Cover Page

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Series

Preface

Organization of This Book

Intended Audience for the Book

Acknowledgments

About the Authors

Chapter 1: Introduction: Rethinking College Student Retention

Current Status of Theory on College Student Persistence

Questions Pursued by This Book

Retention and Persistence

Part I: Recommendations for Policy and Practice

Chapter 2: State Policy and Student Success

Structural Constraints

Policy Levers

Conclusions and Questions for Policymakers

Endnotes

Chapter 3: Recommendations for Institutional Policy and Practice

Recommendations for Institutional Policy and Action

Residential Colleges and Universities: Multiple Levers for Institutional Action

Commuter Colleges and Universities: Multiple Levers for Institutional Action

In Summary

Part II: Theoretical and Research Context

Chapter 4: Explaining College Student Persistence

Economic Perspective

Organizational Perspective

Psychological Perspective

Sociological Perspective

Tinto's Interactionalist Theory

Chapter 5: The Revision of Tinto's Theory for Residential Colleges and Universities

The Revised Theory

Narrative Form of the Revised Theory

Analytical Cascading: Extensions of the Theory of Student Persistence in Residential Colleges and Universities

Chapter Summary

Chapter 6: A Theory of Student Persistence in Commuter Colleges and Universities

The Theory and Its Derivation

Analytical Cascading: Extensions of the Theory of Student Persistence in Commuter Colleges and Universities

Chapter Summary

Chapter 7: Design of the Studies

The Residential College and University Study

The Commuter College and University Study

Part III: Key Factors in Student Persistence in Residential and Commuter Colleges and Universities

Chapter 8: Student Persistence in Residential Colleges and Universities

Our Test of the Revised Theory of Student Persistence in Residential Colleges and Universities

Overall Appraisal of Empirical Support for the Revised Theory of Student Persistence in Residential Colleges and Universities

Significant Influences on Psychosocial Engagement, Commitment of the Institution to Student Welfare, and Institutional Integrity

In Summary

Chapter 9: Student Persistence in Commuter Colleges and Universities

Our Test of the Theory of Student Persistence in Commuter Colleges and Universities

Significant Influences on Core Factors

In Summary

Chapter 10: Conclusions and a Call for Further Research

Conclusions

Implications for Theory

A Call for Further Research

Closing Thoughts

Endnotes

Appendix A: Design of the Studies Tables

Appendix B: Technical Appendix for Statistical Procedures

Appendix C: Multivariate Analyses Results Tables

References

Index

Cross-Merchandising Advertisements

Title Page





The Jossey-Bass Higher


and Adult Education Series

Preface

The problem of student departure requires both an understanding of the key forces that influence student persistence and the development of policies and practices designed to improve student retention rates based on our understanding of such key forces of student persistence. In this volume, we embrace the perspective that a framework for institutional policies and practices designed to improve institutional retention rates optimally emerges from empirical research guided by theory. The explanatory power of empirically tested theory provides institutional policymakers with a basis for action derived from the formulations of a theory. Such a rationale ensures fidelity in the enactment of a recommendation. Adjustments needed during the implementation of a lever of action also benefit from the understanding derived from the empirically tested theory.

As a consequence, we provide our findings from the empirical test of two theories of college student persistence—one theory for students in residential colleges and universities and another for students in commuter colleges and universities. We also offer a set of recommendations for institutional policy and practice that spring from these empirically tested theories of student persistence. We also used the findings of our process of “analytical cascading” to generate these recommendations. As we state in Chapter 1, analytical cascading implies discovering what factors shape the environment for improving student persistence decisions in the manner specified by theory. Such sources of influence constitute extensions of the concepts of each of the two theories empirically tested by us. In Chapters 5 and 6, we describe the theoretical extensions we used to identify possible sources of influence for our process of analytical cascading.

Organization of This Book

Because of the importance of policies and practices grounded in empirically tested theory to policymakers and institutional practitioners, we order this volume so that the chapters that offer such recommendations appear first. We then proceed to detail how we arrived at these various recommendations for policy and practice.

Beyond the first chapter, the arrangement of the chapters results in a book comprising three parts, as follows.

Part I: Recommendations for Policy and Practice

Part I consists of Chapters 2 and 3. In Chapter 2, “State Policy and Student Success,” we assert that state and institutional policymakers are typically unaware of their respective efforts to improve college student retention. We use the literature to describe some of the possible reasons for the difficulty in creating lines of authority and responsibility in this area and suggest ways in which the current system could be redesigned to ensure that student success is seen as a joint responsibility among faculty, administrators, and state-level policymakers.

In Chapter 3, “Recommendations for Institutional Policy and Practice,” we describe recommendations for policy and practice that rest on a foundation of empirical research guided by theory. We describe such recommendations for enactment by both residential and commuter colleges and universities as well as recommendations tailored specifically for residential and for commuter colleges and universities.

Part II: Theoretical and Research Context

Part II begins the discussion of how we arrived at the recommendations we advanced in Part I. This part consists of Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7. In Chapter 4, “Explaining College Student Persistence,” we begin with a brief review of the various conceptual perspectives that seek to explain college student persistence. We then turn our attention to Tinto's Interactionalist Theory of Student Departure and offer an empirical assessment of the validity of this theory. This assessment leads to a serious revision of Tinto's theory for residential colleges and universities and a different theory of student persistence in commuter colleges and universities.

In Chapter 5, “The Revision of Tinto's Theory for Residential Colleges and Universities,” we describe the formulations of this serious revision of Tinto's theory. In Chapter 6, “A Theory of Student Persistence in Commuter Colleges and Universities,” we present the formulations of the theory of student persistence in commuter colleges and universities. For our process of analytical cascading, we advance in Chapters 5 and 6 extensions of these two theories to identify possible sources of influence on the core concepts of these theories found to be statistically significant by our tests. From our empirical tests of these two theories and their extensions through analytical cascading, we derived the recommendations for institutional policy and practice we put forth in Chapter 3 of Part I.

We use two distinct studies in this volume. One study concentrates on understanding student persistence in residential colleges and universities, whereas the other study focuses on understanding student persistence in commuter colleges and universities. In Chapter 7, “Design of the Studies,” we explain the design of these two studies by describing the instruments we used, the samples of the two studies, the variables used to test the respective theories, the variables used in analytical cascading, and the limitations of each of the two studies.

Part III: Key Factors in Student Persistence in Residential and Commuter Colleges and Universities

In Part III, we present the findings from our empirical tests of the two theories of student persistence as well as the findings of our process of analytical cascading that we used to generate the recommendations for institutional policy and practice presented in Chapter 3. This part consists of Chapters 8, 9, and 10. In Chapter 8, “Student Persistence in Residential Colleges and Universities,” we provide details on the findings that emerged from our empirical test of the revised theory of student persistence in residential colleges and universities. A deepening of our knowledge and understanding of student persistence in residential colleges and universities also results from a delineation of factors that influence the key empirically supported concepts from this theory.

In Chapter 9, “Student Persistence in Commuter Colleges and Universities,” we describe the findings of our test of theory of college student persistence in commuter colleges and universities that we described in Chapter 6. We also present the findings of our process of analytical cascading we used to identify factors that influence the key empirically supported concepts from this theory. These two sets of findings provide the basis for the recommendations for policy and practice we describe in Chapter 3.

In Chapter 10, “Conclusions and a Call for Further Research,” we advance a set of six conclusions we derived from the pattern of findings we presented in Chapters 8 and 9. In this chapter, we also offer some implications for theory as well as some recommendations for further research.

Intended Audience for the Book

We view the contents of this volume as being of value to readers such as state policymakers, institutional policymakers, and scholars of higher education who study the college student experience in general and college student persistence in particular. In addition, presidents, chief academic affairs officers, chief student affairs officers, academic deans, chairpersons of academic departments, institutional researchers and planners, enrollment management officers, and student affairs professionals involved in programming for student growth and development, residence life, and student orientation will likewise find the contents valuable to their day-to-day professional work. Thus, both generalist and specialists constitute the audience for this book. We worked diligently to make the details of our empirical work accessible to this wide range of readers. Accordingly, we provide three appendices to this volume.

We developed Appendix A, “Design of the Study Tables,” to serve as a companion to Chapter 7. This appendix includes eight tables that exhibit such details as our operational definitions of the variables used to test the two theories, the variables used in analytical cascading, the Cronbach reliability estimates of those variables measured as composite variables, and the means and standard deviations of these variables. Thus, the placement of such details of measurement in an appendix makes Chapter 7 more engaging and accessible to various readers.

We obtained the findings we report in Chapters 8 and 9 through the use of multivariate statistical procedures. To make these chapters more accessible and engaging to a wide range of readers, we describe the details of these multivariate statistical procedures in Appendix B, “Technical Appendix for Statistical Procedures.”

In Appendix C, “Multivariate Analyses Results Tables,” we place tables that report the results of the execution of the multivariate statistical procedures we used to derive the findings we present in Chapters 8 and 9. The placement of these tables in an appendix also renders Chapters 8 and 9 more reader-friendly. However, the inclusion of these tables allows readers to see our basis for the presentation of the findings we present in Chapters 8 and 9 and to make their own judgments regarding our findings. Appendix C includes nine tables.

Acknowledgments

Many individuals contributed to this book. Dawn Lyken-Segosebe, Michael Montgomery, Jeremy Tuchmayer, and Crystal Collins provided invaluable research support. Pat Callan reviewed much of the work described in Chapter 2 and provided helpful advice. The authors gratefully acknowledge Lumina Foundation for Education, which provided support for several of the research projects described in this book, and Holly Zanville, the program officer at Lumina who provided guidance and counsel as we were conducting our research. We are also grateful to anonymous reviewers of the first draft of this book for their invaluable suggestions for its improvement.

About the Authors

John M. Braxton is a professor of education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program of the Department of Leadership, Policy, and Organizations at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. His research interests center on the college student experience in general and college student persistence in particular, as well as the study of college and university faculty members. He has published over 95 publications in the form of articles in refereed journals, books, and book chapters. Of these 95 publications, 25 of them focus on college student persistence. These publications include the book Understanding and Reducing College Student Departure with Amy Hirschy and Shederick McClendon (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Jossey-Bass, 2004) and two edited books: The Role of the Classroom in College Student Persistence (New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Jossey-Bass, 2008) and Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle (Vanderbilt University Press, 1999). His other publications focused on college student persistence have appeared in Higher Education: A Handbook of Theory and Research, the Journal of Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, the Review of Higher Education, the Journal of College Student Development, and the Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice.

Professor Braxton currently serves as the editor of the Journal of College Student Development and as associate editor for Higher Education: A Handbook of Theory and Research. He also has served as a consulting editor for the Journal of Higher Education and Research in Higher Education and is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of College Student Retention. Braxton also is a past president of the Association for the Study of Higher Education.

William R. Doyle is an associate professor of higher education and coordinator of the Higher Education Leadership Program in the department of Leadership, Policy, and Organizations at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. His research includes evaluating the impact, the antecedents, and outcomes of higher education policy at the state level and the study of political behavior as it affects higher education. Doyle's work has appeared in outlets such as the Journal of Higher Education, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis and Economics of Education Review. Prior to joining the faculty at Vanderbilt, he was senior policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. Doyle holds a master's degree in political science and a PhD in higher education administration from Stanford University.

Harold V. Hartley III has since 2008 served as senior vice president of the Council of Independent Colleges (CIC), an association of more than 700 independent colleges and universities and related organizations based in Washington, DC. He has lead responsibility for CIC's Presidents Institute, the largest annual gathering of college and university presidents in the country, and oversees CIC's vocation initiatives, including the Network for Vocation in Undergraduate Education (NetVUE) and the Presidential Vocation and Institutional Mission program. He joined CIC in 2005 as director of research and continues to provide oversight of CIC's research and assessment initiatives, which include the annual Key Indicators Tool (KIT) and Financial Indicators Tool (FIT) benchmarking reports, CIC's Making the Case website, the CIC Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) Consortium and its related Pathways Project, the CIC Degree Qualification Profile (DQP) Consortium, and the CIC Engaging Evidence Consortium. Previously Hartley served for nearly ten years with the General Board of Higher Education & Ministry of The United Methodist Church in Nashville, Tennessee. He earlier served as chaplain at Ohio Northern University and at Emory & Henry College (VA). Hartley earned a BA at Westminster College (PA), an MDiv from Wesley Theological Seminary (Washington, DC), and an EdD in higher education leadership and policy at the Peabody College of Education of Vanderbilt University (TN). His research interests and publications have focused on such topics as the relationship between the undergraduate experience and persistence to degree, the impact of college attendance on students' religious faith, the advancement practices at smaller private colleges, and the characteristics and career patterns of college presidents and chief academic officers. He is the coauthor of several CIC reports, including A Study of Presidents of Independent Colleges and Universities (2012) and A Study of Chief Academic Officers of Independent Colleges and Universities (2010).

Amy S. Hirschy, PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Louisville with a joint appointment in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, Counseling, and College Student Personnel; and the Department of Educational Leadership, Foundations and Human Resource Education. Prior to doctoral study, Hirschy worked as a college administrator in Virginia, South Carolina, and Pennsylvania. Her work experience at private liberal arts colleges and medium and large state institutions informs both her research and teaching. Her research interests focus on examining theories of college student persistence, organizations, and college student development to identify what institutional factors promote and hinder student learning and success.

Willis A. Jones is an assistant professor of higher education at the University of Kentucky. Dr. Jones has a BA from the University of North Texas, a MEd in higher education administration from the University of Arkansas, and a PhD in higher education leadership and policy from Vanderbilt University

Michael K. McLendon is a professor of higher education policy and leadership and the associate dean at the Simmons School of Education and Human Development at Southern Methodist University. Prior to his appointment at SMU, Dr. McLendon served for thirteen years as a professor of public policy and higher education at Vanderbilt University, where he also held the role of executive associate dean of Peabody College of Education. His scholarship and teaching focus on governance, finance, and public policy of higher education. A primary strand of his research involves analysis of the factors shaping policy change and reform for higher education at both the state and campus levels.

Dr. McLendon's research has appeared in leading journals of the fields of both educational policy and higher-education studies, including the Journal of Higher Education, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Research in Higher Education, Review of Higher Education, American Journal of Education, Teachers College Record, and Higher Education: Handbook of Theory of Research. In addition, he serves or has served on the editorial boards of a number of these journals. Dr. McLendon earned his PhD in higher education policy from the University of Michigan. Prior to undertaking his doctoral studies, he served as a policy analyst in both the Florida House of Representatives and the United States Senate in Washington DC.

1

Introduction: Rethinking College Student Retention

College student departure constitutes a long-standing, nettlesome problem that confronts individual colleges and universities as well as state and federal public policymakers. Tinto (1982) reports a constant rate of departure from 1880 to 1980 with a slight deviation in the rate occurring after the end of World War II. More recently, departure rates have varied little between 1983 and 2010 (American College Testing Program, 2012). In more specific terms, 45 percent of students enrolled in two-year colleges depart at the end of their first year, whereas approximately 28 percent of first-year students enrolled in four-year colleges or universities depart at the end of their first year (American College Testing Program, 2012). Given the enduring nature of these departure rates, a waning of interest in this problem seems quite unlikely.

Although year-to-year retention and degree completion serve as markers of college student success, the attainment of other forms of success remain elusive without student retention. These other forms of student success resonate with the expectations for college attendance held by public policymakers, parents, and individual colleges and universities. These additional markers of college student success include such domains as academic attainment through student learning, acquisition of general education, development of academic competence (e.g., writing and speaking in a clear manner), development of cognitive skills and intellectual dispositions, occupational attainment, preparation for adulthood and citizenship, personal accomplishments (e.g., work on the college newspaper, election to student office), and personal development (Braxton, 2008). In addition to the problematic attainment of these domains of student success, student departure negatively affects the stability of institutional enrollments, institutional budgets, and public perceptions of institutional quality (Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon, 2004).

The importance of student persistence to the attainment of these other markers of student success, coupled with the negative impact of student departure on the stability of institutional enrollments, institutional budgets, and public perceptions of institutional quality, strongly suggest the need for actions by colleges and universities desiring to increase their rates of student retention. As a consequence, scholarly efforts should be directed toward the translation of theory and research into practice (Tinto, 2006–2007). Tinto more sharply defines this need by contending that, “Unfortunately, most institutions have not 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” (p. 5). Tinto reinforces this perspective in his book Completing College: Rethinking Institutional Action (2012).

Two approaches to the translation of theory and research into practice take shape. One approach entails an identification of both the constraints and the supports that impact state-level efforts to formulate policy and design programs to increase institutional student rates of retention (Braxton, 2009–2010). Unfortunately, little or no empirical research has centered attention on this topic. In addition, and importantly, our work has identified an important gap—the lack of understanding of how state-level priorities are communicated to campus leaders. This book addresses this need.

The other approach involves the formulation of recommendations for levers of action to improve statewide and institutional retention rates. We assert herein that the development of levers of action must rest on a rock-bed of theoretically driven empirical research. Tinto (2012) emphasizes the need for a coherent framework for institutional action to reduce student departure. We concur; however, we assert that a coherent framework for institutional action optimally emerges from empirical research guided by theory. Such coherence stems from the explanatory power of empirically tested theory. A comprehension of the basis for an action, a basis derived from the formulations of a theory, ensures fidelity in the enactment of a recommendation. Adjustments needed during the implementation of a lever of action also benefit from the understanding derived from empirically tested theory.

Given our assertions about the need for policies and practices that rest on a rock-bed of findings of empirical research guided by theory, how might we depict the current status of theory focused on understanding college student persistence in higher education? We offer a brief assessment of the current status of theory in the following section and a more extensive discussion in Chapter 4.

Current Status of Theory on College Student Persistence

The problem of student departure has been the focus of research for more than 75 years (Braxton, 2000). The last three to four decades have produced the greatest understanding of this difficult problem. Tinto's Interactionalist Theory of Student Departure (1993) has contributed the most to this understanding. His theory enjoys paradigmatic stature, given that his work has received more than 775 citations (Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon, 2004). Despite the paradigmatic stature of Tinto's theory, scholars question its validity. Braxton, Sullivan, and Johnson (1997) assessed the empirical internal consistency of Tinto's theory and found it in need of serious revision. In Chapter 4, we describe their assessments of empirical support for Tinto's theory, which found partial support in residential colleges and universities and little or no support in commuter colleges and universities.

A need for two separate theories emanates from key distinctions between residential and commuter colleges and universities. These distinctions entail the role of the external environment and the characteristics of social communities. In contrast to residential institutions, commuter colleges and universities lack well-defined and structured social communities for students to establish membership (Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon, 2004). The external environment also plays an important role in commuter colleges and universities. Commuter students typically experience conflicts among their obligations to family, work, and college (Tinto, 1993). Their work and family obligations greatly determine their daily activities (Webb, 1990). In addition to these two key distinctions, commuter students make up more than 80 percent of today's college students (Horn and Nevill, 2006).

In “Understanding and Reducing College Student Departure,” Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon (2004) advance two theories: a serious revision of Tinto's theory to account for student persistence in residential colleges and universities and a new theory to account for student persistence in commuter colleges and universities. Additional progress in understanding student persistence requires an empirical testing of these two theories. We describe the formulations of these two theories in Chapters 5 and 6. Such testing constitutes one of the primary purposes of this book.

Questions Pursued by This Book

Given that further understanding of college student persistence requires an empirical testing of these two theories, we address the following two questions in this volume:

1. What factors influence the first-year persistence of students enrolled in residential colleges and universities? In addressing this question, we test the revised theory of student persistence in residential colleges and universities postulated by Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon (2004). We fully describe the formulations of this theory in Chapter 5.
2. What factors influence the first-year persistence of students enrolled in commuter colleges and universities? In pursuing this question, we test the theory of student persistence in commuter colleges and universities formulated by Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon (2004). We describe the formulations of this theory in Chapter 6.

By focusing on these two questions, we contribute to the work of both the scholarly and practice communities concerned with college student persistence and retention. Moreover, little or no research has tested the formulations of the revision of Tinto's theory to account for student retention in residential colleges and universities (Braxton et al., 2004). The pursuit of question 1 provides such a test. Likewise, little or no research has tested the formulations of the theory of student retention in commuter colleges and universities advanced by Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon (2004). The pursuit of question 2 presents such a test.

In addition, the findings of “analytical cascading” further our knowledge and understanding of college student persistence and provide a foundation for the development of institutional actions designed to improve institutional student retention rates. Analytical cascading entails empirically identifying influences on those theoretically based factors found through our pursuit of questions 1 and 2 to shape student persistence decisions in both residential colleges and universities and commuter colleges and universities. Analytical cascading implies discovering what factors shape the environment for improving student persistence decisions in the manner specified by theory. Such sources of influence constitute extensions of the concepts of each of the two theories empirically tested by us.

In Chapters 5 and 6 we describe the theoretical extensions we used to identify possible sources of influence. We developed the process of analytical cascading for use in this book. We use the findings that emerge from analytical cascading to generate institutional levers of action designed to increase institutional rates of first-year student persistence. We used analytical cascading to address the following two questions that we pursue in this volume:

3. What influences those factors that play a significant role in the first-year persistence of students enrolled in residential colleges and universities? Put differently, we seek to delineate empirically those forces that influence the theoretically based factors found to shape student persistence decisions in residential colleges and universities.
4. What influences those factors that play a significant role in the first-year persistence of students enrolled in commuter colleges and universities? In addressing this question, we center attention on the empirical identification of those forces that influence the theoretically based factors found to influence student persistence decisions in commuter colleges and universities.

Our efforts to understand each of the four presented questions extended beyond the campus level to include state-level factors that could impact student persistence in a direct sense (through student grant funding or other means) and in an indirect sense (through campus funding or performance requirements). The results of this work help to set the stage for both the questions regarding direct impact on student persistence and the analytical cascading that occurs with regard to the second two questions. In Chapter 2, we report our review of extant research findings on state-level factors separately, because they differ in important ways from institutional-level findings and because they help to set the context for the institutional findings throughout the rest of this volume.

Retention and Persistence

In this volume, we abide by the clear distinction between persistence and retention made by Hagedorn (2005). She states that “institutions retain students and students persist” (p. 92). In addressing the research questions for this book, we focus on first- to second-year student persistence for several reasons. First, a large proportion of student departure occurs during the first year of college enrollment. The rates of departure we presented in the first paragraph of this chapter support this assertion. Second, Mortenson (2005) points to the vulnerability of students during the first year of college as a rationale for centering attention on the first- to second-year persistence of students. The formulations of the two theories tested in this volume attest to such student vulnerability. Mortenson (2005) offers the third reason, as he contends that colleges and universities can act more quickly with interventions to prevent departure during the first year of enrollment.

Part I

Recommendations for Policy and Practice