First‐Year Retention Tips

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-3
Keyword(s):  
First Year ◽  
First Year Retention

Structuring First-Year Retention at a Regional Public Institution: Validating and Refining Bowman’s SEM Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Collier ◽  
Dan Fitzpatrick ◽  
Chelsea Brehm ◽  
Keith Hearit ◽  
Andrea Beach
Keyword(s):  
Sem Analysis ◽  
Public Institution ◽  
First Year ◽  
First Year Retention

scholarly journals Evaluation of a First-Year Retention Project: Findings at Halftime

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Niemi ◽  
Matthew Green ◽  
Melanie Roudkovski
Keyword(s):  
First Year ◽  
First Year Retention

Collegiate Recreation Participation and Retention

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Kampf ◽  
Eric J. Teske
Keyword(s):  
Retention Rates ◽  
First Year ◽  
Campus Recreation ◽  
Bottom Line ◽  
Recruitment And Retention ◽  
Club Sports ◽  
First Year Retention ◽  
Recreation Participation ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Collegiate Recreation

Colleges and universities have been focusing on the rising costs to attend college and their impact on current and future students. Recruitment and retention of students is critical in justifying programmatic and academic offerings. In addition, recruitment and retention have an impact on the institution's bottom line. This article attempts to prove a correlation between a collegiate recreation program and retention. Specifically, first year retention rates were examined on students who participate in club sports, use the student recreation center, and are employed by the campus recreation department. The results of this study can be useful to the collegiate recreation practitioner to answer the question of “does your program have an impact on retention?” It is the hope that this study is duplicated to further emphasize the relationship of collegiate recreation programs and their positive relationship on retention.

A Multilevel Approach to Assessing the Interaction Effects on College Student Retention

2009 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 287-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haiyan Bai ◽  
Wei Pan
Keyword(s):  
College Student ◽  
Social Integration ◽  
Student Retention ◽  
Interaction Effects ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
First Year ◽  
College Student Retention ◽  
Multilevel Approach ◽  
The Social ◽  
First Year Retention

The present study utilizes a multilevel approach to assess the effects of four different types of intervention on college student retention, focusing on the interaction effects between the student characteristics and the types of intervention. The program effects on a 3-year trend are also explored. The findings of the present study reveal that the social integration programs improved the first-year retention rates for female students, the advising programs and the social integration programs worked better in the first year for students from more selective colleges within the university, and the first-year experience programs had a significant lasting effect across the 3 years on retention for elder students and male students. It is also found that the advising programs were significantly more effective on the first-year retention rates than the general orientation programs. This study provides empirical evidence for researchers and administrators in higher education to improve the effectiveness of intervention programs for students with specific characteristics.

Success of Students Screened as Twice-Exceptional as a Function of Major Selection and Academic Strength

2020 ◽  
pp. 152102512091585
Author(s):  
Kelly H. Snyder ◽  
Virginia M. McClurg ◽  
Jiaju Wu ◽  
R. Steve McCallum
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disability ◽  
Grade Point Average ◽  
American College Test ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
First Year ◽  
Twice Exceptional ◽  
Grade Point ◽  
Major Selection ◽  
Reverse Pattern ◽  
First Year Retention

In this study, the success of 6,054 college students screened as twice-exceptional (2e; i.e., those with significantly discrepant math vs. reading scores on the ACT [formerly, American College Test] or SAT [formerly, Scholastic Aptitude Test]) was examined based on major selection and type of potential learning disability using a screening technique proposed by McCallum et al. There were no differences in high school grade point average, college grade point average, or first-year retention rates between students screened as 2e who had a major in line with their academic strength versus those who did not ( p >  .05). However, students screened as 2e based on an exceptionally high math score but a lower reading score yielded statistically significantly higher rates of retention ( p <  .05) than students screened as 2e with the reverse pattern of scores (i.e., gifted in reading with a potential learning disability in math). Implications for screening 2e students are discussed.

Structuring First-Year Retention at a Regional Public Institution: Validating and Refining the Structure of Bowman’s SEM Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (8) ◽  
pp. 917-942
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Collier ◽  
Dan Fitzpatrick ◽  
Chelsea Brehm ◽  
Keith Hearit ◽  
Andrea Beach
Keyword(s):  
Sem Analysis ◽  
Public Institution ◽  
First Year ◽  
First Year Retention

scholarly journals Strengths-Based Advising Approaches: Benefits for First-Year Undergraduates

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista M. Soria ◽  
Nicole L. Laumer ◽  
Dale J. Morrow ◽  
Garrett Marttinen
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
Student Success ◽  
Academic Advising ◽  
First Year ◽  
Matched Pairs ◽  
Self Awareness ◽  
First Year Students ◽  
First Year Retention ◽  
Matching Techniques ◽  
Academic Self Efficacy

We explored the benefits of strengths-based academic advising approaches for first-year students (N = 1,228). We used propensity score matching techniques to create matched pairs of students who did and did not engage in strengths-based advising conversations with an advisor. First-year students who experienced strengths-based conversations had significantly higher rates of first-year retention and graduation in 4 years, levels of engagement, and academic self-efficacy than students who did not participate in these conversations. Focus groups of 21 advisors provided insights into strengths-based advising in 3 findings: strengths approaches facilitated advising relationships (thereby supporting students' engagement, retention, and graduation), enhanced students' self-awareness and confidence, and advanced advisors' own personal and professional development (thereby positively influencing student success).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document