Let’s talk about why students stay: academic integration

Students stay when they are academically integrated. Here we are in the second installment of my summer series:  Let’s Talk About Why Students Stay! 

As I mentioned in my first post, in our work here at Credo, we see several campuses placing a great deal of energy on trying to figure out why their students leave.  While this information is important (and should be collected and analyzed as a part of a comprehensive enrollment research agenda), focusing solely on this deficit model may take our retention eyes off the strategies which we actually know have control of as an institution.  

So, what does the research say about why traditional students stay? 

We know that students are more likely to stay, be satisfied, and graduate when they are academically integrated.  Students arrive on our campuses today facing numerous academic challenges as it relates to their persistence and success.  This pertains to all students – those we might consider academically at-risk and our honor students.  

Academic Preparation of Secondary Schools Should Be Considered

We are all aware of the wide range of quality among our secondary schools and the resulting variance in academic preparation and rigor.  Teaching to test well is the norm today in most of our high schools – not always the best way to prepare students for the critical thinking and self-direction needed at the post-secondary level.  Today’s incoming freshmen may not have had the depth of academic preparation or expectations for learning that provide them a foundation for success.

Considering Secondary Level Grade Inflation and Self-Efficacy

In addition, the grade inflation taking place today at the secondary level can promote a false sense of self-efficacy for our students.  The last several years of CIRP data out of the Higher Education Research Institute reveals students expect to perform at significantly higher rates than in years past.  What happens to their self-efficacy and their motivation when they hit those first reality points in their freshman academic experience? How do we help students experience early and developing academic integration? 

Research tells us that students stay when they:

• make early and significant connections with faculty, in and outside of the classroom
• perform academically as they are expected
• are satisfied with their courses and programs
• realize a sense of academic control and academic hope
• learn in physical spaces that support learning

strategies for Academic integration

We need to focus on the programs, services, and policies that support these conditions in intentional ways.  How early in the matriculation process do your students make positive connections with faculty, outside of the classroom? 

Best practice comprehensive first-year experiences (FYE) include multiple ways for students to connect with faculty, from the FYE curricular course to the general education freshman courses required of all students.

Some other things to consider:

• How carefully does your institution monitor academic expectations, and how early and often in the student’s experiences on campus? 
• Are students advised and placed appropriately in courses that will challenge them but allow them to be successful? 
• How do you share information with students and parents about the expected performance for first-year students?
• Do you reward students who perform above their expected levels? 
• Do faculty actively seek feedback from students at the start of each course to clarify students’ expectations?
• What types of satisfaction and performance data do you regularly collect about students’ academic course and program experiences? 
• How often do you review the introductory courses for your programs? 
• Who is tracking the persistence and graduation rates for each program?

Students exert more effort when they have a sense of academic control; that is, when students believe their actions affect academic outcomes, they are more conscientious and model increased persistence. 

Creating this type of environment rests with good pedagogy in the classroom, integrated with comprehensive support services that students see as available and appropriate. Students with academic hope have a strong sense of motivation and believe there are a number of pathways to their success. 

We can promote these conditions by ensuring that students make connections between their experiences and their goals, both inside and outside of the classroom.  In addition, when students are shown multiple options for achievement – from how they model their learning in the classroom to their opportunities for choosing courses – they exert more effort and are more engaged.

Leverage Physical Spaces to Promote Engagement and Learning

Finally, we know that physical spaces can promote opportunities for different types of engagement and learning.  When students approach your campus, are they seeing classrooms that promote different types of pedagogy?  Are there serendipitous spaces for students to bump into faculty? Is your institution intentional about pulling together all support services into one location where all students feel welcomed? 

The new learning commons models we are seeing being implemented on campuses have been created to provide integrated and safe places for students and faculty to learn. Students stay when they are academically integrated into our campuses.

What is your campus doing to promote these conditions that will produce student success? Next week we’ll take a look at how social integration plays a tried-and-true role in student persistence. See you then!

 Joretta Nelson, Ph.D. Vice President Email Joretta for more information Sources: Braxton, J.M. (Ed.). (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Braxton, J.M., Hirschy, A.S., & McClendon, S.A. (2004).Understanding and reducing college student departure.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cabrera, A.F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M.B. (1993).  College persistence: Structural modeling of an integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 123-139. Finn, J.D., & Rock, D.A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221-234. Lotkowski, V.A., Robbines, S.T., & Noeth, R.J. (2004). The role of academic and non-academic factors in improving college retention. ACT Policy Report. Retrieved from www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/college_retention.pdf Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, A. (2005).  How college affects students: A third decade of research.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Svanum, S., & Bigatti, S.M. (2009). Academic course engagement during one semester forecasts college success: Engaged students are more likely to earn a degree, do it faster, and do it better.  Journal of College Student Development, 50, 120-132. The Higher Education Research Institute.  (2008).  The American freshman: Forty-year trends: 1966-2006.  Los Angeles, CA.  Retrieved fromhttp://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/pubs/briefs/40yrTrendsResearchBrief.pdf. Tinto, V. (2005, July) Student retention: What next? Paper presented at the meeting of the National Conference on Student Recruitment, Marketing, and Retention, Washington, DC.