2 It““‘ :"i‘ V. .. .w'v‘l .lmc ..r u... T... .a f t t. .6. L.....~.¥A.M._ 1.2!. .fiflau..n§m.lb¥m 1w}: “3%. t . muffin; ‘ . b n . ‘ d u . I Q I 7" 0 . n. ‘ . F 3117608 ts. r fl LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled Freshmen Student Retention Tendencies At Two Small Religious Liberal Arts Colleges presented by Dirk Edward Barram has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for College & University Administration . 651% Major professor Ph ' D ° degree in Date October 27, 1988 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 IIIIIIIIIIIII III III IIIIIIIII 2 f 2 I) O 2 X ‘ PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 0% I ’ ‘ 2 n ‘ =fi A ' MIN 0 1999 .n 9’ 35p 2 1 2004 A - A A 11"“ MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution cm ERBSRHBN STUDENT RETENTION TBRDENCIBS AT THO SHALL, RELIGIOUS, LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES BY Dirk Edward Barram A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1988 ABSTRACT FRESBMEN STUDENT RETENTION TENDENCIES AT TWO SMALL, RELIGIOUS, LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES BY Dirk Edward Barram The purpose of this study was to investigate freshmen stu- dent retention tendencies at two small, private, liberal arts colleges. Specifically, the study examined the rela— tionship between the student's involvement and interaction with seven institutional variables, and persistence. The study investigated the relationship between the time and frequency students devoted to selected college programs and activities, his peer and faculty relationships, and persistence. The College Student Experiences Questionnaire (Pace, 1986) was used to measure the students' perceived level of interaction and involvement with selected variables of their institutional environment. The T-test was employed to statistically analyze the data and test for any statisti- cally significant differences between returning and non-returning freshmen students as to their perceived level of interaction and involvement in campus based programs and activities, and their peer and faculty relationships. The methodological design of the study allowed for 27 dif- ferent findings as a result of testing nine null hypotheses with three different returning and non-returning student populations, (1 - Gordon College, 2 - George Fox College andvl 3 - Gordon/George Fox combined). The results revealed-a statistical significance between returning and non-returning students when both Gordon and George Fox students (Group 3) were combined and tested on scores from their responses to items assessing their level of involvement in three campus environmental variables: Clubs and Organizations, Experi- ences with Faculty and Library Experiences. Significance also occurred when the George Fox population (Group 2) was tested individually on scores from their response to items assessing their level of involvement in the campus environ- mental variable, Clubs and Organizations. Finally, sig- nificance occurred when Gordon students (Group 1) were tested on their responses to the campus variable, Library Experiences. Significance did not occur with the remaining 22 findings. The results of the study allowed for two conclusions to be made by the investigator. Freshmen students who have greater qualitative and quantitative involvement in their institution's clubs and organizations and more frequently use the college library resources are more likely to persist than those freshmen students who are less involved in these activities. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation would not have been possible without the help and encouragement of several people. Thanks and ap- preciation is extended to Dr. Richard Gardner, Dr. Donald Nickerson and Dr. Max Raines. A special thanks goes to Dr. Louis Stamatakos, my chairperson, for his constant en- couragement and support. He provided a balance of optimism and realism throughout the entire journey, a perspective which allowed me to persist when at times it was difficult to do so. To my father and mother, Ed and Betty, and four brothers, Dave, Dan, Peter and Steve, whose faith in me never wavered and kept encouraging me along, my deep love and thanks. My thanks and love to Pat and Phyllis, whose constant en- couragement and support was so helpful. Finally and most important has been the consistent support of my wife, Nancy, whose steadfast belief in my capabilities served to sustain me throughout this entire process. Nancy's love, patience and quiet yet deep strength, has al- lowed this dream to become a reality. To Jeffrey and Anna my love and thanks, and promise that now you will see more of me. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOP mmSCOOOOO0.000.000.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Vii CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION I. Background for the Study........................ Need for the Study.............................. The PtOblemOI..0.0....OIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Purpose of the Study............................ ReseaICh Questions...O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Hypotheses.0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.... Limitations of the Study........................ Definition of Terminology....................... Organization of the Research Study.............. CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW II. IntIOdUCtion...00......IOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOO0.0... College Attrition: Why Higher Education is Concerned.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Student Retention Research: Methodology, Instrumentation and Criticism................. Student Retention Variables Associated and Not Associated with Retention..................... The Student Involvement Theory and Retention: Two Models.................................... Literature Review Summary:...................... CHAPTER THREE DESIGN AND NETHODOLOGY III. Introduction.................................... Setting......................................... Population and Sample........................... Design and Methodology.......................... Data Collection and Analysis Procedure.......... Hypotheses...................................... Instrumentation................................. 28 30 35 40 54 61 65 66 70 72 76 83 85 CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE RESEARCH RESULTS Iv. IntIOdUCtion.0.00.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 88 , Description Of SUbjeCts. O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 89 Presentation of Findings and Analysis of the Data.O..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 93 summary.O..0.0COOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOO 127 CHAPTER FIVE SUNNARY OF RESEARCH STUDY, NAJOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, INPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS V. Summary of Research Study....................... 132 major Findings.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....0.0... 135 Conc1usion80000.0...0......OOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOO 145 Implications for Administrators................. 147 Recommendations for Methodology................. 152 Recommendations for Further Research............ 155 FinalThoughts.0.0..0..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0....158 APPENDICES A. Letters to Participants in the Study............ 160 Letter one...0.00.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 160 Letter Two...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOO 161 B. College Student Experiences Questionnaire....... 162 REFERENCES 170 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. 10. 1986 Entering Freshmen Classes/Gordon College, George Pox Callegeeoeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Retention Rates for 1986 Freshmen Classes - Gordon College, George Fox College....................... Percentages of Freshmen Students Completing the College Student Experiences Questionnaire..... Demographic Data on 1986 Freshmen Students from Gordon College and George Fox College............. T—Test Results: Interaction and Involvement with Seven Variables Hypothesis I............... T-Test Results: Interaction and Involvement with Three Variables Hypothesis II.............. T-Test Results: Investment of Time and Energy in theC011ege Library.0.0......OOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOO T-Test Results: Investment of Time and Energy in Clubs and Organizations........................ T-Test Results: Investment of Time and Energy in the College's Student Union.................... T-Test Results: Investment of Time and Energy in the College's Athletic and Recreation FaCilitieSOI.0.0.0000...0.000000000000000000000000 vii 71 71 75 92 96 100 103 107 111 115 Table 11. 12. 13. T-Test Results: Investment of Time and Energy in College Residence Hall Life.................... T—Test Results: Investment of Time and Energy in College Peer Relationships..................... T-Test Results: Investment of Time and Energy Toward Experiences with College Faculty........... viii 118 122 126 CHAPTER ONE In recent years higher education leadership has increasingly focused its attention and energies on the issue of student retention. Current and projected trends in student enroll- ments forecast the retention problem to continue and offer little hope for college administrators to relax their vigilance in this critical area. Nelson, Scott and Bryan (1984) wrote that according to Duea, 1981, when a group of college presidents were asked to rank the 20 most critical issues facing higher education, the issue of student reten- tion was ranked second. A 1980 Carnegie Council Study pre- dicted a marked decline in student enrollments during the next twenty years. The study warned that this expected de- cline in college student enrollments will be accompanied by a substantial decrease in revenue, both in the public sec— tor, which will see state appropriations diminish, and the private sector, which depends so heavily upon student tuitions for revenue. The Carnegie Study also predicted that between 1980 and 1996 upwards of 200 higher educational institutions would close their doors (Green, 1981). The Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) (1980), has documented the closing of 56 private four-year colleges with the prediction that the private college sector will continue to face serious enrollment and financial prob; lems during the next two decades (Green, 1981). Cope (1978) believes that during the 1980's, while more than 15 million men and women will enroll in college, probably five or six million will not complete four years and earn their degree. COpe (1978) bases his prediction on four decades of reten- tion research which he says, “yields surprisingly consistent results" (pg. 3). According to Cope (1978), 40% will not earn a degree, 40% will earn their degree in four years and 20% will take longer than four years to earn their degree. Probably more alarming are recent retention studies reported by Astin, Kern and Green in 1987, that show a serious down- ward trend in the preportion of college students finishing their degree within four years. In their article, "Retain- ing and Satisfying Students," the authors write that, "the proportion completing a B.A. degree within four years is re- markably low; (31.2 percent), especially in comparison to figures from 15 years earlier (46.7 percent of the 1966 freshmen had earned degrees by 1970)" (Educational Record, 1987, pg. 38). Smith, 1986, in his article, “Coming Revolu- tion in College Retention Studies," is even more dire in his predictions when he writes that the number of high school graduates will continue to decline in the decade of the 1990's and that a ”number of institutions of higher educa- tion see student retention as their salvation from really serious problems, if not extinction in the 1990's" (pg. 10). Astin, Rorn and Green, 1987, consider the problem of reten— tion within the much larger issue of what they refer to as “institutional effectiveness" (page 36). Retention, say the authors, may be one 'key indicator" (pg. 36) of how well the institution is doing in terms of satisfying its student client. The retention issue then takes on added sig- nificance and moves beyond enrollment and financial concerns and includes the much broader perspective of institutional accountability. It is apparent from the literature that higher educational institutions, particularly those in the private sector, are deeply concerned with maintaining enrollments. The student retention issue has become of paramount concern, especially to the small private liberal arts college. Astin (1977) sums it up well when he writes, The special history of American Higher Education is well established. The research literature suggests that private institutions generally surpass their public sector counterparts with regard to positive impact on student development, persistence and de- gree attainment and student satisfaction with the collegiate experience. ‘Yet, paradoxically, it is the private sector which is most threatened by the much discussed enrollment crisis (P9. 2). Grim enrollment projections, based on dwindling high school student markets and negative retention patterns have become extremely critical issues to the private college sector, even to the point of the survivability of a number of these colleges. In particular, student retention at the small re- ligious, liberal arts college will be the focus of this research study. This study is intended to describe student retention tenden- cies among selected college students at two small, private, religious liberal arts colleges. In breadth, the research will address relationships between the retention of college students and their interaction and involvement with selected variables of their institutional environment. Is involve- ment and interaction with these variables positively associ- ated with retention? (Astin, 1984). This research study will investigate this relationship by studying college freshmen retention at.two small, private, religious, liberal arts colleges. It will seek to discover whether their interaction and involvement with college programs and ac- tivities, and their peer and faculty relationships are positively related to their return to the same institution for their sophomore year. The literature on retention includes a number of studies and articles focusing on the relationship of student persistence and the student's social and academic integration into his or her institutional environment. Tinto's (1975) and Astin's (1975,1984) attrition studies and theoretical models of student retention have gained considerable attention and were used by this investigator as the basis for his study on student retention. However, before discussing Tinto and AstIn's theories on student retention, several other retention studies and viewpoints have emerged that support the student persistence and institutional integration by:- pothesis and serve as a background for this study. Cope (1978) cites Iffert (1958) and Astin (1975) who found that students whose residence is on the campus have higher persistence rates than those who reside off campus. Newcomb (1962) reported that the students who had achieved satisfy- ing and positive social interactions had a greater likeli- hood of staying in college and earning a college degree. Astin (1975) found a larger percentage of students who per- sisted had worked on campus and also manifested greater par- ticipation in student activities. Terenzini and Pascarella (1978) reported that institutions intent on successfully ad- dressing the retention problem should focus on what happens to the student after he arrives on the campus. Their find- ings appear to strongly support Astin's theory of student involvement and Tinto's theory of social and academic inte- gration, both of which link persistence with one's integra- tion and involvement with his institutional environment. Miller and Brickman, in a 1981 NASPA Journal article, cite Lenning, Beal and Saver's 1980 study that "students who left college were significantly more likely to be dissatisfied with their relationship with faculty than were those who persisted" (pg. 23). Pascarella in his “Validation of a Theoretical Model of College Dropout,” discovered that ”the frequency of students' informal contact with faculty members outside the classroom was consistently found to be positively related to the likelihood of freshman year per- sistence“ (pg. 280). Astin (1975) writes that, A student's chances of completing college can be significantly influenced by environmental circumstances. The positive effect of living in a dormitory during the freshman year has obvious implications. Students concerned about maximizing their chances of finishing college should seriously consider leaving home and living in a college dor- mitory (Preventing Students from Dropping Out, Pg. Finally, Turnbull in his 1986 article, “Involvement: The Key to Retention,“ writes, We can sum up the research evidence in a simple way: Anything that increases student involvement or student commitment also increases retention (pg. 6). The two theoretical models of student retention that the aforementioned studies appear to support and perhaps validate are those of Astin (1984) and Tinto (1975). It ap- pears from the literature that a number of student retention studies emerge from these models and are in fact attempts to validate them. It was the intention of this investigator to test the theoretical models of Astin (1984) and Tinto (1975) in this study. Several hypotheses will be discussed further along in this study which have as their theoretical basis the theories of Tinto and Astin. The theoretical student attritions models of Astin (1984) and Tinto (1975) have gained considerable attention from re- searchers interested in studying college student retention. Both theoretical models strongly suggest that a college student's level of interaction and involvement with his col- 1ege environment may either positively or adversely influ- ence his retention (remaining enrolled). For the purpose of this study, retention was defined as returning to the same institution for the students' Fall quarter or semester of his sophomore year. The reader should note that the terms 'retention' and "persistence" will be used extensively throughout this study and are meant to be synonymous. Tinto (1975) theorized that institutional commitment is in- fluenced by a series of interactions within the student's college environment. He wrote that the ”process of dropout can be viewed as a longitudinal process of interactions be- tween the individual and the academic and social systems of the college during which a person's experience in these sys- tems continually modifies his goal and institutional commit- ment in ways which lend to persistence and or varying forms of dropout" (Review of Educational Research 1975, pg. 94). According to Tinto, “other things being equal, the higher the degree of integration of the individual into the college systems, the greater will be his commitment to the specific institution" (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1978, pg. 347). Tinto's interaction theory raises the question of what kind of integrative experiences and what quantitative level of interaction is positively associated with persistence. Tinto defines these interactions as a "complex series of socio-psychological interactions between the student and the institutional environment" (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1978, pg. 348). It was the intent of this investigator's study to address three "college systems“: specifically the student's interaction with college programs and activities, student-peer relationships, and student-faculty relationships. The focus was on how the student's inter- actions within these three college systems influenced his or her likelihood of remaining enrolled. Astin's theory proposes a positive relationship between stu- dent involvement, which he defines as the quality and quan- tity of the physical and psychological energy that students invest in the college experience, and student retention (As— tin, 1984). According to Astin, the college student who im- merses himself in his institutional environment by virtue of becoming involved in the life of the institution is more likely to remain enrolled than is the student who chooses not to be as involved. In his 1975 longitudinal study on college student drOpouts Astin identified a number of factors leading to student retention. According to Astin, every factor that “contrib- uted to the students' remaining enrolled suggested involve- ment“ (Astin, 1984, pg. 302). Both Tinto and Astin contend that student retention is related to how the student con- fronts his or her college environment. According to their theories the student's involvement and interaction with his college environment influences his institutional satisfac- tion and commitment and hence increases the likelihood of his persisting. Further research is suggested by Astin to test his theory (Astin, 1975). Tinto's theory is based in part upon Durkheim's theory of suicide (1961) which holds that, “suicide is more likely to occur when individuals are insufficiently integrated into the fabric of society“ (Drapouts from Higher Education, pg. 91). Tinto parallels Durkheim's theory with the college student dropout who is unable to successfully immerse him- self into the academic and social systems of the college. According to Astin, the theory of involvement “resembles the Freudian concept of cathexis' (pg. 298, Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education). Astin writes that, “Freud believed that people invest psychological en- ergy in objects and persons outside of themselves... and that people can cathect on their friends, families, school 10 work and jobs“ (pg. 298). The involvement theory suggests, then, that the college student who is actively involved in his college environment may be experiencing greater satis- faction with that environment and individuals within it. Using both Astin's and Tinto's student retention models, several strong rationale emerged for conducting this study. NEED_FQR_IHE_SIDDX College administrators need to deepen their understanding of what kinds of student involvement and interaction lead to increased student persistence. In an era of declining col- lege enrollments, shrinking numbers of high school graduates and increased costs of recruiting new students, understand- ing what factors may contribute to student persistence could assist college administrators in developing effective reten- tion strategies. Wygant and Scherer (1982) cited retention data showing that 40% of university freshmen did not reach their junior year of college. Cope (1978) predicted that four out of ten will not earn a degree. Smith (1986) wrote that, "The number of high school graduates will continue to decline well into the 1990's" (pg. 10). In view of the in- creasing competition for college students and troublesome attrition patterns, college leaders will need to increase their understanding of what factors influence student per- sistence if they hope to address enrollment and retention issues successfully. Today, according in) Astin, Korn and 11 Green (1987), 'few institutions ignore their retention data “ any longer. Once, long ago, retention seemed to be the sole concern of student affairs personnel who cared about the re- lationship between retention and 'quality of campus life' issues and/or the registrar and admissions office staff con- cerned about recruitment goals. However, the demographic events of the 19803 have changed all that“ (pg. 37). Financial and enrollment problems are inseparably linked when it comes to a college's survival. The traditional pri- vate liberal arts colleges have long relied heavily upon revenues generated by student tuition to help balance what may have been an already tenuous budget. Many of these in- stitutions are redoubling their efforts towards maintaining and increasing student retention rates. Possessing an understanding of where and how persisting stu- dents are spending their time and energy will allow college administrators to better allocate energy, resources and in- stitutional support to those programs which may attract and increase student involvement and thus positively influence student satisfaction with the collegiate experience, which in turn increases the likelihood of the student persisting. Astin (1984) says that, ”All institutional policies and practices can be evaluated in terms of the degree to which they increase or reduce student involvement" (pg. 307). The results of this investigator's research may assist the in“ IE 12 institutional leaders of the two institutions participating in the study to more accurately evaluate their institutional policies in relationship to student activities, particularly student affairs activities, and the value the institution places upon the role of the student affairs programs. Wilner (NASPA, 1980) wrote that... ... in times of financial crises, college adminis- trators are generally under much pressure to reduce people, particularly in the areas often considered non-academic, such as counseling or student development. Much farsightedness is required to avoid this temptation and to recognize the less tangible and often less apparent needs of the sur- vival of the institution and its educational mis- sion (Wilner, Pg. 53). By identifying retention related college activities, admin- istrators can create out-of—class learning environments that can inspire and result in more intense and more complete student involvement in their institutional environment. This ideal condition is critical since, according to Astin, “the greater the student involvement in college, the greater will be the amount of student learning and personal deve10p- ment" (pg. 307). College officials and faculty should be very interested in student retention since the institution's mission of cogni- tive, social and emotional develOpment is more likely to be achieved in the student who persists. According to Astin, changes in freshmen student characteristics are associated with student involvement. Astin, Korn and Green's (1987) 13 “institutional effectiveness" theory, one that moves the issue of retention beyond enrollment and finances to include the wider issue of institutional accountability, lends strong support to this idea that student retention is a positive indicator of “student outcomes and institutional performance“ (Astin, Korn, Green, 1987, pg. 36). The issue of retention then moves beyond the financial and enrollment concerns and directly affects student development and insti- tutional mission objectives. Retention studies should seek to address the passive, non-involved student. Astin describes dropout as the "... ultimate form of non-involvement" (pg. 303). If, in fact, the noneinvolvement of a student is related to dropout, col- lege officials may want to seriously investigate efforts to devise strategies directed at first identifying the non-involved student, and second, encouraging these students into a more active and involved role in campus life. Tinto (1975) concluded that the college student's commitment to his institution will be strengthened by the degree of inte- gration into his college environment. Holbrock (1981) found that “institutions whose activities facilitated personal contact between students, faculty and staff were more likely to have higher retention rates“ (ERIC Dissertations Abstract Online, Pg. 578). Are, in fact, college activities and peer and faculty rn a1 te ir. CC 14 relationships positively associated with student retention? Latta, in his 1987 study at Michigan State University, sug- gests the need for further retention studies to understand the factors that contribute to retention. Astin (1975) writes that while “...dropping out of college has been in- tensely researched, the research has not clearly revealed which specific factors influence students to leave, which factors convince students to remain..." (pg. IX). EHQBLEE Student retention is a critical issue facing higher educa- tion today. In particular, the small liberal arts college is very interested in increasing its understanding of what factors influence students to persist or drop out since rev- enues depend so heavily upon student tuitions. This study attempted to investigate the overall problem of student re- tention by examining whether freshmen students' levels of involvement and interaction with selected variables of their college environment is positively associated with retention. JHHUEEHLIHLJTELSIDDX 'The purpose of this research study was to investigate stu- dent retention tendencies at two small, private, liberal 8a: sh Rei CoI StI 409 Clu 15 arts colleges. In breadth the study examined the relation- ship between the students' integration with institutional. variables, and persistence. Specifically, the study inves- tigated the relationship between the time and frequency stu- dents devoted to college activities and programs, and their interaction with faculty and peers, and student persistence. For the purpose of this study, retention is defined as freshmen students returning to the same institution for their sophomore year. The research was conducted on the campuses of two small, private, liberal arts colleges, Gordon College located in Wenham, Massachusetts, and George Fox College in Newberg, Oregon. The population under study were freshmen students from the entering classes of 1986 of both institutions. Early consideration was given to securing a random sample of both institutions' returning and non-returning freshmen populations, thus conducting the study on a representative sample of returning and non-returning freshmen. The deci- sion was made to survey the entire population of both fresh- men classes since it became apparent that a random sample could possibly result in an extremely small non-returning student sample size. Thus, it was decided to include all 409 Fall freshmen students attending the two colleges, ex- cluding a total of 15 students from both institutions who were dismissed during or after their first year. The Gordon College papulation was 253 students after 7 were excluded 16 since they were dismissed during their first year. Ap- proximately eighteen months following their initial enroll; ment, the 1986 freshmen students at both institutions (who were now sophomores) were mailed the College Student Experi- ences Questionnaire (Pace, 1986) and asked to assess their freshman year level of involvement and interaction with se- lected variables in their college environment. Since the respondents were now sophomores, they were asked to assess only their freshman year experiences. Returning and non—returning students at both institutions were asked to participate in the research. Once the data was collected and a representative'percentage of responses received, the data was analyzed and statistically measured comparing the freshman year activity levels within seven selected campus environmental variables, between returning and non-returning students. Presumably, there would be a greater preponderance of re- turning students (freshmen returning in the Fall of their sophomore year) with higher ratings on selected variables in the College Student Experiences Questionnaire than of those students who did not return to the same institution in the Fall of their sophomore year. Using Tinto's and Astin's theoretical models of student retention as a basis, this re- search study focused on selected institutional variables which may or may not be positively associated with student retention. 17 BESEABSH_QDESTIQNS Since the purpose of this study was to investigate selected institutional variables of student interaction and involve- ment with one's college environment, and student retention, several research questions emerged which gave direction to this study. The seven variables investigated in this study were selected from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire, an in- strument developed by C. Robert Pace (1979) and designed to gather information from college students on how they spend their time and energy within their college environment. The seven selected variables from the questionnaire were chosen because they most accurately reflected and measured the par- ticular kinds of college activities this investigator sought to examine in the study. Specifically the research questions to be investigated were: 1. Is greater quantitative interaction and involvement with college activities and program, and with peer and fac- ulty relationships positively related to student retention? 2. Are the freshmen students in this study who devote more time and energy to college activities and programs more 18 likely to return to their institutions for their sophomore year? C. Are the freshmen students in this study who invest more time and energy in the W ARAB! more likely to return to their institu- tion for their sophomore year? Are the freshmen students in this study who invest more time and energy in W mm more likely to return to their in- stitution for their sophomore year? Are the freshmen students in this study who invest more time and energy in their college's mm more likely to return to their institution for their sophomore year? Are the freshmen students in this study who invest more time and energy in using college WW, more likely to return to their institution for their sophomore year? Are the freshmen students in this study who invest more time and energy in W 19 IRATERNIIILSQBQRITY_LIEE more likely to return to their institution for their sophomore year? 3. Are the freshmen students in this study who invest more time and energy to W SHIPS, more likely to return to their institution for their sophomore year? 4. Are the freshmen students in this study who invest more time and energy towards BXPERIENCES_IEIH_EAQ: BLT! (out of class experiences) more likely to re- turn to their institution for their sophomore year? HXEQTHESES The following nine research hypotheses were developed and tested in the null form. methesiu There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu— dents with respect to their interaction and involve- ment with COLLEGE ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS, AND THEIR PEER AND FACULTY RELATIONSHIPS. 20 W There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents in relation to their investment of time and energy in meACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES. W There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents in relarelation to their investment of time and energy in the COLLEGE LIBRARY. W There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents in relation to their investment of time and energy in CLUBS AND ORGANISATIONS. Bmthesiu There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents in relation to their investment of time and energy in their course's STUDENT UNION. Hmfhesisll There is no significant statistical difference be— tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu 21 dents in relation to their investment of time and energy in their (DLLEGE'S ATHLETIC AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. W There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents in relation to their investment of time and energy in DORMITORY OR FRATERNITY/SORORITY LIFE. W There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents in relation to their investment of time and energy in wLLEGE PEER RELATIONSHIPS. mam There is no significant statistical difference be— tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu— dents in relation to their investment of time and energy towards EXPE- RIENCES WITH causes FACULTY. W This research study focused primarily upon selected institu- tional variables influencing freshmen persistence at two small religious liberal arts colleges. The findings which 22 emerged from this study were primarily intended to be gener- alizable to the two colleges participating in this study and to other institutions similar in scope, nature and mission. The findings could be generalizable to colleges of the Na- tional Christian College Consortium (13 member colleges) of which Gordon College and George Fox College are members. Institutions with membership in this organization are similar in terms of size of enrollments, mission, religious posture and homogeneous student populations. The findings are also limited in scope to freshmen retention characteristics, thus any results and conclusions emerging from this study cannot necessarily be considered generaliz- able to sophomore or upper class students. Finally, the outcomes of this research study are limited to the out-of—class life of the student, specifically those college activities related to library use, clubs and or- ganizations, student union, athletic and recreational ac- tivities, residence life activities and peer and out-of-class faculty relationships. Any conclusions result- ing from this research should be limited to college students with similar religious, social and economic backgrounds since students with such homogeneous backgrounds are more likely to be attracted to the unique type of institutions participating in this research study. 23 .DEZINITIQNLQELIEHHINQLQGX The following terms and their definitions are provided to clarify intended meanings of terminology frequently used in this study. The terms “retention" and I'persistence" are used extensively throughout this study and since their meanings are syn— onymous are intended to be used interchangeably. WWW Ongoing matriculation at the same institution. Spe- cifically, for this study, retention implies freshmen stu- dents who return to the same institution for the fall quar- ter of their sophomore year. Freshmen students who did not return to their same institution in the fall, but who did return in the winter term/semester were included in the non-returning student populations for purposes of this study. £u11_Tims_Siudent A student who is carrying the academic course load required by the institution to be considered a full time student, generally 12 hours or more per quarter. 'Full time students are enrolled for a minimum of 12 hours in a standard semes— ter" (George Fox College Catalog, 1987-88, Pg. 62). 24 Want A student who enrolled at college for the first time, during the fall quarter, 1986. Transfer students are NOT included in this definition. Wm: The student who decides to leave an institution of his or her own accord. As defined by Noel, Levitz, Saluri and As- sociates, InQLeasing_5£ndent_Retentign, 1987, dropout arises from “insufficient intellectual and social integration of the individual into the communities of the college“ (pg. 41). ' 1W Students who are academically and or socially dismissed by the institution. W College sponsored activities and programs intended to en- hance the student's college experience. College activities and programs in this study are: library, StudenLumOn' , 'i J'E ' II] I' 3 I' 1 E .].|. and J l i . I' . E | C . J E I' 'I' The investment of time and energy the student makes in out of'class, non-curricular activities. In this study 25 extra-curricular activities include the students' involve- ment in the student union, campus athletic and recreational facilities and campus clubs and organizations. See College Student Experiences Questionnaire (Pace, 1986) for clarification of these five terms (Appendix B). Faculty—Relationships The investment of time and energy the student makes in de- veloping faculty relationships. According to Noel, Levitz, Saluri and Associates the term may be defined as the “occur- rence of largely informal contacts with faculty outside the classroom“ (pg. 37). E E J l' l' The investment of time and energy the student makes in de- veloping peer relationships. Pascarella and Chapman define peer relationships as the "extent of informal social inter- action with peers" (Pascarella and Chapman, 1983, Pg. 45). Newcomb, 1962 defines peer group as “any set of two or more students whose relationship to one another are such as to exert influence upon them as individuals" (pg. 469). 26 .QEGANIlAIIQN_QE_THE_RESEAR§H_STUDY Chapter One included a rationale for the study, found in the Background and Need for the Study. The chapter also in- cluded the study's purpose, research questions, hypotheses and a statement on the limitations of the research and a definition of terminology. Chapter Two, the Literature Review, includes the general and specific research studies on attrition as it relates to the student's involvement within his institutional environment. The chapter contains criticisms of student retention re- search, methodologies, variables both positively and negatively associated with student retention and a discus- sion of the two retention models used as the basis for this research study. Chapter Three is the Design and Methodology section and in— cludes sections on the setting, population and sample, de- sign and methodology, data collection and analysis, hypoth- eses and a discussion of the instrument used to collect data for this study. Chapter Four is a Presentation and Analysis of the research findings. This chapter includes an introduction, descrip- tion of subjects, and a presentation of the findings and an analysis of the data. 27 Chapter Five is a summary of the research study and includes major findings, conclusions, implications for administra- tors, and finally, recommendations for further research. CHAPTER TWO .INTRODUCTION The purpose of Chapter Two, the Literature Review, was to examine current literature and research relevant to the topic of student retention in higher education. The objec- tive of this review was to allow the investigator to develOp a sound familiarity with the general research which has been conducted in the field of college student retention and then to examine with greater scrutiny the research which spe- cifically examined the relationship between student reten- tion, and student involvement and integration within the students' college environment, the topic upon which this in- vestigator directed his research. This Literature Review consists of five sections. Section One College Student Attrition: Why Higher Education Is Concerned A review and discussion of the literature which supports the continuing need for re- tention research in higher education. This section of the literature review introduces the need for greater institutional 28 Section Two Section Three Section Four 29 understanding of student retention tendencies.’ Student Retention Research: Iethodology, Instrumentation and Criticism A synthesis of the various methodological designs used by researchers, data gathering instruments and some criticisms associated with research methodology will be discussed in this section. Student Retention Variables: A General Overview Section Three is a general review and dis- cussion of retention studies which have identified variables found to be associated and not associated with student persiStence. Student Involvement and Retention: A Spe- cific Focus Section Four is a representative review of the literature with specific emphasis on student retention as it relates to the col— lege student's involvement and interaction 30 with his institutional environment. Astin's (1884) and Tinto's (1975) Theoretical Models of Student Retention will be discussed in this section. Section Five Literature Review: An Overall Summary The literature review will conclude with a pertinent summation of what the investigator has found as a result of this literature review. Section One - College Student Attrition: Why Higher Education is Concerned Is college student retention an important issue facing higher education? If indeed it is an issue, is it of spe— cial concern to the private higher education sector? Cope, in 1978, predicted that 40% of entering freshmen will not complete their college degree, 40% will earn their de- gree, and 20% will require longer than four years to earn their degree. Bringham, Jacobs, Ironside and Muscate in 1979, Pantages and Creedon, 1978, and Wallace and Harris, 1978, discovered that approximately 40% of university fresh- men' do not reach their junior year (Scherer and Wygant, 31 1982, pg. 378). 'Rohen, Nestel and Kamas found that between 25 and 30 percent of entering freshmen in their study were not enrolled as sophomores one calendar year later“ (Dukes and Gaithers, 1984, page 151). While college administrators have always been concerned with why students leave their institutions, this concern has sig- nificantly increased in recent years as a result of the dwindling pool of high school seniors and the stiff finan- cial pressures confronting higher educational institutions. Lonabocker (1982) wrote that, 'Retention, a topic of re- search enjoying relative obscurity until the 1970's, has be- come an issue of considerable interest to all constituencies involved in the administration of institutions of higher education, and justifiably so, since forecasters currently project that by 1997 a 23.3 percent national decline will occur among the 18-24 year old age cohort, the group on which undergraduate admissions officers typically focus their recruiting efforts” (pg. 76). According to Frances, (1980) "the eighteen—year old population will dr0p from 4,211,000 in 1980 to 3,426,000 in 1990." Private colleges are especially facing difficult financial pressures as the result of rising tuition costs which make less expensive state colleges and universities more attrac- tive to the potential private college student. There is also increased competition between private colleges for 32 those high school seniors who are looking towards matriculafi tion at the private college. According to Breneman and Nelson, (1980), and Finn, (1978), 'several sources predict that upwards of 200 institutions may close between 1980 and 1996' (Green, 1981, pg. 1). Cit- ing data from “Private College Openings 1980' Green (1981) writes that, “between 1970 and 1979, 56 private four year colleges closed: another 24 merged with other private insti- tutions and six more shifted to public control“ (pg. 1). Astin (1975) cites the problem of attrition as important to colleges simply because it adversely affects revenue. Green (1981) supports Astin's contention when he states that, 'in- stitutional efforts to increase retention are probably the most cost effective investments possible for maintaining and enhancing enrollments. Institutions already know a great deal about recruitment and spend lots of dollars each year on marketing, promotion, special consultants, additional staff, financial aid, etc. Retention programs, tradition- ally the concern of the student affairs staff, seldom enjoy such high visibility, institutional concern and special re- sources" (pg. 2, 3). Astin, in 1975 wrote that "while administrators and faculty have traditionally seen recruitment as the pmincipal means to keep enrollments up, an equally promising approach is to reduce drapout rates" (pg. 2). 33 Gardiner and Nazari-Robati (1982) wrote that, “after more Ithan three centuries of fairly steady increases in enroll- ments, the most dramatic feature of the next 20 years, ac- cording to the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, is the likelihood of a substantial decline in en- rollments“ (Carnegie Council, 1980, Pg. 32). Gardiner and Nazari-Robati go on to say that, “the upcoming period of declining enrollments presents an excellent op- portunity for administrators to restructure their colleges and universities into responsive, student-centered institutions. This requires that administrators shift their focus from attrition to retention, from trying to understand why students leave to actively converting their colleges into caring institutions, with increased emphasis on quality and service“ (pg. 26). Wilner (1980) wrote that “ ... in times of financial crises college administrators are generally under much pressure to reduce people, particularly in areas often considered non-academic, such as counseling and student development. Much farsightedness is required to avoid this temptation and to recognize the less tangible and often less apparent needs of the survival of the institution and its educational mis- sion“ (pg. 53). Astin, Kern and Green (1987) speak to this concern when they advance the student retention discussion beyond just declines in student enrollments and revenues to 34 the broader question of “institutional effectiveness.“ Ac: cording to these authors, retention data and other enroll- ment related issues have emerged as “part of the larger pub- lic discussion of institutional performance and student out- comes“ (pg. 36). Retention data may be one “key indicator“ of how well the institution is meeting its educational mission. In summary, the pertinent literature and research reviewed strongly suggests that significant percentages of college students do drOp out. The problem of retention is accentu- ated by a continuing decline in the pool of high school seniors. Second, the student retention problem has become of paramount concern to revenue conscious higher educational institutions, especially the small private liberal arts colleges. Astin (1975) sums it up well when he writes, “In four year institutions, any change that deters students from dropping out can affect three classes of students at once, whereas any change in recruiting practices can affect only one class in a given year. From this viewpoint, investing resources to prevent drapping out may be more 'cost effec- tive' than applying the same resources to more vigorous re- cruitment“ (pg. 2). As the literature suggests, college student retention is in- deed a problem facing higher education, one with historical roots. The literature also supports the contention by this 35 investigator that the problem of student retention is acute in terms of its potential impact upon the private colleges which depend so heavily upon student enrollments for revenue. Pantages and Creedon (1978), after their lengthy review of college student attrition studies between 1950 and 1975, ar- rived at the following conclusion. In summary, a variety of programs should be initi- ated or extended which are designed either to pre- vent or to intervene at an early stage in the proc- ess of withdrawal. Such programs should be system- atically evaluated for their impact on attrition. Innovative intervention should not be the responsi- bility of any single sector of the college: above all, students and faculty should be encouraged to invest their energies in solving a problem that continues to plague both the large state university and the small private liberal arts college. If the latter is to survive, the rising cost of student attrition must be brought under control -- and soon (pg. 96). Section Two - Student Retention Research: lethodology, In— strumentation and Criticism The relationship between the student's integration with his institutional environment and college satisfaction has at- tracted the attention of researchers. Pantages and Creedon (1978) cite research studies by Holland (1957) and Thistlewaite (1959) and others that, “have shown it is more appropriate to analyze the college 'input' -- the student, and the interaction between the student and the college en- vironment“ (pg. 75). Indeed, in the following years 36 measurement instruments focused on environment match between the student and the institution. Stern in 1957 and 1958 de- veloped the Activities Index followed by the College Charac- teristics Index, instruments which were developed to measure the college students' perception of, and interaction and satisfaction with his institutional environment (Pace and Stern, 1958). More recently Pace (1979) has published the College Student Experiences Questionnaire, an instrument used by a number of higher educational institutions seeking to measure the student's perceived level of interaction and involvement with selected variables in his institutional en- vironment (Pace, 1979). Tinto's Social Integration Set sought to measure quantifiably the actual number of contacts between students and faculty and actual numbers of extra- curricular activities (Terenzini and Pascarella, 1978). The Adjective Rating Scale (1978, Kelly, Pascarella, Terenzini and Chapman) was created for purposes of measuring student expectations and perceptions of their academic and non-academic life (Terenzini and Pascarella, 1978). The attempts to establish relationships between institu— tional environmental characteristics and student expecta- tions and perceptions and how they relate to retention have grown out of several student retention models which emerged in recent years. Most notably, Tinto's College Student At- trition Theory (Tinto, 1975) and Astin's Student Ivolvement: A DevelOpmental Theory for Higher Education (Astin, 1984), 37 have emerged in part as a result of the call for a more com: prehensive approach towards retention research as well as in response to methodological criticisms of college student re- tention research. Tinto (1975) identified two major short- comings of retention research. These were “inadequate at- tention given to questions of definition“ and second, the “development of theoretical models that seek to explain, not simply to describe the processes that bring individuals to leave institutions of higher education“ (pg. 89). Astin's student involvement model was in part developed in response to his desire to “bring some order into the chaos of the literature“ (pg. 297). From Astin's Student Development Model has emerged the possibilities and opportunities for retention researchers to spring board off this model and de- sign further retention studies which seek to validate Astin's theory that indeed a relationship exists between student involvement and retention. Spady, 1970 criticized what he referred to as the “paucity of multivariate approaches designed to explain the inter- relationships among factors believed to affect the attrition process“ (pg. 38). The implication by Spady is that reten- tion is complex and the factors for persistence (or failure to persist) are so interrelated that they cannot be viewed in isolation. Terenzini and Pascarella, 1978 support Spady when concluding that possibly the most important findings of their study “suggest that the academic and social correlates 38 of attrition may be different for different students“ (PG: 364). Chenoweth, Ohio State University, 1981, found that future retention study may be “more promising if interactive components (i.e. academic and social integration) are exam- ined“ (ERIC Dissertation Abstracts Online, Pg. 584). Gekowski and Schwartz, as early as 1961, complained that previous retention research “concentrated on one or two causes rather than investigating several causes“ (pg. 1). Methodological designs in retention research have followed the lines of autopsy, cross sectional and longitudinal studies. Terenzini, 1978, discusses all three in his ar- ticle, “An Evaluation of Three Basic Designs for Studying Attrition.“ Autopsy or ex post facto is a study after the fact. College students who already have withdrawn are questioned. Ter- enzini himself is critical of the ex post facto approach, saying that its “liabilities probably exceed its assets“ (pg. 258). Indeed, he writes that “students who have left the institution may feel a need to rationalize their deci- sion, to make it socially or personally acceptable“ (pg. 258). The likely response rate is lowest in an ex post facto design, somewhere in the range of 15% to 40%. The cross sectional design allows the researcher to gather current data at a “single point in time“ (pg. 260) and at a 39 later date compare the data with persisters and drapouts. According to Terenzini, the response rate is normally within the 55% to 80% range, considerably higher than the ex post facto response range. The validity of response is also higher than the ex post facto design, since there probably will be less rationalization by the respondents, because they are still in school and have yet to decide to drop out. The longitudinal design, according to Terenzini, “involves the collection of information from the same students at two or more points in time“ (pg. 261). Terenzini and Pascarella's 1975 longitudinal/ex post facto study at Syr— acuse University of incoming freshmen collected data at two different points, July 1975 and March 1976. Tinto (1975) criticized research that failed to employ longitudinal stud- ies that would “lead to an understanding of the processes of interaction which bring, over time, differing individuals within the institution to varying levels of persistence and/or to varying forms of dropout behavior“ (pg. 90). The longitudinal study appears to be capable of providing the researcher with a greater degree of confidence in his findings. Response percentages with a longitudinal design are somewhat higher (40% - 60%) than a cross-sectional de- sign and considerably higher than an ex post facto design (Terenzini, 1980). Terenzini, while citing the sound meth- odological design of the longitudinal study cautions the reader that it is the most expensive of the three designs. 40 In summary, a portion of the literature on student retention addresses the relationship between institutional environment and student persistence. A number of instruments have been developed (Pace, 1979; Kelley, Pascarella and Chapman, 1978) to measure student perceptions of institutional fit and integration. Finally, several types of research meth- odological studies were discussed with the longitudinal study appearing to provide the investigator with the great- est degree of confidence. Section Three - Student Retention Variables Associated and Not Associated lith Retention variables Found Not to be Associated with Persistence The next portion of the literature review will be a discus- sion of the research which has found variables NOT to be as- sociated with student persistence. Terenzini and Pascarella, 1978 attempted to determine whether a relationship existed between student persistence and pre-college characteristics. The results of their study did not support their hypothesis and in fact served to re- direct retention research and instead focus research on what happens to the student after he is enrolled in college. Terenzini and Pascarella wrote that there “appears to be 41 little future in trying to predict attrition solely on the basis of students' pre—matriculation characteristics“ (pg. 363). Their findings also indicated that the students' academic experiences in college may affect “subsequent at- trition decisions“ more than their social experiences (P9. 363). These results are somewhat contradicted in a later study by Nelson, Scott and Bryan (1984) who found that the “successful students who did not stay in school perceived that they were performing adequately as students. They did not, however, participate in activities, as did the success- ful stayers, and they were less satisfied with their social life than were all other subgroups. Their poor social inte- gration rather than academic performance contributed to their leaving college“ (pg. 53). Sexton (1965) reports that results of studies on extra- curricular activities and persistence are mixed. She con- cludes that, “As a rule, unsuccessful students (particularly those who withdraw) participate less in college activities“ (pg. 307). Fishman and Pasanella (1960) found that research on the nonintellective predictors of retention was “largely concerned with more fragmentary and less theoretically inte- grated studies“ (pg. 303). Pantages and Creedon, in their 1978 Studies of college Attrition: 1950-1975, wrote that after their review of the attrition literature “we are forced to conclude that such activities (extracurricular ac- tivities) are not a primary factor in attrition“ (pg. 79). 42 There has been some conjecture that the students' socio—economic status is related to persistence. Rossmann and Kirk (1970) reported that “in contrast to much previous research, no differences were reported in family income, father's or mother's education“ (pg. 60). Eckland (1965) found in his study, “in general that the social class variables do not correlate independently with college graduation“ (pg. 48). Other demographic factors found not to be associated with student persistence included age and sex. Sexton (1965) re- ports in her study of twenty-five years of attrition, that age is not critical to one's likelihood of staying or leav- ing college. Yet, Astin (1975) found age indeed to be positively related to withdrawal, “...particularly older ‘women“ (pg. 44). Pantages and Creedon concluded upon review of several age related persistence studies, (Sexton, 1965; Summerskill, 1962 and Darling, 1955) that “age is not a pri- mary factor in causing attrition“ (pg. 57). Sexton's 1965 review of twenty-five years of research re- lated to factors contributing to attrition found no conclu- sive “evidence in the literature on the relationship between personality and academic success or failure“ (pg. 308). She goes on to say that “while personality characteristics must be reckoned with, they are not critical of success or fail- ure” (pg. 309). 43 Rossman and Kirk, in a 1966 study of freshmen in the College of Letters and Science atithe University of California at Berkeley, did not find a positive relationship between high academic ability and persistence. Students in the study were administered the School and College Ability Test (SCAT) with the results showing both “male and female withdrawals had higher scores than the persisters on the verbal section“ (pg. 58). “Cumulative GPA's for the two groups were almost identical“ (pg. 58). variables Positively Associated with Retention A number of research studies on student retention have iden- tified variables positively associated with persistence. Ruddock and Wilkinson (1983), in their study found “those students who were dissatisfied with university life, and es- pecially with social activities and with courses available, also appear to be potential leavers“ (ERIC Dialog File 66-83, Dec. 557). The authors suggest that social factors, as well as the usual academic and demographic factors do in fact relate to decisions to stay or not stay in college. Their findings would appear to support Terenzini and Pascarella's (1978) conclusions that “efforts to reduce at- trition are more likely to succeed if they are focused on what happens to the students after their arrival on campus, rather than what they are like at the time of admission" (pg. 363). 44 Why do some students persist while others leave college? What events or experiences have transpired which might strengthen or weaken one's resolve to remain enrolled? Pascarella and Chapman (1983) studied the relationship be- tween student persistence and interaction with college fac- ulty members. The authors found that “freshmen persisters in both residential university and liberal arts samples were significantly more involved in the nonracademic life of the institution and had significantly more nonvolassroom inter- action with faculty members focusing on both intel- lectual/academic and social/personal topics“ (pg. 42). It may well be that until the college student's basic needs of affiliation and belonging are satisfied he or she may not be ready to confront other challenges he may encounter within his college environment. Scherer and Wygant (1982) wrote that, Maslow (1962) said many years ago that one cannot move towards satisfying a higher level of need un- til a lower level need is predominantly satisfied. It would seem from a review of the literature that until the basic needs for adjustment and for devel- oping reading, writing and math skills are met, students might not be very successful in dealing with other academic challenges and vocational ques- tions confronting them in college (P9. 378). Miller and Brickman's (1981) retention study, which focused on faculty and staff mentoring at Canisius College, found that the program had a “positive impact on the retention and academic performance of freshmen“ (pg. 27). The program was “targeted toward freshmen to enhance their relationships 45 with faculty and administration and to provide services for them“ (pg. 24). Another variable positively associated with student persist- ence is peer group influence. Panos and Astin's (1968) four year longitudinal study of freshmen at 248 institutions se- lected from a national sample found that, “Students are more likely to complete four years if they attend a college where student peer relationships are characterized by cohesive- ness, cooperativeness and independence“ (pg. 66). Pantages and Creedon (1978) concluded that in regard to peer group influence, developmental and educational psychologists as well as sociologists are in general agreement that the peer group forms the most significant external in- fluence on the college student, and is second only to the personal characteristics of the student in the formation of the final product (P9. 70). Holbrock (1981) found that “...those institutions whose sc- tivities facilitated personal contact between students, fac- ulty and staff were more likely to have higher retention rates“ (ERIC DIALOG FILE 3S Dissertation Abstracts Online 1861 to Feb. 84, pg. 578). Newcomb (1962) endorsed the power and influence of the peer group in the college environment. Newcomb wrote that, “stu- dents, like other people, are members of groups, and all groups have power over their members“ (pg. 469). Defining peer group as “any set of two or more students whose rela- tionships to one another are such as to exert influence upon 46 them as individuals“ (pg. 469), Newcomb contends that peer group dynamics in college are powerful and influential in terms of their impact on the students' satisfaction with his college environment. Cope, in his 1978 article, “Why Stu- dents Stay, Why They Leave,“ cites a number of studies, Jones (1962), Flack (1966), Spady (1971), Rootman (1972) and naagen (1977), that have found peer support to be positively associated with persistence. Pascarella and Chapman (1983), in their study of university freshmen found that two mea- sures of social involvement with peers, “participation in extracurricular activity and extent of informal social ac- tivity with peers, had their strongest positive influence on persistence for students at the relatively low levels of commitment to the institution and commitment to the goal of graduation, respectively“ (pg. 45). The literature suggests that peer group involvement strengthens the student's resolve to remain enrolled and persist in his pursuit of a college degree. Institutional leaders would do well to focus on the peer group influence and its relationship to student persistence. Cope (1978) writes that one college, Spring Arbor, has “developed a campus-wide retention program which assures that certain students have 'significant others' integrated into their campus experience“ (pg. 9). 47 Parental Socioeconomic status has also been established as being positively associated with student persistence. Astin (1975) reported that “the greater dropout-proneness of stu- dents from low-income families is attributable to their less educated parents, lesser ability and lower motivation and greater concern about finances“ (pg. 35). Tinto (197$) cites findings by Sewell and Shah (1967) that, “...children from lower status families exhibit higher rates of dropout“ (pg. 99). Panos and Astin (1968) discovered, “that the en- tering college student who is most likely not to complete four years of college within the four years following his matriculation is one who had relatively low grades in high school, who does not plan at the time of college entrance to take graduate or professional work, or who comes from a relatively low socioeconomic background“ (pg. 64). Eckland (1965) suggested that indeed there is a positive relation- ship between socioeconomic status and persistence, but that the “motivational element is the primary contribution that social class makes to performance in college“ (pg. 40). Parental influence also appears to be a variable positively associated with persistence. Sexton, (1965) concluded that “the extent, then to which parents encourage the pursuit of higher education is a vital factor in their children's suc- cess“ (pg. 312). It may be that college students whose par- ents offer encouragement and support are more likely to re— main enrolled in school. 48 Research findings on retention and parental education appear to yield mixed results. Rossmann and Kirk's (1970) study of persisters and non-persisters wrote, “... no differences were reported in family income, father's or mother's education...“ (pg. 60). Yet, other studies do indicate a positive relationship between one's parental education and their own likelihood of attaining a college degree. Panos and Astin (1968) found that “both father's and mother's educational levels however were predictive of completing four or more years of college“ (pg. 64). However, Astin (1975) reports that, “it seems likely that the more educated parents exert stronger pressure on students to stay in col- lege than less educated parents“ (pg. 35, 36). Panos and Astin (1968) were able to establish that the stu- dents' high school grade point average was a successful pre- dictor in identifying potential dr0pouts from persisters. Astin (1975) reported “that students' chances of either stopping out or dropping out of college increase consis- tently as their high school grades decrease“ (pg. 31). Newcomb (1962) believed that college size was an important factor in student persistence. Yet Astin (1975) found that “small colleges having enrollments below 500 have a negative effect on student persistence“ (pg. 123). Newcomb recom- mended that large universities be scaled down to units of 300'to 400. He believed that institutions reduced to this 49 size would more effectively... facilitate positive peer-group interactions and provide a stronger sense of belonging, a factor that Newcomb believed to be important in promoting retention (Pantages and Creedon, 1978, pg. 77). Goal commitment as a variable in student retention has also captured the attention of some researchers. Do college stu- dents who have more firmly established educational plans have an increased likelihood of persisting through to graduation? Tinto (1975) cites the study by Sewell and Shah (1967) that the “level of educational plans held by the in- dividual was by far the strongest independent influence upon college completion, once family social status and ability were taken into account“ (pg. 103). Using a different de- scription, yet with essentially the same meaning, Wessell, Engle and Smidchens directed their research using the term “decidedness', which they defined as “commitment to a tenta- tive curricular and/or career goal“ (pg. 28). Their study of over 2400 students at Grand Valley State Colleges found that in the case of both transfer and “first time in any college“ (FTIAC) students, there was a “significant differ- ence between the FTIAC decided and undecided groups of stu- dents in their persistence rate one year following their initial enrollment date“ (pg. 29). Wessell, Engle and Smidchens (1978) concluded that indeed their hypothesis, that students with a declared major have higher persistence rates, was supported by their research at Grand Valley State College. 50 A critical variable positively associated with student perf sistence and supported by numerous research studies is col- lege housing. Do students who reside in campus based hous— ing increase the likelihood of their persisting through to graduation? Alexander Astin (1975) concludes that ... ...‘a student's chances of completing college can be significantly influenced by environmental circumstances. The positive effect of living in a dormitory during the freshman year has obvious im- plications for students, administrators and policy makers. Students concerned about maximizing their chances of finishing college should seriously con- sider leaving home and living in a college dormi- tory (pg. 107) . Provost, in her 1982 dissertation, Personality Type and Lei- sure Satisfaction as Factors in College Attrition, concluded that “... colleges should support residential and social or- ganizations as factors influencing student persistence“ (pg. 2894, Vol. 43/09-A of Dissertation Abstracts International). Citing Iffert, (1966); Astin, (1973); Astin and Panos, (1968) and Chickering, (1974), among others, Astin, (1975) in his book, WW, con- cludes that “dormitory living enhances college persistence“ (pg. 90). Research studies have established a definite link between living in campus based residences, and persistence. Earlier in this literature review the positive relationship of peer group involvement with persistence was discussed. It may be that living in the residence hall provides the student opportunity for peer group involvement and thereby increases his likelihood of persisting. Residing in 51 campus based housing strengthens the student's chances for successful integration into the campus milieu, a phenomenon which appears to be strongly related to persistence. Student Retention research studies have also fbcused on extracurricular activities as a retention variable. Is there a positive association between participation in extra- curricular activities and student persistence? Astin (1975) found that those students who persisted had campus jobs or participated in extracurricular activities more than students who did not remain enrolled. Astin (1975) wrote, “... participation in extracurricular ac- tivities, especially membership in fraternities and so- rorities is significantly related to staying in college“ (pg. 108). Sexton in her 1965 article in the W General_25yghglggy, concluded that, “as a rule, unsuccessful students (particularly those who withdraw) participate less in extracurricular activities...“ (pg. 307). Probably a more critical point Sexton makes is that “the non-persisting student's less participation in extracurricular activities is indicative of a failure to integrate fully into the life and ethos of the institution“ (pg. 307). It may well be that until the college student's basic needs of affiliation and belonging are satisfied he may not be ready to confront other challenges he may encounter within his college environment. Scherer and Wygat (1982) wrote that, 52 Haslow (1962) said many years ago that one cannot move towards satisfying a higher level of need une til a lower level need is predominantly satisfied. It would seem from a review of the literature that until the basic needs of adjustment ... are met, students might not be very successful in dealing with other academic challenges and vocational ques- tions confronting them in college (99. 378). Pascarella and Chapman (1983) further support extra- curricular activities as being positively associated with student persistence. Among their findings, student par- ticipation in extracurricular activity has a strong “positive influence on persistence for students at the relatively lowest levels of commitment to the institution and commitment to the goal of graduation, respectively“ (pg. 45). Gekowski and Schwartz, in their 1961 Study of Temple University Freshmen, found that the “remaining students par- ticipated in extracurricular activities to a greater degree than did the withdrawing students“ (pg. 2). In summary it appeared to this investigator that the research findings support a positive relationship between participation in extracurricular activities and, student persistence. An extremely critical and more complex retention variable is social integration. (This variable will be discussed in greater detail in the final section of this literature review.) Since research studies have established a positive relationship between social integration within the student's college environment and persistence, it is appropriate to discuss it in this section as well. The prevailing hypoth- esis is that college students who successfully immerse 53 themselves within their institutional environment are more likely to persist and earn their college degree. Tinto (1975) concluded that, Other things being equal, the higher the degree of integration of the individual into the college sys- tems, the greater will be his commitment to the specific institution and to the goal of college completion (P9. 96). Spady (1970) wrote that, “... in my view, full integration into the common life of the college depends on successfully meeting the demands of both its social and academic systems“ (pg. 39). Terenzini and Pascarella (1983) concluded that while pre-college characteristics had an impact upon the student's integration into the life of his or her institu- tion, it was the student's social and academic interactions with elements of that environment that influenced decisions to leave or stay in college. Chenoweth, 1981 (ERIC Dis- sertation Abstracts Online, pg. 584) suggested that “future research on attrition may be more promising if interactive components (e.g. academic and social integration) are exam- ined“ (pg. 584 B). Newcomb (1962) believes that the impact of the college on the student is in part influenced by the peer-group dynamics within the culture of his particular institution. Research studies support the theory that the college student's chances of persisting are significantly enhanced tut his successful penetration into the institutional 54 environment with which he has elected to become a part. The college student's involvement within this environment, his participation in college programs, contact with college fac- ulty and involvement with his peer group, collectively or in part may have an impact on the likelihood of his remaining enrolled and hence persisting. The remainder of the lit- erature review is devoted to the college student's involve- ment and interaction within his institutional environment and concludes with a summary of the literature. Section Pour - The Student Involvement Theory and Retention: Two lodels To this point the literature review has included a general examination of the variables found to be both positively and negatively associated with student persistence. The atten- tion will now shift to specifically address student reten- tion and its relationship to the student's involvement in and interaction with his institutional environment. Two jprevailing theoretical models of college student retention, Tinto's Theory of College Student Attrition (Tinto, 1975) and Alexander Astin's Theory of Student Involvement (Astin, 1984) will form the foundation for this discussion. Both Tinto (1975) and Astin (1984) suggest that a student's level of interaction and involvement within his college 55 environment may influence his retention, either in a positive or adverse way. Tinto believes that the ability or inability of the college student to successfully integrate himself into the social and academic structure of the insti- tution is directly related to the likelihood of his remain- ing enrolled (persisting). According to Tinto, one's insti- tutional commitment is influenced by a series of inter- actions within the student's college environment. Re writes that... the process of dropout can be viewed as a longitu- dinal process of interactions between the indi- vidual and the academic and social systems of the college during which a person's experience in these systems continually modifies his goal and institu- tional commitment in ways which lead to persistence and or varying forms of dropout (Review of Educa- tional Research, pg. 94, Winter 1975). Retention then, according to Tinto, is related to the student's interaction with his institutional environment. Presumably, the college student who immerses himself within his college environment and experiences frequent inter- actions with elements of the community may increase his chances of persisting. Tinto writes that ... “other things being equal, the higher the degree of integration of the in- dividual into the college systems, the greater will be his commitment to the specific institution and to the goal of completion“ (Tinto, 1975, pg. 96), (Terenzini and Pascar- ella, 1980, Pg. 272). Astin's (1984) theory of student involvement also supports a positive relationship between the college student's 56 involvement within his institutional environment and the likelihood of his remaining enrolled. Astin defines in- volvement as the “amount of physical and psychological en- ergy that the student devotes to the academic experience“ (Astin, 1984, Pg. 297). The student who expends time and energy or, in this investigator's terminology, works at go- ing to college, may be more likely to persist. Using data from his 1975 longitudinal study of college dropouts, Astin writes that... the factors that contributed to the student's re- maining in college suggested involvement, whereas those that contributed to the student's dropping out implied a lack of involvement (Pg. 302). Astin's theory implies that college administrators should be alert to passive students, since passivity may mean non-involvement. In fact, Astin says, The act of dropping out can be viewed as the ulti- mate form of non-involvement (P9. 303) Astin's theory then holds that the more time, energy and ef— fort the student invests in the college experience (involve- ment), the more likely he will come into greater contact with faculty, other students and campus based programs and activities, all critical variables positively associated ‘with persistence. 4Astin writes that ... “the greater the student's involvement in college, the greater will be the amount of student learn- ing and personal development“ (pg. 307). While certainly ‘this is a universal objective in higher education, it will 57 not occur unless the student remains enrolled. It then bee comes incumbent upon college administrators to discover (at least according to Tinto and Astin), creative ways to suc- cessfully integrate their students into the life of the col- lege in such a way that Tinto's, “interactions between the individual and the academic and social systems“ occur, and the student invests a quantitative and qualitative amount of physical and psychological energy in their college experi- ence (Astin, 1984). In addition to Astin and Tinto, other retention research has been conducted which examines the relationship between the students' interaction and involvement with their institu- tional environment and student persistence. Starr (1972) sought to apply Lofquist and Weiss's (1968) Theory of Work Adjustment to the college environment and student satisfaction. According to Starr, “... if an indi- vidual is to remain within the college environment, he must be fulfilling the requirements of that environment (perform- ing satisfactorily) and the college environment must be Ineeting the needs of the student (leading to satisfaction)“ (pg. 318) . Pascarella and Chapman (1983) found in their study of fresh- nmna retention, that “with background traits held constant, residential university persisters (versus withdrawals) were 58 more likely to live on campus, to spend more weekends on campus, and to be more involved in informal social activity with peers“ (pg. 42). Dukes and Gaither (1984) conducted a study of cluster programs and their effect upon persistence at California State university at Nbrthridge. Their model attempted to “... personalize the institution's educational experience for freshmen...“ (pg. 152) and “provided social, recreational as well as academic programs for participants“ (pg. 152). They found that “cluster students exhibited sig- nificantly higher persistence rates in their first two terms than freshmen not in the program“ (pg. 164). Attrition rates for these cluster students did return to institutional wide attrition rates after a third term. Nelson, Scott and Bryan (1984) in their study of Pre-college Characteristics and Early College Experiences as Predictors of Freshmen found that “the two successful student groups spent more hours per week studying, averaging 10-14 hours; the lower performance groups spent only 5-9 hours per week“ (pg. 53). Their findings also revealed a difference between “persisters and non-persisters in responses to the item about instructors encouraging talk with students outside the classroom. Persisters reported a greater frequency of such (encouragement than did those who left college“ (pg. 53). The findings by Nelson, Scott and Bryan support Astin's (1975) findings that “frequent interaction with faculty is 59 more strongly related to satisfaction than any other type of involvement or, indeed, any other student or institutional characteristic“ (Astin, 1984, pg. 304). Nelson, Scott and Bryan also reported that successful students in their study who did not persist participated less in college activities than persisters and were “less satisfied with their social life than all other subgroups“ (pg. 53). The authors at- tributed their failure to persist to “poor social integration.“ Aitken (1982) found that balance between the time students spend on social and academic activities is im- portant to retention. According to Aitken, Other things being equal, the student most likely to be retained is the one who makes the optimum al- location of time and effort between social and academic activities... (Pg. 45). While Astin advocates time, energy and effort as being critical in student retention, he probably would support .Aitken's findings which suggest a balance between these ac- tivities of involvement. Pascarella and Chapman's (1983) study further supports the involvement and interaction theories of Tinto and Astin. They reported that “freshmen persisters (versus voluntary 'withdrawals) in both residential university and liberal arts sanmfles were significantly more involved in the nonracademic life of the institution and had significantly more non-classroom interaction with faculty members focusing on tmoth intellectual/academic and social/personal topics“ (pg. 42). 60 Terenzini and Pascarella (1978), in studying pre-college characteristics and freshmen year experiences of students at Syracuse University reported that... It seems likely that helping freshmen find a re- warding niche in the academic systems of an insti- tution is not unrelated to the frequency and nature of their informal contact with faculty members (P9. 363' 364). Astin, Rorn and Green (1986), citing a recent Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) study, wrote that, “there is much that colleges and universities can do to en- hance learning opportunities, to make campuses more inter- esting and engaging places...“ (pg. 42). Rose (1978), in an article, “Some Plain Talk“, by a college dean says, Our obsession with administrative convenience, academic freedom, and the pursuit of truth and ex- cellence has numbed our sensitivities and caused us to forget that students are human beings (Pg. 60). Rose suggested a number of solutions to the retention prob- 1em, two of which were directly related to Astin's involve- ment theory. He believed faculty and administrators should “examine our personal and professional schedules to deter- mine ‘if we are available to students as much as possible“ (pg. 61). Second, “if we are to understand our students better, we must spend more time in their environment“ (pg. 6CD. Both Astin and Tinto encourage involvement and interaction by the student within his college environment. Rose en- cuaurages the faculty to take the initiative and become in- volved and interact with students. 61 In summary, Astin's Theory of Student Involvement and Tinto's Student Interaction Model build upon the premise that student retention is related to the student's involve- ment and interaction with his institutional environment. While a number of other research studies have also examined the student institutional integration theory, the theoreti- cal models of Tinto (1975) and Astin (1984) offer an excel- lent foundation with which to direct this investigator's own study of student retention. Section Five: Literature Summary In this Literature Review the investigator examined college student retention research studies frmm the following per- spectives: l. A review and discussion of the literature which supports the continuing need for retention research in higher education. 2. A discussion of research methodologies and some criticisms associated with these different designs. 3. A general review and discussion of retention studies which have identified variables found to be both associated and not associated with student persistence. 4. Specific attention on student retention as it relates to the college student's involvement and interaction with his insti- tutional environment. Student retention in higher education has attracted consid- erable attention in recent years. According to Scherer and Wygant (1982), Jacobs, Ironside and Muscate (1979) and oth- ers found that approximately 40% of university freshmen do not reach their junior year“ (pg. 378). Astin, Korn and 62 Green (1987) advance the student retention discussion beyond declines in college enrollments and revenues to the broader question of “institutional effectiveness“ (pg. 36). Accord- ing to these authors, retention data is one “key indicator“ of possibly how well the institution is meeting its educa- tional mission with students. In summary, whether it be out of a need for increasing enrollment, generating revenue, or fulfilling the educational mission, colleges and universi- ties are vitally interested in student retention research. Several types of research methodologies have been employed by student retention researchers. The longitudinal, cross sectional and ex post facto designs appear to be the most widely used. Terenzini (1978) compared the advantages and disadvantages of these three designs. In recent years re- searchers have moved from single cause or isolated variables having an impact upon attrition to a more complex, integra- tion of several factors influencing attrition. Spady in 1970 criticized what he referred to as the “paucity of mul- tivariate approaches designed to explain the interrelation- ships among factors believed to affect the attrition pro- cess“ (pg. 38). Gekowski and Schwartz (1961) criticized re- tention studies that concentrated on one factor, believing that retention research should focus on multiple causes or factors. Terenzini and Pascarella (1978) and Chenoweth (1981) 63 directed their research on various retention factors and how they interrelate. Numerous studies have been conducted in an effort to estab- lish variables positively and negatively associated with persistence. It appears from the literature that research on several variables thought to be related to student per- sistence produced mixed results. Tbrenzini and Pascarella (1978) did not find a relationship between persistence and pre-college characteristics. Several studies or reviews of studies found no positive association between student per- sistence and extracurricular activities (Nelson, Scott and Bryan, 1984; Fishman and Pascarella, 1960), socioeconomic status, (Eckland, 1965) and age and sex, (Sexton, 1965). Yet, in another research study, Tinto (1975) did in fact find a positive relationship between student persistence and parental socio-economic status. These findings directly contradict Fishman and Pascarella (1960). Interestingly, Astin (1975), Gekowski and Schwartz (1981) and Pascarella and Chapman (1983) did find participation in extracurricular activities to be positively associated with student retention. Variables reported to be related to student persistence in- cluded interaction with faculty (Pascarella and Chapman, 1978), peer group influence (Panos and Astin, 1968), 64 parental education (Astin, 1970), goal commitment (Sewell and Shah, 1967) and living in campus housing (Astin, 1975). A critical variable positively associated with student re- tention was the student's social integration into his col- lege environment (Tinto, 1975 and Spady, 1970). The final section of the Literature Review examined student involvement and interaction with his institutional environ- ment and the potential impact upon student persistence. Tinto's (1975) theory that one's interactions with the academic and social systems of his college, and Astin's (1984) theory that student involvement, defined as the in- vestment of time, energy and effort, influences student per- sistence, were both reviewed and discussed. In summary, this literature review has served as background and supporting research for this investigator's research. The investigator will use both Tinto's (1975) and Astin's (1984) theoretical models of student attrition to test the hypothesis that college students who are actively involved in the life of their college and interact with their peer group and faculty, are more likely to persist. In effect this research study will seek to validate both Astin and Tinto's theoretical models of student attrition. CHAPTER IBRBB (IIEBQDHQIIQB This investigator attempted to describe student retention tendencies among selected college students at two small, private, religious, liberal arts colleges. In breadth, the research addressed relationships between the retention of college students and their interaction and involvement with selected aspects of their institutional environment. Is in- volvement and interaction with these variables positively associated with retention? (retention defined as freshmen students returning to the same institution and enrolling for their sophomore year)? The student retention models of Astin (1984) and Tinto (1975) were used as a basis for investigating the relation- ship between the college students' interaction and involve- ment with his college environment, and persistence. This chapter will include the methodological design of the study, the environmental setting of the two institutions participating in the study, the population and sample, data collection, instrumentation, and collection limitations, hy- potheses and data analysis procedures. 65 66 8311185 Two small, (under 1500 students) private, religious, liberal arts colleges served as the institutional settings for this study. Both institutions are fully accredited, have long and established histories and are similar in mission and scope of purpose. Results from this retention study may be generalizable to student populations and colleges in the thirteen member National Christian College Consortium, an organization of religious liberal arts colleges with similar mission and purpose, of which both George Fox and Gordon are member institutions. Gordon College is an institution of approximately 1200 stu- dents located in the suburban community of Wenham, Mas- sachusetts, twenty-six miles north of Boston, Massachusetts. Founded in 1889, as a non-denominational Christian college, Gordon offers students a well-rounded curriculum with 27 ma- jors leading to the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science ' degrees. Gordon enjoys a respected academic reputation and attracts a number of top academic students within protestant evangelical circles. The college draws students nationally but enjoys its greatest representation from New England and the Mid-Atlantic states (New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey). The student population is homogeneous, due in part to its academic selectivity and attraction as a moderately conservative protestant evangelical liberal arts college. 67 The 1986 entering freshmen class combined mean SAT scores were approximately 1030 with a high school grade point average of 3.1 to 3.2. Gordon College is in many ways a very traditional liberal arts college. The college is primarily a residence-oriented campus with approximately 85% of the student body living in campus residence halls. .An active student government and student activities program exists at Gordon. The school has a diversified athletic program for men and women. The men's soccer team enjoys a strong reputation regionally and has in recent years qualified to participate in national tournaments. Campus facilities include athletic facilities, a student union (located in the lower level of the dining hall), a major learning resource center (library) and six major residence halls as well as several smaller living units. The institutional structure is also fairly tradi- tional, with leadership provided by the President, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Vice President for Develop- ment, Dean of Students and Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid. In 1986, Dr. Richard Gross, President of Gordon since 1969, was selected as one of America's top 100 private col- 1ege presidents. George Fox College is an institution of approximately 600 students located in the small town of Newberg, Oregon, twenty—six miles southwest of Portland, the largest city in 68 Oregon. Founded in 1891 by the Quakers who had settled in Newberg and the surrounding northern Willammette valley in the 1800's, George Fox offers students a well-rounded cur- riculum with 26 majors leading to the Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degrees. George Fox also enjoys a good academic reputation, mainly attracting students from protes- tant evangelical circles. The college draws students prima- rily from the Pacific Northwest, specifically Oregon and Washington, with limited success in Idaho, Montana and California. Like Gordon, the George Fox student population is homogeneous due in part to its academic selectivity and reputation as a moderately conservative protestant evangeli— cal liberal arts college. The 1986 entering freshman class combined mean SAT score was 895. The high school gpa aver- age was 2.93. George Fox, like Gordon, is in many ways a traditional lib- eral arts college. The college is primarily a residence-oriented institution with approximately 85% of the student body living in campus based housing. An active stu- dent government exists at George Fox. The school has ath- letic programs for both men and women. Facilities include an athletic complex, fine arts auditorium, dining hall/stu- dent union complex, academic buildings and five major residence halls as well as several smaller living units. In 1988, the college completed construction on a major library expansion project which doubled the square footage of the 69 original library. The institutional structure includes a President and four Vice Presidents, one each for Academic. Affairs, Finance, Development and Student Life. George Fox is a member of the Oregon Independent Colleges Association. In 1987, Dr. Edward Stevens, President of George Fox College, was elected President of the Oregon In- dependent Colleges Association. During the 1987-88 academic year at George Fox a Student Re- tention Committee was formed at the direction of the college president. In response to a growing concern that too many students were dropping out, the Student Retention Committee's mandate was to study why students were not re- turning to George Fox College and to focus on developing so- lutions to the problem. Gordon College and George Fox College are similar in envi- ronmental setting and in educational mission. Both student populations are homogeneous in nature and backgrounds. The administrations of both institutions expressed support for this study, and in kind, consented to allow the research to be conducted using students from their campuses. 70 .EQRHLAIIQHLAND_SAIRLB The population for this study was the 1986 entering freshmen classes at Gordon College and George Fox College. In Sep- tember of 1986 two hundred and sixty (260) freshmen enrolled as full-time students at Gordon College. Eighty-four (32%) were men and one hundred and seventy—six (68%) were women. In that same September, one hundred and forty-nine (149) freshmen, 64 (43%) men and 85 (57%) women, enrolled as full-time students at George Fox College. These numbers re- flect all actual full-time registered freshmen at both in- stitutions defined as.first time enrollees at college, reg- istered for 12 or more quarter hours in the fall quarter. Transfer students and part-time students (those students registered for less than 12 hours) were not included in the study. 71 TABLE ONE 1986 Entering Freshmen Classes/Gordon College, George Fox College ' INSTITUTION STUDENT POPULATION Gordon College 260 full-time students WOmen 176 (68%) Men 84 (32%) George Fox College 149 full-time students WOmen 85 (57%) Men 64 (43%) TABLE TWO Retention Rates for 1986 Freshmen Classes - Gordon College, George Fox College INSTITUTION Retention Per- Retention Per- Retention Per- centage for centage for centage for Freshman Class Men Women Gordon 87% 227/260 87% 73/84 87% 154/176 George Fox 59% 88/149 51% 33/64 62% 53/85 Early consideration was given to securing a random sample of both institutions' returning and non-returning freshmen populations, thus conducting the study on a representative sample of returning and non-returning freshmen. The deci- sion was made to survey the entire population of both fresh- men classes since it became apparent that a random sample 72 could possibly result in an extremely small non-returning student sample size. Thus, it was decided to include all 409 Fall freshmen students attending the two colleges, ex- cluding a total of 15 students from both institutions who were dismissed during or after their first year. The Gordon College population was 253 students after 7 were excluded since they were dismissed during their first year. The George Fox College population was 141 after 8 were excluded since they were dismissed during their freshman year. Only students who returned for their Sophomore year and those who left voluntarily were involved in the research study. The final population for the study was 394 freshmen students from both institutions of which there were 138 men and 256 women . The original intent of the study was to send the question— naire to freshman students during the Spring of their fresh- man year. However, it was decided to delay sending the questionnaire until the 1986 freshmen were into their sophomore year and therefore had experienced a full year at their institution, and as a result would be more able to ad- equately assess their freshman year experiences at that institution. During the Fall of 1987, when the entering freshmen classes 73 of 1986 were now sophomores, a list of returning and non-returning students was obtained from administrative officials at both Gordon College and George For College. Transfer students and students involuntarily dismissed were deleted from this list. During the 1987-88 academic year returning and non-returning students were mailed a packet which included a cover letter, the College_fitndent W (see Appendix B) and this investigator's self-addressed stamped envelope. Subjects were informed in the cover letter (see Appendix A) of the purposes of the survey and asked to participate in the research study. For non-returning students a second letter (see Appendtx A) and questionnaire were sent approximately 90 days later to all non-respondents. This second mailing was followed by telephone calls to all non-respondents approximately two to three weeks later. The second mailing and subsequent telephone calls yielded very positive results. Eleven of the Gordon College non-returning students or 42% responded, while 18 or 34% of the George Fox non-returning students returned their questionnaires. The questionnaire sent to all returning students was fol- lowed within two weeks by a reminder letter asking that they complete the questionnaire and return it to the researcher. Because the subjects were now in their sophomore year, spe- cial attention was given to assure that the respondents limit their responses in the questionnaire to their 74 involvement in their college environment during their freshman year only. The cover letter contained a sentence in all bold capital letters requesting them to limit their response to their freshman year. It should be noted that the second reminder letter sent to all non-returning non-respondents did not contain the re- quest asking non-returning students to limit their responses to involvement in their college environment during their freshmen year only. Thus the investigator was fearful lest some subjects would respond on the questionnaire to their sophomore year involvement. To adjust for this potential problem the investigator, upon telephoning non-respondents who failed to respond after the second letter, reminded them verbally on the telephone to respond only to their freshmen year experiences, and followed this call with a third note in which the student was again reminded to respond on the questionnaire only to their freshman year experiences. The first mailing yielded a 23% response from Gordon non-return- ing students and a 25% response from George Fox non-return- ing students. The second mailing and telephone calls yielded an additional 42% response from Gordon non-returning students and a 34% response from George Fox non-returning students. In summary, during the 1987-88 academic year, returning and non-returning students from the freshman classes of 1986 75 were mailed the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. ~ Two hundred and twenty-seven returning students and twenty-four non-returning students from Gordon college“, and eighty-eight returning students and fifty-three non-returning students from George Fox College made up the populations for the study. The percentages of freshmen students from both institutions completing the questionnaire is shown in figure two. TABLE THREE Percentages of Freshmen Students Completing the College Student Experiences Questionnaire Institution Possible Actual Percentage Respondents Respondents of Respondents SW Returning Students 227 101 44% Non-Returning Students 26 17 65% W Returning Students 88 63 72% Non-Returning Students 53 31 58% E I] I I'I l' Cambined Returning Students 315 164 52% Non-Returning Students ' 79 48 61% * Actually the number should have been 26, however two names were not included on the original non-returning list provided to this investigator. A concerted effort was made to collect a representative number of questionnaires from the four populations in this study. Gordon College's returning students numbered 227 and non-returning students numbered 26. George Fox College had 88 returning students and 53 non-returning students. The original packets (which included the College Student Experi- ences Questionnaire, cover letter and self-addressed stamped envelope) were sent to returning and non-returning students from both institutions. Non-returning students who failed to respond were sent'a second packet containing a shorter cover letter (see Appendix A) appealing for their response. Returning student non-respondents were sent only a second letter asking for their completed questionnaire. Although it was difficult to contact non-returning students since they were no longer students at Gordon and George Fox Col- lege, and since both nonrreturning populations were small (Gordon, 26 students and George Fox, 53) the investigator believed it was critical that a representative number respond. Therefore, in addition to a second mailing of the packet containing the questionnaire and a second appeal let- ter, the investigator also decided to telephone non-return- ing nonrre5pondents from both institutions. The telephone calls and second mailing to both non-returning non-respond- ent populations yielded very positive results. Eleven (11) of the Gordon College non-returning students or 42% 77 responded to the second mailing. Eighteen (18) of the George Fox College non-returning students or 34% responded to the second mailing. mm Data collected from the freshmen student populations at both Gordon College and George Fox College were statistically analyzed. The data analysis specifically attempted to de- termine whether a positive statistical correlation existed (.05 alpha level) between students who invested more time and energy in college activities and programs, their peer and faculty relationships, and, persistence (returning to the same institution for their sophomore year). The data were statistically analyzed by individual institution, as well as a comparative analysis of both institutions. Nine hypotheses were deve10ped in the null form. The data collected from the W mm were statistically analyzed, comparing returning and non-returning student populations from Gordon College (1), George Fox College (2), and combined returning and non-returning student populations from both institutions (3), regarding their perceived level of involvement and interaction with seven selected campus environmental variables, attempting to determine whether there were any 78 differences and if these differences were statistically sig- nificant at the .05 alpha level. Statisticalmaures The data collected from the returning and nonrreturning stu- dents in this study was analyzed using the T-test. Bruning and Kintz (1977) wrote that the “most common use of the T—test is to determine whether the performance difference between two groups is significant“ (pg. 10). Lewin (1979) said that problems “suitable“ for the T-test are those that ask the question, “Is the difference between the two means significant?“ (pg. 346). The T—test is apprOpriate when the investigator is analyzing two independent variables. In this study, the two independent variables were returning and non-returning students. A two tailed test was used since such a procedure is appropriate when a prediction is made that in fact a difference exists between two independent variables and the difference could fall in either direction along a normal distribution. A final rationale for using the T-test was that the T-test is useful in studies where interval or continuous data is compiled. The T-test is limited somewhat in that such a statistical procedure cannot determine if there is an interaction be- tween variables. Since this study did not attempt to 79 address any interaction between variables, though such an investigation has possibilities for future research, this limitation was not a concern to the investigator. A .05 alpha level of significance was selected. According to William L. Hays (W): 1973, the .05 alpha level of significance is one which is “conventional“ (pg. 368) and appropriate in order to avoid a Type I (alpha) error, in which the null hypothesis is rejected (i.e. to “conclude falsely that a difference exists in the data, when in fact it does not,“ Isaac 1971, pg. 143). In conclusion, since the investigator attempted to examine differences between two independent variables the T-test ap- peared to be a suitable statistical procedure. Bruning and Kintz wrote that, “The T-test is used to determine which specific means differ significantly from each other, if these differences have been hypothesized prior to the selec- tion of the data“ (pg. 113). This investigator hypothesized differences between two major independent variables (returning and non-returning students) and used the T-test as a statistical procedure to test for significant differences (.05 alpha level). 80 MW There were nine null hypotheses tested in this study. The analysis of the data tested these hypotheses in three dif- ferent categories of student populations. Data from returning Gordon College Students were statistically analyzed and compared with non-returning Gordon College students in each of the nine hypotheses. Data from returning George Fox College students were statistically analyzed and compared with non-returning George Fox College Students in each of the nine hypotheses. Data from returning Gordon College and George Fox College students were statistically analyzed and compared with non-returning Gordon College and George Fox College students in each of the nine hypotheses. The following composite variable sets and single variables were employed in the survey and the results statistically analyzed within the three student populations described above. 2. . . .. .. H- ; .. . . .. £3£fll£¥.8£1ntinnfihinfi This variable set contained all seven different variables and is the composite of all seven. Each variable allowed for responses using the following scale: (_ Never _ Occasionally __ Often __ Very Often). The seven variables were: 1. Library Experiences 2. Experiences with Faculty 3. Student Union 4. Athletic and Recreation Facilities 5. Clubs and Organizations 6. Personal Experiences 7. Dormitory or Fraternity/Sorority Extracurriculaucriririss This variable set contained three different variables and is the composite of all three. Each variable al- lowed for responses using the following scale: (__ Never Occasionally __ Often Very Often). The three variables were: 1. Student Union 2. Clubs and Organizations 3. Athletic and Recreational Facilities 82 StudenLUnion This single variable allowed for a student response using the following scale: (__ Never __ Occasionally __ Often __ Very Often). W This single variable allowed for a student response using the following scale: (__ Never __ Occasionally __ Often __ Very Often). W This single variable allowed for student responses using the following scale: (__ Never __ Occasionally __ Often __ Very Often). Ell] l' 3 E l' J E illli This single variable allowed for student responses using the following scale: (__ Never __ Occasionally __ Often (__ Very Often). W This single variable allowed for student responses using the following scale: (__ Never (__ Occasionally __ Often __ Very Often). E 'I E l 'l ,5 W This single variable allowed for student response using 83 the following scale: (__ Never __ Occasionally __ Often __ Very Often). TW This single variable allowed for student response using the following scale: (__ Never __ Occasionally __ Often __ Very Often). .BIPQTHBSBS The following nine research hypotheses were developed and tested in the null form. Hmtheaiu There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents with respect to their interaction and involve- ment with college activities and programs, and their peer and faculty relationships. W There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents with relation to their investment of time and energy in extracurricular activities. 84 W There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy in the college library. W There is no significant statistical difference be— tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu— dents in relation to their investment of time and energy in clubs and organizations. Hmthssiu There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents in relation to their investment of time and energy in their college's student union. W There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents in relation to their investment of time and energy in their college's athletic and recreational facilities. Willem There is no significant statistical difference be 85 tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy in residence hall life. Hmtheaium There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu— dents in relation to their investment of time and energy in college peer relationships. W There is no significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents in relation to their investment of time and energy towards experiences with college faculty. .INEIRQHENIAIIQN WW (Appendix 8). developed by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles and Dr. C. Robert Pace in 1979 was used to measure the subjects' perceived frequency of interaction and level of involvement with col- lege activities and programs and peer and faculty relationships within their college environment. The 1986 format revision edition (revised by Pace, UCLA) was used in 11 T’r. me Dr mi th. 39‘ 86 this current study. The reliability and validity of the College Student Experi- ences Instrument is supported by several factors. Prior to 1979 when the instrument was first introduced it was pre- tested with samples of students from 13 colleges. Revisions were made on several test measures as a result of the pre- testing (Pace, 1984). Secondly, the standard deviations of scores generally fell between 5 and 7 on a possible range of scores between 10-40 or 30 points. According to Pace, this, coupled with the fact that in a “normal distribution two sigmas from the mean would encompass 95% of all the scores, the fact that the obtained scores range from two-thirds to nine-tenths of this theoretical territory in- dicates a very good spread of individual differences“ (pg. 25). Thirdly, a factor analysis of test content indicated a coherence and interrelatedness of the items within the scales (Pace, 1984, pg. 25). Finally, student respondents (in the pretests) reported no difficulty with answering the instrument's questions (Pace, 1984, pg. 35). The questionnaire initially asks for some background infor- mation from the student. The instrument then seeks to meas- ure fourteen college related activities in which students might engage. For the purposes of this study, and to test the nine hypotheses upon which this study was predicated, seven of these college-related activities were analyzed. 87 The questionnaire measured the frequency of student involvement and interaction within these college related activities using a scale of never, occasionally, often, to matter). Each response item was assigned a point value: Never = l, Occasionally a 2, Often a 3 and Very Often s 4. These val- ues were then used to compile a score per student per variable from which the Tktest was used to test for an .05 alpha level of significance between the populations in the study. Each variable contained ten questions so a student's score could range from a low of 10 to a high of 40. To test for differences when more than one variable was included in the Null hypothesis (Hypotheses I and II) the composite scores of all the variables was tested. cam POUR IB35BflTAIIQIL_ANALIEIS_AND_ZINDINGS INTRODUCTION The purpose of Chapter Four is to present the analysis of the data collected from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. Each hypothesis is restated along with the results of the statistical analysis. Since there were nine hypotheses with three different populations under study, twenty-seven findings were reported. The statistical analy- sis used was the TBTest. Lewin (1979) says the TbTest is suitable when the investigator is attempting to determine whether the difference between two means is significant and specifically when two independent groups are being analyzed (pg. 345). In this study the two independent variables were returning and nonereturning students. The .05 alpha level of significance was selected to test the nine hypotheses. McCall (1970) says that the .05 level/value is a standard significance level in social sci— ence research (pg. 159). The .05 alpha level was appropri- ate in order to avoid a Type I error, in which the null hy- pothesis was rejected leading the investigator to conclude that a significant difference existed between the popula- tions in the study when in fact no significant difference existed. While the .05 level is a commonly used 88 89 value in social science research it may not be considered appropriate in certain situations “...depending upon how. critical it is to be wrong in rejecting the null hypothesis“ (McCall, 1970, pg. 163). The .01 significance level may be considered more appropriate. The final section of Chapter Four is a summary of the over- all research findings. DBSCRIPTION OP SUBJECTS The Fall 1986 entering freshmen classes at Gordon College and George Fox College served as subjects for this investigator's study. The 1986 entering Gordon College fall freshmen class numbered 260 with 84 of them men and 176 women. The 1986 entering freshmen class at George Fox Col- lege was 149 with 64 of them men and 85 women. Following the 1986 academic year a list of all returning and non-returning freshmen students from the class of 1986 was obtained from officials at both institutions. These return- ing and nonereturning students (defined as returning or not returning to the institution they attended as freshmen for the Fall of their sophomore year) were then surveyed by this investigator. Two hundred and sixty students matriculated as fall freshmen at Gordon, two hundred and twenty-seven of 90 whom returned to Gordon for their sophomore year while twenty-six chose not to return to Gordon. Seven students were involuntarily dismissed and therefore not included in this study. One hundred and forty-nine students ma- triculated as freshmen at GeOrge Fox College, eighty-eight of whom returned to George Fox for their sophomore year while fifty-three chose not to return to George Fox. Eight students were involuntarily dismissed and therefore not in- cluded in the study. The populations for the study then were the 227 returning and 26 non-returning Gordon College Students and 88 return- ing and 53 non-returning George Fox College students. Fif- teen students from both institutions who were involuntarily dismissed were not included in the study. One hundred and one, or 44% of the Gordon returning students responded to the survey, while 17 or 65% of the Gordon non-returning students returned surveys. Sixty-three, or 72% of the George Fox returning students responded to the survey, while 31 or 58% of the non-returning returned surveys. One hundred and sixty-four, or 52% of both Gordon College and George Fox College returning students responded to the survey, while 48 or 61% of the non-returning students from both institutions returned surveys. CE t] U R e< Ln are cc 1( CC TN it 91' he 91 Retention data for Gordon College, 1986 entering freshmen indicated that 87%, or 227 out of 260, returned to Gordon for their sophomore year. Eighty-seven percent of the en- tering freshmen men, or 73 out of 84, returned to Gordon for their sophomore year while 87%, or 154 out of 176, women returned. Retention data for George Fox 1986 entering freshmen indi- cated that 59%, or 88 out of 149, returned to George Fox for their sophomore year. Fifty—one percent, or 33 out of 64, of the entering freshmen men returned to George Fox for their sophomore year, while 62%, or 53 out of 85, women returned. Forty-eight, or 47% of the Gordon College responding return- ees have parents who have completed college, while nine, or 53% of the responding non-returnees have parents who have completed college. Seventeen or 27% of the George Fox Col- lege responding returnees have parents who have completed college, while nine or 29% of the George Fox responding non-returnees have parents who have completed college. Sixty-five or 40% of responding returning students from both institutions have parents who have completed college while eighteen or 38% of the non-returning responding students have parents who have completed college. 92 mm\mm «no eo\mm «Hm aea\mm «mm sou masons ena\ema «no em\mn new oomxnma «no consoo cosoz now so: sow mmoau cmenmoum sou omnucoouom coaucouom ommucoOuom cofiucouom amoucoOuom coHucouom onBaaHemzH em «a was so we HNH me mmm US «as wmsaaoo xom mmsomo a oooaaou coouow HN as saw so an me an ”Nb so no smossoo nos nanomo ma e smo so pH an «N was so Hod mmmaaoo soesoo enema. qua. _»uuuqm|qq|uuauuqqau_ quads. qua _»uuu:m|gqlmqquu Haulmqaququumugaz_ usamuumnmqaguquum onaasHsmzH mm em mm mm mm mm mmeHou xoa masons «a as mm «ms me n- amassed soesoo auuuxluuqaqasqua «Addenda quaoa qua. auguu:HMquHququumuggz Queen. qua. mqaguqHMMIquA onsoeHemzH mm «a med wmeHou xoa masons was em cam wmsssoo consoo mason. my: mgnaulquaauuuu aqmdnmqauuuqu onsasHemzH monsoon xom NUGONU 02¢ uUmAAQO zonmow 20mm mBszDBm zmzmmNMh wmmH ZO .mma HmH \coouou mcaumfimuom .m swanmoum xom m~.ema em omuoou mcfiumfimuomucoz omm.a mv~.H mew. mm coecmoum omoaaou xom mm.HmH om masons assumsnsms .N coecmoum omoaaou mH.Hmu mH coouoo mcfiumfimuomucoz omm.H oo.H mama. mHH . coenmouu omoHHoo mo.>ma mm coouou mcfiuwwmuom .H 4:.“ng ’7 doeumasmom sosnoqussmsm Anoflunsunum oouaauom .oufia Ham: mononumom ocm moocofiuomxm Hmcomuom .mcofiuosficomuo ocm mnsau .mouuwaaowm coaumouoom ecu owuoanu¢ .muusomu saws oocowuomxm .cofico acoosum .moocowuomxm ”nuasnmm humans m mssne husunaq "moansauo> co>om cud: ucoeo>ao>cu ocm coauoououcu S u 97 IBYPOTBBSIS II Stated in the null form: There is no significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students with respect to their interaction and involvement with W. Hypothesis II was tested using the composite scores of three variables from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (see Appendix B). The set of three variables contained thirty (30) questions or ten questions for each variable. These three variables were: (Student Union, Clubs and Organizations, and Athletic and Recreational Facilities. Group 1: Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 2: George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 3: Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen The results of the TbTest (see Table 5) revealed that for Group 1, Gordon College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not statistically significant with respect to their investment of time and energy in extracurricular activities (composite score of the three variables). The T-Test results showed a 98 statistical probability of .1689 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.384 (1.980 statistical significance level required) with 116 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 1, Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Fresh- :men Students, the Null Hypothesis (II) was not rejected. The results of the T—Test showed that for Group 2, George Fox College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not statistically sig- nificant with respect to their investment of time and energy in extracurricular activities (composite score of the three variables). The TbTest results showed a statistical prob- ability of .222 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.228 (1.980 statistical significance level required), with 91 degrees of freedom. Therefore, for Group 2, George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (II) was not rejected. The results of the T—Test revealed that for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen, the difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen students at both institutions was not statistically significant with re- spect to their investment of time and energy in extra- curricular activities (composite scores of the three variables). The T-Test results showed a statistical prob- ability of .1048 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.629 (1.960 statistical significance level required), 99 saith 209 degrees of freedom. Therefore, for Group 3, Gordon (:ollege and George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (II) was not rejected. 100 coscmoum xom omuoou eo.mo he \coOuoo mcfiumamuomucoz oum.~ muo.a mean. mom coEcwoum xom omuooo ov.wo cod \coouou mcaumfimuom .m coenmoum omoaaoo xom mo.em on omuooo mcfiumwmuwmlcoz omm.H m-.H NNN. Hm :oenwoum omoaaoo em.so mm xoa mmsomo msasnsnsma .N coasmoum omoaaoo m~.He 5H soosoo msaunsnsmausoz owm.a vam.~ mood. oHH coenmoum omoaaoo o>.mm HoH coouou mcaumwmuom .H HU>- u- I a... . t. ...i s .0. r as. oocmoamwcmam Hecaumauoum oouwsvom .uowuuawoom Hocowuoouoom one vauoacuz oco .mcofiumuficmmuo oco mosau .coacs ucoosum “moaosaun> woman and: amuoso one use» no usoEumo>cu "nsssnnm humans a manna 101 BYPOTBBSIS III Stated in the null form: There is no significant statistical difference between persisting and non persisting freshmen in relation to their investment of time and energy in the col: lengibrarx. Hypothesis III was tested using one variable from the Col- lege Student Experiences Questionnaire (see Appendix B). The College Library variable contained ten questions related to the student's quality of time and involvement in using the college library. Group 1: Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 2: George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 3: Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen The results of the TLTest (see Table 6) revealed that for Group 1, Gordon College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was statis- tically significant with respect to the investment of time and energy in their institution's library. The T-Test re- sults showed a statistical probability of .0368 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 2.113 (1.980 statistical 102 significance level required), with 116 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 1, Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (III) was rejected. The results of the TbTest showed that for Group 2, George Fox College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not statistically sig- nificant with respect to their investment of time and energy in their institution's library. The T-Test results showed a statistical probability of .1752 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.366 (1.980 statistical significance required), with 92 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 2, George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (III) was not rejected. The results of the TBTest revealed that for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen, the difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen at both insti- tutions was statistically significant with respect to their investment of time and energy in their college's library. The T-Test results showed a statistical probability of .0146 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 2.463 (1.960 statistical significance required), with 210 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (III) was rejected. 103 Hn>ms me. was as nossoaussmam k. coenmoum xom omuooo mm.mH me \coouow mcaumamuomucoz oum.a «qu.~ mafia. cam coecmoum xom omuooo em.o~ «as \soesoo msasnansns .m coecmoum omoaaoo xom -.mH Hm omuoou mcwumwmuomlcoz omm.a mum.n «mum. mm cosnmoum omoaaoo ee.o~ no sea masons msaunansma .N coszmoum omoaaou . Hv.mu ha coouoo mcaumamuomucoz omm.a thH.~ mono. wad coezmoum ommaaoo eo.o~ Hoa coouou ocuumumuom .H AomuqlllluuuauallluuflddaunquNIIIIINQIIIIJqqu z, doaumazmom sosnoamssmam snossnassum confisvom .huounwa omoaaoo can ca amuoco oco oEuu mo ucoEumo>cH "muaamom umoena h mamas Pe 8t ti (.1 104 BYPOTBBSIS IV Stated in the null form: There is no significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy in Wanna. Hypothesis IV was tested using one variable from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (see Appendix B). The Clubs and Organizations variable contained ten questions re- lating to the student's level of involvement and interaction with campus clubs and organizations. Group 1: Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 2: George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 3: Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen The results of the TLTest (see Table 7) indicated that for Group 1, Gordon College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students approached statistical significance with respect to their investment of time and energy in their college's clubs and organizations. The T—Test results showed a statistical probability of .054 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.947 (1.980 105 statistical significance level required), with 116 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 1, Gordon College Persist- ing and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, while statistical significance was approached, the Null Hypothesis (IV) was not rejected. The results of the T-Test revealed that for Group 2, George Fox College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was statistically sig- nificant with respect to their investment of time and energy in their college's clubs and organizations. The T-Test re- sults showed a statistical probability of .0191 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 2.386 (1.980 statistical significance level required), 'with 92 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 2, George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (IV) was rejected. The results of the T—Test revealed that for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen, the difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen students at both institutions was statistically significant with respect to their investment of time and energy in their college's clubs and organizations. The T-Test results showed a sta- tistical probability of .0018 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 3.162 (1.960 statistical significance required), with 210 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 106 3, both Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (IV) was rejected. 107 Hm>oH me. was as nosnoaussaam coenmoum xom omuooo «. em.mH we \coouou mcwumamuomncoz oom.a smou.m mace. cam coezmoum xom omuooo co.- aha \coouou mcaumamuom .m coasmoum omoaaoo xom qw.ma Hm omuooo mcwuwwmmomucoz com.” somm.~ ammo. um coenmoum omoaaoo Ho.- me use masons msaunsnsns .m coenmoum omoaaou vu.ma ha condom mcaumfimuomucoz cam.” hem.” «mo. wad cosnmoum omoaaou mmo.- flea soosoo meannansmm .H H- - n-l on... . ..., I .o. s a... nussoauasmsm Hausunaussm oouwsvom .mcowumuwcsmuo new woman as Noumea can use» no acosumo>cH "muaamom vacate m wanna 108 BYPOTBESIS V Stated in the null form: There is no significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy in their W. Hypothesis V was tested using one variable from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (see Appendix B). The Student Union variable contains ten questions relating to the student's time and energy spent in using their college's student union. Group 1: Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 2: George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 3: Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen The results of the T-Test (see Table 8) indicated that for Group One, Gordon College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not sta- tistically significant with respect to their investment of time and energy in their college's W. The T-Test results showed a statistical probability of .6496 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of .455 (1.980 109 statistical significance level required), with 116 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 1, Gordon College Persist- ing and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypoth- esis (V) was not rejected. The results of the TbTest showed that for Group 2, George Fox College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not statistically sig- nificant with respect to their investment of time and energy in the college's student union. The T—Test results showed a statistical probability of .1747 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.368 (1.980 statistical significance level required), with 92 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 2, George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (V) was not rejected. The results of the T-Test revealed that for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen, the difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen students at both institutions was not statistically significant with re- spect to their investment of time and energy in their college's student union. The T-Test results showed a sta- tistical probability of .0826 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.744 (1.960 statistical significance level required), with 210 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 3, both Gordon College and George Fox College 110 Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null_ Hypothesis was not rejected; 111 coszmoum xom omuoow o~.m~ we \coobou mcaumamuomlcoz oom.H vvh.H ammo. cam cosnmoum xom omuooo H>.¢~ «ma \coouou mcaumamuom .m coecmoum omoaaou xom vm.~m Hm omuooo mcaumamummlcoz mom.a mm.c papa. mm coscwoum omoaaou >~.¢~ mm xom omuoou mcfiumamuom .m coasmoum omoHHoo He.c~ 5H coouou mcfiumamuomucoz oma.a mmc. have. oHH coenmoum omoaaou mm.¢~ Hod coouou mcauwamuom .H aaauqIIIIuuuHuHIIIaqaaanaaquNIIIIMQIlllllqnu: zw soaunasmom oossoauaamam Hosannaunum oouasvom .c0wcs acoosum msomoaaoo mama» ca amuoco one was» no ucosumo>cH nnasnmm annals m manna '4‘ GI Gr The Grc Per tis time fGCj abil 112 BYPOTBBSIS‘VI Stated in the null form: There is no significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy in their WWW. Hypothesis VI was tested using one variable from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (see Appendix B). The Athletic and Recreational Facilities Variable contained ten questions relating to the student's level of involvement with their college's athletic and recreational facilities. Group 1: Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 2: George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 3: Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen The results of the TbTest (see Table 9) indicated that for Group 1, Gordon College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not sta- tistically significant with respect to their investment of time and energy in their college's athletic and recreational facilities. The T-Test results showed a statistical prob- ability of .7731 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value 113 of .289 (1.980 statistical significance level required),- with 116 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 1, Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (VI) was not rejected. The results of the T-Test showed that for Group 2, George Fox College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not statistically sig- nificant with respect to their investment of time and energy in their college's athletic and recreational facilities. The T-Test results showed a statistical probability of .4905 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of .692 (1.980 statistical significance level required), with 91 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 2, George Fox College Persist— ing and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypoth- esis (VI) was not rejected. The results of the TbTest revealed that for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen, the difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen students from both institutions was not statistically significant with re- spect to their investment of time and energy in their college's athletic and recreational facilities. The T-Test results showed a statistical probability of .2796 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.084 (1.960 statistical significance level required), with 209 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College 114 Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (VI) was not rejected. 115 ooa.H emo.a warn. mom oom.a wa.o ome. Hm omm.a mam. Hmsm. and 1H- . u- I. Ono. . . nossosmasmsm Hsosunsunum oouasvom hm.o~ mo.aH om.- em.HN hH.mH mo.mH be «ed on no 5H HOH coecmoum «om omuooo \coouoo mcaumfimuomlcoz coenwoum xom omuoou \coouoo mcaumamuom coanmoum omoaaou xom omuoow mcqumamuomlcoz coenmoum omoaaoo xom omuoou mcwumawuom coezmoum omoaaou coouou mcaumwmuomucoz coecmoum omoHHoo coouoo mcaumamuom can oauoasum n.0moaaoo on» c“ amuoco ecu mafia mo acosumo>cH .moauwaaoou Hocofiuoouoou unnssnmm humans OH manna 116 BYPOTBBSIS‘VII Stated in the null form: There is no significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy in residencehalLlife. Hypothesis VII was tested using one variable from the Col- lege Student Experiences Questionnaire (see Appendix B). The Dormitory or Fraternity/Sorority variable contained ten questions relating to the student's level of involvement within their residence hall environment. Group 1: Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 2: George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 3: Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen The results of the T—Test (see Table 10) indicated that for Group 1, Gordon College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not sta- tistically significant with respect to their investment of time and energy in residence hall life. The T-Test results showed a statistical probability of .3321 (.05 level re- quired), an unpaired T value of .974 (1.980 statistical 117 significance level required), with 115 degrees of freedoms Therefore for Group 1, Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (VII) was not rejected. The results of the T-Test showed that for Group 2, George Fox College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not statistically sig- nificant with respect to their investment of time and energy in residence hall life. The T-Test results showed a statis- tical probability of .2015 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.288 (1.980 statistical significance level re- quired), with 83 degrees of freedom. Therefore, for Group 2, George Fox Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Stu- dents, the Null Hypothesis (VII) was not rejected. The results of the TBTest revealed that for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen, the difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen students at both institutions was not statistically significant with re- spect to their investment of time and energy in residence hall life. The T-Test results showed a statistical prob- ability of .943 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of .072 (1.960 statistical significance level required), with 200 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 3, Gordon Col- lege and George Fox College Persisting and Non- Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (VII) was not rejected. 118 oom.u who. neo. cmm.a mm~.H mHoN. oom.H «ha. Humm. 4.... u-| o.oo. nussoamasmam ”scannsusum ooufizuom on.m~ com mm.om oN.wN mm om.h~ mv.hm mud mm.mN ov Nod on an ma HOH cosnmoum xom omuooo \coouoo ucfiumamuomlcoz swanmoum xom omuooo \coouou mcwumamuom coecmoum omoaaou xom omuooo meaumamuomucoz coezmoum omoHHou xom omuooo mcaumfimuom coezmoum omoaaou coouow mcfiuwdmuomucoz cossmoum omoaaou coouou mcaumamuom .ouaa Hans oocooaaou omoHHoo ca amuoco QC“ OEwu HO UCOEHm0>GH ”nuasnwm panels as manna 119 BYPOTBBSIS VIII Stated in the null form: There is no significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy in college mlatinnshins. Hypothesis VIII was tested using one variable from the Col- lege Student Experiences Questionnaire (see Appendix B). The Personal Experiences variable contained ten questions relating to the student's peer relationships in the context of his personal experiences at his institution. Group 1: Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 2: George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 3: Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and non-Persisting Freshmen The results of the T-Test (see Table 11) indicated that for Group 1, Gordon College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not sta- tistically significant with respect to their investment of time and energy in college peer relationships. The T—Test results showed a statistical probability of .6425 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of .465 (1.980 statistical 120 significance level required), With 116 degrees of freedom; Therefore for Group 1, Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (VIII) was not rejected. The results of the TbTest showed that for Group 2, George Fox College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not statistically sig- nificant with respect to their investment of time and energy in college peer relationships. It should be noted however, that the findings did approach statistical significance. The T-Test results showed a statistical probability of .0601 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.904 (1.980 statistical significance level required), with 91 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 2, George Fox College Persist- ing and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypoth- esis (VIII) was not rejected. The results of the T-Test revealed that for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen, the difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen students at both institutions was not statistically significant with re- spect to their investment of time and energy in college peer relationships. The findings, however, did approach statis— tical significance. The T-Test results showed a statistical probability of .0572 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.912 (1.960 statistical significance level 121 required), with 209 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (VIII) was not rejected. 122 omm.a Nam.a mnmo. mom omm.a vom.a Home. Hm omm.n mos. mace. . wan AH- - ”-4 0.... . mosnoauasoam anoaunsusum oouasvom mu.- hm.¢N mo.- oe.¢~ mo.mm mo.v~ om mod am «m 5H HOH coesmoum xom omuooo \coouoo mcaumamuomucoz coezmouh xom omuooo \coouou mcaumamuom coezmoum omoaaou xom omuoou mcwumamuomnsoz coenmoum omoaaou xom omuoow mcfiumamuom dossmoum omoaaoo coouoo mcfiumamuomlcoz coenmoum omoaaou coouoo mcaumamuom .mmasmcoauonou noon omoHHoo ca amuoco oco osau mo ucosumo>:H “nussnmm unmsus NH manna 123 BYPOTBBSIS IX Stated in the null form: There is no significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy towards W- Hypothesis Ix was tested using one variable from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (see Appendix B). The Ex- periences with Faculty contained ten questions relating to the student's level of involvement and interaction with col- lege faculty members. Group 1: Gordon College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 2: George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Group 3: Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen The results of the T-Test (see Table 12) indicated that for Group 1, Gordon College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not sta- tistically significant with respect to their investment of time and energy towards experiences with college faculty. The T—Test results showed a statistical probability of .301 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.039 (1.980 124 statistical significance level required), with 116 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 1, Gordon College Persist— ing and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypoth- esis (IX) was not rejected. The results of the TbTest showed that for Group 2, George Fox College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not statistically sig- nificant with respect to their investment of time and energy towards experiences with college faculty. The T-Test re- sults showed a statistical probability of .0776 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 1.785 (1.980 statistical significance level required), with 92 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 2, George Fox College Persisting and Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (IX) was not rejected. The results of the T—Test revealed that for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen, the difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen students at both institutions was statistically significant with respect to their investment of time and energy towards experiences with college faculty. The T-Test results showed a statisti- cal probability of .0277 (.05 level required), an unpaired T value of 2.217 (1.960 statistical significance level re- quired), with 210 degrees of freedom. Therefore for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Persisting and 125 Non-Persisting Freshmen Students, the Null Hypothesis (IX) was rejected. 126 mass” mo. was on nosnosasamsm . coEnmoum xom omuooo mn.ma we \coouoo mcaumumuomlcoz ooa.u thHN.N sumo. cam coasmoum xom omuoou vo.o~ ecu \coouou mcaumflmuom .m cossmoum omoaaou xom m¢.ma Hm omuoou meauwfimuomlcoz omm.a mob.” cube. mm coezmoum omoaaoo se.o~ me son mmsomo masonsnsma .N coenmoum omoaaoo mm.ma 5H coouou mcaumamuomicoz omm.H mmc.a Hon. mad cwenmoum omoHHou mb.om flea coouoo mcdumwmuom .H H u .uuHIH aunnnnuaaum “a can: 2 Goaumasmom susnoauasmam anosunausum oouwsvom .muasoou omoHHoo sun: moocoauomxo ouoaou mmuoco ecu mafia no ucosumo>cu ”muasmom sweats ma manna 127 SHHHARX The following is a summary of the results of the T-Test used to test the nine hypotheses in the study. W The results revealed that for all three groups in the study, the difference between persisting and nonspersisting fresh- men students was not statistically significant with respect to their interaction and involvement with college activities and programs, and their peer and faculty relationships. In summary, for all three groups the Null Hypothesis was not rejected. W The results revealed that for all three groups in the study, the difference between persisting and non-persisting fresh- men students was not statistically significant with respect to their investment of time and energy in extracurricular activities. In summary, for all three groups the Null Hy- pothesis was not rejected. 11mm The results revealed that for Group 1 (Gordon College 128 Freshmen) and Group 3 (Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen) the difference between persisting and non-persist- ing freshmen students was statistically significant with re- spect to their investment of time and energy in their institution's library. In summary, for Groups One and Three, the Null Hypothesis was rejected. The Null Hypoth- esis was not rejected with Group 2, George Fox College Freshmen. W The results revealed that for Group 2 the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was statis- tically significant with respect to the investment of time and energy in their college's clubs and organizations. Sta- tistical significance was approached with Group 1, Gordon College Freshmen. In summary, for Groups Two and Three the Null Hypothesis was rejected, and not rejected for Group One. W The results revealed that for all three groups in the study, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not statistically significant with re- spect to the investment of time and energy in their college's Student Union. In summary, for all three groups 129 the Null Hypothesis was not rejected. Wall The results revealed that for all three groups in the study, the difference between persisting and nonspersisting fresh- men students was not statistically significant with respect to the investment of time and energy in their college's ath- letic and recreational facilities. In summary, for all three groups the Null Hypothesis was not rejected. Magnesium The results revealed that for all three groups in the study, the difference between persisting and non-persisting fresh- men students was not statistically significant with respect to the investment of time and energy in their college's residence hall life. In summary, for all three groups the Null Hypothesis was not rejected. W The findings revealed similar results for all three groups with respect to the persisting and non-persisting freshmen students' investment of time and energy in college peer relationships. The results revealed that for Group 1, Gordon College Freshmen, the difference between persisting S! t( [E Gr [6 The grc fre Per Gro Per. tis1 Grok Per; Stat 130 and non-persisting freshmen students was not statistically significant. The results also revealed that for Group 2, George Fox College Freshmen, the difference between persist- ing and nonspersisting freshmen students was not statisti- cally significant. The results revealed that for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen Students, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was also not statistically significant with respect to the investment of time and energy in college peer relationships. However it should be noted that with Group 3, statistical significance was approached. In summary, for Groups One, Two and Three the Null Hypothesis was not rejected. W The findings revealed different results for one of the three groups with respect to the persisting and non-persisting freshmen students' investment of time and energy toward ex- periences with college faculty. The results found that for Group 1, Gordon College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not sta- tistically significant. The results also revealed that for Group 2, George Fox College Freshmen, the difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was not statistically significant. The results found that for Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen, the 131 difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students was statistically significant with respect to their investment of time and energy towards experiences with col— lege faculty. In summary, for Groups One and Two the Null Hypothesis was not rejected, while for Group Three the Null Hypothesis was rejected. CHAPTER FIVE iflnflflflULJuLIuEHHflEILiflmm!L_HAJQB_ZINDIN§£L .QDNCLQ3IQNSL_IH2LIQAIIQNS_AND_RE§QHHENDAIIQNS iHnflflfluLJHLJUHflflnfifliJflflflfll College and university leaders have traditionally been con- cerned with student enrollments, particularly those in the small private liberal arts sector. In recent years this concern has intensified as the competition for the dwindling pool of high school graduates has increased. In 1984, Nel- son, Scott and Bryan wrote that according to Duea (1981), when a group of college presidents was asked to rank the 20 most critical issues facing higher education, the issue of student retention was ranked second. The problem of student retention is particularly acute for the private college sec- tor which tends to rely heavily upon student enrollments to generate revenue and balance budgets. The survivability of a number of private colleges may rest upon their ability to stabilize enrollments. Certainly one effort to maintain or increase enrollments has focused on the retention of students. Why do some college students remain enrolled while others drop out? What factors exist within the college environment which facilitate early departure for some students and strengthen commitment to stay for others? 132 133 Two theoretical models of student retention were develOped to lend some understanding to the issue of why some college students remain enrolled while others drOp out. These two models (Astin, 1984 and Tinto, 1975), sought to explain stu- dent retention in terms of the relationship between persist- ence and the student's social and academic integration into his or her college environment. According to Tinto in his Theory of College Student Attrition (Tinto, 1975), the abil- ity or inability of the college student to successfully in- tegrate himself into the social and academic structure of the institution is directly related to the likelihood of his remaining enrolled (persisting). Astin, in his Theory of Student Involvement (Astin, 1984) believes that the more time and energy the college student invested in the college experience (involvement) the higher the likelihood of his or her remaining enrolled (persisting). Both Tinto and Astin emphasized the relationship between the student's level of interaction and involvement in campus life, and retention. The student retention models of Tinto and Astin have served to give direction to this investigator's research study on college student retention. The purpose of the study was to investigate student reten- tion tendencies at two small, private, religious, liberal arts colleges. The study examined the relationship between the time and frequency college freshmen students devoted to selected aspects of their college environment (college 134 activities, programs and peer and faculty relationships), and student retention. The two colleges selected for the study were Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts and George Fox College in Newberg, Oregon. The entering freshmen classes of 1986 served as subjects for the study. Following the completion of their freshmen year, freshmen students from both schools were di- vided into two groups, returning and non-returning students, using information furnished by the Registrar's Office at George Fox College and the Student Life Office at Gordon College. These returning and non-returning students (de- fined as returning or not returning to their same institu- tion for the fall quarter or semester of their sophomore year) were then asked to complete the College Student Expe- riences Questionnaire (Pace, 1986). A statistical analysis using the Tbtest was employed to test for any statistical significance between returning and non-returning students at each institution and then at both institutions, with respect to their level of involvement with seven selected environ- mental variables. An alpha level of .05 was used as a standard for determining significance. Nine null hypotheses were developed and subsequently tested. Since there were three population groups investigated for each hypothesis (1 - Gordon returning and Gordon non-return- ing,'2 - George Fox returning and George Fox non-returning, 135 3 - Gordon and George Fox returning and Gordon and George Fox non-returning) twenty seven different findings were gen- erated by the data analysis. W Six major findings emerged from the analysis of the data. These findings are considered major by this investigator since three of the findings support other retention research studies while three of the findings in fact do not support much of the retention research. This investigator believed these results were important (major) and therefore should be discussed since research findings that support or do not support other research may both be useful for future investigators. The findings revealed no positive relationship between stu- dent persistence and the student's involvement with his residence hall, and with student peer relationships. Hy- pothesis I, when all seven institutional variables were tested collectively also revealed no significant difference between returning and non-returning students. These find- ings are thought to be important because they do not support much of the literature on student retention. Two of the findings, residence life and peer relationships, directly contradict research studies that have indeed established a positive relationship between persistence and student 136 involvement with these two activities. Three other findings revealed a positive relationship be- tween retention and student involvement with faculty, one's institutional library, and clubs and organizations. Such findings are considered significant since they support the retention research studies that have established a positive relationship between student involvement and persistence. Three findings in which no statistical significance was found, student involvement with one's student union, ath- letic and recreational facilities, and college programs and activities will not be discussed. These findings were sta- tistically lower than most of the findings (except for residence life and Hypothesis I). HYPQLhESiS_I There is no significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students with respect to their interaction and involvement with college activities and programs, and their peer and faculty relationships. Hypothesis 1, in which the composite scores of all seven college environmental variables were tested was not rejected. Statistical significance was approached however when Group 3, Gordon College and George Fox College freshmen students were collectively tested. The findings that no 137 significant statistical difference occurred between persist- ing and non-persisting students appear not to support Astin's (1984) and Tinto's (1975) theoretical models of stu- dent attrition as they relate to student involvement and interaction with their campus environment. The study's findings do not support Tinto's belief that ... “other things being equal, the higher the degree of integration of the individual into the college systems, the greater will be his commitment to the specific institution“ (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1978, pg. 347). The results also do not support the research findings by Terenzini and Pascarella (1983) who concluded that while pre-college characteristics had an impact upon the student's integration into the life or his or her institution, it was the student's social and academic interactions with elements of that environment that influenced decisions to leave or stay in college. It should be noted that seven variables dealing with the student's level of involvement with college programs and activities, and his faculty and peer relationships were tested collectively in Hypothesis I. It may be that one or more of the variables could have significantly influenced the overall results. Tested individually in Hypotheses three through nine, three of the variables achieved statistical significance with at least one of the three population groups. These individual findings would indicate support for the student involvement theories of Tinto and Astin, however, when the composite scores of all seven variables 138 were tested, significance was not achieved. Therefore the findings from Hypothesis I'do not support Astin and Tinto's student involvement theories as they relate to student persistence. Hypothesis_111 There is no significant statistical differ- ence between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy in the college library. The study revealed a significant statistical difference be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen students at Gordon College, Group 1, and Gordon College and George Fox College students combined, Group 3, in relation to their in- vestment of time and energy in their college library. George Fox College persisting and non-persisting students, Group 2, did not achieve significance with this variable. It appears from the findings that at least Gordon College returning freshmen and the combined returning freshmen from both institutions spent more time in their college's library than did non-returning students. This activity may have strengthened their institutional commitment. Astin and Tinto contend that student retention is related to how well the student confronts his or her college environment. The student who involves himself with his or her college envi- ronment (i.e. library use) may be more apt to positively in— fluence institutional satisfaction and hence commitment. 139 W There is no significant statistical differ-j ence between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy in clubs and organizations. A third major finding from the study revealed a significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting in two groups (George Fox Freshmen, Group 2 and Gordon and George Fox Combined, Group 3) in relation to their invest- ment of time and energy in their college's clubs and organizations. Group 1, Gordon Freshmen, did not quite achieve statistical significance at 1.947. These findings are not supported by Fishman and Pasanella (1960) who found that nonintellective predictors were not positively related to persistence (pg. 303). Pantages and Creedon (1978) also concluded after their comprehensive review of attrition studies from 1950-1975 that extra curricular activities are not a “primary factor in attrition“ (pg. 79). In contrast, the findings of this study support research by Astin (1975), who wrote that, “participation in extracurricular activities, especially membership in fraternities and sororities is significantly related to staying in college“ (pg. 78). Since Gordon and George Fox do not have a Fraternity and Sorority system the findings in this study only support Astin's findings that participation in extracurricular activities is positively associated with 140 persistence (i.e. clubs and organizations). Sexton (1965) concluded that, “As a rule, unsuccessful stu- dents (particularly those who withdraw) participate less in college activities“ (pg. 307). Pascarella and Chapman in their 1983 study of University Freshmen found that student participation in extracurricular activities has a “strong positive influence on persistence for students at the relatively lowest levels of commitment to the institution and commitment to the goal of graduation, respectively“ (pg. 45). Astin (1975) found that students who persisted also showed a greater participation in student activities than those students who left school. In summary, findings particular to student involvement with clubs and organizations and student persistence support the literature on attrition that found a positive relationship between participation in extracurricular activities and stu- dent persistence. EYPQLhBSiS_!ll There is no significant statistical differ- ence between persisting and nonepersisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy in Residence Hall Life. A fourth major finding revealed no significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen 141 students in relation to their investment of time and energy in their institution's residence hall life. These findings do not support the findings of Astin (1975), who concluded that... ... a student's chances of completing college can be significantly influenced by environmental circumstances. The positive effect of living in a dormitory during the freshmen year has obvious im- plications for students, administrators and policy makers. Students concerned about maximizing their chances of finishing college should seriously con- sider leaving home and living in a college dormi- tory (pg. 107). Provost (1982) wrote that colleges should support residen- tial and social organizations as factors influencing student persistence“ (pg. 2894, Vol. 43/090-A of Dissertation Ab- stracts International). It may be that freshmen students at both Gordon College and George Fox College were satisfied with their residence hall life but that this variable was neither overtly positive or negative enough for there to be a significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students. Approximately 85% of all Gordon and George Fox students live on campus. In summary, findings particular to 142 the student's investment of time and energy in his residence hall life and persistence do not support the literature (i.e. Astin, 1975; Provost, 1982: Newcomb, 1962 and others) that residence hall life does in fact positively have an im- pact upon retention. nypgthesis_1111 There is no significant statistical differ— ence between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy in col— lege peer relationships. The findings on the relationship between student peer rela- tionships and persistence were the same for all three groups. No significant statistical difference was found be- tween persisting and non-persisting freshmen in relation to their investment of time and energy in college peer rela- tionships with either Gordon College or George Fox freshmen, or when both Gordon College and George Fox College freshmen were combined and tested. However, when both Gordon College and George Fox College freshmen were combined, statistical significance was approached. It may be that statistical significance was not achieved due to the smaller population sizes of Group One, Gordon College Freshmen, and Two, George Fox College Freshmen, and that significance was approached with Group 3 (combined groups) because of the larger population. 143 The research literature appears to strongly support a positive relationship between college student retention and peer group relationships. Holbrock (1981) found that col- 1eges which “facilitated personal contact between students, faculty and staff were more likely to have higher retention rates“ (pg. 578). Panos and Astin (1968) found that “stu- dents are more likely to complete four years if they attend a college where student peer relationships are characterized by cohesiveness, cooperativeness and independence“ (pg. 66). Pascarella and Chapman (1983) found that two measures of social involvement with peers, “participation in extra- curricular activity and extent of social activity with peers has their strongest positive influence on persistence for students at the relatively low levels of commitment to the institution and commitment to the goal of graduation, re- spectively“ (pg. 45). Where no significant statistical dif- ference was found, as in the case of Gordon College freshmen and George Fox College freshmen, such findings are not sup- ported by the literature. The statistical significance that was approached between persisting and non-persisting fresh- men students when both institutions were combined and tested would in fact support the research literature. W There is no significant statistical differ- ence between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy towards experiences with college faculty. 144 A final major finding revealed no significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in relation to their investment of time and energy toward experiences with faculty, for Gordon College and George Fox College freshmen students. Yet, when the compos- ite scores from both institutions were tested, significance was achieved. Again, as noted in the previous discussion, it may be that significance was not achieved with either the Gordon or George Fox freshmen group due to a small popula- tion sample. Possibly a larger population sample would have achieved significance. The findings for Group One (Gordon College Freshmen) and Group Two (George Fox College Fresh— men) do not support the literature. The findings which re- sulted when both institutions (Group 3, combined groups) were tested (a positive relationship between interaction and involvement with faculty and persistence) do in fact support the literature. Pascarella and Chapman (1983) found that “freshmen persisters in both residential university and lib- eral arts samples were significantly more involved in the non-academic life of the institution and had significantly more non-classroom interaction with faculty members focusing on both intellectual academic and social/personal topics“ (pg. 42). Miller and Brickman (1981) found that faculty and staff mentoring had a “positive impact on the retention and academic performance of freshmen“ (pg. 27). Cope, in his 1978 article, “Why Students Stay, Why They Leave,“ cites a number of studies, Jones (1962), Flack (1966), Spady (1971), 145 Rootman (1972) and Haagen (1977) that have found peer support to be positively associated with persistence. Finally, Terenzini and Pascarella's Study of Syracuse Uni- versity Freshmen found that the combined measures of “both frequency and quality of contact“ between freshmen students with faculty “appeared to be involved in subsequent attri- tion decisions“ (pg. 278). .QQNCLUSIQES The finding that a 'significant statistical difference oc- curred between persisting and non-persisting freshmen stu- dents regarding their investment of time and energy in their institution's clubs and organizations with Groups Two and Three, and significance was approached with Group One (1.947), finds support in the literature. Astin (1975) con- cluded that participation in extracurricular activities is indeed related to persistence. Sexton (1965) wrote that non-persisters participate less in extracurricular activities. Pascarella and Chapman (1983) found extra- curricular activities have a strong, positive influence on persistence. The findings revealed a significant statistical difference between persisting and non-persisting freshmen students in two.popu1ation groups and significance was approached with 146 the remaining group. It would be the conclusion of this study based on the significance levels achieved and ap-. proached, and the supporting literature, that freshmen stu- dents who participate in extracurricular activities (clubs and organizations) are more likely to persist (return to their same institution in the Fall of their sophomore year). The findings indicate that involvement in clubs and or- ganizations and the college library should be encouraged by college officials. Freshmen students who are actively in- volved in clubs and organizations and the college library are more apt to persist. Such involvement may serve to strengthen their institutional commitment, hence persistence. The data analysis revealed a significant statistical differ- ence between the returning and nonereturning populations of Gordon, Group 1, and, Gordon and George Fox freshmen when combined, Group 3, in terms of their investment of time and energy in the college library. No statistical significance occurred with George Fox College returning and non-returning students, Group 2. It would be the conclusion of this in- vestigator that, based on the significance levels achieved, freshmen students who invest time and energy in the college library are more likely to persist (return to their same in- stitution in the Fall of their sophomore year) than those students who invest less time and energy in the college library. 147 .II2LICAIIQNS_£DB_ADHINISIBATQBS Gordon College and George Fox College are both traditional, small, religious, liberal arts institutions with student populations that are fairly homogenous in nature. The two schools belong to the thirteen member Christian College Consortium, an organization of similar religious, liberal arts colleges across the United States. The similarities between these thirteen institutions and their homogeneous student populations may allow for the findings and implications of this study to be generalizable to these thirteen colleges as well as other very similar colleges and universities. Warnings The findings ap- peared to establish a positive relationship between par- ticipation in extracurricular activities (clubs and or- ganizations) and persistence. These findings are consistent with Pascarella and Chapman (1983) who found that student involvement in extracurricular activities has a positive im- pact upon retention. Astin (1975) also found that students who persisted showed a greater participation in student ac- tivities than those students who left school. The findings of this study imply that freshmen students who participate in extracurricular activities are more likely to persist. 148 The Student Life Offices at both Gordon College and George Fox College as well as other colleges and universities may want to seriously address this matter in terms of student activities programming, and more specifically, encourage a wider range of student participation in these types of cam- pus activities early in their college careers. If, in fact, students who participate less are less apt to persist, iden- tification of these students may allow college officials to develop an early detection (of potential dropouts) and in- tervention strategy towards strengthening retention. Such strategies might include alerting the student's residence assistant, residence'hall director and academic advisor, or other college personnel who might be successful in interven- tion efforts. W The find- ings appeared to reveal a positive relationship between stu- dent involvement with faculty, and freshmen student persist- ence when students from both Gordon College and George Fox College (Group 3) were combined and tested. The findings, when Group Three was tested, were consistent with a number of retention studies seeking to establish a link between student involvement with faculty and persistence. Pascar- ella and Chapman (1983) found that “freshmen persisters were more significantly involved in the non—academic life of the institution and had significantly more non-classroom inter- action with faculty members...“ (pg. 42). Miller and 149 Brickman (1981) developed a retention study focusing on fac- ulty and staff mentoring of freshmen students and found that the program had a “positive impact on the retention and academic performance of freshmen“ (pg. 27). Gordon and George Fox may want to consider identifying and training faculty who are particularly skilled in interpersonal rela- tionships and assigning freshmen students to these faculty members during their first semester or term in college. Such a faculty-student mentoring process could serve to ease the freshman student's transition into college. This might be especially effective for the less involved student who exhibits dropout tendencies. The results derived from examination of this particular variable imply that out-of-class faculty contact may be im- portant to student retention. College and University of- ficials may want to conduct further research on the rela- tionship between student involvement with faculty and per- sistence, using a larger population sample than that used in this study. If such research findings were significant, ad- ministrators should consider developing strategies to en- courage greater interaction between faculty and students, especially students who are less apt to take the initiative to do so on their own. Particular attention by faculty to- wards the less involved student may provide this student the relationship needed to remain in college. 150 W The findings from the T-Test revealed that for all three groups, the difference between returning and non-returning freshmen students was not statistically significant with re- spect to their investment of time and energy in college peer relationships. However, for Group 3, Gordon and George Fox population groups combined, statistical significance was ap- proached (1.912). The findings would appear not to support much of the lit- erature on student retention and peer relationships. The fact that statistical significance was approached when Group 3 was tested, and that a larger population sample may have resulted in significance, may imply a sensitivity towards a positive relationship between peer relationships and retention. Newcomb (1962) wrote that the “more incongruent the student is with his overall environment, the more likely he is to withdraw from that environment or higher education in general“ (pg. 294). Deve10ping peer relationships would seem to indicate a fit or congruence with one's institu- tional environment. Cope (1978) cites a number of retention studies that have found peer support to be positively as- sociated with persistence (Jones, 1962; Flack, 1966; Spady, 1971; Rootman, 1972; and Haagen, 1977). The results derived from examination of this particular variable may imply that forming student peer relationships 151 could be important to retention. Again as noted in the pres vious discussion, higher education officials may want to conduct further research on the relationship between the de- velopment of college peer relationships and retention, using a larger population sample than that used in this study. If such research findings were significant, administrators should consider creating strategies to foster the develop— ment of college peer relationships among students, es— pecially with those students who may have less social inte- gration skills. In particular, student life and residence hall staff may want to devise programs aimed at identifying freshmen students who are not mixing well with other stu- dents and implement appropriate intervention strategies. Administrators may want to consider training faculty and other college staff (i.e. Financial Aid, Student Accounts, Registrar, Academic Advisors) in identifying the student who may be dropout prone. Early detection and intervention could prove particularly effective in successfully address- ing the retention issue. :- -, 'o, :H .-, , o -..-, ' . ,- o -._- '. The findings indicated a positive relationship between time and energy invested in one's institutional library and per- sistence, when Gordon College freshmen were tested and when both Gordon College and George Fox College freshmen were combined and tested. Significance was not achieved when George Fox freshmen were tested as a group. 152 The results derived from examination of this particular variable imply that freshmen students who use their college's library are more likely to persist than those stu- dents who frequent the library less. Gordon and George Fox officials and others may want to conduct further research on the relationship between the freshman student's investment of time and energy in his library and persistence, using a larger population sample than that used in this study. If such research findings were significant administrators should consider developing strategies directed towards en- couraging greater library use by a wider segment of the freshmen student population. Officials may want to consider developing a Freshman Library Orientation Program which car- ries through the entire freshman year. Administrators might even contemplate making such an ongoing activity a require- ment, possibly giving academic credit for successful participation. Both colleges should also consider assisting freshmen students in strengthening their study habits along with encouraging wider use of the library. BEQDHHENDAIIQNS_EQR_HEIBQDQLQGX 1. This investigator recommends to future researchers that careful attention be given in the methodology section to the timing of when the survey instruments are mailed to participants in the study. Ina the current study 153 participants were mailed the surveys in the middle of their sophomore year which resulted in some confusion as to which year they should respond on the survey, their freshman year or current sophomore year. It is recom- mended that future researchers conducting freshman re- tention research consider mailing respondent surveys af- ter the completion of the student's freshman year and prior to the fall of the sophomore year. This strategy should serve to eliminate confusion on the part of the respondent. The investigator°recommends to future researchers that careful attention be given in the methodology section to obtaining accurate student population numbers and names from institutions being studied. It is critical that the researcher clearly communicate what he or she wants from the institution. When the request for the number of entering freshmen is made the distinction between those entering in the Fall and those entering in subse- quent terms should be clear. This investigator experi- enced some problems with determining exactly how many actual freshmen matriculated at Gordon College in the Fall Of 1986. A second recommendation is to make it clear that if the researcher does not want to include involuntary dismiss- -als that this be communicated to whomever is providing 154 the non-returning student list. This investigator disf covered he had included two involuntary dismissals in the data analysis and as a result had to conduct a sec- ond data analysis on a portion of the study. The college Student Experiences Questionnaire (Pace, 1986) was used by this investigator to measure freshmen student interaction and involvement with their institu— tional environment. As college officials and research- ers attempt to address retention issues and conduct re- tention research, a valuable source of information is the student himself. The recommendation would be for retention officials and researchers to use the College Student Experiences Questionnaire as one means of ac- curately and systematically gathering information from students. The resulting information would allow college officials, for example, to identify student perceptions of their college environment and by doing so, more ac- curately develop intervention strategies and programs aimed at successfully addressing retention issues. It is the recommendation of this investigator that future researchers and collegiate institutions conducting re- tention research consider using instruments like the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (Pace, 1986). 155 In summary, since retention is such a critical issue for the small liberal arts college and this study has supported the literature in part, college administrators may want to seri- ously consider reexamining institutional commitment and mon- ies to these retention related campus activities. (Variables: Faculty, clubs and organizations, and library.) This investigator attempted to examine the relationship be- tween freshmen student interaction and involvement with se- lected variables of their college environment and student persistence. Several recommendations for further research have emerged as a result of the findings from this study. It is hoped that these recommendations will be helpful to others conducting college student retention research as well as collegiate institutions interested in the findings and implications. 1. This study has revealed that with some college environ— mental variables there occurred a significant statisti- cal difference between the scores of persisting and non—persisting students. The study did not however, ad- dress the issue of why some students become involved with their institutional environment while others do not. It is recommended that a follow-up study be made of persisting and non-persisting students as to why they 156 participated in campus based programs and activities,- and developed peer and faculty relationships. Further research may reveal dr0pout proneness and the identifi- cation of a profile of the student who is apt to be less involved in campus life. College student retention re- searchers may want to further explore the issue of why college students participated in campus based programs and activities. Such research is recommended as a logical follow-up of this investigator's retention study which sought to determine the levels of campus involve- ment between persisters and nonspersisters. This study did not attempt to examine why students chose to become involved or not involved in the life of their institution. Since a positive relationship was found between persist- ing and non-persisting students in terms of their inter- action and involvement with faculty, the college li- brary, and clubs and organizations, when freshmen stu- dents from both institutions were combined and tested (Group 3), researchers may want to replicate this study for each variable using a larger population sample in an effort to determine whether statistical significance OCCUIS. Since it appeared that there may be a positive relation- -ship between student involvement and interaction with 157 college faculty and student persistence. When Group Three, Gordon College and George Fox College Freshmen combined, was tested, significance occurred. Sig- nificance was not achieved when the individual institu- tions were tested. As previously noted, this outcome may be attributed to a small population sample size. It is recommended that retention researchers further ex- plore this relationship between student involvement with faculty and retention by using a larger population sample than that used in this study. A logical question which arises is what is meant by in— volvement and interaction (qualitative) and how much is necessary (quantifiable)? Secondly, how do faculty and students perceive involvement and interaction? College administrators and future retention researchers may want to identify student and faculty perceptions of these terms, and in so doing identify common meaning to more accurately devise research studies and subsequent strat- egies to encourage quality student and faculty interaction. Such research could be coordinated by those staff responsible for institutional research and student retention. Holbrock (1981), who found that “in- stitutions whose activities facilitated personal contact between students, faculty and staff were more likely to have higher retention rates“ (pg. 578) would certainly applaud such an effort. 158 .IINAL_THQDGEIS In general, colleges and universities may want to direct their own institutional research on student retention using the findings from this study, as well as current retention literature and retention studies to further examine the re- lationship between their students' involvement and inter- action with their college environment and the likelihood of his or her persisting. Future retention studies may want to focus on the college environment and the students' involve- ment and interaction within that environment. Tinto (1975) summed it up well when he wrote that the ... process of dropout can be viewed as a longitu- dinal process of interactions between the indi- vidual and the academic and social systems of the college during which a person's experience in these systems continually modifies his goal and institu- tional commitment in ways which lead to persistence and or varying forms of dropout (Review of Educa- tional Research, 1975, pg. 90). This study has increased this investigator's understanding of the college student retention issue. Student retention is complex, with a multitude of variables requiring consideration. While there are no simple answers to under- standing retention, it is this investigator's conclusion that environmental variables are factors in retention, and the student's interactions with these variables has an im- pact upon persistence. Colleges and universities that want to successfully address the retention issue should focus 159 upon the college student's level of involvement and interaction within his institutional environment. 160 December 16, 1987 (name) (address) (city), (state) (zip) Dear (pname): PLEASE EELPMHBI I CIIIOT’PIIISE I! PE.D. DISSERTATIOI UITEOUI TOUR HELP. PLEASE TIKE I PEI IIIUTES, COMPLETE THE SURVEY AIDMHIIL IT BACK TO.HE II THE STAHPED SELF-ADDRESSED EIVELOEE. You are being asked to participate, along with other selected members of the 1986 entering freshman class at Gordon College in Wenham, Massachusetts and George Fox College in Newberg, Oregon, in a survey to measure freshman student retention tendencies of both institutions. The enclosed survey is called the College Student Experiences Questionnaire and is designed to measure the level of student involvement with selected activities and college personnel within their college environment. You will be asked to respond to items within the questionnaire which will attempt to determine the extent of your involvement within the college anviroment. PLEASE LIMIT YOUR RESPONSES TO YWE LEVn. OF IIVGJBIEIT OIL! DURING YOUR FRESHMAM YEAR. Haw will the information be used? As part of my dissertation project, your participation in this survey will allow me to fulfill requirements toward my graduate work at Michigan State University. Secondly, the information that is generated may assist both institutions in furthering their understanding of freshmen student retention. I encourage you to take the approximately twenty-five minutes to complete this questionnaire. Your responses will be kept strictly confidential and will also give you opportunity to share your experiences during your freshman year of college. The stamped self-addressed envelope is provided for your convenience. Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. I IEED THIS BACK BY APRIL 15. Sincerely, Dirk Barram Doctoral Candidate 161 March 16, 1988 (name) (address) (city), (state) (zip) Dear (pname): PLEASE MP IE! I OAIIOT FIIISE ll! PEI). DISSERTATIOI WITHOUT TOUE ASSISTAIOE. In December I sent you a letter asking that you complete a survey, the 'College Student Experiences Questionnaire," as part of my research on student retention. I did not receive a survey from you and will need to if I am to complete my dissertation. I have enclosed a second questionnaire for you to complete. PLEASE, I ASK THAT YOU TAKE A PEI MINUTES IOU, COMPLETE THE SURVEY AID RETURR IT TO ME IR TEE STAMPED SELF ADDRESSED EIVELOPE. I REED THE SURVEY RACK BY APRIL 15TH. I thank you in advance for your response. Sincerely, Dirk Barram Ph.D. Student Sfll “OMAN W”! cm new!!! 900303 MW 06-4 wow '3 M GA“ mom 0 mutant- supuouegudumdmnsmnmmmmmmm Aunmunnmmhmmmeu'vmvo'mv :01 "av mom 90v wanna: to mouse «move non Mon-mu! w Kama an m men an amen mm- ! minnow-nu mi II I. a? :5 .- ::I II II I. .- caucus a: new not modes: M hum an; 'cosuodsu mot Bum-us u. mun «me‘naudmm'w-uueummluflm pm hue uncomm- Ni 00M OUMMI mucus... us “I 9'0 N ma modem walnut!!! Ni .mow Imsuolm'mduumucmmm'maom'sUenccquaA'xse no: on pom-a on Mun snowma- nou we we on m: at we» was n04 um puenolmmdugmmsmnqpasuan'adndunuunuoassumnolu'puv edema wok um; sumo use saueuuousanb seem slut In nu men n neon memo-she m cu: uo xsqmnu a nu weuuousenb uses M I. ma pus ‘Lucu enues suede: an saws noun o; peeu on a we tugsuuoguanb nu; u. Mus suuu mot sun on not use we on m -Wam Ann pus weuoduu 1! named as madam»- 100A in a m m one now: we» acumen-d scum- nu. wwwonmflmmwmmmmtonmwmm autumn Ni 'acuqm sdqm moA u; Gum-U pus demo uaan lulu not awn p named-use go cum I mad we met ma “1.: menu «In M um '00: we mu "0A noun-a 9' o: a: hoe «mm but wow u um mu m u on use not an "un- cunb We on no u ma not; me not we 'umuoomnb mu me an a: cum 000! I on man u MM! m not ecu-II M w 'mzmmuummdmmmflummmm ,oaqonuseul unmauudcldanmpuesabmoeuanapmoqam nun “mama-I Mm wet-anaemia an mm w com me ”WWW pu- Wmuwmwwwummmmwmuwummmm 'eunua- afl-noo In 09 um mu munuoddo pun muse mun Bum 0! M ‘u-nwm Imam pu- maoc mun u: “summa- mnamnoum m was. mm m 01 WIN»! «a m 'w «moo a! - own new puaos manna-cu mm me me Maw empm mu nu. MAXI-INC-IAIZOIIIO fll-3OIIIZI- OO-l-HIIGIII Z91 “smegma-o ”smegma nan-momma mswamo mumswammo WMauIMWQ wumwmimmamam usumumwumuw-IW mummwnmmum tmmmmwnmm MO I J L am auto 0 (as Mom 10an ‘mgm 'meucae) mus-=3 mac. 0 (an 'm an. ‘Auacueu. unmet-I'm '99“) mess MM 0 (as Mom. «mum 130.0000 'M) sew-um O rat-160mm. WON Mm um tom) on» new uu-H 0 Conan“; o locus-nan ”mm W) WW9! O mess News 0 mm. 0 (me ”one! 'Kuuoe WM” "000th was 105°”! 0 (M'm'm'uflm O mum-40v o ummmepn-umm OM Q uni-p sauce m M II m scenes am so scum. dumaa unau- was: a waumm mane O mcuhuoacsaelumsm o WMMAWW O Wmumuammoam liqueualmmn'm WIM'mdamcwm Mum-unaunmnmm Mmmoupeuqsuan O memo annex-nausea. mmmnnmdwmmm wanna meal 0 JON“ O lewd o mousse o emu-In 0 man-- I: m not a m me- 0 «Gun 0 mankind-v «MO mg ”10.0 0.480 TMnao C" 'MmmwmdfiunN-hmmmwwau NOILVHUOdNI ONflOUDMOVI €91 1qu Mosul qmmnwleuoued neeenaepa 0000 waded gum-«Mummewmu 0000 ueqmeu Mannequin-momentum”... 0000 ' ‘mmoAmaueym wemmmnmmwflmfi 0000 ‘zenmhnae ummmmmmupemeeaoooo vacuum M031 I awe M010 msmnmedaamemeeemnemm 0000 some um I! new“ muse, e was new 0: mugodde ue 09M 0000 'm N acumen mun-KIM mum-mom ma 0000 '(me mung. m dew-em 'unaao) Bum; ate-s noA ounce e a man UOMMMWMM 0000 new» name I w mu 0000 {I}; We WWII-III '0: oeuew ueuo qu mane mm m mammepmewoa 00m “hue 'm 1000an 'mw m II m) madam poems-«om 0000 'pean nod dam on pens nee mu mm mm m 901000! 'InIe we II! 0000 'IIIIII N: I! 009w»! M III! III: I: cum Guam; «MOI bums 0000 'uodumaoledlduuqeugmm m go we :0 Audesaogmq e pedcueaea 00m 'IIIomI mum! at (Imam momma 0: some IMIIU II» II wool) «new 9m 0000 'uonsee ecumew so mean Icon wees; eu: u; auguwoe peeu 0000 'mdot woe as um cum I! III» as «Imam In: mm 0000 ‘egdoz ewes uo Um “I“ Item m M 03 InOouIm am In: 9m 0000 nod we when ncA Immem Acme wnwmmmnbeeehmnmnfln 0000 ‘1’: MM mwnwmmmMnmwhmhmmlemmm «nWWNNWWM‘MWMMGammownmumwzsucucaun SEMLLOV 3931100 L guemusenoAueMumsmm 'mmunwwumuummmu welaumuu-uou O (ween mound) madman" 0 was won ea an «we 0 meuwmndueeu J tum :sI-uo 0 umw JO Inueuo O deem open; 'uecueuay-ueogxen ounces” 0 IOOIO O ueoeeeneo ‘IINM O cmmnnmmem qunAaeAneuouQ uNquuIIuo ueuuemuouo IIIMJ'NJOIIUO MAMNAAQWID “undumwpmmm amen a on: em 0 unou a: mom 0 wow oz mm 0 wow 9L mm 0 IIII :0 wow Ol moeI 0 lead noouse em dunno pelagdwe we we ; euou 0 meieuedumo-puedewheleeeeeeeunee mum'umwemwuum ‘791 :ueaemmnuodemquwelIu 0000 Imus I'm:- :0 am emoe u: seemed :noA ,o mode: :0 new: e :dex 0000 mm :mueuu: we no not“ com hm meme Item I: managed :noA mun o: ucnonusu: mane. 00m ‘uoued eue ueu: mu: anneal :eue suede angled :0: MB In: 0: Iemuee: ”In 0000 ‘(~o:e 'Ouguwuee 'eeaome) eeouause momma: :0: MB In: a: IImuII: been 0000 suede dam! :MJOW! ”I games :o, secede :euoneene: :oonmo oeen 00m Immune meme WNW meme: we lenses :o: secede :euoueene: :oopmo peen 0000 undue: uo ’uode euaoe 0: caused :o 'eemeae :0 Imam male: I mm; 0000 ’mne ewes u: eouemnued :noA :e: eueel :e3 0000 15?; In: I -uo:eenoe:o e :o: manna ,o deal I we new 0: sumo: Bunsen: :o medunq ea: seen 0000 '(°o:e ‘nIIuvd wood was 'Buod-Omd) mes :o down menu In: u: eneuue IAI- :Iu: NIB 9““ 0000 muse :o uogun :ueotm em :e :eeeede I one" 0000 new” :9 com: wanna en: u: we» mode I mm 0000 women :0 com: :ueoml N: :0 :ueee m :0 mm I use. 0000 'ueemoA Ac Acme :0 me: e: (ensues: In: em 0000 'Wflfl' MN 10010 90' W mot WWI 880090“! "I”. one: 6mm: :e:ueo :o uown em ug punou :e3 0000 ~:e:ueo :ueonu :o uemn 3009"” N8 ll mom M m 00m uueee endmfl mode seem :0: meee mm In: :I new: 0000 ~:e:ueo WOW“! :0 uOmn :ueonn ed: :e on needs ‘eueeu: new 0000 ‘(‘=:I ‘Am 00 seven 'peoun 'peoe) uomflm manoeuonemnumeudnm 0000 'mmwnmmmmsonI-e 0000 lune: In: :- WmmnM'fiIneuees 0000 ‘IIIIIIe In: :I ween:- :eu:e we (me 'eeuIe 1mm: fled) new: In: men eeInIi 0000 '('a:e mm mm) Mm emu: ewoe u! madman 0000 mmnmmmpemmnneeu 0000 edema In: «mummnnmooeneeueuv 0000 edema In: :I nueem m «we we 'Iuenesemu handed “lees-Ina: emu mace emu 0000 Tue 'queam ‘ngaeen Wm 'UUIWW‘) m we emoe u: ”momma 0000 'Ienmuenwewm Immune» :I one 0000 '80de emuouomxeuuoheneoueueouuog 0000 “me: In: :I nueenu :eu:o uue (me 1::qu 'emneuume 'emwmee 'Gumued) ue :noqe deem. 0000 WWW 5m «In I! Deanne»: one meow: ue- :Iu: 03:00: no same”: :IuomeeI me 0000 ‘edmnea: :o eeoou sens we» eeumne open 0000 'oqu: :0 mean” mm 0: mm eu: meme 0: WI 0000 sum: :4: IOmplu met a. 009mm: DUI myod :oleu: ”mama": 0000 ‘eeomoe enouee won seen: sum o; neumlmpelmdnndedeuonewm 0000 'Ieueue: II: :0 munch :quueu me when 0000 nemeflee u:IIIe:equ=I::ueaeu:eeoueeeo:eeui 0000 10mm II: I: owe Men: eeuvueeen 0000 'eouneeu: seen u: Meeuueue poem 00m «In I: ence pennee Ice; 0000 W {[73 wee-mung“!golmegemmlmhmodmnumuulumn N: :e weee euee «A new eeue one mode ':eeA move some em Ouune deuce em :e Mae :0“ u. amusing S91 noel med: meme Mum I wed: meow uue memes»: enues DIN 0000 1:004 tum: :uueme bee use Iuemde named «one mesons nun Nomad m D'H 0000 need we» :uemun baa ewe usned snogdom Issue unseen we none-nee InIuII II: 0000 1:004 we» we bee date semen neuoued :o em :0 Audeeemd eeewe smegma qua euogeeneepo moms and 0000 flames mucus um: meson uue Ieueu: even 0000 met me» mm m: III: «one sweet!» «we seven: 09'" 0000 met me» was.” bee see eds seem- meson we 090.!» 09M 0000 duvet wen mum use see necoos ees ogmouose) eeno:d::oeq Anus: seeue menus um 0900!» m 0000 smeA we» :ueump be: sun emu: new: means was seven: III» 0000 smea men women be: sea meg: :elee: egwsosoe Issue unseen um- M In!" 0000 1:1 I: mess menses :eu:o :e :ouseunee I we eeeei OOOO susgoem .sueued Adele-u made some: 'ueemoA duapmeu: 'uos:ed uses saws dno:d I u: use. 0000 'noA :noes :udnou: Knee: Inspeu :Iue col "I: I: new: I new 0000 ”903m! 1. «some: 'ssmnqs :noA unseen: e: M I news; 0000 :uswdemse Ameeeeud nus :uewmlne .eueusd :nede need :o eereme use. 0000 _ sseumnoue :Inuue :eous: euoe IAN led-u: not my. penance pee wee: :o need I u: mouse: I we pumuee: 0000 :chuId :Ivees nus :Iuoued duupuemspun ewe ueep :Iu: ounce I M3 00% wme‘ leuesud I :uue neA dusu o: poem I :no :udnog 0000 men seno:d :eme nus 'Awweuae dueye :Id sdno:d ewes Awe sweenu mud We peeeneqa 0000 one not Ase so: ueoed mucus e: Dense: neA we seem I one; 0000 {I}: IIIIIMIIIII :III'III seeuqsedsj new ‘uesma: see not uemsedmee was :0 won ‘Ilome us dammed :o, Mum 0000 'um pen not :eded I peace": eeu dun madam: II we III: e: :uemwyodde II III" 0000 dengue met seem»: 0: CH: M WI :o: Amman: In new 00m :: wu- eesmee nee «I Imee III": use: :eeuuemeedwosn :sdsd em 00m me ‘:eu:u:e:d 'dumu ”mmellfluwn 100060039044“ 00m 'wmmueoeseeuusesdusem not Gnomes pee: e: sodesd :eme new 0000 (Amen I0: :I :o duueee: u: :usds sum denunoe :oe) :sded I dogma new: :0 unow WI :30: Id :uedg 00m 1:: u demueu nope ueemoA u seems: use: puIAIIIen :edId no ueae «doe: snow 0000 Bungle “In not I mood :e seep: :o seeenbee pus some one 'sududued 'smunus souswse ':eu:u:e:d :neee :udnou: hummus“ nus Alenegeeuoo 0000 1an :o dugueeu: :eddfl sq: dn nee: e: stunned: :e beueome I seen 0000 35?: o: :ommugmee as made knees: I we :In 0000 summed: I no Demon 0000 . muses :e 'sememe 'sduueeu: can mesons :e sseeone :0 use: :e sseeene sq: :o: suesee: esssnesga 0000 (ms was pepeee 'weuuueod :usenu 'Iuouseuqnd) :oele:d weeds :e eeuemusdn :ueenu ewes u: seven 0000 ':ueu:u:eeod :ueenu pus eeuuMuII sndwee 0: new sense: pus ensued eessnosaa 00m 'uoume means I u: omen 00% dead :uetuuaaed ween. :e 'uonenuedn em: I u: duneeu: I eeoueuv 00m 1::an :ueuuueeod :ueonII :e 'uenezwedn 'qmo I mode new :0 pee“ 00m 'dne:d :uspnl Ilene :nd :ueee:ou:e:de:d seenueny 00% wounded» wenms nus muses memo made mam-teen WIDnIIIuUIm 00m 11?: Inmate I: men-III uensswsdn :ueenu I :o seuumps sq: seem mute eve «we wanna uses nag: Ieeeds em :1: sue 0: Inn A. IIeodse: :0“ Insane: llamas: an. :e uses see. neA ease egos new mode' I yooqoe :usuno NJ dump edema IN: :I Ieueuedu and ::| 23mm)“ 991 IIII not meme :e sdoemoun su: 5o unee: IIIIIIMIIIudIIIaowIInIIeInW 0000 news Ad pane-n swewndn :e OOMUI upmeuuemdemelpedewo 0000 add: II: I: am III :II: OIQINII III: Anuenbeeens 0000 am: II: moeeemmnIdIsImoIe:m 0000 1:940: II: was MIMI: :0 MIA Meme mud!!! 0000 dugpee: met I: M”. III not MI: I: m 0000 W {m meanIaeeneemIIIIw mmmmwmmw 'IIII hum: 'sa::eIsd ‘IIIaszIa 'uemued 'Aduue u uses AdogoIIII: Due W I: new IenIe :IasIu III mm 0000 'WHO. new one mmdwoo 0000 Idem 'nIeIuIdIe 'IIIIII: - IIIIIII 0000 me ‘KIoIdIMI “:IuII ‘sIenanewd :IaI:III: 'dImuId - III IIu 0000 WWW 'WGOIOIIIG 'Wfl IIIIHIIIIOIIIIIIIN We DIIIIID: III 0000 enema III IIIII II: :IeaIIId 0000 'Iesun! 1:!"an ‘uIOII uewnu 'soIId u uses swsuqo:d mace Men 0000 use In: I: sums :usuna 0000 IIIIIIII 'IIIIIMOI 0000 “sewed '9:qu macs 0000 'agsnu: :Ipnded pus semen 0000 means 'Aeuew 'uaedeen cor 0000 1 H, wanna; ”was mode peegn noA seen usue III :MII' :IIIII :Ieuna II: OIIII Idem «I: {I mm W In! NOW3 "I zsuouaaun SNOIAVSU3ANOO 'uun seasons: 0'48 0! WI Mud III: New dumll nun: :e eawee munwwoe ewes no new”: 0000 mm seuseueea so: I: mess II sausdn :e and osdueu 0000 mmmmwwnm wee-ens 0000 mm IIIIINII II: II II we Imus macs IIIIIII 0000 uIneeuIenIIIIuIWII-ovwoutae'mod mused 'nnae: 'm) Gum: pen-cues 0000 dupes wen MA dequI I: enemas us, «we new 0000 :Idw II: ow: I:I: M :II: IIossIII um I: newsman 0000 sousmsss ewes neeeeu 0U! ('3‘. 'OOWN ‘00“: ‘90“ 'W swnoa IIII meme :IIwII III: e: emuo 0000 news :Idw I:I: :0: Imam two III: we once 0000 mm :e wee: dump II: I: :euuye demo WMJIIMM iii: 'sweueeesumae'seeemee: sndweaeweq :IIIeMzu‘WWIIIIMIIlIIIIHIIIdIg losueulduumleeseedeumeA um:usehoeqas weave-auntie III IIIIeree: :II:I: III-mm II::I Immmlmwmm‘Imm/W NMImflIu-emenmluzsueuaien 'wsmdwca III: 0: Men I: ueuanusu: ma—w-me :qdnos 0000 ‘JW I no sun szheuI e: wude:d I emu 0000 “(me “mm I:II: 'IImI IdIndIII) downs: swnea I: mm o: :smdwea I psen 0000 ' -:s:ndwea I pea: neA W :aem: :o :sded I no osmem 0000 some aunusgae eeu woe ID ueumwm :e quuxe ue a: men 0000 ‘s:stsI|a s o: weeeoeu muewuedre us umdxs e: eswweuw 0000 wewdmbe aunuegas :eeeqdesmmaouuswmaepeeeus 0000 'xuewdgnbe bound. ewes dug-I u: was :neA eee:dw: e: peeym (n00 ‘ssdeeuea :e IIueena mum :noII (pendu- :eI) name IIII 0000 went!» :II:III a u umdee mode 004 u dugu An amount aquweoae ewes ,o dupeuuweeun moA peas; 00m 1qu IIIIWIIW I: IdmIIoIIm :I :II I sewdxe o: new. 0000 suns: muIaI: 'suonmee ”mun: mm 0000 W Iii; cGIwmnIHIIIII not eel: Ian new page Is“ .oouae :uauna II. sdeuee qua :s Ieuepedss :noA u. SNOIIOJW L91 “"0 Q 0 0 0 Q Medusa. sewoea :MA :o semen Inna“ III eeeeeele: :Iuewed sq: uo sgseqdwa MFA O Q Q Q 0 Q IIIIIIIIIIIII seeeudwoa :Ieomdnaed pue :Iuomaee :o :uewdeneeo sq: Io sgseqdwa WWO Q Q Q o e e sumo-Ions IMWN' DUI 'Wllfll“ “MIMI 00:01 II qseqdw; WWI (D Q Q 0 0 0mm seamed ee::ee:a III 'sagssudxe '3!” :0 :eswdemee N: IO ”III“! Milan 0 Q Q Q 0 Q III-:IIIIIIIII IIIIIIMI mama-:9 III ‘KmvoIII 'agwspeae :o :uswdeIeeee sq: uo sgseqdwa 'WWWIWIIIIMNAWIII :IIIIeIaeeIIaI-nIIIIIIteum‘IMMMIIIWIIGIIMIIIIIQIIIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIII III wmmdme IIIIIII: II::I IIII:II::II: "“09 mm :Neq'IdmIIwwIIIIIIdIIIIeemw OImInu. ':uewde:eaep,s:uspn:s:es:aedes.sne::easee::s:ess:ssqdweanqnqwsusemwquueseeweum 1N3NNOHIAN3 3931100 3H1. se:dII:p Agduens 0 se:dII:a 0 “my 0 ends hduens 0 .‘IIIIIM IIIIIIIIIINN‘WIIIIIWII Mewmmuwumdu IIIImn. ::uews:e:s dun-III: II: M IIMII not I: :IIA Momma: “on 0 II KIIIIIII 0 I“ Mama 0 Meuuqse ‘IIA 0 gduopeeneneuenneAIdeneameeeu oneselm'ugedemouqsnmam. I In: LIII: 0 :: :neee lumen see: :0 new we: 0 ‘I III: 0 I :noee IIIIIeanI we: 0 :ses'ee III III II ue- eon 3931100 U10“ SNONHO ozuII:e:ou: 00 ozIIIo:IIe~III 00 o: IIIIueeaIee 00 SIIIHIM: OO ...... oo Wemmnweduwn:l mnedmmmlessa mquswsasdseee colon-quad- mmmm‘ ”WNW ozueq:e:ee: 00 02,9qu: um 00 o: IIIBIIIIIII 00 Inmate-:00 e::e::00 I Mm menu-Item 'uwnneqaesqeoedsmgmifinellg memmm'mehmwmm W DNlLlUIA/DNICVBM 891 nan-enemas. 00000750" '5‘ 50005“ "0-7615? 0 eocegcog—lo oeeeosm'flm‘meeoym 000000000 000001 00000 eoeeeoeoe 000001. ,moeeme eoeoooeoo oeeeosn.“mm~,eeeee 000000000 GQCCO‘meaneAmpessdeuea00000 000000000 00000‘OMIIIUIIIIIIIIIII00000 000000000 00000‘w2m3mawg00000 888888888 323:2:-,...-...-m-«.-,.~..,3832: ‘ SNOIASNIO dmexnruuazs“: seen '08 ImIn I: :: 'se: M3Hjil0 vacuum [.1739 l neee not eo::Iw:e:e: peg: pus sssegsnwnd'eaemeleeeuqeumm 0000 use: deemed seeeeuuge nee 'seuusnwye 'sdgqseenme: see I: ‘:II:Ido: IIII: Ind I: hum 00m a:s ‘eeouuoden 'II::::ngeo:d GIIIIIWIIII - MIMI: IIIIuwIflo 0000 Amado: III hunMIII ‘MI: 0: hum 0000 ‘AdeweIIII IeI seeegas e: suousaudde aee :o (senmmsdeII/Ieuzeq smsese: seeeenbseeee sq: :o e:IaI degweaeg 0000 ‘s:eswde:sess :IawIae: III auweas aIe sewIIwIIIn 0000 ' 'eondtuetmndle nee seesgas :o emsu sq: demesmseen 0000 ' Issue: neasuId III IIIII IuIII Iood duodolued 0000 Ildwsu: wde: I I! IOIWUI 03 MIN 0000 616000 :0 3mm :IWI um: dean :ed 0: Aug-es sq: ees s:deed awe demeswseen 0000 W annoyed ees 'useaewv memes met - “sweet degpenueeen 0000 $91.90!” I'm:- III semen eae :noA depdeleasq 0000 In: :0 MM ees 'seumna 'ssoqdoeeuId «meme :0 sues dugweasg 0000 '00:"de :0 sea sq: qua hummus: deumbav 00m Mew III Ame: Imam: 0000 women! :0 :eeonius pee seemenenbas :noA degesesem 0000 ‘Iwwe ees 'amw '::I :o :eeonfles ees degeeswseen es deqdegeeea 0000 'JWUO I 0: meme: sq .(Iw :Iq: eo::sw:e:e: :o Ides: I demnsg 0000 IdIIMIIII :0 IIIII :IIJImI :nees ecueenne :Iaeesd pseu: I degegsg 0000 ‘IIII: flame” :e 'amwem ':Iee:sss:e.:d ewes u: eonsanes :squn: :o: eo::ez::e:aeds pee pene:d::eee deegnbay 0000 'I:ea:e edhnee‘auuaedssmeodscndds suns pee sdeqmex: dewnbee - degeqen pecans]: 0000 - m: ‘:eewe:ueqass:eunqueupmqmummIMIMdemnmpqauqm spew:epeendensqned:se:seAes:ee:-:sqas:'eeue:hsdeqeswseseeuedlsaelune denummamiu‘ SNND 30 3IVNLLS3 "°r:..........""'“"::z: o . o c» o a» a m..... Isomo pee :eeeoued “unwound HM “99.00!“ .Mdflam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 when II‘IIIII ueewew lanes: qua Idwsemm eonseene :o eses. 0 CD . 13W“ ‘Ieeeedwog 0 0 0 “Main!” ‘stqueddng‘ <9 new; 0 «amuse ees 'sdne:d :eennu ‘nIeInn :eI:e Iwe IIIIIIIIIIU tenses Med-eons sq: es sdmseousp: seeq: ess: sol mesa nee ‘eeeeuedss eae ml :o denem: “Indy sds::ea sq: :I s:deed deews edlqseemm o: :e:e: edene: sen: :Iee stu, 691 REFERENCES Aitken, N. D. 'College Student Performance, Satisfaction and Retention: Specification and Estimation ofa Structural Model.“1QnLna1_n£_flishez_fidusatinn 53 Astin, A.W. Pre2entin9_Stndents_£rnm_nrnpping_flut. San Francisco: Jossey-Hass, 1975. Astin, A.W. ° . San Francisco: Jossey-Hass, 1977. Astin, A.W. "The Impact of Dormitory Living on Students.“ Bdnsatinnal_negerd 54 (1973)=204-210- Astin, A.W. “Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education.“ Persnnnel 25 (No. 4, l984):297-308. Astin, A. W. “Student Persistence: Some Stay, Some Don't -- Why?‘ Enll£Q£_nnd_flni!:zSLI¥ 48 (1973): 299-306- Astin, A.W:; Rorn, W;: Green, K. “Retaining and Satisfying Students.“ Hdncajienal_Heserd 68 (No. 1. 1987):36-42. Haldridge, J.: Anduiza, J.P.; Kasperick, 3.; Siporin, R.L.; Bowman] B. "0 Rate} College and University 55 (1980):348. Hasonic, N.: Yovanovich, L. “The Academic Performance and Persistence Pattern of a Select Group of Developmental Students at Harrisburg Area Community College.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1982. Boyd, V.S.; Leonard, M. 'A Small-Sample Intervention Approach to Attrition-Retention in Higher Education.“ 23 (September 1982). Bruning, J.L.; Klintz, H.L. ELaLiSLiQS. Glenview: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Chenoweth, D.G. “Dropout Proneness and Vocational Correlates.“ Doctoral Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1981. 170 171 Chickering, A.W. and Associates. The_ngdgrn_Amerigan College. San Francisco: Jossey-Hass, 1981. Chickering, A.W.: Hannah, W. “The Process of Withdrawal.“ Libexnl_£dn£atinn 55 (1969):123-140- Churchill, W.D.: Iwai, S. 1. “College Attrition, Student Use of Campus Facilities and a Consideration of Self Reported Personal Problems.“ Edueatinn 14 (No.4 1981): 353- 65. Classon, J.T.: Noel, L.; Hill, D. “What Works in Student Retention?“ Enll£9£_and_flnixgzfiitx 55 (1981): 336- Cope, R.G. “Why Students Stay Why They Leave.“ Neg WW 3 (1978):1-11. Cope R.G.; Hannah. W. W i c ED . D I 5| . D I and_Iransferring. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1975. Crouse, R.H. “Peer Network Therapy: An Intervention with the Social’Climate of Students in Residence Halls.“ WW1 23 (1982): 105-107. Dukes, F.: Gaither, G. “A campus Cluster Program: Effects on Persistence and Academic Performance.“ College and_nnixersity 59 (No. 2 1984). 150 The_lnnlnal_9£ MMWUW anudmissimufficers. Eckland, H. K. “Social Class and College Graduation: Some Misconceptions Corrected.“ Ameriaan_lgnznal_nf W 70 (1965): 36- 50. Feldman, K.A. and Newcomb, T.M. .Ih&_1mpasi_9£_flnllfigfi_nn Students. San Francisco: Jossey-Hass Publishers, 1969. Fishman, J.A. and Pasanella, A.K. “College Admission- Selection Studies.“ Rexi£W_Q£_Bdn£atinnal Researsh 30 (NO. 4 1960):299-311. Forrest. A. W The American College Testing Program 1982. Frances, C. “WWW WWW.“ The American Council on Education Washington D.C. 1980. 172 Gardiner, J.J.x Nazari-Robati, A. “Student Attrition Research: Publications for Retention Strategies.‘ NASPA Journal 20 (No. 3 l983):25-33. Garni, K.F. “Counseling Centers and Student Retention: Why the Failures: Where Are the Successes?“ Journal W 21 (1980) :223-228. mm. Newberg. Oregon. 1987-88. Gekoski, N.: Schwartz, 8. “Student Mortality and Related - Factors.“ MW 54 (No. 5 l961):l92-194. Green, R.G. “Enrollment and Retention: A Private College Consortium.“ Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Higher Education. Washington, D.C. March, 1981. 208791. Habley, W.R. “Academic Advisement: The Critical Link in Student Retention.“ NHEEA_JQnLnAl 18 (1981):45-50. Bays, W.L. W. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Holbrook, M.W. “An Analysis of Policies and Programs for Increasing Student Retention in Institutions of higher Education in Georgia.“ Doctoral Dissertation, University of Georgia, 1981. Hoyt, D.P. “A Retrospective and Prospective Examination of Retention-Attrition Research.“ NeH_DiL££LiQnS_£QL Sindent.£31xi£es 1978 (No. 1-4 l978):77-85. Hutchison, J.E. “Identifying Persisters, VOluntary Withdrawals and Academic Dropouts at a Liberal Arts College.“ NASRA_lQnLnal 18 (No. 2 1980):4l-45. Iffert, E. “The Student Retention and Withdrawal Study.“ College and University 30 (l955):406-4ll. Iffert, E. “Retention and Withdrawal of College Students.“ Bulletin (No. l 1958):100. Isaac, 8- and Michael, W.B. WW Exnlnatinn. San Diego: Robert R. Knapp Publisher, 1971,1972. 173 Jex, F.H.: Merrill, R.H. “A Study in Persistence.“ 2ersInnel_and_Gnidanse_lgnrnal 40 (1962):762-769.. Katip, W.J. “Differences Hetwen Faculty and Freshmen Perceptions of Campus Environments and Freshmen Attrition Rates.“ Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1986. Kauffman, J.F. “Student Personnel Services: Some Questions and Recommendations.“ Ednsatlnnal_B££n£d 45 (1964):355-365. Lanning, W. “Factors Related to College Student Persistence and Withdrawal.“ NAS£A_Jgnrnal 15 (1977): 34-37. Lewin, M. . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1979. Lonabocker, L. “Can an Institution Construct a Dropout Profile?“ Cellege_and_nniyersit¥ 58 (No. 1. 1982): 76. The_lgnrnal_9f_the_Amerisan . . . . ‘gg599l?11Qna%ETQ91109l313-339153L315-3nd Low, S.L.: Allen, 8.; Dulniak, D.; Newlon, L.; Yunker, S.H.; Board, R.R. “Registrar's Office: Impact on Retention.“ Callege_and_nnixersit¥ 56 (1981):402. Mayhew, L.H. Snrxixing_the_flishties. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980. McCall, R.H. Fundamental_Statistigs_f9r_££¥£hnleg¥. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1970. Miller, T.E. and Brickman, S.H. “Faculty and Staff Mentoring: A Model for Improving Student Retention and Service.“ NAS£A_JQnLnal 19 (No. 3 1982):23-27. Morris, E.W.; Anderson, E.; Dorsey-Martin, s. “Realities of Retention: A Program that Works.“ College_and Unixersitx 56 (1981):319. Nelson, R.H.; Scott, T.B.; Bryan, W.A. “Precollege Characteristics and Early College Experiences as Predictors of Freshman Year Persistence.“ JQMLnal If_CQllege_Stndent_£ersInnel (1984):50. Newlon, L.L.; Gaither, G.H. “Factors Contributing to Attrition: An Analysis of Program Impact on Persistence Patterns.“ College and University 55 (1980):237-51. 174 Noel, L. “Reducing the Dropout Rate.“ N£n_DiL££LiQnS_£QL W (No. 3 1978). ‘ Noel, L.: Levitz, R.: Saluri, D. and Asociates Increasing Student_Retention. San Francisco: Jossey-Hass, 1985. Pace, C.R. and Stern, G. G. “An Approach to the Measurement of Psychological Characteristics of College Environments.“ 49 (No. 5 1958): 269-277. Panos, R.J. and Astin, A.W. “Attrition Among College Students.“ 5 (No. l l968):57-7l. Pantages, T.J. and Creedon, C.F. “Studies of College Attrition: 1950-1975.“ Rexiew_ef_Edugatinnal .Beaeaznh 48 (No. l l978):49-101. Pascarella, E. T. “Studying Student Attrition.“ New W No. 36 1982. Pascarella, E.T. and Terenzini, P.T. “Interaction Effects in Spady's and Tinto's Conceptual Models of College Dropout.“ £9319199¥_Q£_BanALiQn 52 (1979):197-210. Pascarella, E.T. and Chapman, D.W. “Predictors of Academic and Social Integration of College Students.“ 52319193¥_Qf_£dn£atinn 52 (1979):197-210- Pierson, T. Provost, J.A. “Personality Type and Leisure Satisfaction as Factors in College Attrition.“ Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida, 1982. Rose, J.R. “Some Plain Talk on Retention by a College Dean.“ WW (No.3 1978): 57- 63. Rossmann, J. E. and Kirk, A. “Factors Related to Persistence and Withdrawal Among University Students.“ WW 17 (No. 1 1970): 56- 62. Ruddock, M.S. and Wilkinson, C.Y. “What Happens During the Freshmen Year?“ Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. Toronto, May, 1983 ED 232589. 175 Sanford, N. .Ihe_Amerigan_Cgllege. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. ‘ Scherer, C. and Wygant, N. S. “Sound Beginnings Support Freshmen Transition into University Life.“ (1982):378-383. Selltiz, C.) Jahoda, M.; Deutsch, M.; Cook, S.W. .Besearch Methnds_in_S9£ia1_Belatiens. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1951. Sewell, W. and Shah, V. “Socioeconomic Status Intelligence, and the Attainment of Higher Education.“ .Sncieleg¥_9f_Ednsatinn 40 (No. 1 1967):1-23. Sexton, V.S. “Factors Contributing to Attrition in College Populations: Twenty—Five Years of Research.“ The Jennnal_Qf_General_£s¥£bleQ¥ 72 (1965):301-326. Smith, T.H. “The Coming Revolution in College Retention Strategies.“ NAS£A_lQnLnal 24 (No. 2 1986):lO-ll. Spady, W.G. “Dropouts from Higher Education: Toward an Empirical Model.“ lntershange 2 (N0. 3 1971):38-51. Starr, A.; Hetz, E.L.: Menne, J. “Differences in College Student Satisfaction: Academic Dr0pouts, Nonacademic Dropouts and Nondropouts.“ Jgnrnal_nf Cennseling_zsxshnlggg l9 (1972):318-322. Terenzini, P.T. “An Evaluation of Three Basic Designs for Studying Attrition.“ Bezfinnnal 21 (No. 3 l980):257-263. Terenzini, P.T. and Pascarella, E.T. “Predicting Voluntary Freshmen Year Persistence/Withdrawal Behavior in a Residential University: A Path Analytical Validation of Tinto' 8 Model.“ JQnLnal_Qf Edueational_Ps¥£h9199¥ 75 (No. 2 1983): 215- 226- Terenzini, P.T. and Pascarella, E.T. “The Relation of Students' Precollege Characteristics and Freshman Year Experience to Voluntary Attrition.“ Bafieaxsh W 9 (1978): 347- 366- Terenzini, P. T. and Pascarella, E. T. “Toward the Validation of Tinto' 8 Model of College Student Attrition: A Review of Recent Studies.“ B_n£a£ign 12 (No. 3 1980): 271-282. 176 Turnbull, W.W. “Involvement. The Key to Retention.“ WM 10 (No. 2 1986).6-11. Van Beek, R.: Noel, L., Buntrock, R. “What Works in Student Retention.“ Cellege_and_flnixersit¥ 55 (1980): 327 Wessell, T.R.: Engle, K.; Smidchens, V. “Reducing Attrition on the College Campus.“ NAS£A_Jnurnal 16 (N0. 2 1978):26-31. Wilner, E. “Identifying Concerns and Potential Dropouts Among Community College Freshmen.“ NASPA_JQurnal 18 (No. 2 1985):41-4S.