Student Support & Retention
Student Support & RetentionComparing US & UK Higher Education Institutions
Bryan Beverly
7/24/2009
This paper is an international comparative research design of higher education institutions in the United States and the United Kingdom. The study will focus on retention strategies and student support services and programs.
Michigan State University: EAD 991
Relevance
Internationalization, globalization, and competition among higher education institutions continue to be developing themes on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. Europe and the United States have each managed to maintain higher education superiority through a series of policy innovations that have evolved the relationships between higher education institutions and governing or controlling bodies. European and American higher education institutions remain atop most institutional ranking tables, yet the emergence of Asian, Middle Eastern, and to some degree, South American education systems are beginning to challenge theperennial giants for relevance (ARWU, 2009). In Europe, the establishment of the European Union and the implementation of the current social model have placed a priority on the improvement of higher education systems. In the United States, federal and state governmental policies and funding strategies continue to emphasize the importance of a well established higher education arena. Governmental approaches to higher education can be “summarized as seeing the success of their national economies in terms of the degree to which the labor force is educated,” (York & Longden, 2005, p. 4). However, strategies vary in just how to accomplish the provision of higher education. Internationally, the US and much of continental Europe include modes of education directing toward intermediate qualifications while the UK is leaning more towards degrees than programs for intermediate qualifications (York & Longden, 2005).
Yet, for all of the policy and funding investments into higher education, governments, “seek to ensure that they get the best return on their investment, implying an interest in retention and completion,” (York & Longden, 2005, p.4). Student success is at the foreground of any quality assurance analysis where retention and matriculation relate to institutional achievement. Campus administration, the surrounding community, on-campus social issues, and financial obstacles can dictate the ability of students to succeed. Furthermore a student’s prior educational and social preparation for college, the institution’s structural commitment to student success, and the campus environment all directly relate to a student’s likelihood to remain engaged at the institution and matriculate towards a degree.
These issues are not singular to any one nation or region and the attention devoted to the concept of retention has grown internationally. This study seeks to compare institutional commitments and strategies toward student retention, with the United States and United Kingdom serving as the focus. Using the Academic Ranking of World Universities as a measuring tool, the US has twenty-two of the top thirty universities; the UK has four of the top thirty universities- It should be noted that student success measures are not factored into any of the rankings methodology (ARWU, 2008). It is generally recognized that both of these countries are leaders in the higher education arena and it can be safely assumed that admirable rates of retention and matriculation of students lead to success in the criteria used to facilitate these rankings. Thus, it could prove beneficial to examine these nations’ institutions and higher education systems for the purpose of studying strategies for addressing student retention. In these tough economic times, it is important for higher education leaders to determine what academic programs and services are essential to institutional missions and development, while balancing and improving financial viability.
Conceptual Model
This study seeks to compare international institutional strategies that address contributing factors to low retention rates in higher education by examining student, faculty, and administrative perceptions of achievement and challenges to retention and matriculation. To this end, this study examines several key factors toward student achievement- specifically, Preparedness, Campus Resources, and Campus Comfort.
Preparedness includes those academic and socio-economic attributes that have either, enabled successful students who possess them to achieve in higher learning, or hindered students lacking in these characteristics by delaying or failing to complete their degree program. Academic attributes include, but are not limited to, the quality of primary and secondary education a student received prior to attending a higher education institution; exposure to research, writing, mathematical, and reading expectations at the postsecondary level; experience with educational technology tools and programs; development of proficient time management and study skills; and an ability to navigate the institutional system. Preparedness in relation to socio-economic attributes relates typically to a student’s ability to afford the cost of attending college- tuition, room and board, books, fees, miscellaneous costs, etc. However, it increasingly has expanded to include travel costs to and from a distant home, and family financial obligations. Additionally, a student’s socio-economic background may also restrict their exposure to important historical, cultural, and economic concepts that are accepted as universal among other members of the campus population.
Campus Resources refers to the tools, programs, and initiatives sponsored by a particular higher education institution or any affiliated organization that are aimed at improving or maintaining student academic success. On many campuses, these programs include student services such as, academic advising- where coursework, curriculum plans, and degree requirements are explained and discussed, academic resources- where tutoring, research, test taking and writing workshops are offered, and where tools for students with diagnosed learning disabilities are coordinated. In the conceptual model, Campus Resources also refers to a student’s willingness to access these tools, programs and initiatives and a corresponding responsibility to follow-up on recommendations and advisement.
Campus Comfort is a much more subjective category in terms of its impact on student achievement. It includes school sponsored and recognized student activities and organizations- sports, clubs, Greek, Professional, and Honor societies, and other co-curricular activities. Campus Comfort also refers to informal social groups that develop through academic relationships and community organizations that are not officially affiliated with the academic institution. It serves to measure a student’s engagement in the campus environment and the degree to which they feel secure and attached to the institution.
Literature Review
Many scholars and their research have been dedicated to the concept of student retention on college campuses and it is important to ground this study with an appropriate theoretical framework. Vincent Tinto (1975, 1982, and 1993) is a preeminent researcher on higher education dropouts and he proposes an interactionalist theory of college student departure. With concessions for other economic, organizational, psychological, and sociological theoretical perspectives that have been advanced to describe the higher education departure enigma. For many institutions of higher education, student retention is a major point of emphasis.
Several factors exist that are impactful on the entire student population with regard to matriculation and retention as Tinto (1975) observes, students enter higher education with various individualized and personal traits that play a role in the college student departure process. They include elements from the family background, individual characteristics, and previous academic experiences. Family background traits include socioeconomic status, parental educational attainment, and parental expectations. Individual traits recognized by Tinto (1993) are academic ability, gender, and race. Previous academic experiences include the characteristics of the student's prior school experience and a record of high school scholarly achievement.
With the current economic climate, many institutions are attempting to develop innovative ways to increase student retention from year-to-year and matriculation towards degrees rather than lose students to other institutions or complete drop outs. Misra and McMahon (2006) highlight a sense of belonging as a contributor to student academic success and believe it is the role of the institution to foster this sense of belonging among its student base. This is developed through “a series of activities that provide academic as well as social integration for the students. It is only when they feel part of the educational institution that they can be expected to want to stay there and participate in the educational process.” (Misra & McMahon, p.41, 2006) Placing an onus on the institution to cultivate these connections is indicative of the expanded social capabilities of academia. Many resources are devoted toward student achievement and academic success in order to ensure, not only quality of education, but also an accessible learning environment conducive to goal achievement.
Likewise, student life and cultural initiatives and programs aid in the social development of students, contribute to the comfort of students, and provide a sense of belonging to the campus. More specifically, Misra and McMahon (2006) believe that the establishment of a learning community on campus serves to foster retention by addressing student characteristics at entry to the collegiate level through academic and social integration that develops a sense of belonging.Student engagement contributes to student success through 1) the amount of effort students put into academics and activities and 2) the allocation of institutional resources toward inducing student participation in learning opportunities and services (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt, & Assoc., 2005).
Additionally, evidence exists that suggests that participation in transitional programs prior to attending an institution can expose a student to the expectations of collegiate education. At the secondary level this can include study, time management and coping skills. At the college level this should encourage students to participate in college related activities and emphasize not only the social, but the cognitive benefits of participation (Kelly, Kendrick, Newgent, & Lucas, 2007).
The United Kingdom’s higher education system was chosen in the comparative due to its long standing tradition of postsecondary success. British universities are at the top of European rankings and student dropout rates “remain the lowest in the world” (Shattock, 1999, p.2). The quality of education in the UK is consistently high due to a reputation for effective staff/student contact and while investment in higher education compared to GDP is low among developed nations, scholarly awards and citations continue to rival those of US institutions (Shattock, 1999). Shattock continues,
A recent Council for Industry and Higher Education report shows that corporate spending on British higher education is high and growing, a sign that industry continues to support the system; Higher Education Statistics Agency figures show that the proportion of nongovernment money flowing into higher education is rising. The number of overseas students choosing to study full time in British higher education is three times as large as 15 years ago. (Shattock, 1999, pp.2-3)
At the administrative level, important allocation judgments are imposed after careful evaluation of programs and services. This evaluation includes a prioritizing of programs that closely align with campus missions and strategic initiatives. Reallocation of resources generally follows five themes 1) Enrichment or Expansion of Existing Programs 2) Addition of New Programs 3) Reduction of Programs 4) Consolidation or Restructuring of Programs 5) Elimination of Programs (Dickeson, 1999).
Approach
In an effort to compare structures and strategies that are devoted to addressing student retention, institutions from both the United States and the United Kingdom are examined. This examination is purposed to sufficiently gauge the impact of potential contributing factors of student success and incorporates a mixed methods structure of research. Qualitative research models will be used to demonstrate a relationship between the independent variables (contributing factors) and the dependent variable (student success). This will be accomplished through an analysis of a series of forum discussions with students, faculties and administrative staffs at several institutions stateside and abroad. A quantitative research approach will be used to analyze a survey of students, faculties, and administrative staffs at each of the institutions and contrasted against graduation completion rates. Each of these instruments focuses on perceptions of academic and social methods of integration that are designed to stimulate opportunities for success.
Institutions with similar missions and capacities should be selected in order to ensure facility for implementation of recommendations. To this end, institutions in the US to be evaluated include major research institutions with a concerted emphasis on teaching and service. Additionally, in order to address potential regional incongruity among these institutions, five institutions will be selected from across the US. Furthermore, with the goal being to improve student retention and matriculation, only institutions ranking outside of the top 100 “Best Colleges: Highest Graduation Rates” according U.S. News and World Report will be selected. These institutions include: Syracuse University, University of Miami (FL), Baylor University, University of Colorado, and the University of Washington (US News and World Report, 2008). This list includes two public institutions and three privately chartered institutions that currently receive funding grants from both state and federal governments.
For the comparative, institutions with similar concentrations on research, teaching, and service will be selected in the UK. Similarly, institutions will be selected from across the country rather than those clustered in one particular region. Furthermore, institutions will be selected that rank favorably along 4-year graduation completion rates according to HarperCollins Good University Guide. These institutions and their respective graduation completion rates include: the University of Warwick (96%), University of Bristol (95.6%), University of Exeter (94.8%), Cardiff University (92.4%), King’s College London (92.3%), and the University of Edinburgh (90.4%), (Good University Guide, 2009). Three of the institutions are in England, while Cardiff University is in Wales and the University of Edinburgh is in Scotland. All of these institutions are funded by the government.
All of the institutions in the US and the UK have integrated some form of student services into their academic structures. Examples of Student Retention programs and services in the UK include: Education Enhancement-Skill Development, University of Exeter; Student & Academic Services Group/Student Counseling Services, University of Edinburgh; Advisory Services, Cardiff University; Learning and Teaching Strategies, Kings College London; StudentHelp, University of Bristol; and the Center for Student Development and Enterprise, University of Warwick. These examples could potentially serve as benchmark programs for institutions in the US that are not succeeding proportionately with retention and matriculation.
Procedures
The student panel discussions willbe facilitated by a researcher who directs the interaction around four major questions regarding collegiate education and student retention: Why are you in college? What keeps you in school? What gets you to succeed? How effective are student academic support services? Students will be recruited by campus wide email invitations and through contact with leading organizations on campus. The discussion opportunities should be held in a large conference room, with students grouped around tables, or in a semi-circle to foster interaction. Each session will be videotaped with students all signing consent forms. Student names should be changed to protect their identity in reporting.
The student survey will focus on student perceptions of prior academic preparation, perception of campus climate, awareness and use of academic resources, and the role/importance of participation in student organizations. The format will followed the Agree, Strongly Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree survey model with separate sections that are meant to gauge awareness and participation with campus programs and organizations. Additionally, short answer space will be provided to allow for qualitative responses to organizational engagement questions.
Furthermore, statistical analysis of student achievement at the institutional level will be examined to compare individual institutions commitment toward student success. At the national level, domestic data from the US Student Association Foundation, US Department of Education- National Center for Education Statistics and foreign data from the Council for Industry and Higher Education, and the Higher Education Statistics Agencywill be included to show comparative achievements along international lines.
The faculty discussion will center on teaching and perceptions of student learning outcomes. Key research questions will include: How would you describe the relationship between student attendance and student success? What are your observations regarding the effectiveness of student support services toward academic success and retention? How much input does faculty have in improving student support services? How strong of an indicator for student success is student self-responsibility? Faculty participating in the discussion forum will be appointed by a Dean or Vice President for Academic Affairs in collaboration with recommendations from any faculty governing body or organization to ensure impactful and diverse perspectives. The discussions will follow the same interactive strategy as in the student discussions and will be recorded with permission and identity security measures.
The faculty survey will address student preparation, the perceived effectiveness of student support services and the frequency of collaboration between faculty and support programs and services. Faculty will be able to record their observations of student achievement, potential barriers to student success, and student preparedness for college level learning. Additionally, faculty will be provided space to register their recommendations for student retention with regard to learning outcomes and curricular capacity.
Understanding that institutional missions and capacities are constantly changing, the administrative discussion forums will focus on current programs and services available at the institution. Research questions will include: What programs or services exist at your institution that addresses a potentially unprepared student? How are current support services and programs geared toward student success being evaluated? What steps are being taken to improve student participation in learning programs and services? How can student input be more effectively incorporated into student support services strategies? Administrative staff will be appointed to participate in the discussion by chief administrator for student affairs or services. The discussions will hold a similar interactive style and environment as in the student and faculty discussions, and will likewise be videotaped with permission and identity protections.