Integration and Support: Keys to College Student Retention

Bruce B. Mann

Created for College Access Network

Spring 2014

MANN SUMMARY 2

Problem

The United States is undergoing a dramatic demographic shift that will see white

identified individuals making up less than half the population by 2050 (U.S. Census Bureau,

2005). This change has already affected higher education, where between 1991 and 2001 college

enrollment of historically underrepresented groups rose by 52% and by 2015 those students will

make up 80% of the 2.6 million new students enrolling in college (American Association of State

College and Universities and National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant

Colleges, 2005).

Historically underrepresented groups are disproportionally represented among those who

are academically unprepared for college and therefore need remediation (Brennen, 1998).

Institutions have instituted summer bridge programs (SBPs) as a strategy to lessen the racial

achievement gap and better prepare students for the increased rigor of college life (Strayhorn,

2011). It is important to note that while studies have consistently found that pre-college

academic achievement is the most powerful predictor of first year GPA (Adelman, 1999:

Strayhorn, 2011), SBPs can result in positive psychological outcomes, which in turn affect

academic success. SBPs have shown moderate successes in remediation for low income and

racially minoritized students but have an stronger influence in increasing academic self-efficacy

and skills, however they do not seem to affect sense of belonging and social skills (Strayhorn,

2011).

SBPs as well as other racially specific programs run the risk of negatively stereotyping

minoritized students and of megagrouping (Lee, 2004). Not all minoritized students are the same,

even from the same ethnic or racial background, and attention must be paid to avoid treating

MANN SUMMARY 3

students of a subgroup as a monoculture. Therefore, institutions must utilize diverse strategies

for diverse populations instead of a one-size fits all approach to programming and curriculum

(Lee, 2004)

However, access to higher education is only part of the equation, as there remains a large

achievement and persistence gap in college for low-income, first-generation students, many of

whom identify as students of color. These students make up approximately 24% of the

undergraduate student population yet their path to degree attainment lags well behind their peers.

Across all institution types, low-income first-generation students are nearly four times likely to

leave their college institution (26% vs. 7%) after the first year than students without either risk

factor (Engle & Tinto, 2008). The six-year baccalaureate graduation rate for these students

remains at about 11%, compared to 55% of more advantaged students (Engle & Tinto, 2008).

These completion numbers get direr when low-income, first-generation students start their

college careers at two-year or for-profit institutions.

Low-income, first-generation college students face a number of challenges that affect

their college success and persistence to graduation. They tend to come from ethic and racial

minoritized backgrounds which have low rates of college participation, are less likely to have

financial support from family, have many other family and work obligations which limit

involvement and can lead to stopping out, are less likely to be engaged in academic and social

experiences, and have lower levels of academic and social integration (Engle & Tinto, 2008).

While the primary barrier to engagement and integration is financial (Cabrera, et al,

1992), low-income, first-generation students must also navigate challenges to cultural adaptation.

Students must deal with problems “that arise from living simultaneously in two vastly different

MANN SUMMARY 4

worlds while being fully accepted in neither” (Rendon, 1992). Studies of African American

college students attending predominantly white institutions have shown that many of the students

have negative, isolating and alienating experiences and end up with lower academic achievement

and persistence to degree attainment than White students (Allen, Epps, & Haniff, 1991). This

holds true for other first-generation students as they feel less supported by faculty (Pike & Kuh,

2005) and are more likely to experience acts of discrimination on campus (Richardson &

Skinner, 1992).

Theoretical Foundations

One of the most widely used and cited models of retention is Tinto’s Student Departure

Theory/Student Integration Model (1975, 1987, 1993) in which he posits that the degree of

academic and social integration are key to persistence. Integration occurs in academic systems

formally through academic performance and informally with faculty/staff interaction, and in

social systems through formal co-curricular activities and informational peer and group

interactions. Students who are unable to integration with either of these systems are more likely

to leave.

Building on Tinto, research has shown that the level of involvement matters for student

success. Astin (1984) defines involvement as “the amount of physical and psychological energy

that the student devotes to the academic experience” (p.297). The amount and nature of personal

and educational growth is directly related to the quality and quantity of effort and involvement in

the resources and opportunities provided by the institution (Astin, 1985).

These and other theories are limited when looking at first-generation, low-income, and

students of color and do little to address institutional and individual barriers to integration and

MANN SUMMARY 5

engagement. Currently, most institutions undervalue or completely ignore the cultural capital

students from disadvantaged backgrounds bring to campus (Yosso, 2005). Students caught

between two cultures (Rendon, 1992), can be academically successful without assimilation

through validation; those actions that convey to students that they have the competence and

capacity to persist to graduation (Rendon, 1993). Validation has the following properties: (a) it is

an empowering, confirming, and supportive process that works on positive social and academic

development, (b) it is a process, not an end, (c) it is most effective early in the first year of

college, and (d) it can occur in and out of classroom settings.

Implications for Practice

While many of the recommendations flowing from current research are aimed at

institutional measures and interventions, there are various opportunities for CAN to dramatically

affect student success and persistence in college:

Focus on the first year

The first year in college is critical as 60% of low-income, first generation students who leave

college without a degree do so after their first year (Engle & Tinto, 2008). Offering summer

bridge programs, orientations, encouraging involvement early, and offering supportive

communities all help in improving success and retention. With the common struggle of social

integration for this population, CAN can work to develop more robust cohort and community

programs, which connect CAN students with each other.

Early and consistent tracking and monitoring

While some institutions have early warning alerts, many students fall through the cracks or the

alerts come too late for any effective interventions. Consistent and frequent check-ins with

MANN SUMMARY 6

persistence coaches and data tracking is necessary to intervene or support when needed. Beyond

grades, coaches should be tracking involvement, sense of belonging, social outlook, and personal

challenges and concerns.

Additional academic support

Low-income, first-generation college students tend to be less academically prepared than other

students. While CAN is limited in the academic support they can provide, they can not only refer

students to campus support services but work with them to develop personal success plans to

maximize and track their efforts.

Promote engagement and involvement

Like academic advisors help students find major and programs that fit their goals, CAN CP

coaches can work with students to develop an strategies for getting involved on campus.

Students should not only be encouraged to become involved with co-curricular activities but also

work to develop a deeper level of involvement with academic work and their faculty.

Culture of success

Individual psychological processes greatly affect retention decisions (Bean & Eaton, 2001), and

it is imperative that there is a process of validation through positive psychology in place. Walton

and Cohen (2011) found that a psychologically positive intervention conducted during the first

year of college for African American students had a positive effect on GPA, wellness and sense

of belonging throughout college.

Use mentors

MANN SUMMARY 7

Relationships with similarly situated peers are critical to success for first-generation, low-income

students. Effectiveness of peer mentoring programs has been proven at a multitude of colleges

and universities. Three key takeaways from those programs: (a) other first-generation college

student are the most effective mentors, (b) mentoring requires ongoing contact and

communication, (c) mentors need formal training, guidelines, support and some type of financial

incentive (Council of Independent Colleges, 2013).

Engage family

Low-income, first-generation students are more likely to either live at home or close to home

than their peers. They often have to navigate the competing demands of family and college,

while navigating multiple cultures and expectations. At a minimum, families should be provided

with information and communication to help them as much as their student.

Data. Data. Data.

While it is extremely important to work with individual students holistically to support their

development and academic success, understanding what works and what does not overall is

critical. A robust assessment, data collection, and analysis system with continuous improvement

processes should be developed and utilized moving forward.

MANN SUMMARY 8

References

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and

bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement.

Allen, W. R., Epps E. G., & Haniff, N. Z. (1991). College in black and white: African American

students in predominately white and in historically black public universities. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.

Breneman, D. W. (1998). Remediation in higher education: Its extent and cost. In D. Ravitch

(Ed.), Brookings papers on educational policy (pp.359-382). Washington, DC: The

Brookings Institute.

Cabrera, A., Nora, A., and Castaneda, M. (1992). The role of finances in the persistence process:

A structural model. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 571-593.

Council of Independent Colleges. (2013). Making sure they make it: Best practices for ensuring

the academic success of first-generation college students. Washington, DC:

CIC/Walmart.

Engle, J. & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first

generation students. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Student of Opportunity in

Education.

MANN SUMMARY 9

Lee, W. Y. (2004). Enhancing the first-year experience of African-Americans. In L. I. Rendon,

M. Garcia, & D. Person (Eds.), Transforming the first year of college forstudents of color

(pp. 93-107). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, NationalResource Center for

The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Pike, G.R. & Kuh, G.D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison of

their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(3),

276-300.

Rendon, L.I. (1992). From the barrio to the academy: Revelations of a Mexican American

“scholarship girl.” In L.S. Zwerling & H.B. London (Eds.), First Generation College

Students: Confronting the Cultural Issues. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Strayhorn, T.L. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented student’s preparation

for college through a summer bridge program. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(142),

142-159.

Tinto,V. (1975) "Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent

Research" Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

Tinto,V. (1989) "Stages of Student Departure: Reflection on the Longitudinal Character of

Student Leaving" Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438-455.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition (2nd

Edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Texas becomes nation’s newest “majority-minority” state, Census

Bureau announces. [Press release]. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce.

MANN SUMMARY 10

Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic

and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451.

Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community

cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.