|
STUDENT RETENTION:
UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES OF STUDENT ATTRITION
AND IMPLEMENTING A PREVENTION PLAN
Joe Cuseo
Marymount College
II.
HOW SHOULD RETENTION PROGRAMS BE DELIVERED?
UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES OF STUDENT ATTRITION
AND IMPLEMENTING A PREVENTION PLAN
Joe Cuseo
Marymount College
The Process of Retention Intervention:
12 Powerful Properties/Principles of Program Delivery
1. STUDENT-CENTERED: The program is oriented toward, focused on, and driven by a genuine concern for the needs and welfare of students (rather than by institutional habit/convenience, or the needs/desires of faculty and staff).
2. INTENTIONAL (PURPOSEFUL): The program is deliberately designed with the conscious intent of implementing research- and theory-grounded principles of effective student learning and development, i.e.: (a) active involvement�program delivery promotes student �engagement� (depth of involvement) in the college experience, and (b) social integration� program delivery promotes frequent, high-quality student interaction with other members of the college community (peers, faculty, staff), thus serving to socially �connect� students to the institution�providing them with a sense of community membership.
3. PROACTIVE: Early, preventative action is taken that addresses students� needs and adjustment issues in an anticipatory fashion, i.e., before they eventuate in problems that require reactive intervention.
4. INTRUSIVE: The college initiates supportive action by reaching out to students and bringing or delivering the program to students (rather than passively waiting and hoping that students will take advantage of it), thus increasing the likelihood that the program reaches all (or the vast majority of) students who would profit from it.
5. DIVERSIFIED: The program is tailored or customized to meet the distinctive needs of different student subpopulations.
6. PERSONALIZED: The program is delivered in a manner that recognizes students as individuals, and makes them feel personally significant.
7. COMPRHENSIVE (HOLISTIC): Focuses on the student as a �whole person,� and addresses the full range of academic and non-academic factors that affect student success.
8. SYSTEMIC: The program permeates multiple areas of the institution�s organizational structure or system, ensuring that it functions in a �mainstreamed� or centralized fashion, thus increasing its potential for having pervasive and recursive influence on the student�s college experience, as well as a reformative and transformative effect on the college itself.
9. DEVELOPMENTAL: The program is delivered in a timely, longitudinal sequence that meets student needs and educational challenges which emerge at different stages of the college experience.
10. DURABLE: The program is institutionalized by being �built into� the organizational structure/blueprint and annual budget of the institution, thus ensuring that the program has longevity and is experienced perennially by successive cohorts of students.
11. COLLABORATIVE: The program involves cooperative alliances or partnerships between different organizational units of the college�which work in a complementary, interdependent fashion to increase the program�s capacity for exerting a multiplicative or synergistic effect on student success.
12. EMPIRICAL (EVIDENTIARY): The program is supported and driven by assessment data (both quantitative and qualitative) that are used summatively to �prove� program impact or value, and formatively to continually �improve� program quality.
RECOMMENDED REFERENCES & RESOURCES ON STUDENT RETENTION
Beal, P., & Noel, L. (1980). What works in student retention. The American College Testing Program and The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (Eric Reproduction Service No. 197 635)
Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the departure puzzle: New theory and research on college student retention. Nashville: University of Vanderbilt Press.
Braxton, J. M. (Ed.)(2001-2002). Using theory and research to improve college student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 3(1), 1- 118.
Lenning, O. T., Beal, P. E., & Sauer, K. (1980). Retention and attrition: Evidence for action and research. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
Lenning, O. T., Sauer, K., & Beal, P. E. (1980). Student retention strategies. AAHE- ERIC/Higher Education Research Report No. 8. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.
National Institute of Independent Colleges and Universities (1990). Undergraduate completion and persistence at four-year colleges and universities. Washington, DC: Author.
Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Kaufmann, J. (1982). Organizing the campus for retention. Iowa City, Iowa: American College Testing Program & The National Center for Academic Advancement of Educational Practices.
Terrell, M. C., & Wright, D. J. (Eds.) (1988). From survival to success: Promoting minority student retention. NASPA Monograph No. 9. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators.
Resources: Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing. (http://baywood.com)
Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education (Newsletter). Madison, WI: Magna Publications. (www.magnapubs.com)
Website: http://www.noellevitz.com (See profiles of campuses with award-winning retention programs.)