Advances - and a Retreat - in Student Retention

Experiencing a fifty percent drop-out rate of first-year to second-year students, Mountain Empire Community College employees made retention the college’s top priority. Student and faculty surveys were administered to determine perceptions of the causes of student withdrawals; a two-day summer retreat was held; and a retention task force and standing retention committee are developing a comprehensive retention plan for the fall of 1997.

The student is . . .
. . . the most important person on the campus.
Without students, there would be no need for this institution.
. . . not a cold enrollment statistic but a flesh and blood human being with feelings and emotions like our own.
. . . not someone to be tolerated so that we can do our thing.

They are our thing.
. . . not dependent on us.
Rather, we are dependent on them.
. . . not an interruption of our work, but the purpose for it.
We are not doing them a favor by serving them.
They are doing us a favor by giving us the opportunity to do so.
¾Presented at the 1995 National Conference on Student Retention, author unknown

An institution committed to student success must also be committed to student retention, for often the key to success for many students is mere persistence. At Mountain Empire Community College, with an average first-to-second-year dropout rate of 50 percent and a similarly high fall-to-spring semester dropout rate, student retention was identified in 1995 as a priority institutional initiative. The retention initiative was urged forward by the president of the college who understood not only the long-term economic consequences of attrition to students, but the severe financial implications of attrition to the college as well.

Well known and well documented are the statistics that equate higher degrees with higher wages. In general, people holding a college degree earn more money than those possessing only a high school diploma. Less well known are statistics showing the costs of attrition, in monetary terms, to colleges. According to a formula developed by the Noel-Levitz Group, based upon Mountain Empire Community College’s current first-to-second-year dropout rate, the total net revenue gained by retaining one first-year student to graduation amounts to $4,025. And the college would realize a total dollar value savings of $94,588 by reducing the first-to-second-year dropout rate by 10 percent. In the current budgetary climate, these savings are quite compelling.

Once identified as a priority institutional initiative in 1995, Mountain Empire Community College conducted several studies to determine how best to address the problem of attrition on campus. To disseminate the results of the findings and to encourage collegewide commitment to the initiative, a faculty and staff retreat was held which focused on specific ways to improve student retention at Mountain Empire Community College. Finally, a task force was formed to develop a comprehensive retention plan, and subsequently a standing retention committee was formed to implement that plan. Currently, a comprehensive college plan for improving student retention is being incrementally implemented and will be completely in place by fall semester of 1997.

In the fall of 1995, a study involving all students who either officially or unofficially withdrew from all classes before the end of the semester was conducted to determine the reasons students were not persisting to semester completion. Students who officially withdrew were identified with an assigned grade of “W” in all courses, and students who unofficially withdrew were identified by the classroom instructors as having missed the last three consecutive weeks of scheduled class meetings.

It was determined that three distinct categories of withdrawals occurred in the 1995 fall semester: (1) official withdrawal prior to the census date, (2) withdrawal between the census date and the last official day to withdraw, and (3) unofficial withdrawal whereby students simply stopped attending classes. To identify reasons for withdrawal, official withdrawal forms used by the Admissions and Records Office were reviewed, and student responses to the question pertaining to reason for withdrawal were compiled. Responses were incomplete, however, and obviously no forms existed for those students who unofficially withdrew by ceasing to attend classes.

To acquire data on a representative sample of students who had withdrawn from classes, not just those who had completed the withdrawal form, a telephone survey was conducted by faculty and staff volunteers. Students identified as having either officially or unofficially withdrawn from all classes in the 1995 fall semester were telephoned and asked to respond to ten questions about their reasons for deciding not to complete the term. The suggested script for the telephone survey along with the questionnaire administered by telephone to each interviewee is included in the appendix.

To ascertain faculty perspectives on student retention, all faculty, including librarians, counselors, and administrators, were asked to complete a faculty opinion survey. The form asked for faculty perceptions about a number of relevant issues, including the reasons for student attrition, techniques employed to prevent attrition, and actions the college should take to increase retention. Approximately 70 percent responded. The survey instrument is included as an appendix.

In the spring of 1996 a retention task force was formed and given the charge of reviewing all attrition/retention data collected during the fall semester and using that information as the basis for formulating a plan to increase student retention among all student populations, both on and off campus.

Studies show that pre-enrollment variables, including gender and age as well as high school grade point average and enrollment goals, are good predictors of attrition (Feldman, 1993). More females than males withdrew from classes between the census date and the last official day to withdraw—weeks 2-10 of the semester. Mountain Empire Community College enrolled students in the fall of 1995 at a male to female ratio of 1 to 1.7. They withdrew, however, at a ratio of 1 to 2.44 respectively. Findings of other studies vary with regard to the relationship between gender and persistence. While some studies suggest no relationship, two (Voorhees, 1987; Feldman, 1993) suggest that females are more likely to persist than males.

Age has also been identified as a factor affecting student persistence. Feldman (1993) found that students aged 20 - 24 were 1.77 times more likely to drop out than students aged 19 or younger. The results of the MECC study supported this finding, with students aged 20-25 constituting the largest percentage of withdrawals by age group. Students aged 36 and older represented the next highest percentage of withdrawals (see chart below).

Age	% Withdrawal
<=19	13
20-25	45
26-35	14
>=36	28

In looking at when students are most likely to withdraw from classes, anecdotal wisdom was confirmed; it was found that the majority of students wait until the eleventh hour—just prior to the deadline—to withdraw. Fifty-seven percent of students in the MECC study officially withdrew in weeks nine and ten of the fall semester.

Data collected from the withdrawal forms and the telephone survey revealed that students withdrew from college for sundry reasons, including everything from loss of income to loss of transportation to loss of interest. Two predominant and conflicting commitments, however, were cited most frequently as reasons for discontinuing classes: work and family. More than 60 percent of students surveyed by phone indicated that they were employed while attending MECC. The review of withdrawal forms revealed that 33 percent of students listed work conflicts as the reason for withdrawal, and approximately the same percentage of students surveyed by phone concurred. Similarly, 32 percent of students cited personal or family illness on withdrawal forms as the reason for withdrawing from classes, and 24 percent of phone respondents attributed their withdrawal to personal or family conflicts.

As might be expected in community college, a relatively small percentage (32%) of students surveyed had the completion of a degree, certificate, or diploma as their primary educational goal. Many were taking courses to transfer to a four-year college or university, or to gain job-related skills; these students had not set out to complete a college program. Some were enrolled for personal interest or to explore possible career options. The fact that the goal of most students was something other than completing a degree caused the retention task force to begin their work by defining retention for Mountain Empire Community College, thereby enabling future data collection to more accurately distinguish between dropouts and those who left after completing their short-term educational goals.

Seemingly due to the high percentage of financial aid recipients at Mountain Empire Community College (85%), few students surveyed cited the cost of tuition and fees or books and supplies as relevant to their decision to discontinue classes at the college. And the cost of child care was a significant factor for only 6 percent of students surveyed.

Faculty identified many of the same reasons for attrition that students cited, but faculty also perceived that attrition results from problems with student immaturity, lack of goals, and poor academic preparation. Faculty responses to the question, “What do you perceive as the primary reasons for attrition among our students?” were divided into two categories: (1) obstacles created by personal circumstances or traits and (2) academic specific obstacles. Tinto (1975) noted that among the most serious problems with which at-risk students must contend are those created by family background (social status, values, expectations), individual attributes (sex, race, ability), and precollege schooling (GPA, academic and social attainments).” Obstacles of personal circumstances or traits cited by faculty included health, marital, financial, transportation, and child care problems; low motivation; low self-esteem; employment changes; no, wrong, or unrealistic goals; and immaturity. Academic specific obstacles cited included poor academic preparation, poor study habits, low grades, poor advising, inadequate orientation, heavy class loads, poor class attendance, and lack of awareness of the demands of college. In this study, students more often cited external influences, whereas faculty more often cited internal influences, as the most relevant determinants of attrition.

Student-faculty interaction has been found to have a stronger relationship to student satisfaction with the college experience than any other variable. From a survey of 944 two- and four-year public and private colleges and universities, all types of institutions considered the “caring attitude of faculty and staff” to be the most important retention factor at their institution (Roueche, 1993). Mountain Empire Community College faculty were asked what techniques they employ to promote retention in their roles as academic advisors and instructors. As academic advisors, faculty reported giving their advisees encouragement and support; helping them to define their goals; sending notes, making phone calls, visiting advisees; discussing the results of dropping out; emphasizing class attendance; and referring advisees to counselors and tutors. A frequently reported retention technique employed in the classroom that overlapped one used in academic advisement was the provision of encouragement and support to students. Other techniques cited by instructors included teaching a quality course; providing out-of-class assistance; making the course relevant to life; making accommodations and exceptions when warranted; administering more tests and quizzes to provide ongoing feedback about student progress; and making the classroom student centered.

Faculty opinions about what actions the college should take to increase retention were also obtained from the faculty survey. The prevailing opinion was that the college needed a comprehensive retention plan, and it was suggested that a retention task force be formed to construct such a plan.

In the 1996 spring semester, a retention task force representative of all college constituents was formed and charged with the development of a retention plan for the college. They began their work by reviewing the different ways in which retention is defined at other institutions, then developing a working definition for retention at Mountain Empire Community College. It was decided that enrollment in the subsequent semester would constitute persistence, and completion of two-thirds of courses attempted with a 2.0 or higher grade point average would constitute academic achievement. Data collected by the task force indicated that over a five year period, nearly 700 students had earned a grade point average of 0.0 during their initial semester. The task force recommended that the college study this group of students who make no academic progress during their first semester and that intervention strategies be developed to help them succeed. Other task force recommendations included the following

The task force also rightly recognized and recommended that Mountain Empire Community College’s retention plan should involve all faculty, staff, and administrators, as well as students. In addition, it was recommended that the college establish a standing retention committee to oversee the retention plan and to continue the study of factors related to retention. Finally, the task force recommended that a college-wide retention goal—defined in terms of both persistence and academic achievement—be set, and that progress toward this goal be continually monitored and evaluated through data collection and analysis.

To inform all faculty and staff about the college’s retention effort and to involve the entire college community in working together to understand how to implement effective retention strategies, a Virginia Community College System research grant was sought and funding was obtained to sponsor a retention retreat. The purpose of the retreat was to bring all faculty, staff, and administrators together in a relaxing setting away from campus to learn and discuss how to do a better job of retaining students at Mountain Empire Community college. A workshop leader was brought in to share her expertise on the subject of retention and, more importantly, to facilitate discussion about student retention among college participants. The two-day retreat, which was held just prior to fall semester, 1996, was a huge success. Participant responses were very favorable, and the enthusiasm generated during the retreat fueled retention activities back on campus; for example, a workshop for adjunct faculty was conducted in October. The workshop focused on classroom strategies for improving student retention.

The president’s identification of retention as a college priority and the formation of a standing college committee on retention have been most critical to sustaining collegewide interest and enthusiasm. The standing retention committee is currently fleshing out the skeletal plan that was developed by the retention task force, and a document describing Mountain Empire Community College’s complete retention plan is being developed. This plan will undoubtedly include most, if not all, of the recommendations of the task force. Several of those recommendations have already been implemented. One minor example is that permanent name tags were purchased for all full-time faculty and staff, and these name tags are being worn by all during the first three weeks of each semester to make it easier for students to identify college personnel to assist them. Further, a thorough review of the student orientation program revealed deficiencies, so a new retention-conscious orientation program was developed and will be in place by spring semester, 1997. A buddy system is being developed that will encourage more frequent interaction between students and Mountain Empire Community College faculty and staff. Finally, the team of academic administrators has made great strides in the improvement of class and program accessibility to students, including the development of weekend college and the expansion of distance learning alternatives. Now students who have work and family schedules that have previously made college attendance difficult or impossible can opt for an alternative time and place to continue their education. Each retention effort is being monitored for effectiveness, and necessary modifications will be identified by the committee.

The mission of Mountain Empire Community College is to provide quality educational programs and services to the citizens of our region. In addition to making those programs and services available, we are also committed to helping students find ways to overcome obstacles that too often cause them to abandon their educational goals. At Mountain Empire Community College, we have identified through our retention initiative ways to create a staying environment for students. Creating that staying environment will continue to involve the identification of factors that cause students to drop out, then responding through every means possible to retain them. Improving the rate of student persistence will, we believe, improve the economic well being of our students and of the institution itself.

Feldman, M. J. (1993). Factors associated with one-year retention in a community college. Research in Higher Education, 34(4): 503-512.

Roueche, J. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: The at-risk student in the open-door college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.

Voorhees, R. A. (1987). Toward building models of community college persistence. Research in Higher Education, 26(2): 115-129.

Dr. Robert H. Sandel is the president of Mountain Empire Community College in Big Stone Gap, Virginia. Dr. Debbie Sydow is Dean of Academic and Student Services.

1. Approximately what percentage of students in any given class you teach either officially withdraws or simply stops attending classes before the end of the semester?

2. Is the percentage of non-persisting students higher in fall, spring, or summer semester, or does the percentage remain relatively constant regardless of the semester?

3. What do you perceive as the primary reasons for attrition among our students?

4. Do you believe a student’s curriculum, enrollment status (full-time or part-time), employment status (employed or unemployed), or similar factors influence attrition?

5. What techniques or approaches do you employ as an advisor to encourage students to persist toward completion of their academic goals?

6. What techniques or approaches do you employ as an instructor to encourage students to persist toward completion of their academic goals?

7. What actions do you think the College should take (short-term and long-term) to increase student retention?

Hello. My name is __________, and I am calling from Mountain Empire Community College. We are conducting a short survey of students who began classes at the college this fall but have since withdrawn or stopped attending. Is this (first and last name)? [OR] May I speak with (first and last name).

May I ask you a few questions about your experience at Mountain Empire Community College? Thank you.

1. When you enrolled at MECC, what was your main educational goal? (check one or record the student’s answer under “other”)

4. Are there courses or programs you would take if they were offered by the college?

5. How important was the cost of tuition and fees in your decision to discontinue classes at MECC?

6. How important was the cost of books and materials in your decision not to continue?

That concludes my questions. Thank you for participating, and if MECC can of service to you in the future, don’t hesitate to call.

Advances—and a Retreat—in Student Retention

by Robert H. Sandel and Debbie Sydow