decision-making self-efficacy, perceived stress, and an

integrated model of student persistence: A structural model of finances, attitudes,

behavior, and career development. Research in Higher Education, 41(5), 537-580.

Sands, N., & Schuh, J. H. (2003-2004). Identifying interventions to improve the retention

of biracial students: A case study. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,


Schnell, C. A., & Doetkott, C. D. (2002-2003). First year seminars produce long-term

impact. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 4(4),

377-391.

Seidman, A. (2005). Where we go from here: A retention formula for student success.

In A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for success (pp. 295-316).

Westport, CT: American Council on Higher Education/Praeger Publishers.

Sidle, M. W., & McReynolds, J. (1999). The freshman year experience: Student reten-

tion and student success. NASPA Journal, 36(4), 288-300.

Sieveking, N., & Perfetto, G. (2000-2001). A student-centered individual-level univer-

sity retention program where attrition is low. Journal of College Student Retention:


Skahill, M. P. (2002-2003). The role of social support network in college persistence

among freshman students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory

and Practice, 4(1), 39-52.

Somers, P., Woodhouse, S., & Cofer, J. (2004). Pushing the boulder uphill: The persistence

of first-generation college students. NASPA Journal, 41(3), 418-435.

St. John, E. P., Kirshstein, R. J., & Noell, J. (1991). The effects of student financial

aid on persistence: A sequential analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 14(3),

383-406.

Stoecker, J., Pascarella, E. T., & Wolfle, L. M. (1988). Persistence in higher education:

A 9-year test of a theoretical model. Journal of College Student Development, 29,

196-209.

Thomas, S. L. (2000). Ties that bind: A social network approach to understanding student

integration and persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 591-615.

Tierney, W. G. (2000). Power, identity, and the dilemma of college student departure. In

J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 213-234). Nashville,

TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.

Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of Higher

Education, 53, 687-700.


Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition

(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (2006-2007). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal

of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(1), 1-19.

Voorhees, R. A. (1985). Student finances and campus-based financial aid: A structural

model analysis of the persistence of high need freshmen. Research in Higher Education,

22(1), 65-92.

Williford, A. M., Chapman, L. C., & Kahrig, T. (2000-2001). The university experience

course: A longitudinal student of student performance, retention, and graduation.

Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 2(4), 327-340.

Wood, P. (1983). Inquiring systems and problem structure: Implications for cognitive

development. Human Development, 26, 249-265.

Woosley, S., Slabaugh, K., Sadler, A. E., & Mason, G. W. (2005). The mystery of

stop-outs. Do commitment and intentions predict reenrollment? NASPA Journal,

42(2), 188-201.

Direct reprint requests to:

John M. Braxton

Professor of Education

Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program

Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations

Peabody College

Box 514

Vanderbilt University

Nashville, TN 37203

e-mail: [email protected]


Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

shaping retention

Documents