Integration, Motivation, Strengths and Optimism: Retention Theories Past, Present and Future

Abstract

Earliest studies of undergraduate retention in the US started in the 1930s; focused on student mortality, or failure to graduate (Berger & Lyon, 2005).
Historical education research concentrated on pathology, examining student issues rather than successes (Shushok & Hulme, 2006).
Strength-based approaches focus on successful students and their experiences, highlighting factors that contribute to successful retention.
The paper provides:
- A historical overview of undergraduate retention.
- Key factors influencing undergraduate retention.
- Recent applications of motivational theories related to retention, including attribution theory, expectancy theory, goal setting theory, self-efficacy beliefs, academic self-concept, motivational orientations, and optimism.
- Future considerations for motivational theories and strength-based approaches in the study and practice of retention.

Definition of undergraduate retention: The capacity of higher education institutions to retain students from admission to graduation (Berger & Lyon, 2004).
National graduation rate has remained around 50% over the past century, signifying that only about half of high school graduates entering higher education complete their degrees (Swail, 2004).
Origin of undergraduate retention studies dates back to the 1930s with the term 'student mortality' highlighting those who fail to graduate.
Higher education research matured from 1930s to 1950s with prominent studies starting in the 1960s:
- Gekoski & Schwartz (1961) - "Student Mortality and Related Factors."
- Panos & Astin (1968) - Explored attrition rates.
- Feldman & Newcomb (1969) - Published "The Impact of College on Students."
Vincent Tinto's (1975) student integration model marks pivotal change in retention discourse, suggesting socially integrated students are more committed and likely to graduate.
Tinto’s model has evolved, incorporating motivational factors, significantly influencing the understanding of college student retention.

Early institutions were exclusive and degree completion rates were low; focus was more on institutional survival than student graduation (Berger & Lyon, 2005).
Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 and urban growth in late 1800s led to increased access to higher education, fostering a demand for degree attainment (Goldin & Katz, 1999).

Initial studies on retention emerged in the 1930s.
1938 John McNeely's study examined demographics and engagement among 60 institutions - a precursor to later comprehensive studies.
Post World War II enrollment surge due to GI Bill resulted in significant changes in the demographic make-up of student populations (Thelin, 2004).
By the 1960s, rapid growth revealed the challenges in accommodating diverse student needs; prompted studies from theorists like Alexander Astin and Alan Bayer, leading to focused retention strategies.

Emergence of theoretical frameworks; Spady's (1970) sociological model linked student characteristics to dropout rates, emphasizing social integration.
Tinto’s (1975) student integration model built on dropout theories and integrated both academic and social experiences.
Expansion of retention theory began to account for goal commitment and expectations, increasing understanding of student progression.

Decline in student enrollment prompted institutions to formalize enrollment management; a systematic approach to support student success (Berger & Lyon, 2005).
Increased literature focus on retention, with Bean (1980) highlighting the role of demographic and background characteristics on student departure.

Retention literature highlighted strategies for supporting diverse students, including those from underrepresented backgrounds.
Tinto continued to revise his model; emphasis on group-specific interventions for different demographics.

Ongoing emphasis on comprehensive retention strategies that involve multi-department collaboration (Kadar, 2001; Tinto, 2000).
Significant correlation found between student interactions with faculty and support services and retention rates (Habley, 2004).

Background characteristics, specifically prior academic preparation, greatly influence retention (Bean, 1980).
Completion of a rigorous high school curriculum is crucial, as is academic achievement as indicated by GPA.

Engagement in academic life, including faculty interactions and participation in academic resources/effects on retention (Wyckoff, 1998).
Progress toward degree completion is often stunted for part-time students or those taking breaks (Adelman, 1999).

Active participation in campus social life aids in retention; friendships and mentorships relate to student integration (Tinto, 2004).
Overcoming cultural barriers is vital to engage underrepresented student groups in campus life (Swail, 2004).

Financial aspects, including the type of financial aid, particularly grants vs. loans, have significant impacts on retention (Retention Study Group, 2004).

Family background, including parent's education, play a notable role in student retention rates, especially among first-generation students.

Theoretical foundations established by Fritz Heider, further developed by Julian Rotter and Bernard Weiner, focus on how outcomes are attributed (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2006).
Attributions can be internal or external; four primary causal factors identified for academic success/failure: ability, effort, task difficulty, and luck.
Understanding students’ attributions toward outcomes aids in fostering motivation and shaping academic behaviors.
Specific learning practices based on attribution theory, such as attributional retraining, suggest restructuring negative attributions to promote motivation.

Vroom’s expectancy theory suggests that motivation is influenced by the perceived likelihood that effort leads to desired outcomes (Friedman & Mandel, 2010).

Individuals setting specific and challenging goals are more likely to achieve higher performance levels (Locke & Latham, 1990).

Academic self-efficacy, or beliefs about personal competence, profoundly influence persistence in academic settings (Bandura, 1977).

Academic self-concept relates to a student’s perception of their academic capabilities (Marsh & Shavelson, 1985).

The types of motivation (intrinsic vs. extrinsic) shape student engagement and academic performance (Baker, 2004).

Optimism impacts adjustment and coping strategies in stressful college environments (Peterson, 2000).

The study and practice of undergraduate retention have evolved to incorporate a variety of motivational theories in recent years.
Tinto’s model remains foundational, yet exploring strengths and motivations of students promises potential for future research.
A focus on why students succeed rather than merely why they fail is essential in fostering a supportive and productive educational environment.