Taking student retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of college

Vincent Tinto's speech with this title was delivered in 2002. But it was featured in today's issue of the Innovative Educators newsletter. He has some interesting things to say about student engagement, especially in the first year, learning communities, and related topics. Here's a little of what he said. After reading these excerpts, I hope you'll want to read the entire speech.

...while many colleges have adopted a variety of programs to enhance retention, most programs are add-ons that are marginal to the academic life of the institution. Too many colleges have adopted what Parker Palmer calls the “add a course” strategy. Need to address the issue of diversity? Add a course in diversity studies. Need to address the success of new students? Add a freshman seminar. Need to address student retention? Bring in a consultant and establish a committee or office charged with that responsibility. The result is a growing segmentation of services for students into increasingly autonomous fiefdoms whose functional responsibilities are reinforced by separate budget and promotion systems. Therefore, while it is true that retention programs abound on our campuses, most institutions, in my view, have not taken student retention seriously.

What would it mean for an institution to take student retention seriously? Among other things, it would mean that institutions stop tinkering at the margins of institutional life and make enhancing student retention the linchpin about which they organize their activities. It would mean that institutions move beyond the “adding-on” of services by recognizing that the roots of attrition lies not only in their students but also in the very character of the settings in which they ask their students to learn; settings which are now taken for granted as “natural” to higher education.

Well what about the research? What does it tell us about the conditions which foster student retention? First, it tells us that students are more likely to persist and graduate in settings that take advising seriously; that provide clear, consistent, and easily accessible information about institutional requirements, that help students understand the roadmap to completion, and help them understand how they use that roadmap to decide upon and achieve personal goals. Second, students are more likely to persist and graduate in settings that provide support - academic, social, and personal - in ways which is both available and connected to other parts of their collegiate experience. Third, students are more likely to persist and graduate in settings that involve them as valued members of the institution. Frequency and quality of contact with faculty, staff, and students has repeatedly been shown to be an independent predictor of student persistence. This is true for large and small colleges, rural and urban colleges, public and private colleges, and for two and four-year colleges and universities. It is true for women as well as men, for students of color as well as for anglo students, and for parttime as well as full time students. Simply put, involvement matters and at no point does it matter more than during the first year when student attachments are so tenuous and the pull of the institution so weak. Finally and most importantly, the research tells us that student learning is the root of student persistence. Students who learn, are students who stay. Institutions that are successful in building settings that educate their students, all students, not just some, are institutions that are successful in retaining their students.

The research in this regard could not be clearer. Students who find support for their learning, receive frequent feedback about their learning and are actively involved in learning, especially with others, are more likely to learn and in turn more likely to stay. Unfortunately, it remains the case that most first year students experience learning as isolated learners whose learning is disconnected from that of others. They continue to engage in solo performance and demonstration in what remains a largely show-and-tell learning environment. Their experience of learning is still very much a "spectator sport" in which faculty talk dominates and where there are few active student participants. It is little wonder then that students seem so uninvolved in learning. Their learning experiences are not very involving.

And now, for the rest of the story...