INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was m ade from a copy of a m an u scrip t sen t to u s for publication and m icrofilm ing. While th e m o st advanced technology h a s b een u se d to p h o ­ tograph and reproduce th is m an u scrip t, the quality of th e reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the m aterial subm itted. Pages in any m an u scrip t may have ind istin ct p rin t. In all cases th e b est available copy h as been filmed. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify n o tatio n s w hich may appear on th is reproduction. 1. M anuscripts may n o t always be complete. W hen it is n o t possible to obtain m issing pages, a note appears to indicate this. 2. W hen copyrighted m aterials are removed from th e m an u scrip t, a note a p ­ pears to indicate this. 3. Oversize m aterials (m aps, draw ings, an d charts) are photographed by sec­ tioning the original, beginning a t th e u pper left h an d co m er an d co n tin u ­ ing from left to rig h t in equal sections w ith small overlaps. E ach oversize page is also film ed a s one exposure an d is available, for a n a d d itio n al charge, as a sta n d a rd 35m m slide or in black an d w hite pap er format. * 4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or m icro­ fiche b u t lack clarity on xerographic copies m ade from th e microfilm. For a n ad d itio n al ch arg e, all p h o to g ra p h s are available in black a n d w h ite stan d ard 35m m slide format. * ♦For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions, please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department. Umwersity Microfilms International 8607047 Bishop, Lloyd V. A STUDY TO DEVELOP STUDENT PROFILES FOR THE ENTERING CLASS FOR FALL 1981 AT SAGINAW VALLEY STATE COLLEGE M ichigan State U niversity University Microfilms International Ph.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1985 by Bishop, Lloyd V. All Rights Reserved 1985 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark 1. Glossy photographs or pages_____ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_______ 3. Photog raphs with dark backgrou n d _____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy_______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original cop y______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e _______ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine_______ S V . ' 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______ 11. Page(s)____________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page(s)____________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages num bered 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Dissertationcontains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received__________ 16. Other___________ __________ . Text follows. ______________ __________ University Microfilms International A STUDY TO DEVELOP STUDENT PROFILES FOR THE ENTERING CLASS FOR FALL 1981 AT SAGINAW VALLEY STATE COLLEGE By Lloyd V. Bishop A DISSERTATION Submitted t o Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e re q u ir e m e n ts f o r t h e degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Educa tiona l A d m in is tr a ti o n COPYRIGHT BY LLOYD V. BISHOP 1985 ABSTRACT A STUDY TO DEVELOP STUDENT PROFILES FOR THE ENTERING CLASS FOR FALL 1981 AT SAGINAW VALLEY STATE COLLEGE By Lloyd V. Bishop The purpose of t h i s stu dy was t o develop s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s f o r t h e e n t e r i n g c l a s s of 1981 a t Saginaw Valley S t a t e College. These p r o f i l e s were developed from t h e s t u d e n t s ' re s p o n s e s t o t h e E n t e r i n g S tu d e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , which they co mpleted 1n f a l l 1981. The study comprised a sample group o f 380 s t u d e n t s from t h e e n t e r i n g c l a s s of 1981 a f t e r part-tim e, transfer, and handicapped s t u d e n t s had been d e le t e d . The study was l i m i t e d t o t h e sample group of 380 f o r f a l l 1981. I t was a l s o l i m i t e d t o t h e f i r s t s e m e s t e r of f a l l 1981, and p r o f i l e s were developed a t t h e end of t h e f i r s t s e m e s te r . P a r t i c i p a n t s ' res po ns e s t o t h e E n t e r i n g S t u d e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e were placed on t a p a The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e So ci al Scie nce s Program, with subprogram D i s c r i m i n a n t , was used t o examine t h e data. A f t e r t h e d a t a were examined through t h e d1sc r1 m 1n an t- an a ly s 1s pro c e ss , each v a r i a b l e re sp onse from t h e E n t e ri n g S tu d e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e was given a weighted number. Those v a r i a b l e s w it h a we igh ted number of a t l e a s t .05 were deemed t o be s i g n i f i c a n t t o t h e study. These v a r i a b l e s Lloyd V. Bishop were then s u b j e c t e d t o t h e s t e p w i s e method of d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s , and a c r o s s - t a b u l a t 1 on was performed t o reduce t h e number of v a r i a b l e s further. The v a r i a b l e s t h a t s u rv iv e d t h e s e p r o c e s s e s were deemed highly s i g n i f i c a n t t o t h e stu dy, and t h e s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s were d e v e l­ oped from t h e s e r e m a in in g s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s . The sample group was divi de d I n t o e i g h t s e p a r a t e groups based on sex, housing, and r e t e n t i o n as a s tu d e n t . A p r o f i l e was developed f o r each of t h e s e groups f i n d i n g t h e nu ll hypotheses were n o t r e j e c t e d . No one v a r i a b l e was found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t t o a l l of t h e sample groups, altho ugh some v a r i a b l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t t o s e v e ra l gro ups. A f t e r r e v ie w in g t h e r e s e a r c h , t h e I n v e s t i g a t o r concluded t h a t a good c o l l e g e f i t 1s Im p o r t a n t t o s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n . Several of t h e s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s I n d i c a t e d t h a t s t u d e n t I n t e r a c t i o n wit h campus a c t i v i t i e s was r e l a t e d t o r e t e n t i o n . The evidence f o r r e t e n t i o n f o r s t u d e n t s who r e p l i e d 1n a p o s i t i v e manner t o v a r i a b l e s d e a l i n g wit h school a c t i v i t i e s was a p p ar en t. I t was a l s o noted t h a t bonding among s t u d e n t s , pe e r s, t h e f a c u l t y , and t h e c o l l e g e can t a k e p l a c e only through I n t e r a c t i o n of t h e s e groups. To A l i c e , Tom, Matt, and Sunny, w it hout whose love and i n s p i r a t i o n t h i s would not have been p o s s i b l e . 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... vi Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION TO THE S T U D Y .............................................................. 1 Background ............................................................................................ S e t t i n g f o r t h e S t u d y .................................................................. Overview of Saginaw Val ley S t a t e Co lle g e . .................... St a te m e n t of t h e Problem .............................................................. Purpose of t h e S t u d y ...................................................................... Hypotheses ............................................................................................. D e f i n i t i o n of Terms ...................................................................... D e l i m i t a t i o n s of t h e Study............................................................ I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n ............................................................................ . D a ta - A n a ly s is P r oce du re s .............................................................. O v e r v i e w ................................................................................................. 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.................................................................. 13 I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................................ Reasons f o r Leaving School............................................................ P r e d i c t o r s of S t u d e n t A t t r i t i o n and R e t e n ti o n . . . . The E f f e c t s o f F i n a n c i a l Aid on P e r s i s t e n c e .................. M i n o r i t i e s and R e t e n t i o n ............................................................. R e t e n t i o n Models ............................................................................... R e t e n ti o n a t t h e Communlty-College Level ........................... S o l u t i o n s t o t h e General Problem of A t t r i t i o n . . . . S u m m a r y ................................................................................................. 13 13 16 20 21 23 24 28 32 DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY................................................................. . . 34 I n t r o d u c t i o n ........................................................................................ D e s c r i p t i o n of t h e S a m p l e ......................................................... Data C o l l e c t i o n ............................................................................... DatJi-Analys1s P r o c e d u r e s .............................................................. D i s c r i m i n a n t A n a l y s i s .................................. Stepw ise Method of D is c r im in a n t Anal ysis ...................... C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly si s ..................................................... S u m m a r y ................................................................................................ 34 34 35 36 36 46 48 54 iii IV . V. ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ............................................................................................ 55 I n t r o d u c t i o n ......................................................................................... R e s u l t s of t h e D i s c r i m i n a n t A n a ly s is ................................... R e s u l t s of Stepw ise A n a ly si s .................................................... R e s u l t s of C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly s is .................................. A nal ysis of S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a b l e s ................................... S u m m a r y ................................................................................................. 55 55 56 57 59 93 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ......................................................................................... 95 S u m m a r y ................................................................................................. F i f t e e n S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a b l e s ................................................. V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t t o P r o f i l e Development .................. V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t f o r Males on Campus Who Stayed 1n S c h o o l ....................................................................... V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t f o r Males on Campus Who L e f t School ................................................................................ V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t f o r Males Off Campus Who Stayed 1n S c h o o l ....................................................................... V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t f o r Males Off Campus Who L e f t School ................................................................................ V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t f o r Females on Campus Who Stayed 1n S c h o o l ....................................................................... V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t f o r Females on Campus Who L e f t School ............................................................................... V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t f o r Females Off Campus Who Stayed 1n S c h o o l ....................................................................... V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t f o r Females Off Campus Who L e f t School ............................................................................... C onc lu sio ns : Development of St u d e n t P r o f i l e s . . . . P r o f i l e s f o r Males on Ca m pu s ................................................ P r o f i l e s f o r Males o f f C a m p u s ........................................... P r o f i l e s f o r Females on C am pus ............................................ P r o f i l e s f o r Females Off Campus ....................................... General Conclusion ....................................................................... Recommendations and S u g g e s ti o n s ............................................ Males on C a m p u s ........................................................................... Males Off C a m p u s ........................................................................... Females on C a m p u s ....................................................................... Females Off C a m p u s ....................................................................... I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r Research ........................................ Part-Time S t u d e n t s ....................................................................... T r a n s f e r S t u d e n t s ....................................................................... Handicapped S t u d e n t s .................................................................. iv 95 99 101 101 102 102 103 104 105 106 106 107 107 109 110 Ill 113 113 113 114 116 117 117 118 118 118 APPENDICES....................................... 120 A. THE ENTERINGSTUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE............................................... 121 B. DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS FORMULA TO PREDICT STAYERS ANDLEAVERS.......................................................................................... 129 REFERENCES................................................................................................................... 132 v L IST OF TABLES The V a r i a b l e s and T h e i r Weighting Numbers ........................... 37 The 29 S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a b l e s and T h e i r Weighted Numbers 42 R e s u l t s of Stepwise A n a ly s is : S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a b l e s , by t h e Groups f o r Which They Were S i g n i f i c a n t . . . . 58 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly s is of INDPNDT— Males on Campus . 59 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly s is of INDPNDT— Males Off Campus 60 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A n a ly si s of INDPNDT— Females on • • • • • • • • • • Campus ................................... 60 • • • C ro s s- T a b u !a t i on Analysi s of IMS— Males on Campus . . . 61 C r o s s -T a b u la ti o n Analysi s of IMS— Females on Campus . . 62 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A na ly si s of IMS— Females Off Campus . 62 C r o s s -T a b u la ti o n A na ly si s of NEWCAR— Males on Campus . 63 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A na ly sis of NEWCAR— Females on Campus 64 C r o s s -T a b u la ti o n Analysi s of NEWCAR— Males Off Campus . 64 C r o s s -T a b u la ti o n Analysi s of TRAN— Males on Campus . . 65 . 66 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n Analysi s of TRAN— Females Off Campus . 66 C r o s s -T a b u la ti o n A na ly si s o f NRCHLIF— Males on Campus . 67 C r o s s -T a b u la ti o n A na ly sis of NRCHLIF—Males Off Campus 68 C r o s s -T a b u la ti o n A n a ly si s of NRCHLIF— Females on Campus 68 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A na ly si s of INCRPAY—Males on Campus . 69 C r o s s -T a b u la ti o n A na lys is of TRAN— Females on Campus vi Page 4 .1 8 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A n a ly si s o f INCRPAY— Females on Campus 4. 1 9 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A n a ly si s of INCRPAY— Females Off C a m p u s ..................................................................................................... . 70 70 4 .2 0 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly si s of KNWLDG— Males Off Campus . . 71 4.21 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A na ly si s of KNWLDG— Females on Campus . 72 4.2 2 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly si s of KNWLDG— Females Off Campus . 72 4.23 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A na ly si s o f COUNADV— Males Off Campus . 73 4.24 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly si s of COUNADV— Females on Campus . 74 4.25 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A na ly si s of COUNADV— Females Off C a m p u s ..................................................................................................... 74 4 .2 6 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A na ly si s of PRSPROB— Males on Campus . . 75 4.27 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly si s of PRSPROB— Females on Campus . 76 4.28 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly si s o f INVOL— Males on Campus . . . 4.29 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly si s of INVOL— Females on Campus . 4 .3 0 77 . 77 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A n a ly si s of FIRSTC— Males on Campus . . 78 4.31 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A n a ly si s of FIRSTC—Males Off Campus . . 79 4.32 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A n a ly si s of CONVEN— Males on Campus . . 80 4.33 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly si s of CONVEN— Males Off Campus . . 80 4.3 4 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A na ly si s o f SLFCON— Males on Campus . . 81 4.35 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly si s of SLFCON— Males Off Campus . . 81 4.36 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A na ly si s of STDYHAB— Females on Campus 4.37 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a ly si s of STDYHAB— Females Off C a m p u s ..................................................................................................... 4 .3 8 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n An alysis of C0NCNFN— Males on Campus . 4.39 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A na ly si s of C0NCNFN— Females Off C a m p u s ..................... vi i . 82 83 . 84 84 Page 4. 4 0 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s of AGE— Males Off Campus 4.41 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s of AGE— Females Off Campus . . . 85 . . 86 . 87 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s of ULTIMAT— Females Off C a m p u s ...................................................................................................... 87 4. 44 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s of ACT— Females on Campus . . . 89 4.45 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s of ACT— Females Off Campus . . 89 4.46 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s of SOCREP— Males on Campus . . 90 4. 4 7 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s of TUTOR— Females on Campus . . 90 4 .4 8 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s of LDRSKLS— Males on Campus . . 91 4.49 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s of MARTL— Males Off Campus . . 92 4.5 0 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s of ARCON— Females on Campus . . 93 4.51 C r o s s - T a b u la ti o n A n a l y s i s of GRAD— Females on Campus . . 93 5.1 Ch1-Square Levels f o r t h e 24 Remaining S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a b l e s ................................................................................................. 4 .4 2 C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n A n a l y s i s of ULTIMAT—Males Off Campus 4.43 98 5.2 V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t t o R e t e n ti o n f o r Males on Campus . 108 5.3 V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t t o R et en ti o n f o r Males Off Campus . 109 5 .4 V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t t o R et en ti o n f o r Females on C a m p u s ..................................................................................................... Ill V a r i a b l e s S i g n i f i c a n t t o R et en ti o n f o r Females Off C a m p u s ..................................................................................................... 112 5 .5 vi i i CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Background Keeping s t u d e n t s 1n school 1s a primary concern of school adm inistrators. D e c li n i n g e n r o l l m e n t s r e s u l t i n g from a s m a l l e r number o f p o t e n t i a l s t u d e n t s , g en eral f i n a n c i a l problems f o r both s t u d e n t s and s c h o o ls , and t h e emergence o f s p e c i a l i z e d c e r t i f i e d programs have for ce d school o f f i c i a l s t o examine s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n more c a r e f u l l y . Recent s t u d i e s have shown t h a t e d u c a t o r s th ro u g h o u t t h e United S t a t e s a r e using v a r i o u s methods of r e t e n t i o n t o I n c r e a s e o r m a i n t a i n e n r o ll m e n t. In 1980, t h e C ar neg ie Council on Higher Education pu blis he d a book e n t i t l e d The Next Twenty Years f o r Higher Education. The c h a p te r d e a l i n g with e n r o l l m e n t s be gin s with t h e s t a t e m e n t : The most d r a m a t i c f e a t u r e of t h e n e x t 20 y e a r s , as we now know, 1s t h e p r o s p e c t of d e c l i n i n g e n r o l l m e n t s a f t e r more than t h r e e cen­ t u r i e s of f a i r l y s t e a d I n c r e a s e . . . . P o i n t s of e n r o l l m e n t a c c e l ­ e r a t i o n in h i s t o r y have been 1870 with t h e I n c r e a s e of growth a f t e r t h e C1v1l War and f o l l o w i n g t h e I n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e l a n d - g r a n t c o l l e g e movement; 1945 with t h e G.I. B i l l of R ig h ts ; and 1960 with t h e t i d a l wave of s t u d e n t s f o l l o w i n g t h e high b i r t h r a t e s a f t e r World War II . Now t h e r e 1s a d e c e l e r a t i o n p o i n t , with t h e ab ru pt and s u b s t a n t i a l demographic d e c l i n e 1n t h e numbers of young per­ sons. Two p o i n t s of change, w it h movements in o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n s , w i l l have o c c u r r e d w i t h i n one 20 y e a r period. This has never happened b e f o r e 1n American h i s t o r y , (p. 32) 1 2 In " P r e s s u r e s on Higher Educ at ion ," Glenny (1973) c i t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s co ncerning c o m p e t i t i o n f o r s t u d e n t s and re a so n s f o r declining enrollments: 1. The a c t u a l number of f 1 v e - y e a r - o l d s dropped 15 p e r c e n t between 1960 and 1970. These a r e t h e c o l l e g e youth of 1978 and beyond. 2. The a c t u a l number of b i r t h s dropped 3 p e r c e n t between 1970 and 1971 and 9 p e r c e n t between 1971 and 1972. These a r e t h e p o t e n t i a l freshmen of 1988 and 1990. 3. The n a t i o n ' s b i r t h r a t e 1s a t I t s l o w e s t p o i n t 1n h i s t o r y , a t a r a t e below z e r o - p o p u l a t i o n growth, and 1 t has n ot y e t s t a b i l ­ ized a t t h a t r a t e . 4. The p r o p o r t i o n of a l l males 18 t o 19 y e a r s of age who a r e 1n c o l l e g e has dropped t o t h e l e v e l 1 t was back In 1963, down t o 37.6 p e r c e n t from a high 1n 1969 of 44 p e r c e n t. This drop can be a t t r i b u t e d only p a r t l y t o t h e d r a f t , s i n c e t h e t r e n d down­ ward s t a r t e d a t l e a s t two y e a r s b e f o r e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e d r a f t Issue. 5. The p r o p o r t i o n of males 20 t o 21 y e a r s of age 1n c o l l e g e has dropped from a high o f 44.7 p e r c e n t 1n 1969 t o 36 p e r c e n t In 1972, almost nine p e rc e n ta g e p o i n t s l e s s . 6. Women 1n t h e 18 t o 19 age group l e v e l e d o f f a t ab out 34 p e r c e n t 1n 1969 and th o s e 1n t h e 20 t o 21 age group seemed t o have l e v e l e d a t 25 p e r c e n t 1n t h e p a s t two y e a r s . This oc c u r s d e s p i t e t h e o s t e n s i b l e e f f o r t s of c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s t o I n c r e a s e t h e p r o p o r t i o n of women going t o c o l l e g e . 7. In t h e f a l l of 1972, t h e f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s l o s t ab out 1.5 p e r c e n t 1n t h e f 1 r s t - t 1 m e freshmen e n r o l l m e n t , w h il e t h e community c o l l e g e s I n c r e a s e d l e s s th a n 2 p e r c e n t . 8. In t h e p a s t two y e a r s , 85 p e r c e n t of a l l t h e I n c r e a s e 1n t h e number of f i r s t - t i m e s t u d e n t s e n t e r e d t h e community c o l l e g e . 9. The Census Bureau e s t i m a t e s a sharp drop 1n t h e number of c o l l e g e - a g e youth a f t e r 1982, a l m o s t p a r a l l e l i n g t h e sharp r i s e s du rin g t h e 1960's. My own e s t i m a t e , based on t h e Census Bureau p r o j e c t i o n s and t h e d a ta on l i v e b i r t h s of t h e U.S. P u b l i c Health S e r v ic e , 1s t h a t by 1991 we w i l l have about t h e same number of c o l l e g e - a g e youth as we had back 1n 1965 or 1966. Although t h e U.S. Bureau of t h e Census, t h e Carn egi e Commission, and t h e U.S. O f f i c e of Education a l l p r o j e c t an I n c r e a s e 1n t h i s age group a f t e r 1990, t h e r e 1s no a c t u a l 3 evidenc e t o s u p p o r t t h a t assumption. Unless t h e number of l i v e b i r t h s begins t o show an I n c r e a s e t h i s y e a r o r next* t h e p r o j e c t e d number of c o l l e g e - a g e youth w i l l of n e c e s s i t y show f u r t h e r d e c l i n e a f t e r 1990. 10. Some c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s a r e now a d v e r t i s i n g t h e i r programs and s e r v i c e s 1n newspapers and on TV and r a d i o 1n o r d e r t o a t t r a c t s t u d e n t s , a f e a t u r e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of p r o p r i e t a r y s c h o o l s bu t no t th o u g h t t o be 1n good t a s t e f o r c o l l e g e s , (p. 2) From t h e preceding d i s c u s s i o n , 1t 1s c l e a r t h a t t h e p e r io d of a u t o m a t i c growth 1n c o l l e g e e n r o l l m e n t s 1s over. Within t h e f o r e s e e ­ a b l e f u t u r e , c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s can e xpect a d e c r e a s e 1n po te n­ t i a l e n r o l l e e s as t h e number of high school s t u d e n t s c o n t i n u e s t o decline. The e x p e c t a t i o n s of c u r r e n t f i r s t - t i m e c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s a r e more s p e c i f i c tha n t h o s e o f t h e i r pre d e c e ss o rs . Immediate r e t u r n s on t h e i r e f f o r t s . They a r e lo ok in g f o r The l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f communlty- c o l l e g e and s h o r t - t e r m - p r o g r a m e n r o l l e e s r e i n f o r c e s t h e f a c t t h a t t o d a y ' s s t u d e n t s want a m a r k e t a b l e s k i l l t h a t w i l l Imm ediately q u a l i f y them t o e n t e r t h e work fo r ce . With work o p p o r t u n i t i e s gear ed l a r g e l y tow ard t e c h n i c a l f i e l d s , c o l l e g e s must meet t h e needs of s t u d e n t s pla nni ng t o e n t e r t h o s e f i e l d s . I f s c h o o ls can r e t a i n more of t h e s t u d e n t s who should be r e t a i n e d (not a l l s t u d e n t s belong 1n a c o l l e g e s e t t i n g ) , e n r o l l m e n t s w i l l grow, o r a t l e a s t t h e r a t e of d e c l i n e w i l l slow. As a r e s u l t , s c h o o l s may "buy some tim e " t o plan program changes. Various s t u d i e s have shown some major c a s e s of a t t r i t i o n t o be l i n k e d w it h an I n a p p r o p r i a t e s t u d e n t - c o l l e g e f i t . The S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Col lege a t Oswego, New York, surveyed 125 form er s t u d e n t s t o d e t e r m i n e 4 why they had dropped out o f school. S c h e l l (1978) r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e res p o n d en ts gave t h e f o l l o w i n g re a s o n s f o r l e a v i n g s c h o o l : Insuffi­ c i e n t f i n a n c i a l a id , wrong major* la c k of e d u c a t i o n a l c o u n s e l i n g , and poor s t u d e n t housing. Musband (1976) d i s c u s s e d t h e co n ce p t o f i n d i v i d u a l s i n f l u e n c i n g o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s t o s t a y 1n c o l l e g e . As a r e s u l t of a stu dy he conducted a t Spring Arbor College 1n Michigan, Musband found t h a t s t u d e n t s w i t h o u t peer c o n t a c t s were more l i k e l y t o drop o u t t h a n were t h o s e who had pe er c o n t a c t s . The per c o n t a c t was termed t h e " s i g n i f i ­ cant o th e r." Saginaw Valley S t a t e C ollege, t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a t which t h e p r e s e n t stu dy was conducted, does not d i f f e r from o t h e r c o l l e g e s in i t s concern f o r m a i n t a i n i n g e n r o l l m e n t l e v e l s . School personnel know t h a t because of t h e s m a l l e r number of s t u d e n t s a v a i l a b l e from t r a d i t i o n a l s o u r c e s , r e t a i n i n g p r e s e n t l y e n r o l l e d s t u d e n t s must be a p r i o r i t y . S e t t i n g f o r t h e Study Saginaw Valley S t a t e College has a unique housing s i t u a t i o n t h a t might be d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o r e t e n t i o n . The school has on-campus d or m i to ry l i v i n g but can house only about 500 s t u d e n t s . Also, because t h e school s e r v e s a l a r g e t r 1 - c i t y m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a , t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e s t u d e n t s a r e commuters. The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed f o r t h i s study i n d i c a t e d a number of d i f f e r e n c e s in r e t e n t i o n between r e s i d e n t and nonresident students. Recognizing such d i f f e r e n c e s , the researcher 5 grouped t h e s t u d e n t s in t h e s tu dy acc ord ing t o on- and off- cam pus residence. Overview o f Saginaw Valiev S t a t e C o l l e g e Saginaw Va lley S t a t e C o lle ge 1s a f o u r - y e a r s t a t e - s u p p o r t e d l i b e r a l a r t s c o l l e g e l o c a t e d 1n t h e t r i - c i t y a r e a of Midland, Bay C ity , and Saginaw, Michigan. The c o l l e g e ’ s major c u r r i c u l u m a r e a s i n c l u d e : School of A rts and Behavior S c ie n c e s , i n c lu d in g a Department of Criminal J u s t i c e School of Bu sin es s and Management— A m a s t e r ’ s degree in b u s i n e s s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 1s o f f e r e d School o f Nursing and A l l i e d Health S ci en ces School of Eng in eer ing and Technology School of Education with a m a s t e r ' s degre e program The c o l l e g e employs 125 f a c u l t y members t o s e r v e t h e s t u d e n t body. This group 1s d i r e c t e d and s upp or te d by an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f of ab ou t 70 pe op le headed by a p r e s i d e n t and h i s Immediate s t a f f . In f a l l 1981, t h e s t u d e n t e n r o l l m e n t a t Saginaw Valley S t a t e C o lle ge was 4 , 3 5 5 . This number can be broken down a s f o l l o w s : Men Women 1,934 2-1-42J 4,355 Full time P a r t time 2,709 1.646 4,355 6 On campus Off campus^ 4,035 201 4,355 Dormitory-housed s t u d e n t s Commuter s t u d e n t s Age— 25 y e a r s or o l d e r Age—25 y e a r s o r younger 481 3,874 4,355 1,965 2*230 4,355 Almost h a l f of t h e s t u d e n t s a t Saginaw Valley a r e over 25 y e a r s of age. However, t h i s s tu dy d e a l t w ith f i r s t - t i m e c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s , most of whom were between 17 and 19 y e a r s old. Sta te m e nt o f t h e Problem This s tu dy was un de rta k en 1n an a t t e m p t t o develop p r o f i l e s o f p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s from t h e e n t e r i n g c l a s s o f 1981 a t Saginaw Valley S t a t e College. The i n v e s t i g a t o r assumed t h a t c e r t a i n f a c t o r s might i n f l u e n c e t h e r e t e n t i o n of e n t e r i n g new s t u d e n t s . This assump­ t i o n was based on c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f e n t e r i n g c l a s s e s , although no s t u d i e s have been conducted t o v a l i d a t e t h e th e ory . Saginaw Valley i s s t r i v i n g t o improve t h e r e t e n t i o n r a t e of entering classes. The r e s e a r c h e r decided t h a t devel opi ng s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s would b e s t p ro vid e t h e i n f o r m a t i o n needed t o allow school o f f i c i a l s t o a d d r e s s p o t e n t i a l school l e a v e r s . P r o f i l e s were developed f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g e i g h t groups: ^Saginaw Valley has some off -campus c o u r s e o f f e r i n g s a t Oscoda and Caro, Michigan. Three hundred two s t u d e n t s t ook c l a s s e s a t t h e s e centers. 7 Males on campus who r e t u r n e d w i n t e r term 1982 Females on campus who r e t u r n e d w i n t e r term 1982 Males o f f campus who r e t u r n e d w i n t e r term 1982 Females o f f campus who r e t u r n e d w i n t e r term 1982 Males on campus who di d no t r e t u r n w i n t e r term 1982 Females on campus who did no t r e t u r n w i n t e r term 1982 Males o f f campus who did n o t r e t u r n w i n t e r term 1982 Females o f f campus who did n o t r e t u r n w i n t e r term 1982 This stu dy 1s unique because of t h e development of s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s t o be used as p r e d i c t o r s of r e t e n t i o n . A review of r e c e n t 1 i t e r a t u r e I n d i c a t e d l i t t l e ev id en c e of s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s having been used t o p r e d i c t r e t e n t i o n . Some w r i t e r s have devised p r o f i l e s t o examine c u r r e n t r e t e n t i o n ; t h i s I n v e s t i g a t o r has developed p r o f i l e s t o p re d ic t re te n tio n for f i r s t - t i m e entering college students. Purpose o f t h e Study The I n v e s t i g a t o r was concerned with d i s c o v e r i n g t h e v a r i a b l e s t h a t a f f e c t s t u d e n t a t t r i t i o n a t Saginaw Valley S t a t e College. S e l e c t e d f a c t o r s were examined t h a t might d i s t i n g u i s h between male and fe m a le p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s , on-campus and off -campus p e r s l s t e r s and l e a v e r s , and p e r s l s t e r s and l e a v e r s 1n g e n e r a l. A s p e c i f i c s e t of v a r i a b l e s was s t u d i e d t o d e t e r m i n e whether they a r e r e l a t e d t o a s t u ­ d e n t 's l e a v i n g or c o n t i n u i n g 1n s cho ol. The prim ary purpose of t h i s study was t o examine t h e 1981 e n t e r i n g c l a s s a t Saginaw Valley S t a t e College t o se e 1f s p e c i f i c s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s could be developed t o p r e d i c t p o t e n t i a l school l e a v e r s and s t a y e r s . 1981. The study was l i m i t e d t o t h e sample group o f 380 f o r f a l l I t was a l s o l i m i t e d t o t h e f i r s t s e m e s t e r of f a l l 1981, and 8 p r o f i l e s were developed a t t h e end of t h e f i r s t s e m e s te r . E i g h t popu­ l a t i o n groups were I d e n t i f i e d , based on sex, on-campus or off-ca mpu s residence, and p e r s i s t e n c e or n o n p e r s i s t e n c e as s t u d e n t s . The I n v e s t i ­ g a t o r assumed t h a t 1f a d e f i n i t e s t u d e n t p r o f i l e could be developed t h a t would a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t school p e r s l s t e r s and l e a v e r s w i t h i n each of t h e s e groups, Saginaw Val ley S t a t e C o ll e g e could de sign an e f f e c t i v e s t u d e n t - r e t e n t i o n program. Because l e s s money i s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e c o l l e g e now th a n 1n t h e p a s t , budget and personnel r e d u c t i o n s have In c r e a s e d t h e work load of employees re m a in in g a t t h e c o l l e g e . If p o t e n t i a l school l e a v e r s can be i d e n t i f i e d , school personnel working 1n t h e a r e a of s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n can use t h e i r t i m e more adv ant ag eo usl y in a s s i s t i n g t h i s group d i r e c t l y . Hyp.fittlSg.gg The f o l l o w i n g t e s t a b l e n u l l hy po the ses were f o r m u l a t e d t o a n a ly z e t h e d a ta c o l l e c t e d 1n t h e s tu d y . Hypothesis 1 : No v a r i a b l e s f o r some of t h e s t u d e n t groups w i l l e x i s t t h a t w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t f o r male and f e m a le p e r s l s t e r s and leavers. Hypothesis 2 : No v a r i a b l e s f o r some of t h e s t u d e n t groups w i l l e x i s t t h a t w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t f o r on-campus and off -campus per­ s l s t e r s and l e a v e r s . Hypothesis 3 : No v a r i a b l e s f o r some of t h e s t u d e n t groups w i l l e x i s t t h a t w i l l be s i g n i f i c a n t f o r p e r s l s t e r s and l e a v e r s , 1n general. The d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s pro c e d u re was used t o a n a l y z e t h e d a t a r e l a t e d t o t h e s e hypotheses. de te r m in e t h e s t a t i s t i c a l s tu dy. The .05 c r i t e r i o n l e v e l was used t o s i g n i f i c a n c e of each v a r i a b l e used 1n t h i s 9 D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms The f o l l o w i n g t e r m s a re d e fi n e d 1n t h e c o n t e x t 1n which they a r e used 1n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . A ttrition: l e a v i n g school. The l o s s of f u l l - t i m e s t u d e n t s as a r e s u l t of t h e i r The term " a t t r i t i o n " 1s used only when s pea kin g 1n g e n e r a l i t i e s and In r e f e r e n c e t o groups of s t u d e n t l e a v e r s . C olle ge f i t : The academic, p h y s i c a l , and s o d a ! atmo sph ere of t h e c o l l e g e and s t u d e n t t h a t l e a d s t o a c o m f o r t a b l e s i t u a t i o n f o r t h e student. D ro p- ou t: The same as a school l e a v e r . However, t h e r e s e a r c h e r chose t o use t h e term "school l e a v e r " u n l e s s d i r e c t l y quoting another w rite r. Leaver: A s t u d e n t who did n ot r e t u r n t o school as a f u l l - t i m e s t u d e n t f o r w i n t e r term 1982 a t Saginaw Va lley S t a t e C o ll e g e. P erslster: A s t u d e n t who r e t u r n e d t o school as a f u l l - t i m e s t u d e n t f o r w i n t e r term 1982 a t Saginaw Valley S t a t e C o ll e g e. Retention: The maintenance 1n school of f u l l - t i m e s t u d e n t s who c o n ti n u e t o make p ro g r e s s toward a degree. Stop-out: A s t u d e n t who l e a v e s school wit h t h e f u l l I n t e n t i o n o f r e t u r n i n g a f t e r a s h o r t time. D e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study In f o r m u l a t i n g t h e s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h , t h e I n v e s t i g a t o r Imposed some d e l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e p o p u l a t i o n of s t u d e n t s on whom t h e p r o f i l e s were based. f o r t h i s study. The e n t e r i n g c l a s s f o r 1981 was used F u r t h e r co mparisons wi th p a s t e n t e r i n g c l a s s e s can be 10 made, but 1t 1s assumed t h a t each c l a s s 1s unique. Although t h e e n t i r e e n t e r i n g c l a s s a t Saginaw Val ley S t a t e C o lle ge f o r 1981 was examined, t h e study was d e l i m i t e d t o f i r s t - t i m e s t u d e n t s . Likewise, data on t h e fol lo wi ng groups were not used 1n compiling t h e s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s . Part-tim e students: not used 1n t h i s study. S t u d e n t s c a r r y i n g 11 hours or l e s s were S t u d e n t s who o r i g i n a l l y e n r o l l e d f o r a f u l l - t i m e load and through c o u r s e dropping f e l l t o a p a r t - t i m e le vel were not Included 1n t h e study. Because of t h e number of p a r t - t i m e s t u d e n t s a t Saginaw Valley and e d u c a t i o n e x p e r t s ’ e x p r e s s io n of d i f f e r ­ ences 1n r e t e n t i o n between f u l l - and p a r t - t i m e s t u d e n t s , t h e w r i t e r b e li e v e d t h a t t h e two groups of s t u d e n t s sho uld be s t u d i e d s e p a r a t e l y ; t h e r e f o r e , p a r t - t i m e s t u d e n t s were n o t i n c lu d e d 1n t h e study. Transfer students: T r a n s f e r s t u d e n t s were not used 1n t h e study because t h e u n c o n t r o l l e d v a r i a b l e s Involve d would not have s u p p li e d t h e Inf orm ation needed t o develop a c c u r a t e s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s . Handicapped s t u d e n t s ; Because of t h e number of handicapped s t u d e n t s a t Saginaw Valley and t h e v a r i e t y of t h e i r ha ndicaps, 1t was decided t h a t t h i s group should be s t u d i e d s e p a r a t e l y ; t h e r e f o r e , they were not Included 1n t h e s tu dy . Instrumentation The E n t e r i n g S tu de nt Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s er ved as t h e da ta base f o r t h i s study. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was provided by t h e National Center f o r Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS) 1n Boulder, Colorado. The a ct u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1s reproduced in a manual Is su e d by NCHEMS, t i t l e d 11 Student-Outcomes Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s : An Implementat1on_BaDdbfl-Q_k. According t o NCHEMS, t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e has been used 1n s e v e r a l o t h e r r e t e n t i o n s t u d i e s unde rta ken by c o l l e g e s th ro ug ho ut t h e co un try . P e t e r T. Ewell, S e n i o r S t a f f A s s o c i a t e f o r NCHEMS, r e v e a le d t h a t two o t h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s of h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n a r e usin g t h e En te ri ng S tu d e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1n s im ila r reten tio n studies. He r e l a t e d t h a t only North C a r o li n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and Towson S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y have conducted s t u d i e s s i m i l a r t o t h e p r e s e n t one. He a l s o I n d i c a t e d t h a t Towson S t a t e and Saginaw Val ley S t a t e a r e of s i m i l a r s i z e and c o n f i g u r a t i o n and t h a t t h e s t u d i e s a t t h e two i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e p a r a l l e l . D a ta - A n a ly s is Procedures The d a ta g a t h e r e d f o r t h i s study were used t o I d e n t i f y c h a r a c ­ t e r i s t i c s of t h e e i g h t groups I n t o which t h e s t u d e n t sample was div id e d . The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e Social Scie nce s program (N1e, H ull , J e n k i n s , St e 1n bre nn e r, & Bent, 1975), with t h e subprogram Dis­ c r i m i n a n t , was used t o examine t h e da ta. Each e n t e r i n g s t u d e n t from t h e c l a s s of 1981 f i l l e d ou t t h e Entering Student Questionnaire. a computer. Responses were t a b u l a t e d and fed I n t o From t h i s d a t a bank, using t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s syst em , I n f o r m a t i o n was s e l e c t e d t o develop p o s s i b l e p r o f i l e s r e g a r d i n g r e t e n t i o n f o r t h e e i g h t groups 1n t h i s stu dy. The .05 l e v e l was used t o I n d i c a t e v a r i a b l e s t h a t were s i g n i f i ­ c a n t t o t h e study. The s t e p w i s e method of d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was performed on t h e r e m a in in g s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s a s they s p e c i f i ­ c a l l y p e r t a i n e d t o t h e e i g h t groups 1n t h e study. A cross-tabulation 12 procedure was t h e n performed on t h e remaining s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s t o show t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p t o s t a y i n g o r l e av i ng . The s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s were developed from t h i s I n f o rm a ti o n . Overview Chapter I c o n ta i n e d t h e background of t h e s tu dy, a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s e t t i n g , s t a t e m e n t of t h e problem, and pu rposes of t h e r e s e a r c h . The hypotheses t e s t e d 1n t h e I n v e s t i g a t i o n were s t a t e d and Im p o r t a n t terms d e f in e d . Chapter I I c o n t a i n s a review of l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d t o s t u d e n t p e r s i s t e n c e and a t t r i t i o n . I n c lu de d a r e such t o p i c s as re a so n s s t u d e n t s le a v e s c h o o l, p r e d i c t o r s of s t u d e n t a t t r i t i o n and r e t e n t i o n , e f f e c t s of f i n a n c i a l a i d on p e r s i s t e n c e , m i n o r i t i e s and r e t e n t i o n , r e t e n t i o n models, r e t e n t i o n a t t h e community c o l l e g e l e v e l , and s o l u t i o n s t o t h e problem of a t t r i t i o n . The s t a t i s t i c a l pr o c e d u re s f ol l ow e d 1n t h e study a r e e x p la i n e d 1n Chapter I I I . In a d d i t i o n , t h e stu dy sample 1s d e s c r i b e d . R e s u l t s of t h e d a t a a n a l y s i s a r e found 1n Chapter IV. Chap­ t e r V I n c l u d e s a summary of t h e stu dy, f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , recom­ mendations, and I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u t u r e re s e a rc h . CHAPTER I I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Much has been w r i t t e n about s t u d e n t p e r s i s t e n c e and a t t r i t i o n . Because of t h e l a r g e amount of l i t e r a t u r e a v a i l a b l e , only t h e most r e c e n t w r i t i n g s on t h e s u b j e c t a r e reviewed in t h i s c h a p t e r . The fo l l o w i n g t o p i c s a r e d i s c u s s e d , and each i s pla ced in a r e l a t e d s e c t i o n f o r rev ie w: Reasons f o r Leaving School, P r e d i c t o r s o f S t u d e n t A t t r i ­ t i o n and R e t e n t i o n , The E f f e c t s of Fi n a n c ia l Aid on P e r s i s t e n c e , M i n o r i t i e s and R e t e n t i o n , R e t e n t i o n Models, R e t e n ti o n a t t h e Community College Level, and S o l u t i o n s t o t h e Problem of A t t r i t i o n . Reasons f o r Leaving School In P r e v e n t i n g S tu d e n t s From Dropping Out, A st ln (1975) l i s t e d 14 re aso ns s t u d e n t s gave f o r dropping o u t of s c h o o l : Boredom with c o u r s e s Financial d i f f i c u l t i e s Marrlage Pregnancy Family r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s Poor gra de s D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with requirem en ts D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with r e g u l a t i o n s Change In c a r e e r g o a ls I n a b i l i t y t o t a k e d e s i r e d c o u rs es Good j o b o f f e r I ll n e s s or accident 13 14 D i f f i c u l t y in commuting t o c o l l e g e Disciplinary troubles None of t h e s e r e a s o n s was s a i d t o be more I m por ta nt tha n a n o t h e r . In a U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a study (1980), a t a s k group was a p poin te d t o stu dy a t t r i t i o n . The t a s k group found s e l e c t e d I n s t a n c e s of high r i s i n g a t t r i t i o n a t some campuses, f o r some e t h n i c groups , and f o r c o m m unity -c ol le ge t r a n s f e r s t u d e n t s from high school o r f o r t h o s e who had low t r a n s f e r g ra d e s. Ramish (1981) reviewed r e s e a r c h c oncer nin g s t u d e n t s ' re a so ns f o r l e a v i n g scho ol. He compiled t h e f o l l o w i n g l i s t of re a so n s s t u d e n t s c i t e d most o f t e n f o r le a v i n g sc h o o l: academic m a t t e r s , f i n a n c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , m o t i v a t i o n a l problems, pe rsonal c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , d i s s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n w it h c o l l e g e , m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e , and f u l l - t i m e job. developed t o show l i k e l y p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s . A c h a r t was No emphasis was p la c e d on which of t h e re a so ns was more im p o r ta n t. DeWolf (1978) surveyed a sample group of s t u d e n t s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Washington. All of t h e s t u d e n t s surveyed had been e n r o l l e d in school f o r t h e f a l l q u a r t e r but did no t r e t u r n f o r t h e ne xt quarter. Respondents were grouped acc or din g t o t h e i r f i r s t - m e n t i o n e d r e a s o n s f o r not c o n t i n u i n g s c h o o l: g r a du a ted , f i n a n c i a l , on l e a v e , f a m i l y problems, t r a n s f e r r i n g , d i s s a t i s f i e d w it h t h e u n i v e r s i t y , j o b , o r j u s t wanted time o f f . In a l o n g i t u d i n a l s tu d y , Endo (1979) found t h a t academic a b i l i t y and frequency of usi ng academic a d v i s i n g s o u r c e s were t h e most I m p o r t a n t d i s t i n g u i s h i n g v a r i a b l e s w it h re ga rd t o keeping s t u d e n t s in school. 15 Approximately 1,000 d r o p - o u t / s t o p - o u t s t u d e n t s from t h e U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a a t San Diego were surveyed t o d e t e r m i n e why they l e f t school (Bieschke, 1978). Bieschke concluded t h a t t o l e s s e n a t t r i t i o n , emphasis was needed on developing a communal atmos phe re, a d v e r t i s i n g s t u d e n t s e r v i c e s , and expanding t h e school c u r r i c u l u m . Through a q u e s t i o n n a i r e a d m i n i s t e r e d a t North Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Novak (1978) d is c o v e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g major rea so ns f o r s t u d e n t s dropping o u t of s c h o o l ; la c k of f i n a n c e s , need f o r a break, d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n w it h t h e u n i v e r s i t y , and c r i t i c i s m of t h e s t u d e n t a f f a i r s pers onnel . According t o Richard (1976), f o u r ma jor r e a s o n s f o r s t u d e n t s n o t r e t u r n i n g t o school a t North C a r o l i n a U n i v e r s i t y a t Greensboro were f i n a n c e s , m a r r i a g e , h e a l t h problems, and bad g r a d e s . Cohan (1979) conducted a study t o compare males' and f e m a l e s ' r e a s o n s f o r l e a v i n g schoo l. R e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d male n o n p e r s i s t e r s came from low socioeconomic backgrounds and d e m on st ra te d low high school g r a d e s , whereas fe m a le n o n p e r s i s t e r s o f t e n were m a r r i e d , f e l t c o l l e g e was n o t im p o r ta n t, and had low high school g ra d e s. Garber (1977) found t h a t s t u d e n t s a d m i t t e d t o c o l l e g e th ro ugh a s p e c i a l - a d m i s s i o n s program were more a p t t o drop o u t tha n were s t u d e n t s a d m i t t e d thr oug h t h e r e g u l a r ad m is si on s pro ce ss. The st ud y was con­ ducted a t t h e S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of New York a t OSwego. Bakshis (1979) i n v e s t i g a t e d s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n a t T r i t o n Col­ lege. A survey of 500 s t u d e n t s 1n f a l l 1978 i n d i c a t e d t h a t n o n r e t u r n ­ ing s t u d e n t s had d i f f e r e n t e d u c a ti o n a l o b j e c t i v e s and r e q u i r e m e n t s th a n r e t u r n i n g s t u d e n t s and were l e s s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e i r g o a l s had been 16 met. N on re tur nin g s t u d e n t s p o in te d t o a poor c o l l e g e f i t as t h e main r e a so n f o r l e a v i n g . According t o F r o s t (1980), who s t u d i e d l a t e o r d e l a y e d - e n t e r i n g s t u d e n t s in Canada, m o t i v a t i o n seemed t o be s t u d e n t s 1 primary reason f o r e n r o l l i n g 1n c o l l e g e . Those who f a i l e d c i t e d "not f i t t i n g 1n," r u s t y st u dy h a b i t s , and f i n a n c i a l and f a m i l y problems as t h e main re a so n s f o r l e a v i n g scho ol. F r o s t advise d p ro v id i n g s p e c i a l c o u n s e li n g fo r older students. In summary, s e v e r a l r e a s o n s f o r l e a v i n g school have been documented in t h e l i t e r a t u r e . The f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s were most frequently c ite d : Low high school gra de p o i n t av erage Financial d i f f i c u l t i e s Employment, 20 hours per week t o f u l l time Lack of c o l l e g e f i t Lack of c o u n s e l i n g C ar ee r i n d e c i s i o n Family problems Beginning poor academic s k i l l s Housing on campus Need f o r time o f f Need f o r more s t u d e n t s e r v i c e s Need f o r b e t t e r p e e r c o n t a c t Personal problems, I . e . , h e a l t h , fami ly Lack o f goal s e t t i n g Need f o r s p e c i a l programs f o r t h o s e s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d on s p e c i a l a d m it ta n c e Need f o r b e t t e r s t u d e n t - f a c u l t y r e l a t i o n s P r e d i c t o r s o f S tu d e n t A t t r i t i o n and Ret en tio n A st in (1975) wrote t h a t seven f a c t o r s can be used t o p r e d i c t which s t u d e n t s w i l l le a v e s c h o o l : 17 Low high school grades Low a s p i r a t i o n s Poor study h a b i t s R e l a t i v e l y uneducated p a r e n t s Small-town background Being o l d e r No r e l i g i o u s p r e f e r e n c e None o f t h e s e f a c t o r s was s a i d t o be more i m p o r ta n t th a n o t h e r s . At t h e U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley* Frank and J e f f r e y (1978) r e p o r t e d t h a t r a i s i n g t h e e n t e r i n g gr ad e p o i n t average r e q u i r e ­ ments f o r new freshmen from 3.0 t o 3 3 only s l i g h t l y a f f e c t e d r e t e n ­ tion. The h ig h e r high school grade p o i n t average was p r e d i c t i v e of s t a y i n g in school. As a r e s u l t of a study he conducted a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa* Siryk (1981) concluded t h a t t h e s t u d e n t - i n s t i t u t i o n f i t could be used to predict a tt r it i o n . S tu d e n ts who l e f t t h e u n i v e r s i t y seemed t o be l e s s s o c i a l l y and ac a de m ic a lly a d j u s t e d than p e r s i s t i n g s t u d e n t s . Curran (1981) d i s c u s s e d t h e use of an e x i t survey t o p r e d i c t attrition. The most common re a so n s s t u d e n t s gave f o r l e a v i n g were c a r e e r pla n s, money, and academic re aso ns . The a u t h o r concluded t h a t t h e e x i t survey was us ef u l 1n drawing broad c o n c l u s i o n s about with dra w­ ing students. Zimmerman (1981) s t u d i e d p r e - e n r o l l m e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of nonpersisting students. He concluded t h a t t h e s m a l l e s t number of f a c t o r s t h a t m a in ta in t h e c u r r e n t l e v e l of p r e d i c t i o n of p e r s i s t e n c e should be developed and used in r e t e n t i o n s t u d i e s . In a study conducted by S h a f f e r (1981), 1 t was de mo nst rat ed t h a t a b i o g r a p h i c a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e can be a us ef ul p r e d i c t o r of s t u d e n t 18 retention. He found t h a t d r o p - o u t s and p e r s i s t e r s c oul d be d i f f e r e n ­ t i a t e d on t h e b a s i s of nonacademic background f a c t o r s . Kowalski (1977) found t h a t home and c o l l e g e env iro nm en ts , as well as pe rsonal and academic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , were I m p o r t a n t in p r e d i c t i n g s t u d e n t s u c c e s s 1n c o l l e g e . The r e s u l t s of t h i s re s ea rc h su ggest ed t h a t p o t e n t i a l c o l l e g e l e a v e r s can be I d e n t i f i e d e a r l y . In 1977, Gamble conducted an a t t i t u d i n a l survey a t Grand Valley S t a t e College in Michigan. He found t h a t s t u d e n t s w it h high re g a rd f o r h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n , and whose f a m i l i e s and p e er s f e l t t h e same, were more l i k e l y t o remain in school th a n t h o s e with l e s s regar d. In a l o n g i t u ­ dinal study of t h e high school c l a s s of 1972, Peng (1977) found t h a t withd raw al was more a m o t i v a t i o n a l th a n a socioeconomic problem. Sex, race, and economic background did no t appear t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o s t u d e n t le a v i n g . P e d r i n l and P e d r in i (1976) found t h a t t h e American College Te s t (ACT) was a l e g i t i m a t e p r e d i c t o r of c o l l e g e s u c c e s s . In comparing s p e c i a l e n t r i e s , r e g u l a r e n t r i e s , and m i n o r i t i e s , h i g h e r ACT s c o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n . In a second study by P e d r in i and P e d r i n i (1976), grade p o i n t av erage was t h e most s i g n i f i ­ c a n t p r e d i c t o r of a t t r i t i o n / p e r s i s t e n c e , making o t h e r p r e d i c t o r s appear unne ces sar y. Bradley and Lehmann (1975) s t u d i e d a t t r i t i o n a t Empire S t a t e Co llege of New York. They found t h a t d r o p - o u t s ten ded t o be younger th a n c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d s t u d e n t s , were s i n g l e , worked f u l l t i m e 1n l o w e r - s t a t u s o c c u p a ti o n s , and had been e n r o l l e d as h a l f - t i m e s t u d e n t s . 19 Those who la ck e d o r had poor s t u d e n t - m e n t o r r e l a t i o n s h i p s were more l i k e l y t o le a v e school th a n t h o s e wit h good s t u d e n t - m e n t o r relationships. G o ll f r e d s o n (1980) found t h a t a n x i e t y and commitment a r e good p r e d i c t o r s of p e r s i s t e n c e in ed uc at io n. She a l s o noted t h a t p e r s i s t ­ ence 1n e d u c a ti o n a l p u r s u i t s i s s t r o n g l y r e l a t e d t o t h e p r e s t i g e and income l e v e l of an oc cupation. Heerman (1981) examined rea di ng l e v e l as a p r e d i c t o r of school persistence. He noted t h a t I n v e s t i g a t o r s s e e k i n g t o v e r i f y re a d in g a chiev em ent as a v a l i d p r e d i c t o r of s t u d e n t s u c c e s s i n ' c o l le g e have found a moderate r e l a t i o n s h i p between re a d i n g ach ie ve m en t and p e r s i s t ­ ence. In summary, most r e s e a r c h e r s have assumed 1 t 1s p o s s i b l e t o p r e d i c t which s t u d e n t s a r e p o t e n t i a l school l e a v e r s . c i t e d p r e d i c t o r s of a t t r i t i o n a r e t h e f o l l o w i n g : Low high school grade p o i n t av er age Low ACT t e s t s c o r e s Low a s p i r a t i o n No commitment t o a c o l l e g e major Poor study h a b i t s Smal1-town background Being o l d e r No r e l i g i o u s p r e f e r e n c e Not l i v i n g on campus Home a t t i t u d e toward c o l l e g e Peer a t t i t u d e toward c o l l e g e S o c i a l l y a c t i v e on campus Working f u l l time Being marr ie d Low re a d in g a b i l i t y The most commonly 20 The. Effect ? of F.1nanc ia 1_AjiLmJ?.g.rs.istereo In P r e v e n t i n g S tu d e n t s From DroDD.lng_.Qnl> Ast in (1975) p r e s e n t e d a comprehensive r e p o r t on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f f i n a n c i a l a id to persistence. He made t e n g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s c on cer nin g t h i s r e l a ­ tionship: Parental support is s i g n i f i c a n t I f s p o u s e ' s a id i s major, t h e s t u d e n t w i l l p e r s i s t ; 1f minor, t h e r e v e r s e w i l l be t r u e S c h o l a r s h i p s o r g r a n t s y i e l d small i n c r e a s e in p e r s i s t e n c e R e l i a n c e on l o a n s y i e l d s de creased p e r s i s t e n c e Federal work-study i s s i g n i f i c a n t t o p e r s i s t e n c e Savings on a s s e t s shows d e c r e a s e G . I . B i l l s u p p o r t i s n e g a t i v e ( no t su re ) ROTC s t i p e n d 1s s t r o n g l y f o r p e r s i s t e n c e Work-study programs b e s t f o r p e r s i s t e r with money a v a i l a b l e Aid packages no t as good as i n d i v i d u a l money programs In a study she conducted a t North G r e e n v i l l e Colle ge in f a l l 1975, S c o t t (1978) found t h a t t h e r e appeared t o be a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between r e c e i p t of f i n a n c i a l a id and s t u d e n t s ' p e r s i s t e n c e and g r a d u a t e r a t e s . community c o l l e g e , In h i s review of s t u d e n t w ith dr aw al from a F l o r i d a Sutton (1975) had f i n d i n g s o p p o s i t e t o S c o t t ' s . He concluded t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between t h e w i t h ­ drawal r a t e s o f f i n a n c i a l - a i d r e c i p i e n t s and n o n r e c i p i e n t s . Sutton a l s o found t h a t G.I. B i l l r e c i p i e n t s did not show a h i g h e r withdraw al r a t e th a n o t h e r s r e c e i v i n g f i n a n c i a l aid. According t o t h e l i t e r a t u r e , s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g f u l l f i n a n c i a l a i d t i e d in w it h l a r g e l o a n s a r e more l i k e l y t o p e r s i s t th a n th o s e paying on a per so nal b a s i s . The most p e r s i s t e n t s t u d e n t s were t h o s e on p a r t i a l a i d who were working p a r t t i m e t o pay f o r t h e i r s ch ool in g. In 21 g e n e r a l , 1 t was found t h a t most p e r s l s t e r s w i l l s t a y 1n school because of f i n a n c i a l a i d . M i n o r i t i e s and R et en ti o n At Stevens I n s t i t u t e of Technology, Simmons and Maxwell (1980) reviewed s p e c i a l programs d i r e c t e d a t I n c r e a s i n g m i n o r i t y r e t e n t i o n . Areas th e y I n v e s t i g a t e d Inclu de d communication Improvement; b e t t e r r e l a t i o n s w it h t h e home, high s ch ool, and community; f i n a n c i a l a id ; s e n s i t i v i t y c o u n s e l i n g ; I n s t r u c t i o n a l s u p p o r t ; and s t a f f t r a i n i n g . P r o p e r l y a d m i n i s t e r e d programs 1n t h e s e a r e a s I n c r e a s e d r e t e n t i o n . Another m u l t i f a c e t e d approach t o i n c r e a s i n g m i n o r i t y r e t e n t i o n was used by West e t a l . (1980) a t a community c o l l e g e in C ent ral Florida. Areas of emphasis were s p e c i a l o b j e c t i v e s f o r s t u d e n t sup­ port, s p e d a l - s k l l l s courses, Intensive counseling, t u t o r i a l a s s i s t ­ ance, s p e c i a l r e f e r r a l s e r v i c e , t e a c h i n g a s s i s t a n c e , and f i n a n c i a l ai d. I t was found t h a t s t u d e n t s Involved 1n t h e s e programs te nd ed t o s t a y in school. Meyers and Drevlow (1982) r e p o r t e d on a s p e c i a l summer program f o r m i n o r i t i e s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , San Diego. Results showed t h a t a t t h e beg inn ing of f a l l q u a r t e r 1981, a f t e r t h e "summer b r i d g e program," m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s who had ta ke n p a r t in t h e program had a 31% h ig h e r r e t e n t i o n r a t e tha n t h o s e who had n o t p a r t i c i p a t e d In t h e program. Copeland (1976) a t t e m p t e d t o d i s c o v e r t h e re a s o n s f o r b l a c k s t u d e n t a t t r i t i o n a t pre do m in a ntly w h i t e I n s t i t u t i o n s . Too many and t o o few p e e r e x p e c t a t i o n s were seen t o b r i n g a bou t a t t r i t i o n . Many 22 s t u d e n t s had bad e x p e r i e n c e s a t t h e w h i t e c o l l e g e s , and d i s c r i m i n a t i o n was found t o c aus e a t t r i t i o n of black s t u d e n t s a t w h i t e c o l l e g e s . Summarizing A s t i n ' s (1976) s tu d y , t h e most I m p o r t a n t a r e a s a f f e c t i n g a t t r i t i o n a t black c o l l e g e s were f i n a n c i a l a i d , r e s i d e n c e and campus en vironm ent, employment, and t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e c o l l e g e . From 1973 t o 1978, Rosenthal (1980) I n v e s t i g a t e d t h e p e r s i s t e n c e of e n t e r i n g freshmen a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . He found t h a t Chlcanos had t h e h i g h e s t noncompletion r a t e ; Aslans and b la c k s had t h e ne xt h i g h e s t r a t e of noncompletion. According t o Gore (1975), a s p e c i a l r e c r u i t m e n t program f o r Mex1can-Amer1can s t u d e n t s a t Reedley C olle ge showed f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t s . He a t t r i b u t e d t h e s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r p e r s i s t e n c e of t h e MexlcanAmerleans a t Reedley C olle ge t o more e f f e c t i v e r e c r u i t i n g , peer a d v i s i n g , f i n a n c i a l a i d , and o t h e r s u p p o r t i v e s e r v i c e s . G u t i e r r e z (1981) surveyed Chicano s t u d e n t s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Southern Colorado t o d e t e r m i n e why th e y were l e a v i n g school b e f o r e completing t h e i r studies. Although t h e stu dy f i n d i n g s were not con­ s i s t e n t , more th a n h a l f o f t h e s t u d e n t s surv ey ed mentioned f i n a n c e s as a re aso n f o r l e a v i n g school. In summary, some s p e c i a l programs t a r g e t e d a t upgrading academic s k i l l s of l o w - a c h i e v i n g m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s have aided 1n m lnority-student retention. E xte ns iv e c o u n s e l i n g has been found t o h e lp m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s deal with s o d a ! problems a t predo mina ntly w h it e colleges. Such c o u n s e l i n g a id ed 1n r e t e n t i o n . Peer e x p e r i e n c e s a l s o play an I m p o r t a n t r o l e 1n m l n o r i t y - s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n . In both 23 pre do m in a n tly w h it e and b la ck c o l l e g e s , f i n a n c i a l a id p l a y s an Impor­ t a n t r o l e in keeping m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s 1n s ch ool. R e t e n t i o n Models The National C e n t e r f o r Higher Educ ation Management Systems (NCHEMS) developed a s t u d e n t - f l o w model t o show a r e a s 1n which s t u d e n t movement from c o l l e g e t a k e s pla ce. G i l b e r t (1975) designed t h e s t u d e n t - f l o w model with t h r e e components: H i s t o r i c a l Model— a h i s t o r i ­ cal base f o r f u r t h e r p r o j e c t i o n s , Admissions Model— c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of new s t u d e n t s , and T r a n s i t i o n Model— a look a t f u t u r e e n r o l l m e n t s . Data were c o l l e c t e d on r e a s o n s f o r l e a v i n g school and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of d r op- ou ts . A year l a t e r , G i l b e r t (1976) c om pile d f i n d i n g s o f f o ll o w - u p studies. The NCHEMS p u b li s h e d a manual devoted t o i n f o r m a t i o n about s t u d e n t s (Bower, 1974). The i n t e n t i o n of t h i s p r o j e c t was t o develop and p i l o t t e s t a q u e s t i o n n a i r e and accompanying p ro c e du re s t h a t would h e lp i n s t i t u t i o n a l pe rsonnel u n de rs tan d and e x p l a i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l a t t r i t i o n problems and t o t a k e t h e needed a c t i o n t o s o l v e t h e s e problems. C ol le ges 1n which a r e t e n t i o n model i s used t o a i d 1n r e t e n t i o n a r e more s u c c e s s f u l 1n i n c r e a s i n g p e r s i s t e n c e th a n c o l l e g e s 1n which such models a r e no t used. 24 R e t e n ti o n a t t h e Commun1tv-Co1lege Level Because some of t h e e a r l i e s t work on c o l l e g e r e t e n t i o n was done a t t h e c om m un lty -c o lle ge l e v e l and t h e a v a i l a b l e r e s e a r c h 1s so v a s t , t h e I n v e s t i g a t o r covered t h i s a r e a f a i r l y e x t e n s i v e l y . Lee (1980) r e p o r t e d on a study conducted a t Middlesex Community C o lle ge t h a t was aimed a t i n c r e a s i n g r e t e n t i o n of l o w - a b i l l t y s t u d e n t s . Two f iv e -w e e k s e s s i o n s b e f o r e r e g u l a r e n r o l l m e n t focused on s k i l l - b u i l d i n g courses* m o t i v a t i o n and s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e * I d e n t i f y i n g i n d i v i d u a l needs* a d d i t i o n a l c o u n s e l i n g as needed* t u t o r i n g , and f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e . The r e t e n t i o n l e v e l of s t u d e n t s who p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e s e s e s s i o n s Increased. In n o r t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a , 23 community c o l l e g e s j o i n e d 1n a v e n t u r e c a l l e d NORCAL t o develop a program t o a n a ly z e f a c t o r s c o n t r i b ­ u t i n g t o a t t r i t i o n and t o Implement ex p er im en t al p la n s designed t o Improve r e t e n t i o n (NORCAL, 1980). I t was found t h a t s h a r in g info rm a­ t i o n was usef ul t o t h e I n d i v i d u a l s c h o o l s ’ r e t e n t i o n programs. Lara (1980) r e p o r t e d on a surve y of 508 p e r s i s t i n g s t u d e n t s and 316 d r o p - o u t s a t UCLA Community College. He found t h a t p e r s i s t e n c e and grade p o i n t average were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o a s t u d e n t ’s t r a n s f e r ­ r i n g t o a n o t h e r school o r l e a v i n g c o l l e g e a l t o g e t h e r . In a n o th e r study d e a l i n g wit h UCLA p e r s l s t e r s and n o n p e r s i s t e r s , 1 t was found t h a t t h e two groups d i f f e r e d 1n t e r m s of demographics, s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n , and measures of q u a l i t y of e f f o r t based on t h e sending sc ho ols . In t h i s s tu dy , Cardinal (1981) r e p o r t e d on p e r s i s t e n c e of t r a n s f e r s t u d e n t s , c o n t r a s t i n g them with n a t i v e s t u d e n t s . 25 Wal le ri (1981) r e p o r t e d on r e t e n t i o n in Oregon community colleges. In t h e t h i r d of a f i v e - p a r t report* he po in te d o u t t h a t some forms of a t t r i t i o n may be c o n g r u e n t w it h s t u d e n t s ' o b j e c t i v e s . He a l s o examined a t t r i t i o n s t a t i s t i c s f o r a t y p i c a l community c o l l e g e and compared i t t o a s t a t e w i d e stu dy wit h s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . Horvath (1979) developed a handbook t o a i d in t h e r e t e n t i o n e f f o r t a t J e f f e r s o n Community College. Id e a s t o encourage s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n focused on f a c u l t y - s t u d e n t i n t e r a c t i o n , gener al clas sroom management* and s t u d e n t - i n i t i a t e d a c t i v i t i e s . P r o j e c t HELP was und e rt a k en a t Sacramento City. College in 1978. Bohr (1979) r e p o r t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s in t h i s p r o j e c t worked wit h I n s t r u c t o r s and t u t o r s 1n small groups and on a o n e - t o - o n e b a s i s . i n t e r a c t i v e t e a m - t e a c h i n g approach was a l s o used. An Favor ab le r e s u l t s were r e p o r t e d ; however* no co mp ar at iv e stu dy was a v a i l a b l e . Reeb (1979) re vi e w ed Barstow C o l l e g e ' s c a l e n d a r e x pe r im en t and found t h a t , 1n 1976, s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n had i n c r e a s e d markedly f o l l o w i n g a change from a s e m e s t e r t o a q u a r t e r system. However* t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e study 1s 1n q u e s t i o n be cau se o f q u e s t i o n a b l e d a t a . At Klngsborough Community College* W1liner (1979) conducted a stud y t o I d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l d r o p - o u t s . He d is c o v e r e d high school gr ad e p o i n t average* curriculum * r e a s o n s f o r going t o c o l l e g e , c e r t a i n t y of oc cu p a ti o n a l c ho ic e , p a r e n t s ' a t t i t u d e to w ard h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , and a good r a t i n g of Klngsborough were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o p e r s i s t e n c e and r e t e n t i o n . 26 Baker (1977) found d i f f e r e n c e s 1n f e m a l e school l e a v e r s a t a smal l Utah community c o l l e g e . Females who were lo w e r achieving* e x p e r ie n c e d l e s s f a m i l y harmony* and had more pe rs onal problems were more l i k e l y t o le a v e school th a n were o t h e r female s t u d e n t s . In a study on d is ad va nta ge d c o m m u n lt y -c o ll e g e s t u d e n t s , Stevenson (1979) developed t h e f o l l o w i n g program. The s t u d e n t s were t a u g h t by 14 I n s t r u c t o r s and too k t h e i r c o u r s e s 1n blocks of t i m e t h a t ke pt them t o g e t h e r 1n s m a l l e r groups. The p e r s i s t e n c e r a t e o f t h e s e s t u d e n t s was much h i g h e r th a n t h a t of t h e s t u d e n t body as a whole. Mercer County Community Col lege (1978) developed a co mp ute rt r a c i n g program f o r e n t e r i n g freshmen, t o be used 1n a t t r i t i o n study. The system was s u c c e s s f u l 1n c a t a l o g i n g and t r a c i n g s t u d e n t s . Each s t u d e n t was c a t e g o r i z e d as t o schedule* g ra d e s, and background I n f o r ­ ma tio n. D e lt a Community C o ll e g e 1n Michigan has s t u d i e d g o a ls as a means of stemming a t t r i t i o n . In one such study* Brunner (1978) d is c o v e re d t h a t evening s t u d e n t s were more l i k e l y th a n day s t u d e n t s t o l e a v e , 40% of t h e s t u d e n t s w it h fe w er t h a n 10 c r e d i t s l e f t , o l d e r s t u d e n t s were more H k e l y t o l e a v e th a n younger s t u d e n t s , and 20% of t h e s t u d e n t s surveyed s a i d t h e i r goal accomplishment was i m p o r t a n t . l a r k l n (1977) r e p o r t e d on c o u rs e w it h d ra w a l a t P r i n c e George Community Co lle ge 1n Maryland. He recommended a l l o w i n g s t u d e n t s t o drop c o u r s e s r a t h e r tha n t o f a i l t h e course. He a l s o recommended dev eloping a s o l i d s t u d e n t - c o n t a c t system, usi ng c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n u n i t s , and t r a i n i n g f a c u l t y t o i d e n t i f y s t u d e n t o b j e c t i v e s . 27 Wetzel (1977) r e p o r t e d on a survey of n o n r e t u r n i n g s t u d e n t s a t Delaware County Community College. Major r e a s o n s f o r l e a v i n g were t r a n s f e r t o a n o t h e r s c h o o l, home o r work o b l i g a t i o n s , f i n a n c i a l problems, and moving from t h e are a. At Essex County Co lle ge, s t u d e n t s I n d i c a t e d f i n a n c i a l o r f a m i l y problems as t h e i r major re a so n s f o r l e a v i n g school (McMillan, 1977). Pre1s1ng (1979) conducted a study of e x t e n d e d - o p p o r t u n l t y programs and s e r v i c e s . de n ts f o r f a l l early exit. 1973. The s tu dy d e a l t w it h f 1 r s t - t 1 m e e n t e r i n g s t u ­ He found t h a t low a s p i r a t i o n s le d t o s t u d e n t s ' S1xty-two p e r c e n t of t h e s u c c e s s f u l s t u d e n t s s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r goal was an a s s o c i a t e degree. Based on a f o l l o w - u p s tu d y conducted a t West Los Angeles C ol le ge 1n 1977, Garber (1979) l i s t e d s e v e r a l r e a s o n s f o r s t u d e n t s not r e t u r n i n g t o school. Nonre tur nin g s t u d e n t s te nd ed t o be o l d e r and t o have l i m i t e d s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e s ; a l s o , the y planned t o t a k e s e l e c t e d c o u r s e s r a t h e r tha n d e g r e e - o r i e n t e d programs. In 1977, a r e s e a r c h team a t Honolulu Community Co llege (1978) conducted a study of working s t u d e n t s . were t h e f o l l o w i n g : Responses r e l a t e d t o a t t r i t i o n t r a n s f e r r e d f o r b e t t e r j o b s , p r e f e r e n c e f o r work over scho ol, f u l l - t i m e employment, and a s o l i d p e r s i s t e n c e or p a r t - t i m e employment. In summary, t h e l i t e r a t u r e on community c o l l e g e s 1s s i m i l a r t o t h a t on f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e s 1n t h e a r e a s of p r e d i c t i o n of a t t r i t i o n , re a so n s f o r l e a v i n g s c h o o l, f i n a n c i a l a i d , m l n o r i t y - s t u d e n t a t t r i t i o n , 28 and s o l u t i o n s t o t h e problem of a t t r i t i o n . Some unique measures found t o a i d r e t e n t i o n a t t h e co m m u n it y -c o ll e g e l e v e l a r e : Emphasis on s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e Development of s e l f - a w a r e n e s s Calendar changes Computer t r a c i n g S o l u t i o n s t o t h e General Problem o f A t t r i t i o n Hershey (1981) emphasized t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f e n r o l l m e n t t o r e t e n t i o n and showed t h e imp or tan ce o f s t u d y i n g why s t u d e n t s remain in c o l l e g e , as well a s why they leav e. He s u g g e s t e d t h a t r e t e n t i o n e f f o r t s should Inc lu de a review of s e r v i c e s t o t r a n s f e r s t u d e n t s and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s t u d e n t s w it h margin al a b i l i t y and t h o s e whose academic major 1s s t i l l in q u e s t i o n . Bowles (1980) d e s c r i b e d an a c t u a l u n 1 v e r s i t y - 1 1 f e sem in ar designed t o h e lp e n t e r i n g s t u d e n t s cope w i t h v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of t h e academic en vironment, s p e c i f i c a l l y human r e l a t i o n s , academic d e c i s i o n making, stu dy s k i l l s , c a r e e r d e c i s i o n making, and e x p e r i e n c e in t i m e management. R e s u l t s of t h i s r e s e a r c h were good enough t o develop a c o u rs e t h a t l a t e r evolved i n t o a permanent l i f e s e m i n a r w it h f i v e sections. The U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin (Eau C l a i r e ) has developed f r e s h m a n - l e v e l a d j u n c t co u rs es . According t o Harding (1981), t h e s e c o u r s e s were designed t o e l i m i n a t e e n t e r i n g fr e s h m e n 's d e f i c i e n c i e s , t h e r e b y h e l p i n g them t o meet t h e s k i l l r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e i r r e g u l a r co u rs e work. These a d j u n c t c o u r s e s meet f o r e x t r a c l a s s s e s s i o n s each week and have been r e p o r t e d t o show p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s . 29 Personnel from e i g h t p r i v a t e c o l l e g e s in Southern C a l i f o r n i a took p a r t in a co n so r ti u m 1n which they p o l l e d r e t e n t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n . Green (1981) i n d i c a t e d t h e imp ortanc e of having d e s i g n a t e d I n d i v i d u a l s a t each c o l l e g e c o l l e c t d a ta on s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n . Lennlng (1980) r e p o r t e d on v a r i o u s s t u d i e s d e a l i n g w it h retention. He emphasized t h a t t h e f i t between t h e s t u d e n t and t h e i n s t i t u t i o n p la y s an I m p o r t a n t r o l e in p e r s i s t e n c e . A student's pre- e n r o l l m e n t knowledge of t h e I n s t i t u t i o n i s v i t a l . In 1978, a stud y was conducted a t Western I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y , showing t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t r i t i o n and t h e s t u d e n t ' s c h o i c e o f major. Lueck (1978) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t s p e c i f i c c u r r i c u l a r c h o i c e s — b u s i n e s s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , s c i e n c e , e d u c a t i o n , and p u b l i c a f f a i r s — had t h e g r e a t e s t p o s i t i v e e f f e c t on s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n . In a study a t Columbia S t a t e Co llege of Tennessee, Jackson (1978) found t h a t s t u d e n t s were f a r more l i k e l y t o p e r s i s t 1n school 1f i n d i v i d u a l f a c u l t y a d v i s i n g had been a v a i l a b l e t o them th a n i f th e y had not had such a d v i s i n g . The u n i v e r s i t y system of t h e Georgia Board of Regents conducted a s p e c i a l - s t u d i e s program f o r one school q u a r t e r in an a t t e m p t t o Improve r e t e n t i o n . Nash (1978) r e p o r t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d in t h e s p e c i a l program had a 2% h i g h e r r e t e n t i o n r a t e (92% v e r s u s 90%) th a n regularly enrolled students. Kapraun (1980) s t a t e d t h a t s t u d e n t p e e r a d v i s o r s can do much t o f a c i l i t a t e e n t e r i n g s t u d e n t s ' academic a d ju s t m e n t. components o f academic a d v i s i n g : He s t u d i e d seven an i n s t i t u t i o n a l commitment t o 30 academic a d v i s i n g , a f a c u l t y - e n d o r s e d s t a t e m e n t of a d v i s o r r e s p o n s i ­ b ilities, t h e t r a i n i n g of a d v i s o r s , an a d v i s o r ’s e v a l u a t i o n , a w e l l - d e f i n e d r e f e r r a l system, a group of p e e r a d v i s o r s , and an I n f o r m a t i o n s u p p o r t system. At t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota an a c t i v i s t c o u n s e l i n g program f o r a c a d e m ic a ll y unprepared s t u d e n t s was un der tak en 1n d e fe n se of an open a d m is si o n s p o l i c y . A rr in gt on (1980) r e p o r t e d t h a t altho ugh s t u d e n t s who took p a r t 1n t h e c o u n s e li n g program did no t r e c e i v e h i g h e r gr ad es or earn more c r e d i t s , they p e r s i s t e d l o n g e r 1n school th a n th o s e who did not p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e program. Gamache (1981) found t h a t t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f s t u d e n t s a pp ly in g f o r and e n r o l l i n g 1n c o l l e g e was d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o t h e number of p r e ­ e n r o l l m e n t c o n t a c t s by c o l l e g e pe rs on nel. However, no ev id en c e was found t o s u p p o r t a d i f f e r e n c e 1n p e r s i s t e n c e between c o n t a c t e d and nonco ntac ted s t u d e n t s . Haagen (1977) I n v e s t i g a t e d s t u d i e s conducted 1n 1973 and 1976 and compiled I n f o r m a ti o n on s t u d e n t a t t r i t i o n from both y e a r s . The e x p e r i e n c e s and a t t i t u d e s o f school l e a v e r s were examined in hopes of h e l p i n g o t h e r s t u d e n t s who were t h i n k i n g o f l e a v i n g scho ol. In a study a t a mldwe st ern u n i v e r s i t y , Kowalski (1977) found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between p e r s i s t i n g and n o n p e r s i s t i n g s t u d e n t s . The home env iro nm en ts and pe rsonal and academic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e s e s t u d e n t s were examined. P e r s i s t e r s r e c or de d b e t t e r c o n d i t i o n s 1n a l l a r e a s than did n o n p e r s i s t e r s . 31 Glennen (1975) emphasized t h e Importance of f a c u l t y c o u n s e li n g in re d u c in g a t t r i t i o n . According t o Glennen, a program t h a t used f a c u l t y c o u n s e l i n g reduced academic a t t r i t i o n , p ro b a ti o n , su sp e n si o n , and w ith dr a w a l. Huber (1971) a s s e r t e d t h a t matching s t u d e n t s with s c h o o l s would I n c r e a s e r e t e n t i o n Immeasurably. He a dv ise d d e f i n i n g t h e s c h o o l ' s m i s s i o n , unde rs ta n d in g I t s p r i o r i t i e s , and s e l e c t i n g Incoming s t u d e n t s as I n d i v i d u a l s who would f i t t h e c o l l e g e . D is cu s si ng a n a t i o n a l s e m i n a r on c o l l e g e r e t e n t i o n , observed t h a t r e t e n t i o n 1s a campus-wide r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Noel (1976) School a d m i n i s t r a t o r s need t o conduct a thorough exam in ation t o d e f i n e t h e I n s t i t u t i o n ' s s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses. In a l o n g i t u d i n a l study conducted a t Syracuse U n i v e r s i t y (Pascarella, 1977), s u p p o r t was found f o r T i n t o ' s model, which a s s e r t s t h a t infor mal s t u d e n t - f a c u l t y c o n t a c t 1s a s i g n i f i c a n t p r e d i c t o r of college persistence. Li kew is e, P e rv in , Reik, and Dalrymple (1966) r e p o r t e d t h a t I n t e r a c t i o n between t h e I n s t i t u t i o n and t h e i n d i v i d u a l i s h i g h l y Imp or tan t t o s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n . C h r i s t e n s e n ( r e p o r t i n g on Heath, 1980) o f f e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g recommendations f o r s o l v i n g r e t e n t i o n problems: Admissions o f f i c i a l s should plan t h e i r programs around r e t e n t i o n , s t u d e n t - a c t i v i t i e s c o o r d i n a t o r s should fo c us on Involvement of s t u d e n t s who belong t o an o r g a n iz e d group, c o u n s e l o r s and a d v i s o r s should help develop r e t e n t i o n programs, and t h e f1 na n c 1 a l- a 1 d o f f i c e should look a t t h e t o t a l needs of s t u d e n t s , not j u s t t h e i r f i n a n c i a l needs. 32 As a r e s u l t of a stu dy conducted a t H o f s t r a Unive rs ity * MacMillan and K e st e r (1980) l i s t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g means of Improving retention: development of a r e t e n t i o n committee* a d m i n i s t r a t i v e com­ mitment* i n s e r v i c e f o r fa c u l t y * c o l l e g e en vi ro nme nt changes* r e c r u i t ­ ment changes, a d d i t i o n of p e r t i n e n t s e m i n a rs , do rm it ory changes, changes 1n s o c i a l l i f e , and f i n a n c i a l aid. At C. W. P o s t C en t er o f Long I s l a n d U n i v e r s i t y , a stu dy group recommended t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s f o r I n c r e a s i n g r e t e n t i o n : freshman c u r r i c u l u m changed t o a developmental approach, on-going freshman o r i e n t a t i o n program w it h emphasis on c o u n s e l i n g , fo c us on c r i t i c a l moments of t h e freshman y e a r , on-go1ng c o u n s e l o r t r a i n i n g , and t h e f u s i o n of t e a c h i n g , l e a r n i n g , a d v i s i n g , and c o u n s e li n g ( S h e f f i e l d & M e s k i l l , 1980). In summary, many s o l u t i o n s t o t h e problem o f s t u d e n t a t t r i t i o n have been o f f e r e d . Some of t h e most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned methods a re as f o l l o w s : Improved c o u n s e l i n g More emphasis on s c r e e n i n g p r e - e n t r i e s S pe c ia l programs f o r low a c h i e v e r s Speci al programs f o r th o s e whose admission t e s t t e s t s c o r e s a r e low B e t t e r s o d a ! a c t i v i t i e s on campus More emphasis on c o l l e g e - s t u d e n t f i t A more s t u d e n t - r e f l e c t e d c ur ri c ul um B etter serv ices for tra n s fe r students I n c r e a s e d and upgraded s t u d e n t personnel s e r v i c e s Upgraded p r e - e n r o l l m e n t c o n t a c t Summary An e x t e n s i v e amount of l i t e r a t u r e 1s a v a i l a b l e 1n t h e a r e a of s t u d e n t r e t e n t i o n and a t t r i t i o n . The s e l e c t i o n s in c lu d e d 1n t h i s 33 c h a p t e r were chosen because of t h e i r t i m e l i n e s s and s i m i l a r i t i e s t o t h e p r e s e n t study. The s e l e c t i o n s were grouped 1n seven r e l a t e d s e c t i o n s t o s t r u c t u r e t h e review more m e an in gf ul ly . I t should be remembered t h a t no stu dy was found in which s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s were developed a s a t o o l f o r use 1n r e t e n t i o n . CHAPTER I I I DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Introduction This c h a p t e r c o n t a i n s a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e s tu dy sample and a r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e group ing of t h e sample. Proced ure s f o ll o w e d in c o l l e c t i n g t h e d a t a a r e described* f o ll o w e d by a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s t a t i s t l c a l - a n a l y s i s t e c h n i q u e s used in t h e s tu dy. D e s c r i p t i o n of t h e Sample The t o t a l number of s t u d e n t s e n t e r i n g Saginaw Valley S t a t e C o lle ge 1n f a l l 1981 was 590. A f t e r t h e p a r t - t i m e * t r a n s f e r , and handicapped s t u d e n t s had been d e l e t e d from t h e sample, t h e number of s t u d e n t s in t h e a c t u a l sample was 380. These 380 s t u d e n t s were divi de d i n t o e i g h t groups, a c c o rd in g t o d i f f e r e n c e s in housing, sex, and retention. The r a t i o n a l e f o r s e l e c t i n g t h e s e e i g h t groups was based on a review of t h e l a t e s t r e s e a r c h on r e t e n t i o n and on s p e c i f i c concerns o f Saginaw Va lley a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Each of t h e s e groups was compared t o and weighed a g a i n s t v a r i a b l e s ta k e n from t h e En t er i n g S tu d e n t Q ue stion­ n a i r e , which was completed by t h e e n t i r e e n t e r i n g c l a s s f o r f a l l 1981. At t h e beg innin g o f w i n t e r term 1982, of t h e 380 s t u d e n t s 1n t h e sample, 326 had s t a y e d 1n school and 54 had l e f t scho ol. The s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s were i d e n t i f i e d as they r e l a t e d t o s t u d e n t s in 35 t h e sample who had s ta y e d 1n o r l e f t scho ol. The sample group was fo ll o w e d through t h e second s e m e s t e r of t h e i r freshman year . The f o l l o w i n g perfor manc e v a r i a b l e s were t e s t e d f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e 1n t h e stu dy: s t u d e n t s r e t u r n i n g , f i r s t s e m e s t e r grade p o i n t average, and c r e d i t s completed. The v a r i a b l e s were used t o compare t h e e i g h t groups and t o develop t h e s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s . Data C o l l e c t i o n Each member of t h e e n t e r i n g c l a s s of 1981 a t Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co lleg e f i l l e d o u t t h e E n t e r i n g S tu d e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e (see Appendix A), t h e i n s t r u m e n t used t o c o l l e c t d a ta f o r t h i s study. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed a t t h e National Cent er f o r Higher Education Management Systems 1n Boulder, Colorado. The i n s t r u m e n t was s u b j e c t e d t o a two-ye ar f i e l d e v a l u a t i o n 1n h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n i n s t i t u t i o n s . The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a d m i n i s t e r e d r e p e a t e d l y in i n s t i t u t i o n s p a r t i c i p a t i n g 1n t h e f i e l d t e s t ; re s p o n s e s were s u b j e c t e d t o s ta n d a rd v a l i d a t i o n proc ed ure s. At t h e same t i m e , m a t e r i a l s a s s o c i a t e d w ith t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e i n s t r u m e n t — handbooks and t h e a n a l y s i s s e r v i c e — were c r i t i c a l l y reviewed and r e v i s e d when ne ce s sa ry . Institutions that p a r t i c i p a t e d 1n f i e l d e v a l u a t i o n of t h e En t er i n g S tu d e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e in c lu de d F l o r i d a Tech nologic al U n i v e r s i t y , F o r t Hays S t a t e College, South Dakota S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1n Brookings, Cuyahoga Community C ollege, Colorado Mountain Co lle ge, Metro-Community Col le ge (Kansas C i t y ) , and Yakima Valley Community C ol le ge . 36 D a ta - A n a ly s is Procedures D i s c r im in a n t A na ly si s All of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e En t er i n g S tu d e nt Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was t a b u l a t e d and fed i n t o t h e S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e Socia l Scien ces (Nie e t a l . , 1975) computer s e r v i c e . Discriminant analysis was then used t o weigh t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of a l l t h e v a r i a b l e s l i s t e d on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ta pe. Table 3.1 i s a weighted l i s t of a l l t h e v a r i a b l e s o b ta in e d through t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s procedure. All of t h e v a r i a b l e s were weighed as p r e d i c t o r s of s t u d e n t s who s ta y e d 1n school or l e f t a f t e r t h e f i r s t s e m e s t e r of t h e 1981 school year . In t h e t a b l e , each of t h e v a r i a b l e s i s l i s t e d in o r d e r of I t s w ei ght ing . With t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s procedure* t h e h i g h e r t h e weighted number a v a r i a b l e received* t h e more s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t v a r i a b l e was t o t h e s t u d e n t sample. The v a r i a b l e s a r e l i s t e d 1n t h e t a b l e by compter code name and by a f u l l d e s c r i p t i o n as th e y appear on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e * s t a r t i n g w it h t h e h i g h e s t or most s i g n i f i c a n t w e ig h ti n g and working down t o t h e lo w e s t or l e a s t s i g n i f i c a n t w ei g h ti n g . The p o s i t i v e w e ig ht s i n d i c a t e t h e v a r i ­ a b l e s t h a t were s i g n i f i c a n t t o r e t e n t i o n * and t h e n e g a t i v e w ei gh ts i n d i c a t e t h e v a r i a b l e s t h a t were s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . ard l e v e l o f .05 was used t o d e t e r m i n e s i g n i f i c a n c e . The s t a n d ­ From t h i s p o i n t on, only t h e computer code names a r e used when r e f e r r i n g t o In d iv i d u a l variables. 37 Table 3 . 1 . — The v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r w e ig h ti n g numbers. Computer Code Name Discriminant Weighted Number Variable GRAD Those pla nnin g t o g r a d u a t e from Saginaw Va lley S t a t e C o lle ge +.20574 FIRSTC Those who s a i d Saginaw Val ley S t a t e Co llege was t h e i r f i r s t c h o i c e -.20125 TRAN Those plan nin g t o l e a v e Saginaw Valley S t a t e C o lle ge -. 1880 2 SOCREP Those who came t o Saginaw Va lley S t a t e Co llege because of i t s social reputation -. 1737 0 KNOWDG Those who s a i d was a goal g a i n i n g knowledge -.1 5208 DROP Those p la nni ng o u t of school t o drop o u t or s t o p +.14877 NRCHLIF Those wanting t o e n r i c h t h e i r l i f e as a goal -.12323 ARCON Those who were I n t e r e s t e d in a r t i s t s ' p r e s e n t a t i o n s and c o n c e r t s on campus +.11437 STDYHAB Those who s a i d they Improve t h e i r stu dy -.1 1075 IMS Those I n t e r e s t e d in i n t r a m u r a l s and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s on campus -.10831 STUSERV Those who s a i d t h e y would be in need of some s t u d e n t s e r v i c e s -.10783 SLFCON Those who wished t o Improve t h e i r s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e w h il e in school -.09615 STUGOVT Those who s a i d they would be I n t e r e s t e d in t a k i n g p a r t in s t u d e n t government +.09577 CONVEN Those who came t o Saginaw S t a t e Colle ge because i t was inc o n v e n i e n t t o go e ls e w he re -.0 9475 wanted t o habits Valley 38 Table 3 . 1 . — Continued. Computer Code Name V a r ia b le D i s c r im in a n t Weighted Number INCRPAY Those who s a i d they came t o Saginaw Val ley S t a t e C olle ge t o improve t h e i r e a r n i n g power +.09135 ACT ACT t e s t s c o r e s -.0 9059 COUNADV Those who came t o Saginaw Va lley S t a t e Colle ge on t h e i r c o u n s e l o r ' s a dvi ce +.08811 SURMAJ Those who l i s t e d a major academic a re a +.08039 ADMGPA Admitting grade p o i n t average +.08000 MARTL Those who were m a rr ie d +.07980 ULTIMAT Those who I n d i c a t e d t h e i r u l t i m a t e degree goal -.0 7676 INDPNDT Those who s a i d g a i n i n g independence was a goal +.07024 NEWCAR Those who came t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e C o lle ge lo ok in g f o r a new c a r e e r -.0 7010 CONCNFN Those who s a i d they were concerned a bout f i n a n c e s f o r t h e i r e d u c a t i o n -.06984 TUTOR Those who s a i d they would need t u t o r ­ ing 1n one o r more academic a r e a s +.06807 INVOL Those who s a i d they would g e t Involved in campus a c t i v i t i e s +.06460 AGE An age breakdown of t h e sample -.05571 PRSPROB Those who s a i d th e y would need h e lp with t h e i r personal problems +.05240 LDRSKLS . Those who s a i d th e y wanted t o Improve t h e i r leadership s k i l l s +.05042 The f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s f a i l e d t o a c h ie v e a s i g n i f i c a n t w e ig h t­ ing o f .05. They a r e l i s t e d h e r e f o r I n f o r m a t i o n a l pur poses only but a r e not c o n s id e r e d f u r t h e r . COST Those who came t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e C o lle g e because of f i n a n c e s .04952 STUADV Those who came t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e C olle ge on o t h e r s t u d e n t s ' a dv ic e .04961 CGMAJ Those who were s u r e of t h e i r c ho ic e of a major academic a r e a .04811 DECPLAN Those who wanted t o de cid e educa­ t i o n a l and c a r e e r pl a n s .04518 CHOME Those who came t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co llege because 1 t was c l o s e t o home .04423 EMPLSEM Those wanting some form of employment w hi le 1n school .03742 EMPLSUG Those who came t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e C ol le ge because of an employer s u g g e s ti o n .03684 CLASTIM Those who were concerned ab ou t when t h e i r c l a s s e s would meet .03549 SOCIAL Those who s a i d th e y wanted t o Improve t h e i r social p a rtic ip a tio n .03477 MTPLE Those w ishing t o meet peop le w h il e 1n school .03232 DISCINT Those wishing t o d i s c o v e r o t h e r Interests .03140 TCHADV Those who came t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co llege because of t e a c h e r s ' a d v ic e .03067 CULSOC Those who came t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e Colle ge because of I t s c u l t u r a l and s o d a ! reputation .03015 40 IMPKNOW Those who came t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e Col lege t o Improve t h e i r knowledge .02976 TRANS Those pla n n in g t o t r a n s f e r from Saginaw Valley S t a t e College .02846 LNGTRM Those having lon g-t erm g o a ls .002627 EMPL Those I n t e r e s t e d in employment .02434 YMAJOR Those s e l e c t i n g an i n d i v i d u a l major and why .02142 CRSOFF Those who came t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co llege because of c o u r s e o f f e r i n g s .02073 NEWLOC Those who came t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e C o lle ge lo o k in g f o r a new l o c a t i o n .02046 DEGREE Those pla n n in g t o a t t a i n a degree from Saginaw Va lley S t a t e Co llege .01982 FINAID Those who a p p l i e d f o r f i n a n c i a l a id .01648 ACADREP Those who came t o Saginaw Va lley S t a t e C o lle ge because of i t s academic reputation .01113 FLLWSTU Those who came t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e C o lle ge because of f e ll o w s tu d e n t s * ad vice .00756 RACE The r a c i a l breakdown of t h e sample .00487 FIN AD Those needing f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o a t t e n d school .00420 CURRENT Those on a c u r r e n t degre e program .00241 STULIFE Those who wish t o be involved 1n student 1ife .001274 The f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s f a i l e d t h e t o l e r a n c e t e s t f o r d i s c r i m i ­ nan t a n a l y s i s and f e l l below t h e .0009 can oni ca l d i s c r i m i n a n t w e ig h ti n g function. 41 HS Having hear d of Saginaw Valley S t a t e C olle ge from high school RELFNDS Having heard of Saginaw Valley S t a t e C olle ge from r e l a t i v e s and f r i e n d s COLREP Having heard of Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co llege from college representatives PLACSER Having heard of Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co llege from a placement s e r v i c e CATALOG Having hear d of Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co llege from a catalog MAIL Having he ard of Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co llege through t h e mail NEWSMAG Having he ard of Saginaw Valley S t a t e C ol le ge from newspapers o r magazines RADIOTV Having he ard of Saginaw Valley S t a t e College from r a d i o and t e l e v i s i o n INFODIS Having he ard of Saginaw Valley S t a t e C olle ge from information displays TYPE Individual s tu d e n t 's c la s s . freshmen All in t h e sample were Four s e t s of w e ig h t comparisons were performed. A separate d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was done on f o u r c om bi na tio ns of t h e e i g h t sample groups, lookin g s p e c i f i c a l l y a t p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s , s t u d e n t s l i v i n g on campus and t h o s e l i v i n g o f f campus, and males v e r s u s fem a le s . The o c tu a l groupings were as f o l l o w s : Males on campus, p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s Males o f f campus, p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s Females on campus, p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s Females o f f campus, p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s The i d e n t i f i e d s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s were weighted a g a i n s t t h e s e groups. 42 The r e s e a r c h e r decided on a .05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l because I t i s g e n e r a l l y acc e pt ed as a l e v e l a t which s i g n i f i c a n c e 1s v a l i d . This d e c i s i o n r e s u l t e d in t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f v a r i a b l e s w i t h a w e ig ht in g of l e s s than .05 and l e f t 29 v a r i a b l e s t o be c o n s i d e r e d 1n t h e study. The rema ini ng s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r d i s c r i m i n a n t w e i g h t s a r e shown 1n Table 3 . 2 . Tab le 3 . 2 . — The 29 s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r weighted numbers. Variable Discriminant Weighted Number GRAD FIRSTC TRAN SOCREP KNOLDG DROP NRCHLIF ARCON STDYHAB IMS STUSERV SLFCON STUGOVT CONVEN INCRPAY ACT COUNADV SURMAJ ADMGPA MARTL ULTIMAT INDPNDT NEWCAR CONCNFN TUTOR INVOL AGE PRSPROB LDRSKL -.2 0 5 7 4 -.2 0 12 5 -.1 8 8 0 2 -.17370 -.15208 _.14877 -. 12323 +.11437 -.11075 -.10831 -.10 78 3 -.0 96 15 +.09577 -.0 9475 +.09135 -.09059 +.08811 +.08039 +.08000 +.07980 -. 0 7 6 7 6 +.07024 -. 0 7 0 1 0 -.0 6984 +.06807 +.06460 -.05571 +.05240 +.05042 43 These 29 s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s can be examined a c c o rd in g t o t h e d i v i s i o n of t h e q u e s t i o n s in t h e E n t e r i n g S tu d e n t Quest1onna1re. f o l l o w i n g i s a d i s c u s s i o n of t h o s e d i v i s i o n s . The The v a r i a b l e s a r e r e f e r r e d t o by t h e i r computer code names. The v a r i a b l e s d e a l i n g wit h personal I n f o r m a t i o n were a d d re s s e d in Q u e st io n s 1 through 6. Of t h e 29 v a r i a b l e s found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t through d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s , t h e fo ll o w i n g f e l l in t h i s a r e a : AGE MARTL The v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o g o a ls of t h e I n d i v i d u a l were found 1n Q ue sti on s 7 thro ugh 11. Through d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s , t h e f o l l o w i n g s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s were found t o be in t h i s a r e a : NEWCAR SLFCON INDPNDT NRCHLIF KNWLDG INCRPAY ULTIMAT INVOL ARCON LDRSKLS Q u e st io n s 9 and 10 concerned degree goa ls. Of t h e 29 v a r i a b l e s found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t by d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s , only one— ULTIMAT— was 1n t h e a r e a of degree goals. None of t h e s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s was found under Q ue stion 12, which d e a l t with employment. Q u e st io n s 13, 14, and 15 concerned f a c t o r s t h a t had i n f l u e n c e d t h e s t u d e n t s t o a t t e n d Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co lle ge, how they had hear d of t h e s c h oo l, and whe ther Saginaw Valley was t h e i r f i r s t c h o i c e of 44 co lleg e to attend. The f o l l o w i n g s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s were found 1n t h i s area: STUSERV CONVEN COUNADV SOCREP FIRSTC Quest ion 16 concerned f i n a n c i a l a i d ; no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e was found f o r t h i s q u e s t i o n . Question 17 d e a l t w ith c l a s s - t i m e p r e f ­ e r e n c e ; no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e was found f o r t h i s q u e s t i o n . Question 18 concerned wh ether t h e r e s po nden t planned t o r e t u r n t o Saginaw Valley 1n w i n t e r term 1982. No s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e was found f o r t h i s question. In Q uest ion 19, t h e re s p o n d e n ts were asked how s u r e they were of t h e i r major. SURMAJ was t h e lo n e v a r i a b l e found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t for t h i s question. Question 20 d e a l t with housing, and as t h e sample groups were d i v id e d a cc ord in g t o housing, t h i s v a r i a b l e was examined th r o u g h o u t t h e e n t i r e s tu dy . Question 21, d e a l i n g wit h f i n a n c e s , had one s i g n i f i c a n t variable: CONCNFN. Q ue st io ns 22 through 26 d e a l t with t h e s t u d e n t s ' concerns wit h h e lp th e y would need d urin g t h e f i r s t y e a r of c o l l e g e . The f o l l o w i n g s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s were found 1n t h i s a r e a : STDYHAB INVOL PRSPROB TUTOR In t h e n e x t - t o - l a s t s e c t i o n of t h e . E n t e r i n g S t u d e n t Q u e st io n ­ naire, re s p o n d en ts were asked about p o t e n t i a l changes they might make 45 1n t h e Immediate f u t u r e . The f o l l o w i n g s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s were found 1n t h i s a r e a : DROP GRAD TRAN The f i n a l s e c t i o n of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e concerned a c t i v i t i e s 1n which t h e s t u d e n t s would p a r t i c i p a t e d urin g t h e i r s t a y a t Saginaw Valley S t a t e College. The f o l l o w i n g s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s were found in t h i s a re a: ARCON IMS STUGOVT Two performance v a r i a b l e s were added because v a r i o u s w r i t e r s on r e t e n t i o n have emphasized t h e imp ortanc e of both grade p o i n t av erage a t admissi on and ACT s c o r e s of t h e e n t e r i n g c l a s s . Both of t h e s e v a r i ­ a b l e s were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t . Sample members did n o t respond t o a s e c t i o n of t h e q u e s t i o n ­ n a i r e d e a l i n g with c l a s s - t i m e p re fe re n c e . I t must be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s inc lud ed in t h e sample had ne ver been in c o l l e g e and r e a l l y did not have any knowledge of c l a s s - t i m e o f f e r i n g s . Hence t h i s a re a would no t r e f l e c t any s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o s t a y i n g 1n o r l e a v i n g school. Although not a d i r e c t o b j e c t i v e of t h e p r e s e n t research* d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s p ro v id e s a for mu la t h a t c oul d a c t as a p r e d i c t o r f o r t h e s t a y e r s and l e a v e r s 1n t h i s study. That fo r m u la was no t used 1n t h e a n a l y s e s performed 1n t h e study b u t i s prov ide d f o r t h e r e a d e r ’s i n f o r m a t i o n in Appendix B. 46 Stepwise Method o f D i s c r i m i n a n t Analysis A f t e r a l l o f t h e v a r i a b l e s had been weighed by t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s proced ure, t h e 29 v a r i a b l e s found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t were pro c e sse d through t h e s t e p w i s e method of d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s and compared t o t h e f o u r groups examined 1n t h e study. a n a l y s i s a r e d e s c r i b e d 1n t h e f o l l o w i n g pages. The r e s u l t s of t h i s The s t e p w i s e method of d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s was used t o examine f u r t h e r t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e 29 v a r i a b l e s . These 29 v a r i a b l e s were s u b j e c t e d t o t h e s t e p w i s e system and compared t o t h e e s t a b l i s h e d groups of t h e sample. In e s s e n c e , t h e s t e p w i s e system was used t o a n a ly z e each of t h e 29 v a r i a b l e s a g a i n s t a l l groups i n d i v i d u a l l y u n t i l th e y were no lo n g e r s i g n i f i c a n t t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l group. The s t e p w i s e system was employed u n t i l t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e v a r i a b l e s was reach ed . Males on campus, s t a y e r s and l e a v e r s . Eighty s t u d e n t s c o n s t i t u t e d t h i s group; 65 of them r e t u r n e d f o r w i n t e r term 1982 and 15 did not. A f t e r 14 s t e p s of a n a l y s i s , t h e f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were declared s ig n i f i c a n t : INDPNDT IMS PRSPROB SOCREP FIRSTC INVOL NEWCAR Males o f f campus, s t a y e r s and l e a v e r s . LDRSKLS CONVEN TRAN SLFCON NRCHLIF INCRPAY CONCNFN This group c o n t a i n e d 84 s t u d e n t s ; 74 of them r e t u r n e d f o r w i n t e r term 1982 and 10 did not. A f t e r 11 s t e p s of a n a l y s i s , t h e f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were d e c la r e d significant: 47 MARTL NEWCAR AGE INDPNDT COUNADV FIRSTC Females on campus, s t a v e r s and l e a v e r s . ULTIMAT KNWLDG CONVEN NRCHLIF SLFCON This group had 94 members; 80 of them r e t u r n e d f o r w i n t e r term 1982 and 14 did not. After 14 s t e p s of a n al ys is * t h e f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were d e c l a r e d s i g n i f i ­ cant: IM TRAN TUTOR INVOL ARCON KNWLDG COUNADV Females, o f f campus* s t a y e r s and l e a v e r s . ACT PRSPROB NRCHLIF NEWCAR STDYHAB INCRPAY INDPNDT Of t h e 122 s t u d e n t s 1n t h i s group, 107 r e t u r n e d f o r w i n t e r term 1982 and 15 did not. After 11 s t e p s of a n a l y s i s , t h e f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s were d e c l a r e d s i g n i f i ­ cant: ASE INCRPAY ULTIMAT CONCNFN IMS GRAD STDHAB TRAN KNWLDG ACT COUNADV As a r e s u l t of t h e s t e p w i s e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s , t h e f o l l o w i n g 24 v a r i a b l e s were s i g n i f i c a n t t o r e t e n t i o n f o r a t l e a s t one of t h e sample groups: 48 INDPNDT IMS PRSPROB SOCREP FIRSTC INVOL NEWCAR LDRSKLS CONVEN TRAN SLFCON NRCHLIF INCRPAY CONCNFN MARTI AGE COUNADV ULTIMAT KNWLDG TUTOR ARCON ACT STDYHAB GRAD Cros s-T ab ulati orL -A na lvs ls C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s was performed on t h e 24 v a r i a b l e s t h a t were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t t o r e t e n t i o n f o r a t l e a s t one of t h e sample groups. This a n a l y s i s gave a p e rc en ta g e breakdown of each v a r i a b l e as well as a raw c h i - s q u a r e l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r each variable. The c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n f i n d i n g s f o r each of t h e 24 v a r i a b l e s were as f o l l o w s . GRAD. Of t h e 326 sample members who s ta y e d 1n s c h o o l, 126 s a i d i t was very H k e l y th e y would g ra d u a te from Saginaw Val ley S t a t e Col­ l e g e , 99 s a i d i t was somewhat l i k e l y , 32 s a i d i t was no t l i k e l y , and 69 were undecided. Of t h e 54 sample members who l e f t s c h o o l , 22 s a i d 1 t was very l i k e l y they would g ra d u a te from Saginaw Va lley, 17 s a i d i t was somewhat l i k e l y , 6 s a i d 1 t was not l i k e l y , and 9 were undecided. FIRSTC. Of t h e 326 sample members who s ta y e d in s c h o o l , 188 s a i d Saginaw Val ley was t h e i r f i r s t c ho ic e of s c h o o l s t o a t t e n d , whereas 138 s a i d i t was not. Of t h e 54 sample members who l e f t s ch ool, 26 s a i d Saginaw Valley was t h e i r f i r s t c h o ic e of s c h o o l s t o a t t e n d , whereas 28 s a i d i t was n ot . 49 TRAN. Of t h e 326 sample members who s ta y e d 1n s cho ol, 41 s a i d 1 t was very l i k e l y the y would t r a n s f e r , 88 s a i d 1 t was somewhat l i k e l y , 128 s a i d i t was n o t l i k e l y , and 69 were undecided. Of t h e 54 I n d i v i d ­ u a l s who l e f t s c h o o l , 11 s a i d i t was very l i k e l y they would t r a n s f e r , 10 s a i d i t was somewhat l i k e l y , 25 s a i d i t was n ot l i k e l y , and 8 were undecided. SOCREP. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who s ta y e d 1n s c hool, 285 s a i d they had been a t t r a c t e d t o Saginaw Valley because of i t s s o c i a l r e p u t a ­ t i o n ; 40 s a i d the y had n o t been a t t r a c t e d t o t h e school because of i t s social reputation. Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t s c h o o l; 46 s a i d they had been a t t r a c t e d t o Saginaw Valley because of i t s s o c i a l r e p u t a t i o n , and 8 s a i d t h e y had not been a t t r a c t e d t o t h e c o l l e g e f o r t h i s reason. KNWLDG. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s in t h e sample who st ay e d in s c h o o l , 283 s a i d t h a t t o Improve t h e i r knowledge, t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s , a n d / o r c o m p e t e n c ie s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e i r j o b o r c a r e e r was a goal they hoped t o rea ch w h i l e 1n c o l l e g e ; 43 did no t respond t o t h i s item. Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t s c h o o l, 45 s a i d t h a t t o improve t h e i r knowl­ edge, t e c h n i c a l s k i l l s , a n d / o r com pet enc ie s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e i r j o b o r c a r e e r was a goal they hoped t o reach w h i l e 1n c o l l e g e ; 9 did n ot respond t o t h i s item. NRCHLIF. Of t h e 326 sample members who s ta y e d in s ch oo l, 228 s a i d th e y wished t o e n r i c h t h e i r l i v e s ; 98 s a i d t h i s was no t a m a jo r concern. Of t h e 54 sample members who l e f t s cho ol, 40 s a i d t h e y wished t o e n r i c h t h e i r l i v e s , and 14 s a i d t h i s was no t a major concern. 50 ARCON. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who s ta y e d 1n scho ol, 125 s a i d they were I n t e r e s t e d in a r t i s t s and c o n c e r t s , 129 s a i d they were no t I n t e r ­ e s t e d , and 72 were undecided. Of t h e 54 sample members who l e f t s c h o o l, 21 s a i d th e y were I n t e r e s t e d in a r t i s t s and c o n c e r t s , 22 s a i d they were not i n t e r e s t e d , and 11 were undecided. STDYHAB. Of t h e 326 members of t h e sample who s ta y e d 1n schoo l, 185 s a i d the y would need help t o Improve t h e i r study h a b i t s , whereas 112 s a i d th e y would not; 29 did not respond. Of t h e 54 sample members who l e f t s ch oo l, 29 s a i d they would need he lp t o improve t h e i r study h a b i t s , 19 s a i d th e y would not need such h e l p , and 6 did no t respond. IMS. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who sta ye d in s c ho ol , 171 s a i d they were i n t e r e s t e d 1n I n t r a m u r a l s , 81 s a i d they were no t I n t e r e s t e d , and 74 were undecided. Of t h e 4 s t u d e n t s who l e f t sch ool, 22 s a i d they were I n t e r e s t e d in I n t r a m u r a l s , 22 s a id th e y were not i n t e r e s t e d , and 10 were undecided. SLFCON. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who s ta y e d 1n scho ol, 197 s a i d Improving t h e i r s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e was a goal th e y hoped t o reach duri ng t h e i r c o l l e g e s t a y ; 129 did n o t respond t o t h i s Item. Of t h e 54 sample members who l e f t s c h o o l , 33 s a i d Improving t h e i r s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e was a goal they hoped t o reach d u ri n g t h e i r c o l l e g e s t a y ; 21 did n o t respond to t h i s question. CONVEN. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who s ta y e d 1n schoo l, 37 s a i d 1 t was In c o n v e n ie n t t o a t t e n d school e ls e w he re , whereas 289 did not respond t o t h i s Item. Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t scho ol, 7 s a i d 1 t 51 was i n c o n v e n i e n t t o a t t e n d school e ls e w h e r e ; 47 did not respond t o t h i s item. INCRPAY. said a Of t h e 326 sample members who s ta y e d 1n s c h o o l , 113 goal they had f o r a t t e n d i n g school was t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r chances f o r a r a i s e a n d / o r a promo ti on; 213 did n o t respond t o t h i s item. Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t s c h o o l , 10 s a i d a goal th e y had f o r a t t e n d i n g school was t o I n c r e a s e t h e i r chances f o r a r a i s e a n d / o r pro motion; 44 did n ot respond t o t h e ite m. ACT. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who s ta y e d in sch oo l, 213 had e n t e r i n g ACT s c o r e s below 19; 113 had e n t e r i n g ACT s c o r e s above 20. Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t s c h o o l, 41 had e n t e r i n g ACT s c o r e s below 19, 11 had e n t e r i n g ACT s c o r e s above 20, and 2 had no rec ord ed ACT s c o r e s . COUNADV. Of t h e 326 members of t h e sample who s ta y e d 1n s c h o o l , 240 s a i d t h a t some c o u n s e l o r ' s a d v ic e had been i n f l u e n t i a l in t h e i r coming t o Saginaw Va lle y, whereas 86 did n o t respond t o t h i s question. Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t s c h o o l , 39 s a i d some c o u n s e l o r ' s ad vic e had been I n f l u e n t i a l 1n t h e i r coming t o Saginaw V alley ; 15 did not respond t o t h e item. MARTL. Of t h e 326 members of t h e sample who s ta y e d in s ch oo l, 317 were s i n g l e and 9 were m a rr ie d . Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t s c h o o l , 50 were s i n g l e and 4 were m a rri e d. ULTIMAT. Of t h e 326 sample members who s t a y e d in s c h o o l , 4 s a i d the y had no degre e in mind, 5 wanted a c e r t i f i c a t e deg re e, 6 wanted an a s s o c i a t e ' s d e g re e, 96 sought a b a c h e l o r ' s degree, 119 wanted 52 a m a s t e r ' s degree, 14 wanted a s p e c i a l i s t deg re e, 21 wanted a p r o f e s ­ s i o n a l degree, 19 s ought a d o c t o r a t e , and 42 d id no t respond. Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t s c h o o l, 2 s a i d they had no degr ee 1n mind, 2 wanted a c e r t i f i c a t e deg re e, 17 wanted a b a c h e l o r ' s degree, 19 d e s i r e d a m a s t e r ' s deg ree, 1 wanted a s p e c i a l i s t de g re e, 4 s ought a p r o f e s ­ s i o n a l de gr e e, 3 wanted a d o c t o r a t e , and 6 did no t respond. INDPNDT. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who s t a y e d 1n sch oo l, 245 s a i d the y wanted independence and 81 s a i d i t was no t a ma jor concern. Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t s c h o o l, 37 s a i d th e y wanted independence and 17 s a i d i t was no t a ma jor co ncer n. NEWCAR. Of t h e 326 sample members who s ta y e d in s ch oo l, 194 s a i d th e y were s e e k in g a new c a r e e r ; 132 s a i d they were not s u r e . Of t h e 54 members who l e f t s c h o o l, 33 s a i d th e y wanted a new c a r e e r and 21 s a i d th e y were no t s u r e . CONCNFN. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who s ta y e d in sch oo l, 43 s a i d f i n a n c i n g was no t a c on cer n, 151 s a i d t h e r e was some concern about having a d eq u a te f i n a n c e s f o r t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l expenses, 100 s a i d f i n a n c i n g was a m a jo r c on ce rn , and 32 did not respond. Of t h e 54 sample members who l e f t s c h o o l , 6 s a i d f i n a n c i n g was not a concern, 22 s a i d t h e r e was some f i n a n c i a l concern, 19 s a i d f i n a n c i n g was a m a jo r concern, and 7 did n o t respond. TUTOR. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who s ta y e d in sch ool, 78 s a i d they might need t u t o r i n g in one o r more academic s u b j e c t a r e a s , 214 s a i d they would n o t need t u t o r i n g , and 34 did n o t respond. Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t s c h o o l , 10 s a i d they might need t u t o r i n g in one o r 53 more academic s u b j e c t areas# 36 s a i d the y would not# and 8 did n o t respond. INVOL. Of t h e 326 sample members who s ta y e d in school# 132 s a i d they would need a s s i s t a n c e 1n g e t t i n g Involved 1n campus a c t i v i ­ t i e s # whereas 166 s a i d th e y would no t; 28 did n o t respond. Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t school# 18 s a i d the y would need a s s i s t a n c e g e t t i n g Involved in campus a c t i v i t i e s , 30 s a i d the y would no t need such he lp, and 6 did not respond. AGE. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who s ta y e d 1n school# 229 were between 18 and 22 y e a r s o f age# whereas 92 were under 18; 5 did n o t respond. Of t h e 54 sample members who l e f t school# 37 were between 18 and 22 y e a r s of age and 13 were under 18; 4 did no t respond t o t h i s Item. PRSPROB. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who s ta y e d in school# 20 s a i d th e y would need h e lp wi th pe rsonal problems d u ri n g t h e year# whereas 276 s a i d the y would n o t; 30 did n o t respond. Of t h e 54 s t u d e n t s who l e f t school# 7 s a i d t h e y would need he lp w ith pers onal problems d ur in g t h e y e a r , and 41 s a i d t h e y would n o t ; 6 did n o t respond. LDRSKLS. Of t h e 326 s t u d e n t s who s t a y e d 1n s c h o o l, 136 s a i d one of t h e i r g o a l s w h i l e 1n c o l l e g e was t o improve t h e i r l e a d e r s h i p s k i l l s ; 190 did not respond t o t h i s item. Of t h e 54 sample members who l e f t sch o ol , 20 s a i d one of t h e i r g o a l s w h i l e 1n c o l l e g e was t o improve t h e i r l e a d e r s h i p s k i l l s ; 34 did n ot respond t o t h i s q u e s t i o n . 54 Summary The methodology of t h e study was e x p la i n e d 1n Chapter I I I . The uses of d i r e c t d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s , s t e p w i s e a n a l y s i s , and c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n were I l l u s t r a t e d and ex p la i n ed . All of t h e d a ta I l l u s t r a t e d in t h i s c h a p t e r a r e a n a ly z e d in Chapter IV. This In f o r m a t i o n i s exam­ ined as i t p e r t a i n s t o each of t h e s t u d e n t groups formed f o r t h i s research. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction The d a ta from t h e E n t e r i n g St u d e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e a r e an al yz e d, d i s c u s s e d , and i n t e r p r e t e d in t h i s c h a p t e r . I n t o t h r e e major p a r t s : The c h a p t e r 1s di v id e d (1) r e s u l t s of t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s of t h e v a r i a b l e s l i s t e d in t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , (2) r e s u l t s of t h e s t e p ­ wise a n a l y s i s used 1n d e a l i n g wit h t h e s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s , and (3) r e s u l t s of t h e c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n performed on a l l of t h e s i g n i f i c a n t variables. R e s u l t s o f t h e Dlscrlminant-JVn.aJvsJ-S All of t h e v a r i a b l e s l i s t e d on t h e E n t e r i n g S tu d e n t Q ue st io n­ n a i r e , which was co mpleted by t h e 380 f i r s t - t i m e s t u d e n t s f o r f a l l 1981 a t Saginaw Va lley S t a t e C o ll e g e , a r e examined in t h i s s e c t i o n . Each of t h e v a r i a b l e s was e n t e r e d i n t o t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s system and I n d i v i d u a l l y weig hted , t o be used as a p r e d i c t o r o f wh ether a s t u d e n t would r e t u r n t o o r le av e school f o r w i n t e r te rm 1982. The subprogram DISCRIMINANT can be used t o a n a ly z e t h e d a ta e i t h e r by e n t e r i n g a l l d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e s d i r e c t l y I n t o t h e a n a l y s i s , or through a v a r i e t y of s t e p w i s e methods, s e l e c t i n g t h e b e s t s e t of d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e s . All of t h e v a r i a b l e s were w eighted by 55 56 t h e d l s c r i m i n a n t - a n a l y s i s d i r e c t method. The .05 le v el was used a s t h e c r i t e r i o n f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e as i t i s an acce pte d s t a t i s t i c a l l e v e l of analysis. The v a r i a b l e s w i t h a w e ig h t of a t l e a s t .05 were th e n analyzed by t h e s t e p w i s e method t o f i n d which v a r i a b l e s were t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t f o r each of t h e i d e n t i f i e d groups. A c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n was done on t h o s e v a r i a b l e s found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h e i d e n t i f i e d groups, in o r d e r t o examine comparable p e rc e n ta g e s and t o f i n d t h e raw c h1 -s quar e l e v e l f o r each v a r i a b l e as 1 t r e l a t e d t o t h e groups. n a n t weight. Each of t h e v a r i a b l e s was given a d i s c r i m i ­ The h i g h e r t h e we igh t, t h e more s i g n i f i c a n t t h e v a r i a b l e . A c o m pl e te 1 1 s t of t h e d i s c r i m i n a n t w e ig h ti ng l e v e l s was shown in Table 3.1. The 29 s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s (th ose w it h a we igh t of a t l e a s t .05) were l i s t e d 1n Table 3 . 2 . R e s u l t s o f Stepwise Anal ysi s The 29 v a r i a b l e s deemed s i g n i f i c a n t by t h e d i r e c t method o f d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s were pl ace d in t h e s t e p w l s e - a n a l y s i s system and weighted a g a i n s t t h e sample d i v id e d i n t o groups from which t h e ev en tu a l s t u d e n t p r o f i l e s were developed. The s t e p w i s e a n a l y s i s was used t o find the s p e c i f ic r e la tio n s h ip of the s ig n if ic a n t variab les to the i n d i v i d u a l i d e n t i f i e d groups. Once t h e s t e p w i s e method was com ple ted , 5 of t h e 29 v a r i a b l e s were e l i m i n a t e d because th e y f a i l e d t o pa ss t h e s t e p w i s e method. That 1s, when th e y were pla ce d in s t e p w i s e , the y did no t appea r as s i g n i f i c a n t . remaining a n a l y s e s . T h e re fo re , they were e l i m i n a t e d from t h e These f i v e v a r i a b l e s were: 57 STUSERV DROP ADMGPA SURMAJ STUGOVT The re ma in in g 24 v a r i a b l e s were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a t l e a s t once d u ri n g t h e s t e p w i s e a n a l y s i s when compared t o t h e groups e s t a b l i s h e d f o r p r o f i l e development. Table 4.1 c o n t a i n s t h e s t e p w i s e - a n a l y s l s r e s u l t s # showing each of t h e s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s and t h e groups f o r which they were s i g n i f i c a n t . The f o u r groups s e t up f o r t h e p r o f i l e s tu dy were a l l compared on t h e b a s i s o f how many s t u d e n t s s t a y e d in o r l e f t s c h o o l. The groups were: Males on campus# p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s Group 1 Males o f f campus# p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s Group 2 Females on campus# p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s Group 3 Females o f f campus# p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s Group 4 Each of t h e f o u r groups Inc lu ded p e r s i s t e r s and l e a v e r s . Hence# e i g h t groups of s t u d e n t s were a c t u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d 1n t h e study. R e s u l t s o f C r o s s - T a b u l a t i o n An alysis C r o s s - t a b u ! a t i o n a n a l y s i s of t h e 24 s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s 1n t h e s tu dy o f f e r e d y e t a n o t h e r view of t h e v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r r e l a t i o n ­ ship to rete n tio n . The c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a ly s is # 1n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s t e p w i s e method# was used t o develop t h e sample-group p r o f i l e s t h a t a r e d i s c u s s e d 1n Chapter V. Of t h e 24 s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s c o n s i d e r e d in t h e c r o s s ­ t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s # e i g h t were found s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h r e e o f t h e sample groups# t e n f o r two of t h e groups# and s i x f o r only one group. 58 Those v a r i a b l e s whose raw c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e was a t l e a s t .05 were determined t o be s i g n i f i c a n t . Table 4 . 1 . — R e s u l t s o f s t e p w i s e a n a l y s i s : S i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e s , by t h e groups f o r which the y were s i g n i f i c a n t . Variable Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 INDPNDT IMS PRSPROB SOCREP FIRSTC INVOL NEWCAR LDRSKLS CONVEN TRAN SLFCON NRCHLIF INCRPAY CONCNFN MARTL AGE COUNADV ULTIMAT KNWLDG TUTOR ARCON ACT STDYHAB GRAD X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X The f o l l o w i n g pages c o n t a i n a breakdown of t h e c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n t a b l e s f o r each s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e . Inc lu de d a r e t h e p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e c o e f f i c i e n t w e i g h t i n g number f o r each of t h e v a r i a b l e s , t h e number of t i m e s t h e v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t h e sample groups, t h e 59 p e r t i n e n t f i n d i n g s o f t h e c r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a ly s is # and t h e s i g n i f i ­ cance l e v e l of t h e raw c h 1 - s q u a r e va lue. A na ly sis of S i g n i f i c a n t V a r i a b l e s The e i g h t v a r i a b l e s t h a t were found t o be sig n ifican t for three groups a r e d i s c u s s e d on t h e f o ll o w i n g pages. To develop a b i l i t y t o be Independent# s e l f - r e l i a n t # and a d a p t a b l e (INDPNDT) The c an onic al d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig h ti n g number was p o s i t i v e # +.07024# showing t h a t t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o retention. The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus# males o f f campus# and fe m a le s on campus. Tables 4.2# 43 , and 4.4 r e l a t e t o t h i s variable. As shown 1n Table 4.2# 60% of t h e males on campus who s t a y e d 1n school had t h i s v a r i a b l e a s a goal# whereas 33.3%of t h o s e who l e f t school had t h i s v a r i a b l e a s a goal. The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e val ue was .0613. Table 4 . 2 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of INDPNDT— males on campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row To ta l S ta y e r s N Row % 26 40.0 39 60.0 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 10 66.7 5 33.3 15 18.8 N Col % 36 45.0 44 55.0 80 100.0 Column Total 60 Ta ble 43 shows t h a t 73% o f t h e males o f f campus who s t a y e d 1n school had t h i s v a r i a b l e a s a go a l; 80% of t h o s e who l e f t school had t h i s v a r i a b l e as a g o a l . The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e va lu e was .6352. Table 4 . 3 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of INDPNDT—males o f f campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row Total Stayers N Row % 20 27.0 54 73 .0 74 88.1 Leavers N Row % 2 20.0 8 80.0 10 11.9 N Col % 22 26 .2 62 73 .8 84 100.0 Column T ot al As shown 1n Table 4.4, 813% of t h e fe m a le s on campus who s t a y e d 1n school had t h i s v a r i a b l e as a g o a l ; 85.7% of t h o s e who l e f t s chool had t h i s v a r i a b l e a s a goal. The raw c h1 -s q u a re v a l u e was .6889 Ta bl e 4 . 4 . ' —C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of INDPNDT— females on campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row Total Stayers N Row % 15 18.8 65 81.3 80 85.1 Leavers N Row % 2 14.3 12 85.7 14 14.9 N Col % 17 18.1 77 81.9 94 100.0 Column Total 61 A c t i v i t i e s o f I n t e r e s t # I nt r am ur al s p o r t s * and r e c r e a t i o n (IMS) The can on ic a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig h ti n g number was negative* -.10831, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e t o be s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus, fem a le s on campus, and females o f f campus. Ta bl e 4 . 5 , 4 . 6 , and 4 . 7 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . As shown 1n Tabl e 4.5, 70.8% of t h e males on campus who marked t h i s v a r i a b l e "yes" s t a y e d 1n scho ol. The raw c h1 -s q u a re v a l u e was .0236. Table 4 . 5 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of IMS— mal es on campus. Did Not Respond Yes No Row To ta l Stayers N Row % 14 21.5 46 70 .8 5 7 .7 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 3 30.0 7 46.7 5 33.3 15 18.8 N Col % 17 21.2 53 66.2 10 12.5 80 100.0 Column Total As shown 1n Tabl e 4.6, 58.7% o f t h e fe m a le s on campus who marked t h i s v a r i a b l e "yes" s t a y e d 1n scho ol. The raw c h 1 -s q u a re v a l u e was .0063. Tabl e 4.7 shows t h a t 37.4% of t h e f e m a l e s o f f campus who marked t h i s v a r i a b l e "yes" s t a y e d 1n scho ol. .8952. The raw ch 1-s quar e v a l u e was 62 Table 4 . 6 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n a n a l y s i s o f IMS— f e m a l e s on c a m p u s . Did Not Respond Yes No Row Total S ta y e rs N Row % 22 27.5 47 58 .7 11 13.7 80 85.1 Leavers N Row % 2 14.3 5 3 5 .7 7 50.0 14 14.9 N Col % 24 25.5 52 55.3 18 19.1 94 100.0 Column Total Table 4 . 7 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of IMS— females o f f campus. Did Not Respond Yes No Row Total S ta y e r s N Row % 23 21.5 40 31A 44 41.1 107 87.7 Leavers N Row % 4 26.7 5 33 .3 6 40.0 15 12.3 N Col % 27 22.1 45 3 6 .9 50 41 .0 122 100.0 Column Total To p r e p a r e f o r a new c a r e e r (NEWCAR) The can on ic a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig h ti n g number was n e g a t i v e / -.07010/ showing t h i s v a r i a b l e t o be s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus/ males o f f campus/ and females on campus. Table 4 . 8 / 4 . 9 / and 4. 10 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . 63 Of t h e males on campus who marked t h i s v a r i a b l e as a g o a l , 80% s t a y e d 1n s c h o o l . The raw c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e was .8469 ( s e e Table 4 . 8 ) . Table 4 . 8 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of NEWCAR— males on campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row Total Stayers N Row % 45 69.2 81.8 20 30.8 80.0 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 10 66.7 18.2 5 33.3 20.0 15 18.8 N Col % 55 68.8 25 31.3 80 100.0 Col umn Total As seen in Table 4.9, 82.5% of t h e fe m a l e s on campus who marked t h i s v a r i a b l e as a goal s t a y e d 1n school. The raw c h 1 -s q u a re val ue was .5413. Table 4.10 shows t h a t 94.6% of t h e males o f f campus who marked t h i s v a r i a b l e as a goal s t a y e d In scho ol. .1027. The raw c h1 -s q u a re v a l u e was 64 T a b l e 4 . 9 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t f o n a n a l y s t s o f NEWCAR— f e m a l e s o n c a m p u s . Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row Total S ta y e rs N Row % 47 58.7 87.0 33 41.3 82.5 80 85.1 Leavers N Row % 7 50.0 13.0 7 50.0 17.5 14 14.9 N Col % 54 57.4 40 42.6 94 100.0 Column Total Table 4 . 1 0 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s t s o f NEWCAR—males o f f campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row Total S ta y e r s N Row % 39 52.7 83.0 35 47.3 94.6 74 88.1 Leavers N Row % 8 80.0 17.0 2 20.0 5 .4 10 11.9 N Col % 47 56.0 37 44.0 84 100.0 Column To ta l The l i k e l i h o o d o £ ■tiiansJ.errj.ng t o a n o t h e r school (TRAN) The c a n o n ic a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig h ti n g number was n e g a t i v e , -.18802, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e t o be s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . 65 The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus, fe m a le s on campus, and fe m a l e s o f f campus. Table s 4.11, 4.12, and 4.13 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i - abl e. As shown in Table 4.11, 82.1% of t h e males on campus who s a i d 1 t was n o t H k e l y they would t r a n s f e r s t a y e d in s cho ol. The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e val ue was .9717. Table 4 . 1 1 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of TRAN— males on campus. Did Not Respond Very Likely Somewhat Li kely Not Li kely Row T ot al Stayers N Row % 13 20.0 81.3 6 9 .2 75.0 14 21.5 82.4 32 49 .2 82.1 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 3 20.0 18.8 2 13.3 25.0 3 20.0 17.6 7 46.7 17.9 14 14.9 N Col % 16 20.0 8 10.0 17 21.2 39 48.7 80 100.0 Column Total Table 4.12 shows t h a t 96.2% o f t h e fe m a l e s on campus who s a i d 1 t was somewhat l i k e l y they would not t r a n s f e r s t a y e d 1n s cho ol. The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e val ue was .0101. As shown 1n Table 4.13, 90.3% of t h e fe m a l e s o f f campus who s a i d 1 t was somewhat l i k e l y th e y would not t r a n s f e r s t a y e d 1n s ch oo l. raw c h 1 - s q u a r e val ue was .7561. The 66 Table 4 . 1 2 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n a n a l y s i s Did Not Respond o f TRAN— f e m a l e s on c a m p u s . Very Li kely Somewhat Li kely Not L i k e ly Row Total S ta y e r s N Row % 20 25 .0 90.9 6 7.5 54.5 25 31.3 96.2 29 3 6 .2 82.9 80 85.1 Leavers N Row % 2 14.3 9.1 5 35.7 45.5 1 7.1 3.8 6 42.9 17.1 14 14.9 N Col % 22 23.4 11 11.7 26 27.7 35 37 .2 94 100.0 Column Total Table 4.13 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of TRAN— females o f f campus. Di d Not Respond Very Likely Somewhat Li kely Not L ik el y Row Total Stayers N Row % 22 20.6 91.7 15 14.0 88.2 28 26.2 90.3 42 39.3 84.0 107 87.7 Leavers N Row % 2 13.3 8.3 2 13.3 11.8 3 20.0 9.7 8 53.3 16.0 15 12.3 N Col % 24 19.7 17 13.9 31 25.4 50 41.0 122 100.0 Column Total To l e a r n s k i l l s t h a t w i l l e n r i c h d a i l y l i f e o r make a more complete person (NRCHLIF) The can oni ca l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig h ti n g number was negative, -.12323, showing t h i s variable to be s i g n i f i c a n t t o attrition . 67 The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus, males o f f campus, and females on campus. Table s 4 . 1 4 , 4 . 1 5 , and 4.16 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . According t o Table 4.14, 79.6% o f t h e males on campus who s a i d t h i s v a r i a b l e was a goal s t a y e d 1n scho ol. The raw c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e was .6328. Tabl e 4 . 1 4 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f NRCHLIF—males on campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row To t al Stayers N Row % 26 40.0 83.9 39 60.0 79.6 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 5 33.3 16.1 10 66.7 20.4 15 18.8 N Col % 31 38.7 49 61.2 80 100.0 Column Total As seen in Ta ble 4.15, 87.5% of t h e males o f f campus who s a i d t h i s v a r i a b l e was a goal s t a y e d 1n scho ol. The raw c h i - s q u a r e va lu e was .8117. Table 4.16 shows t h a t 863% of t h e fe m a le s on campus who s a i d t h i s v a r i a b l e was a goal s t a y e d 1n scho ol. .5440. The raw c h1-s quar e v a l u e was 68 T able 4 . 1 5 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n a n a ly s is Did Not Respond o f NRCHLIF— m a l e s o f f c a m p u s . Yes Goal Row Total Stayers N Row % 25 33.8 89.3 49 66 .2 87.5 74 88.1 Leavers N Row % 3 30 .0 10.7 7 70.0 12.5 10 11.9 N Col % 28 33.3 56 66.7 84 100.0 Column Total Table 4 . 1 6 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of NRCHLIF— females on campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row Total S ta y e r s N Row % 17 21 .2 81.0 63 78.7 86.3 80 85.1 Leavers N Row % 4 28.6 19.0 10 71.4 13.7 14 14.9 N Col % 21 22.3 73 77.7 94 100.0 Column Total To I n c r e a s e chances f o r a r a i s e a n d / o r promotion ( INCRPAY) The can onic al d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e i g h t i n g number was p o s i t i v e , +.09135, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o r e t e n t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus, fe m a le s on campus, and / 69 fe m a le s o f f campus. T a bl e s 4.17, 4.18, and 4.19 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i ­ able. Of t h e males on campus who s a i d t h i s v a r i a b l e was a g o a l, 89.7% s t a y e d In s c h o o l . The raw c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e was .1464 ( s e e Tabl e 4 . 1 7 ) . Table 4 . 1 7 . —C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f INCRPAY— males on campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row To ta l Stayers N Row % 39 60.0 76.5 26 4 0.0 89.7 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 12 80.0 23.5 3 2 0.0 10.3 15 18.8 N Col % 51 63.8 29 36.2 80 100.0 Col umn Total As seen 1n Table 4.18, 91.3% of t h e f e m a l e s on campus who s a i d t h i s v a r i a b l e was a goal s t a y e d in sch oo l. The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e v a l u e was .3367. Of t h e fe m a le s o f f campus who s a i d t h i s v a r i a b l e was a g oa l, 95% s t a y e d In s c h o o l . Table 4 . 1 9 ) . The raw c h 1 -s q u a re v a l u e was .0866 ( s e e 70 Table 4 . 1 8 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f INCRPAY— females on campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row To ta l Stayers N Row % 59 73.7 83.1 21 26.2 91.3 80 85.1 Leavers N Row % 12 85.7 16.9 2 14.3 8.7 14 14.9 N Col % 71 75.5 23 24.5 94 100.0 Column Total Table 4 . 1 9 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f INCRPAY— females o f f campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row To ta l Stayers N Row % 69 64.5 84.1 38 35.5 95.0 107 87.7 Leavers N Row % 13 86.7 15.9 2 13.3 5 .0 15 12.3 N Col % 82 67.2 40 3 2 .8 122 100.0 Column Total To -increase knowledge and u n d e rs ta n d in g in an academic field (KNWLDG) The can onic a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e i g h t i n g number was negative, -.15208, show ing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o attrition . 71 The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males o f f campus, fe m a le s on campus, and fe m a le s o f f campus. T a b le s 4.20, 4.21, and 4.22 r e l a t e t o t h i s variable. As shown 1n Table 4.20, 88.9% o f t h e males o f f campus who s a i d t h i s v a r i a b l e was a goal s t a y e d 1n scho ol. The raw c h1 -s q u a re v a l u e was .5822. Table 4 . 2 0 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f KNWLDG— males o f f campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row To t al Stayers N Row % 10 13.5 83.3 64 86.5 88.9 74 88.1 Leavers N Row % 2 20.0 15.9 8 13.3 5 .0 10 11.9 N Col % 12 14.3 72 85.7 84 100.0 Column Total Table 4.21 shows t h a t 85.5% o f t h e fe m a le s on campus who s a i d t h i s v a r i a b l e was a goal s t a y e d 1n s cho ol. The raw c h 1 -s q u a re v a l u e was .7444. According t o T a b le 4.22, 833% o f t h e fe m a le s o f f campus who s a i d t h i s v a r i a b l e was a goal l e f t school. .5327. The raw c h 1 -s q u a re v a l u e was 72 T able 4 . 2 1 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n a n a ly s is o f KNWLDG— f e m a l e s on c a m p u s . Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row Tot al Stayers N Row % 9 11.2 81.8 71 88.8 85.5 80 85.1 Leavers N Row 7o 2 14.3 18.2 12 85.7 14.5 14 14.9 N Col % 11 11.7 83 88.3 94 100.0 Column Tot al Table 4 . 2 2 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of KNWLDG— females o f f campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row Total Stayers N Row % 13 12.1 94 87.9 107 87.7 Leavers N Row % 1 6.7 14 93.3 15 12.3 N Col % 14 11.5 108 88.5 122 100.0 Column Total A tt e n d in g Saginaw Va lley S t a t e C o lle ge on c o u n s e l o r ' s AdYiCS (COUNADV) The c an onic a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig ht in g number was p o s i t i v e * +.08811* showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o r e t e n t i o n . The v a r i a b l e w as s i g n i f i c a n t f o r m a l e s o f f cam pus, f e m a l e s on ca m pus, 73 and f e m a l e s o f f campus. Ta b le s 4.23 , 4.24, and 4.25 r e l a t e t o t h i s variable. As shown 1n Table 4.23 , 933% of t h e males o f f campus who s a i d they had come t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co llege on a c o u n s e l o r ' s a dv ic e s ta y e d 1n s c h o o l. Table 4 . 2 3 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of COUNADV— males o f f campus. Did Not Respond Reason Row T o t al Stayers N Row % 60 81.1 87.0 14 18.9 93.3 74 88.1 Leavers N Row % 9 90.0 13.0 1 10.0 6.7 10 11.9 N Col % 69 82.1 15 17.9 84 100.0 Col umn Total Of t h e fe m a l e s on campus who s a i d th e y had come t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co llege on a c o u n s e l o r ' s a d v ic e , 87.9% s ta y e d 1n scho ol. The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e va lu e was .5787 (s e e Table 4 . 2 4 ) . As seen 1n Table 4.25, 83.9% of t h e fe m a le s o f f campus who s a i d they had come t o Saginaw Valley S t a t e Co llege on a c o u n s e l o r ' s ad vic e s ta y e d 1n s c h o o l . The raw c h 1 -s q u a re v a l u e was .4516. 5 & '■" •}:■ „-: ?• - 'i< c,;, .- : /';:•>■:> f':* ;-v ; -;,-„ I ■S ■ .l^ V r. • - ' * 0 . . * ' ‘" S 4' '•■.; K V'* ■- :v -a**/. ■■*:.«' TaD ; e - it|5 J 1 m 4W Wm W mm n isi Stav w*WI fm & L , .-ju g ate ^ j|P -3 *i3$§liK$ f P l Leav- Ta: H I iBHnHHi Sta\ {H f Leav* -Sbsw a are *~~ dfs • * t-" * J. ;■< m mKmsi B M m m s 74 T a b l e 4 . 2 4 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f COUNADV— f e m a l e s o n c a m p u s . Did Not Respond Reason Row T ot al Stayers N Row % 51 63.8 83.6 29 36 .2 87.9 80 85.1 Leavers N Row % 10 71.4 4 28.6 14 14.9 N Col % 61 64 .9 33 35.1 94 100.0 Column Total T a ble 4.25 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of COUNADV— females o f f campus. Did Not Respond Reason Row Total Stayers N Row % 81 75.7 89.0 26 24.3 83.9 107 87.7 Leavers N Row % 10 66.7 11.0 5 33.3 16.1 15 12.3 N Col % 91 74.6 31 25.4 122 100.0 Column Total Ten v a r i a b l e s were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t f o r two groups. a r e d i s c u s s e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g pages. They 75 Needing a s s i s t a n c e in r e s o l v i n g a p e r s o n a l problem (PRSPROB) The c an o n ic a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig h ti n g number was positive, +.05240, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o r e t e n t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus and fe m a le s on campus. Table s 4 .2 6 and 4.27 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . As shown 1n Table 4.26, 83.9% of t h e males on campus who had s a i d th e y would no t need a s s i s t a n c e with pe rsonal problems s t a y e d in school. The raw c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e was .4904. Tab le 4 . 2 6 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of PRSPROB— males on campus. Did Not Respond Yes No Row T ot al Stayers N Row % 9 13.8 75.0 4 6 .2 66.7 52 80.0 83.9 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 3 20. 0 25.0 2 13.3 33.3 10 66.7 16.1 15 18.8 N Col % 12 15.0 6 7.5 62 77.5 80 100.0 Column Total As shown 1n Table 4.27, 86.6% of t h e fe m a le s on campus who had s a i d th e y would no t need a s s i s t a n c e with perso nal problems s t a y e d in school. The raw c h i - s q u a r e v a lu e was .2685. 76 T a b l e 4 . 2 7 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f PRSPROB— f e m a l e s o n c a m p u s . Did Not Respond Yes No Row Tot al Stayers N Row % 6 7.5 85.7 3 3 .7 60.0 71 88.8 86.6 80 85.1 Leavers N Row % 1 7.1 14.3 2 14.3 40.0 11 78.6 13.4 14 14.9 N Col % 7 7 .4 5 5.3 82 87.2 94 100.0 Column Total ICL-b.ecome a c t i v e l y Involved in s t u d e n t l i f e and campus activities (INVOL) The can on ical d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e i g h t i n g number was p o s i t i v e , +.06460, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o r e t e n t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus and f e m a l e s on campus. Table 4. 2 8 and 4.29 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . E i gh ty -s ev e n p e r c e n t of t h e males on campus who had s a i d g e t t i n g inv ol ve d 1n campus a c t i v i t i e s was a goal s t a y e d 1n scho ol. The raw c h i - s q u a r e v a lu e was .6552 ( s e e Table 4 . 2 8 ) . According t o Tabl e 4.29, 88.2% o f t h e f e m a l e s on campus who had s a i d g e t t i n g Involved in campus a c t i v i t i e s was a goal s t a y e d 1n school. The raw c h i - s q u a r e va lu e was .6435. 77 T able 4 . 2 8 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n an alysts Did Not Respond of INVOL— m a l e s o n c a m p u s . Yes No Row Total S ta y e rs N Row % 9 13.8 75.0 20 30.8 87.0 36 55.4 80.0 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 3 20.0 25.0 3 20.0 13.0 9 60.0 20.0 15 18.8 N Col % 12 15.0 23 28.8 45 56.3 80 100.0 Column Total Table 4 . 2 9 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of INVOL-- f e m a l e s on campus. Did Not Respond Yes No Row Total St a y e rs N Row % 5 6.3 83.3 45 56.3 88.2 30 37 .5 81.1 80 85.1 Leavers N Row % 1 7.1 16.7 6 42.9 11.8 7 50.0 18.9 14 14.9 N Col % 6 6 .4 51 54.3 37 39 .4 94 100.0 Column Total Was Saginaw Valiev S t a t e Coll eye t h e f i r s t c h o i c e of s c h o o ls (FIRSTC) The can oni ca l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig h ti n g number was n e g a t i v e , -.10115, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . 78 The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r m a le s on campus and males o f f campus. Table s 4.3 0 and 4.31 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . Table 4 3 0 shows t h a t 86.5% o f t h e males on campus who had s a i d Saginaw Valley S t a t e C o lle ge was t h e i r f i r s t c h o i c e of c o l l e g e s s ta y e d 1n s c h o o l. The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e va lu e was .2657. Table 4 . 3 0 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of FIRSTC—males on campus. Yes No Row Total Stayers N Row % 32 49.2 86.5 33 50 .8 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 5 33 .3 13.5 10 66.7 23.3 15 18.8 N Col % 37 46.2 43 53.7 80 100.0 Col umn Total As shown 1n Table 431» 90.7% of t h e males o f f campus who had s a i d Saginaw Valley S t a t e C o lle ge was t h e i r f i r s t c hoic e of c o l l e g e s st ay e d 1n s c h o o l. The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e va lu e was .3151. 79 Table 4 . 3 1 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n a n a l y s i s o f FIRSTC— m a l e s o f f c a m p u s . Yes No Row Total Stayers N Row % 49 66.2 90.7 25 33 .8 83.3 74 88.1 Leavers N Row % 5 50.0 9.3 5 50.0 16.7 10 11.9 N Col % 54 64.3 30 35.7 84 100.0 Column Total The I n f l u e n c e o f Inconvenience, t o go el se w he re f o r school as an a t t e n d i n g f a c t o r f o r Saginaw Valiev S t a t e College (CONVEN) The can o ni c a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig ht in g number was negativ e^ -.09475, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus and males o f f campus. Tables 4.32 and 4.33 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . As shown 1n Tabl e 4 3 2 , 933% of t h e males on campus who l e f t school did no t respond t o t h i s q u e s t i o n . The raw c h 1 -s q u a re v a l u e was .7425. Eighty p e r c e n t o f t h e males o f f campus who l e f t school d id not respond t o t h i s q u e s t i o n . 4.33). The raw c h 1 -s q u a re v a l u e was .9066 (s e e Table 80 Table 4 . 3 2 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of CONVEN—males on campus. Di d Not Respond Reason Row Total Stayers N Row % 62 95.4 3 4.6 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 14 93.3 1 6 .7 15 18.8 N Col % 76 95.0 4 5 .0 80 100.0 Column Total T a ble 4.33 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of CONVEN—males o f f campus. Did Not Respond Reason Row Total Stayers N Row % 58 78.4 16 21.6 74 88.1 Leavers N Row % 8 80.0 2 20.0 10 11.9 N Col % 66 78.6 18 21.4 84 100.0 Column T otal To_ .In c re a s e s e l f c o n f i d e n c e as a goal (SLFCON) The c an on ic a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig htin g number was n e g a t i v e , -.09615, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e t o be s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i ­ tion. campus. The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus and males o f f Table s 4 3 4 and 4 3 5 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . 81 Si x t y p e r c e n t of t h e males on campus who l e f t school had s a i d t h i s v a r i a b l e was a goal. The raw c h 1 -s q u a re v a l u e was .7453 (see Table 4 . 3 4 ) . Table 4 . 3 4 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f SLFCON— males on campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row T o t al Stayers N Row % 29 44.6 36 55.4 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 6 40.0 9 60.0 15 18.8 N Col % 35 43.8 45 56.3 80 100.0 Column Total As shown in Tabl e 435> 70% of t h e males o f f campus who l e f t school had s a i d t h i s v a r i a b l e was a goal. The raw c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e was .3 023. Table 4.35, .— C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of SLFCON—males o f f campus. Did Not Respond Yes Goal Row To ta l Stayers N Row % 35 47.3 39 52.7 74 88.1 Leavers N Row % 3 30.0 7 70.0 10 11.9 N Col % 38 45.2 46 54.8 84 100.0 Column Total 82 Needing a s s t s t a n c e t o improve s tu dy h a b i t s (STDYHAB) The c an on ic a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e i g h t i n g number was n e g a t i v e , -.11075, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r fe m a le s on campus and f e m a l e s o f f campus. Table s 4.36 and 4.37 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . As shown in Table 4.36, 86% o f t h e f e m a l e s on campus who s a i d th e y would need a s s i s t a n c e w it h study h a b i t s s t a y e d in s c hool. The raw c h i - s q u a r e va lu e was .9582. Table 4 . 3 6 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of STDYHAB— females on campus. Did Not Respond Yes No Row To ta l Stayers N Row % 5 6.3 83.3 49 61 .2 86.0 26 32.5 83.9 80 85.1 Leavers N Row % 1 7.1 16.7 8 57.1 14.0 5 35 .7 16.1 14 14.9 N Col % 6 6.4 57 60.6 31 33.0 94 100.0 Column Total Table 4 3 7 i n d i c a t e s t h a t 84.7% o f t h e f e m a l e s o f f campus who s a i d th e y would need a s s i s t a n c e with st ud y h a b i t s s t a y e d 1n s cho ol. The raw c h i - s q u a r e value was .6280. 83 T a b l e 4 . 3 7 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f STDYHAB- - f e m a l e s o f f c a m p u s . Did Not Respond Yes No Row T o t al Stayers N Row % 9 8.4 90.0 50 46.7 84.7 48 4 4 .9 90 .6 107 87.7 Leavers N Row % 1 6.7 10.0 9 6 0 .0 15.3 5 33 .3 9.4 15 12.3 N Col % 10 8.2 59 48.4 53 4.3 4 122 100.0 Column Total Concerned a bout having adequate f i n a n c e s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l purposes (CONCNFN) The can on ic a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e i g h t i n g number was n e g a t i v e , -.06984, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus and f e m a l e s o f f campus. T ab le s 4. 3 8 and 4. 39 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . E1ght y-e1ght p e r c e n t of t h e males on campus who s a i d f i n a n c i n g was a major concern s t a y e d 1n school. The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e v a l u e was .7125 ( s e e Tabl e 4 . 3 8 ) . S ix t y p e r c e n t of t h e fe m a le s o f f campus who did n o t r e t u r n t o school s a i d f i n a n c e s were a major concern. was .2165 ( s e e Table 4 . 3 9 ) . The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e v a l u e 84 T able 4 . 3 8 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n an alysis o f CONCNFN— m a l e s on c a m p u s . Did Not Respond Not Concern Some Concern Major Concern Row Total Stayers N Row % 9 13.8 75.0 9 13.8 75.0 25 38.5 80.6 22 33.8 88.0 65 81.3 Leavers N Row % 3 20.0 25 .0 3 20.0 25.0 6 40.0 19.4 3 20.0 12.0 15 18.8 N Col % 12 15.0 12 15.0 31 38.7 25 31.3 80 100.0 Column Total Table 4 . 3 9 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s of CONCNFN—■females o f f campus. Did Not Respond Not Concern Some Concern Major Concern Row Total Stayers N Row % 10 9.3 90.9 15 14.0 100.0 44 41.1 89.8 38 35 .5 80.9 107 87.7 Leavers N Row % 1 6 .7 9.1 0 0 0 5 33.3 10.2 9 60.0 19.1 15 12.3 N Col % 11 9. 0 15 12.3 49 40 .2 47 38 .5 122 100.0 Column Total 85 Age (AGE) The c an o ni c a l d i s c r i m i n a n t w e i g h t i n g number was negat1ve» -.05571, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r male s o f f campus and f e m a l e s o f f campus. Tables 4.40 and 4.41 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . As shown 1n Tabl e 4.40, 77% of t h e males o f f campus who stay ed 1n school were between 18 and 22 y e a r s o f age. The raw c h 1 -s q u a re va lu e was .7125. Table 4 . 4 0 . —C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f AGE— males o f f campus. Under 18 18-22 23-25 26-30 Row Tot al Stayers N Row % 15 20.3 57 77.0 2 2.7 0 0 74 88.1 Leavers N Row % 2 20.0 7 70.0 0 0 1 10.0 10 11.9 N Col % 17 20.2 64 76 .2 2 2.4 1 1.2 84 100.0 Column Total Of t h e fe m a l e s o f f campus who remained 1n s c h o o l, 61.7% were between 18 and 22 y e a r s of age. was .007 (s e e Table 4 . 4 1 ) . The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e s i g n i f i c a n c e va lu e 86 Table 4 . 4 1 . — C r o s s -ta b u la tio n a n a l y s i s o f AGE— f e m a l e s o f f c a m p u s . Under 18 18-22 23-25 26-30 Row Total S ta y e r s N Row % 39 36.4 66 61.7 1 .9 1 .9 107 87.7 Leavers N Row % 3 20.0 9 60.0 2 13.3 1 6.7 15 12.3 N Col % 42 34 .4 75 61.5 3 2 .5 2 1.6 122 100.0 Column Tha..highes t d-earee..ultim ately planned,.to earn ( ultimat) The can on ic a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e i g h t i n g number was negative* -.07676, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males o f f campus and fe m a l e s o f f campus. Table 4.4 2 and 4.43 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . Table 4.42 shows t h a t 65% o f t h e males o f f campus who s t a y e d 1n school s a i d t h e b a c h e l o r ' s (31.1%) and m a s t e r ' s (33.8%) de gre es were t h e h i g h e s t degre es they planned t o earn. The raw c h 1 - s q u a r e va lu e was .3892. As shown 1n Table 4.43, 69.2% o f t h e f e m a l e s o f f campus who s ta y e d In school s a i d t h e b a c h e l o r ' s (29.9%) and m a s t e r ' s (39.3%) degre es were t h e h i g h e s t de gre es they Inten de d t o earn. s q u a r e v a l u e was .6230. The raw c h i - T a b l e b . b 2 . — C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f ULTIMAT--males o f f No Degree Ce rt i f i cate campus. Asso­ ciate Bachelo r's M aster's Spec. Professi onal Ph.D. Row Total S ta ye rs N Row X 10 13.5 1 1 .b 2 2.7 23 31.1 25 33.8 1 1 .k 8 10.8 b 5. b 7b 88.1 Leavers N Row X 1 10.0 1 10.0 0 0 2 20.0 2 20.0 0 0 2 20.0 2 20.0 10 11.9 N Col X 11 13.1 2 2 .b 2 2A 25 29.8 27 32.1 1 1 .2 10 11 .9 6 7.0 8b 100.0 Ph.D. Row Total Column Total Table b . b l . —Cross - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f ULTIMAT—females o f f campus • No Degree C ertifi­ cate Asso­ ciate Bache­ l o r 's Master's Spec. Professi onal S ta ye rs N Row X 0 0 11 10.3 1 .9 32 29.9 b2 39.3 5 b.l 3 2.8 13 12.1 107 87.7 Leavers N Row X 0 0 3 20.0 0 0 5 33.3 6 b 0 .0 0 0 1 6.7 0 0 15 12.3 N Col X 0 0 lb 11.5 1 .8 37 30.3 b8 39.3 5 b. l b 3.3 13 10.7 122 100.0 Column Total 88 ACT Scores (ACT) The c a no ni c a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig h ti n g number was n e g a t i v e , -.09059, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r f e m a l e s on campus and fe m a le s o f f campus. Ta bl e s 4.44 and 4.4 5 r e l a t e t o t h i s v a r i a b l e . As shown 1n Table 4.44, t h e h i g h e r t h e e n t e r i n g ACT s c o r e s of t h e fe m a le s on campus, t h e h i g h e r t h e i r r e t e n t i o n r a t e . t h e s e s t u d e n t s ’ e n t e r i n g ACT s c o r e s , The lo we r t h e lo w e r t h e i r r e t e n t i o n r a t e . The raw c h i - s q u a r e v a l u e was .6099. Table 4.45 shows t h a t t h e h i g h e r t h e e n t e r i n g ACT s c o r e s of t h e fe m a le s o f f campus, t h e h i g h e r t h e i r r e t e n t i o n r a t e . The lowe r t h e s e s t u d e n t s ' e n t e r i n g ACT s c o r e s , t h e lo w e r t h e i r r e t e n t i o n r a t e . The raw c h i - s q u a r e va lu e was .6793. Six v a r i a b l e s were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t f o r one group. They a r e d i s c u s s e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g pages. The s o c i a l r e p u t a t i o n o f Saginaw Valiev S t a t e C ol leg e as a f a c t o r t h a t in f l u e n c e d e n r o l l m e n t (SOCREP) The c an on ic a l d i s c r i m i n a n t c o e f f i c i e n t w e ig ht in g number was n e g a t i v e , -.17370, showing t h i s v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t t o a t t r i t i o n . The v a r i a b l e was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r males on campus. related to t h i s variable. Table 4.46 1s The t a b l e shows t h a t 80% of t h e males on campus who l e f t school did n o t respond t o t h i s q u e s t i o n . sq uar e v a lu e was .5474. The raw c h i - T a b le 6 . 6 6 . - - C r o s s - t a b u l a t i o n a n a l y s i s o f A C T - - fe m a le s on campus. ACT Sc o r e 0- 7 Stayers N Row * 8 2 0 0 2. 5 0 100. 0 11 n.7 91 . 7 Le a ve r s Column Tot al N Row % N Col % 9 1 1 7. 1 7.1 8 . 3 100. 0 0 0 0 1 2 2.1 12 12. 8 l.l lit A A 3 5. 0 3. 7 5.0 8 0 . 0 6 0 . 0 100. 0 9 11. 2 75.0 It 5.0 66.7 It 6 1 It 3 5 5.0 6.8 1. 2 5.0 3. 7 7.5 7 5 . 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 100. 0 A 2 5 . It 16. 3 8 0 . 0 1*0.0 0 0 0 3 21 .A 25.0 2 l O T H E R S A M f V SHICH WAN A P P { A R O N > O U R S C H O O L O R C O LLEG E R E C O R D S , ST U D E N T ID E N T IFIC A T IO N N U M B E R R v u M M v a i u s C. AD DRESS w B E R A ND STREET M i l l 1 I I T ELEPH O N E N U M B E R . ITT I I I I r r I M II M I 1 I M M Mu sI T± 1 1 1 I s ta te m ziPcoor I 1- L J I 1 National Center for Higher Education M anagem ent Systems The C o lleg e B oard iio 123 6. INSTRUCTIONS: Specific directions are given for completing many of the questions in this questionnaire. Where no directions are given, please circle the number or letter of the most appropriate response, such as in the sample question below - 6 O ther____________________________________ Sample: 4. a Hase sou presiou-is enrolled in ans po-’.-rs .i jars educational institution' II vou have enro. ed m m o 'e than one. please circie the most recent. —0 No I have not been previously enrolled 1 Yes, at this institution 2 Yes at a public two-year college I 3 Yes. at a public tour-year college or university 4 Yes. at a private college or university 5 Yes. at a vocational.'techmcal school, hospital school of nursing trade school, or business school b If you have attended another college, please write in the name of the one vou most recently attended Are you currently married? 0 Yes Qs ° I t s o u are not currently married, you svould circle the number 1 7. The lollossmg statements reilect the g c a i-...' " ’ .ms college students P l e a se circle the letters or all tnose eoa.s that are important to you 1. V\ hat is your sex' <— 0 Female 8 t—1 Male 81 Academic Coals A To increase mv knowledge and understanding m an academic field 90. 91 B T6 obtain a certificate or degree 92 D O ther____________________________________ C To complete courses necessary to transfer to another educational institution 2. Hovs do sou describe vourselt’ Circle one —0 American Indian or Alaskan Native j 1 Asian. Pacific Islander or Filipino J 2 Black or Afro-American | 3 Hispanic, Chicano or Spanish-speaking American 4 VShite or Caucasian 91 “4 95 E To discover my career interests F To tormulate long-term career plans and or goals C To prepare for a new career 5 O ther____________________________________ % H Other L 3. How old are vou? I—0 Under 18 j 1 18 to 22 sears 2 23 to 25 years 3 2b to 30 years 4 31 to 40 years 5 41 to 50 years 6 51 to 60 years —7 61 years or more Career-Preparation Goals 99 100 101 4. Are you currently married? i-O Yes 81~ '-1 No ________________________________ lob- orCareer-lmprovement Coals 9? I To improve my knowledge, technical sk.lls and or competencies requirecffor my |ob or c.veer 98 I To increase my chances for a raise and or promotion 102 103 K O ther____________________________________ Social- and Cultural-Participation Coals L To become actively involved in studentlife and campus activities M To increase my participation in cultural and social events N To meet people O O th e r______________ ,______________________ Personal-Development and Enrichment Coal- 5. Do you feel that you have a permanent handicap? Circle all that apply. 62 0 No h i 1 Yes. restricted mobility is* 2 Yes, restricted hearing hs 3 Yes, restricted vision hi. 4 Yes but I prefer not to record it on this form h" 5 O th e r__________________________________ __ 104 105 io« P Q R S • T ii U O ther____________________________________ 106 10 * To increase my self-confidence To improve my leadership skills To improve my ability to get along w ith others To learn skills that will enrich my dailylite or make me a more complete person To develop my ability to be independent self-reliant, and adaptable 1 2k m u i ii Mir im ui gu000 1100 1200 1 300 1400 1 500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100. 2200 ' 2300 4900 6000 7000 Agricul'ure and Natural Resources Architecture and Environmental Design Area Studies (includes Asian Studies, Black Studies etc ) Biological and Life Sciences Business and Management Communications Computer and Inform ation Sciences Education Engineering Fine and Applied Arts (includes Art, Dance, Drama, Music, etc ) Foreign Languages Health Professions Home Economics (includes Clothing and Textiles. Institutional Housekeeping, and rood Service Management, etc ) Law Letters (includes Creative Writing, Literature. Philosophv. Speech e tc ) Library Science Mathematics Military Sciences Physical Sciences (includes Chemistry, Physics, Earth Sciences, e tc ) Psychology Public*Affairs and Social Services Social Sciences (includes Anthropology, Economics, History Political Science. Sociology, e tc ) Theology and Religion Interdisciplinary Studies Other Undecided but probably program of four or more years P rog ram s u s u a l l y r e q u i r i n g less t h a n f o u r years o f s t u d y 5000 5005 5006 5100 5200 5300 5317 5400 5404 5500 5506 8000 9000 Business and Commerce Technologies (includes Accounting, Banking. Commercial Art. Hotel and Restaurant Management, e tc ) Secretarial Technologies (includes O ffice Supervising and Management, Stenographic and Typing Technology etc ) Personal Service Technologies (includes Stewardess Training. .Cosmetologist, e tc ) Data Processing Technologies (includes Computer Programming. Keypunching, e tc ) Health Services and Paramedical .Technologies (includes Dental and Medical Assistant Technology, LPN, Occupational and Physical Therapy Technology, etc.) Mechanical and Engineering Technologies (includes Aeronautical and Autom otive Technology, Welding. Electronics, Architectural Drafting, etc.) Construction and Building Technologies (includes Carpentry. Plumbing, Sheet Metal, Heating, etc ) Natural Science Technologies (includes Agriculture Technology. Environmental Health Technology, Forestry and W ildlife Technology, e tc ) Food Services Technologies (includes Food Service Supervising, Institutional Food Preparation, etc.) Public Service Technologies (includes Law Enforcement Technology, Teacher Aide Training. Fire Control Technology. Public Administration Technology, e tc ) Recreation and Social Work Related Technologies Other Undecided but probably less than four year program 127 ENTER ING“ STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE P l e a s e r ec o r d t h e number o f your res ponse t o each it em i n t h e boxes on page 4 o f t h e Entering-Student Questionnaire. 19. How s u r e a r e you about your c h o ic e o f a maj or? I. I. •• ID. : ' e a s e i n d i c a t e y our expect ed f a l l nousing s t a t u s . 1. 2. 3. 21. Not sur e Sc-ewnac sure rery sure Co l l e g e r e s i d e n c e ha l l Living a t home wi t h p a r e n t ( s ) Other o f f campus ( a p a r t m e n t , h o u s e , room, e t c . ) -To what e x t e n t a r e you concerned about having a d e q u a t e f i n a n c e s f o r y o u r e d u c a t i o n a l expenses? 1. 2. 3. Not a concern Some concern Major concern Thi s s e c t i o n p r e s e n t s s ev e r al i s s u e s wi t h which you may "eed a s s i s t a n c e d u r i ng t h i s next year. In boxes 22-26 on page 4 , p l e a s e e n t e r a “ 1" f o r YES i f you want such h e l p . If you f e e l i t i s u n l i k e l y you w i l l need a s s i s t a n c e , e n t e r a "2" f o r NO. I need he l p wi t h : YES NO 2 22. Deciding my e d u c a t i o n a l and c a r e e r p l a n s 1 23. Improving my st udy h a b i t s 1 G e t t i n g a c q u a i n t e d and j nvol ve d a t SVSC 1 2 25. Resolvi ng a p er s o n al problem 1 2 26. Tut o r i ng a s s i s t a n c e 1n one or more academic s u b j e c t areas. [ I f y e s , p l e a s e w r i t e t h e s u b j e c t a r e a ( s ) on t h e back o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ] 1 2 . 24. 2 128 How l i k e l y do you t h i n k i t mi ght be t h a t you wi l l : boxes 27-30) 27. ( P l e a s e ervter your r e s p o n s e s in Very Li k e l y Change your maj or f i e l d o f st udy? Somewhat Likely Not At All Likel y 1 2 3 28. Graduate from SVSC? 1 2 3 29. Transfer to another college? 1 2 3 30. Drop o . : of SVSC t e m p o r a r i l y and r e t u r n a*, a '.i'.s r t i n e ( n o t i n c l u d i n g t r a n s •errir;;? 1 2 3 Below are Questions p e rta in in g to a c t i v i t i e s i enter y o u ' responses in boxes 31-33. which you may be i n t e r e s t e d . Please YES NO 31. St ud e n t Government, c l u b s , o r g a n i z a t i o n s 1 2 32. A r t i s t s e r i e s , c o n c e r t s , special 1 2 33. I nt r amur a l 1 2 spc : event? ts and re creation Thank yo., * c r your a s s i s t a n c e . When you have q u e s t i o n n a i r e in t h e manner s p e c i f i e d . i n i s h e d , p l e a s e r e t u r n your completed APPENDIX B DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS FORMULA TO PREDICT STAYERS AND LEAVERS 129 130 DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS FORMULA TO PREDICT STAYERS AND LEAVERS Although not a d i r e c t o b j e c t i v e of t h e re search# d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s p ro v id e s a for mu la t h a t when used 1n a n a l y s i s could a c t as a p r e d i c t o r f o r t h e s t a y e r s and l e a v e r s 1n t h i s stu dy . Once t h e p r o f i l e s were developed# t h e for mu la was used t o p r e d i c t s t a y e r s and l e a v e r s based on t h e i r In d iv i d u a l re sp ons es t o t h e E n t e r i n g S t u d e n t Q u est ion ­ naire. The fo rm ul a 1s a s f o l l o w s : Y = Weighted number x S i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e Y r e p r e s e n t s t h e I n d iv i d u a l s t u d e n t and each s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e t o t h e s t u d e n t group t o be m u l t i p l i e d by I t s weighted number. Once t h e for mula was a p p l i e d and run through d i s c r i m i n a n t a n al ys is # each member of t h e sample group was give n a weig hted number t h a t was e i t h e r p o s i t i v e o r ne g at i v e. Those t h a t were p o s i t i v e and f e l l below t h e s i g n i f i c a n t le v e l of +.05 were more a p t t o s t a y 1n school# whereas t h o s e t h a t were n e g a t i v e and below t h e s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of - . 0 5 were more a p t t o le a v e s c h o o l. The f o l l o w i n g for mu la was a p p l i e d t o males on campus# Groups 1 and 2: S tu d e n t = -.10831 IMS, +.07024 INDPNDT, - . 0 9 1 3 5 INCRPAY, +.05042 LDRSKLS, -. 20 12 5 FIRSTC, +.05240 PRSPR0B The f o ll o w i n g formula was a p p l i e d t o males o f f campus# Groups 3 and 4: 131 Student * +.07980 MARTL, -.05571 AGE, -.0 70 10 NEWCAR, -.0 9615 SLFCON -.2 0125 FIRSTC, -.0 76 76 ULTIMAT, -.09911 COUNADV The fo ll o w i n g formula was a p p l i e d t o females on campus, Groups 5 and 6: S tu d e n t = -.1 0 8 3 5 IMS, -.1 8 8 0 2 TRAN, +.11437 ARCON, +.5340 PRSPR0B, +.09135 INCRPAY The f o ll o w i n g formula was a p p l i e d t o fema les o f f campus, Groups 7 and 8: Student = +.05517 AGE, +.09135 INCRPAY, -. 06 98 4 C0NCNFN, +.08811 COUNADV REFERENCES REFERENCES Arrington* Michael. " A c t i v i s t C o u n s e l l i n g f o r Academically Unpre­ pared U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t s . " Report* Minnesota U n iv e rs ity * J u l y 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 193 984) Astln* Alexander W. " H i g h l i g h t s of Study on Black C o l l e g e s . " 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 126 806) ________ . P r e v e n t i n g S tu d e n ts from Dropping J2ui. F r a n c i s c o : Jo ss ey - B a s s P u b l i s h e r s * 1975. San Bakshis* Robert. "An Assessment o f T r i t o n C o ll e g e S tu d e n t Reten­ t i o n . " Report* May 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 178 106) Baker* Roger G. "A Ps yc ho lo gi cal P r o f i l e of C o ll e g e Dropouts." Report* 1977. (ERIC Document Repr oduction S e r v i c e No. ED 173 698) Bieschke, Suzanne M. D ro pout/S to pout S t u d e n t s . San Diego: Univer­ s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a * O f f i c e of A s s o c i a t e Vice Chanc ellor* August 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 158 695) Bohr* Dorothy H. "A P i l o t Program f o r Community C o ll e g e High-Risk S t u d e n t s . " Report* Sacramento City College* 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 168 635) Bower* C at h lee n. "A Manual f o r Conducting S t u d e n t A t t r i t i o n S t u d i e s . " Technical r e p o r t p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Western I n t e r s t a t e Commission f o r Higher Education* 1974. (ERIC Document Repr oduction S e r v i c e No. ED 119 604) Bowles, James K. "Teaching S t u d e n t s About S e r v i c e s . " Course d e s c r i p ­ tion* r e s e a r c h paper guides* 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction Se r v i c e No. ED 208 277) Bradley* Paul A.* and Lehmann, Timothy. " A t t r i t i o n a t a N o n t r a d i t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n . " Survey* S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y of New York* Saratoga* 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 112 739) Brunner, Wayne D. " R e te n ti o n and A t t r i t i o n : Does I t R e l a t e t o S tud en t Program Goals?" Rep or t p r e s e n t e d t o t h e American Educational Research A s s o c i a t i o n , n . d . (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 153 682) 133 134 C a l i f o r n i a * U n i v e r s i t y of. R e t e n t i o n and T r a n s f e r . U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Undergraduate Enr ollmen t Study. B er ke le y: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , O f f i c e of Academic V i c e - P r e s i d e n t , June 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 215 597) C a r d i n a l , J u d i t h Lyman. "The E f f e c t s of Seme Social Network Charac­ t e r i s t i c s on P e r s 1s t1 ng /N on per s1 s t1 ng T r a n s f e r S t u d e n t s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e rv ic e No. ED 211 128) Carn egie Council on Higher Educa tion. The Next Twenty Years f o r Higher E d u c a ti o n . New York: Carn egi e Council on Higher Education, 1980. C h r i s t e n s e n , Frank. " S o l u t i o n s t o R e t e n t i o n , S tu d e n t R et en tio n S t r a t e g i e s . " Lennlng, Sauer and Beal r e p o r t , 1980. Cohan, Alan J . " F a c t o r s R el at e d t o Freshman Co llege A t t r i t i o n . " Paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Western P s y c h o lo g ic a l A s s o c i a t i o n , April 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 176 170) Copeland, Large Lee. "An E x p l o r a t i o n of Black A t t r i t i o n a t Predomi­ n a n t l y White I n s t i t u t i o n s of Higher E d u c a t i o n . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a ­ t i o n , 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 147 423) Curran, J ay . "Why Do S tu d e n t s Leave t h e U n i v e r s i t y ? " Paper p r e s e n te d t o t h e American Ps yc h o lo g ic a l A s s o c i a t i o n , August 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 210 974) DeWolf, V i r g i n i a A. The Non-Continuing S t u d e n t . S e a t t l e : U n i v e r s i t y of Washington, Educational Assessment C e n t e r, October 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 175 059) D o o l i t t l e , Allen E . , and Zimmerman, M. S c o t t . t i o n . " Repor t, U n i v e r s i t y o f Iowa, 1981. d u c ti o n S e r v i c e No. ED 209 995) " F i r s t Semester Reten­ (ERIC Document Repro­ F e t t e r s , Will 1am B . , and Peng, Samuel S. "C olle ge S tu d e n t Withdrawal, A M oti va tio na l Problem." Paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e American Educa­ t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , n . d . Frank, Austin C . , and J e f f r e y , K a th a r in e M. "Freshman Admissions by Formula." Report, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a a t B er ke le y, J u l y 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 192 675) F r o s t , Martha E. "Toward Understanding t h e Needs of C ol leg e S tu d e n ts Who Delay E n t r y . " Paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e American Ps yc ho lo gi cal A s s o c i a t i o n , September 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 198 434) 135 Gamache» LeAnn M. " P r e - E n r o l l m e n t C o n t a c t s and C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of S tu d e n t s Who E n r o l l . " Paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e American Psycho­ l o g i c a l A ss oc ia tio n * 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e rv ic e No. ED 208 787) Gamble* Bruce R. " A t t i t u d e Survey of New S t u d e n t s f o r t h e F a ll of 1977." Survey* Grand V a lley S t a t e College* A l l e n d a l e , Michigan, October 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 156 016) Garber* Herbert* and Sc he ll* R obert. " D i f f e r e n c e s Between Rates and Modes o f A t t r i t i o n . " R eport, Oswego U niv er si ty* New York, December 1977. (ERICDocument Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 176 673) Garber, R obert. "West Los Angeles C o lle ge S tu d e n t Follow-Up S tu dy ." Report* West Los Angeles College* C a l i f o r n i a , March 1979. (ERIC Document Repro duc tion S e r v i c e No. ED 175 489) G il b e rt * C h a r le s C . * and Lueck* Lowell A. " E f f e c t of C u r r i c u l a Choice on A t t r i t i o n , Western I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y . " Paper pr e s e n te d t o t h e I l l i n o i s A s s o c i a t i o n f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l REsearch, September 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 168 428) ________ . " S t u d e n t Flow Model, Tool t o Analyze t h e D ropout." Paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e I l l i n o i s A s s o c i a t i o n f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research* 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 131 818) ________ . "Where Have All t h e S tu d e n t s Gone?" Paper pre s e n te d t o t h e I l l i n o i s A s s o c i a t i o n f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research* 1976. (ERIC Document Repro ductio n S e r v i c e No. ED 134 129) Glennen* R. E. " I n t r u s i v e C o ll e g e C o u n s e l l i n g . " Jo u rn a l 1 (1975): 2 - 4 . C ol le ge S tud en t Glenny, Lyman A. " P r e s s u r e s on Higher E d u c a t i o n . " C o l l e g e and Uni­ v e r s i t y J ou rn a l ( R e p r i n t ) 12 (September 1973): 2. Gollfredson* Denise C. " P e r s o n a l i t y and P e r s i s t e n c e In E d u c a ti o n ." Report on a L o n g i tu d in a l Study. Baltimore* Md.: Johns Hopkins U n iv e rs it y * 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e rv ic e No. ED 195 911) Gore, Robert M. "Enrollment/Withdrawal S ur vey ." Paper , Bradley College* November 1975. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 128 055) Green, Kenneth C. "E nro l lm en t and R e t e n t i o n : A P r i v a t e College C onso rt ium ." Paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e American A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Higher Edu c a tio n, Kellogg Foundation, March 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 208 791) 136 Gu tie rre z * James. "Study of A t t r i t i o n of Chicano S t u d e n t s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Southern C o l o r a d o . " Report# February 1981. (ERIC Document Repr oduction S e r v i c e No. ED 212 396) Haagen, C. H. College. Venturing Beyond ± hs Camp.US.; St u d e n ts H ie l e a v e Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan U n i v e r s i t y Press# 1977. Harding# Ida Beal. "Adjunct Courses I n t e g r a t i n g Study S k i l l s I n t o Content C o u rs e s ." Pa p e r p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Western C olle ge Read­ ing Ass ociation# A pril 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 208 339) Harpel# Richard L.# and Endo# Jean J . "A Lo ng it ud in al Study of A t t r i ­ tion# U n i v e r s i t y of C o l o r a d o . " Unpublished paper# May 1979. (ERIC Document Repr oduction S e r v i c e No. ED 174 095) Heerman, C ha r le s E. " C o ll e g e Reading and I t s Role 1n R e t e n t i o n . " Paper pre s e n te d a t t h e Annual Meeting o f t h e C o lle ge Reading A ssoc iation# October 1981. Hershey# David E. "E nr ol lm en t Marketing and R e t e n t i o n 1n t h e Coming Decade." Opinion paper# t a k e n from paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e National A s s o c i a t i o n of C o lle ge B u si n e s s O ff i c e rs # January 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 216 567) Honolulu Community C o ll e g e . "Study of 1975 Nonreturning S t u d e n t s . " Report# S tu de nt Flow P r o j e c t # Ja n u a ry 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 148 437) Horvath# Ronald J . "JCC Recruitment# Retention# A t t r i t i o n P r o j e c t . " Guides# J e f f e r s o n Community College# Kentucky# April 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 167 234) Huber# W. H. "Channeling S t u d e n t s f o r G r e a t e r R e t e n t i o n . " and U n i v e r s i t y 47 (197 1): 19-29. College Jackson# C a r l a . "Academic Advising and S t u d e n t R e t e n t i o n . " Columbia S t a t e College# Tenn esse e, Paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e Southern Asso­ c i a t i o n f o r I n s t r u c t i o n a l Research# October 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 165 550) Kapraun# Daniel E., and G o l d r l n , D oris W. "Academic Advising t o F a c i l i t a t e R e t e n t i o n . " Report# 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 197 674) Kowalski# Cash, l b s Impact o f C o l l e g e jsm P e r s i s t i n g and NonP e r s i s t i n g S t u d e n t s . New York: P h i l o s o p h i c a l Library# 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 150 932) 137 Lara# Juan F r a n c i s c o . "The UCLA Community C o lle ge St u d e n t Sur vey ." P r o je c t# U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , O f f i c e of Undergraduate P r o ­ grams, 1980. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 214 547) L a rk in , Pa ul. "How Many S t u d e n t s Are We Losing?" Unpublished s tu d y , P r i n c e George Community C o ll e g e , O f f i c e of I n s t r u c t i o n a l Research, Maryland, March 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e rv ic e No. ED 143 380) Lee, S. "Targeted a t Low-Ab1l1ty S t u d e n t s . " Middlesex Community C olle ge . In Lennlng, Sauer and Beal R eport, 1980. Lennlng, Oscar T. " S t u d e n t R e t e n t i o n S t r a t e g i e s . " s i s , Higher Education Research P r o j e c t , 1980. Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 200 118) In fo rm a ti o n a n a ly ­ (ERIC Document MacMillan and K e s te r . " T a rg e te d a t P o t e n t i a l Dropouts, S tu d e n t Reten­ t i o n S t r a t e g i e s . " Lennlng, Sauer and Beal r e p o r t , 1980. McMillan, Robert L. "Study of A t t r i t i o n . " Unpublished s tu d y , Essex County C o ll e g e , New J e r s e y , October 1977. (ERIC Document Repro­ d u c ti o n S e r v i c e No. ED 148 403) Mercer County Community C o ll e g e . "S tu d e n t Enrollment P a t t e r n . " Computer Tr acing Program, February 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 161 474) Musband, Robert L. "A New Look a t A t t r i t i o n . " January 1976. (ERIC Document Repr oduction S e r v i c e No. ED 124 056) Myers, Carmel, and Drevlow, Susan. "Summer Bridge Program." U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , San Diego, March 1982. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 216 630) Paper, Nash, C har les R. "A D e s c r i p t i o n and E v a lu a ti o n o f Special S tu d e n ts Programs." Paper p r e s e n t e d t o t h e American Educa tiona l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y System of Ge orgia, March 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 165 677) Noel, L. "C ollege S t u d e n t R e t e n t i o n — A Campus-W1de R e s p o n s i b i l i t y . " National ACAC J o u rn a l 21 (197 6): 33-36 . Northern C a l i f o r n i a C o o p e r a ti v e Research P r o j e c t (N0RCAL). "Combined Program t o Analyze A t t r i t i o n and Aid R e t e n t i o n , What Works 1n S tu d e n t R e t e n t i o n . " Beal and Noel p a p er , 1980. Novak, Rynell S. . "Why They Came and Why They L e f t . " Unpublished pa per , North Texas S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , October 1978. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 165 541) 138 P a s c a r e l l a , E. T. " P a t t e r n s of S t u d e n t - F a c u l t y Informal I n t e r a c t i o n Beyond t h e Classroom and Voluntary Freshman A t t r i t i o n . " Journal of Higher Education 48 (1977): 540-52. P e drl ni* Bonnie C . , and P e d r l n i , D. T. "The U se fu ln es s of ACT Scores 1n P r e d i c t i n g Achievement and A t t r i t i o n Among Disadvantaged and Regular Freshmen." Survey* 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 128 429) ________ . " P r e d i c t i n g A t t r i t i o n / P e r s i s t e n c e of Col le ge Freshmen." Survey* 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 132 205) P e r v l n , L. A.; Re1k* L. E . ; and Dalrymple, W. The C o l l e g e Dropout and t h e U t i l i z a t i o n o f T a l e n t . P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y Press* 1966. Pre1s1ng* Paul P. "What Happened t o t h e EOPS S tu d e n ts of t h e Fa ll of 1973?" Report* San J o s e Community College* June 1979. (ERIC Document Rep ro ducti on S e rv ic e No. ED 175 499) Ramlsh, Leonard. C o ll e g e St u d e n t A t t r i t i o n and R e t e n t i o n . College Ent ranc e Examining Board Report* 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 200 170) Reeb, R ic hard. "Academic C al en da rs and S t u d e n t R e t e n t i o n . " Report* Barstow Community C o ll e g e , C a l i f o r n i a * August 1979. (ERIC Document Rep ro du cti on S e rv ic e No. ED 176 826) Richard* Donald J .» and McArver, P a t r i c i a P. "Survey of Non-Returning S t u d e n t s . " Survey, North C a r o l i n a U n iv e rs it y * Greensboro, June 1976. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 125 489) R o se n th a l, William. "Summer 1980 Report on P e r s 1 s t e n c e - A t t r 1 t i o n of Members of E t h n ic Groups." Report* O f f i c e of I n s t r u c t i o n a l Research* Michigan S t a t e U ni v e rs it y * August 1980. (ERIC Document Repro duc tion S e r v i c e No. ED 191 412) S c h e l l , Ro ber t E. "Reasons f o r V o l u n t a r i l y Withdrawing." Report* S t a t e C o ll e g e a t Oswego, New York, February 1978. (ERIC Document Repro duc tion S e r v i c e No. ED 152 142) S c o t t , J une H. " E f f e c t s o f S t a t e and Federal Aid Awards on P e r s i s t ­ e n c e . " Ed.D. Practlcum* Nova U n iv e rs ity * April 1978. (ERIC Document Repro duc tion S e r v i c e No. ED 158 791) S h a f f e r , G a r n e t t S to ke s . "Use of a B io g ra p h ic a l Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 1n t h e Ear ly I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of C olle ge D ro p o u ts ." Report p re s en te d t o t h e S o u t h e a s t e r n P s y c h o lo g ic a l A s s o c i a t i o n , March 1981. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 208 288) 139 S h e f f i e l d and M e s k H l. ''Action P o i n t s f o r Retention* What Works 1n S tu d e n t R e t e n t i o n . " In Beal and Moal re p o rt * 1980. Simmons and Maxwell. "Mi nor ity T a r g e t Program." S te ve ns I n s t i t u t e of Technology. In Lennlng* Sauer and Beal Report* 1980. S1ryk, Bohdan. " I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f High-Risk C o lle ge S t u d e n t s . " Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e American P s y c h o lo g ic a l Ass o c ia ti o n * J u l y 1981. (ERIC Document Repr oduction S e r v i c e No. ED 210 973) Stevenson, James A. " M a t e r i a l l y Dis advantaged S tu d e n ts and t h e T r a n s f e r Function o f Community C o l l e g e . " Opinion Paper* J u l y 1979. (ERIC Document Repr oduction S e r v i c e No. ED 172 882) S u tt o n , Lawrence S. " A n a ly s is of Withdrawal Rates of S t u d e n t s Recelv 1ng F in a n c ia l A id. " Ed.D. P r ac tl c u m , C en t ra l F l o r i d a Community C o ll e g e, Nova U n iv e rs it y * December 1975. (ERIC Document Repro­ d u c ti o n S e r v i c e No. ED 130 700) W a l l e r l , Dan R. " S tu d e n t R e t e n t i o n and A t t r i t i o n 1n t h e Community C o l l e g e . " Report* Mount Hood Community C o l l e g e , Oregon, 1981. (ERIC Document Repro duction S e r v i c e No. ED 210 064) West e t a l . "T argeted a t M ino rit y S t u d e n t s . " C en tr al F l o r i d a Community C ol le ge. In Lennlng, Sauer and Beal Report* 1980. Wetzel, Susan. "Non-Returning S t u d e n t S u r v e y ." Report* Delaware Community College* P e n n s y l v a n i a , April 1977. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 145 906) Wlllner* E r i c . " I d e n t i f y i n g Problems and P o t e n t i a l Drop-Outs Among C ollege Freshmen." Report* 1979. (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. ED 174 708)