Shared Responsibility for Retaining High-Risk College Students

Of all the blog posts I was required to write (there were six), this one may be my favorite!  When I wrote the earlier posts, I wasn't yet sure what I wanted my research topic to be.  When I read the first article about "at-risk" students and retention, I realized that is the direction I wanted to go.  I had also known about the project DEEP study for many years, but reading this reminded me of again of how powerful a shared vision for student success can be!  I hope you enjoy!

___________________________________________________

Inspired by one of the articles I wrote about in my last blog, I searched through the journals from my professional association to find more about persistence among high-risk college students.  I found an article by Schreiner, Noel, Anderson & Cantwell (2011) addressing the impact faculty and staff have on this group.  Although student persistence in higher education is often studied, there seems to be a significant gap in research looking specifically at the experience of high-risk students.  One of the challenges with this research is that risk factors differ at individual institutions based on a variety of factors.  

The purpose of this study was to discover attitudes among faculty and staff that positively affect the persistence of high-risk students.  The authors of this study interviewed sixty-two students at nine different universities who entered college with low test scores, but were currently three semesters into their college experience and were earning a GPA of 2.5 or higher.  The study identified five attitudes that made a difference for the study group which included a desire to connect with students, being unaware of their influence, wanting to make a difference, being perceived as authentic and intentionally connecting with students.  Minor difference were found when comparing how students spoke about faculty with staff and across different institution types, but the general tone was very similar.

Perhaps more compelling then the themes found in the study were the implications discussed for faculty and staff practice.  High-risk students were most significantly impacted by faculty and staff who felt their personal mission and identity was to connect with students.  The authors put it best when they stated, “it is clearly people, rather than programs, services, or institutions, who retain students” (p. 336).  The results of this study are not surprising, but more research needs to be done to determine how institutions support the type of environment that rewards the types of faculty and staff involvement that has proven to make a difference.

That question is a perfect transition to the second article I read which focused more on the institutional environments that contributed to student success.  This article by Kinzie & Kuh (2004) described the Documenting Effective Educational Practice (DEEP) study that was completed by a team of researchers who spent almost two years studying twenty campuses that scored better than predicted across some or all of the five benchmarks of effective educational practice defined by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE).

Four major themes were identified across the twenty schools studied.  The first theme was strong senior leadership that exhibited a strong sense of purpose that encouraged and empowered others to lead the way toward achievement of shared goals.  Secondly, the research team found that DEEP schools prioritized academic and student affairs partnerships that fostered collaboration and shared credit for student success.  Student responsibility and leadership in learning and university operations was another theme area identified by the research team.  Lastly, the final theme found at DEEP schools was energetic staff members who take opportunities to exercise their own personal power and responsibility for student success.

The article was filled with examples of how DEEP schools live the good practices defined by the research.  I am interested in reading more from the DEEP project and discussing the findings more with colleagues at my university.  What is most compelling to me is that many of these factors that make a difference are not cost prohibitive, but represent paradigm shifts that require a collaborative view of our work in higher education as opposed to discipline specific view.

References

Schreiner, L.A., Noel, P., Anderson, E., & Cantwell, L. (2011).  The impact of faculty and staff on high-risk college student persistence.  Journal of College Student Development, 53(3), 321-338.

Kinzie, J. & Kuh, G.D. (2004).  Going DEEP: Learning from campuses that share responsibility for student success.  About Campus, 9(5), 2-8. doi: 10.1002/abc.105