Retention and Recruitment of At-Risk Students

Topic Paper #2
CCHE 620 4/12/15

Submitted By: Jennifer Atkinson

1|Page

Student retention has been an issue that universities have been investigating since the

early 1970s (Stromer, 1993). Although all universities recognize the issue of student attrition

rates, they all take slightly different approaches to attempt to retain students considered at-risk
for dropping out prior to graduating. It is critical for universities to identify which students are

at-risk before any steps can be taken to encourage success. There are many categories of at-risk
students; first generation, minority, low socioeconomic status, nontraditional/adult students,

and underprepared students are some of these categories (Colton et al, 1999). Recruitment of
nontraditional and at-risk students is done in a variety of ways as is ensuring the retention of
those students. As universities are working under tighter budgets, retention of their existing
students becomes vital to their mutual success (Colton et al, 1999).

Recruitment strategies employed by universities to attract at-risk or nontraditional

students is similar in many ways to how they recruit traditional students. The typical methods
include direct advertisement via mail lists obtained from the ACT and SATs, visits to high
schools, college fairs and other off campus events, multi-media campaigns etc.

(Education.stateuniversity.com, 2015). The most critical aspect of reaching at-risk and

nontraditional students is to appeal to what makes them feel different. While marketing to

these groups, universities very specifically portray the university from the perspective of other
at-risk or nontraditional students. Often utilizing testimonials or videos in the students own
words (Education.stateuniversity.com, 2015 and Laskey and Hetzel, 2011). This approach allows the
student to see themselves as fitting into the university community and culture.

Once the student is successfully recruited into the university, the retention focus has to begin

immediately in order to prove most successful. At-risk students for a variety of reasons lack the soft

2|Page

skills needed to be successful in attaining a degree. These skills are considered to be the social skills to

seek help and ask questions, effective study skills and methods, ability to consistently attend classes and
ability to maintain focus while in class or working on coursework (Laskey and Hetzel, 2011). The highest

attrition rate is between freshman and sophomore year, therefore early identification of at-risk students
is critical (Colton et al, 1999). Many studies have been conducted by universities over the years to

identify the most successful methods of retaining existing students. One such study was conducted by

George Colton et al and the results were published in 1999. They focused on a federally funded program

developed by Kutztown University designed to support at-risk freshman. Over 700 similar programs exist
that are also federally funded. This program differs in two distinct ways. It has what they refer to as

intrusive intervention modalities, where students that fall into the aforementioned at-risk categories
are obligated to participate in the program. The students are required to sign a contract at the time of
enrollment. The program also offers extrinsic rewards, which consist of things like early course

enrollment opportunities, VIP type access to advisors and counselors, free tutoring, extra assistance
with academic planning and financial aid navigation. This program also offers additional access to

faculty. The program makes a huge difference. Retention rates of these at-risk students were measured
after 1st semester, 1st year, 2nd year and 3rd year. The participants of this program show 97% retention

after 1st semester, 88% retention after 1st year, 83% retention after 2nd year and 78% retention after 3rd

year. When compared to at-risk students at other institutions, not obligated to participate in this type of
program the retention rates fall to 54% after 1st year, 33% after 2nd year and only 25% after 3rd year

(Colton et al, 1999). A study done by Marcia Laskey and Carole Hetzel identified what factors were most
influential in the successful retention of at-risk students. They looked at a variety of variables including
personality, quality of high school attended, high school grades, SAT/ACT scores, academic

support/tutoring utilized. Data were collected over a period of 3 years. 115 traditional aged students
deemed to be at-risk based on admission to the universities at-risk program CAP (Laskey and Hetzel,

3|Page

2011). They found that the consistent use of tutoring as well as early enrollment into the CAP program
were critical steps towards success for the at-risk students (Laskey and Hetzel, 2011). Dennis, Phinney
and Chuateco look at what the most predictive factors are for the retention of ethnic minority first

generation students. Their study included 100 first generation ethnic minority students. They set out to
determine which motivational characteristics are the most effective at ensuring success of ethnic

minority first generation students. Personal motivation due to career or degree goals were found to be
more predictive for degree attainment than support from family with family expectations acting as the
driving force for attendance (Dennis, Phinney, and Chuateco, 2005). Nontraditional/adult learners

require all of the aforementioned retention techniques, but also benefit from courses designed with

more flexibility. Courses that are offered in the evening or are a hybrid of online and in-person assist

these students in the struggle to maintain their home and work commitments while completing their
coursework (Education.stateuniversity.com, 2015).

There is no single retention system that can be effective for all at-risk and nontraditional

students because the factors involved in causing the students to be categorized as such are as varied as
the students (Education.stateuniversity.com, 2015). Instead an attempt to personalize student services

and support to each students unique situation would perhaps be advisable. Continuing to study what is
working, and to eliminate programs that are not effective is also advisable. Monitoring techniques such
as exit interviews and retrospective studies may help in determining what is most effective

(Education.stateuniversity.com, 2015). Over all, several general items held true across all studies

reviewed, encouraging students to participate in social activities on campus, encouraging students to

seek assistance consistently, commitment by faculty to spend one on one time with students, ensuring

from the time of admission that students and parents understand university life and all student services
available to the student (Education.stateuniversity.com, 2015). Student services need to be committed
to increased academic success, in addition to a reduction in the attrition rate of these students.

4|Page

References:

M. Colton, U. J. Connor, Jr., E. Shultz, L. Easter. (1999). Fighting Attrition: One Freshman Year
Program That Targets Academic Progress and Retention for At-Risk Students. Journal Of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory And Practice, 1(2), 147-162.
doi:10.2190/ftpb-1lq7-xbux-j1ry
Dennis, J., Phinney, J., & Chuateco, L. (2005). The Role of Motivation, Parental Support, and
Peer Support in the Academic Success of Ethnic Minority First-Generation College
Students.Journal Of College Student Development, 46(3), 223-236.
doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0023
Education.stateuniversity.com,. (2015). College Recruitment Practices - Recruitment Theory and
Practices, Nontraditional Enrollees, Ethics, Financial Aid as a Recruiting Tool, The Future.
Retrieved 8 April 2015, from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1858/collegerecruitment-practices.html
Education.stateuniversity.com,. (2015). College Student Retention - Defining Student Retention,
A Profile of Successful Institutions and Students, Theories of Student Departure.
Retrieved 9 April 2015, from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1863/collegestudent-retention.html
Laskey, M., & Hetzel, C. (2011). Investigating Factors Related to Retention of At-Risk College
Students. The Learning Assistance Review, 16(1), 31-43.
Strommer, D. (1993). Portals of entry. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the Freshman
Year Experience, University of South Carolina.

5|Page