Institutional Retention and Attrition

6.2.1 Mainstreamed Literature

Kember (1995) and Paterson et al (1997) have concluded that retention should not be viewed as just the instrumental aim of universities but rather as the outcome of a good student experience and, likewise, that attrition is defined as an extreme result of a poor experience. Retention research has become an essential ingredient of the institutional mechanisms geared towards increasing the percentage of graduates and ensuring financial return for the institution on their prior investment of marketing, recruitment and estates. The Scottish Funding Council’s calculation of the financial allocation to universities based on graduates rather than entrants reaffirms that retention is an important financial concern for the business of universities.

Caution is necessary when interpreting the data on students’ withdrawal reasons; they are multi-faceted thus complicating the collection of exit data. Pressures, which may prove unbearable for one student, are well managed by another (Christie et al, 2004). Lots of interconnected pressures can build up an accumulative effect so that, at the point of withdrawal, the student will have difficulty identifying one single trigger. Self-definition to tick a bureaucratic box at a time of mixed emotion means the gathering of the data at that point is unlikely to be accurate or reflective of the student’s situation.

However on overall attrition rates from HE, where data is available, two thirds of students who do withdraw do so in the first year, and almost certainly by the end of their second year (Christieet al,2002). “Drop-out” rates are lower in the UK than most other developed countries but it has been recognised that data collected on student retention in the UK, a focus of the 1990s, was, until the turn of the century, of poor quality and often inaccurate (Hall, 2001). Students who withdraw may re- enter HE. However, statistics for this process have only been gathered by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) since 2002. When withdrawal is an effect of many, interconnected reasons, the combined effect responds better to a

qualitative approach to institutional data collection (an indicator that a qualitative approach will produce the sort of data I am looking for in my own study). The final “ticked box” in the institutional record of reasons for withdrawal will give neither accurate nor in-depth assistance in understanding what influences attrition. In trying to find methods to understand and influence retention, a number of core texts are worth highlighting: Walker (1999), Tinto (1975), Kember (1995), Pascarella (1985), and Pace (1984). Although I place focus on Tinto and Walker’s work, in particular Pascarella provided a generalised causal model including measures of institutional features as well as quality of effort, with Pace echoing this.

Walker examined three theoretical methods of charting retention: the students’ own identification of reasons; the predictive approach to student withdrawal using entry qualifications (but denying the importance of external factors), and Walker’s “philosophical” approach, an avoidance of attrition by full integration into both the academic and social life of institutions.

Other studies, paralleling Walker’s themes, highlighted an array of reasons for withdrawal including psycho-social reasons (feelings of fear, threats to their concept of self, lack of perceived control), interactionist reasons (a sense of alienation, perceived rejection by peers) and external constraints (guilt, pressure from family and friends, homesickness) (Parker and Asher, 1987; Hymel et al, 1996; Mackie, 2001; Waters and Gibson, 2001). Once again, these reasons all converge in the shared features of the student not feeling emotionally comfortable; feeling they do not “fit” or “belong”.

The core model seeking to understand the retention process originated in the United States with a piece of theoretical work by Tinto (1975) producing a “Theory of College Student Departure”. His framework suggested three key variables of persistence: background characteristics; integration into academia; and social integration. The psychosocial reasons mentioned earlier are included within these categories. In testing his theory, a number of researchers, while stressing the

importance of initial experiences in influencing student persistence (for example the model for student transition proposed by Pitkethly and Prosser, 2001), largely support and expand upon Tinto’s model.

Kember (1995) creating a causal model of student progress, explicitly expanded Tinto’s model by adding “academic incompatibility” which was defined as an inability to cope with study which developed from a clash of the teaching format and students’ coherent set of beliefs about knowledge and teaching. However, Woodley et al (2001) challenged Kember’s model, finding few of the causal relationships as achieving a statistical significance with robust foundations, although acknowledging this may have “intuitive appeal” (2001:131). Although positivist in approach, I found these two studies particularly interesting for their introduction of “academic incompatibility” which will be returned to later as a consideration in this thesis. However before attempting other relevancy for this study, I also noted that the Open University-type locus of the Kember study, with a unique system of progression and flexible learning may be difficult to replicate in an Ancient.

Linking integration with retention, Tinto and Walker’s core models focused on traditional, adolescent students where a critical success factor was that of social integration. I found it necessary to go further into less well-known research to investigate the applicability of these themes to the non-traditional student.

6.2.2 Non-Traditional Student Literature

In a North American study outside of my study review dates of 2000 – 2007 delineated in Chapter 4 (and Appendix 4), Chartrand (1992) highlighted in an alternative model by Bean and Metzner (1985), a useful tool for assessing non- traditional students’ adjustment to university. Bean and Metzner conceptualised integration and subsequent retention within the context of external family and friends offering support, juggling daily life tasks and responsibilities in family and employment terms. Once again adopting a positivist approach, six sets of variables

predicting early dropout were identified: Background, Study Habits, Environment, Academic Outcome, Psychological Outcome and Attitude. In parallel with themes in the work of Duquette (2000) their key assertion was that while social involvement in the university setting may well be critical for young students, it is simply not an option for students from a non-traditional background, juggling external lives. They removed, therefore, the social integration factor from Tinto’s model, thus denying any significance for non-traditional students. However, this approach based the definition of “non-traditional” on an assumption that the external life component is strong and supportive, is not always true.

An English study worth considering, prior to the review period identified but worth highlighting, is that of Armstrong (1996) which pre-dated but would have fitted into, Walker’s framework (1999) and noted a 15% attrition rate of Mature students. A current comparison for this would be the HESA statistical returns in the UK which, in 2004/5 recorded Mature student attrition at 13%. A useful comparison records the attrition rate for total students (all ages and definitive groups) at almost half that, at 7.2%. Armstrong and Walker both categorised attrition reasons in terms of a similar structure: lack of commitment to the course (psycho-social), higher work load than expected and wrong choice of course (interactionist), financial problems, and family concerns, poor or non-existent support (external constraints). Reasons for retention included enhanced senses of personal motivation, self-esteem, achievement and purpose (psych-social), positive working atmosphere (interactionist) and good supporting networks (lack of external constraints).

Reflecting Tinto’s work in the United States, the theoretical and empirical work surrounding retention within the UK (usually using a positivist approach) is sourced in the work of Yorke (1998, 1999, 2000, 2004) who has, in particular, given much attention to non-traditional students from low socio-economic groups (2003). Other UK retention studies have linked student attrition with practical difficulties and increased family commitments (for example, term time working [Metcalfe, 2003]

and financial problems [James, 2001]). Calls for targeted support for students in the UK with no previous tradition of HE within their family background have been frequent (for example, Bamber and Tett, 2001; Gallacher, 2006; Griffiths et al, 2005).

Recent focus in Scotland has turned to the transition period for those entering HE, often from Further Education (FE) Colleges, taking the perspective of students who have withdrawn and using quantitative and retrospective data to explore the stories behind the statistics. Bennettet al,(2007) explored attrition at four new universities in disadvantaged areas in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The study supported the attrition timing in the first year of university engagement consistent throughout earlier studies (Yorke, 1997; Thomas, 2002) and included additional contributory factors such as inflexible lifelong learning systems and inability to access support systems.

However, a useful point identified by Bennettet alwas the tendency of the media to portray withdrawal as “working class failure”, finding this to be an inappropriate labelling, as participants claimed an overall benefit of acquired skills, confidence and life experience from their time at university, even if the ultimate degree target had not been reached. This finding not measured on a quantitative basis or through government statistics, highlights the limitations of the quantitative approach of retention studies. Registry departments count the numbers of students in and out; a crude measurement. However, focusing on qualitative data relies upon a clear definition of categories with accurate and consistent application thereafter. This diversity classification has already been noted as a complex procedure demanding cautious measurement and awareness of researchers’ interpretation bias (Ashby, 2004). The method also falls short of exploring reasons in depth behind the decision to withdraw from a course, while the possibility of personal gain resulting from even an incomplete course is considered less.

Interestingly, Tinto’s core text failed to address the challenge that the recent HE expansion may see some students having difficulty with the intellectual rigour or the academic challenge of an HE environment. Much of the literature attributing withdrawal to students finding themselves in the wrong location or doing the wrong course assumes that everyone who arrives at university has, fundamentally, the intellectual ability to be there. The once firm criteria for admissions set on academic attainments are now being questioned as institutions are pressurised into considering making selection assessments based on academic “potential”. The possibility of miscalculated recruitment by universities, currently finding themselves in competition to fill places, cannot be discounted. One marked difference between the traditional and non-traditional literature is the lack of academic incompatibility as a reason for attrition in the non-traditional literature. On the contrary, in one Scottish study of undergraduate withdrawal, Christie & Grant (2004) found students generally believing the work to be well within their academic capabilities, although the authors acknowledged that there may have been some under-reporting of academic problems having been considered in the withdrawal decision. To justify the definition of incompatibility the complex reasoning has to first seek solutions and mitigating circumstances, for example, limited previous educational opportunities, lack of training, and social barriers. The basis of incompatibility lies firmly on a level playing field comparing to others who have experienced similar opportunities.