Non-traditional transfer student attrition

Community College Enterprise, The, Fall 2006 by Monroe, Anne

Current literature focuses on traditional student attrition and on transfer transition, but little information is available on the non-traditional transfer student experience. The following study explores the process of non-traditional transfer student attrition through an investigation that illustrates the importance of past student experiences, personal issues, institutional fit, academic integration, and institutional communication and procedures. An understanding of how students actually make meaning of their transfer and departure experiences may allow institutions to modify marketing efforts to be more coherent with institutional practice, manage student expectations to enhance post-secondary experiences for today's students in higher education, and eventually introduce functional, non-traditional student retention efforts.

AMONG THE issues facing American higher education, questions concerning admission, transfer, retention and attrition remain central. Several studies have sought to develop, test and modify models dealing with the patterns of "traditional students"-full time, post secondary students between the ages of 18 and 24. Conversely, very few studies have addressed the needs of "non-traditional" students such as transfer students, older adult learners, commuters, part-time students, graduate students, women, students with disabilities, and minority students (Andres and Carpenter, 1997). Early models of retention and attrition of traditional students do provide an understanding that can be broadly applied to non-traditional students. However, they do not adequately explain the changes resulting from demographic shift in either student population, nor do they provide an understanding of the complexity and processes by which students make meaning of their experiences at an institution, which ultimately leads to their leaving.

Theoretical models

Numerous theoretical models employed over the past 25 years to explain post-secondary student retention and attrition have examined student variables, institutional variables, and themes such as integration of students in order to help explain the student-institution "fit." Early bodies of work, primarily descriptive in nature, failed to explain the variation in student attrition (Tinto, 1975; Pascarella ck Terenzini, 1980). Psychological models were the earliest attempts to build theories of retention, including Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) psychological model based on student intentions. In their model, attrition is seen as a result of weakened intentions. The variable of intention has become important enough for Tinto to add it to his revised model of retention and attrition (Andres &L Carpenter, 1997). Other psychological models have included factors such as student goals (Ethington, 1990), indicating that values and expectations, as well as the level of degree aspirations have a direct influence on persistence.

Additional models attempting to explain the retention/attrition phenomena have emphasized academic and social integration, still focusing on traditional students and their behavior at the university (Spady, 1970; Tinto, 1975, 1982; Pascarella, 1980). These models set out to examine variables affecting the compatibility of students and institutions. Tinto, perhaps the most recognized researcher in student retention and attrition, applied exchange theory to Durkheim's theory of suicide. According to Tinto (1975), students apply the exchange theory in determining their academic and social integration, interpreted as goals and levels of commitment to the institution. If the benefits outweigh the costs, students remain in college; if other activities are believed by the student to have higher rewards and less cost, the student will drop out. Numerous variables affect the strength of the student-institution match. Students enter with background characteristics such as parental values, socioeconomic status, race, gender, pre-college education, all of which combine to affect the initial commitment to the institution and the ultimate goal of graduating. Tinto (1975) measures successful academic integration by grade performance. He evaluates social integration by the development and frequency of positive interaction with peers and faculty as well as involvement in extracurricular activity.

Despite increases in the number of non-traditional students, including community college transfers, for the most part we continue to use models that were designed to explain attrition for the traditional student. The complex, dynamic nature of non-traditional students calls for continued examination and refinement of our understanding of changing student demographics in relation to attrition. Moreover, how transfer behavior differs from complete withdrawal from higher education only adds to the complexity of attrition. The question is not whether colleges can or should try to reduce attrition, but rather, for which students should institutions be targeting changes in policy or practices? Concern needs to focus on students who enter an institution with the skills, abilities, interests and commitment to complete a program, but still leave. Such students are more likely to withdraw voluntarily than fail academically, but then they transfer to another institution rather than leave higher education altogether (Tinto, 1982).