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
Ó 2007, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

doi: 10.2190/CS.9.3.g
http://baywood.com
378 / BRAXTON, BRIER AND STEELE
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,
SHAPING RETENTION / 379
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
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: john.m.braxton@vanderbilt.edu
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Shaping Retention

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Shaping Retention

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

J. COLLEGE STUDENT RETENTION, Vol.

9(3) 377-399, 2007-2008

SHAPING RETENTION FROM RESEARCH

This article presents seven guidelines to direct professional practice aimed

In 2006, The American College Testing Program reported that approximately

Ó 2007, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

GUIDELINES TO SHAPE PRACTICE

the designation of guidelines and associated recommendations as evidenced-

2. Demonstrate respect for students as individuals by being appropriately

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

Grimes and Antworth advance this recommendation for community colleges,

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

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

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

university orientations throughout a semester in the form courses are well

Support services complementing instructional interventions have also been

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

Direct reprint requests to:

Você também pode gostar