Professional socialisation and withdrawal from courses of professional education

CORRIGENDA

p.72, lines 23 - 25

PRO!<ESS.IO AL SOC LlSATIO A D \ l lllDHAWAL FRot-: CO RSES OF PROFESSIO AL EDUC AT 101'

by

Lynn tt Anne Davis

I

thesih submitted in partial fulfilment of the r quirements for the degree of 1 stcr of Arts

(SocioloITT) in th Australian ationaI Uni r ity.

Thi

thesis is

M

01n wor~

and

all t1P

soiree 1se~ in

its coMoosition ha

1

e

een

ackno

01l~c1c1ec.

List of Tables Lis of Figures Abs ract

TABlE OF CO TE TS

Chapter 1 - The Concepts of Withdrawal and Professional Socialisation. Chapter 2 - Revi w of the Literature on

University Dropouts .

Chapter 3 - Conceptual Framework of the Study . Chapt r 4 - D scription of Study and Hypotheses. Chapt r

5

-

Results I : Hypothesis Testing.

Chapter 6 - R sults II: Discussion. Chapter 7 - Concluding Remarks

Bibliography Appendix I Appendix II App ndix III

i i

i i i

V vi

1

12

32

4J 68 119 136

142 149 150

Table l able 2 Tabl J Table 4 Table 5 Table 6

Table ₇ Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 11

Table 12

Table

13

Tabl

14

fable

1

5

i i i

LIST OF TABLES

Reasons Given fo Withdrawal From Cour e 20 Fa h r ' s Income x Continuing/ Dropout 73 F th r ' s du ation x Continuing/Dropout 74 Moth r ' s Education x Continuing/ Dropout 75 Father's Occupation x Continuing/ Dropout 76 Family Members in ProI'ession x

Continuing/ Dropout 78

Ag at Decision x Continuing/ Dropout 81 Reasons for Choosing Law x ni ersity

x Continuing/ Dropout 82

Characteristics of a SuccessI'ul Lawyer

x Uni ersity x Continuing/ Dropout 87 De elopm nt of Self-Confidence:

Difference Betw en Perceived and Ideal Emphasis x University x Continuing/

-Dropout 94

Skill5, Knowledg, and T chniques: Difference Between Percei ed and Ideal Emphasis x University x Continuing/ -Dropout

Logi and Clear Thinking: Differen e Between Perceived and Ideal Emphasis x University x Con inuing/ Dropout Knowledge of Histor i al Developm nt: Difference Between Perceived and Ideal Emphasis x University x Continuing/ -Dropout

Liberal Education: Differen e Between Percei ed and Ideal Emphasis x Uni ersity

96

97

98

x Continuing/ Dropout 99

Knowledge of Various Branches:

Differen Betw en Perceiv d and Id al Emphasis x Uni rsity x Continuing/

T ble J 6

Table

17

Table 18

Tabl 19

Tabl 20

Table 21

Table 22

Table 2J

Table 2Lt

Table 25

Table

26

Table 27

Fa ulty's Emphas·s, Compar d with Id aJs of Cont·nujng and Dropout

Groups x Issu x University

AttlLudes x Uni . rsity x Con inujng

/-Dropout

Marital SLatus x Continuing/ Dropout

ype of Course x Continuing/DropouL

i

102

109

116

117

S bolarsbip Assistance x Continuing/

-Dropout 118

Age x Continuing/ Dropout 125

Scholarship Assistance x Continuing/

-Dropout x Age 126

Younger Students: Father's Income

x Continuing/Dropout x Scholarship

Assistance 127

Type of Course x Continuing/ Dropout x Age

Marital Status x Continuing/ Dropout

X Age

Father' s Education x Continuing/

-Dropout x Age

Age at Decision x Continuing/ Dropout

x Age

130

131

132

L.IST OF FIGURES

ABSTRACT

Chapt r l jnt oduces the probl m of unlvcrsity dropouts with a discussion of i ts size, and of the estimat d osts

involved. I t proceeds to deal with the diffi ulti s

i

associated with the d finition of' "dropout", and then

introduces the cone pt of socialisation (and in parLicular of secondary socialisation). Possible appli ations of the cone pt to the analysis of proi'essional education are

discussed, and in particular the application of the concept to the question of whether students remain in

their courses or withdraw from them. Emphasis is placed on the importance to this perspective of both individual

and institutional var iables.

Chapter 2 contains a summary review of the l i t rature pertaining to university dropouts . The principal theme

of this review is the development from descriptive to analytical studies of the problem, from simple to more complex persp cti s, and from a concern with student characteristics to a r ealisation that the intera tion b L e n the studenL and his educational environment is an ·mportant factor to be inv tigated.

vii

pro:f ssional shoo to the stud nt, o.f the el ments making up th prof ssional r o l .

Indi idu 1 attribut s ar divided into

(1) background fa tors (father's income, oc upation, and ducation; mother's education; relativ s i n the legal profession; and ag at which the

decision to study Law was made) (2) academic ability

(J) orientation factors (attitudes, reasons for choosing Law, perceived characteristics of a successful lawyer, and expectations of the law cours )

(4) situational factors (marital status, full-time or part- time course, scholarship assistance)

Institutional attributes are divided into

(1) orientation factors (academic/vocational emphasis , implicit attitudes and values) (2) .faulty/ student interaction

(J) facilities for learning (flexible teaching

methods, carefully constructed course organisation, library facilities)

Chapt r 4 des ribes th development of the pres nt study :from a large-sale in estigation of professional education in Au tralian uni er i t i s; the natur of be group

sLud· d·

viii

in the stud ; and the inadequacies of the avallabl

information wi h regard to esLing the op ration of the

con p ual frameworl outlined in Chapter J.

The specific hypotheses to b t sted in the present study are presented in both descriptive and formalis d fashion.

Chapter

5

presents the results oI' the testing of Lhe

hypothese specified in Chapter

4.

Significant differ nces between lontinuing students and

dropouts were di cover d i n relaLlon to father's education,

age at which the d cision to study Law was made, marital s Lat us, type of ·course (full-time, part-time, and external) , and r ceipt of cholarship assistance. As well, th re

were differences between the two groups at some of the

universiti s studied in relation to attitudes, perceived

hara teristic-s of a successful lawyer, and the extent to

whi h the ourse fulfilled students' expectations.

Chapter 6 puts forward a typological construct of the

dropout bas don th hypothe es tested and found to be

supporLed by the data in Chapter

5

,

In n attempt to gain a further understanding of

Lhese r lationship, both th continuing s udents and the dropout.s re ubdi id d into older and young r groups, <lt1d som , oI' the r lationships which were found to hold in

ix

consists oI' a brie discuss.ion of the implic-ations of ihe res arch in relation to th theor tical position

ouLlined earlier in Lhe dissertatjon; the impli~ations 1or further r search; and the pra tical implications 0£

Chap er l

TIIB CO CEPTS OF WITHDRAWAL AD PROFESSIO AL SOCI L[SAfIO.

Size and CosLs or th Problem o.f \ i tbdrawal

One of the major problems fa ing many in5tiLutions o.f tertiary education is that of 11_wastage11 _{which ensues when}

s Lud nLs withdraw .from th courses in \bicb they are nrolled before completing the r quirements .for graduation from these institutions. The problem bas both indi idual and

institutional as pects : with r egard to the .form r, the ational Union of Australian University S udents (78) has estimated the cost to th student per annum of an Australian

Arts degr e as being between $1,J86 and $1,765; and with

regard to the latter aspect, the Martin Committe (77, p.220)

in 1964 estimated that by 1975 nee ssary capital xpenditure alone would r ach a le el of £2,100 per

equivalent .ful -time student (based on 1963 cost levels). The past ten to fifteen years in the United Stats have witness d a considerable incre s in interest in the problem

(in 1961, Time magazine reported that the Ford Foundation alone ga e $1,JJ0,000 for 11_dropout11 _{research (16)), but in}

Australia ducational research app ars as yet to have been limit d to questions concerning failure rates, and attempts Lo de elop efficient methods of discriminating bet\een

poLentiall passing and failing students. Yet withdrawal woulds m to be a ry r al problem for ustralian

2

and i t is suggested that withdrawals from ustralir1n

univ0rsities ar not limit d to caseH o acad mi failure,

and that failure jtseli' n ed not necessarily b i<n~Pd as

resulting from insufficient ability or aptitude. This

latter poinL was i l lustra d by Anderson and West rn (69, p. 212) in 1966, when t h y obs rved in a comparison

of two earlier ~tudies that:

In the economics department where the emphasis

was academi , the ntering studen s with cademic orientations w re significantly more succ ssful in examinations and better adjusted. In the

Australian medial school whee the mphasis was

ov rwh lmlngly professional, students with this orientation bad significantly better examination r sults.

Theo era11 rate of graduation from ustralian

uni ersities (for 1ull-time students, allo¼ing a maximum

time jn which to complete degrees) has been estimated at

b tween 60% and 65% (19, p. 1). Slightly more than half

this percentage graduate in minimum time, and th rate of graduation differs for arious categories of students.

.In an ongoing stud of entrants, to Australian uni ersities

in 1961 being onducted by the Commonwealth Department of Edu ation and Science, first reports indicate (74, p. 10)

that .55% of the 8,600 full-time students and

29%

of th

1,680 part-time students graduated within minimum time

plus one year, and that Jl% of the full-time and 62% of

the part-t·me stud .nts had discontinued their studies (these discontinuance rates do not include students ,ho

transf'err d to o Lher uni ersi ti s) . Rates of

(Ior instanne, th p r enLag s of m~dical sLud nts disc-ant inuing their course rang d .f om zero at the

University of rasmanJa to 32% at Monash Unive sity), and be tween J'acu l t Les (.from L6% in fa cul L.i s o.f ffi(. di i ne Lo

JC!%

in racuJ Lj s o.f law -nd J2% in .facu] ties of' ve L rinary

s,i n ) .

In the United States, on first examination wastage

f _i gures would appear to be somewhaL high r Lhan in Australia. In study of 15,535 students entering 25 Unit0d SLat s

uni ersitics in 19Jl and 1932, Mc eely (66, p. GJO) found LbaL 62% of Lhe students eft without graduating during Lhe succeeding four years: howev r, 17% transf rr d to oLher alleges or universitie , gi ing a nett loss to

tertiary education of 45%. In a survey of 12,667 students who enter ed 1~9 institutions of higher learning in 1950, Iffert (66, p. 6JO) found that a similar rate of 19.5% had gradu Led within our years .from time o ntran .e. H also r marled LhaL dropout r a t s aried beLween di ferent types o.f institutions, the a rag rate for publi institutions

being 67%, and .for pri te institutions only 52%.

In Lho Unit d lingdom, student wastage was estim ted

al 1~% by Lhe Robbins Committee in 1963, and at 13% by the Uni ers·ty Grants Committe in 1968 (75, p. 7) - both

.figures re.fl Ling a dropout rat mu h lower than that p rtaining in both the U.S. and Australia. How

gain Lh sc raLos varied both b t, een uni •ersiti 5% a L Oxb idgo up to 2CJ% in th nci t. chnoJ og-ic aJ

r, on e (rrom

4

D0.f.init1onf:i of' "Dropouts"

It should b not d, howe r, that both tLempts t national accounting (such as the i'or going) and Jndi,idual

resea ch into 1.b problem of' stud nL withdrawal a P hampered b a lacl of agr m nt on definition o.f the subject

population . For lnstan e, the attempts at estimation o.f naLJonal wastag .figures may be consid rably in.flated by

.failure to tak ac ount o.f students trans.ferring .from on institution o.f tertiary education to another - in one study

(65, p. 2), 8~ of the dr opouts .from one institution w re .found to be continuing their education els where. This may be a factor of particular i mportance in the United States, with its greater diversity of tertiary edu ational

institutions.

Dc.finitional di.f.ferences in individual research

projects introduce considerable difficulty into attempts

to construct a coherent, o erall pie ture o.f dropout research . Tho contributions Lhus .far made will be discussed in the

follO\ i ng chapter - at his point , the intention is simply to .illustrate by example that researchers in this area

have in some ways xacerbated an already confusing

situ Lion. Some in estigators ha e undertaken to study all students enrolling in a particular institution at a p r t i ular time, and not enrolled at a later, specified

time prior to graduation (65, 39, 27, 34, 18, 35, 62) thes studies do not distinguish between cases wher

withdrawal was oluntary and those where the student was

5

drop out wiLhin asp c·r1 d period

(35,

29, 55)

-

g.nerally

the ireshman year - whereas others do not di tingu·sh betw en studenLs lea ing at any ime ov r Lhre - or£our-year p riod

(J'-i,

J9).

In som case , a distinction js made betwe n olunLary withdrawals and dismissals, or betwe n sLudents who w· hdraw wi h passing and failing grades (14, 26,

5'-1).

In a f w instances oLher, more spe ialised, distin tions have

been made: none study

('-18)

a dropout was defined as any s udent who bad withdrawn at some tage and not ompleted four years ' course work at a point four years after entry, c en i f tha student was currently enrolled in the

jnstitution; anoth r study

(55)

used a £our-fold

classifi ation in studying college students, omparing:

(i)

(ii)

(i"i)

(i )

defaulters (stud nts who withdr w during semester)

success£ul persisters (stud nts who persisted successfully (academi ally) Lhrough one year)

probation persister (students who persisted

dropouts

unsuccessfully through one year) (students who persisted successfully

but voluntarily did not return £or the second year).

It js suggested that for most general purposes, the

classification which would pro e most useful would be one which took ac ount of (i) the stage a whi h s udents

withdr w,

(ii)

whether withdrawal was voluntary or mandatory, nd (iii) wh ther stud nts ' a ad mi per£ormance was

6

nLil such d finitional diffi ulties as ha e be n

indicated are resol d, comparisons and aggr gations of h

available data will be of limit d value, of ljm1t d u e for either research or administrati e purposes except as

suggestive of tr nds. This fact should be kep in mind

when reviewing the literatur pres n ed in the following

chapter. ntil such tim as a standard terminology relating

o dropou L· behaviour is adopted, i t is imper a i that a h resear her hould specify precisely the nature 0£ the sample being stud ·ed.

The Con ept of Professional Socialisation

The study which is the subject 0£ he present repor is

concerned with the question of why students withdraw from

ourses of professional education (specifically, from c ours e s in la w ) • These ourses are viewed as ongoing processes of adult (or secondary) so ialisation, with Lhe

pro£essional school conceived as the socialising agency,

The term "so ialisation" has been used extensively in

sociologi al literature to mean "the pro ess by whi h

people selec i ely acquire the attitudes and alues, the

j n ter es ts, kills, and knowledge - in short, the ulture currenL in the groups of which they are, or seek to

become, a member" (

44,

p. 287). Originally, the term w s u~ d i n a de elopmental context to describ the

jnduction of the child into a working so ial system; mor

rolus. In be prc->sc->n L ,on ext, · L is sugge ted i.ba t proressional edu,ation is a "proc ss by whi .h students sel tiv ly acquire the at i ud sand alu s, interests, skil ls, and knowl dge curren in th prof'e ion o wbi•h

the s ek ob ome am mber." It i sugg s ed that the acqu ition of he professional rol in olve bo h dir t

'

learnjng through ormally organised edu ation programmes, 7

and indirect learning as a byprodu t of in ractjon between

the stud n and his significant o her (especially peers. and -facult ). It is also sugges ed that the prof . ional role may be defined somewhat dif.ferently by tbe pro e ional

s-hool and by the orps of practi ing pro.fes ionals, thus invol ing the individual in successive rol a qui i ion

ash mo es, ir tly into the professionals bool, and tben into the milieu of practising professionals.

Merton

(44,

p.

71)

puts forward the thesis that a

profession ba

••. its own normative subculture, a body of hared and transmitted ideas, value and standards toward which m mb rs of the profession are expect d to orient Lheir bebaviour. The norms and standards define techni ally and morally allowable pattern of b ha iour, indi ating what i prescribed, preferred, permitt d, or pr o cribed. The

subculture, th n, refers to more Lhan habitual beha iour; its norms codify the alues of the

pro-fession. • •• and i t is he .fu.nc ion of he •.• [profes ion

1]

s hool o tran mit this sub ulture

Lo succ ssi e generations o.f neophytes.

The compo.ition o-f -alue making up a profe ional

8

are essential to the pro ssional role

(44,

p. 71). Moreo er,

tb so ial n ironm nt constitu ed by ch pro£e sional chool

arie for the ·nctividual studen sand groups of s udenis

within it: since the patterns of int raction wil,h s·gnil'ican others are only similar and not identical, the varia ions

resul in a variety of so ialisation ou omes wi hin the same institution

(44,

pp.

6J,

287). What is more, the admissions poli y of the professional school has the

consequ nee of determining, to a large extent, the social

environment of the students - thus, such variations as occur

fall within limits determined by tbe so ialising agen y. Paraphrasing Merton

(44,

p.

6J)

,

the rele ance of this

perspe ive to the analysis of student withdrawal may be

expressed as follows:

Students of the same m asured degree of intelligen e or apti ude vary with r espect to their status and social

relations with others in the sociali ing agen~y (pro£es ional

£a ulLy), and, as a result, in the extent to whi h they a quire l,he a titudes and values, the skills and knowledge

of their ho en profession. On this conception, one would

expect to find substantial differen es in the extent to

whi h they acquire the attitud sand alues, the skills and

knowledge of their chosen profession. On this conception,

one would expect to find substantial difference in the

extent and ffectiven ss of professional learning among

students of approximately the same intelligence and aptitude.

Learning and performan e vary not only as the indi idual qualities of students vary but also as their social

en ironments ary, with their distinctive alue orientations

and th i r distinctive organisation of relations among

9

One mighL add a autionary not aL thj . tage, to the eff ct that Mr on is r erring to he m r i .an p of slonal school, a post-graduate institution exclusi l r con<' ,rned with pro essional raining. In Australia, professional

hools are undergraduate institutions and are therefore ·on J rned as w 11 with more g neral du a ional obje t i es. The Aus raljan situation, then, in its present state would

nots em to consti ut as pure a case of prof ssional sociali ation as the American case outlined by Merton. This fact may l ead o Lbe additional complexity that

faculty members within a professional school may vary in th relative emphasis which they gi e to general edu ational objective and specif' ally professional education, and

thereby add to the potential conflicts n ountered by the stud nL.

Stanton Wheeler (lJ , p. 112) bas drawn up a framework .for Lbe analysis of so .ialisation in organisations, whi h

<'ould well be used to indicate the preconditions for the most (or least) favourable socialisation outcomes in an institution such as a professionals hool (see Fig.

1).

Seen in these terms, the optimum condition for

su cessful socialisation would be that where the institution pro ided lear normative definitions, many opportunities for performance to be demonstrat d, and rewards for

suj tabl performance; and where the individual was capable o~ both performance and 1 arning the norms presented by

10

so< 1alisation out<om would b, l s than id al. J n the

exLr me case (<'ompleLe failure in the socialisation pro~es ),

there would b ambiguity or conflicL in Lb normativ~

struC'ture presented by the institution,i would pro ide rew

opportuniti s I'or p r forman e, nd would not posses Lh

power o rew rd performanc s; s·milarly, h ind i ridu 1

would b . apabl neither of 1 arning Lhe norms nor of

performing satisfactorily, and in addition he would be

in uf_ficiently moti at d to perform.

Ind .pendent

VariabJes

orms

Performances

Re\ards, Sanctions,

Motivb

Intervening Mechani ms

Organisational Individual

Capa ity

to present

clear norms Capa ity to

provide

per forman e

opportunities

Capacity to

selectively reward

per for mance

ig. l

Capacity o 1 .arn

the norms

Capacity

to perform

Motivation

to perform

ocialis-ation

Outcomes

with all Lypological onstruct, i t i unlikely that

either extrem ase would oft n b ncoun+ered in

institutions of professional edu ation, but the ariety

11

inlervening me .hanisms support our arli r observation that 111 arning and performance vary not only as tb individual qualities

or

students vary bu also as their social

en i ronmen ts ary.11 Morea er, the conceptualisation of dropouts from curses of professional edu ation as

instanc s of incomplete or unsu c ssful socialisation into a proI'essional role, and th empha ls on the relevance to

this socialisation proc ss of both indi idual and

12

Chapt r 2

RE .IEW OF THE LJ r~RArUHE O lJ 1_{1 ERS.IT) DHOPOlJ 1 S}

Much of th e ear l i r liter aLur e on dropouts i of a purely des ripti e kind : research was generally ~onfin d to attempts to isolate those chara t ristics of dropouts which distinguished them from students who remain d to graduate (and, l ss often, attempts to distinguish between different types of dropouts) , and to classification of th reasons given .for withdrawal.

The most commonly investigated characteristics are

biological and social factors (such as ag at matriculation, sex, ~ocioeconomic status, and hometown location and size); a ademic .factors (secondary school preparation, scholastic apLitude, and acad mic p rformanc L university); and personality fa tors . Ar view of the numerous studies of these fac ors re eals that the findings are equi o al -each factor bas been found by some investigator to ha e some relationship to some particular group of dropouts, but the relationships ary in nature and ext nt a cording to the group under study and th methods us d i n obtaining

Lhe in.formation.

Similarly, Lhe reasons given by students themsel es for dropping out co er a wid range of .fa ,tors and how little consist ncy betw en studies: perhaps the most frequently cited reasons ha been poor grades, finanuial diffil.ult iJlne ::, 1 and di::, atis.fa tion with the parti ular

BIOLOG CAL AD SOC AL FACTORS

(1) Age a ation. In h" s r vi w of dropout 1

lJ

research, Summerski l l

(66,

p.

631)

draws th general conclusion that age per se does not a feet attrition,

although older students may encounter more obsta 1 s to

graduation. In the group of withdrawees investigated by

Koelsche

(37),

the median age at time of enrolment was

between 18 and 19 years,which is normal for the overall

college population; Bragg (12) found no significant

difference in the ages of continuing students and withdrawees

in her study; and Goble (24) reported that in bis sample

graduates matriculated at an older age than dropouts.

(2) ~ - Little difference has been found between the

attrition rates for male and female students (12,

35, 64).

Most studies, however, have been concerned-with the rate

of withdrawal during the first year; Slocum (62) found that

after one year the proportions of male

(67%)

and f male

(66%)

students who remained in college were very similar, but

that these proportions diverged in succeeding years -

51%

for male students and

41%

for female students after two

years , and

4~%

and

J3%

respectively after three years. It has been emphasised that even if male and female students

withdraw at similar rates, this would not imply that they

, ithdraw for similar reasons: since female students are

generally more highly elected academically than male

1

The terms, ynonymousl

students, nonacademic factor may play a more important part in their de ision to w'thdraw (2,

J4,

62,

6J, 59).

he

1961 Austr lian study I'ound that, while quivalent

proportions of male and female full-time stud nts have

discontinued (about one-third of both groups), among part-time

students approximat ly 6~ of the mal sand

75%

of the females

have discontinued [personal communication].

(J) Socioeconomic factors. The findings in this area are

equivocal, and suggest that more attention should b paid to

the role of such factors in determining the individual student's adjustment to a given environment. The issue is

a complex one, involving the interaction of many variables,

and further mention will b made of attempts to under tand

the problem from this point of view.

The relationship between parents' education and rates

of withdrawal has received careful attention: Snyder

(64)

found no significant difference on this variable between

students who withdrew and the college population as a whol ,

although there was a small difference in favour of the

withdrawal group. Slocum (62) and Goble (24), however,

concluded from their investigations that a higher level

of parental education was associated with a greater chance

of survival at college; Goetz and Leach (25) found no

significant difference betwe n the education of fathers

of ontinuers and withdrawees, but the level of mothers'

15

With r gard io the relationship between par nis' occupational tatus and rates of withdrawal, the 1Jndings

are no less ambiguous. Both Little (J8) and Snyder (64)

found no asso iation between fath r' s occupation and

withdrawa l; Caskey

(41)

found that a smaller per entagf of

dropou s ' parents were in the pro~essional group, and Slo um (62) found a significantly higher survival rate for children of fathers in professional and techni al occupations, wi h the highest withdrawal rate among children of manual

labourers and those in service occupations. Slater (60) found that the rate of withdrawal fell markedly when

students were enrolled in colleges which prepared them to enter occupations similar to those in which their fathers

were employed.

Slocum (62) also cited family attitudes as an important

factor, claiming that parental interest as perceived by the student is influential in his decision whether to withdraw

or remain; Murray (46) similarly reported a favourable parental attitude toward college as being related to

persistence in college.

In addition1 Brown

(14)

found that the factor of

siblings who att nded and/or graduated from college made

a contribution to the prediction of continuation or

noncontinuation in college, and Goble (24) reported a higher incidence of relatives having att nded university among graduates than among dropouts.

(

4)

_{- - - -}

Hometown ..Location and size. Summerskill (66, p.

633)

16

and som how" re l at d to succ ss or .fai lure at college.

Som atten ion has al -o been given to siz nd type of h'gh

school attended as a factor associated with wjthdrawal. Slocum

(

6

2)

found that size of high school was not

a sociated either with arademit, survival or with academic. performance at c:oJ l ge; but Su.nun r skill 8 t;at s that th r e is some evidence that students from larger high schools have s·gnificantly better chances of graduating from allege,

a statement whi h i s supported in the findings reported by

Goble

(24).

ACADEMIC FACTORS

(l)

Secondary school preparation. Studies of the

relationship betwe n academic achievement in highs hool

and allege withdrawal rates have generally indicated a

positive correlation between high school rank and college

survival (12,

24, 37, 62).

(2) Scholastic aptitude . The findings with regard t o t he

relationship between scholasti aptitude and withdrawal

are generally in agr ement - Summerskill

(66)

found that average scholastic aptitude scores were lower for dropouts

than for graduates in 16 of the

19

studies he reviewed.

A similar finding was reported amongst British students

by Lucas et al (40). The position with regard to t he role

of academi abili y i n student withdrawals is cl early

AbJlity and arhievement ratings sePm to be useful primarily for spott Lng only tho~(· -,i udPnt~ on hp low nd of the . cale who will clParly drop out du( to academir £ailur alone, •••

Supporting this conr lu. ion is th finding by AndPrson and Rirhes

(2)

thal among a sample of medi.al stud .nts, tho e dropping out for a ademic reasons cored significantly lower on an aptitude test than other student , but that tho e

dropping out for nonacademic r sons record d higher aptitude scores than any other group 0£ students.

(J) AC'ademic. performance at college. Be.fore reviewing the evidence concerning the re lat ion ship betw8en arademl c

performance and withdrawal9 i t should be emphasised that poor performance in itself does not necessarily 1ndicate a low level of ability9 nor does the fact that a student w1th low grades subsequ ntly withdraws from the university imply that he withdraw b e ~ ~ of his low grades - the dee i si on to withdraw may have been made at an earlier tage,

resulting in lack of intere t and poor examination per£ormanr.e. Goetz and Leach

(25),

while .ompiling data on the college

performance o withdrawee disco ered that some 0£ these student had discontinued attendanc at .lasses without ini'orming th univer it .In these instan e , the student,s 1 grads w r recorded as failur s, which would result in a

lowering of their academi a erages, and of the academic performance 0£ th group .onsidered as a whole. Clearl in .SU<·b .es, th reason for withdrawal pr.< ded the low gr des.

Grad.-polnt av rages ot' withdrawal groups ha ·p b en

18

that the PA's of mal sud nts who ontinued were

signifi antly high r than those o male students who

withdrew, but there was no similar dif erence b tween f male

stud nts; Goetz and Le ch (25), GoblP

(2L~),

and Bragg (12)

also found tha continuing students had higher GPA·s than

those who withdrew.

A second approach has been to use grad -point a rages

in det rmining a le el of sati fa tor academic performance,

and then to estimate the proportions o students progr ssing

s tisfa torily and unsatisfactorily at the time of withdrawal.

Koelsche

(37)

found that

62%

of the dropouts in his sample

were progressing unsatisfactorily at the time of withdrawal;

Halladay and Andrew (27) estimated this proportion at

64%;

and Slocum

(62)

found that

51%

of those studied were in

scholastic difficulties at the time of withdrawal. The

variations in percentages reported may be in part due to

differences in the definition of 11 _{satisfactory performance} 11 •

SUBJECTIVE REASO S FOR WITHDRAWAL.

A number of studies ha e in luded an attempt to

asc rtain wi hdrawee ' perceptions of the causes contributing

to their withdrawal. The technique 01~ asking students why

thy withdrew suff rs from a number of fairly obvious

inadequacies, but while it may not be ad isable to rely

olel on the subjective r ports of withdra, es, nor would

i be satisfactory to rel on faculty reports or official

r or d s as th on 1

stud n ts.

19

In assessjng the importance attributed to arJous fac tors

by stud nts who hav withdrawn rom th ir (ours ol stu y,

it should bP noted that s0m fa .tors ma· b mort- a r ptabl _,

to themselves, to par nts, and to the in titution conrern d,

and thus be given an emphasis i.n subj C':tiv reports whieh is

di proportionate to the role which they play in the de ,ision to withdraw. This is perhaps an

:n

vi able disadvantage of the questionnaire te hnique, esp cially if the in ormation is obtained some time a ter withdrawal, and it may be that this difficul y will only be surmounted by the use of

counselling interviews at the time of withdrawal.

vertheless, even i f the subjective reports of students

who have withdrawn are not an entirely accurate refl tion of the factors involved in the decision to withdraw, they

may sere an additional purpos in telling us some hing about the evaluative standards imposed by the societi s i n whlch these students live and study.

Table l shows the percentag s of studen s gi ing a

ariety of reasons for withdrawal, obtained in five dl.fferent studie

(

2J,

J2, J5, J7,

64).

Some of the factors designated by different titles may in fac:t over the same set of cir wnstances, either from

the in est iga tor's point of view or from that of' the

student. For example, "changed objectives"

(2J, J2)

may

be int rpreted as similar in meaning to "unsuitable choice

of c.ourse"

(64).

It should be remember d that the studies r rred to w r c,arried out in Amer· an universities, and

20

Table 1

REASONS GIVE FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM COURSE

Factors Iffert & Johnson Koelsche Snyder G-ekowski

Contributing C ark

(2J)

(J5)

(J7)

(

64)

&

to Withdrawal Schwartz

(32)

Poor grad s

2J%

2%

primary

11%

'7%

9%

econdary

11%

0 interest

8%

s condary

7%

in courses

6%

Poor high school

o.

4%

preparation

Changed

21%

objectives

5%

Finan ial

7%

25%

primary

12%

difficulty

17%

secondary

7%

Return to work

1%

primary

46%

12%

7%

To get married

7%

9%

primary

16%

Sickness

7%

7%

primary

14%

7%

secondary

6%

Dissatisfaction

6%

curriculum

6%

16%

with the

2CJ%

particular college instruction

2%

administration

J%

Dis ipl·nary

6%

Person lity

11%

12%

adjustment difficulty

21

TABLE 1 (cont.)

Factors Iffert & Johnson Koelsche Snyder Gekowski

Contributing Clark

(

2J)

(J5)

(J7)

(64)

&

to Withdrawal Schwartz

(J

2)

Climate

5%

Military service primary

5%

10,,

Change of

residence

7%

Exclusion

1%

Unsuitable choice

of course

6%

Commuting problems

4%

education systems most probably entail differences in the

importance attributed to various factors in withdrawal.

The greater diversity in American institutions of tertiary

education gives students a wider choice, both of courses

and of institutions, than is presently the case in Australia,

and may thus lead to factors such as 11_{dissatisfaction within}

the particular college [university ]11

, and 11unsuitable choice

of course11 playing a greater part in withdrawals in the

American context.

In reviewing the literature on students' reasons for

withdrawal, Summerskill

(66)

found that the most frequently

mentioned reasons were lack of interest in college, lack

of interest in studies, marriage or marriage plans,

military service, and illness (both personal and in

imm diat family). Swnmerskill adds a cautionary note,

22

factors list din Table I, concerning the lack 01

distinction betwe n reason and outcome.

Even assuming that he subjective reports of'

withdraw es can be accepted at face value, i t seems unlikely that those students who ontinue w·th th ir courses of

study encounter none of the problems contributing to

withdrawal. The studies by Slocum (62) and by Gekowski and

Schwartz (23) found th~t continuing students experi need similar difficulties to those reported by withdrawees as

factors in the decision to withdraw; and Goetz and Leach

(25)

found that

only three factors generally related to

attrition differentiated the groups:

witbdrawees felt that problems of marriage,

family finance, and general unhappiness were somewhat more important than continuers.

ate that even in the latter studies, the findings indicate

that withdrawees perceived a number of problems as being

more important than did continuers, but no evidence is

given that the incidence of such problems is higher for

students who withdraw.

PERSONALITY FACTORS.

The fact that one person with problems withdraws

while another person with problems continues leads to the

question of whether certain personality variables can be

found which differentiate the two groups. A large number

of studi shave been concerned with this problem, producing

summarises the literature on personality variables as

follows: dropouts are more rigid and fearful of nhange, less willing to accept the responsibility of adult

ind P~ndence, la king in internalis d goals and valu.s, tend to feel asily and perhapA hopelessly dpfeated when

2 i

fac d with the prosp ct of possibl ailurP or disappointment, and tend to rationalise their failures in an unrealistic

manner~

Rose and Elton

(55),

whose unusually detailed

classification of withdraw es and continuing students has

already been mentioned, have made one of the most thorough investigations of personality characteristics, starting from the hypothesis that

Withdrawal within semester would seem to constitute a psychologically different kind of act than the successful or unsuccessful completion of a semester after which the student does not return to allege.

Their findings indicate that personality characteristics signifi antly differentiate between types of persistence (successful and unsuccessful), between types of withdrawal (dropout or d fault), and between withdrawing and continuing students .

Suczek

(65)

reported that personality factors appeared

to be r lated both to dropping out and to the student's activity after dropping out. He found that

Student who return to the original ampus are an unusually mature group with a high level of

complexity t the time they first enter the

Uni ersit • Stud nt who are "true" dropouts are somewhat less mature, less complex, and less

.institut· on] and continue the 'r highe e Ul.ation ls wher r s mb.l the stud nt.s who continu

w · thout int rru~tion at •• . [ the-: ins ti tut· on of first enrolmen

J,

.in r lat iv ly gr a ter

conventionalit , control and ompl'anc to authorl ty. • ••

(6

5

,

p .

J5)

and Lu as et al (40) found that in a sample of Br'tish

students, severe personality disturbances o curred with

disproportionate frequency among dropouts wh ,n compared

with students who continued.

CO TEXTUAL FACTORS.

A number of studies have examined the importance of

the s udent ' s vocational orientation to his edu ational

24

environm n t . Slater (60) found that he rate of withdrawal

was h 'ghest where the de ision to att nd ollege was made

by someone other than the student, followed by those students

who had a desire to attend ollege but were indifferent to

their chosen course. The highest survi al rates were

found amongst those whose objectives in attending college

were ·ntelle tual pursuit and vocational ambition. Goetz

and Leach (25) found, however, that a greater proportion

of wi thdrawees than of continuers had enrolled in ourses

which wer related to career or vo ational goals.

Slocum (62) found no difference between the proportions

of con inuing students and w·thdrawees who had indicated

at th time o enrolment that they planned to complete the

bachelor's degree; but he reported that oc upational

uncerta.int at time o:f -.ntr app ar d o be common among

male w·thdraw sand tho

scholast · c d · f. i cult •

In Iook.1-ng at students' reactions to the courses and

far..1.l it ie s offered by th ir college, <..-oe t z and Leac- h ( 2 5)

reported a number of findings which indicate that students

do not simply remain at college because their requ1rement

ar, mor r adily fulfilled than those of students who lea

co11Pge. Withdrawees jn their study gave more favourable

reports than continuing students when r.onsidering both the

enthusiasm of the teaching staff and the nwnber of courses

ofi'er,d by the coll g in their major fiPld of interest.

However, continuing students were more inclined to view

the college as emphasising intellectual and cultural

pursuits outsid the classroom. Brown

(14)

also found that

students continuing in colleg reported less satisfaction

with se eral of the programmes, services, and facilities

offered. On the other hand, Gekowski and Schwartz (2J)

found that more withdrawees than continuing students felt

that their courses were poor preparation for their vocational

object.iv <;, and that withdrawees gave a less i'avourable

o erall evaluation of their faculty than did continuing

students.

Contact with staff members has received a certain

amount of attention: in Slocum' s study (62), continuing

students felt freer to talk over their personal problems with

i'aculty members, and Gekowski and Schwartz (2J) found that

a gr at r number of ontinuing students could name and had

had contact with their faculty ad is rs . Se eral studies

(14. 2J, 24, 62) hav shown a grater amount of

26

students, ~lthou~h Slocum {62) did not find an djfferenre

in Lh _ number of rriends a L allege report .d by th

groups. Goble

(

24

),

how er, r eported a greater perr ived

ab"l.Liy to make friends among continuing students than

among dropouts •

.I TERACT.IO HYPOTHESES.

The con.fusing picture presented by th s arc-h .for

single fa tors related to withdrawal from institutions

of tertiary education has led to recent attempts to view the

problem rom a more analytical perspe t i e postulating an

inLera ,tion process between students and the learning

en ironment, a p rspecti e lending i t elf to the analysis

of a wide range o.f institutions rather than an attempt to

explain, or m r ely to pre ent , data collected .from a single

institution or r ela1 Jng to a single variable (or limit d

complex or drlable::,) • W1lliams

(7J)

suggested the need .for such an approach in hi obser ation that:

Correlates of dropout beha iour identified in past

studie include the personality ariables of

dep.nd ncy, unre.flectivenes , rigidity, anxiety, irresponsibilJt , impul ivenc s, n ed for change, c-on.formity, social discom.fort, and alues holding that education shou.l ct have ocat ional utility and that hard work is good in and of it el.f • .In addition to their neg i e fla our, se eral o.f

these traits are seemingly ontradictory. The

el ment that seems to be missing from this picture of the dropout is th nature of the environments in whi<h these traits ha e been manif t d.

r ecent approximation to this suggested approach is

f o un d J. n the w or 1 of Per ,. in ( 4 9 ,

.5

0 , .5 1 , .5 2 , 5 J ) , w 11 i h

27

them~e l v s and their pe c p tion of' Lhe college atmosphc•rp

with r g rd to both a ademi and nonarad0mic a pectf>, a11d

the rela ionship o these perc ptions to tudent

dissatis action and dropout. The framework o this

r s ar h i s broad enough to includ not only th

interaction of a wide range of ollege atmospheres and

stud nt attitudes, but also a wide range of student

responses - that is, satisfaction/dissatisfaction and

persistence/dropout - as well.

Pervin's work is based on the view that

(50,

p.

281)

th college is a system in the sense that i t is

composed of a number of interdependent parts

(students, faculty, and administration) which share, to one degree or another, certain values and charact ristics. Furthermore, the college is vi wed as a social system in th sense that the parts and goals involve people - there are individual and group needs to be satisfied,

He has developed an instrument for institutional research

(TAPE - Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environment) ,

and u ing i t has collected data from students in a wide range

of fields of study at a large number of universities. He

envisages the complete analysis of the ollege as a social

system as entailing administration of TAPE to all elements

in the system (students, faculty, and administration), the

resultant data providing information about where and to

what extent these elements agree and disagree in their

percept ions.

P rvin's approach to the fact that some students

withdraw from the ourses in which they are enroll d,

28

B yond some f w common character ·stics, coll ges are vastly different f rom one another.

Furthermore, there ·s evidence Lhat students

generally sel ct a col lege whose i mage fits

th ir own needs, pro i ding for a match between

student and college environment. In many cases, however, students are forced t o choose

on som other basis, have a distor ted image of

their preferred college or have an unrealistic

image of their own needs. Each of these means

a lack of fit betw en the needs of the individual

and the press or sources of reward and frustration in the college environment.

A lack of fit between student and college

characteristics should .•• lead to some kinds

of dissatisfaction with the college experience ,

which ultimately may lead to dropping out of

college.

In conceptualising dropout behaviour thus, Pervin sees

as necessary a distinction between withdrawal for academic

and nonacademic reasons. The data so far obtained in his

studies of the college as a social system

(51)

indicate

that there is a high correlation between perceived self/

college discrepancies and dropping out for nonacademic

reasons, but that this relationship does not hold in the

case of withdrawal due to academic factors.

Following on from this analysis, one could ask, in

addition t o whether there are discrepancies between the

student's perception of himself and his educational

environment,

1) what is the nature and the source of these

discrepancies?

2) if the student i s forced to select a course

of study on grounds other than his per ceived

him in his de0ision and how will these lead

t o p rceiv~d discrepancies b tw n self

and ,nvironment?

J) in what way is the stud nt's image of his

preferred course of study distorted?

4)

in what way is the student's perception or

his own needs distorted?

In addition, one may recognise that the student is not

a fixed and unchanging entity, and ask whether hanges

occurring during the course of study may lead to the percei ed

discrepancies which P rvin conceives as being involved in

dropping out.

A less theoretical approach to the problem has been taken

by Panos and Astin

(48),

who have undertaken to examine how

a large number of student characteristics and features of

the college environment are related to dropping out of college.

Using multiple regression techniques, they have examined data coll cted from

60,000

students enrolled in

246

institutions

of higher learning and have concluded that their results

support the hypothesis that educational outcomes are

determined both by the individual's personal characteristics and by the environmental context.

Panos and Astin suggest, on the basis of their analysis,

that (

48,

p.

68)

at least two conceptually distinct, though perhaps

r lated, patterns of environmental effects increase

the students' chances of dropping out of college.

Th fir t pattern is con,erned primarily with

lnterp rsonal r lationships •••

The erond pat.tern ••• app ars to involve influences

JO

Environmental charac eristics, how ver, make a

,onsj derably smaller contrj but ion to the variaw·.e J n the

criterion varjable than do student characteristics,

Lhat diff ren es in th attri tion r a s a t dif:f rent

uggesting

insi.:itut.ions may be more a function of dif':f,renr.es in their

enterjng students than of differences in n ironmen al

character is ti s.

Panos and Astin do, however, con lude by advising

that future research take into account both individual and

institutional factors when considering dropout behaviour.

Wegner and Sewell (68) have also addressed themselves

to studying the r elationship between student input and

institutional characteristics as determinants of educational

outcomes. Specifically, they have investigated four

questions (68, p.

4):

(1) Do different types of colleges recruit students

with different haracteristics and are these

characteristics related to the probability of graduating from college?

(2) Are there institutional differences in graduation rates which cannot be accounted for by the background characteristics of students ••• ?

(J) From what types of schools do students of different intelligence and socioeconomic status levels experience the greatest probability of graduating?

(4)

Are students of different intelligence and socioeconomic status distributed among

institutions in accordance with their chances

of graduating from them?

In answer to their first question, the data suggest

(68, pp.8-12) that the student characteristics of rank in

Jl

soc~o .conomiL status ar relat d to probabilit of

graduation, and that differences in institutional graduation

r a t s correspond to the type of stud nts recruited by th

institution •

. In answer to the second question, Wegner and S well

(68 , pp. 12-14) report findings of notable similari y to

thos reported by Panos and As in. They state that the

type of college attended has an independent effe ton the

students ' chances of graduating: student input fa .tors

contribute most

(25%)

to the variance in graduation rates,

but type of college attended accounts for

J%

of the variance

beyond what can be explained by student characteristics.

Finally, in answer to the remaining two questions, it

was found (68, pp. 14-16) that students of different

socioeconomic and intelligence levels display varying

probabilities of graduating from the different types of

.olleges; and that although the distribution of students

among the various types of institutions is sometimes in

accordance with their probability of graduation from these

institutions, students with high socioeconomic status are

distributed in a manner more favourable to completion of

their college edu ation.

This re iew of recent and more complex approaches to

th problem of dropout behaviour brings us back to the

point at which we concluded the preceding chapter: the

observation that in the process of socialisation into a

profes ional r o l , 11_{1 arning and performance vary not only}

as the individual quali ies of tudents ary but also as

CO GEPT A;!:, _ _FRAMEWORK OF THE STIJUY

While the conten s o the pr vious two chapt rs ha

sugg sted that an exceedingly complex b havioural mod 1 '3 2

would be necessary to ,ount for any individual's derision

to wi hdraw from a ourse of professional education, it is

now proposed to discuss a simplifi d conceptual framework

b~sed on both the theoretical cone pts discussed in Chapter

l, and the empirical eviden e presented in Chapter 2. Many

of the core ideas of the framework owe their origins to the

analysis by Western and Anderson (70) of education and

prof ssional socialisation.

To begin with, this study is based on the premise that

professional education involves a pro ess of so ialisation

into a particular role, and that this socialisation process

involves not only the acquisition of specific knowledge and

skill , but also of the attitudes and values which

fa ilitate performance of this role in a manner acceptable

to the social system in which i t is located. Moreov r,

role learning occurs not only in circumstances defined by

th professional school as formal learning situations, but

in informal situations arising from contact with other

stud nts and with faculty members. A second, related,

pr mise is that compl te comprehension of the socialisation

J1

char· ntAristics both of individuals and of in.ti+ution , and

the int r ction of th<!Se.

Generally stated, the hypothesis which underlie· the

pr sent study is that ther are a nwnber o individual

attribut sand institut·onal characteristi<'s whi .hare

rel vant to the success ul acquisition of the kill and

knowledge, attitudes and values whi h def'ine the role o a

member of a given profession, and that where there is la k

of ongruence betwe n these individual attributes and

institutional chara teristi s, there is a high probability

that the individual will withdraw from the course of

professional education (or pro ess of induction into the

professional role) .

It is important to note here that professional schools

vary, at least to som extent, in their definitions of both

the cognitive and the evaluative aspects 01 the professional

role . Consequently, when we refer to the process of

prof ssional socialisation in a prof ssional s .hool we are

speaking of socialisation into a particular definition of

the professional role. As noted in an earlier chapter,

role d f"nitions not only vary somewhat between socialising

agenci s, but i t is also probable that the corps of

pra t"sing professionals may diff r from the schools in

its role definition, thus requiring a pro ess of

readjus ment following on graduation from the prof ssional

school. It is, howe er, the phas of so.ialisation which

tak s place in the profess·onal s hool with which we are

It now remaj ns to sp cify jn g ea r d t i 1 those attribut s of the indJvidual whJ"c-h u ~r=, -- .cr1~ J ,, ive · d a· h aving · r 1 vane to his acqujsltion of the prof ssional rol.,

and those attribu es of th so ialising institution which

affect he transmission of its d inition o the

professional r o l .

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Those attributes of the individual which are suggested

as important factors in professional so ,ialisation are

divided into four categories:

(1) ba kground factors

(2) academic ability

(J) orientation factors

(4)

situational factors

Back.ground Factors.

It is suggested that the amount of congruence between

the image of his chosen profession with which the recruit

enters the professional school, and the image of the

profession which is propagated by the professional school,

will be an important factor in facilitating the learning

of the professional role as defined by the school. The

concept of anticipatory socialisation is important here

if, during the pre-training· phase ( 70 , p.

96),

the

indi idual has had many opportunities to construct an

a. urate as ssm nt of the skill and knowledge, attitud s

would hypothesise hat hjs a curate asses ment would lead

to le s conflict and~ more ready acquisition of the lPmen s

o the professional <ulture. Western and Andrson (70,

pp.

96-97)

mak. the two point that th extent of

antic·patory socialisation taking place i in part

dependent upon the "vi ibility11 _{o.f th p ofes ional role}

(the suggest, for instance, that the role of a doc or is

more 11visible11 _{than the role of' an economist), and tha th}

image of the profession formed during the pr -training

phase may be based on lay concepts of he profession and not

on role definitions operating within the profession itsel •

The background factors put forward as important in the

formation of an accurate image of the profession are:

(a) father's in ome: i t is suggested that since, despite

scholarship assistance, in Australia at least a professional

education is expensive, the economic status of the family

will be important in determining the proximity or

remoteness of such a possibility for the hild, and hence

in determining the amount of consideration given to a

professional career. This factor may be more important

in terms of ruling out any consideration of professional

care rs in general, rather than in directing attention to

a particular career.

(b) par n£~~ducation: the educational level of the

parents is seen as being important in two ways - irstly,

in det rrnining the amount of accurate information regarding

s ,c()ndl , in determining the educat i ona 1 aspi ra :ion.,, ed. t lJP

par~nts for he child, and ultimately of' th~ in i idual .ror

hi.mse If.

(c) Jr.:d:qer' s oc ·,u atio!!,whil not JndPp ndPnt of -th

. actors m ntioned above, is seen as c ontri but ing in an

additional manner - it is suggested that individual with

.rathBrs in th profession, or in oc upations involv.1ng

clo::;e conta ,t wi h members of the profession, would hare

a

greater stock o experienc s from whi h to derive ac urate

information concerning professional roles.

(ct)

family members and close friends involved in the

profession: similarly, those individuals with members of

the family and lose friends in the profession would have

more information available in f orming their image of the

profession. In both this and the preceding factor, the

relevan,e of Western and Anderson' s point concerning lay

images of the prof ssion is clear, in tha the hildr n

of non-professional amilies (and also, but perhaps to a

1 sser d gree, of families in other professional groups)

are more likel to form their images o.f the profession

.from lay not .ions rather than from information provided

dir tly b pra tising professionals.

(e) ~ge at decision: finally, i t is suggested that the

ag• at which the ind"vidual decides to enter the profession

will be important, in that a decision at an earlier age

would .indi<-ate a longer period of anti ipatory socialisation,