About 'private vs public accounting'|Damned If You . . . WHAT Deep Doo Doo (or Don’t Don’t) Questions For Whistleblowers: Does All It Hinge On Private vs Public Sector Employment
Student retention is a frequently discussed and commonly studied phenomenon in higher education. Retention is the "ability of an institution to retain a student from admission through graduation" (Seidman, 2005, p. 14). Studies around retention typically center on student attrition after the first year of study. Attrition, often used interchangeably with retention, is defined asa "student who fails to reenroll at an institution in consecutive terms" (Seidman, 2005, p. 14). As related to this definition of attrition, retention measures how a student persists from their first to second year of study. Persistence is interrelated with retention and attrition, and conceptualized by Seidman (2005), as the "desire and action of a student to stay within the system of higher education from beginning through degree completion" (p. 14). In essence, a student who successfully navigates past their first year of college is more likely to persist to graduation (Tinto, as cited in Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2008). The purpose of this literature review is to examine student retention and persistence in higher education. Included in this review will be statistical information on retention, as well as the theoretical frameworks underlying retention. Additional discussion will center on practical strategies (as culled from the research literature) around increasing the persistence rates among various student groups, including African American male students. The end of this literature review will feature a summary of important discussion points around the theme of retention and persistence in higher education. Retention Data and Statistics ACT, Inc. (2009) provides national data on college student retention and completion rates. An examination of retention data over a 26-year period (1983-2009) shows that student retention (as measured by persistence from freshman to sophomore year) was highest in 2007 at all institutions. The lowest retention rate at all institutions was 65.7% in 2008. Variance in retention rates was evident across institutional types (2-year, 4-year, comprehensive, and research) and institutional control types (public vs. private). For example, the retention rate at all private schools, regardless of the institutional type, was higher than the retention rate at public schools. The largest retention gap between the highest retention rates occurred between two-year private institutions (72.6% in 1992), and two-year public institutions (53.7% in 2008). Conversely, the smallest percentage of retention rates was lower for all public schools, regardless of institutional type (ACT, Inc., 2009). National data was not available that disaggregated college student retention by gender, race and ethnicity. However, the U.S. Department of Education's website posts graduation rates for first-time postsecondary education students who started as full-time degree seeking students. Although this information does not specify actual retention rates, it offers a snapshot for the reader to make inferences around persistence for college students. For the 2001 cohort (the most recent cohort listed), the graduation rate at 4-year institutions for students graduating within six years was 57.3%. Among males and females, the graduation rate within six years was 54.2% and 60%, respectively. The graduation rate among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Island students were 60.3%, 41.5%, 48.3%, and 66.5% respectively. The graduation rate among these students graduating within four years was lower, thus showing similar patterns between gender and race/ethnic groups (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). The Impact of Low Retention Many students drop out of college for a variety of reasons, thus failing to persist and graduate. According to Berkner, et al., and Tinto, "more than half of all students who enter higher education will fail to complete a bachelor's degree within six years (as cited in Museus & Quaye, 2009, p. 67). Accompanied by this failure rate are negative consequences for the individual student and for society as a whole. The impact of earnings is just one example of negative consequences for the individual. On average, high school graduates earn 62% of their college counterparts (Baum & Payea, as cited in Museus & Quaye, 2009). To quantify the significance of student persistence and graduation attainment, bachelor's degree holders earn an average of $2.1 million over their lifetime, while those with a high school diploma earn about $1.2 million (Day & Newburger, 2002). Another negative consequence relates to "money spent on tuition and fees, accrued debt, and invested time in educational endeavors that do not result in the benefits that accompany a college degree" (Baum & Payea; Choi & Li; Kelly; and Swail, as cited in Museus & Quaye, 2009, p. 67). For students who have accumulated large amounts of loan debt, it is realistic that they may experience financial hardship later on, due to lower earnings and their failed investment. Effective retention practices in higher education are important, given the notion that almost "80% of all high school graduates will need some higher education to achieve economic self-sufficiency" (McCabe, as cited in Museus & Quaye, 2009, p. 68). The negative effects on society are just as debilitating when students drop out. High school graduates contribute only "56% of what bachelor's degree recipients pay in local, state, and federal taxes" (Museus & Quaye, 2009, p. 68). Other negative consequences include higher incarceration rates, and decreased levels of academic preparation among future generations (Baum & Payea; Swail, as cited in Museus & Quaye, 2009). Fostering college student success is challenging, but critical to reversing the trend of negative societal consequences. The same eighty percent of high school graduates (as referenced above in McCabe) will need some level of postsecondary education to "navigate the increasingly complex, cultural, social, and political environments they will encounter" (as cited in Museus & Quaye, 2009, p. 68). Relative to this discussion is how the current trend of racial and ethnic disparities in educational attainment could negatively shape the nation's economy (Carnevale & Desrochers; & Kelly; as cited in Museus & Quaye, 2009). Without this viable demographic of college graduates, "the number of college-educated workers in the United States will fall far short of those needed to sustain current levels of economic and social growth" (p. 68). Given this, public and higher education policies must reflect the negative impact of racial and ethnic disparities in society and on the nation's economy. Foundational Retention Frameworks Interactionalist Theory Interactionalist theory (1975) is an early framework around retention research, conceived by Vincent Tinto. The premise of this framework is that individual students possess pre-entry college characteristics, which contribute to their decision to persist or depart their institution. These characteristics include factors such as an individual's socioeconomic status and background, personal attributes and educational experiences before entering college. Pre-entry college characteristics strongly influence a student's initial commitment to his or her higher education institution, which affects their capacity to persist (Braxton, 2000). Researchers who have tested Tinto's theory discovered that it does not universally apply to all students (Grayson & Grayson, 2003). Findings showed that all outcomes were from research on "white, middle class-students who lived in residence on campus" (p. 12). In essence, the model fails to account for diverse student groups, such as non-White and adult students. Other groups excluded from this theory were students who attend 2-year and 4-year students, and non-traditional evening students who work full-time during the day (Grayson & Grayson, 2003). Student Integration Model The Student Integration Model (1975) supplements interactionalist theory. It illustrates the process of how students integrate academically and socially into their college environment. In this model, integration can either lead to persistence through graduation attainment or the decision to drop out. Academic integration relates to a student's grade performance and intellectual development, while social integration results from a student's transactions with faculty and peers (Grayson & Grayson, 2003). Academic and social integration not only involves interactions with faculty and peers, but "can be a consequence for grade performance and intellectual development" (Grayson & Grayson, 2003, p. 12). Undergraduate students who effectively incorporate both integration components are most likely to persist and graduate. Conversely, students who have trouble in one or both components of integration are more likely to drop out. Theoretically, the converging of a student's background, commitment levels, and the academic environment, all lead to persistence or drop out decisions (Grayson & Grayson, 2003). Specific factors can lead to a student's decision to persist or depart their institution prematurely. For example, disadvantaged students who arrive at college with low educational goals, and become involved with negative peer groups, are likely to leave college. In contrast, advantaged students who have high educational goals, and are equipped to engage positively with their institution, are likely to persist and graduate within a reasonable amount of time (Grayson & Grayson, 2003). While interactionlist theory and the Student Integration Model provide a general framework for explaining student drop out decisions, they fall short of completely justifying drop out decisions for diverse student populations. For example, research findings from Tracey and Sedlacek (as cited in Grayson & Grayson, 2003) revealed that non-cognitive factors better explained persistence and drop out for Black students in the United States. The specific factors that contributed to this group's persistence included "positive self-concept, realistic appraisals, preference for long-term goals and leadership" (Grayson & Grayson, 2003, p. 21). Later research found that "Black students who did not have support from others, self-confidence or community involvements were the most likely to drop out" (p. 21). This finding confirmed that a more plausible relationship exists between non-cognitive factors and persistence for Black students. Non-cognitive factors also explained persistence and drop out for Chicano(a) students. For this group, self-confidence and positive perceptions of the university environment contributed to persistence, compared to Chicano(a) students without these attributes (Gloria & Robinson, as cited in Grayson & Grayson, 2003). In both of these examples, the findings resisted generalizations, and discredited the widespread application of traditional frameworks, such as interactionalist theory (as cited in Grayson & Grayson, 2003). In the end, no single factor explains overall persistence. The most important explanatory consideration is the interrelation of various factors that include "demographics, aspirations, motivations, personality, values, and institutional characteristics" (Bean, as cited in Harvey-Smith, 2002, p. 2). Student Engagement Practices A number of factors explain student persistence through graduation attainment and drop out (Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, as cited in Harper & Quaye, 2009). For both persistence and drop out, the reasons are complex, and not easily credited to a narrow set of explanatory factors (Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, as cited in Harper & Quaye, 2009). Empirical research suggests that student engagement is a viable means to increasing graduation attainment. Student engagement features two primary characteristics, with the first involving the time and effort students devote to their studies (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, as cited in Harper & Quaye, 2009). The second component is "how the institution deploys its resources and organizes the curriculum, other learning opportunities, and support services to induce students to participate in activities that lead to experiences and desired outcomes such as persistence, satisfaction, learning, and graduation" (p. 3). The combination of these engagement characteristics influences student retention and persistence. The effort of an individual student, combined with involvement in academic and social activities on college campuses, largely determines their ability to persist (Pascarella & Terenzini, as cited in Harper & Quaye, 2009). Students who purposefully engage in campus activities accrue a number of gains, such as increased levels of cognitive and skill development, higher levels of ethical and moral reasoning, and positive self-images (Harper & Quaye, 2009). In addition to these gains, "students who devote more time to academic preparation activities outside of class earn higher grade point averages" (Tross, Harper, Osher, & Kneidinger, as cited in Harper & Quaye, 2009, p. 3). These qualitative engagement practices serve as the foundation for student persistence through graduation, and life-long success. Student engagement positively relates to persistence, and is "the single most significant predictor of persistence" (Tinto, as cited in Harper & Quaye, 2009, p. 4). From Tinto's research, undergraduate students depart their institution early because they feel disconnected from peers, faculty and other staff (Harper & Quaye, 2009). Conversely, students who persisted showed "higher levels of integration into academic and social communities on campus lead to higher levels of institutional commitment" (Harper & Quaye, 2009, p. 4). In addition, Bean proposed that "institutional commitment is strengthened when undergraduates are actively engaged in educationally purposeful endeavors that connect them to the campus and in which they feel some sense of enduring obligation and responsibility" (Bean; Swail, Redd & Perna; and Tinto, as cited in Harper & Quaye, 2009, p. 4). Retention Challenges and Strategies The information in the previous section showed how engagement practices affect student persistence. The next few sections of this literature review will reconsider student engagement, and take into account the challenges of engagement for low-income, first generation college students, racial/ethnic minority students, African American students, and African American male students. Offered will be suggested practical strategies that have shown to improve persistence rates. Low-Income, First-Generation College Students Low-income, first-generation college students typically face a number of barriers that affect their higher education experience. As described by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, low-income students come from households with incomes around $20,000 (Federal Register, as cited in Gupton et al., 2009). First-generation college students are "defined as students whose parents have not earned a bachelor's degree" (Thayer, as cited in Gupton, Castelo-Rodriguez, Martinez & Quintanar, 2009, p. 244). This information serves as operational definitions for forthcoming discussion on retention challenges for low-income, first-generation college students. Higher education officials recognize the need to facilitate persistence for low-income, first-generation college students. The challenges that these students encounter are numerous, and often negatively influence their persistence and graduation attainment. Low academic achievement among low-income, first-generation students is one of many challenges. Research findings on low achievement showed that these students "were more likely to leave college and not return the following semester than were their peers whose parents possessed a bachelor's degree" (Warburton, Bugarin, & Nunez, as cited in Gupton, 2009, p. 248). Other findings showed that first-generation students are academically underprepared (Choy; and Hahs-Vaughn, as cited in Gupton et al., 2009), and "do not use their high school experience to prepare for college" (Kaufman & Chen, as cited in Gupton et al., 2009, p. 248). Low-income, first-generation students who are unprepared often participate in developmental education courses (Gupton et al., 2009). These courses frequently target unprepared students, and may likely strengthen academic performance in requisite college course work. Another challenge relates to finances and paying for a college education. For many low-income, first-generation students, financial obstacles begin well before being admitted, and last throughout the course of their college experience. Financial barriers limit the extent to which these students can fully engage themselves in their campus culture (Gupton et al., 2009). Thus, a higher level of engagement, which correlates to a strong probability of persistence, is unlikely. Lower amounts of grant aid affect the ability for students to sustain purposeful engagement in their higher education community. Gupton et al. (2009) noted, "The amount of financial aid that a student receives has a major impact on both the persistence and work schedule of the student" (p. 245). A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (1995) found that "providing grant money to low-income students decreased their probability of dropping out, whereas loan aid resulted in an increased probability of students leaving college without finishing" (as cited in Gupton et al., 2009, p. 246). When higher education costs exceed the amount of financial aid, low-income, first-generation students must work to cover the costs. Research has found that "low-income students work more hours on average than other students who work (Corrigan, as cited in Gupton et al., 2009, p. 246). They work to cover the cost of financial aid not awarded to them. In working additional hours (particularly off campus), they "lose valuable opportunities to engage with students, faculty, and staff on their campuses" (p. 246). As noted by Gupton et al. (2009), the lack of financial resources contribute to lower retention and high dropout rates among low-income, first-generation students. Given this phenomenon, higher education officials and policy makers have many opportunities to change practices around improving retention and persistence for this student group. As mentioned, student engagement into the campus culture is critical to their persistence. When engaging students, the issue to consider at the forefront would center on ways to alleviate the financial burdens that these students experience (Gupton et al., 2009). Once their financial burden has been resolved, students "can engage with the resources in their campus community that allow them to maximize their human potential" (Gupton et al., 2009, p. 247). Racial and Ethnic Minority Students Retaining racial and ethnic minority students continues to be a challenge for higher education officials across institutions nationwide. As pointed out earlier, data from the U.S. Department of Education (2009) cited that graduation rates were consistently low among racial and ethnic minority students, compared to White students (see "Retention Data and Statistics" section above). Interactionalist theorists would suggest that these students possessed pre-college characteristics that theoretically led to their lower rates of persistence through graduation (Braxton, 2000). The Student Integration Model would suggest that these students have engaged poorly with their academic and social environments, thus contributing to their lower persistence through graduation rates (Grayson & Grayson, 2003). Again, retention theory premises that student engagement relates to persistence. For minority students at predominantly White campuses, attempts to engage the academic and social environment may act as a deterrent to persistence. These students face a number of issues, and must constantly contend with many aspects of Whiteness (Quaye, Tambascia, & Talesh, 2009). Among a number of concerns, minority students are subject to western-based curricula, have little contact with same-race/ethnic faculty, and they become frequently isolated (Quaye et al., 2009). In many instances, curricular content does not always reflect the diversity of the student body. In fact, "issues pertaining to the cultures of racial/ethnic minority students are often missing in classroom readings and discussions" (Banks, as cited in Quaye et al., 2009, p. 161). Much of the curricular content sends the "message to racial/ethnic minority students that whiteness is normal and that other practices or beliefs from different cultures are not valued" (Delpit; and Schmitz, as cited in Quaye et al., 2009, p. 161). Furthermore, western-based curricular content invalidates the experiences of minority students, in "which [these experiences] are rarely present in any form in the higher education setting" (Terenzi et al., as cited in Quaye et al., 2009, p. 161). In having to respond to traditional curricula, minority students gradually become disengaged from the learning process. Consequently, these students drop out of their institution, with minimal prospects of returning. In reversing this trend, faculty should use an array of academic content showing the contributions of minority persons in various fields (Quaye et al., 2009). Faculty should solicit peers to review jointly the course syllabi. This approach would ensure that assigned readings and other class content reflect diverse perspectives (Quaye et al., 2009). Deans and other administrative personnel must actively promote the use of diverse content in all curricula. This would partially substantiate the institution's attempt to reengage minority students in the learning process. According to the Student Integration Model, student interaction with faculty promotes student persistence. Research conducted by Nettles (as cited in Harvey-Smith, 2003) showed positive correlations between high levels of student-faculty interaction and better academic performance. However, other research shows that "minority students are not provided opportunities to interact with White faculty at the same level and quality as their White peers" (p. 5). For example, Dinka et al., and Nettles (as cited in Harvey-Smith, 2003) reported that African American students have difficulties forming close relationships with Caucasian faculty. In an earlier study, Christiansen and Sedlacek discovered that when African American students did interact with Caucasian faculty, "they found it difficult to get helpful feedback, or felt that the comments from faculty tended to be either overly negative or overly positive" (as cited in Harvey-Smith, 2003, p. 5). These research findings may have general implications for all minority students. Due to the perceived hostility against African American students, per the study cited in Harvey-Smith (2003), minority students may be less likely to seek interaction with Caucasian faculty. The reality on predominantly White campuses is that racial/ethnic minority students are likely to have frequent interactions with White faculty, than with same race-ethnic faculty. This is an expectation, given that only 12 percent of race and ethnic minority faculty have earned full professorship (Harvey, as cited in Quaye et al., 2009). This illustrates the frustration of racial/ethnic minority students to find the same race-ethnic faculty members to serve as mentors or advisors (Quaye et al., 2009). The research studies on student-faculty interaction (as cited in Harvey-Smith, 2003) supports the need for strategies to increase minority student engagement with faculty. Smith pointed out that higher education institutions would benefit from having more racial/ethnic minority faculty members (as cited in Quaye et al., 2009). She argued for having racial/ethnic minority faculty members, because they (1) have the ability to serve as mentors to racial/ethnic minority students, (2) are committed to a more diverse campus environment, (3) can create comfortable and inclusive environments, and (4) offer diverse viewpoints on teaching and learning (Smith, as cited in Quaye et al., 2009). In the end, racial and ethnic minority faculty members can benefit in supporting students "who may feel disconnected and isolated on predominantly White campuses" (Quaye et al., 2009, p. 173). African American Students Astin (1972) found that Caucasian students had higher persistence rates than African American students, particularly when holding abilities and achievements as constant. Among all ethnic populations, African American students are more likely to come from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds (Leppel, 2002). The quality of their K-12 educational experiences may be lower, "disadvantaging them in the college classroom and making higher education a more difficult and stressful experience" (p. 437). Research suggests that at traditional White institutions, African American students have lower levels of academic integration and express dissatisfaction with their university (Nettles, Theony & Gosman, as cited in Fries-Britt & Turner, 2002). These and other factors contribute to low academic achievement and frustration among African American students; in turn, negatively affecting their persistence. Individual attributes, motivation and other background characteristics are the cornerstone of persistence and success among all college students. Fries-Britt and Turner (2002) reiterated the importance of faculty engagement with African American students in promoting their persistence, high academic achievement, and success. They noted that educators must create institutional support systems, so that African American students will develop the personal confidence that will "propel them toward academic pursuits" (p. 326). Faculty engagement with African American students should be genuine, both in and out of the classroom. This practice facilitates student interaction with faculty, increases student-faculty engagement, and decreases the anxiety levels often felt by students. Summer bridge programs are highly beneficial to racial and ethnic minority students, and particularly for African American students. Bridge programs enable students to build peer networks and participate in classroom activities prior to the academic start of the academic year (Quaye et al., 2009). Summer bridge programs allow student peers to support one another, while "gathering knowledge and skills that will prepare them for their upcoming academic experience" (p. 170). Furthermore, bridge programs help students "navigate the campus environment in the company of their peers who are also striving to do the same" (p. 170). The critical aspect of summer bridge programs is that it enables student engagement, which would likely promote student persistence and success. African American College Men The retention rate for undergraduate students at all colleges and universities are generally low. In fact, 2005 figures show that roughly 56 percent of students graduated within six years (Harper & Quaye, 2009). Retention rates are significantly problematic among African American male undergraduates. This group of students held the "worst college completion rate among both sexes and all racial/ethnic groups (Harper, as cited in Harper, 2009). Nearly one-third of African American males who start college finish within six years, according to information cited from the 2005 National Center on Education Statistics (Harper, 2009). Clearly, this information represents a significant decline in the number of African American males who finish college. Research in the 1970s and 1980s found that African American males were relatively omnipresent, and had higher levels of institutional engagement than their female counterpart (Harper, 2009). Now, African American females have higher levels of engagement across all institutional types. Harper, Carini, Bridges, and Hayek found that "women no longer lag behind men in their academic and social engagement experiences" (as cited in Harper, 2009, p. 142). The element of time has dictated how African American females have instantly "overcome the engagement odds and social passivity of years past" (Harper, Carini, Bridges, & Hayek, as cited in Harper, 2009, p. 142). Michael Cuyjet (1997) offers evidence of the decline, and reversing trend in engagement among African American men. In his analysis of national data from the College Student Experiences Questionnaire, Cuyjet found that "Black men devoted less time to studying, took notes in class less often, spent significantly less time writing and revising papers, and participated less often in class-related collaborative experiences" (Harper, 2009, p. 143). In comparison, African American females were involved in "campus activities, looked more frequently in their campus newspapers for notices about upcoming events and engagement opportunities, attended more meetings and programs, served on more campus committees, and held more leadership positions at their institutions" (p. 143). African American men, however, reported higher levels of engagement in physical activities. In the end, these findings revealed how African American females were actively involved in leadership and other academic and social opportunities (Harper, 2009). Conversely, African American males were "doing nothing, pursuing romantic endeavors with female students, playing basketball and working out in the campus fitness center" (p. 143), among other things. Kimbrough and Harper's (2006) qualitative study supports the significant decline in engagement among African American men. The authors offered these five explanatory factors for disengagement among African American men: (1) Men deem sports, physical activity, and athleticism more socially acceptable and "cooler" than campus leadership and purposeful engagement; (2) male students typically encounter difficulty working together, which is often required in student organizations; (3) many Black men come to college having already been socialized to devalue purposeful engagement; (4) there is a shortage of Black male role models and mentors on campus who actively and strategically promote purposeful engagement; and (5) many Black men are unable to meet the minimum 2.5 grade point average requirement for membership in one of the five historically Black fraternities. (Kimbrough & Harper, as cited in Harper 2009, p. 144). These explanatory factors are problematic, in that they "almost exclusively attribute disengagement to students' attitudes and behaviors (Harper, 2009, p. 144). Given this, higher education administrators must strategically foster institutional engagement, and respond to the factors that compelled African American men to detach from the educational experience (Harper, 2009). Higher education officials have a daunting task to recruit, enroll, and retain African American men within their institutions. To facilitate persistence for this group, colleges and universities must intentionally develop strategies that would support high levels of institutional engagement. Collaborative processes among faculty, staff, administrators, and researchers might help close the racial and gender gaps that disadvantage African American males. Institutional members would use this teaming process to "examine unique data sources that could provide some insights into inequities that would otherwise remain hidden" (Harper, 2009, p. 151). Such effort would allow respective team members to "uncover" specific practices around how they engage with African American men. Team members then "approach planning and institutional transformation efforts with greater enthusiasm, purpose, and focus" (Harper, 2009, p. 151). Engagement teams work to reduce the racial and gender gaps among African American male students. Engagement team members are typically on the front line of interaction with African American male students; and mainly consist of faculty and other professionals, and members from academic advisement offices, student and residence life, and ethnic culture centers. Members of this team can work with students to develop individual engagement plans, such as how to develop engagement opportunities in a number of areas within the academic environments (Harper, 2009). Committees specifically designated to improve the academic standing of African American males may be a useful strategy to increase institutional engagement (Harper, 2009). Deans, department chairs, and other administrative personnel, "can work together to envision, implement, and assess a systematic set of initiatives to improve grades, transfer trends, and retention and graduation rates" (p. 152). Ideally, committee team efforts would ensure that institutional resources are available and accessible to African American males. In any case, institutions should rely on trustworthy data sources to develop sound strategies. In addition, qualitative interviews with African American men "who have persisted, performed well, and benefited from participation in enriching educational experiences" (p. 152) would be most beneficial. Summary of the Literature Review The purpose of this literature review was to examine student retention and persistence in higher education. In the retention data section, aggregated information showed the overall retention rates for students at all institutions. Data from the U.S. Department of Education showed graduation trends between males and females, and among major race/ethnic groups, at four-year institutions. There was discussion on how low retention in colleges and universities affects the individual and shapes society. As noted, influential higher education policies around retention would likely improve retention practices, and change how these practices influence the individual and society. Identified in this literature review was information on traditional retention theories. These theories generally explained the factors that led students to remain at their institution, or depart prematurely. The last part of the literature review included information on retention challenges and strategies for a few select student groups, including African American students. On a final note, discussion in higher education will continue to center on retention. Issues around retention are likely to persist, unless there is aggressive action to "treat" the condition. For traditionally underrepresented students, the retention problem is manifold. A unique set of experiences and history continues to threaten opportunities for higher levels of persistence among these students. The solution to resolving retention problems are complex and dynamic. Nonetheless, measurable and data-driven programs are likely to improve low retention rates, while simultaneously changing the face of higher education in a global society. References ACT, Inc. (2009). 2009 Retention/Completion summary table. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/09retain_trends.pdf Braxton, J.M. (2000). Introduction: Reworking the student departure puzzle. In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 1-8). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Day, J.C., & Newburger, E.C. (2002). The big payoff: Educational attainment and synthetic estimates of work-life earnings. (Current Population Reports, Special Studies, P23-210). Washington, DC: Commerce Dept., Economics and Statistics Administration, Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-210.pdf Fries-Britt, S., & Turner, B. (2002). Uneven stories: Successful Black collegians at a black and white campus. The Review of Higher Education. 25(3), 315-330. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2002.0012 Grayson, J.P., & Grayson, K. (2003). Research on retention and attrition. Retrieved from The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation website: http://www.millenniumscholarships.ca/images/Publications/retention_final.pdf Gupton, J.T., Castelo-Rodriguez, C., Martinez, D.A., & Quintanar, I. (2009). Creating a pipeline to engage low-income, first-generation college students. In S. Harper, & J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 243-260). New York: Routledge. Harper, S.R. (2009). Institutional seriousness concerning black male student engagement: Necessary conditions and collaborative partnerships. In S. Harper, & J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 137-156). New York: Routledge. Harper, S.R., & Quaye, S.J. (2009). Beyond sameness, with engagement and outcomes for all: An introduction. In S. Harper, & J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 1-15). New York: Routledge. Harvey-Smith, A.B. (2002). An examination of the retention literature and application in student success. Retrieved from http://www.ccsse.org/publications/harvey-smith.pdf Leppel, K. (2002). Similarities and differences in the college persistence of men and women. The Review of Higher Education, 25(4), 433-450. doi: 10.1353/rhe.2002.0021 Longwell-Grice, R. & Longwell-Grice, H. (2008). Testing Tinto: How do retention theories work for first-generation, working-class students? Journal of College Student Retention, 9(4), 407-420. Retrieved from http://www.hartnell.edu/bsi/Research/Testing%20Tinto's%20theory.pdf Museus, S.D. & Quaye, S.J. (2009). Toward an intercultural perspective of racial and ethnic minority college student persistence. The Review of Higher Education, 33(1), 67-94. Retrieved from http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/review_of_higher_education/v033/33.1.museus.pdf Quaye, S.J., Tambascia, T.P., & Talesh, A. (2009). Engaging racial/ethnic minority students in predominantly white classroom environments. In S. Harper, & J. Quaye (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 157-178). New York: Routledge. Seidman, A. (2005). Minority student retention: Resources for practitioners. Retrieved from http://www.cscsr.org/docs/MinorityStudentRetentionResourcesforPractitioners2006.pdf U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Digest of education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_331.asp |
Image of private vs public accounting
private vs public accounting Image 1
private vs public accounting Image 2
private vs public accounting Image 3
private vs public accounting Image 4
private vs public accounting Image 5
Related blog with private vs public accounting
- sotrippy.wordpress.com/...and power vs learning...attend both public and private school. Here... account of the stark...john boehner , private , public , school , secretary...WordPress.com account. ( Log Out...
- billwalker.wordpress.com/...as to simply highlight how important it is for Christians to take this private vs. public distinction seriously in all areas of life if we wish to faithfully love our neighbor...
- medicaltourismresearch.wordpress.com/...and private expenditures accounted for the remaining 55.1%.6...this. Tags: healthcare expenditure , public vs private This entry was posted...
- carolharvey.blogspot.com/...admit it. But I don't go around wearing it on my sleeve. And I think that's a private matter.” DEMOCRAT FUND-RAISING AND CAMPAIGN STRATEGY: “WE ARE GOING...
- thepatrolblog.blogspot.com/..., but not to any of your account information, particularly username and email address. ~ Converting from public stats to private stats will prevent the public from ...
- nationalnotice.blogspot.com/... with respect to government vs. private sector whistleblowers and we might... observations that account for what is happening and...
- bowsbooksandthebigcity.blogspot.com/...this blog. Both my twitter and facebook account are private and require my approval to be ...this blog is entirely open to the public, and with some of my honest words...
- adragonsbestfriend.wordpress.com/... annually by the Public Accounts Committee. The problem is... out’ of public services too. Political...the third party (such as a private sector firm) delivering...
- privacyparanoia.blogspot.com/... done in public (where others are watching) cannot be private, it is similarly unnatural... (credit card, bank account). How much of that information...
- jillja.blogspot.com/.... They also take into account the backgrounds of...2000 indicated that public schools out-performed the private school students in mathematics...
Related Video with private vs public accounting
private vs public accounting Video 1
private vs public accounting Video 2
private vs public accounting Video 3
0 개의 댓글:
댓글 쓰기