Tag Archives: Retention

Addressing homesickness in university freshmen

— by on — Leave a reply

Thurber, C.A. & Walton, E.A. (2012). Homesickness and Adjustment in University Students. Journal of American College Health, 60 (5), 415-419.

What does the research literature say about homesickness among university freshmen?  Doctors Christopher A. Thurber and Edward A. Walton provide a clear and concise summary in an article published in the Journal of American Health in 2012.

Reviewing the recent literature on the topic, the researchers presented lists of conditions that result from intense homesickness, risk and protective factors for homesickness, and empirically based strategies for both prevention and treatment.  They concluded the article by calling upon practitioners to implement and then test the effectiveness of interventions to address the issue.

Strengths and Critiques

The organization of this paper was excellent.  The paper was easy to follow, the writing was clear and concise, and the sections were both understandable and sensible.  Most importantly, the paper was a helpful contribution to the field of student retention literature because it provided an excellent and user-friendly summary of recent research on homesickness along with sound strategies for intervention.  A university administrator who wants to address homesickness among students but isn’t sure where or how to start could read this article and walk away with both an understanding of the issue and a plan for how to tackle it.

The major thing lacking in this paper is a clear theoretical framework.  The authors did not espouse any particular theory.  Instead, they just wrote about the challenges that many students face when they transition to a university setting and how those challenges can cause homesickness.  The authors also omitted a data collection and analysis section, presumably because they did not conduct an original study other than a literature review.  They did, however, note that a review had already been done on homesickness in children and adolescents, which justified that their review focus on research on young adults at postsecondary institutions.  They also noted that risk and protective factors for homesickness for youth are nearly identical as risk and protective factors for adults.

The authors’ discussion of the topic, woven throughout the paper, was particularly strong.  They noted that a simple dichotomy of students who are homesick and those who are not is not helpful to understand the issue because so many students, if not all, experience some degree of homesickness.  Instead, the authors recommended conceptualizing homesickness as a spectrum with varying intensity and then distinguishing between normal levels of homesickness and more severe levels which are problematic (including consequences such as significant distress that make those levels problematic).  This conceptualization is helpful because there are specific indicators of when homesickness levels have become above the normal intensity, and the acknowledgement that there is a normal experience of homesickness can help administrators and practitioners with implementing one of the authors’ intervention strategies, which is to normalize homesickness among students.

Commentary

University and college administrators concerned with student retention should definitely address homesickness, given a finding cited in this paper that homesick students are significantly more likely to drop out of school.  I have anecdotal evidence that confirms this finding.  In my place of practice, I have noticed that homesickness is a common reason given by students when asked why they are leaving or thinking about leaving the university.  In my own experience as a university freshman, I vividly remember homesickness being a major personal struggle.  I never contemplated leaving the university, but my homesickness did contribute to several personal and academic problems.

The authors were transparent with the type of further study that might effectively build upon their research: intervention studies.  They noted that existing research on homesickness has only described the subjective experience of the issue such as risk and protective factors.  With their lists of recommended strategies for intervention complete, the authors were hoping that future researchers would actually implement and assess these strategies.  Reading that such studies have yet to be published (at least as of 2012, when this article was published), I am encouraged because I might be able to bring such an innovation to ASU and also make a needed contribution to the research literature.

Before delving into a homesickness intervention, however, I would want to know answers to two questions that were not answered in this article.  The first question is: what is the prevalence of intense homesickness among university students?  The authors cited one study that found that 7 percent of children and adolescents experienced severe levels of homesickness when away from home.  I wonder if the percentage of college students who experience these high intensity levels of homesickness is similar, lower, or higher.  I’m also curious to know if there are any trends related to homesickness in college students.  Is intense homesickness an issue that is affecting higher percentages of college students today than in previous generations?  Or has the percentage either decreased or remained steady?  On one hand, I could imagine the prevalence being lower today compared with previous generations because contemporary students have the benefit of technology such as Skype, FaceTime, cell phones, and text messaging that can help with staying closely connected with distant relatives and friends.  On the other hand, common knowledge that today’s generation of college students tends to be more reliant on their parents than previous generations might suggest that today’s students might feel more homesick when separated from home than their predecessors.

Addressing homesickness has major implications for exploring humanizing education research.  Students are not just numbers attending an institution.  They have feelings and poignant experiences that affect their success outcomes.  Building an institutional understanding of homesickness can help to humanize students and increase empathy for them from administrators by understanding their emotions. It can also help students have compassion for each other and be supportive of each other.  In my experience, I have observed that students who are struggling with an issue will keep that issue to themselves due to embarrassment and thinking that they are the only ones who are having that issue.  An intervention that draws attention to the widespread and common nature of homesickness might have the effect of encouraging students to be more open about their struggles and to be mutually supportive as they encounter and address their struggles together.

Reference

Thurber, C.A. & Walton, E.A. (2012). Homesickness and Adjustment in University Students. Journal of American College Health, 60 (5), 415-419.

 

The Misappropriation of College Retention Programs

— by on — 2 Replies

inLove, B. J. (1993). Issues and problems in the retention of black students in predominantly white institutions of higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 26(1), 27-36.

Barbara J. Love (1993) takes a strong look at retention issues in her article, Issues and Problems in the Retention of Black Students in Predominantly White Institutions of Higher Education. Published over twenty years ago, this article presents solid information about Black student retention in White universities and factors that cause Black students to drop-out prior to graduation. As a means for future study, this article provides a historical perspective on the issue of Black student retention which can be compared to recent literature on the topic.

The goal of Love’s (1993) article is to identify issues in retention programs that are not traditionally addressed in Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs). For years, graduation rates for minorities students, specifically Black students, have been dismal in PWIs. Historically, Black students graduate approximately one third less frequently than their White counterparts (Love, 1993). As a means to remedy the stagnation of Black graduation rates, higher education institutions created significant retention programs to address attrition issues without significant results. However, Love (1993) identifies a research gap between what Black students identify as factors causing them to drop, and what PWI institutions identify as retention issues. Accessible literature showed that most retention programs focus on changing the student and their behaviors, while failing to examine issues of institutionalized racism (Love, 1993).

Using James Meredith, the first Black student to be admitted to the University of Mississippi, as an example of the growing number of Black students who enroll in White institutions, Love (1993), reveals that more students of color are now enrolled in college than ever before, yet there are still low graduation rates. The U.S. Census Bureau data showed that 34% of Black high school graduates  attended college in 1976 dwindling down to just 27% in 1983 (Evans, 1985). Additionally, more Black students enrolled in junior or community colleges rather than in four-year institutions (Love, 1993). In 1985, Blacks comprised only 12% of the U.S. population, yet represented only 8% of undergraduate students. PWIs admit nearly 80% of Black college students; however, only 60% of those students received Bachelor’s degrees from those institutions (McCauley, 1988). The drop-out rate for Black students is eight times higher than White students enrolled in the same institution. Love (1993) presents this data to show the discrepancy of Black students enrolled in PWIs as compared to those who actually complete their degree pointing toward a “revolving door that cuts short the promise of educational equity” (p. 28).

Love (1993) draws on Marvalene S. Hughes’ (1987) article, Black Students’ Participation in Higher Education, in which Black students enrolled in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) described factors that contributed to their success. Students reported feeling welcome and comfortable in the learning environment in HBCUs. Students attributed the ability to “hang out” with other Black students in their major and residence halls as factors in their comfort. Additionally, students felt at ease talking with professors and staff making connections to student and academic services accessible. On the contrary, experiences for Black students at PWIs are quite different. Black students typically find themselves ignored in classrooms, blocked from campus social life, and harassed by campus police (Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985). Love (1993) goes on to say that “Black students in PWIs must be strong self-starters who are fully independent, with strong defenses to combat stereotypes, fears, alienation and loneliness” (p. 28). Although retention programs have been implemented to improve Black graduation rates in PWIs, however, none address institutionalized racism as a factor in attrition. Love (1993) lists seven categories of factors contributing to Black student retention:

  • White racism: overt and covert systems of racial prejudice, bias, and hatred toward Black and other students of color, resulting in the loss of opportunities or advancement
  • Institutional leadership: strength of administration to recognize and combat racism within the institution
  • Finances: awareness, and availability of financial support through government funding, or personal or familial finances
  • Social interaction, cultural dissonance, and environmental incongruence: intra and interpersonal relationships with other students in the institution; the divide between the student’s personal culture and the university culture; the capability of the university to respond to the student’s needs, goals, and aspirations
  • Faculty-student interaction: how students feel toward White professors, and comfort level in asking for additional instruction, advice, or information
  • Student services: the awareness and friendliness of dining halls, residence halls, gyms, counseling services, and student work positions
  • Student characteristics: student’s familial and academic background, self-image, self-esteem and “locus of control” (belief that either internal or external factors decide one’s fate)

Love (1993) uses a study by Noel, Levitz, and Saluri (1985) entitled, Increasing Student Retention, in which the authors evaluated several college retention programs examining the factors mentioned above. They found that no program addressed issues of racism or leadership within the institution, and the majority of programs were focused on student characteristics as the main factor of Black student attrition. Love (1993) concludes and recommends that retention programs in PWIs must address the full range of retention problems affecting Black students rather than concentrating on factors institutions feel most comfortable addressing. White institutions should develop programs to eliminate racism by examining policies, practices, and individual attitudes of students and faculty, which may have an effect on the student’s course load, academic major choice, satisfaction with the university, and overall performance (Love, 1993). Finally, training for institutional leadership should be required for the efficacy of all retention programs. The administrations of PWIs are traditionally comprised of White men who attended White institutions themselves during an era where Black enrollment was not a topic of interest. Such training enables institutional leaders to understand and recognize racism in order to provide access and educational equity.

As stated previously, this article is quite dated; yet, it provides significant historical data that will allow me to compare factors in Black student retention in decades past to current factors. Love (1993) uses a clear, concise writing style makes each section of the article understandable and purposeful; there is no uncertainty in the content. She introduced the article by discussing the disparity of Black student retention, which immediately caught my attention, before moving into significant factors and accessible literature on the topic showing cohesiveness within the content. Additionally, Love (1993) shows no trepidation about the issue of institutionalized racism; a topic typically avoided and deemphasized in higher education research. This article is essential for my research because it focuses specifically on retention programs and the lack of recognition of racial factors in Black student graduation rates. The most intriguing point of this article for me is that Love (1993) takes issue with placing responsibility on the student to manage their own educational experience, and that retention programs focus on the student’s personal characteristics and their ability to integrate themselves into the university culture; an immense, and unbearable task for marginalized students. I plan to explore the area of student responsibility in retention and integration in PWIs within my own research. Additional areas of research could be to compare successful Black students at PWI’s to those who are unsuccessful using information from such research to improve current retention programs. Also, the connection to “locus of control” and retention should be examined to see if Black students typically feel that external factors such as campus climate, student services, faculty, social and academic organizations are ultimately responsible for their experience at White institutions. Overall, Love’s (1993) article compliments my research initiatives by providing uncomfortable, yet important information on how retention programs have failed Black students, giving me a foundation to explore current issues and trends in minority student retention.

References

Berry, B. (1983). Blacks in predominantly white insitutions of higher education. In J. D. William, The state of black america (pp. 295-318). New York, NY: National Urban League.

Evans, G. (1985, August 7). Social, financial barrier blamed for curbing Blacks’ access to college. Chronicle of Higher Edcuation, 1-15.

Hughes, M. (1987). Black students’ participation in higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 532-55.

Love, B. J. (1993). Issues and problems in the retention of black students in predominantly white institutions of higher edcuation. Equity & Excellence in Education, 26(1), 27-36.

McCauley, D. (1988). Effects of specific factors on blacks’ persistence at a predominantly white university. Journal of College Student Development, 45-51.

Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (1985). Increasing student retention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

ACT Policy Report – A Guide for Practitioneers

— by on — Leave a reply

Lotkowski, V. A., Robbins, S. B., & Noeth, R. J. (2004). The Role of Academic and Non-Academic Factors in Improving College Retention. ACT Policy Report, (September 12, 2007), 1–31.

As a practitioner in the field of higher education I am always excited to find innovative theories or programs in practice that will assist me in my work.  I particularly like to find those articles that provide a theoretical background that parallels some of the work that I am already doing.  While this report is at this time a decade old, the concepts and suggestions for implementation are more prevalent to me now in my career, due to my role, spheres of influence and community of practice that I am a part of.

Summary:

ACT has put together a policy report that highlights some of the critical issues retaining to retention and academic performance of college students.  The focus of this particular reports focuses on the roles in which both the academic and non-academic attributes of the university experience have on college students.  The report utilized data that came through the use of 109 different studies that met three criteria.  Studies must: examine relationship between academic and non-academic factors, focus on full-time students at four-year institutions, and utilized standard measures while reporting pertinent information.

The report results breakdown the two focus areas of academic and non-academic into defining factors as follows.

Academic

  • High school grade point average – HSGPA
  • ACT assessment scores – ACT
  • Socioeconomic status- SES

Non-Academic

  • Academic-related skills
  • Achievement motivation
  • Academic self-confidence
  • Academic goals
  • Institutional commitment
  • Social support
  • Contextual influences
  • Social involvement
  • General self-concept

Throughout the report there are varying combinations of the academic and non-academic findings that yield stronger relationships and higher success rates than the others.  What I find important is that there is a strong correlation between the joint program development between academic and non-academic parties to have the greatest chance of creating or improving student retention and success at the university.

Personal Application:

The areas of implementation in which I can utilize this research are in my roles within Orientation and Housing, as well as in the Dean of Students Office.  The researchers propose to start the non-academic areas of achievement motivation and institutional commitment during early start programs.  I see that I have the opportunity to change our practice in orientation of making it more of an opportunity for starting to develop connections and skills for the incoming students, rather than the transaction model that I feel we have now, where students hear some presentations, register for classes and depart until their return in the Fall.

Within the housing area, I would like to see more investment by our hall staff, including student staff, in a mentoring role, emphasizing the social support aspect, during the early start programs. Particularly there would need to be more intentionality from staff to expand their knowledge and relationships with support staff that are here for the summer.  By making the connections with student and support staff we can provide students with an extended period of time getting acclimated and focused on finding academic support.

The final area that I would like to apply the concepts suggested by the article would be within the Residential College Advisory Board that I chair.  We will need to make a focus change from what the original group was formed to do, that of providing program support and a consistency of student expectations across the colleges.  I think this is the area that is most likely to implement something new, using the resources of the faculty, advisors, and student affairs professionals to develop early warning systems, providing more individual attention to students, development of more consistent outreach to students.  This community of practice is one that I have been a part of for 5 years and have developed strong relationships with several of the longstanding members.

Limitations in my practice:

It has been my experience that change comes with resistance, even if there is empirical support to justify said change.  I do not say this to be negative, but as a realist.  The issues can arise when existing programs are producing positive results, but have been at the same level for some time.  Can the results be better?

As I think of implementation with summer programs, I see a struggle in the opposite of my above statement.  There has been no consistency in the early start programs; goals and target demographics have changed year to year, multiple programs have been created from both academic and non-academic areas that are competing for the same students, resulting in some programs not fully functioning because they cannot hit a critical mass to be effective.

Final thoughts:

I will be looking into an update on this report and the test used within the study.  There is an area that I am particularly interested in, the socioeconomic status portion as it relates to the recruitment and success.  I want to see if there have been new discussions about the admitting, or not admitting, students that are pre-identified as having low SES resulting in high need, and the retention rates as it relates to the investment in those students success.

My favorite parts of this report, as a practitioner, are twofold: 1. the inferred practice of collaboration and working inside and outside known work groups. 2. The steps to development provided.  While I will not list them all, I will highlight one that I feel is most important.  “Widely disseminating results from the program evaluation” (Lotkowski, Robbins, & Noeth, 2004, pg21).  From other discussions on communities of practice and roles we play as researchers, sometimes I feel as practitioners we do not share information that can be a benefit to others…just something to consider.

References

Lotkowski, V. A., Robbins, S. B., & Noeth, R. J. (2004). The Role of Academic and Non-Academic Factors in Improving College Retention. ACT Policy Report, (September 12, 2007), 1–31.