Persistence among First Year Students
Persistence among First Year Students
There is no doubt that the subject of student persistence has permeated numerous academic debates in addition to being topics of discussion in diverse academic literature. Chang, Lerer, & Talley, (2010:347) defines retention, as “the enrollment of a number of a specific group of individuals compared to the official number during its census.” Speaking of persistence in the first year students, persistence defines the number of students who manage to persist from the first year to the second year or from the first semester to the second semester. Many a time, most students fail to persist from the first and second year because of the increased risks of dropouts. Lack of persistence is caused by a complexity of factors ranging from financial difficulties, changes in career aspirations and evolved career goals, change perceptions regarding college, course load, race/ethnicity, and integration into life in college among other factors (Kamanzi, 2010).
Considering the substantial amount of time and money that students and parents consume while selecting an institution of their choice coupled with the amount of time that university officials’ use during the admission and recruitment process, it is highly unlikely for one to expect that students will think of quitting before their graduation (Chang, Lerer, and Talley, 2010, pg. 346). However, the higher low level of persistence among first year students warrants particular attention. The most troubling trend is that the proportion of students who persevere has been decreasing.
Background of the Problem
The objectives, structure, and functions of higher education have evolved over time and such changes have been accompanied by evolving patterns of student admission and persistence. Increased accessibility to higher education partly due to subsidized student loans and in part due improved education programs meant that there would be a rapid increase in number of students enrolling for higher education. Despite increased research and improvement in academic programs, education administrators continue to grapple with the issue of decreased level of persistence among first year students who fail to make it to their second year in college. Porter & Swing (2006) asserts that college education enhances the quality of life, and as such, every student would want to attain a better life by pursuing higher education. Researchers and scholars have undertaken various efforts aimed at examining the psychological, economic, organizational, and sociological theories relating to student persistence and/or retention (Engel, Holford, & Pimlott-Wilson, 2010) thereby leading to the development of sophisticated models that can be used to predict the outcome of students. Nonetheless, efforts from these models are yet to identify the factors that determine the level of student persevering or not persevering.
Problem and Purpose Statement
Persistence among first year students continues to be a paramount concern to many institutions of higher learning because of the low level of persistence among students who fail to make it to their second year in college. Fike (2008) estimates that approximately 20% of students who enroll for a four-year educational program leave the institution during their first year in college or fail to return for their second year. Similarly, Vincent Tinto (Tinto, 1996) argues that 57% percent of all college students who opt to leave institutions of higher learning to do so before commencing their second year, 37% of them citing academic reasons as the cause for their exit. It is certain that the first year in college plays a significant role in determining a student’s capability to persevere or leave college. For this reason, conducting a research on this topic will provide institution-wide implications to parents and higher education in administrators in their efforts to understand the factors leading to the low retention among students in addition to enabling them to develop programs to enable first year students to matriculate into their second years.
The aims of this paper are to examine the factors that play into persistence of first year students as they transform into their second year in college. The analysis of past literature reveals that a multiplicity of factors contributes in influencing a student’s decision to proceed to the second year in college or quit. Nonetheless, it is emphatically crucial to use a model to provide guidance when determining the specific factors that cause low persistence among students in their first year in college.
Change Theory
Several researchers in this field have developed influential models to explain student persistence. These theories include Tinto’s interactionalist model, Astin’s theory of student involvement, and Kuh’s theory of student engagement (Black 2008, pg. 12). According to Tinto’s interactionalist theory, the ability of students’ to navigate their academic and social integration can be used as an ideal measure for estimating the level of persistence. Astin’s theory emphasizes that student behavior is the key factor in determining the level of retention. According to Astin (Black 2008, pg. 12), retention of students is dependent upon 6 conceptual factors that include “family characteristics, educational aspirations, academic ability and background, student characteristics, college expectations, and habits of study (12)”. Kuh’s model argues that factors such as peer cooperation, faculty-student interaction, exposure to diverse perspectives, and a student’s effort in academics are the key determinants of student’s retention capabilities (12).
Drawing evidence from the three theories, it is apparent that all the three theories share common characteristics as far as student persistence is concerned. As much the theories might tend to suggest different perspectives, an academic concern is present in all the three theories. Importantly, the factors proposed in all the theories somewhat center on the student’s behavior, intention, and motivation, and this means that student’s play an active role in their persistence at a given institution. As such, it provides an insight to show that persistence of students in an institution is not only dependent on what happens to them, but also it is dependent upon their actions.
Self-Regulated Learning Model
In order to explain the factors that influence the student’s level of persistence, it is fundamentally crucial to develop a model that covers the multitude of persistence-related activities. The self-regulated learning model proposed in this study is based on the factors that influence student interactions throughout their learning process. This model encompasses an assessment of motivational, behavioral, and cognitive factors that influence the learning process.
Rationale and Decision
The self-regulated model can help institutions to increase the level of persistence among first-year students because identifying all the factors that influence the learning process is crucial in singling out the causative factors for low persistence. For this reason, achieving change using this model will be aimed at satisfying all the motivational, behavioral, and cognitive factors that influence the learning process.
Implementing change using the model
For purposes of improving the low levels of persistence among first-year students, this model can be used to;
(i) Encourage the active participation of first-year students in their own learning processes
(ii) Help students in adjusting their learning behaviors to promote academic improvement and goal attainment
(iii) Ensure that first-year students regulate and monitor aspects relating to their motivation, behavior, and cognition within the institution
(iv) As an organizational leader, the model will enable me to act as mediation between students and institutional factors that influence their academic lives
Leadership Style
The leadership that suits the implementation of the type of transformation being proposed in this study calls for the recognition that change is not an event but rather an extended process. For instance, encouraging increased persistence levels among first year students will follow particular processes such as initiation, formulation, and implementation. The proposed leadership style is the hands-off style because a leader will allow students to pursue what they wish provided it is within reason. The leader monitors the progress from afar and steps in only in situations where things turn awry. This style is ideal because the leader has faith in the students and this inspires students to undertake what is suitable to them.
Positive and negative influences
There is no doubt that every change process has its strengths and weaknesses.
Speaking of the strengths, the change process will bring a source inspiration and motivation to students who would have otherwise thought of quitting or failing to persevere. Second, the change process will help educational administrators to identify the external factors that influence persistence levels among students. The model can also be utilized as the first step in identifying the predictors of persistence, and such information is critical in formulating future models. On the other hand, the negative influences to this change process may include lack of satisfaction among students, personal matters, and failure to convince students that a solution to their problems can be found within (Madgett, & Belanger, 2008). Other expected challenges to the change process include denial, rejection, and lack of commitment to the change process.
Overcoming the negative influences
As earlier mentioned, change is not an event but a process and hence, the challenges to the change process can be overcome through effective planning and effective communication of the project goals and objectives. In terms of educational structure, seeking help and commitment from educational administrators will provide a great milestone in overcoming the negative effects of the change process. Introduction of first-year seminars will help in matriculating the students to their change process and in the process, first year students will obtain a better understanding of what their college life will entail. Identifying mentors for every new student will enable first year students to have a person whom they can look upon for advice whenever the need arises.
Conclusion
Undeniably, many studies have been conducted in efforts aimed at explaining the low levels of persistence among first year students. Equally, theorists have developed a diversity of models that try to explain the causative factors for the low levels of persistence among first year students in institutions of higher learning. This paper outlined the different causes for that might be responsible for the low persistence and it as well, explained some of the theories. This led to the choice of the self-regulating model as the ideal model for implementing change in an institution faced by low levels of persistence among first year students. The implementation of self-regulating learning process is a positive measure towards improving the declining persistence levels among first year students. Strategies in the model can also enable institutions to develop strategies that can be used in the future to ensure increased persistence among students.
Black, R. K. (2008). Self-regulated learning as a predictor of persistence among first
year students. ProQuest
Chang, Y. Lerer, N. & Talley, K. (2010). Considering leaving before they've even
started: an examination of freshmen at risk for transfer. On the Horizon, 18(4):
346 – 354
Engel, L. C, Holford, J. & Pimlott-Wilson, H. (2010). Effectiveness, inequality, and ethos
in three English schools. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy
3(3):140 - 154
Fike, D.S. (2008). Predictors of First year retention in the community college. College
Review, 36(2): 68-88
Kamanzi, P. C. et. al (2010). Academic persistence among Canadian First-Generation
University Students. Montreal: CIRST
Madgett, P. J., & Belanger, C. H. (2008). First-year university experience and student
retention factors. Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 38(3):7-96
Porter, R. S., & Swing, R. L. (2006). Understanding how first-year seminars affect
persistence. Research in higher education. 47(1):89-109
Tinto, V. (1996). Reconstructing the first year of college. Planning for higher education.
25: 1-6
