Student Retention

Abstract

How to increase retention among college students has been researched for more than fifty years. The concept of students persisting from semester to semester, year to year, and from entrance to graduation is especially crucial in this economic time. Several studies are discussed here which focus on successful retention efforts on college campuses. Helping students feel like they belong to a community, first-year seminars, faculty development, developmental (remedial) courses, and learning communities have been shown to increase retention and are discussed below.

When it comes to win-win combinations, few are more beneficial than the relationship between student retention and higher education. With America facing an economic deficit and businesses folding in all directions during the Great Recession (2007-–9), being in college rather than in the workplace seemed to be the safest place for some people. However, simply being in college is not as easy as staying in college. Respectable high school grades and average standardized test scores allow entrance to some favorable institutions of higher education. Yet once each student says goodbye to his or her parents and begins to unpack, that student's future may depend less on what he or she does and more on what the institutions are doing. At some point, the responsibility of students persisting in college moves from the students to that of the college administrations.

Researchers study retention, journals report about it, and budgets are stretched to enhance it. Schools that do not retain students lose tuition dollars as well as the combined resources of instruction, housing, and support services that are spent on those students who are eventually lost to attrition. Conversely, students who are not retained lose the basic opportunities that higher education offers; for many, that means secure employment possibilities that are not a consideration for anyone lacking a degree. According to ACT (2007), about 40% of the students who enter college in any given year will leave before the second year begins, and only slightly more than a third will actually earn a degree (as cited in Fike & Fike, 2008). By 2015, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, the situation had improved slightly, with 72.1 percent of students who had started college in the fall reportedly returning for a second year in 2015 ("Snapshot report," 2016).

While much effort is given to researching and reporting about retention, a 2004 study surveying over 1,000 colleges reports that fewer than half "have established an improvement goal for [the] retention of students from the first to second year" (Habley & McClanahan, 2004, p. 6). College and university administrators know how important student retention is—if not for the students then certainly for their budgets—yet making the necessary changes to increase student persistence has not become a priority. Many campuses put someone in charge of retention efforts, but that charge often comes without the budget, time, staff, or authority to actually make changes that improve retention (Hossler, Ziskin, & Gross, 2009, p. 6-7). Furthermore, it is ironic that the response to a college's success relying so heavily on student persistence is to put one person in charge of that task when several people fill the admissions' offices. In other words, it does not make much sense to get students to a school if only one person is in charge of keeping them there.

Overview

Why Students Leave. It is fair to say that some students should not be in college. Be it the wrong time or the wrong goal, college simply is not for everybody, and even the strongest retention program will not help this group persist. In contrast, there is another group of students who will be successful academically without any intervention; these students are generally ambitious and goal-oriented. In the midst of these two groups of students is a third category: the students who are considered "at risk" for early dropout. This category of students does not travel with a neon flashing sign announcing their precarious situation. As a result, it is essential for school personnel to try to predict what risk factors place them in danger of attrition.

Braunstein and McGrath (1997) conducted a study to do just that. Iona College, a private catholic school in New Rochelle, New York, experienced a decade-long trend in attrition, even though a focus on retention efforts had taken place—a freshman experience course was organized, orientation sessions had improved, and a retention coordinator was hired, yet students were still dropping out. Most of the students who did drop out were academically weak, according to the study. The researchers concluded that

"… the students who were retained showed higher high school grades, Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, and first semestermgrade point averages than the students who were not retained. In one particular analysis, the first semester grade point average was the most significant predictor of retention. The grade point average for freshmen who were retained was 2.76 while the average for those who were not retained was 1.88" (Braunstein & McGrath, 1997, "Reasons Why").

In addition, the authors note that the students retained after the first year (of the study) had an average annual family income of at least ten-thousand dollars more than that of the students who were not retained (Braunstein & McGrath, 1997). This is not surprising, as students have always been dropping out of college for academic and financial reasons. However, the data does place an emphasis on the fact that these risk factors (low academic skill level and low income status) are combatable by institutions. Colleges who want students to persist can offer remediation, study skills assistance, and tutoring for weak students as well as offering financial aid and scholarship opportunities to low-income students.

In another study created to predict retention, DeBerard, Spielmans, and Julka (2004) administered surveys to the freshmen of a private northwestern US institution. The surveys gathered information about risk factor variables, including academic history, demographics, drinking and smoking habits, coping skills, and social support availability. Students completed the surveys in the fall 1999 semester and were identified again the following year (fall 2000) to determine retention rates. Fifteen percent of the students completing the survey did not return the following academic year. While most of the variables showed a predictive ability for high academic achievement (such as strong social network, high SAT scores, and developed coping skills), only one was shown to actually predict retention: high school GPA. In other words, the students who were not retained after one or two semester shared a commonality: they had low high school grade point averages (DeBerard, Spielmans & Julka, 2004).

It is important to note that these two different studies indicate a common factor for student retention: students who are weak academically pose a risk for attrition. While not a neon sign, this is an indicator that colleges see well before students enter their campuses.

Applications

Intervention Strategies to Increase Retention

First-Year Seminar & Learning Communities. Many institutions require an introductory college course for new students. Whether it is called a freshman seminar, first-year experience, or first-year seminar (FYS) course, the class generally focuses on transition information to help new students adapt to life within the campus community. Many offer study skills instruction, class visits to various offices on campus, and instruction in some academic discipline. In many instances, the discipline topic selections are chosen by the student based on academic study preferences. Some colleges make the first-year experience course part of a learning community, meaning that it is offered in conjunction with other courses, all of which are taken by the same group of students. Other campuses offer the course in isolation. The goal is to assist students' transition to college, which in turn helps them persist.

Vincent Tinto, a professor of education at Syracuse University, has researched student persistence in higher education for more than thirty years. One of Tinto's theories of retention is that students will be much more likely to persist when they feel integrated into the college community both socially and academically (1975). Considering Tinto's integration model, Potts and Schultz (2008) studied the retention effects of students enrolled in a freshman seminar course that was offered within a learning community in the school's business department. Using a sample of 223 freshmen at a public undergraduate institution, students were randomly chosen to have the learning community, the FYS class in isolation, or no intervention. Students were identified as high risk based on off-campus living status during the first semester; integration within the campus community is difficult for students who do not live on campus. They were also considered at-risk if their ACT scores were below 22 or if their high school ranking was higher than 40% on a scale of 0 to 100% (Potts & Schultz, 2008).

The only noted retention effect of the FYS learning community occurred within the off-campus student population. The students who lived off campus during their first year and who experienced the FYS learning community had a 74% retention rate when compared to the students who lived off campus and did not experience the FYS learning community combination; the retention rate for that group was only slightly above 42%; there was no statistically significant difference within the students considered at risk for academic reasons (Potts & Schultz, 2008). For colleges and universities that do not require or cannot accommodate all freshmen living on campus, an FYS learning community may be necessary to increase the retention of students who would otherwise be lost to attrition—those who feel isolated from the campus community.

Developmental (Remedial) Education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2007), almost 100% of two-year public schools and three-quarters of four-year public schools offered remedial services during the 2006–7 academic year. Between 2003 and 2009, 68 percent of college students starting at a public two-year institution and 40 percent of those starting at a public four-year institution reported taking at least one remedial course (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). Services can range from offering one specific class to entrance into a learning community of developmental courses. In whatever situation, the goal is the same: to increase the skill-level of underprepared students. Some institutions prefer not to offer developmental courses; generally, those schools tend to be private and can grant admission to whomever they choose. However, with less money in the economy, fewer students can to apply to any college. In addition, Mooney (1989) argues that the student body has been less prepared academically than students in the past (as cited in Braunstein & McGrath, 1997). As a result of these factors, colleges should be admitting as many students as possible and assuring that the students they do admit are retained.

According to Lesik (2007), offering developmental courses to the students who need it will increase retention. The Lesik (2007) study looked at the retention effects of intermediate (developmental) algebra classes at a public undergraduate university; the study lasted over a three-year period (p. 588).

"After the first year (or second semester) at the university, students who participated in the developmental program have an estimated risk of dropout of only 8.2% while equivalent students who did not participate in the developmental program have an estimated risk of dropout of 27.7%. Similarly, after the second year (or fourth semester), students who participated in the developmental program have an estimated risk of dropout of 4.4% while equivalent students who did not participate in the developmental program have an estimated risk of dropout of 16.5%" (Lesik, 2006, p. 601-602).

In addition, Fike and Fike (2008) note that the successful completion of developmental courses can actually predict the persistence of first-time college students. These researchers tracked over 9,000 new students to identify retention rates from fall to spring and also from fall to fall semesters. Almost 30% of the students dropped out during or following their first fall semester, and more than 50% did not enroll in a second academic year. For those who did return, the strongest predictor of retention was passing a developmental reading course. Also, passing a developmental math class was identified as another positive predictor of retention. In fact, students who placed into developmental math but did not enroll in it had a lower rate of retention than the students who placed into the developmental math course, enrolled in it, but did not complete it (Fike & Fike, 2008). In other words, enrolling in developmental math and not completing it carried a higher chance of persistence than not enrolling in it for these students. In addition, students who did not need the developmental reading course showed a high retention rate as they already possessed the skill deemed so necessary to academic success (Fike & Fike, 2008).

A Combined Approach. Pan, Guo, Alikonis, and Bai (2008) studied the retention effects of a combined intervention approach at an urban university in the Midwestern United States. The institution had received a grant to encourage the retention of at-risk undergraduate students as well as to encourage those students to graduate within a four-year time span. The college created several intervention programs to encourage student retention. Pan et al. (2008) collected data to note the retention rates and cumulative GPAs of student participants over the three-year study. Most of the interventions programs "were designed to promote studentto-student interaction, faculty-to-student interaction, student involvement, academic engagement, and academic assistance" (Pan et al., 2008, par. 6). The six categories of programs included academic assistance (tutoring), first-year experience/seminar, social integration, advising, financial aid, and orientation. There were 1305 students who participated voluntarily in one of the programs at the beginning of the 2000 fall semester. The average GPA for the participant group was 2.91 (Pan et al., 2008).

Retention rates for each year of the study were .67 (2001–2), .54 (2002–3), and .49 (2003–4), respectively; the cumulative GPAs for all three years were 2.33, 2.75, and 2.58, respectively (Pan et al., 2008). The authors note the specific effects of some of the Success Challenge programs.

"The academic-help [tutoring] programs significantly… increased the retention rates for the first year… The advising…and social integration…programs significantly helped students…return to school after the first year…The general orientation programs significantly… helped all students increase GPA for the first year… This study confirmed Tinto's (1993) statement that involvement in social and intellectual life of a college helps learning and persistence in college …[In addition,] participation in more than one Success Challenge program greatly helped students both in retention and increase of GPA, not only in the first year, but also second and third year" (Pan et al., 2008, "Discussion").

Finally, one of the biggest differences noted in this study is that for the students that were truly underprepared (at-risk academically), the academic support program was the most helpful to increase cumulative GPA and retention (Pan et al., 2008).

When a faculty member is hired at a college or university, it is generally to fill a gap in a specific research area. Generally, only faculty hired in education departments have actually studied the art of teaching. As such, there is often a misfit between how faculty teach and how students learn. The National Training Laboratories in Bethel, Maine, constructed the learning pyramid below to indicate how students retain the information presented in class. Students retain only about 5% of the material presented in a class lecture. In other words, any instructor who chooses to lecture students runs the risk of only three and a half minutes of a 70-minute lecture being retained.

Pedagogies of Engagement. According to Tinto (2009), "Pedagogies of engagement—such as cooperative and problem-based learning—have been shown to be particularly effective in enhancing student success. Research in this regard is clear: Active involvement of students in learning activities in and around the classroom, especially with other students, is critical to student retention and graduation" (Tinto, 2009, par. 6).

Unfortunately, studies show that the majority of instructors "rely on lecture as their primary teaching tool" (Finkelstein et al. 1998, as cited in McShannon et al. 2009, p. 205). As such, an in-class faculty development program was created by McShannon et al. (2009) in order to increase student retention and offer faculty information about effective teaching strategies. Gaining Retention and Achievement for Students Program (GRASP) works with instructors for an entire semester, conducting learning style inventories on students, interviewing faculty, introducing new teaching methods to faculty, observing classes, and conducting post-observation conferences with the faculty involved. McShannon et al. used GRASP at New Mexico State University over several consecutive years with over 50 faculty members (p. 204).

"GRASP staff identified the learning style distribution in each class, began to suggest appropriate teaching strategies, and helped faculty implement the recommended strategies. When faculty became aware of the diversity of student learning, they were more willing to implement and practice alternative teaching strategies. Once faculty recognized many of their students learn differently than they themselves did, faculty were free to teach differently than they themselves were taught" (McShannon et al, 2009, p. 205).

The retention and academic achievement of freshmen and sophomores in the GRASP intervention classes were compared to students in the same classes whose teachers did not participate in the GRASP study. Students receiving an A, B, or C in the course were considered to be achieving academically; retention was cited for the students who remained in their major one year after the GRASP study. The freshmen and sophomores showed 5.6% and 6.7% increases in achievement, respectively (p. 206). Additionally, a 7.8% increase in retention was noted for freshmen with a 12.9% increase identified for sophomores. Furthermore, feedback from faculty showed that GRASP teaching strategies were still being used (at least weekly) as a result of the study. Not surprisingly, the methods continued by faculty include those at the bottom of the learning pyramid: students being active in class, students teaching each other, and student involvement in group discussions and activities (McShannon et al, 2009, p. 207).

In addition to encouraging student activity and engagement, Tinto (2009) identified additional ways that teachers can increase retention. He notes that the expectations of each course should be clear to students and challenging in scope. Also, students need feedback. They need to know how they are doing and what they need to improve. Tinto includes the use of early alert information as a faculty function. If students are non-productive, if their attendance is shaky, or if their ability is lacking, faculty need to notify the necessary people on campus for intervention to take place. Finally, it is helpful for faculty to know what "learning and living situations students are experiencing" (Tinto, 2009).

Students who live off-campus, have jobs, or have families have different social, academic, and economic issues than traditional students living on campus. It is important for teachers to know what those issues are, and asking about them can help students feel relevant to the success of the class.

Retention in Online Programs. As the advancement of the internet and related technologies has allowed universities to offer students more flexibility in how they receive their postsecondary education, with some physical universities offering a combination of traditional face-to-face courses conducted in a classroom and courses taken online and other universities existing solely in an online capacity, research is increasingly being conducted in how to retain students in such virtual educational programs as well. Data has shown that the retention rate for online courses is lower than in traditional settings. In many cases, it has been discovered that students who decide to drop out of online courses and programs do so for several of the same reasons as those attending traditional classes, including financial burdens, mental health issues, lack of engagement with the educational community, and family emergencies; at the same time, some also reported issues with internet access as an inhibitor to finishing (Sorensen & Donovan, 2017).

Full Time or Part Time: It Does Matter. In addition to how students are taught, it is also important by whom they are taught. Colleges and universities rely heavily on adjuncts to fill the void left by limited full-time faculty. This reliance is probably the most visible in the areas of introductory English and math courses. However, Burgess and Samuels (1999) show that the overuse of adjuncts for courses within a sequence (like ENG101 and ENG102, calculus I and calculus II) results in underprepared students who often do not complete the sequence. The researchers investigated a community college system consisting of 10 separate campuses in the Phoenix, Arizona, area. They looked at both English and math sequences to identify trends among the students taking courses with part-time instructors.

The authors note that,

"… for either developmental or regular courses, college students who take the first course in a sequence from a part-time instructor, and who take the second course in the sequence from a full-time instructor seem underprepared for the second course. By contrast to students experiencing other instructor status combinations (part-time/part-time, full-time/part-time, or full-time/full-time), these students are significantly less likely to either complete or achieve a grade of "C" or better in the second course … For students in the second course, those who took the first course from a full-time instructor were more likely to complete the second course. The students with the poorest completion rate for the second course took the first course from a part-time instructor and had a full-time instructor for the second course" (Burgess & Samuels, 1999, p. 495).

Almost 20,000 students in the Burgess and Samuels (1999) study took English 101 and 102 while the research was conducted. Less than a third of those students had a full-time faculty member for both courses. The statistics are similar for mathematics sequences offered by the college. For colleges looking at retention strategies, this data cannot be ignored. When course sequences are required, and students drop out of the second course in the sequence, keeping them at the institution will be difficult. The overuse of adjuncts is understandable—it is cost effective. However, adjunct course assignments could be changed so that they are not negatively affecting the most vulnerable students on campus.

Viewpoints

In 2005, Hossler, Ziskin, and Gross conducted a pilot study of several four-year institutions to determine which campuses had retention programs and which campuses were effectively assessing those programs. Unfortunately, even though retaining students is essential to schools being successful economically, "most four-year colleges and universities make relatively little effort to implement programmatic initiatives to enhance persistence" (2009, p. 11). Furthermore, the people who do focus on retention tend to be the ones that are not in daily contact with students, i.e., administrators in offices where students do not need to be. It is teachers who hold the key, and asking faculty to change the way they teach or requiring them to teach freshmen when they are used to upperclassmen may meet with reluctance on some campuses. However, retention efforts cannot succeed when they are in isolation. Student persistence needs to be everyone's concern, and as soon as campuses make it such, their efforts will be rewarded.

Furthermore, retention efforts do not need to be great in scope, or all-consuming. Most campuses already offer developmental courses. Most also have a residence life staff and orientation programs to help students become part of the campus community. And, many have ways to identify and outreach to at-risk students. Each of these programs needs to adopt a common goal of coordinating efforts to increase retention. Programs that work together require less money and less change than a new program given the name "retention" that has to start from the ground up. Students leave the comfort zone of their homes, families, and friends to go to college, a place that has none of the former. Of course life is going to be difficult for them, but as soon as they feel like some of that comfort is being replaced by the institution—by the coordinated efforts of the school around them—the more integrated they will become, and the more likely they are to remain.

Terms & Concepts

At-Risk Students: Students who are categorized at having a great risk for withdrawal, primarily those with low academic skills (high school GPAs, SAT/ACT scores, placement test scores).

Attrition: Withdrawal from college courses or higher education institutions altogether.

Developmental Courses: Courses offering instruction to build fundamental (reading, writing, and mathematics) skills.

First-Year Seminar (FYS): Course that is sometimes created in a learning community; course content often focuses on strengthening the study and awareness skills of new college students.

Intervention: Strategies offered to assist student persistence.

Learning Communities A block of courses (usually three) offered to the same group of students; instructors communicate regularly and create assignments based on one central theme.

Persistence: Staying, remaining in school from semester to semester.

Remediation: Providing instruction that is foundational (developmental) in nature with the goal of student success and movement to college-level work.

Retention: The focus of keeping students in educational settings; helping students persist in higher education settings.

Bibliography

Bass, L. H., & Ballard, A. S. (2012). Student engagement and course registration methods as possible predictors of freshman retention. Research in Higher Education Journal, 18 1–13. Retrieved December 5, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90440317&site=ehost-live

Braunstein, A. & McGrath, M. (1997). The retention of freshman students: An examination of the assumptions, beliefs, and perceptions. College Student Journal, 31(2), 188–200. Retrieved April 4, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9708155384&site=ehost-live

Burgess, L., & Samuels, C. (1999). Impact of full-time versus part-time instructor status on college student retention and academic performance in sequential courses. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 23(5), 487–498. Retrieved October 21, 2008 from Academic Search Complete database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=1975821&site=ehost-live

Cundall JR., M. K. (2013). Admissions, retention, and reframing the question "Isn't it just more work?". Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council, 14(2), 31–34. Retrieved December 5, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92011170&site=ehost-live

DeBerard, M., Spielmans, G., & Julka, D. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38(1), 66–80. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12844795&site=ehost-live

Fike, D. & Fike, R. (2008). Predictors of first-year student retention in the community college. Community College Review, 36(2), 68–88. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34395345&site=ehost-live

Habley, W. R. & McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention: Executive summary: all survey colleges. ACT

Hossler, D., Ziskin, M. & Gross, J. P. K. (2009). Getting serious about institutional performance in student retention: Research-based lessons on effective policies and practices. About Campus, 13(6), 2–11.

Jackson, V. (2012). The use of a social networking site with pre-enrolled Business School students to enhance their first year experience at university, and in doing so, improve retention. Widening Participation & Lifelong Learning, 14 25–41. Retrieved December 5, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=85932484&site=ehost-live

Lesik, S. (2007). Do developmental mathematics programs have a causal impact on student retention? An application of discrete-time survival and regression-discontinuity analysis. Research in Higher Education, 48(5), 583–608. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=24942087&site=ehost-live

McShannon, J., Hynes, P., Nirmalakhandan, N., Venkataramana, G., Ricketts, C., Ulery, A. & Steiner, R. (2006). Gaining retention and achievement for students program: A faculty development program. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice, 132(3), 204–208. Retrieved October 21, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=21215328&site=ehost-live

National Center for Educational Statistics (2007). Digest of Educational Statistics: 2007 Tables and Figures. U.S Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved April 21, 2009 from NCES website: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07%5F317.asp

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Remedial coursetaking at U.S. public 2- and 4-year institutions: Scope, experiences, and outcomes. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016405.pdf

Pan, W., Guo, S., Alikonis, C. & Bai, H. (2008). Do intervention programs assist students to succeed in college? A multilevel longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 42(1), 90–98. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31824783&site=ehost-live

Potts, G. & Schultz, B. (2008). The freshman seminar and academic success of at-risk students. College Student Journal, Part B, 42(2), p. 647–658. Retrieved April 1, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=32544901&site=ehost-live

Snapshot report—Persistence and retention. (2016, May 3). National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Retrieved from https://nscresearchcenter.org/snapshotreport-persistenceretention22/

Sorensen, C., & Donovan, J. (2017). An examination of factors that impact the retention of online students at a for-profit university. Online Learning, 21(3), 206–221. Retrieved January 5, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=126974659&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Tinto, V. (1987). The principles of effective retention. Paper presented at the Maryland College Personnel Association Fall Conference: Prince George's Community College, Largo, MD.

Tinto, V. (2009). How to help students stay and succeed [Letter]. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(22), p. A33–A33. Retrieved April 13, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=36546638&site=ehost-live

Van der Sluis, H., May, S., Locke, L., & Hill, M. (2013). Flexible academic support to enhance student retention and success. Widening Participation & Lifelong Learning, 15 (2), 79–95. Retrieved December 5, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89798788&site=ehost-live

Zepke, N., Leach, L., & Prebble, T. (2006). Being learner centered: one way to improve student retention? Studies in Higher Education, 31(5), 587–600. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=22493912&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Britt, S. L., Ammerman, D. A., Barrett, S. F., & Jones, S. (2017). Student loans, financial stress, and college student retention. Journal Of Student Financial Aid, 47(1), 25–37. Retrieved January 5, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=122582464&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Coll, K., & Stewart, R. (2008). College student retention: Instrument validation and value for partnering between academic and counseling services. College Student Journal, 42(1), 41–56. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from Academic Search Complete database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=31824779&site=ehost-live

Devonport, T., & Lane, A. (2006). Relationships between self-efficacy, coping and student retention. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 34(2), 127–138.

Retrieved October 21, 2008, from SocINDEX with Full Text database: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=19785121&site=ehost-live

Gordon, V. N & Habley, W. R. (2000). Academic advising: A comprehensive handbook. San Francisco: NACADA.

Kirst, M. W. (2008). Secondary schools and colleges must work together. Thought & Action, 24(Fall), 111–122.

Kozar, J. M. & Marcketti, S. B. (2008). Utilizing field-based instruction as an effective teaching strategy. College Student Journal, Part A, 42(2), 305–311. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=32544863&site=ehost-live

Nealy, M. (2005). Key to student retention -- strong advising. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, 22(14), 12. Retrieved April 4, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=18118505&site=ehost-live

Reducing Institutional Rates of Departure. (2004). ASHEERIC Higher Education Report 30(3), 67–78. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24314985&site=ehost-live

Russo-Gleicher, R. J. (2013). Qualitative insights into faculty use of student support services with online students at risk: Implications for student retention. Journal of Educators Online, 10 (1), 1–32. Retrieved December 5, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=86008628&site=ehost-live

Trotter, E. & Roberts, C. (2006). Enhancing the early student experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(4), 371–386. Retrieved April 1, 2009 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=25084362&site=ehostlive