Reference no: EM132703518

Introduction

Research conducted at Canadian post-secondary institutions has often reported rates of student attrition that are in the order of 40% to 55% over the course of a multi-year program (Grayson & Grayson, 2003; Swail, 2004). It should be noted that many of these student persistence studies have been limited by their inability to track students' progression through multiple years, programs and/or institutions. One Canadian study carried out by Finnie and Qiu (2008) accounted for students who switched programs and stopped-out (i.e., left the post-secondary system and returned later) and found overall persistence rates that were higher than the generally accepted norm.

Regardless of retention levels, when students drop out of programs prior to graduating, there is a significant cost to the individual, the institution, and to society. Consider, for example, that post-secondary education and training consumes significant financial resources invested by both individuals and governments. When individuals fail to reach their full potential and meet their career goals, our society may also lose out on some of the well-established benefits of a highly educated population such as higher incomes, lower unemployment, increased tax revenues for government, improved population health, faster technology creation and adoption, reduced crime, increased civic involvement, and so on. There is much interest in stemming rates of student attrition, in light of considerable real and potential negative effects that arise when drop-outs occur. As a result, much attention and significant institutional resources have been directed toward improving post-secondary student success and program completion rates.

Student Persistence Models
Student decisions to leave post-secondary programs prior to graduation may be involuntary or voluntary. Involuntary withdrawal occurs when students are required to discontinue studies as a result of failure to meet the mandatory academic requirements of their program. Students may also voluntarily withdraw for a variety of reasons that may or may not be related to their academic performance.

Student retention and attrition is influenced by the complex interplay of multiple variables. While post-secondary persistence research has been approached from a variety of perspectives, the most influential models have been person-environment fit theories which have examined individual student abilities, motivations, and preferences and their fit with the environmental or institutional context. They contend that when the fit between the person and the institutional environment is poor, performance will be impaired and early withdrawal is more likely to occur. Conversely, when the fit is good, performance will be enhanced and the possibility of persistence will increase.

Tinto's (1975) Student Integration Model has been perhaps the most influential model of student retention. The model (see below) attributes student attrition to a lack of congruency between students and institutions. Under this model, each student's commitment to personal educational goals and to a specific institution are shaped by a sufficient match between their motivation and academic ability as well as the academic and social characteristics of the educational institution. Tinto's model advances the idea that a higher degree of academic and social integration in the post-secondary setting leads to a lesser likelihood of withdrawal. Essentially, this model suggests that a better ‘fit' between student and institution will enhance academic and social integration and subsequently result in a higher likelihood of retention.

Figure 1: Student Integration Model by Vincent Tinto. From J. Paul Grayson with Kyle Grayson, Research on Retention and Attrition, Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, 2003, p. 12. Original source: Figure 1: A Conceptual Schema for Dropout from College, in Vincent Tinto, Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research, Review of Educational Research, 45(1): 95, ©1975 American Educational Research Association.

In the years since Tinto (1975) proposed the Student Integration Model theorists have proposed many additions to the model and numerous new conceptualizations of student retention and persistence have been proposed. For example, Swail (2004) proposed his Geometric Model of Student Persistence, which places the primary focus on the student, suggesting that student persistence is most probable when social, cognitive and institutional factors are in equilibrium (see below).

Discussion Activity
Respond to the questions below based on the readings for this week. This is not intended as a paper or essay, but should be a good solid response. Feel free to reference other documents and/or web sites. Please post your responses in the body of the message, NOT as an attachment.

Each class member should place their response to the question in the Week 9 Work Module discussion topic folder using the following title:

Discussion Questions
Imagine you are a senior manager at a post-secondary institution who has been assigned the task of increasing the rate of student retention and graduation at your institution. Choose one of the student retention models outlined in the readings for this week and explain how you might apply it in practice. Identify one advantage and one disadvantage of the model you selected from a practical perspective.

Attachment:- module_9.rar