Citation
The impact of attending a college orientation class on retention, persistence, and time to degree completion of first time community college students

Material Information

Title:
The impact of attending a college orientation class on retention, persistence, and time to degree completion of first time community college students
Creator:
Watson, James Arthur
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
vii, 106 leaves : ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Academic achievement ( jstor )
Academic communities ( jstor )
College freshmen ( jstor )
College students ( jstor )
Colleges ( jstor )
Community colleges ( jstor )
Educational research ( jstor )
High school students ( jstor )
Higher education ( jstor )
School dropouts ( jstor )
Counselor Education thesis, Ph.D ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF ( lcsh )
City of Tallahassee ( local )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1999.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 90-105).
General Note:
Printout.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by James Arthur Watson.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
021581773 ( ALEPH )
43707683 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text










THE IMPACT OF ATTENDING A COLLEGE ORIENTATION CLASS ON
RETENTION, PERSISTENCE, AND TIME TO DEGREE COMPLETION
OF FIRST TIME COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS










By

JAMES ARTHUR WATSON


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1999























DEDICATION



This project is dedicated with love to my mother,
Myra Jean Watson,
and to the memory of my late father,
Joe Andrews Watson.













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank all of the members of my committee for their support.

Special thanks are due to Dr. Gerardo Gonzalez, chairperson, for his guidance in this

project and to Dr. David Miller for his assistance with the data analysis. Dr. Mary

Howard-Hamiliton and Dr. Phyllis Meek both provided important comments and

suggestions.

I want to acknowledge the help of Dr. Patricia Windham at the Florida State

Board of Community Colleges. My gratitude goes to Brian Walsh who has assisted me

throughout this project. I also wish to thank Dr. Patricia Grunder at Santa Fe Community

College, and to Dr. John Grebb and Dr. Max Lombard at Miami-Dade Community

College.

Thanks also are due to all of those friends and colleagues who have helped and

supported me in this endeavor. I want to recognize Lynne Barolet-Fogarty, Dr. Elizabeth

Broughton, Myma Cabrera-Rivero, Lynn Sullivan, Dr. David Hellmich, Dr. Carlos

Hemandez, Dr. Barbara Keener, Dr. Caroline Pace, Dr. Sharon Pate, and Dr. Laura Perry.

I would also like to recognize the influence of my sister, Jane Watson, and my niece, Ana

Watson, on my life.

Finally, and most important of all, it is with joy that I acknowledge my partner,

Dr. Andres Nazario, for his unwavering love, assistance, and support throughout this long

journey.













TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKN OW LEDGM EN TS ........................................................................................... iii

ABSTRA CT ............................................................................................................... vi

CHAPTERS

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1

Theoretical Fram ework .......................................................................... 2
Statem ent of the Problem ..................................................................... 7
N eed for the Study ................................................................................ 9
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................... 11
Research Questions ............................................................................ 12
Definition of Term s ............................................................................ 13
Organization of the Study ................................................................... 13

2 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE .................................... 15

General Attrition/Retention Studies .................................................... 15
Variables Associated with Attrition and Retention ......................... 17
Comm unity College/4-Year Institution ......................................... 25
Studies Addressing Tinto's Variables of Attrition/Retention ............... 28
Intention and Comm itm ent ........................................................... 28
External Obligations/Fam ily and Financial .................................... 41
W ork ............................................................................................ 43
College Orientation Course Studies .................................................... 46
Adjustm ent and Difficulty ............................................................ 51
Incongruence and Isolation ........................................................... 55
Summ ary ....................................................................................... 56

3 M ETHODOLOGY .............................................................................. 57

Chapter Organization .......................................................................... 57
Research Design ................................................................................ 57
Research Questions ............................................................................ 58
Participants ......................................................................................... 59
Research Procedure ............................................................................ 60
Data Collection and Analysis ............................................................... 60
Sum m ary ........................................................................................... 61









4 RESULTS ............................................................................................... 62

5 DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 78

Purpose Overview ................................................................................. 78
Discussion of Results ............................................................................ 78
Research Question 1 ....................................................................... 78
Research Question 2 ........................................................................ 79
Research Question 3 ........................................................................ 79
Research Question 4 ........................................................................ 80
Research Question 5 ........................................................................ 80
Research Question 6 ........................................................................ 81
Lim itations ............................................................................................ 82
Implications of the Findings and Recomm endations .............................. 83
Implications for Theory ................................................................... 83
Implications for College ................................................................. 85
Recomm endations for Future Research ........................................... 87
Summ ary ............................................................................................. 88

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 90

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....................................................................................... 106













Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

THE IMPACT OF ATTENDING A COLLEGE ORIENTATION CLASS ON
RETENTION, PERSISTENCE, AND TIME TO DEGREE COMPLETION
OF FIRST TIME COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS

By

James Arthur Watson

December 1999

Chairperson: Gerardo M. Gonzalez
Major Department: Counselor Education

The purpose of this research was to study the relationship between taking a

community college orientation class during the first term and the retention, persistence,

and time to degree completion of first time community college students.

A computer search of the historical data base from four academic institutions in

Florida generated a sample of 1,400 students who had enrolled for the first time in

college. All participants were academically prepared for college level work. The

academic performance and persistence of students who had completed a college

orientation class during their first term was compared to students that did not take a

college orientation class during their first term in college. Measurements were taken at

the end of the first term and at the end of the first, second, third, and fourth years. An

analysis of variance model was utilized to address the research questions.








Results of the statistical analysis revealed that that taking a college orientation

class the first term at a community college does not have an affect on retention. course

withdrawal patterns, grade point averages, course repetitions patterns, and the total

number of credit hours at time of graduation. A discussion of the limitations of the

project, implications of the findings, and recommendations for further research was

presented.














CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Student retention in the community college remains a critical issue in higher

education. Statistics show that approximately 50% of freshmen enrolled in higher

education drop out before completing their programs (Brawer, 1996). This number has

remained fairly stable since Summerskill's (1962) early study of retention. Over half of

students entering higher education start in a community college. Enrollment in

community colleges rose from 500,00 students in 1960 to over 5.5 million in 1991

(Alsalam, 1993). Researchers indicated that the dropout rate tends to be higher for

community colleges than for 4-year colleges and universities (Bean & Metzner, 1985:

Dougherty, 1994; EI-Khawas, 1988; Jones, 1988; Tinto, 1993). Cope and Hannah (1975)

indicated that approximately 50% of community college students remain in school after

their first year. Of those who remain, only 50% go on to complete an associate degree.

Many studies indicate that a student's decision to drop out of higher education is

usually made during the freshman year (Bean, 1980; Dunphy, Miller. Woodruff. &

Nelson, 1987; Fetters, 1977, Pantages & Creedon. 1977: Rootman, 1972). Furthermore,

the majority of students make their decision to leave school during the first 6 weeks of the

freshman year (Blanc, DeBuhr, & Martin, 1983; Gardner, 1989; Levitz & Noel, 1989;

Noel, 1985; Zarvel et al., 1991). These sequences appear to imply specific patterns of








student departure. Finding appropriate strategies to assist community college students in

the completion of their educational goals continues to be a priority.

College persistence is affected, to a great degree, by the process of interactions

between the students and the institution. A substantial body of research suggests that

integration into the social and academic systems of the college or university is essential to

academic success and achievement (Astin, 1977, 1993; Halpin, 1990). Yet. how students

achieve integration is not clear (Tinto, 1987).

Theoretical Framework

Van Gennep (1960) studied the movement of individuals from membership in one

group to membership in another. His work in social anthropology was concerned with.

societal revitalization and social stability during times of change. He identified three

stages in this process: separation, transition, and incorporation. Van Gennep theorized

that formal rituals and ceremonies help incorporate persons into a new community by

providing rites of passage. The theoretical work of Tinto (1993) acknowledges this

transition process and focuses upon the role of student integration into college life. One

of the principal transitions for college students involves moving from their home

community to the campus community. Into views colleges and universities as small

societies made up of distinct academic and social components. For students to become

incorporated and to establish membership within that society, they need to become

integrated into the social and academic systems that exist on campus (Tinto, 1993).

Spady (1970) was the first to apply Durkheim's (1951) theory of community and

suicide to the subject of educational persistence. Building upon Spady's work, Tinto








developed a theory of student departure from higher education (Tinto, 1975). Durkheim

suggested that suicide may result when an individual is unable to integrate and establish

membership within a society. Tinto proposed that this model is analogous to student

departure from education. Tinto (1988) maintained that during the freshman year

students may feel a sense of normlessness. He stated that "having given up the norms

and beliefs of past associations and not yet having adopted those appropriate to

membership in a new community, the individual is left in a state of at least temporary

anomie" (pp. 442-443). Integration into a campus community may also be more difficult

for students whose families, community, and/or schools had very different norms and

patterns of behavior than that of the new college (Chapman & Pascarella. 1983: Smith

1982; Tinto 1986, 1993).

Tinto (1993) theorized that students enter a college or university with varying

patterns of personal, familial, and academic characteristics and skills. These attributes

help to set boundaries of individual attainment and color the character of individual

experience within the institution. These patterns include the student's initial disposition

and intentions regarding college attendance and his/her personal goals. On the individual

level, the attributes of intention and commitment represent what Tinto refers to as

primary roots of departure. Intention refers to a student's value and willingness to work

for degree attainment. Researchers have observed that students who have definite or

advanced degree aspirations were more likely to persist than those with lower or

undetermined degree goals (Astin 1975, Lenning, Beal, & Sauer, 1980; Tinto, 1975, 1986,

1993). Commitment refers to both the individual's educational/occupational goals and to








his/her goal of studying at a specific school. Students with identified career goals and a

sense of purpose are more likely to persist in college (Boe & Jolicoeur, 1989: Gordon,

1989; Kester, 1980; Raimst, 1981). In 2-year colleges, goal commitment seems to have a

stronger effect on retention than does institutional commitment (Chapman & Pascarella,

1983; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983b).

The student's intention and commitment become modified and reformed on a

continuing basis through a series of interactions between the individual and the academic

and social systems of the school. Tinto (1987) suggested that once a student enters an

institution, experiences occur within the academic and social systems that involve

interactions with faculty, staff, and other students. If those interactions are positive and

the student becomes engaged with those systems, then the student's goals and his/her

institutional commitment will be strengthened. Satisfying and rewarding encounters with

the formal and informal academic and social systems are presumed to lead to greater

integration and to student retention. If the experiences are negative and the student fails

to become integrated within the institution, the student will be more likely to withdraw.

A wide variety of experiences and interactions with the institution will influence

student integration. Tinto (1993) identified four significant areas of individual experiences

with the institution that impact student departure. Tinto classified these clusters as

adjustment, difficulty, incongruence, and isolation. The experiential outcomes of these

interactions will reshape and modify the student's intentions and commitments.

External forces that influence interaction with the institution include outside

obligations and personal finances. Obligations refer to student responsibilities to family





5

and work, whereas finances refer to the process that subsidize college attendance.

External factors have been found to have a significant influence on student's decision to

drop out at commuter institutions (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Tinto 1993).

Responding to research that had been conducted with students from commuter

and 2-year institutions, Tinto (1993) revised his original model of college student

departure. Tinto addressed the relatively greater influence of academic integration than

social integration for commuting students (Fox, 1986; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983b;

Pascarella & Wolfe, 1985; Tinto, 1987, 1993). This emphasizes that commuter students'

involvement with the campus will be predominantly academically oriented contact.

Chickering (1974) suggested that, due to the nature of commuter institutions, commuter

students were less involved in extracurricular activities than their residential counterparts.

In addition, Tinto considered the influence of external commitments for community

college students. Tinto's revised model also includes intentions and external commitments

as influencing, and being influenced by, initial and later goal and institutional

commitments.

Institutions of higher education have few, if any, formal rituals or ceremonies to

help incorporate students into their social and academic systems. Orientation programs

provide a commencement ceremony that introduces the student to the new educational

community. The goals of orienting students to the resources of the institution and

facilitating their adaptation to the collegiate community has been the primary purpose of

orientation programs. Orientation programs are believed to influence students' attitudes

about higher education and help form the relationship between students and their








institution (Martin & Dixon, 1989). Tinto (1987) referred to orientation programs as "the

beginnings of integration" (p. 146).

The college orientation class, when compared with other forms of orientation

processes, more fully integrates the student into the social and academic systems of

college (Astin, 1993). The primary goal of an orientation class is to promote retention

through a student's integration into the academic and social systems of the institution

(Gardner, 1986).

The college orientation class is designed to provide students with an overview of

school and services available, develop their academic skills, and to establish connections

to both the academic and social community on campus. Pascarella, Terenzini, and Wolfe

(1986) argued that students exposed to a freshman orientation course will be somewhat

more successfully integrated into the academic and social system during the first year.

They indicated that greater integration produced by an orientation course would lead to

increased commitment and to a lower likelihood of voluntary withdrawal from the

institution.

Cuseo's (1991) review of the literature related to college orientation classes led to

his classification of seven specific curriculum content areas. The areas common to most

classes include (a) the meaning, value and expectations of a liberal arts education, (b) self-

concept and self-esteem, (c) problem solving and decision making: selection of a college

major and a future career, (d) goal setting and motivation, (e) learning skills and strategies,

(f) self-management: managing time and stress, and (g) interpersonal relations. Each of

these subject areas respond to one of the four clusters of individual experience with the








institution that Tinto suggests shapes the individual's relationship with the college. The

mentoring nature of the student/faculty relationship, plus the opportunity to interact in

the course, allows students to build relationships within an academic setting during their

first term.

Creating positive interactions is critical on the community college campus. The

community college has a special need to connect the student with the institution. A

student may spend less time at school than he/she does with work and satisfying family

obligations. Without the programming and developmental opportunities provided by a

residential campus environment, community colleges must develop approaches to

promote success and persistence for commuter student. Glass and Garrett (1995) found

that completion of an orientation program in community college during the first term of

enrollment promotes and improves student performance regardless of age, gender, race,

major, entrance exam scores, or employment status.

Statement of the Problem

The community college is faced with new conditions that could limit many

students' ability to succeed. Two related situations warrant close attention. The first is

the growing number of individuals entering higher education at a rapid rate. The second is

changes in college policy, influenced by new budgeting procedures and fiscal guidelines,

and its impact upon student development processes.

The state of Florida, as well as the rest of the nation, is experiencing a rising wave

of student enrollment that is not expected to peak until the end of the next decade. High

school graduations in the state of Florida are expected to grow from 89, 397 in 1996 to








approximately 134, 766 in the year 2008 (Business/ Higher Education Partnership. 1997).

As these students seek to continue their education, college and university systems will be

stressed to maintain current levels of performance. As it was the case for their parents.

the community college will remain the primary point of entry into higher education for

most of the new "baby boom echo" students. Community college administration will

need to find more effective and efficient ways of servicing this growing population. A

potential problem exists, however, in the possibility of diluting services to accommodate

larger numbers of students.

The second challenge has evolved from recent changes in the funding procedures

for higher education. The state of Florida has adopted new accountability measures that

community colleges must employ to evaluate their educational effectiveness (Florida

Community College System, 1993). Community colleges are now directed to measure

specific information regarding enrollment, persistence, and completion of degree

programs. Budgeting procedures, including monetary reward, will focus on student

program completion. Performance-based budgeting places an emphasis on the retention

and degree completion of students. Student success is assessed by quantitative

outcome measures. Institutions that can address legislative concerns with data will be

better able to obtain the means to serve various student populations (Grunder &

Hellmich, 1996).

Students who have not developed an initial educational focus may be penalized or

blocked from their goals. Current Florida legislation (Florida Statute 239.117, 1995a;

Florida Statute 240.115, 1995b; Florida Statute 239.249, 1996) is changing institutional








policy regarding course withdrawal, grade forgiveness, and additional tuition charges for

course repetitions and excess hours beyond degree requirement. These changes are

designed to make the educational delivery system more efficient. The time available for

students to pursue self-discovery and the clarification of educational and life goals will be

limited by the new policies. Problems are created when changes in policy create

roadblocks for student progress.

College interventions that provide students with early survival strategies can help

them to persist and succeed in college. Programs that promote student success also

facilitate the economical distribution of educational resources to a larger number of

students. College orientation classes can enhance student retention, academic

performance, and efficient degree completion.

Need for Study

Many studies have indicated a positive association between students taking a

college orientation course and their retention from freshman to sophomore status within

4-year institutions. Noel, Levitz, and Saluri (1985), however, noted that the study of

retention at the community college has been significantly less than that at the 4-year

institution. There is a need to look closer at retention efforts at the community college.

Most studies of colleges' orientation classes focus on the first year impact of the

course, but the long-term impact is not known. Napoli (1996) found that the impact of

social integration is greatest for term-to-term persistence, yet diminishes over time.

Belcher, Ingold, and Lombard (1987) discovered that the impact of a college orientation

class on GPA and the course's positive influence for nontraditional students diminishes








over time. It is not clear if the impact of initial retention success will continue through to

degree completion. Woodward's (1982) study of seminar programs at some selected

institutions found different results. He found college orientation classes to lack impact on

retention and felt it was due, in part, to the short duration of many studies. Also.

retention had been calculated at the beginning of the first semester rather than at the

beginning of sophomore year. He advocated that a 2-to-5-year longitudinal study was

necessary to determine real impact on retention and program goals. Tinto (1993) also

called for longitudinal studies of all retention efforts.

There is little information about the impact of college orientation classes upon the

persistence of students viewed as likely to succeed in college, and it is not clear the extent

to which college orientation classes at the community college benefit students with poor

academic skills. It is not known, therefore, if integration strategies are less effective in

promoting persistence for students academically prepared for college. Reinertson (1986)

and Webb (1988) stated that academic ability is a significant variable to understanding

retention. Astin (1972, 1985) and Moline (1987) found the level of academic ability, as

indicated by college admission test scores, to be a strong predictor of persistence.

Although dropouts scored lower on standardized tests designed to measure ability than

did persisters (Cohen & Brawer, 1982; DiCarlo, 1980), Tinto (1987) stated that less than

15% of all student departures results from academic dismissal. By holding academic

ability constant, a better understanding of the impact of integration strategies at the

community college can be achieved. There is a need to determine if a college orientation

class benefits students viewed as academically prepared for college.








Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to explore whether there is a significant

relationship between taking a community college orientation course during the first term

and the retention, persistence, and time to degree completion of students. This study

investigated if an orientation course has value as a retention strategy for the academically

prepared student entering the community college. An examination was made of whether

an orientation class impacts retention, the student's GPA over the long term, and the total

number of credit hours required to complete the degree.

The study retrospectively compared the progress of two populations over the

period of 4 years. A group of female and male students that has completed an orientation

class during their first term in college was examined against a group that has not taken a

similar course. Only students classified as academically prepared for college were

included in the study. For the purpose of this investigation, college academic readiness is

considered exempting participation in college preparatory classes according to state of

Florida standards for the fall of 1991.

To help understand institutional effect, subjects were chosen from four different

community colleges. Due to the inability to manipulate the student population's variables

in a "real world" environment, an ex post facto design was used in this research (Smith &

Glass, 1987). Data for the study were gathered through a computer search of the

historical database files at each institution covering the 4-year period. This study

investigated the variable of attending a college orientation class as it relates to college

retention and time to completion for community college students.








Research Questions

1. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation

class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in

retention after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

2. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation

class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in

number of class withdrawals after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

3. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation

class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in GPA

after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

4. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation

class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in total

number of courses repeated after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

5. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation

class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in total

number of credit hours at time of graduation?

6. Do age, gender, and race interact with taking a college orientation course (in

their first term) to affect retention, course withdrawal, GPA, courses repeated, and

number of credit hours taken at time of graduation?








Definition of Terms

For the purpose of this study, the following definitions were used:

Academically prepared students are all students who are eligible to enter the

community college and do not test into college preparatory classes according to state

standards for the fall of 1991.

Attrition is the loss in student population from higher education in the normal

course of events.

College orientation class is a college level course that provides an opportunity for

students to develop effective strategies and techniques to succeed in college. The class

also provides the opportunities to practice these newly acquired skills in a supportive

environment while adjusting to the academic and social expectations of college life.

Course repetition is additional registrations for the same class beyond the initial

attempt.

Persistence is academic involvement that extends steadily without interruption

over a lasting period of time.

Retention is maintaining a fixed state of enrollment until degree completion.

Withdrawal from class is the removal of a student from a class prior to the end of

the term.

Organization of the Study

The remainder of this study is organized into four chapters. Chapter 2 presents a

review of the literature on community college retention as it relates to college orientation

classes. Chapter 3 contains a description of the methodology and research design of the





14


study. In Chapter 4 the results for each of the dependent variables are reported. The

discussion of the results, the limitations of the study, implications of the findings and

recommendation for future research, and conclusion are discussed in Chapter 5.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents a review of the literature concerning student attrition and

retention in higher education. It is organized as follows: (a) a brief description of

attrition/retention studies, (b) a discussion of some significant variables associated with

retention, (c) an overview of studies focusing upon Tinto's variables of attrition/

retention, and (d) a review of college orientation class studies.

General Attrition/Retention Studies

Attrition in higher education is the loss of students from the institution during

the normal course of their program. Retention efforts attempt to reduce the size of this

loss and retain a greater number of students until their educational goals have been met.

Summerskill (1962) reviewed 35 attrition studies conducted over a 40-year period from

1914 to 1953. His findings showed that approximately half of the students first

matriculated in college were not enrolled by the end of 4 years. In addition, he

documented that nearly 31% of students withdrew during or at the end of the first year

and that the graduation rate at the end of 4 years was just below 40%. According to

Summerskill, the percentage of students leaving college over a 4-year period did not

change significantly in the 4 decades studied. Ten years later, Cope and Hannah (1975)

observed that the national attrition rate had continued to be high for over half a century

and seemed to change little over time.








Raimst's (1981) summarized national statistics relating to retention and attrition

from all types of higher education institutions. His findings revealed that

approximately 35% to 40% of entering college students graduated with bachelor's

degrees within 4 years from the initial date of entry, that 45% to 60% graduated form

some college within 4 years, and that anywhere from 10% to 35% would never receive a

college degree. Similarly, Tinto (1987) stated that in 1986 approximately 2.8 million

students began college for the first time. He estimated that 1.6 million of these students

would leave their first institution without receiving a degree, and approximately three-

quarters of these students who departed from their initial institution would leave the

higher education system without earning any type of college degree.

Smith (1996) reported that among students who began their postsecondary

education at a community college in 1989-90, 37% completed a degree at some

institution by 1994. Of these students. 22% completed a certificate or an associate's

degree at their first institution. Those who did not complete an award at their first

institution spent a substantial amount of time there--an average of 14 months of

enrollment. Nineteen percent of 1989-90 community college beginners transferred to a

public 4-year institution, and 3% transferred to a private 4-year institution. Of those

who transferred to a 4-year institution. 38% completed an associate's degree before

transferring. By 1994, 26% of those who transferred to 4-year institutions had

completed a bachelor's degree, and 47% were still enrolled at a 4-year institution (Smith,

1996).








Cope (1978), Cope and Hannah (1975), Hackman and Dysinger (1970). and

Tinto (1975, 1985) believed that researchers have had a tendency to overestimate the

actual attrition problem as a result of definitional problems. Eckland (1964) stated that

early studies of attrition rates have been exaggerated due primarily to the failure of these

studies to allow for the prolonged nature of academic career and for the dropouts who

came back or transferred to other institutions. It is not unusual for students to

discontinue temporarily their college studies for a semester, an entire year. or more.

Because the loss is temporary in such cases, Rugg (1983) suggested that these students

should be labeled stopouts to distinguish them from dropouts whose discontinued

enrollment is considered permanent. When this distinction is overlooked, attrition

figures can be significantly inflated. Pantages and Creedon (1978) noted a beginning

trend in the literature to use multiple categories in classifying dropouts and non-

dropouts to allow finer discrimination between categories and clearer interpretation of

results. Yet, Astin (1972) encouraged the recognition that there can never be a wholly

satisfactory definition of the term dropout until all students either obtain their degrees

or die without obtaining a degree.

Variables Associated with Attrition and Retention

Several variables significant to this study merit individual review. The variables

of gender, race/ethnicity, and age are isolated for separate investigation. Differences

between the impact of attendance at a community college versus the initial attendance at

a 4-year institution is also explored to help understand what unique influences are

provided by each institution.








Gender. Studies have shown mixed results when addressing the influence of

gender upon attrition. Gender has been reported to have either a negative or neutral

impact upon academic progress.

Into (1975) found that women drop out from higher education more frequently

than men. Relating persistence to gender and grades. Astin's early research (1972)

showed that women earn higher grades than men in high school and in college. Although

he does not account for the phenomenon, he also found that women are more likely to

drop out of college after the freshman year than men in spite of superior academic

performance. Studies by Brophy (1986) and Ramaker (1987) concluded that the

typical 2-year college dropout was likely to be female, adding to the positing that

women are at greater risk of leaving college prematurely.

A study at Virginia's Mountain Empire Community College attempted to

determine the reasons behind an unusually high rate of student attrition. The study was

undertaken by reviewing withdrawal forms and conducting a telephone survey with a

representative sample of students. Results indicated that more females than males

withdrew from all classes before the end of the semester (Sydow & Sandel, 1996). In

contrast, other studies show attrition being higher for men. Kester in a 1980 report

stated that gender is one of the two most important determining variables relating to

persistence. His findings reveal that women are more likely to complete undergraduate

degrees in 4 years. Nespoli and Radcliffe (1983) and Adelman (1991) concluded that

females at community colleges were more likely to persist in their studies than males.








Other studies, however, indicate little difference in rates of attrition between the

sexes. Pantages and Creedon (1978) concluded that there was strong evidence that sex

was not a significant variable in determining persistence or attrition. Bean's (1980)

findings showed little evidence that men and women differ significantly in persistence

patterns. In a four-semester study at Atlantic Community College to determine which

factors affected retention, Wall (1996) found that gender and ethnicity variables were

not related to retention.

Race/ethnicity. The 2-year college student population reflects the diversity of

race and culture found in the institution's community. The 2-year college population

often includes a large percentage of minority students. The clustering of minority

students in 2-year institutions may be attributed to a number of factors, including

proximity, low cost, the open access policy, and social accessibility of community

colleges. Bower (1996) stated that the presence of large numbers of minority students

in community colleges makes the issue of minority students' achievement an important

issue for these institutions. Bower pointed out that when they enter the community

college, many minority freshmen will also bring with them one or more academic "at-

risk" characteristics. Jones and Watson (1990) and Smedley. Myers. and Harrell (1993)

indicated that these often include poor academic background, low self-concept, and

being a first-generation student in college.

Considering that the vast majority of community college students are White.

studies have found a disproportionate percentage of dropouts to be from minorities,

especially African Americans, Hispanics. and American Indians (Baker, 1986: Gold,








1981; Johnston, 1982). Mingle (1987) indicated that only I in 7 African Americans and

1 in 10 Hispanics who enroll in college after high school will achieve senior status in 4

years. The attrition rate for certain minority groups is higher than the national average

for all students.

Astin (1972) found that African American students had somewhat lower

persistence rates than non-African Americans but suggested that the relatively high

attrition rates of these students at 4-year colleges or universities were entirely

attributable to their relatively low high school grades and ability test scores. He added

that, in actuality, African American students were less likely to drop out than were

non-African American's when abilities and past achievements were comparable. In a

follow-up study, Astin (1973) held constant the academic factors in students'

backgrounds (e.g., high school rank and scholastic aptitude test scores) and found no

significant differences for students who were African American, Asian, or American

Indian.

Ramaker (1987) also found no significant difference in persistence for minority

students when observing student departure at the end of each academic term. If one

looks at withdrawal at different points in time over the length of the term, different

departure patterns appear. Ramaker discovered students leaving during the midpoint of

the term to be significantly more likely to be members of minority groups.

A survey of first time students entering Montgomery College, Maryland, in fall

1990 was conducted to collect data on student attitudes, enrollment behavior, and

educational goals. It was part of a study to identify factors related to student success








and nonsuccess, particularly among African American students. Previous studies at the

school have revealed that African American students enrolled part-time have the lowest

semester-to-semester retention rates (less than 50%), while full-time African American

students have a retention rate of more than 75%. In this study surveys were returned

by 1,261 first-time students for a 46% response rate. Findings included information

that while African American students more frequently intended to earn a degree as

compared to other students, they more often attended on a part-time basis (77%).

Also, African American students more frequently reported having concerns about

financing their education than other groups (Lanni, 1992).

A study by Walker (1988) surveyed strategies used by 88 community colleges

in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to meet educational needs of Hispanic

students and the relationship between these strategies and Hispanic student retention

rate. Questionnaires were sent to southwestern community colleges requesting

information on retention rates and strategies in effect. An analysis of retention rates

showed that retention was improved by financial aid, career counseling into selective

programs, bilingual education, ESL classes, and Hispanic studies classes (Walker.

1988).

A focus group study of influences of first-time Hispanic community college

students was conduced by Jalomo (1995). Despite the 90% growth of Hispanic

student enrollment between 1980 and 1991, colleges are not retaining these students.

Student-related factors influencing attrition include poverty, unemployment, social class

origins, inadequate academic preparation, weak study habits, self-doubt, low self-








esteem, and cultural separation. Jalomo's study indicated student perceptions about

learning ability are influenced by previous academic achievement and past interactions

with faculty and peers, both in and out of class.

Overall, at least 60% of White students who enter college obtain a degree, but

less than one-third of the American Indian college students graduate (Carnegie

Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1989). Guyette and Heth (1983)

estimated the dropout rate for' American Indians to be as high as 80%. Wells (1989)

indicated that nearly three out of four American Indian college students fail to earn

degrees because of poor academic preparation, inadequate financial aid, or personal

problems.

A factor contributing to the high attrition rate of students of color is their

expectations of higher education. Students of color are generally first-generation college

students and have not had the advantage of hearing their parents mention what college

was like for them (Quevedo-Varcia, 1987). Students of color enter their first year of

college with expectations that courses and examinations will resemble their experiences

from high school. Ross (1990) pointed out that many differences between high school

and college are not readily apparent to first-generation college students. Academic

familiarity, realistic self-appraisal, and positive self-concept have been related to

persistence for African American students (Tracey & Sedlacek, 1985).

Age. Age as a variable reflects conflicting reports in the literature. Astin's

(1975) work supports the noon that age is related to attrition and that older students

are less likely to persist. The rate of degree completion for adult students in








undergraduate degree programs is low when compared with traditional students (Bean &

Metzner, 1985). Notwithstanding, Naretto (1995) stated that the research on retention

of adult students in higher education has been scattered and is usually institution-

specific.

Studies by Windham (1994) and Price (1993) indicated persisters at the

community college to be younger students and nonpersisters to be older students.

Sydow and Sandel (1996) found students between the ages of 20 and 25 were 1.77

times more likely to withdraw than students 19 or younger. Mohammadi, (1994) in a

study of 3,019 students at Patrick Henry Community College in Virginia found attrition

rates after 1 year to be higher for those in the age ranges of 23-35 and 45-50.

Feldman (1993) studied pre-enrollment variables as predictors of 1-year

retention. When observing 1,140 first-time community college students, Feldman

found the risk of dropping out was associated with young students between 20-24

years old, lower high school grade point average, part-time attendance, and being a

member of an ethnic minority other than Asian.

Staman (1980), Malin, Bray, Dougherty, and Skinner (1980). and Haggerty

(1985) found external factors to be an important reason for adult nonpersistence and

encouraged consideration of such influences in future studies and models for adult

student retention. Swift (1987) reviewed a series of studies on the retention of adult

students and found that not all of the researchers supported the same findings. The

studies were primarily related to the characteristics of persisters and nonpersisters; he








did note, however, a tendency for adult persisters to be enrolled full time and for

external influences to be the usual cause for nonpersistence.

Bean and Metzner's (1985) theoretical model of adult student attrition

contended that external environmental variables exert more influence than academic

variables on degree completion. Yet, a study conducted by Metzner and Bean in 1987

did not support the hypothesis that external environmental variables exert more

influence than social integration on adult students' decision to persist, or not persist. to

degree completion.

In a study by Naretto (1995) of persistence of adult students at 4-year

institutions, the only significant difference in demographic data was GPA--3.39 for

completers and 3.14 for noncompleters. This supports the concept that adult students,

in general, are good students (Apps, 1991; Ross, 1989). In this study a greater number

of nonpersisters were part-time students. Also, nonpersisters were employed for

longer hours than persisters. It appears from this study that membership in a

supportive community is an important factor in explaining the persistence of adult

students to degree completion. The Bean/Metzner (1985) concept that because adult

students are usually commuters they are not subject to the socializing influences of the

college environment is not supported by this study. For persisters, negative

experiences and influences were balanced out by positive expressions of support and

encouragement. This study suggests that socialization, or connection with the campus

community, is very important to adult students.





25


Community College/4-Year Institution

Although the role and function of the community college at times may appear on

the surface as being similar to the first 2 years of the 4-year schools, the community

college possesses unique characteristics. Observing outcome measures from research

helps to establish a base upon which to understand fundamental differences.

When important student background differences (grade point average, entry

tests, socioeconomic status) are held constant, students who initially enroll in 2-year

colleges seeking a bachelor's degree are significantly less likely to complete their

bachelor's degree in the same period of time as their counterparts who initially enroll in

a 4-year college or university (Crook & Lavin, 1989; Dougherty, 1987. 1992: Hilton &

Schrader, 1986: Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, Temple & Polk, 1986). In addition.

freshman-to-sophomore attrition at public 2-year colleges is appreciably higher than at

all other types of higher education institutions (American College Testing Program.

1993).

In one public educational system, first-year retention of first-time full-time

students by institution, race, and admission status indicated that system-wide 4-year

colleges had a 71.1% and 2-year colleges a 58.2% retention rate. Multiple-year

retention revealed a fall 1984 through fall 1993 retention rate of 56.4% for 4-year

institutions and 42% for 2-year institutions (University System of Georgia. 1994).

Gates and Creamer (1984) cited a 50% attrition rate for community colleges and

stated that some researchers "emphasize that two-year colleges attract students with

attributes associated with attrition or non-persistence" (p. 39). However, they stated








that the determinants of retention/attrition are not shaped by the type of students

enrolled in 2-year colleges but are influenced significantly by institutional conditions

such as programs, policies, organizational patterns, and interactive climate after student

matriculation. A study of the possible influence of a college's structure and organization

on students' effective development suggest that students' academic and social integration

tend to mediate the influences of structural characteristics (Pascarella, 1985a). Astin,

Korn, and Green (1987) cautioned that comparing rates from different types of

institutions can be very misleading.

Pascarella and associates (Pascarella et al., 1994b) described a study comparing

the relative benefits of initial attendance at a 2- or 4-year college, focusing specifically

on freshman-year changes in enjoyment of diversity and intellectual challenge, learning

for self-understanding, internal locus of attribution for academic success, and preference

for higher order cognitive activities. The study compared a population of community

college students to a population of commuter students at a large 4-year research

institution. There were no statistically significant differences found between 2- and 4-

year college students on any of four scales measuring end-of-freshman year orientation

toward learning. In addition, the institutional parity in first-year impacts appeared to

be general rather than conditional.

Looking at the long-term impact of initial attendance at either a community

college or a 4-year institution. Whitaker and Pascarella (1994) studied data from the

National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972. They observed 3,171

individuals 13-14 years after high school graduation and found that when educational





27


attainment is held constant, students initially enrolling in a 2-year vs. 4-year colleges are

not significantly disadvantaged in occupational and economic attainments (Whitaker &

Pascarella, 1994).

Although there are exceptions within the community college environment.

residential living typically is an experience of the 4-year or university campus. The

influences of residential versus the commuter students' experience parallels that of

attending a 4-year or 2-year institution. Thompson (1993) examined influence of on-

campus residence as compared with off-campus residence of first-year students.

Findings from 5,414 students revealed that progress and retention were significantly

higher for on-campus students regardless of race, gender, or admission type

(Thompson, 1993).

Pascarella (1 985b) proposed a causal model to examine the impact of resident

living on student development. He tested the model with 4,191 college students.

Results indicated that the influence of on-campus living on intellectual and social self-

concept is indirect and mediated through interactions with faculty and peers (Pascarella,

1985b).

Looking at issues regarding the commuter experience, Pascarella and associates

(Pascarella et al., 1993) tested the hypothesis that living on campus fostered cognitive

growth. They estimated relative first-year gains in reading comprehension.

mathematical reasoning and critical thinking of residents and commuter first-year college

students at a large urban university. Controlling for precollege cognitive level, academic

motivation, age, work responsibility, and extent of enrollment, resident students had








significantly larger first-year gains in critical thinking than did commuters. The

differences between resident and commuter on reading and mathematics gains were small

and nonsignificant. These findings suggest that the cognitive impact of residential living

is selective rather than global. The gains in critical thinking, rather than mathematics and

reading, indicate that residential living may be most influential in fostering cognitive

growth in areas that are not linked to specific course of curricular experiences. The

study suggested general cognitive growth during college is fostered not only by

coursework and academic involvement but also by social and intellectual interaction

with peers and faculty.

Studies Addressing Tinto's Variables of Attrition/Retention

Tinto (1993) theorized that a student enters higher education with varying

patterns of personal, familial, and academic characteristics. These personal dispositions

are represented by what Tinto refers to as a student's intention and commitment. A

student's intentions and commitments are shaped though individual experience within

the institution. How these interactions reflect the individual's experience will determine

if the student persists in college. Tinto identified four clusters of student experience

that will shape the outcome of college persistence: adjustment, difficulty. incongruence.

and isolation. Obligations and finances are forces outside the institution that affect the

student's decision to persist or drop out of the educational system.

Intention and Commitment

Tinto (1993) recognized that a student's willingness to work toward the

attainment of his or her goal is a significant part of the process of persistence in higher








education. Tinto views an individual's intentions regarding participation in higher

education as an important indicator of the probability of degree completion. A number

of studies have found that students who had definite or advanced degree aspirations

were more likely to persist than students who had lower or undetermined degree goals

(Astin, 1975, Lenning. Beal, & Sauer, 1980; MacMillian & Kester, 1973, Tinto. 1975).

The impact of intentions can be seen in a study conducted by Waggener and

Smith (1993) at Southeastern Louisiana University at Hammond with 2. 262 new and

transfer freshman applicants who attended orientation in 1989. A Supplementary

Enrollment Information instrument developed locally by the institution was used to

collect data. Family encouragement, the need for writing skills, belief in self, the goal to

obtain a degree, amount of commitment, and living arrangements were important

variables in deciding to enroll the following fall. The two factors that were important at

both benchmarks were the goal to obtain a degree and the firm or extra commitment to

that goal (Waggener & Smith, 1993).

Individual commitments take the forms of goal and institutional commitments.

Goal commitment addresses an individual's commitment to personal and occupational

goals. Academic boredom sets in for undecided students because "learning is not quite

as relevant to those who do not have a goal" (Noel, 1985, p. 11). Institutional

commitment describes an individual's commitment to the institution in which they

attend. Tinto (1993) stated that the greater the commitment, in either case, the greater

the opportunity of institutional persistence.








Students with identified career goals and a sense of purpose are more likely to

persist in college (Boe & Jolicoeur, 1989, Gordon, 1989; Kester 1980; Raimst, 1981).

Daniels (1990) analyzed the results of an Entering Student Survey administered to

3,590 new students at Brookdale Community College. The survey gathered information

from students on their goals and expectations and reached a 62% response rate.

Subsequent tracking of students revealed that retention was higher for students who

planned on graduation and students who planned on transferring than for students

without plans.

Lenning, Beal, and Sauer (1980) commented that a commitment to college, clear-

cut college and career goals, and certainty of goals were all important factors related to

persistence. In 2-year colleges, goal commitment seems to have a stronger effect on

retention than does institutional commitment (Chapman & Pascarella, 1983: Pascarella

& Chapman, 1983a).

Mohammadi (1994) found the most significant predictors of community college

student retention, in order of importance, were student goals, hours enrolled per

semester, number of credit hours completed, semester grade point average, and overall

GPA. Mohammadi also found that 40% of the fall 1988 cohort who left after 1 year

had no intention of completing a degree or certificate program.

There is some indication that the nature of commitment may vary based upon

gender. A study that assessed gender differences in student satisfaction with college

was conducted to understand further what contributes to student persistence and

student outcomes. Bean and Vesper (1994) gathered data from 494 first- and second-








year honors students at a large research university. Confidence in being a student and

having attractive courses were important for both female and male students, but only

men identified choice of major and occupational certainty as the most significant factors.

There is also evidence that possessing a goal may not be as critical a factor. A

study to determine success in retaining students through the successful completion of

their educational goals was conducted at Northwestern Michigan College. Retention

rates by student goals were 72% for students whose goal was to advance in a job.

81.8% for those seeking to get a new job, 84.2% for those seeking transfer, and 85.6%

for those reporting no goals (Shreve, 1995).

The nature of an institution's structure may influence a student's goal formation

process after they are admitted into the school. A study by McCormick (1990)

explored the effect of beginning postsecondary education in a 2-year college versus a 4-

year college, after controlling for background characteristics (gender. race/ethnicity.

socioeconomic status, and measured ability), initial education goal commitments, and

secondary and postsecondary program and performance. Data were drawn from the

senior cohort of the "High School and Beyond" database. The study involved a sample

of 2, 894 students. Results indicate that beginning postsecondary education in a 2-year

college increases the likelihood of a downward adjustment in expectations and that this

effect is most pronounced among those initially anticipating graduate study

(McCormick, 1990).

Rugg (1983) suggested that there is a second category of students called attainers

that needs to be distinguished from dropouts. Attainers are students who discontinue








their enrollment before graduation but after achieving their personal goals for college

study. Many students begin college with established goals which fall short of

completing a degree. From these students' point of view, the act of withdrawal does not

necessarily carry the label of personal failure that professionals in higher education

normally associate with it (Raimst, 1981). Tinto (1985) stated that the term dropout

should be applied only to those forms of departure involving students who did not

reasonably complete what they intended to achieve upon college entry.

Other studies indicate that students will meet their own established goals, while

being viewed by the institutions as a dropout. Moore's (1995) study at San Juan

College indicated that 54% of students who left after one semester reported they had

achieved their educational goals. In the spring of 1995 Westchester Community College

in New York surveyed all 1,208 students who attended for the first time in fall 1993 but

did not return the following spring semester. With a response rate of 20%, 14.1 %

indicated that they had not intended to return for spring semester when they enrolled--

that they had achieved their goals (Lee, 1996). Yet, Cohen and Brawer (1982) argued

that the study of student-stated goals is unreliable because students generally are not

able to express accurately their reasons for the choices they make.

With the exception of a few students who leave due to externally imposed

circumstances, student explanations for withdrawal are related to dissatisfaction with

the benefits of the academic or social life of the institution (Raimst. 1981).

Furthermore, there is evidence to indicate that institutional characteristics have as much

or more impact on college withdrawal than do student characteristics. Students are








more likely to leave because of dissatisfying experiences with the institution they are

attending (Noel, 1985). Tinto (1987) concluded that student retention is at least as

much a function of institutional behavior as it is of student behavior.

Adjustment. There are two distinct sources of difficulty in making the

transition to college. One may be the inability of individuals to separate themselves

from past forms of association. The other difficulty arises from an individual's need to

adjust to the new and often more challenging social and intellectual demands of higher

education (Tinto, 1993). A lack of understanding of the nature of the college experience

hinders persistence. Noel (1985) wrote that many first-generation college students do

not benefit from family members' past experiences. Therefore, when confronted with

the realities and demands of college living, they may feel the pressure to withdraw.

Working from a foundation built by Tinto (1975), Pascarella, Terenzini. and

Wolfe (1986) tested the principles of Tinto's model of the persistence/withdrawal

process using a precollege orientation program as the experimental intervention. They

found that the orientation experience had an impact on freshman persistence largely by

facilitating a student's initial ability to cope with a new set of social challenges in an

unfamiliar environment. In making their conclusion, Pascarella, Terenzini, and Wolfe

stated that developing initially successful integration into the social system of the

institution was the factor which most directly influenced commitment to the institution

and persistence.

Early research indicates that attrition is heaviest during and at the end of the

freshman year (Rootman, 1972). Research consistently indicates that the freshman year








is the stage when the greatest number of students are at risk of dropping out (Bean,

1980, Fetters, 1977; Dunphy, Miller, Woodruff, & Nelson, 1987). Porter (1990) found

that the greatest enrollment loss in independent colleges and universities occurred during

the first year and after the eighth semester. At least one-half of all students who drop

out of college will do so during their freshman year (Noel, 1985), and many of these

students will leave during the first 6 to 8 weeks of their initial semester (Blanc, Debuhr,

& Martin, 1983). Others have further narrowed the freshman's most critical transition

time, a period when the majority of students who drop out make the decision to do so,

to the first two to six weeks of school (Zarvell et al., 1991; Levitz & Noel, 1989

Gardner, 1986).

Another area in which researchers have shown interest is in the students' own

assessment of their experiences while enrolled in college, their reasons for leaving the

institution, and their plans for the future after leaving college. Nelson, Scott, and Bryan

(1984) found that by the eighth week of the term students were able to state plans

about their next term and "that students who will not persist can be identified by the

middle of their first semester" (p. 56).

Difficulty. Persistence in college requires more than adjustment. Minimum

standards of academic performance must be attained. However, prior performance and

measures of ability are not very highly correlated with departure (Tinto, 1993). Limited

intentions and/or weak commitments may be manifested in poor academic performance.

Astin (1972, 1985) found that persistence was positively correlated with

academic performance in high school and college admission test scores. While these








measures could not accurately predict whether a given student would drop out. Astin

noted that high school grades and ability test scores were by far the most important

available predictors of persistence for students at 4-year colleges and universities.

Pascarella (1980) found that a student's high school grade point average is the

pre-enrollment characteristic most highly correlated with college grade point average.

According to Astin (1993), the two most important predictors of students' grades in the

1985-1989 study were high school grade point average and SAT verbal scores.

Research findings comparing dropouts and persisters were in agreement

regarding academic ability as a key variable (Bell, 1984; Gorter, 1978: Reinertson. 1986:

Webb, 1989). Dropouts scored lower on standardized test designed to measure ability.

such as ACT, than did persisters (Cohen & Brawer, 1982; DiCarlo, 1980). Moline

(1987) found admission test scores and high school grades to be two strong predictors

of retention during the 1970s and 1980s. Nelson, Scott, and Breyan (1984) and Zarvel

and others (1991) also found precollege academic achievement and aptitude variables as

useful predictors of persistence.

Studies by Astin. Korn. and Green (1987) showed that students with the

highest test scores are six times more likely to earn a bachelors degree in 4 years than

those with the lowest scores. Students with the highest scores and grade point averages

are 15 times more likely to earn a bachelor's degree in 4 years than those with the

lowest scores.

Wall (1996) conducted a four-semester study at Atlantic Community College to

determine which were the factors that affected retention. Academic success, measured








by previous semester grade point average, was found to be a strong determinant of

retention for all semesters and for long-term attendance and graduation. Students who

tested into developmental courses on the basic skills test and who completed a required

developmental course during their first semester persisted at the same or a higher rate as

students who tested at college level, while developmental students who did not

complete a developmental course in their first semester had significantly lower retention

rates (Wall, 1996).

Matonak's (1987) study of student retention on an academically disadvantaged

community college student population is supportive of the constructs in Tinto's theory.

The positive effects of academic integration on retention was consistent with the model,

and with results of previous studies on commuter students (Fox, 1986; Nora, 1987).

The negative influence of social integration on retention was inconsistent with the

hypothesized model, yet it was consistent with previous research on similar

populations (Fox, 1986). Although initial commitments accounted for a significant

portion of the variance in academic integration and social integration, the results did not

substantiate the hypothesized positive relationship between initial commitments and

retention.

Incongruence and isolation. Tinto (1993) described incongruence as a lack of

institutional fit. It refers to the condition where the student perceives him/herself as

being at odds with the institution. The mismatch may be between the abilities, skills,

and interests of the students and the demands placed upon the individual by the

academic system. Typically, incongruence is manifested in the student's judgment that








the school's intellectual or social climate is unsuited or irrelevant, or even contrary, to

his or her own preferences (Tinto. 1993). Incongruence may be the result of poor

decision making in college choice. Cope and Hannah (1975) indicated that poor college

choice is the cause of at least 20% of college transfers.

In exploring the relationship between student incongruence and satisfaction.

Lenning, Beal, and Saur (1980) reported that persistence may be related more to

willingness and ability to endure dissatisfaction than to the dissatisfaction itself. Citing

dissonance theory, they speculated that "students with strong perceptions of personal

needs that are not being met will be more likely to try to remedy the discrepancy (i.e..

by dropping out) than those who consider their unmet needs to be less serious" (p. 51).

Tinto (1993) stated that individual isolation, the absence of sufficient contact

between the student and other members of the social and academic communities, leads

to departure from the institution. Tinto (1982) noted that the more time faculty gave to

their students, and students to each other, the more likely were students to complete

their education. He pointed out that such contacts appeared to be essential components

in the process of social and intellectual development and concluded that institutions

should encourage those contacts whenever and wherever possible. Astin (1977)

supported the premise that student and faculty interaction have a stronger relationship

to student satisfaction with the college experience than any other involvement, variable,

or ,indeed, any other student or institutional characteristic. Pascarella and Chapman

(1 983b), using a large multi-institutional sample of 2,326 college students. observed that

social and academic integration, while not directly influencing persistence, had








significant indirect effects on persistence. This influence on persistence operated

through institutional commitment and goal commitment.

Tinto (1975) stressed that interaction with faculty not only increased social

integration and institutional commitment but also increased the individual's academic

integration. Pascarella and Terenzini (1978) found that only two of the six types of

interactions studied were significantly related to academic achievement: discussion of

intellectual matters and discussion of career concerns with faculty. Astin and Panos

(1969) found that after controlling for pre-enrollment characteristics, students'

familiarity with their instructors was related to significant increases in academic

achievement. Furthermore, a study by Beal and Noel (1980) established that a caring

attitude of faculty and staff is the most potent retention force on campus.

The impact of interaction can vary with different populations. Bean and Vesper

(1994) found that faculty contact was not significant to female or male honor students

when surveyed regarding student satisfaction with college. Furthermore, results

indicated that contact with advisors, having friends, and living on campus were

significantly related to satisfaction for females but not for male honors students at a

large research university (Bean & Vesper, 1994).

Although Tinto's model of student retention postulates an approximate parity

between social and academic integration, Munro (1981) found the effect size for the

influence of academic integration on persistence to be moderately strong. Munro

studied 6,018 first-time, full-time, 4-year college entrants. She observed significant

direct and indirect effects for academic integration, goal commitment, and high school








average on persistence in college. Social integration, however, had no significant direct

or indirect effect on persistence.

For commuter colleges, the findings for academic integration and social

integration have been mixed. In a study of commuter students attending an urban

university, direct and indirect effects of academic integration on persistence were

observed by Pascarella, Duby, and Iverson (1983). Contradicting Tinto's formulation.

social integration was found to have a negative impact on persistence. An increase in

social integration represented an increased risk for withdrawal. In other studies by

Pascarella and Chapman (1983a), Pascarella and Wolf (1985), and Tinto (1987, 1993).

academic integration appears to have greater effects on attrition than does social

integration, especially in commuter institutions. Academic integration was found to

influence significantly social integration and not to influence persistence among

academically disadvantaged students at a 2-year commuter institution (Fox. 1986)

When looking specifically at community colleges, results from Napoli's (1996)

meta-analysis of community college literature indicated that both academic integration

and social integration play important roles in the decision to persist in college.

Pascarella, Smart, and Etherington (1986) found both social and academic integration to

have direct and indirect effects on long-term (9-year) persistence and graduation among

2-year community college students. A study by Bers and Smith (1991) found both

integration measures significantly related to persistence in 2-year community college

students. Their study underscored social integration making a larger contribution in

discriminating persisters from nonpersisters. than does academic integration, at the








community college. Work by Napoli (1996) further showed that the impact of social

integration is greatest for term-to-term persistence and diminishes over time.

The findings regarding social integration are not consistent. Work by Mulligan

and Hennessy (1990) showed that direct and indirect effects have been observed for

academic integration, but not for social integration, among students attending a 2-year

community college. A study by Halpin (1990) failed to detect any effect for social

integration among 2-year community college students.

Two interventions designed to address academic and social isolation in the

classroom are Learning Communities and Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs). A

qualitative case study of FIGs was conducted by Tinto and Goodsell (1993) at a large

public, research university. In this study, freshmen enrolled in specific thematically

linked courses during their first semester. Results showed that FIGs allowed students

to interact repeatedly with a consistent set of peers across their classes. This, in turn,

enabled students to form a social network in which other academic support mechanisms

could begin to operate. Tinto and Goodsell indicated that FIGs are a potentially

powerful way of affecting students' first year college experiences.

Similar to FIGs, learning communities at a community college consist of groups

of students taking two or more classes together. Learning communities create the

opportunity for students to provide each other with social and academic support while

professors integrate class content. Tinto and Love (1995) found that when compared to

traditional students, learning community students' perception of classes, other students,

faculty, counselors, campus climate, and their own involvement were generally more








positive. Learning community students earned more credits and had higher grade point

averages than traditional students, yet learning community students had only a slightly

higher persistence rate than the comparison students (77.7% versus 75.9%). In general.

learning community students indicated that group work and peer collaboration was

easier and more fun than traditional methods.

External Obligations/Family and Financial

Tinto (1993) stated that every student is subject to the effects of external forces

upon his or her participation in college. The two external forces that stand out in

shaping persistence are obligations and finances. The first refers to the responsibilities

individuals have in regard to their associations with groups of communities external to

school. The latter refers to one's ability to fund his or her college attendance. External

factors have been found to have a greater influence on the dropout decision for students

at commuter institutions than social integration (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Tinto. 1987,

1993).

Allen's (1994) study of student withdrawal behavior at Angelo State University

in Texas highlighted the role of family. The study focused upon 343 respondents of

823 first-time freshmen. Results found three characteristics distinguished persisters

from dropouts and from transfer students: (a) greater encouragement from family, (b)

better academic performance, and (c) greater commitment to the institution.

Encouragement from family was the most significant of these factors (Allen, 1994).

When turning to educational funding issues, early studies of the importance of

financial factors show a potential relationship to persistence. Summerskill's (1962)








review of the literature found that in 16 out of 21 studies financial reasons were ranked

among the top three most important factors in attrition.

Tinto (1982) found that much of the impact of finances on a student's academic

decisions occurred at the point of entry into higher education. Financial issues

influenced decisions of whether or not to attend college. Thereafter, financial impact

helped to mold choice about specific institutions of initial entry. Cope and Hannah

(1975) found similar results and reported that the lack of finances was more of a barrier

to starting college than it was to finishing college. Tinto (1993) also observed that when

students' experiences were positive, they were more likely to accept greater financial

burdens in order to continue attendance than when experiences were unsatisfactory.

Earl (1989) analyzed student financial aid in terms of its effects on admissions

policies, attrition and retention rates, stop-out rates, transfer rates, and graduation rates.

His source was literature related to student financial aid and published between 1970

and 1981. He discovered that most studies using a national or statewide base find that

financial aid significantly affects enrollment in American colleges and universities.

Financial aid has been found to be a significant factor in the recruitment and retention

process, and it also helps students decide whether to attend a public or private

institution (Earl, 1989).

Stampen and Cabrera (1988) investigated three basic student financial aid issues

in 4-year colleges: the targeting of overall aid, aid packaging for different recipient

groups, and financial aid's role in motivating persistence. Their findings show that aid is

distributed mainly to low income students, compensates for low-income disadvantages.








and encourages students' persistence. From Porter's (1990) review of data from private

4-year institutions taken from the "High School and Beyond" study, he determined that

students who received grants in their first year of study were more likely to remain

enrolled than students without grants.

Cabrera (1990) conducted a study using a national sample of 1.375 college

students attending public 4-year institutions. They tested a hypothesis concerning

economic and noneconomic variables on college persistence. Findings indicated financial

variables moderate the effect of goal commitment on persistence. In another study also

by Cabrera (1992), funding at commuter colleges was studied. A survey of 466

students in a large, urban commuter college investigated the relationship of student

finances to academic persistence. Results suggested that financial aid (a) equalizes

opportunities for students, thus decreasing attractiveness of alternatives, (b) facilitates

academic and social integration, and (c) increases student commitment to the institution.

Work

Working while attending school is inevitable for many students in America's

higher education system. Dey, Astin, and Korn, (1991) reported that over 20% of all

entering first-year students indicated that the probability was very good that they

would have to find employment outside their school. National data from the

Cooperative Institutional Research Program (Astin, 1993) showed that 36% of all first-

year students entering American colleges and universities in 1990 reported that they

would have to find employment to assist in paying for their college expenses.








Being employed during the school year generates risks. Astin (1972) found that

students had less of a chance of staying in college if they were employed during the

school year. This variable was the fourth most important predictor of attrition among

students at 4-year colleges and universities. Research is reasonably consistent that

employment off campus (typically measured in number of hours employed per week)

has a negative influence on both year-to-year persistence in college and completion of a

bachelor's degree (Anderson 1981; Astin, 1982; Ehrenberg & Sherman, 1987; Staman,

1980).

The impact on retention and educational attainment of working on campus

appears to be just the opposite of off-campus employment. Research by Pascarella and

Terenzini (1991), Anderson (1981), Astin (1982), and Velez (1985) indicated that part-

time employment on campus positively influences both persistence and degree

completion, even after controls are made for such factors as academic aptitude.

educational aspirations, high school achievement, and family socioeconomic origins.

Furthermore, other researcher have found that it is the amount of time per week

spent working that is significantly related to attrition. Lenning. Beal. and Sauer (1980)

found that part-time employment was positively correlated with persistence, especially

when the job was under 25 hours per week, was on campus, the student started

working as a freshman, and the student received little or no support through grants or

loans. When the job exceeded 25 hours per week, it negatively impacted persistence. It

has been speculated by Lenning, Beal, and Sauer that part-time on-campus jobs

promoted retention by providing additional involvement in campus life.








Pascarella et al. (1994a) studied the impact of on-campus and off-campus work

on first-year student cognitive outcomes. With controls made for precollege cognitive

level and other relevant influences, amount of on- and off-campus work had little

negative impact on first-year students' reading comprehension. mathematics

achievement, or critical thinking. In fact, there was no significant difference on any of

the three cognitive outcomes among students who worked on campus, students who

worked off campus, and students who did not work during the first year.

Work and/or family obligations typically limit a student's academic load to part-

time or less. When observed by itself, a student's full-time/part-time status becomes a

significant attrition variable. Moore (1995) and Windham (1994) found that full-time

attendance at the community college is the most prevalent characteristic of persisters.

The most salient characteristic among studies of nonpersisters is part-time attendance

(Feldman, 1993; Price, 1993).

In a study by Breindel (1997), the number of units carried, as opposed to

gender, age or ethnicity, was the principal predictor of credit student persistence. For

new credit students who enrolled in 12 units or more, 67% persisted to the subsequent

fall semester. This compares to 46% of those carrying 6 to 11.9 units and 27% of those

carrying 5.9 or fewer units (Breindel, 1997).

Moore (1995) conducted a study at San Juan College that took into account

several definitions of persistence, including re-enrollment in the subsequent term. re-

enrollment the following fall semester, and persistence in relation to indicators of

student educational goals such as full-time or degree-seeking status. In 1991 and 1992.








fall to fall persistence rates for part-time, degree-seeking students were 42% and 35%,

respectively, and 59% and 46% for full-time, degree-seeking students. Semester to

semester persistence rates for fall 1993 were 79% for full-time students and 45% for

part-time students, with higher fall to spring persistence rates than spring to fall rates.

In general, all full-time students persisted at a higher rate than part-time students

(Moore, 1995).

In the spring of 1995 Westchester Community College in New York surveyed

all students who attended for the first time in fall 1993 but did not return the following

spring semester. While only 56.2% of the first-time students in 1993 attended part-

time, 75% of the 1,208 students who did not return had attended part-time (Lee. 1996).

College Orientation Course Studies

Tinto (1982) stressed an emphasis for programs designed to promote student-

faculty interaction. Concluding his remarks on general retention strategies, Tinto noted

that successful retention programs were most frequently longitudinal in character, were

also always integrally tied to the admissions process. and their implementation

generally involved a wide range of institutional characters. College orientation courses,

taken the first term of entry, fit Tinto's criteria for successful retention programming.

Approximately two-thirds of all 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities offer

some type of new student seminar. The primary goal of almost 70% of these courses is

providing students with an extended orientation to the institution, to themselves as

learners, to essential academic skills, and to the purpose of higher education (Barefoot &

Fidler, 1996). Gordon (1989) stated that 40% of the institutions that responded to a








survey from the National Orientation Directors Association utilized a freshman course

or seminar to assist student adjustment to college and to enhance student persistence.

Of the 1,0 10 survey responses to the 1994 National Survey of Freshman Seminar

Programs by Barefoot and Fidler (1996), 350 responses were from community colleges.

Two hundred-twenty (60%) of the responding community colleges indicated that they

offered a "first-year" or "new student" course.

Rice and Devore (1992) found extended orientation courses equally common at

2- and 4-year colleges but different in administrative structures and content emphases.

From a national study, 2-year college courses were found to have larger class sizes.

shorter duration, and less varied content and were less likely to be required or to

introduce an academic discipline.

In a study by Fidler (1991), data were collected and analyzed indicating that

students who participated in the freshman seminar course exhibited higher sophomore

retention rates than nonparticipants for 14 consecutive years. Furthermore, seminar

participants were also more likely to persist to graduation (Shanley & Witten. 1990).

Similar retention-enhancing effects of the freshman seminar have been found for "high-

risk" students who did not meet regular admission requirements (Fidler & Hunter,

1989). Fidler (1985) reported freshman-to-sophomore retention rates averaged 81% for

University 101 participants in contrast to 75.8% for nonparticipants.

Keenan and Gabovitch (1995) conducted a longitudinal study to assess the

effect of a 1-credit, 8-week freshman seminar on student development and retention.

Outcomes measured were knowledge of college resources and services, utilization of








academic support services, increases in self-assessed learning skills, increases in

students' career maturity, and retention of students from the first to second semester of

their freshman year. For 4 years beginning in spring 1992, students in the course and in

a control group completed a questionnaire during the first and last weeks of the

semester. Results suggested positive effects of seminar participation on all of the

measures. Students in the seminar scored consistently higher than students in the

control group regarding student development and integration into the campus culture.

Students in the seminar were also far more likely to use tutoring and other academic

support services than control students (Keenan & Gabovitch, 1995).

Hoff (1994) led a research group in a study that examined the effects of a Dalton

Junior College student success course. All students were in college for the first time.

The sample included 405 class participants and 500 control participants. Among the

findings were that at the end of their first year, class students were progressing more

quickly through their program and that class students returned at significantly higher

rates both after the first quarter and after the first year.

A study was conducted at Sacramento City College to determine the effects of

enrolling in a first-semester student success course on academic performance and

persistence. Matched pairs of students, one who took the semester-long course and one

who did not, were compared in terms of number of college credit hours completed. grade

point average, and dropout rate. From two equal-sized pools totaling over 250

students, 40 pairs of students were randomly matched on reading levels, writing levels.

and number of hours employed. Over the seven semesters of the study, the dropout








rate of the treatment group was half that of the control group. Students in the treatment

group earned a grade of C or better in four times as many math courses. When the total

number of college credits earned was examined, the treatment group completed 326%

more units than the control group. After seven semesters, the GPAs of the two groups

were almost identical (Stupka, 1993).

A study of the Harrisburg Area Community College Master Student course was

conducted to track academic achievement, including number of semesters enrolled and

total credits carried and earned for 115 students that took the course in 1992. The

results indicated that the group had a mean cumulative grade point average of 2.21 at the

end of summer 1993, compared to a college-wide GPA of 2.64. The sample was not

representative of the general student population, but researchers indicated that the

course did help student performance, at least on a short-term basis (Lum & Signor,

1994).

A study at DeKalb College in Clarkston, Georgia, was conducted to determine

whether the needs of students were satisfied by the orientation classes and if there were

differences between the evaluation of freshmen in the 5-week classes as compared to

those in the 10-week classes. Approximately 1,300 freshmen evaluated the classes at

the final class session. In general, student evaluations of the 5-week sections were more

positive tan evaluations of the 10-week sections. In the 5-week course 91.5% of the

freshmen felt that the program planning session was essential or very important for the

beginning freshmen, while 71.5% of the freshmen in the 1 O-week classes felt the same.

Vocational/career planning were considered essential or very important by 70.8% of the








5-week sample and 56.4% of the 10-week sample. Study skills sessions appeared least

effective (Ozaki, 1994).

A study by Sloan (1991) intended to analyze whether a college orientation

course at Broward Community College was effective in building institutional

commitment, defined as re-enrollment after 1 year. Using regression analysis. the

orientation course was significant as the second best predictor of first-term grade point

averages, while total credit hours paid for the first semester were the best predictors.

The overall findings indicated that the combination of factors (gender, race/ethnic group,

degree program, total credits paid for, college preparatory/college level status, and

enrollment in the orientation course) is more significant in explaining mean differences in

first-term grade point average than in explaining significant difference in re-enrollment or

graduation rates. Findings indicated a strong relationship between enrollment in the

orientation course and 1-year re-enrollment in the college for part-time A.A. degree-

seeking students (Sloan, 1991)

Results of a study by McIntyre (1993) did not support the hypothesis that the

college orientation course has a significant effect on persistence or success as defined as

higher GPA or enrollment status. In his study, students who had not declared a major

were required to enroll and participate in the course.

After reviewing the research on the freshman orientation class in their synthesis

of more than 2,500 studies on how college programs and experiences affect student

development, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) concluded, "The weight of the evidence

suggests that a first-semester freshman seminar ... is positively linked with both








freshman-year persistence and degree completion. The positive link persists even when

academic aptitude and secondary school achievement are taken into account" (pp. 419-

420).

Adjustment and Difficulty

College orientation classes in the community college have been found to supply

students with information essential to their academic socialization and adjustment to

college. Coll and VonSeggern (1991) wrote that college orientation classes facilitate

adjustment to college by providing (a) descriptions of college program offerings, (b) the

college's expectations for students, (c) information about assistance and services for

examining interests, values, and abilities, (d) encouragement to establish working

relationships with faculty, (e) information about services that help with adjustment to

college, and (f) financial aid information.

Students entering college may lack confidence in their ability to be successful

students. Self-appraisal can be a critical factor in student adjustment. Taylor (1988)

evaluated the effect of an extended orientation course on community college students'

self-appraisal of problem-solving behaviors. It was hypothesized that students who

completed the class would see themselves as more effective problem solvers, assess

their academic skills at a higher level, be more familiar with and use campus resources at

a higher rate, and perform better academically than would control subjects. All subjects

completed the Problem-Solving Inventory, an Academic Skills Evaluation, and the

Campus Resource Utilization Checklist in a pre-/posttest quasi-experimental design.

Differences in academic performance were assessed by comparing GPA and persistence








rates for two quarters. Analysis indicated that subjects reported a significant increase in

academic self-confidence but not problem-solving appraisal. Treatment groups were

more familiar with 82% of the campus resources than were control but did not use

services at a higher rate. When educational background was covaried. treatment subjects

achieved significantly higher GPAs for the first quarter; and there were no significant

differences in second quarter GPA or retention rates (Taylor, 1988).

In a study by Davis-Underwood and Lee (1994), the results of the analysis of

variance indicated that students who participated in the freshman orientation course had

a significantly higher mean freshman year GPA than nonparticipants. Seminar

participants earned an average GPA of 2.63, while nonparticipants earned an average

GPA of 2.35. Fidler and Hunter (1989), Stupka (1986). and Wilkie and Kuckuck

(1989) found GPAs of course participants to be significantly higher than those

achieved by matched control groups of nonparticipants.

Fidler (1985) found that freshmen who participated in University 101 had a

higher probability of returning for the sophomore year. in spite of a greater percentage

of higher risk students than nonparticipants. Research indicates that participation in

college orientation classes raises the academic performance of low-achieving students (as

identified by below-average entrance test scores and high school rank) relative to that of

students with more qualified admission characteristics (Fidler, 1991 ). Research further

suggests that participation in a first-year extended orientation class has particularly

dramatic effects on academically at-risk students who are disproportionately

represented in community colleges (Roueche & Roueche, 1993).








The results of the study by Blackhust (1994) are consistent with research

regarding academic achievement and freshman orientation courses. Such research

suggests that freshman orientation courses increase the academic performance of low-

achieving students relative to other students. While not tested directly by this study.

this hypothesis is supported by the finding that students with relatively low grade

point averages found the freshman orientation course the most useful in helping them

succeed academically. Analysis of data by Craig (1994) indicated a significant

relationship between participation in the course and retention and academic

performance for all freshmen, whether they were considered to be at risk or not. Of the

at-risk students, nearly four out of five who participated in the course were still

enrolled in college 1 year after their initial freshman semester.

A study examined the impact of a 1-credit study skills course on the academic

achievement and retention of second-semester freshman probationary students at a

state-supported university with a student population of over 13,000 in western

Pennsylvania. The study compared academic performance of the treatment and

nontreatment groups as measured by grade point averages, academic hours attempted.

and academic hours earned during the semester the treatment occurred as well as

subsequent semesters of study. The population had a grade point average below 1.5 on

a 4.0 scale at the end of their first semester at the university. Forty-one students in

1985 and 54 in 1986 of the invited students participated in the class. The control group

was identified as those probationary students not choosing to participate in the study.

At the conclusion of the spring semester the experimental group in each year of the








study earned a significantly higher grade point average than did the control group.

However these GPAs for all groups were still lower than a C average. Both

experimental groups earned significantly more academic hours during the spring

semester than did the comparison control group. The experimental group had

significantly higher grade point averages than did students in the control group 2 years

following the 1985 intervention. There were no statistically significant differences

between the two groups in regard to hours attempted and hours earned. One year

following the intervention, 14% more of the students in the treatment group than in the

nontreatment group were still enrolled at the university. This difference also was

evident 2 years following intervention, when 9% more of the students in the treatment

group were still enrolled at the university than were nontreatment (Lipsky & Ender.

1990). However, an initial study of the freshmen seminar at the University of North

Carolina (Maisto, Davis, Keyes, & Tammi, 1987) found no significant differences

between seminar participants and nonparticipants on measures of academic success and

retention.

Addressing special populations, a study examined the effectiveness of a freshman

orientation course for leaming-disabled (LD) and nonlearning-disabled (NLD) students.

In a longitudinal records review study, the retention or graduation rates and grade point

averages of 680 LD and NLD students who did and did not complete a freshman

seminar were analyzed. Results suggested that students who completed the seminar

graduated at a higher rate than control students and that LD students graduated at a

higher rate than NLD students. Learning-disabled students who completed the








freshman seminar experienced the highest graduation rate, followed by NLD students

who participated in the seminar, and then students who did not take the seminar and

were NLD. The lowest graduation rate was for LD students who did not take the

seminar. Grade point averages were generally not significantly different between the

LD and NLD groups in relation to participation in the freshman orientation course

(Green, 1995).

Incongruence and Isolation

During 1987-1988, Manor Junior College developed a semester-long freshman

orientation course designed to help students understand the college system. to

strengthen students' identification with their vocational program and career choice, and

to improve students' academic competencies and confidence in their ability to achieve

academic success. Students met in groups for 2 hours per week to discuss a variety of

topics. Students were also given weekly writing assignments related to their vocational

programs and career goals. Student participants reported having difficulty maintaining

close ties with the freshman orientation course instructor the semester following the

course. They also expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of work required by the

noncredit seminar (Suffet, 1988).

Another study was designed to gather information about students' informal

faculty contacts and their participation in extracurricular activities. The results of the

nine-item paper-and-pencil questionnaire showed that seminar participants engaged in

significantly more informal faculty contacts than nonparticipants. Seminar participants

also reported being engaged in significantly more extracurricular activities than








nonparticipants. No significant gender effects were found (Davis-Underwood & Lee.

1994).

Summry

In summary, when looking at the variables most often associated with

retention--gender, age, and race--it appears there is inconclusive evidence to determine if

men and women differ in persistence patterns. Furthermore, attrition in nontraditional-

age students is impacted more significantly by factors external to education, and

characteristics of student background and academic ability are greater predictors of

persistence than race. In addition, students attending 2-year institutions are more likely

to drop out of school than those attending 4-year institutions. The difference in

dropout rates among these students more typically arises from institutional conditions

than from the academic ability of the students attracted to either type of institution.

The high rate of dropping out at the early stages of college entry points to the role of

college adjustment and goal commitment. First-year college orientation classes are

related to freshman year persistence and to degree completion.














CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY

Chapter Organization

In this chapter the study's design, research questions, participants, research and

data collection procedures, and analysis are described. The purpose of this study was to

explore whether there is a significant relationship between taking a community college

orientation course during the first term and the retention, persistence, and time to degree

completion of academically prepared students.

Research Design

Inferential statistics were used to describe the effect of an orientation class taken

during the first term in college on retention, course withdrawals, grade point average,

course repetitions, and number of credit hours accumulated before graduation. The study

retrospectively covers a 4-year period. Because random assignment of students to a

treatment and nontreatment group was not possible, an ex post facto design was used.

The ex post facto model is effective in evaluating the effects of a treatment not originally

designed for research purposes (Huck, Cormier, & Bounds, 1974) and to study possible

causes after they may have exerted their effect upon other variables (Borg & Gall, 1989).

The study was longitudinal in structure, assessing historical data after the first

semester, and at the end of the first, second, third, and fourth year of the initial treatment.

Legislative action taken in the fall of 1995 brought changes to curriculum and withdrawal








policy in the state of Florida. To remove the influence of these changes upon the study,

the period being observed is 1991-1995.

Research Questions

This study examined the following research questions:

1. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class

and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term ) in retention

after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

2. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class

and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term ) in number of

course withdrawals after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

3. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class

and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term ) in GPA after

1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

4. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class

and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term ) in total

number of courses repeated after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

5. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class

and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in total number

of credit hours at time of graduation?

6. Do age, gender, and race interact with taking a college orientation course (in their

first term) to affect retention, course withdrawal, GPA, courses repeated, and number of

credit hours taken at time of graduation?








Participants

The participants in this investigation consisted of male and female students from

Miami-Dade Community College, Okaloosa-Walton Community College, Santa Fe

Community College, and Tallahassee Community College. Miami-Dade Community

College, located in a large urban community in the southern part of the state, has an

unduplicated Associate in Arts Degree Program headcount of 25,693 students

(Department of Education. Division of Community Colleges. 1997). Okaloosa-Walton

Community College, located in a small coastal community in the northwestern part of the

state, has an unduplicated Associate in Arts Degree Program headcount of 4. 023 students

(Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges, 1997). Santa Fe Community

College, located in a medium-sized urban community in the north-central part of the state,

has an unduplicated Associate in Arts Degree Program headcount of 11.526 students

(Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges, 1997). Tallahassee

Community College, located at the state capitol in the north-central part of the state, has

an unduplicated Associate in Arts Degree Program headcount of 7.656 students

(Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges, 1997). These four Florida

institutions were chosen because they have similar general academic graduation

requirements, offer similar college orientation classes, and vary in institutional size and

location.

In order to be selected into the study, participants had to be first time in college for

the academic term starting fall of 1991, had completed at least the first term they were

enrolled, were Associate of Arts degree seeking, maintained full time status during the first

term, and did not test into college preparatory classes according to state standards in effect








during the 1991 fall term. All students meeting these criteria were included in the study.

The study tracked the same cohort of students until they graduated. stopped attending

college, or at the end of 4 years. The academic performance and persistence of students

who had completed a college orientation class during their first term was compared to

students who did not take a college orientation class during their first term in college.

Research Procedure

Data for this study were gathered by a computer search of the historical database

files from each of the four participating institutions. Data collection was coordinated by

the researcher with the assistance of the Office of Institutional Research at Santa Fe

Community College, using data reported by the Florida Division of Community Colleges.

Data Collection and Analysis

Measurements were taken at the end of the first term and at the end of first,

second, third, and fourth years. The dependent variables were date of degree completion

or end of continuous enrollment, cumulative grade point average at the end of each

measurement period, total number of course withdrawals at the end of each measurement

period, total number of course repetitions at the end of each measurement period, and total

number of credit hours attained at the end of each measurement period. The independent

variables were participation/nonparticipation in a college orientation class, sex, race, age,

and institution of attendance. Four institutions of varying size and geographic locations

have been chosen to observe if these variables influence persistence.

Quantitative data analysis was used to evaluate the five research questions

outlined. To assess population demographics, descriptive statistics of central tendency








and dispersion were used. An analysis of variance model was applied to address questions

I through 6.

Summary_

The purpose of this study was to ascertain through the use of historical academic

records if there is a significant relationship between taking a community college orientation

course during the first term and the retention, persistence, and time to degree completion

of students. Student data encompassing a 4-year time period were collected from four

community colleges that varied in institutional size and location. Data analysis for this

study applied descriptive statistics of central tendency and dispersion. and analysis of

variance models.














CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to explore whether there is a significant

relationship between taking a community college orientation course during the first term

in college and the retention, persistence, and time to degree completion of students. An

examination was made to see whether an orientation class impacts retention, number of

course withdrawals, students' grade point average over the long term, number of courses

repeated, and the total number of credit hours required to complete the degree.

Data were collected from Miami-Dade Community College, Okaloosa-Walton

Community College, Santa Fe Community College, and Tallahassee Community College.

The resulting sample totaled 1,400 participants. of which 31.57% (N=442) had taken a

college orientation class their first term and 68.43% (N=958) that had never taken a

college orientation class. When the sample is viewed by individual institutions, there

were 21.33% (N= 167) of the participants that had taken a college orientation class their

first term and 78.67% (N=616) that had never taken a college orientation class at Miami-

Dade Community College; 91.54% (N=1 19) of the participants that had taken a college

orientation class their first term and 8.46% (N=1 1) that had never taken a college

orientation class at Okaloosa Walton Community College; 48.70% (N= 31) of the

participants that had taken a college orientation class their first term and 51.30% (N= 138)

that had never taken a college orientation class at Santa Fe Community College; and

11.47% (N=25) of the participants that had taken a college orientation class their first








term, and 88.53% (N= 193) that had never taken a college orientation class at Tallahassee

Community College.

The gender division of the sample was 50.2 1% female (N=703) and 49.79% male

(N=697). Of the female participants, 33% (N=471) had taken a college orientation class

their first term, and 67% (N=232) had never taken a college orientation class. Of the male

participants, 30.13% (N=210) had taken a college orientation class their first term, and

69.87% (N=487) had never taken a college orientation class.

The racial/ethnic divisions of the sample were 51.4% white (N=720), 36.8%

Hispanic (N=515). 8.9% African American (N=125), 2.4% Asian (33). and 0.5% other

minority (N=7). Of the white participants, 38.33% (N=276) had taken a college

orientation class their first term. and 61.67% (N=444) had never taken a college

orientation class. Of the Hispanic participants, 19.42% (N=100) had taken a college

orientation class their first term, and 80.58% (N=415) had never taken a college

orientation class. Of the African American participants, 48% (N=60) had taken a college

orientation class their first term, and 52% (N=65) had never taken a college orientation

class. Of the Asian participants. 18.18% (N=6) had taken a college orientation class their

first term, and 81.82% (N=27) had never taken a college orientation class. None of the

other minority participants had taken a college orientation class their first term.

The age of the sample ranged from 15 to 44 years of age. with a mean age of 19.68

years of age. The standard deviation was 2.10.

The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was used to compute analysis of variance

(ANOVA) for the dependent and independent variables. The level of significance for all

analyses was set at p < .05. This study examined the following research questions:








1. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class

and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in retention

after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

An ANOVA was performed to test for mean differences in the variable of status

(completed a college orientation class during the first term of college as opposed to not

having taken a college orientation class during the 4-year period of the study) for retention

over the 4-year period of the study. The results indicated that there was no significant

difference found for the means of the independent variable of status. Table 1 shows the

means and standard deviations for the retention variable of students who had taken the

orientation class their first term and for students who had never taken the class.


Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of the Variable Retention for Students First and Never

First Never
Variable N Mean SD N Mean SD

Retention 442 3.45701357 0.94001889 951 3.48370137 0.94004332



2. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class

and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in number of

course withdrawals after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

An ANOVA was performed to test for mean differences in the variable of status

for number of course withdrawals after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years. There was

no significant difference found for the independent variable of status at the end of years 1,

2, 3, or 4. Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the total number of course








withdrawals for students who had taken the orientation class their first term and for

students who had never taken the class.


Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations of the Variable Withdrawal for Students First and Never

First Never
Variable N Mean SD N Mean SD

Withdrawals 1 442 0.97511312 1.30646938 951 1.07045216 1.32278801
Withdrawals2 442 2.18778281 2.27846769 951 2.35331230 2.26536556
Withdrawals 3 442 2.99773756 3.00830209 951 3.28706625 3.19582473
Withdrawals4 442 3.41402715 3.50872997 951 3.70347003 3.66324253




3. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class

those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in grade point

average after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

An ANOVA was performed to test for mean differences in the variable of

status for grade point average at the end of years 1, 2, 3, and 4. There was no

significant difference found for the independent variable of status at the end of years

1. 2, 3, or 4. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of the grade point average

for students who had taken the orientation class their first term and for students who had

never taken the class.

4. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation

class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in total

number of courses repeated after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?








Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations of the Variable Grade Point Average for Students First
and Never


Variable

GPA Year I
GPA Year 2
GPA Year 3
GPA Year 4


N

442
407
324
189


First
Mean

2.83476944
2.66605018
2.68291730
2.58157764


SD

0.76461336
0.76016249
0.69720083
0.61907624


N

951
856
735
433


Never
Mean

2.76646810
2.69091551
2.71155841
2.672 10337


SD

0.81220269
0.74779122
0.68446290
0.57705572


An ANOVA was performed to test for mean differences in the variable of status

for total number of courses repeated at the end of years 1, 2, 3. and 4. There was no

significant difference found for the independent variable of status at the end of years 1. 2.

3, or 4. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations for total number of courses

repeated for students who had taken the orientation class their first term and for students

who had never taken the class.


Table 4

Means and Standard Deviations of the Variable Courses Repeated for Students First and
Never

First Never
Variable N Mean SD N Mean SD


Repeat Year 1 442 0.29864253 0.62193318 951 0.28601472 0.65067091
Repeat Year2 442 1.44796380 1.44223872 951 1.40063091 1.41880588
Repeat Year3 442 2.22398190 1.99024024 951 2.31650894 2.16083093
Repeat Year4 442 2.65610860 2.45028968 951 2.72344900 2.58095598








5. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class

and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in total number

of credit hours at time of graduation?

Degrees were awarded to 705 participants; 220 (31.21%) of the graduates had

attended a college orientation class during their first term in college, while 485 (68.79%)

had never taken a college orientation class. An ANOVA was performed to test for mean

differences in the variable of status for total number of credit hours completed at the time

of graduation. There was no significant difference found for the independent variable of

status for total number of credit hours completed at the time of graduation. Table 5

shows the means and standard deviations of the total number of credit hours at time of

graduation for students who had taken the orientation class their first term and for

students who had never taken the class.


Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations of the Total Number of Hours at Graduation for
Students First and Never

First Never
Variable N Mean SD N Mean SD


Hours 220 55.96363636 18.09282371 483 58.03271222 16.92166742



6. Do age, gender, and race interact with taking a college orientation course (in their

first term) to affect retention, course withdrawal, grade point average, courses repeated,

and number of credit hours taken at time of graduation?








The analysis of the data indicate that no significant interaction was found between

age, gender, and race affecting retention, course withdrawal, grade point average, courses

repeated, and the number of credit hours taken at time of graduation.

Although the findings were not a part of the study, significant difference was

observed between the variables of gender, race/ethnicity, age, retention, course

withdrawals, grade point average, course repetitions, and number of credit hours at time of

graduation. The differences are listed below.

Retention. There was significant difference found between the means for the

independent variable of gender (F = 8.66, p = 0.0033). The ANOVA for retention over

the 4-year period of the study is shown in Table 6.


Table 6

Analysis of Variance of Retention by Status, Participant Age. Participant Gender, and
Participant Race


Source

Model
Error
Corrected Total
STATUS
AGE
GENDER
RACE
AGE*STATUS
STATUS*GENDER
STATUS*RACE
*p < .05


DF

11
1379
1390
1
1
1
3
1
1
3


Sum of Squares

30.6353807
1194.4012735
1225.0366643
0.23795158
2.2024441
7.50414382
5.24358248
0.23825365
0.53929166
3.97353360


Mean Square

2.7850355
0.8661358


0.23795158
2.20244411
7.50414382
1.74786083
0.23825365
0.53929166
1.32451120


F Value

3.22



0.27
2.54
8.66
2.02
0.28
0.62
1.53


Pr>F

0.0002



0.6003
0.1110
0.0033*
0.1095
0.6000
0.4302
0.2051








Course withdrawals. For year 1 there was significant difference found between

the means for the independent variable of race (F = 4.10. p 0.0060). The ANOVA for

number of course withdrawals for year 1 is shown in Table 7. For year 2 there was

significant difference found between the means for the independent variable of race (F

9.63, p 0.0001). The ANOVA for number of course withdrawals for year 2 is shown in

Table 8. For year 3 there was significant difference found between the means for the

independent variables of gender (F 8.47, p. 0.0037) and race (F = 10.05, p = 0.0001).

The ANOVA for number of course withdrawals for year 3 is shown in Table 9. For year

4 there was significant difference found between the means for the independent variables

of gender (F = 7.69, p = 0.0056 and race (F = 10.12, p 0.0001). The ANOVA for

number of course withdrawals for year 4 is shown in Table 10.


Table 7

Analysis of Variance of Grade W for First Year by Status, Participant Age, Participant
Gender, and Participant Race


Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F

Model 11 37.3148491 3.3922590 1.97 0.0280
Error 1379 2375.6657404 1.7227453
Corrected Total 1390 2412.9805895
STATUS 1 0.3945499 0.3945499 0.23 0.6323
AGE 1 0.3385731 0.3385731 0.20 0.6576
GENDER 1 4.3060102 4.3060102 2.50 0.1141
RACE 3 21.1824458 7.0608153 4.10 0.0066*
AGE*STATUS 1 0.3953943 0.3953943 0.23 0.6320
STATUS*GENDER 1 1.3074086 1.3074086 0.76 0.3838
STATUS*RACE 3 7.6185752 2.5395251 1.47 0.2198
*p < .05








Table 8

Analysis of Variance of Grade W for Second Year by Status, Participant Age. Participant
Gender, and Participant Race



Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F

Model 11 219.228604 19.929873 3.95 0.0001
Error 1379 6950.360181 5.04145
Corrected Total 1390 7169.588785
STATUS 1 5.327525 5.327525 1.06 0.3041
AGE 1 2.117441 2.117441 0.42 0.5170
GENDER 1 15.195126 15.195126 3.01 0.0827
RACE 3 145.650272 48.550091 9.63 0.0001*
AGE*STATUS 1 5.315728 5.315728 1.05 0.3046
STATUS*GENDER 1 8.115119 8.115119 1.61 0.2047
STATUS*RACE 3 15.496801 5.165600 1.02 0.3806
p < .05



Table 9

Analysis of Variance of Grade W for Third Year by Status, Participant Age, Participant
Gender, and Participant Race


Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F

Model 11 496.363717 45.123974 4.71 0.0001
Error 1379 13221.839015 9.587991
Corrected Total 1390 137 18.202732
STATUS 1 1.525925 1.525925 0.16 0.6900
AGE 1 0.003586 0.003586 0.00 0.9846
GENDER 1 81.237458 81.327458 8.47 0.0037*
RACE 3 289.171837 96.390612 10.05 0.0001*
AGE*STATUS 1 1.522830 1.522830 0.16 0.6903
STATUS*GENDER 1 3.936260 3.936260 0.41 0.5218
STATUS*RACE 3 14.942826 4.980942 0.52 0.6689
p < .05








Table 10

Analysis of Variance of Grade W for Fourth Year by Status, Participant Age, Participant
Gender, and Participant Race


Source

Model
Error
Corrected Total
STATUS
AGE
GENDER
RACE
AGE*STATUS
STATUS*GENDER
STATUS*RACE
*p < .05


DF

11
1379
1390
1
1
1
3


Sum of Squares

627.403604
17574.963038
18202.366643
1.834703
0.002768
98.035054
386.847499
1.834346
11.254532
13.512303


Mean Square

57.036691
12.744716


1.834703
0.002768
98.035054
128.949166
1.834346
11.254532
4.504101


Grade point average. For year 1 there was significant difference found between the

data for the independent variables of age (F = 12.42, p = 0.0004) and gender (F = 27.64, p

= 0.0001). The ANOVA for grade point average at the end of year I is shown in Table 11.

For year 2 there was significant difference found between the data for the independent

variables of age (F = 10.24, p = 0.0014) and gender (F = 16.56, p = 0.0001). The

ANOVA for grade point average at the end of year 2 is shown in Table 12. For year 3

there was significant difference found between the data for the independent variables of

age (F = 7.12, p = 0.0077) and gender (F = 21.31, p = 0.0001). The ANOVA for grade

point average at the end of year 3 is shown in Table 13. For year 4 there was significant

difference found between the data for the independent variables of age (F = 5.00,


F Value

4.48



0.14
0.00
7.69
10.12
0.14
0.88
0.35


Pr>F

0.0001



0.7044
0.9882
0.0056*
0.0001'
0.7045
0.3475
0.7867








Table 11

Analysis of Variance of Grade Point Average for First Year by Status, Participant Age,
Participant Gender, and Participant Race


Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F

Model 11 37.3315640 3.3937785 5.54 0.0001
Error 1379 844.0847950 0.6120992
Corrected Total 1390 881.4163590
STATUS 1 0.0045372 0.0045372 0.01 0.9314
AGE 1 7.6019451 7.6019451 12.42 0.0004*
GENDER 1 16.9169813 16.9169813 27.64 0.0001*
RACE 3 3.3885290 1.1295097 1.85 0.1370
AGE*STATUS 1 0.0042822 0.0042822 0.01 0.9334
STATUS*GENDER 1 0.2449933 0.2449933 0.40 0.5271
STATUS*RACE 3 2.1797364 0.7265788 1.19 0.3133
p < .05

Table 12

Analysis of Variance of Grade Point Average for Second Year by Status, Participant Age
Participant Gender, and Participant Race


Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F

Model 11 22.2090554 2.0190050 3.67 0.0001
Error 1249 686.8816814 0.5499453
Corrected Total 1260 709.0907369
STATUS 1 0.01440218 0.01440218 0.03 0.0715
AGE 1 5.63229663 5.63229663 10.24 0.0014*
GENDER 1 9.10677269 9.10677268 16.56 0.0001*
RACE 3 1.20788600 0.40262867 0.73 0.5329
AGE*STATUS 1 0.01426665 0.01426665 0.03 0.8721
STATUS*GENDER 1 0.00023712 0.00023712 0.00 0.9834
STATUS*RACE 3 0.67785190 0.22595063 0.14 0.7452
p < .05








Table 13

Analysis of Variance of Grade Point Average for Third Year by Status. Participant Ae.
Participant Gender, and Participant Race


Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F

Model 11 21.0784390 1.9162217 4.18 0.0001
Error 1047 479.9840352 0.4584375
Corrected Total 1058 501.0624741
STATUS 1 0.21867360 0.21867360 0.48 0.4899
AGE 1 3.26612552 3.26612552 7.12 0.0077*
GENDER 1 9.77137202 9.77137202 21.31 0.0001"
RACE 3 1.01590818 0.33863606 0.74 0.5291
AGE*STATUS 1 0.21904526 0.21904526 0.48 0.4896
STATUS*GENDER 1 0.00020426 0.00020426 0.00 0.9832
STATUS*RACE 3 2.78825962 0.92941987 2.03 0.1084
*p < .05


p = 0.0257) and gender (F = 4.37, p = 0.0369). The ANOVA for grade point average

at the end of year 4 is shown in Table 14.

Course repetition. For year 1 there was no significant difference found in any

variable on total number of courses repeated. For year 2 there was significant difference

found between the means for the independent variables of gender (F = 7.53, p = 0.0061)

and race (F = 9.28, p = 0.0001). The ANOVA for total number of courses repeated at the

end of year 2 is shown in Table 15. For year 3 there was significant difference found

between the means for the independent variables of gender (F = 5.83, p = 0.0159) and

race (F = 11.50, p = 0.0001). The ANOVA for total number of courses repeated at the

end of year 3 is shown in Table 16. For year 4 there was significant difference found

between the means for the independent variables of gender (F = 5.72, p = 0.0 169) and









Table 14

Analysis of Variance of Grade Point Average for Fourth Year by Status, Participant Age,
Participant Gender, and Participant Race


Source
Model
Error
Corrected Total
STATUS
AGE
GENDER
RACE
AGE*STATUS
STATUS*GENDER
STATUS*RACE


DF
11
610
621
1
1
1
3
1
1
3


Sum of Squares
7.37353517
209.60979766
216.98333283
0.47987170
1.71927736
1.50302624
2.41403692
0.84124716
0.05551744
1.35631888


Mean Square
0.67032138
0.34362262


0.47987170
1.71927736
1.50302624
0.80467897
0.48124716
0.05551744
0.45210629


*p < .05



Table 15

Analysis of Variance of Total Number of Courses Repeated at End of Second Year by
Status, Participant Age, Participant Gender, and Participant Race



Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F

Model 11 98.5165411 8.9560492 4.53 0.0001
Error 1379 2729.1383835 1.9790706
Corrected Total 1390 2827.6549245
STATUS 1 1.6799207 1.6799207 0.85 0.3570
AGE 1 5.1530455 5.1530455 2.60 0.1068
GENDER 1 14.9025726 14.9025726 7.53 0.0061 *
RACE 3 55.0703488 18.3567829 9.28 0.0001*
AGE*STATUS 1 1.68363220 1.68363220 0.85 0.3565
STATUS*GENDER 1 0.1239002 0.1239002 0.06 0.8025
STATUS*RACE 3 7.1254743 2.3751581 1.20 0.3084
*p < .05


F Value
1.95



1.40
5.00
4.37
2.34
1.40
0.16
1.32


Pr>F
0.0309



0.23 78
0.0257*
0.03 69*
0.0722
0.2371
0.6879
0.2683








Table 16

Analysis of Variance of Total Number of Courses Repeated at End of Third Year by
Status, Participant Age, Participant Gender, and Participant Race


Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F

Model 11 262.318836 23.847167 5.55 0.0001
Error 1379 5920.656002 4.293442
Corrected Total 1390 6182.974838
STATUS 1 0.628400 0.628400 0.15 0.7021
AGE 1 9.139642 9.139642 2.13 0.1448
GENDER 1 25.021574 25.021574 5.83 0.0159*
RACE 3 148.177154 49.392385 11.50 0.0001*
AGE*STATUS 1 0.628710 0.628710 0.15 0.7020
STATUS*GENDER 1 1.946039 1.946039 0.45 0.5009
STATUS*RACE 3 10.277452 3.425817 0.80 0.4950
*p < .05


race (F = 11.32. p = 0.0001). The ANOVA for total number of courses repeated at the

end of year 4 is shown in Table 17.

Number of credit hours at time of graduation. There was significant difference

found between the means for the independent variables of race (F = 6.34, p = 0.003). The

ANOVA for total number of credit hours completed at the time of graduation is shown in

Table 18.

This chapter presented discussion of the procedures for the analysis and the

results of this research. The results of the statistical analyses reveal that there were no

differences in group means between the individuals that participated in the college

orientation class and those that did not. These analyses indicate that taking a college

orientation class the first term at a community college does not have significant effect on








Table 17

Analysis of Variance of Total Number of Courses Repeated at End of Fourth Year by


Status, Participant Aye, Participant Gender. and


Particitgant Race


Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F

Model 11 377.503092 34.318463 5.50 0.0001
Error 1379 8596.873616 6.234136
Corrected Total 1390 8974.376707
STATUS 1 1.724725 1.724725 0.28 0.5990
AGE 1 12.211825 12.211825 1.96 0.1619
GENDER 1 35.662231 35.662231 5.72 0.0169*
RACE 3 211.618224 70.539408 11.32 0.0001*
AGE*STATUS 1 1.719932 1.719932 0.28 0.5995
STATUS*GENDER 1 9.082397 9.082397 1.46 0.2276
STATUS*RACE 3 21.340644 7.113548 1.14 0.3313
p < .05


Table 18

Analysis of Variance of Total Number of Credit Hours at Time of Graduation by Status
Participant Age, Participant Gender, and Participant Race



Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr>F

Model 11 8713.19005 792.10819 2.71 0.0020
Error 691 201640.85609 291.81021
Corrected Total 702 210354.04615
STATUS 1 370.76455 370.76455 1.27 0.2601
BYEAR 1 70.27562 70.27562 0.24 0.6238
GENDER 1 318.27432 318.27432 1.09 0.2967
RACE 3 5552.67397 1850.89132 6.34 0.0003*
BYEAR*STATUS 1 367.95877 367.95877 1.26 0.2619
STATUS*GENDER 1 99.74374 99.74374 0.34 0.5590
STATUS*RACE 3 1198.74887 399.58296 1.37 0.2510
p < .05


Particit)ant Race





77


retention, course withdrawal patterns, grade point average, courses repetition patterns,

and the total number of credit hours at time of graduation. A discussion of these results

and recommendations for further research are presented in Chapter 5.














CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Purpose Overview

This study was designed to explore whether there is a significant relationship

between taking a community college orientation course during the first term and the

retention, persistence, and time to degree completion of students. The relationship of the

findings to the six research questions is discussed in this chapter. The remainder of this

chapter includes limitations of the study, implications of the findings and

recommendations, and the chapter summary.

Discussion of Results

Research Question I

The first research question addressed the issue of whether or not there is a

difference in retention between students who have taken an orientation class their first

term in college and those who have never taken an orientation class. Retention for this

study was based upon continuous enrollment either until degree completion or to the

point at which a student has not registered for classes for the following academic term.

According to Tinto (1993), integration with the social and academic systems of a college

early in a student's career is believed to enhance the individual's intentions and

commitments and, in turn, facilitates student retention. The college orientation class is

designed to integrate a student into the social and academic communities of the college,

therefore, promoting improved retention.








Results of this study indicate that students who had taken the class did not have a

difference in retention at the end of year 1, 2, 3, or 4 than students who had not taken the

college orientation class. There was no statistically significant difference between the

two student populations. The data indicated that a one hour college orientation class

does not impact retention of students at the community college who have completed a I -

credit-hour college orientation course during their first term.

Research Question 2

The second research question explored whether there is a difference in the number

of course withdrawals between students who have taken an orientation class their first

term in college and those who have never taken an orientation class. There was no

significant difference found in the number of course withdrawals between the two groups

studied over the 4-year period

A student's commitment to the institution and to the goal of college graduation

may be reflected in his/her course withdrawal pattern. A course withdrawal is not solely

an academic performance, or preparedness, indicator. Students at a community college

may withdraw from coursework due to schedule conflicts, economic issues, or as a result

of family or personal crisis. Integration into the academic and social systems of the

college promotes goal and degree completion (Tinto, 1993), thus reducing the need to

withdraw from coursework. The results of this study indicate that the orientation class is

not a sufficient intervention to influence course withdrawal over a longer time span.

Research Question 3

The third research question examined whether there was a difference in means of

grade point averages between students who had taken an orientation class their first term








in college and those who had never taken a college orientation class. The study does not

seem to support that one class at the start of a student's academic has a lasting impact on

academic performance through a 4-year tenure. There was no significant difference in

grade point averages between the two groups studied.

Research Question 4

The fourth research question examined the relationship between the number of

courses a student repeated during their academic career and their attendance in a college

orientation course their fist term in college. According to Tinto's (1993) theory of

student retention, the frequency of course repetition, as well as any educational

attainment strategy, is mediated by a student's connection to both the institution and

his/her own educational goals. Although not directly a measure of student commitment,

it appears that an orientation course taken during the first term does not affect a student's

connection to the institution. No significant difference was observed between the group

means for courses repeated based upon participation or nonparticipation in a college

orientation class.

Research Question 5

The fifth research question explored the total number of credit hours taken at the

time of graduation. The question attempted to understand if students who have taken a

college orientation class and have persisted to graduation have done so in a more efficient

manner. Efficiency is measured by the total number of credit hours accumulated at the

time the student requests to graduate. There was no significant difference in group means

for total number of hours at the time of graduation based upon participation or

nonparticipation in a college orientation class.








Research Question 6

The sixth research question sought to understand if there were any differences

within subsets of the population that had either taken or had not taken a 1-hour college

orientation class their first term at a community college. No direct main effect was

discovered between the study's dependent and independent variables, nor was there any

significant interaction between the variables of age, gender, race/ethnicity, and

participation in the class. The results of the study indicate that a 1-hour college

orientation class during the first term at a community college had no effect on the

dependent variables, regardless of the participant's age, gender, or race/ethnicity.

Although not a focus of the study, significant differences were found related to

gender, race/ethnicity, and age as they interacted with retention, number of class

withdrawals, grade point average, number of courses repeated, and total number of credit

hours at time of graduation independent of having taken, or not taken, a college

orientation class. Further analysis of these differences would have been beyond the scope

of this project.

The research questions attempted to assess the long-term impact of a college

orientation class upon first term, academically prepared community college students.

Based upon Tinto's (1993) work, it was predicted that the class would have an effect

upon a student's retention, number of course withdrawals, grade point average, number

of course repetitions, and total number of credit hours acquired at time of graduation

from the community college. The results of the study did not support the prediction.








Limitations

The study was limited by the inability to select randomly and assign participants

to classes and to control groups. This study did not control for the possibility that the

characteristics that shape a student's decision to take, or not to take, a college orientation

class may also impact his/her future academic progress and success. The study was

unable to assess prior differences between those students who enrolled in the college

orientation class and those who did not. There may have been a variety of other factors,

particularly motivation, that could also relate to future performance in college. Davis-

Underwood and Lee (1994) suggested that students who choose to participate in a

freshman seminar course are probably different from those who choose not to participate

in terms of motivational level and educational goals.

For the population in this study, taking a 1 -credit-hour college orientation class

during the first term in college did not influence the study's dependent variables. In the

absence of a pure experimental design, it is impossible to know if the outcomes of taking

the course have not been molded by selection factors.

Although the study found differences in retention by gender, these differences

were not related to the independent variable of participation/nonparticipation in an

orientation class. Equally, race/ethnicity and age appeared significant in relation to

retention variables but not in relation to having taken an orientation class. Caution

should be used not to make any generalizations about gender, age, or race/ethnicity based

on the findings of this study.








Implications of the Findings and Recommendations

This research has helped to increase understanding of the impact of taking a 1-

credit-hour college orientation class at the time a student enters the community college.

There are implications for theory, college practice, and research.

Implications for Theory

Tinto's (1993) model stated that individuals enter institutions of higher education

with varying background attributes and experiences. These characteristics affect the

student's initial goal commitment and initial commitment to the institution. As students

establish themselves within the new institution, they interact with two primary systems in

the college community--the academic system and the social system. Over a period of

time, this interaction of background variables and initial commitments with the academic

and social systems results in varying degrees of academic integration and social

integration. The process of interaction leads to further changes in commitments, which

leads ultimately to persistence or departure from the college. Academic and social

integration are the factors most critical in the decision to drop out. "Given individual

characteristics, prior experiences, and commitments, the model argues that it is the

individuals integration into the academic and social systems of the college that most

directly relates to his continuance in that college" (Tinto, 1975, p. 96).

The college orientation class is designed to integrate the student into the social

and academic systems of college (Astin, 1993; Gardner, 1986). It was assumed the social

and academic interaction that takes place in a college orientation class enhances both

intentions and commitments. This study investigated if taking a 1-credit college

orientation class, which is presumed to build both academic and social community. leads








to greater retention for college ready participants over a 4-year period. Institutional

measures used to assess retention were enrollment, number of course repetitions and

withdrawals, and grade point average. The results of the research, however, did not find

support for linkages between Tinto's theoretical model and a 1-hour orientation class.

Based upon Tinto's theory (1975), this research assumed that intentions and

commitment are continuously shaped and molded by the student's experiences in college.

This study focused on the temporal character of persistence and the transition process

from past community to membership in the new communities of the college. Tinto did

not describe change in levels of intention and commitment in relation to a specific time

frame. Instead, he described integration as a fluid process not restrained by boundaries.

When viewing integration from an institutional programming viewpoint, academic and

social integration may have developmental qualities that are sequential or governed by

stage or time. Retention strategies may be limited in the minimum length of time

necessary before producing meaningful results. Although the research did not test or

measure student integration into the college, it may suggest that time plays a role in the

process of integration into the academic and social communities of a community college.

A longer period of academic contact than is possible in a single orientation class could

translate to measurable differences.

The study was based upon a 1-credit-hour class format. The college orientation

class is also taught at other institutions as a 2- and 3-credit-hour class. A survey of 696

higher education institutions by Barefoot (1992) reported that the majority of orientation

classes (85.6%) awarded academic credit. The majority of those classes were taught as 1-

credit-hour classes (44.8% awarded I credit hour, 13.15 awarded 2 credit hours, and








19.2% awarded 3 credit hours). Although this study indicates that a 1-credit-hour college

orientation class did not show long-term influence to retention factors, it would be

important to understand if this situation would change with longer periods of class

contact and follow-up campus activities. There may be a minimum threshold of time

necessary before it is possible to establish a meaningful environment in which integration

can take place. Additional study of the class in a 2- and 3-credit-hour format with

community involvement assignments is recommended.

The study did not find any influence from the college orientation class during the

4-year period. The fact that change was not observed may lend support to other studies

reporting that any positive influence of the orientation class diminishes over time

(Napoli, 1996; Belcher et al., 1987). Although the 1-credit college orientation class may

provide a rich starting point for the new student, there is no indication that the benefits

from this experience are lasting.

Implications for College

College orientation classes may not be an appropriate response for all student

populations. A college orientation class has been shown to benefit students who are

academically disadvantaged. Blackhurst (1994) found that the college orientation class

taken the first term increases the academic performance of low-achieving students

relative to other students. All participants in this study were selected based upon their

college ready academic status. A college orientation class may be beneficial for students

who have skills deficits and reason to believe that they are not a full members of a

community of learning. The class could conceivably be better suited for remedial

students at their point of entry to the institution.








The study also leads to questions regarding what are the qualities that constitute

what is perceived as genuine community. Interventions designed to foster a sense of

community are structured within the bureaucracy of higher education. Structured

experiences may not be removed enough from the system to allow students a sense of

ownership. The college orientation class, as well as learning communities and other

retention strategies, may not manifest or capture the necessary serendipity of academic or

social integration. It is possible that students perceived the class environment to be

artificial.

Why would a college orientation class environment appear unnatural? The

students may not have identified the class as a "genuine" academic accomplishment. The

college orientation class does not satisfy general education requirements for any of the

four schools in the study. Although the class earns elective credits that are applied

towards degree satisfaction, the class is sometimes perceived not to be academically

challenging. This may generate from the course's nontraditional college subject material.

In observing the range of grades awarded for the orientation class at all four

institutions in the study, the class has a high success rate. For the 442 students in the

study who had completed a college orientation class, 285 (64.48%) received a grade of A:

100 (22.62%) received a grade of B; 41 (9.28) received a grade of C; 8 (1.81%) received

a grade of D; and 8 (1.81%) failed the class. The high success rate for students in the

class may have a reverse message to the participants. The course may be thought of as

being "easy." It is possible that if a class does not meet an individual's criteria as a valid

academic experience, the class may not create an effective academic or social integration

experience.








Recommendations for Future Research

This study leads to several recommendations for future research. These

recommendations could enhance the understanding of the impact of a college orientation

class at the community college level.

1. Given that the present study did not find that the 1-credit-hour orientation class

had an impact on the variables studied, it is important to know whether a longer period of

contact would create a measurable difference. Further investigation is necessary to

understand whether a 2- or 3-credit-hour orientation class is an adequately intensive

intervention to bring about change in retention, number or classes withdrawals, grade

point average, number of course repetitions, and total number of credit hours at time of

graduation.

2. Looking closer at institutional impact upon the campus environment can add to

the understanding of the college orientation class. How variations from one campus to

another impact the effectiveness of the college entry for students is not well understood.

Gordon and Crites (1984) asserted that the primary purpose of a college orientation class

must be defined by the needs of the students on a specific campus. Furthermore, data that

ignore institutional context will rarely be generalizable from institution to institution

(Cope & Hannah, 1975). This study focused on schools within a state system that

maintained similar degree requirements and common course classification. This may not

be enough to understand the differences of campus interaction upon the college

orientation class participants. A study that explores the influence of institutional

characteristics on college orientation classes is recommended.








3. When studying variables of retention, general institutional databases may not

be sufficient to measure critical differences in the student experience. The results of this

study may indicate that only knowing if a student has, or has not, taken the class is in

itself too broad a variable to determine what has impacted the developmental variables

under consideration. A broader range of student information would add insight to

understanding potential impact of the orientation process in facilitating the development

of academic and social community. Future research projects are recommended that study

additional retention markers, based on Tinto's theory, that can be easily incorporated into

institutional databases. For example, although it was not possible in this study (due to the

use of historical data), knowing each participant's initial major and highest expected

degree would provide a more complete view of the individuals intentions and aspirations.

4. The study was restricted by the absence of random selection and

random assignment. It is impossible to know if the student who voluntarily chooses to

takes a college orientation class is different than one who does not register for the class

their first semester. Future research of the college orientation class would be enhanced

by an experimental, longitudinal design.
Summary

In this chapter, the results of the statistical analysis of the data are discussed. The

dependent variables were (a) date of degree completion or end of continuous enrollment,

(b) cumulative grade point average at the end of each measurement period, (c) total

number of course withdrawals at the end of each measurement period, (d) total number of

course repetitions at the end of each measurement period, and (e) total number of credit

hours attained at the end of each measurement period. The independent variables were





89

(a) participation/nonparticipation in a college orientation class, (b) sex, (c) race/ethnicity.

and (d) age. Limitations of the research were considered. Implications of the results for

theory and college practice were discussed. Finally, suggestions were made for further

research.














REFERENCES


Adelman, C. (1991). Women at thirtysomething: Paradoxes of attainment.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Allen, D. (1994, May). The Iliad and the odyssey of student attrition. Paper
presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, New
Orleans, LA.

Alsalam, N. (1993). The condition of education 1993. Washington, DC: National
Center for Educational Statistics.

American College Testing Program. (1993). National dropout rates, ACT
institutional data file, 1993. Iowa City, IA: Author.

Anderson, K. (1981). Post-high school experiences and college attrition.
Sociology of Education, 54, 1-15.

Apps, J. W. (1991). The adult learner on campus: A guide for instructors and
administrators. Chicago: Follet.

Astin, A. W. (1972). College dropouts: A national profile (Vol. 7, No. 1).
Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Office of Research.

Astin, A. W. (1973). The impact of dormitory living on students. Educational
Record, 54, 204-210.

Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes
and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1982). The American freshman, 1966-1981: Some implications for
educational policy and practice. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National
Commission on Excellence in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 227 070)

Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of
priorities and practices in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.









Astin. A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A., Korn, W., & Green, K. (1987). Retaining and satisfying students.
Educational Record, 68, 36-41.

Astin, A., & Panos, R. (1969). The educational and vocational development of
college students. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Baker, R. (1986). An analysis of retention and attrition at MiraCosta College,
Del Mar, CA: MiraCosta College.

Barefoot, B. 0., & Fidler, P. P. (1996). The 1994 national survey of freshman
seminar programs: Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum. The Freshman
Year Experience Monograph Series, 20.

Beal, P. E._ & Noel, L. (1980). What works in student retention: The report of a
joint project of the American College Testing Program and the National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing Program.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 197 635)

Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal
model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.

Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of non-traditional
undergraduate student attrition. Review of Education Research, 55 485-540.

Bean, J. P., & Vesper, N. (1994, November). Gender differences in college
student satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the
Study of Higher Education, Tucson, AZ.

Belcher, M. J., Ingold, S., & Lombard, M. (1987). Addressing retention through
an orientation course: Results from a north campus study (Research Report No. 87-24).
Miami, FL: Miami-Dade Community College.

Bell, C., Jr. (1984). Grades as a predictor of attrition. Community College
Review, 12(2), 13-19.

Bers, T. H., & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students:
The influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in Higher
Education 32(5), 539-556.

Blackhurst, A. E. (1994). A comparison of student outcomes in freshman
seminar courses taught by faculty and student affairs professionals (Doctoral dissertation,
Ohio University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(10), 3103A.









Blanc, R. A., Debuhr, L. E., & Martin, D. C. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle:
The effects of supplemental instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition.
Journal of Higher Education, 54. 80-90.

Boe, J., & Jolicoeur, P. (1989). The evolution of a freshman seminar. NACADA
Journal, 9(1), 51-59.

Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (51h
ed.). New York: Longman.

Bower, L. B. (1996). Promoting new student success in the community college.
In J. N. Hankin (Ed.), The community college: Opportunity and access for America's
first-year students (pp. 11-18). Monograph Series Number 19, National Resource Center
for The Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South
Carolina.

Brawer, F. B. (1996). Retention-attrition in the nineties. ERIC Digest. Los
Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.

Breindel, M. D. (1997). Persistence of students who entered College of the
Desert. Palm Desert, CA: Institutional Research, College of the Desert.

Brophy, D. L. (1986). Follow-up study of the fall 1984 Sierra College dropouts.
Rocklin, CA: Sierra Joint Community College.

Business/Higher Education Partnership. (1997). Higher education in Florida: An
update. Tampa, FL: Author.

Cabrera, A. F. (1990). Exploring the effects of ability to pay on persistence in
college. Review of Higher Education, 13(3), 330-36.

Cabrera, A. F. (1992). The role of finances in the persistence process: A
structural model. Research in Higher Education, 33(5), 571-94.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1989). Tribal colleges:
Shaping the future of native Americans. Lawrenceville, NJ: Author.

Chapman, D. W., & Pascarella, E. T. (1983). Predictors of academic and social
integration of college students. Research in Higher Education, 19(3), 295-322.

Chickering, A. W. (1974). Commuters versus resident students: Overcoming
educational inequities of living off campus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1982). The American community college. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.









Coil, K. M., & VonSeggern, D. J. (1991). Community college retention: Some
procedural and programmatic suggestions. Laramie WY.: University of Wyoming.

Cope, R. G. (1978). Why students stay, why they leave. New Directions for
Student Services, 3 1-11.

Cope, R. G., & Hannah, W. (1975). Revolving college doors. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.

Craig, K. L. (1994). Student retention and academic performance: Relationship to
a freshman seminar/student success course (Doctoral dissertation, The University of
Southern Mississippi, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(3), 0836A.

Crook, D., & Lavin, D (1989, April). The community college effect revisited: The
long-term impact of community college entry on B.A. attainment. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

Cuseo, J. B. (1991). The freshman orientation seminar: A research-based
rationale for its value, delivery, and content. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for
the Freshman Year Experience, University of South Carolina.

Daniels, G. (1990, October). Student intention and retention in a community
college setting. Paper presented at the North East Association for Institutional Research,
Albany, NY.

Davis-Underwood. M., & Lee, J. A. (1994). An evaluation of the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte freshman seminar. Journal of College Student Development,
35, 491-492.

Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges. (1997). Report for
the Florida community college system: The fact book. Tallahassee: Division of
Community Colleges, Bureau of Research and Information System.

Dey, E., Astin, A., & Korn, W. (1991). The American freshman: Twenty five
year trends. Los Angeles. CA: Cooperative Institutional Research Program.

DiCarlo, R. D. (1980). Greenfield Community College: A follow-up survey
(September 1979 and September 1980) and study of the attrition at Greenfield
Community College. Greenfield, MA: Greenfield Community College.

Dougherty, K. (1987). The effects of community colleges: Aid or hindrance to
socioeconomic attainment? Sociology of Education, 60, 86-103.

Dougherty, K. (1992). Community colleges and baccalaureate attainment.
Journal of Higher Education, 63, 188-214.




Full Text
THE IMPACT OF ATTENDING A COLLEGE ORIENTATION CLASS ON
RETENTION, PERSISTENCE, AND TIME TO DEGREE COMPLETION
OF FIRST TIME COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS
By
JAMES ARTHUR WATSON
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1999

DEDICATION
This project is dedicated with love to my mother,
Myra Jean Watson,
and to the memory of my late father,
Joe Andrews Watson.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank all of the members of my committee for their support.
Special thanks are due to Dr. Gerardo Gonzalez, chairperson, for his guidance in this
project and to Dr. David Miller for his assistance with the data analysis. Dr. Mar}7
Howard-Hamiliton and Dr. Phyllis Meek both provided important comments and
suggestions.
I want to acknowledge the help of Dr. Patricia Windham at the Florida State
Board of Community Colleges. My gratitude goes to Brian Walsh who has assisted me
throughout this project. I also wish to thank Dr. Patricia Grunder at Santa Fe Community
College, and to Dr. John Grebb and Dr. Max Lombard at Miami-Dade Community
College.
Thanks also are due to all of those friends and colleagues who have helped and
supported me in this endeavor. I want to recognize Lynne Barolet-Fogarty. Dr. Elizabeth
Broughton, Myma Cabrera-Rivero, Lynn Sullivan, Dr. David Hellmich, Dr. Carlos
Hernandez, Dr. Barbara Keener. Dr. Caroline Pace, Dr. Sharon Pate, and Dr. Laura Perry.
I would also like to recognize the influence of my sister, Jane Watson, and my niece. Ana
Watson, on my life.
Finally, and most important of all, it is with joy that I acknowledge my partner,
Dr. Andres Nazario, for his unwavering love, assistance, and support throughout this long
iii
journey.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii
ABSTRACT vi
CHAPTERS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Theoretical Framework 2
Statement of the Problem 7
Need for the Study 9
Purpose of the Study 11
Research Questions 12
Definition of Terms 13
Organization of the Study 13
2 REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 15
General Attrition/Retention Studies 15
Variables Associated with Attrition and Retention 17
Community College/4-Year Institution 25
Studies Addressing Tinto’s Variables of Attrition/Retention 28
Intention and Commitment 28
External Obligations/Family and Financial 41
Work 43
College Orientation Course Studies 46
Adjustment and Difficulty 51
Incongruence and Isolation 55
Summary 56
3 METHODOLOGY 57
Chapter Organization 57
Research Design 57
Research Questions 58
Participants 59
Research Procedure 60
Data Collection and Analysis 60
Summary 61
IV

4 RESULTS 62
5 DISCUSSION 78
Purpose Overview 78
Discussion of Results 78
Research Question 1 78
Research Question 2 79
Research Question 3 79
Research Question 4 80
Research Question 5 80
Research Question 6 81
Limitations 82
Implications of the Findings and Recommendations 83
Implications for Theory 83
Implications for College 85
Recommendations for Future Research 87
Summary 88
REFERENCES 90
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 106
v

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
THE IMPACT OF ATTENDING A COLLEGE ORIENTATION CLASS ON
RETENTION, PERSISTENCE. AND TIME TO DEGREE COMPLETION
OF FIRST TIME COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS
By
James Arthur Watson
December 1999
Chairperson: Gerardo M. Gonzalez
Major Department: Counselor Education
The purpose of this research was to study the relationship between taking a
community college orientation class during the first term and the retention, persistence,
and time to degree completion of first time community college students.
A computer search of the historical data base from four academic institutions in
Florida generated a sample of 1.400 students who had enrolled for the first time in
college. All participants were academically prepared for college level work. The
academic performance and persistence of students who had completed a college
orientation class during their first term was compared to students that did not take a
college orientation class during their first term in college. Measurements were taken at
the end of the first term and at the end of the first, second, third, and fourth years. An
analysis of variance model was utilized to address the research questions.
vi

Results of the statistical analysis revealed that that taking a college orientation
class the first term at a community college does not have an affect on retention, course
withdrawal patterns, grade point averages, course repetitions patterns, and the total
number of credit hours at time of graduation. A discussion of the limitations of the
project, implications of the findings, and recommendations for further research was
presented.
Vll

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Student retention in the community college remains a critical issue in higher
education. Statistics show that approximately 50% of freshmen enrolled in higher
education drop out before completing their programs (Brawer, 1996). This number has
remained fairly stable since Summerskill's (1962) early study of retention. Over half of
students entering higher education start in a community college. Enrollment in
community colleges rose from 500.00 students in 1960 to over 5.5 million in 1991
(Alsalam, 1993). Researchers indicated that the dropout rate tends to be higher for
community colleges than for 4-year colleges and universities (Bean & Metzner. 1985;
Dougherty, 1994; El-Khawas, 1988; Jones, 1988; Tinto, 1993). Cope and Hannah (1975)
indicated that approximately 50% of community college students remain in school after
their first year. Of those who remain, only 50% go on to complete an associate degree.
Many studies indicate that a student's decision to drop out of higher education is
usually made during the freshman year (Bean, 1980; Dunphy. Miller. Woodruff. &
Nelson, 1987; Fetters, 1977; Pantages & Creedon. 1977: Rootman. 1972). Furthermore,
the majority of students make their decision to leave school during the first 6 weeks of the
freshman year (Blanc, DeBuhr, & Martin, 1983; Gardner, 1989; Levitz & Noel. 1989;
Noel, 1985; Zarvel et al., 1991). These sequences appear to imply specific patterns of
1

student departure. Finding appropriate strategies to assist community college students in
the completion of their educational goals continues to be a priority.
College persistence is affected, to a great degree, by the process of interactions
between the students and the institution. A substantial body of research suggests that
integration into the social and academic systems of the college or university is essential to
academic success and achievement (Astin, 1977, 1993; Halpin. 1990). Yet. how students
achieve integration is not clear (Tinto, 1987).
Theoretical Framework
Van Gennep (1960) studied the movement of individuals from membership in one
group to membership in another. His work in social anthropology was concerned with.
societal revitalization and social stability during times of change. He identified three
stages in this process: separation, transition, and incorporation. Van Gennep theorized
that formal rituals and ceremonies help incorporate persons into a new community by
providing rites of passage. The theoretical work of Tinto (1993) acknowledges this
transition process and focuses upon the role of student integration into college life. One
of the principal transitions for college students involves moving from their home
community to the campus community. Tinto views colleges and universities as small
societies made up of distinct academic and social components. For students to become
incorporated and to establish membership within that society, they need to become
integrated into the social and academic systems that exist on campus (Tinto, 1993).
Spady (1970) was the first to apply Durkheim’s (1951) theory of community' and
suicide to the subject of educational persistence. Building upon Spady's work. Tinto

developed a theory of student departure from higher education (Tinto, 1975). Durkheim
suggested that suicide may result when an individual is unable to integrate and establish
membership within a society. Tinto proposed that this model is analogous to student
departure from education. Tinto (1988) maintained that during the freshman year
students may feel a sense of normlessness. He stated that "having given up the norms
and beliefs of past associations and not yet having adopted those appropriate to
membership in a new community, the individual is left in a state of at least temporary
anomie" (pp. 442-443). Integration into a campus community may also be more difficult
for students whose families, community, and/or schools had very different norms and
patterns of behavior than that of the new college (Chapman & Pascarella. 1983: Smith
1982; Tinto 1986, 1993).
Tinto (1993) theorized that students enter a college or university with varying
patterns of personal, familial, and academic characteristics and skills. These attributes
help to set boundaries of individual attainment and color the character of individual
experience within the institution. These patterns include the student's initial disposition
and intentions regarding college attendance and his/her personal goals. On the individual
level, the attributes of intention and commitment represent what Tinto refers to as
primary roots of departure. Intention refers to a student's value and willingness to work
for degree attainment. Researchers have observed that students who have definite or
advanced degree aspirations were more likely to persist than those with lower or
undetermined degree goals (Astin 1975, Lenning, Beal, & Sauer, 1980; Tinto, 1975, 1986,
1993). Commitment refers to both the individual's educational/occupational goals and to

4
his/her goal of studying at a specific school. Students with identified career goals and a
sense of purpose are more likely to persist in college (Boe & Jolicoeur, 1989; Gordon,
1989; Kester, 1980; Raimst, 1981). In 2-year colleges, goal commitment seems to have a
stronger effect on retention than does institutional commitment (Chapman & Pascarella.
1983; Pascarella & Chapman. 1983b).
The student's intention and commitment become modified and reformed on a
continuing basis through a series of interactions between the individual and the academic
and social systems of the school. Tinto (1987) suggested that once a student enters an
institution, experiences occur within the academic and social systems that involve
interactions with faculty, staff, and other students. If those interactions are positive and
the student becomes engaged with those systems, then the student's goals and his/her
institutional commitment will be strengthened. Satisfying and rewarding encounters with
the formal and informal academic and social systems are presumed to lead to greater
integration and to student retention. If the experiences are negative and the student fails
to become integrated within the institution, the student will be more likely to withdraw.
A wide variety of experiences and interactions with the institution will influence
student integration. Tinto (1993) identified four significant areas of individual experiences
with the institution that impact student departure. Tinto classified these clusters as
adjustment, difficulty, incongruence, and isolation. The experiential outcomes of these
interactions will reshape and modify the student's intentions and commitments.
External forces that influence interaction with the institution include outside
obligations and personal finances. Obligations refer to student responsibilities to family

5
and work, whereas finances refer to the process that subsidize college attendance.
External factors have been found to have a significant influence on student's decision to
drop out at commuter institutions (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Tinto 1993).
Responding to research that had been conducted with students from commuter
and 2-year institutions, Tinto (1993) revised his original model of college student
departure. Tinto addressed the relatively greater influence of academic integration than
social integration for commuting students (Fox, 1986; Pascarella & Chapman. 1983b;
Pascarella & Wolfe, 1985; Tinto. 1987, 1993). This emphasizes that commuter students'
involvement with the campus will be predominantly academically oriented contact.
Chickering (1974) suggested that, due to the nature of commuter institutions, commuter
students were less involved in extracurricular activities than their residential counterparts.
In addition. Tinto considered the influence of external commitments for community
college students. Tinto's revised model also includes intentions and external commitments
as influencing, and being influenced by, initial and later goal and institutional
commitments.
Institutions of higher education have few, if any, formal rituals or ceremonies to
help incorporate students into their social and academic systems. Orientation programs
provide a commencement ceremony that introduces the student to the new educational
community. The goals of orienting students to the resources of the institution and
facilitating their adaptation to the collegiate community has been the primary purpose of
orientation programs. Orientation programs are believed to influence students' attitudes
about higher education and help form the relationship between students and their

6
institution (Martin & Dixon. 1989). Tinto (1987) referred to orientation programs as "the
beginnings of integration" (p. 146).
The college orientation class, when compared with other forms of orientation
processes, more fully integrates the student into the social and academic systems of
college (Astin, 1993). The primary goal of an orientation class is to promote retention
through a student's integration into the academic and social systems of the institution
(Gardner, 1986).
The college orientation class is designed to provide students with an overview of
school and services available, develop their academic skills, and to establish connections
to both the academic and social community on campus. Pascarella. Terenzini. and Wolfe
(1986) argued that students exposed to a freshman orientation course will be somewhat
more successfully integrated into the academic and social system during the first year.
They indicated that greater integration produced by an orientation course would lead to
increased commitment and to a lower likelihood of voluntary withdrawal from the
institution.
Cuseo's (1991) review of the literature related to college orientation classes led to
his classification of seven specific curriculum content areas. The areas common to most
classes include (a) the meaning, value and expectations of a liberal arts education, (b) self-
concept and self-esteem, (c) problem solving and decision making: selection of a college
major and a future career, (d) goal setting and motivation, (e) learning skills and strategies,
(f) self-management: managing time and stress, and (g) interpersonal relations. Each of
these subject areas respond to one of the four clusters of individual experience with the

institution that Tinto suggests shapes the individual's relationship with the college. The
mentoring nature of the student/faculty relationship, plus the opportunity to interact in
the course, allows students to build relationships within an academic setting during their
first term.
Creating positive interactions is critical on the community college campus. The
community college has a special need to connect the student with the institution. A
student may spend less time at school than he/she does with work and satisfying family
obligations. Without the programming and developmental opportunities provided by a
residential campus environment, community colleges must develop approaches to
promote success and persistence for commuter student. Glass and Garrett (1995) found
that completion of an orientation program in community college during the first term of
enrollment promotes and improves student performance regardless of age, gender, race,
major, entrance exam scores, or employment status.
Statement of the Problem
The community college is faced with new conditions that could limit many
students' ability to succeed. Two related situations warrant close attention. The first is
the growing number of individuals entering higher education at a rapid rate. The second is
changes in college policy, influenced by new budgeting procedures and fiscal guidelines,
and its impact upon student development processes.
The state of Florida, as well as the rest of the nation, is experiencing a rising wave
of student enrollment that is not expected to peak until the end of the next decade. High
school graduations in the state of Florida are expected to grow from 89, 397 in 1996 to

8
approximately 134, 766 in the year 2008 (Business/ Higher Education Partnership. 1997).
As these students seek to continue their education, college and university systems will be
stressed to maintain current levels of performance. As it was the case for their parents,
the community college will remain the primary point of entry7 into higher education for
most of the new "baby boom echo" students. Community college administration will
need to find more effective and efficient ways of servicing this growing population. A
potential problem exists, however, in the possibility7 of diluting services to accommodate
larger numbers of students.
The second challenge has evolved from recent changes in the funding procedures
for higher education. The state of Florida has adopted new accountability measures that
community colleges must employ to evaluate their educational effectiveness (Florida
Community College System. 1993). Community colleges are now directed to measure
specific information regarding enrollment, persistence, and completion of degree
programs. Budgeting procedures, including monetary reward, will focus on student
program completion. Performance-based budgeting places an emphasis on the retention
and degree completion of students. Student success is assessed by quantitative
outcome measures. Institutions that can address legislative concerns with data will be
better able to obtain the means to serve various student populations (Grunder &
Hellmich, 1996).
Students who have not developed an initial educational focus may be penalized or
blocked from their goals. Current Florida legislation (Florida Statute 239.117, 1995a;
Florida Statute 240.115, 1995b; Florida Statute 239.249, 1996) is changing institutional

9
policy regarding course withdrawal, grade forgiveness, and additional tuition charges for
course repetitions and excess hours beyond degree requirement. These changes are
designed to make the educational delivery system more efficient. The time available for
students to pursue self-discovery and the clarification of educational and life goals will be
limited by the new policies. Problems are created when changes in policy create
roadblocks for student progress.
College interventions that provide students with early survival strategies can help
them to persist and succeed in college. Programs that promote student success also
facilitate the economical distribution of educational resources to a larger number of
students. College orientation classes can enhance student retention, academic
performance, and efficient degree completion.
Need for Study
Many studies have indicated a positive association between students taking a
college orientation course and their retention from freshman to sophomore status within
4-year institutions. Noel. Levitz. and Saluri (1985), however, noted that the study of
retention at the community college has been significantly less than that at the 4-vear
institution. There is a need to look closer at retention efforts at the community college.
Most studies of colleges' orientation classes focus on the first year impact of the
course, but the long-term impact is not known. Napoli (1996) found that the impact of
social integration is greatest for term-to-term persistence, yet diminishes over time.
Belcher, Ingold, and Lombard (1987) discovered that the impact of a college orientation
class on GPA and the course's positive influence for nontraditional students diminishes

10
over time. It is not clear if the impact of initial retention success will continue through to
degree completion. Woodward's (1982) study of seminar programs at some selected
institutions found different results. He found college orientation classes to lack impact on
retention and felt it was due, in part, to the short duration of many studies. Also,
retention had been calculated at the beginning of the first semester rather than at the
beginning of sophomore year. He advocated that a 2-to-5-year longitudinal study was
necessary to determine real impact on retention and program goals. Tinto (1993) also
called for longitudinal studies of all retention efforts.
There is little information about the impact of college orientation classes upon the
persistence of students viewed as likely to succeed in college, and it is not clear the extent
to which college orientation classes at the community college benefit students with poor
academic skills. It is not known, therefore, if integration strategies are less effective in
promoting persistence for students academically prepared for college. Reinertson (1986)
and Webb (1988) stated that academic ability is a significant variable to understanding
retention. Astin (1972, 1985) and Moline (1987) found the level of academic ability, as
indicated by college admission test scores, to be a strong predictor of persistence.
Although dropouts scored lower on standardized tests designed to measure ability than
did persisters (Cohen & Brawer, 1982; DiCarlo, 1980). Tinto (1987) stated that less than
15% of all student departures results from academic dismissal. By holding academic
ability constant, a better understanding of the impact of integration strategies at the
community college can be achieved. There is a need to determine if a college orientation
class benefits students viewed as academically prepared for college.

11
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to explore whether there is a significant
relationship between taking a community college orientation course during the first term
and the retention, persistence, and time to degree completion of students. This study
investigated if an orientation course has value as a retention strategy for the academically
prepared student entering the community college. An examination was made of whether
an orientation class impacts retention, the student's GPA over the long term, and the total
number of credit hours required to complete the degree.
The study retrospectively compared the progress of two populations over the
period of 4 years. A group of female and male students that has completed an orientation
class during their first term in college was examined against a group that has not taken a
similar course. Only students classified as academically prepared for college were
included in the study. For the purpose of this investigation, college academic readiness is
considered exempting participation in college preparatory classes according to state of
Florida standards for the fall of 1991.
To help understand institutional effect, subjects were chosen from four different
community colleges. Due to the inability to manipulate the student population's variables
in a "real world" environment, an ex post facto design was used in this research (Smith &
Glass, 1987). Data for the study were gathered through a computer search of the
historical database files at each institution covering the 4-year period. This study
investigated the variable of attending a college orientation class as it relates to college
retention and time to completion for community college students.

Research Questions
1. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation
class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in
retention after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?
2. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation
class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in
number of class withdrawals after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?
3. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation
class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in GPA
after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?
4. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation
class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in total
number of courses repeated after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?
5. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation
class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in total
number of credit hours at time of graduation?
6. Do age, gender, and race interact with taking a college orientation course (in
their first term) to affect retention, course withdrawal, GPA, courses repeated, and
number of credit hours taken at time of graduation?

Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, the following definitions were used:
Academically prepared students are all students who are eligible to enter the
community college and do not test into college preparatory' classes according to state
standards for the fall of 1991.
Attrition is the loss in student population from higher education in the normal
course of events.
College orientation class is a college level course that provides an opportunity for
students to develop effective strategies and techniques to succeed in college. The class
also provides the opportunities to practice these newly acquired skills in a supportive
environment while adjusting to the academic and social expectations of college life.
Course repetition is additional registrations for the same class beyond the initial
attempt.
Persistence is academic involvement that extends steadily without interruption
over a lasting period of time.
Retention is maintaining a fixed state of enrollment until degree completion.
Withdrawal from class is the removal of a student from a class prior to the end of
the term.
Organization of the Study
The remainder of this study is organized into four chapters. Chapter 2 presents a
review of the literature on community college retention as it relates to college orientation
classes. Chapter 3 contains a description of the methodology and research design of the

14
study. In Chapter 4 the results for each of the dependent variables are reported. The
discussion of the results, the limitations of the study, implications of the findings and
recommendation for future research, and conclusion are discussed in Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter presents a review of the literature concerning student attrition and
retention in higher education. It is organized as follows: (a) a brief description of
attrition/retention studies, (b) a discussion of some significant variables associated with
retention, (c) an overview of studies focusing upon Tinto's variables of attrition/
retention, and (d) a review of college orientation class studies.
General Attrition/Retention Studies
Attrition in higher education is the loss of students from the institution during
the normal course of their program. Retention efforts attempt to reduce the size of this
loss and retain a greater number of students until their educational goals have been met.
Summerskill (1962) reviewed 35 attrition studies conducted over a 40-year period from
1914 to 1953. His findings showed that approximately half of the students first
matriculated in college were not enrolled by the end of 4 years. In addition, he
documented that nearly 31 % of students withdrew during or at the end of the first year
and that the graduation rate at the end of 4 years wras just below 40%. According to
Summerskill, the percentage of students leaving college over a 4-year period did not
change significantly in the 4 decades studied. Ten years later. Cope and Hannah (1975)
observed that the national attrition rate had continued to be high for over half a century
and seemed to change little over time.
15

16
Raimst's (1981) summarized national statistics relating to retention and attrition
from all types of higher education institutions. His findings revealed that
approximately 35% to 40% of entering college students graduated with bachelor's
degrees within 4 years from the initial date of entry, that 45% to 60% graduated form
some college within 4 years, and that anywhere from 10% to 35% would never receive a
college degree. Similarly, Tinto (1987) stated that in 1986 approximately 2.8 million
students began college for the first time. He estimated that 1.6 million of these students
would leave their first institution without receiving a degree, and approximately three-
quarters of these students who departed from their initial institution would leave the
higher education system without earning any type of college degree.
Smith (1996) reported that among students who began their postsecondary
education at a community college in 1989-90, 37% completed a degree at some
institution by 1994. Of these students. 22% completed a certificate or an associate's
degree at their first institution. Those who did not complete an award at their first
institution spent a substantial amount of time there-an average of 14 months of
enrollment. Nineteen percent of 1989-90 community college beginners transferred to a
public 4-year institution, and 3% transferred to a private 4-year institution. Of those
who transferred to a 4-year institution. 38% completed an associate's degree before
transferring. By 1994, 26% of those who transferred to 4-year institutions had
completed a bachelor's degree, and 47% were still enrolled at a 4-year institution (Smith.
1996).

17
Cope (1978). Cope and Hannah (1975), Hackman and Dysinger (1970). and
Tinto (1975, 1985) believed that researchers have had a tendency to overestimate the
actual attrition problem as a result of definitional problems. Eckland (1964) stated that
early studies of attrition rates have been exaggerated due primarily to the failure of these
studies to allow for the prolonged nature of academic career and for the dropouts who
came back or transferred to other institutions. It is not unusual for students to
discontinue temporarily their college studies for a semester, an entire year, or more.
Because the loss is temporary in such cases, Rugg (1983) suggested that these students
should be labeled stopouts to distinguish them from dropouts whose discontinued
enrollment is considered permanent. When this distinction is overlooked, attrition
figures can be significantly inflated. Pantages and Creedon (1978) noted a beginning
trend in the literature to use multiple categories in classifying dropouts and non¬
dropouts to allow finer discrimination between categories and clearer interpretation of
results. Yet. Astin (1972) encouraged the recognition that there can never be a wholly
satisfactory definition of the term dropout until all students either obtain their degrees
or die without obtaining a degree.
Variables Associated with Attrition and Retention
Several variables significant to this study merit individual review. The variables
of gender, race/ethnicity, and age are isolated for separate investigation. Differences
between the impact of attendance at a community college versus the initial attendance at
a 4-year institution is also explored to help understand what unique influences are
provided by each institution.

18
Gender. Studies have shown mixed results when addressing the influence of
gender upon attrition. Gender has been reported to have either a negative or neutral
impact upon academic progress.
Tinto (1975) found that women drop out from higher education more frequently
than men. Relating persistence to gender and grades. Astin's early research (1972)
showed that women earn higher grades than men in high school and in college. Although
he does not account for the phenomenon, he also found that women are more likely to
drop out of college after the freshman year than men in spite of superior academic
performance. Studies by Brophy (1986) and Ramaker (1987) concluded that the
typical 2-year college dropout was likely to be female, adding to the positing that
women are at greater risk of leaving college prematurely.
A study at Virginia's Mountain Empire Community College attempted to
determine the reasons behind an unusually high rate of student attrition. The study was
undertaken by reviewing withdrawal forms and conducting a telephone survey with a
representative sample of students. Results indicated that more females than males
withdrew from all classes before the end of the semester (Sydow & Sandel. 1996). In
contrast, other studies show attrition being higher for men. Kester in a 1980 report
stated that gender is one of the two most important determining variables relating to
persistence. His findings reveal that women are more likely to complete undergraduate
degrees in 4 years. Nespoli and Radcliffe (1983) and Adelman (1991) concluded that
females at community colleges were more likely to persist in their studies than males.

19
Other studies, however, indicate little difference in rates of attrition between the
sexes. Pantages and Creedon (1978) concluded that there was strong evidence that sex
was not a significant variable in determining persistence or attrition. Bean's (1980)
findings showed little evidence that men and women differ significantly in persistence
patterns. In a four-semester study at Atlantic Community' College to determine which
factors affected retention. Wall (1996) found that gender and ethnicity variables were
not related to retention.
Race/ethnicity. The 2-year college student population reflects the diversity of
race and culture found in the institution's community’. The 2-year college population
often includes a large percentage of minority students. The clustering of minority
students in 2-year institutions may be attributed to a number of factors, including
proximity, low cost, the open access policy, and social accessibility of community
colleges. Bower (1996) stated that the presence of large numbers of minority students
in community colleges makes the issue of minority students' achievement an important
issue for these institutions. Bower pointed out that when they enter the community
college, many minority freshmen will also bring with them one or more academic "at-
risk" characteristics. Jones and Watson (1990) and Smedley. Myers, and Harrell (1993)
indicated that these often include poor academic background, low self-concept, and
being a first-generation student in college.
Considering that the vast majority of community college students are White,
studies have found a disproportionate percentage of dropouts to be from minorities,
especially African Americans. Hispanics. and American Indians (Baker. 1986; Gold,

20
1981; Johnston, 1982). Mingle (1987) indicated that only 1 in 7 African Americans and
1 in 10 Hispanics who enroll in college after high school will achieve senior status in 4
years. The attrition rate for certain minority groups is higher than the national average
for all students.
Astin (1972) found that African American students had somewhat lower
persistence rates than non-African Americans but suggested that the relatively high
attrition rates of these students at 4-year colleges or universities were entirely
attributable to their relatively low high school grades and ability test scores. He added
that, in actuality, African American students were less likely to drop out than were
non-African American's when abilities and past achievements were comparable. In a
follow-up study, Astin (1973) held constant the academic factors in students*
backgrounds (e.g., high school rank and scholastic aptitude test scores) and found no
significant differences for students who were African American, Asian, or American
Indian.
Ramaker (1987) also found no significant difference in persistence for minority
students when observing student departure at the end of each academic term. If one
looks at withdrawal at different points in time over the length of the term, different
departure patterns appear. Ramaker discovered students leaving during the midpoint of
the term to be significantly more likely to be members of minority groups.
A survey of first time students entering Montgomery College. Maryland, in fall
1990 was conducted to collect data on student attitudes, enrollment behavior, and
educational goals. It was part of a study to identify factors related to student success

21
and nonsuccess, particularly among African American students. Previous studies at the
school have revealed that African American students enrolled part-time have the lowest
semester-to-semester retention rates (less than 50%), while full-time African American
students have a retention rate of more than 75%. In this study surveys were returned
by 1,261 first-time students for a 46% response rate. Findings included information
that while African American students more frequently intended to earn a degree as
compared to other students, they more often attended on a part-time basis (77%).
Also, African American students more frequently reported having concerns about
financing their education than other groups (Lanni, 1992).
A study by Walker (1988) surveyed strategies used by 88 community colleges
in Arizona, California. New Mexico, and Texas to meet educational needs of Hispanic
students and the relationship between these strategies and Hispanic student retention
rate. Questionnaires were sent to southwestern community colleges requesting
information on retention rates and strategies in effect. An analysis of retention rates
showed that retention was improved by financial aid. career counseling into selective
programs, bilingual education. ESL classes, and Hispanic studies classes (Walker.
1988).
A focus group study of influences of first-time Hispanic community college
students was conduced by Jalomo (1995). Despite the 90% growth of Hispanic
student enrollment between 1980 and 1991, colleges are not retaining these students.
Student-related factors influencing attrition include poverty, unemployment, social class
origins, inadequate academic preparation, weak study habits, self-doubt, low self-

22
esteem, and cultural separation. Jalomo's study indicated student perceptions about
learning ability are influenced by previous academic achievement and past interactions
with faculty and peers, both in and out of class.
Overall, at least 60% of White students who enter college obtain a degree, but
less than one-third of the American Indian college students graduate (Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1989). Guyette and Heth (1983)
*
estimated the dropout rate fof American Indians to be as high as 80%. Wells (1989)
indicated that nearly three out of four American Indian college students fail to earn
degrees because of poor academic preparation, inadequate financial aid, or personal
problems.
A factor contributing to the high attrition rate of students of color is their
expectations of higher education. Students of color are generally first-generation college
students and have not had the advantage of hearing their parents mention what college
was like for them (Quevedo-Carcia, 1987). Students of color enter their first year of
college with expectations that courses and examinations will resemble their experiences
from high school. Ross (1990) pointed out that many differences between high school
and college are not readily apparent to first-generation college students. Academic
familiarity, realistic self-appraisal, and positive self-concept have been related to
persistence for African American students (Tracey & Sedlacek. 1985).
Age. Age as a variable reflects conflicting reports in the literature. Astin's
(1975) work supports the notion that age is related to attrition and that older students
are less likely to persist. The rate of degree completion for adult students in

2
undergraduate degree programs is low when compared with traditional students (Bean &
Metzner, 1985). Notwithstanding. Naretto (1995) stated that the research on retention
of adult students in higher education has been scattered and is usually institution-
specific.
Studies by Windham (1994) and Price (1993) indicated persisters at the
community college to be younger students and nonpersisters to be older students.
Sydow and Sandel (1996) found students between the ages of 20 and 25 were 1.77
times more likely to withdraw than students 19 or younger. Mohammadi, (1994) in a
study of 3.019 students at Patrick Henry Community College in Virginia found attrition
rates after 1 year to be higher for those in the age ranges of 23-35 and 45-50.
Feldman (1993) studied pre-enrollment variables as predictors of 1-year
retention. When observing 1.140 first-time community college students. Feldman
found the risk of dropping out was associated with young students between 20-24
years old. lower high school grade point average, part-time attendance, and being a
member of an ethnic minority other than Asian.
Staman (1980). Malin. Bray, Dougherty, and Skinner (1980). and Haggerty
(1985) found external factors to be an important reason for adult nonpersistence and
encouraged consideration of such influences in future studies and models for adult
student retention. Swift (1987) reviewed a series of studies on the retention of adult
students and found that not all of the researchers supported the same findings. The
studies were primarily related to the characteristics of persisters and nonpersisters; he
cn

24
did note, however, a tendency for adult persisters to be enrolled full time and for
external influences to be the usual cause for nonpersistence.
Bean and Metzner's (1985) theoretical model of adult student attrition
contended that external environmental variables exert more influence than academic
variables on degree completion. Yet, a study conducted by Metzner and Bean in 1987
did not support the hypothesis that external environmental variables exert more
influence than social integration on adult students' decision to persist, or not persist, to
degree completion.
In a study by Naretto (1995) of persistence of adult students at 4-year
institutions, the only significant difference in demographic data was GPA—3.39 for
completers and 3.14 for noncompleters. This supports the concept that adult students,
in general, are good students (Apps, 1991; Ross, 1989). In this study a greater number
of nonpersisters were part-time students. Also, nonpersisters were employed for
longer hours than persisters. It appears from this study that membership in a
supportive community is an important factor in explaining the persistence of adult
students to degree completion. The Bean/Metzner (1985) concept that because adult
students are usually commuters they are not subject to the socializing influences of the
college environment is not supported by this study. For persisters, negative
experiences and influences were balanced out by positive expressions of support and
encouragement. This study suggests that socialization, or connection with the campus
community, is very important to adult students.

25
Community College/4-Year Institution
Although the role and function of the community college at times may appear on
the surface as being similar to the first 2 years of the 4-year schools, the community
college possesses unique characteristics. Observing outcome measures from research
helps to establish a base upon which to understand fundamental differences.
When important student background differences (grade point average, entry'
tests, socioeconomic status) are held constant, students who initially enroll in 2-year
colleges seeking a bachelor's degree are significantly less likely to complete their
bachelor's degree in the same period of time as their counterparts wrho initially enroll in
a 4-year college or university (Crook & Lavin. 1989; Dougherty , 1987. 1992: Hilton &
Schrader. 1986: Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, Temple & Polk, 1986). In addition,
freshman-to-sophomore attrition at public 2-year colleges is appreciably higher than at
all other types of higher education institutions (American College Testing Program.
1993).
In one public educational system, first-year retention of first-time full-time
students by institution, race, and admission status indicated that system-wide 4-year
colleges had a 71.1% and 2-year colleges a 58.2% retention rate. Multiple-year
retention revealed a fall 1984 through fall 1993 retention rate of 56.4% for 4-year
institutions and 42% for 2-year institutions (University System of Georgia. 1994).
Gates and Creamer (1984) cited a 50% attrition rate for community colleges and
stated that some researchers "emphasize that two-year colleges attract students with
attributes associated with attrition or non-persistence" (p. 39). However, they stated

26
that the determinants of retention/attrition are not shaped by the U pe of students
enrolled in 2-year colleges but are influenced significantly by institutional conditions
such as programs, policies, organizational patterns, and interactive climate after student
matriculation. A study of the possible influence of a college's structure and organization
on students’ effective development suggest that students' academic and social integration
tend to mediate the influences of structural characteristics (Pascarella, 1985a). Astin.
Korn, and Green (1987) cautioned that comparing rates from different types of
institutions can be very misleading.
Pascarella and associates (Pascarella et al„ 1994b) described a study comparing
the relative benefits of initial attendance at a 2- or 4-year college, focusing specifically
on freshman-year changes in enjoyment of diversity and intellectual challenge, learning
for self-understanding, internal locus of attribution for academic success, and preference
for higher order cognitive activities. The study compared a population of community
college students to a population of commuter students at a large 4-vear research
institution. There were no statistically significant differences found between 2- and 4-
year college students on any of four scales measuring end-of-freshman year orientation
toward learning. In addition, the institutional parity in first-year impacts appeared to
be general rather than conditional.
Looking at the long-term impact of initial attendance at either a community
college or a 4-year institution. Whitaker and Pascarella (1994) studied data from the
National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972. They observed 3,171
individuals 13-14 years after high school graduation and found that when educational

27
attainment is held constant, students initially enrolling in a 2-year vs. 4-vear colleges are
not significantly disadvantaged in occupational and economic attainments (Whitaker &
Pascarella, 1994).
Although there are exceptions within the community college environment,
residential living typically is an experience of the 4-year or university campus. The
influences of residential versus the commuter students' experience parallels that of
attending a 4-year or 2-year institution. Thompson (1993) examined influence of on-
campus residence as compared with off-campus residence of first-year students.
Findings from 5,414 students revealed that progress and retention were significantly
higher for on-campus students regardless of race, gender, or admission type
(Thompson. 1993).
Pascarella (1985b) proposed a causal model to examine the impact of resident
living on student development. He tested the model with 4.191 college students.
Results indicated that the influence of on-campus living on intellectual and social self-
concept is indirect and mediated through interactions with faculty and peers (Pascarella.
1985b).
Looking at issues regarding the commuter experience. Pascarella and associates
(Pascarella et al.. 1993) tested the hypothesis that living on campus fostered cognitive
growth. They estimated relative first-year gains in reading comprehension,
mathematical reasoning and critical thinking of residents and commuter first-year college
students at a large urban university. Controlling for precollege cognitive level, academic
motivation, age, work responsibility, and extent of enrollment, resident students had

28
significantly larger first-year gains in critical thinking than did commuters. The
differences between resident and commuter on reading and mathematics gains were small
and nonsignificant. These findings suggest that the cognitive impact of residential living
is selective rather than global. The gains in critical thinking, rather than mathematics and
reading, indicate that residential living may be most influential in fostering cognitive
growth in areas that are not linked to specific course of curricular experiences. The
study suggested general cognitive growth during college is fostered not only by
coursework and academic involvement but also by social and intellectual interaction
with peers and faculty.
Studies Addressing Tinto's Variables of Attrition/Retention
Tinto (1993) theorized that a student enters higher education with varying
patterns of personal, familial, and academic characteristics. These personal dispositions
are represented by what Tinto refers to as a student’s intention and commitment. A
student's intentions and commitments are shaped though individual experience within
the institution. How these interactions reflect the individual's experience will determine
if the student persists in college. Tinto identified four clusters of student experience
that will shape the outcome of college persistence: adjustment, difficulty, incongruence,
and isolation. Obligations and finances are forces outside the institution that affect the
student's decision to persist or drop out of the educational system.
Intention and Commitment
Tinto (1993) recognized that a student's willingness to work toward the
attainment of his or her goal is a significant part of the process of persistence in higher

29
education. Tinto views an individual's intentions regarding participation in higher
education as an important indicator of the probability of degree completion. A number
of studies have found that students who had definite or advanced degree aspirations
were more likely to persist than students who had lower or undetermined degree goals
(Astin. 1975. Lenning. Beal, & Sauer, 1980; MacMillian & Kester. 1973; Tinto. 1975).
The impact of intentions can be seen in a study conducted by Waggener and
Smith (1993) at Southeastern Louisiana University at Hammond with 2. 262 new and
transfer freshman applicants who attended orientation in 1989. A Supplementary
Enrollment Information instrument developed locally by the institution was used to
collect data. Family encouragement, the need for writing skills, belief in self, the goal to
obtain a degree, amount of commitment, and living arrangements were important
variables in deciding to enroll the following fall. The two factors that were important at
both benchmarks were the goal to obtain a degree and the firm or extra commitment to
that goal (Waggener & Smith. 1993).
Individual commitments take the forms of goal and institutional commitments.
Goal commitment addresses an individual's commitment to personal and occupational
goals. Academic boredom sets in for undecided students because "learning is not quite
as relevant to those who do not have a goal" (Noel, 1985, p. 11). Institutional
commitment describes an individual's commitment to the institution in which they
attend. Tinto (1993) stated that the greater the commitment, in either case, the greater
the opportunity of institutional persistence.

30
Students with identified career goals and a sense of purpose are more likely to
persist in college (Boe & Jolicoeur. 1989, Gordon. 1989; Kester 1980; Raimst. 1981).
Daniels (1990) analyzed the results of an Entering Student Survey administered to
3,590 new students at Brookdale Community College. The survey gathered information
from students on their goals and expectations and reached a 62% response rate.
Subsequent tracking of students revealed that retention was higher for students who
planned on graduation and students who planned on transferring than for students
without plans.
Lenning, Beal, and Sauer (1980) commented that a commitment to college, clear-
cut college and career goals, and certainty of goals were all important factors related to
persistence. In 2-year colleges, goal commitment seems to have a stronger effect on
retention than does institutional commitment (Chapman & Pascarella, 1983; Pascarella
& Chapman, 1983a).
Mohammadi (1994) found the most significant predictors of community college
student retention, in order of importance, were student goals, hours enrolled per
semester, number of credit hours completed, semester grade point average, and overall
GPA. Mohammadi also found that 40% of the fall 1988 cohort who left after 1 year
had no intention of completing a degree or certificate program.
There is some indication that the nature of commitment may vary based upon
gender. A study that assessed gender differences in student satisfaction with college
was conducted to understand further what contributes to student persistence and
student outcomes. Bean and Vesper (1994) gathered data from 494 first- and second-

31
year honors students at a large research university. Confidence in being a student and
having attractive courses were important for both female and male students, but only
men identified choice of major and occupational certainty as the most significant factors.
There is also evidence that possessing a goal may not be as critical a factor. A
study to determine success in retaining students through the successful completion of
their educational goals was conducted at Northwestern Michigan College. Retention
rates by student goals were 72% for students whose goal was to advance in a job.
81.8% for those seeking to get a new job, 84.2% for those seeking transfer, and 85.6%
for those reporting no goals (Shreve. 1995).
The nature of an institution's structure may influence a student's goal formation
process after they are admitted into the school. A study by McCormick (1990)
explored the effect of beginning postsecondary education in a 2-year college versus a 4-
year college, after controlling for background characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, and measured ability), initial education goal commitments, and
secondary and postsecondary program and performance. Data were drawn from the
senior cohort of the "High School and Beyond" database. The study involved a sample
of 2, 894 students. Results indicate that beginning postsecondary education in a 2-vear
college increases the likelihood of a downward adjustment in expectations and that this
effect is most pronounced among those initially anticipating graduate study
(McCormick. 1990).
Rugg (1983) suggested that there is a second category' of students called attainers
that needs to be distinguished from dropouts. Attainers are students who discontinue

their enrollment before graduation but after achieving their personal goals for college
study. Many students begin college with established goals which fall short of
completing a degree. From these students' point of view, the act of withdrawal does not
necessarily carry the label of personal failure that professionals in higher education
normally associate with it (Raimst, 1981). Tinto (1985) stated that the term dropout
should be applied only to those forms of departure involving students who did not
reasonably complete what they intended to achieve upon college entry.
Other studies indicate that students will meet their own established goals, while
being viewed by the institutions as a dropout. Moore's (1995) study at San Juan
College indicated that 54% of students who left after one semester reported they had
achieved their educational goals. In the spring of 1995 Westchester Community College
in New York surveyed all 1,208 students who attended for the first time in fall 1993 but
did not return the following spring semester. With a response rate of 20%, 14.1 %
indicated that they had not intended to return for spring semester when they enrolled—
that they had achieved their goals (Lee, 1996). Yet, Cohen and Brawer (1982) argued
that the study of student-stated goals is unreliable because students generally are not
able to express accurately their reasons for the choices they make.
With the exception of a few students who leave due to externally imposed
circumstances, student explanations for withdrawal are related to dissatisfaction with
the benefits of the academic or social life of the institution (Raimst. 1981).
Furthermore, there is evidence to indicate that institutional characteristics have as much
or more impact on college withdrawal than do student characteristics. Students are

more likely to leave because of dissatisfying experiences with the institution they are
attending (Noel, 1985). Tinto (1987) concluded that student retention is at least as
much a function of institutional behavior as it is of student behavior.
Adjustment. There are two distinct sources of difficulty in making the
transition to college. One may be the inability of individuals to separate themselves
from past forms of association. The other difficulty arises from an individual's need to
adjust to the new and often more challenging social and intellectual demands of higher
education (Tinto, 1993). A lack of understanding of the nature of the college experience
hinders persistence. Noel (1985) wrote that many first-generation college students do
not benefit from family members' past experiences. Therefore, when confronted with
the realities and demands of college living, they may feel the pressure to withdraw.
Working from a foundation built by Tinto (1975), Pascarella, Terenzini. and
Wolfe (1986) tested the principles of Tinto's model of the persistence/withdrawul
process using a precollege orientation program as the experimental intervention. They
found that the orientation experience had an impact on freshman persistence largely by
facilitating a student's initial ability to cope with a new set of social challenges in an
unfamiliar environment. In making their conclusion. Pascarella, Terenzini. and Wolfe
stated that developing initially successful integration into the social system of the
institution was the factor which most directly influenced commitment to the institution
and persistence.
Early research indicates that attrition is heaviest during and at the end of the
freshman year (Rootman. 1972). Research consistently indicates that the freshman year

34
is the stage when the greatest number of students are at risk of dropping out (Bean,
1980, Fetters, 1977; Dunphy, Miller, Woodruff. & Nelson. 1987). Porter (1990) found
that the greatest enrollment loss in independent colleges and universities occurred during
the first year and after the eighth semester. At least one-half of all students who drop
out of college will do so during their freshman year (Noel, 1985). and many of these
students will leave during the first 6 to 8 weeks of their initial semester (Blanc. Debuhr.
& Martin, 1983). Others have further narrowed the freshman's most critical transition
time, a period when the majority of students who drop out make the decision to do so,
to the first two to six weeks of school (Zarvell et al., 1991; Levitz & Noel. 1989;
Gardner, 1986).
Another area in which researchers have shown interest is in the students' own
assessment of their experiences while enrolled in college, their reasons for leaving the
institution, and their plans for the future after leaving college. Nelson. Scott, and Bryan
(1984) found that by the eighth week of the term students were able to state plans
about their next term and "that students who will not persist can be identified by the
middle of their first semester" (p. 56).
Difficulty. Persistence in college requires more than adjustment. Minimum
standards of academic performance must be attained. However, prior performance and
measures of ability are not very highly correlated with departure (Tinto, 1993). Limited
intentions and/or weak commitments may be manifested in poor academic performance.
Astin (1972, 1985) found that persistence was positively correlated with
academic performance in high school and college admission test scores. While these

35
measures could not accurately predict whether a given student would drop out. Astin
noted that high school grades and ability test scores were by far the most important
available predictors of persistence for students at 4-year colleges and universities.
Pascarella (1980) found that a student's high school grade point average is the
pre-enrollment characteristic most highly correlated with college grade point average.
According to Astin (1993). the two most important predictors of students' grades in the
1985-1989 study were high school grade point average and SAT verbal scores.
Research findings comparing dropouts and persisters were in agreement
regarding academic ability as a key variable (Bell. 1984; Gorter. 1978; Reinertson. 1986;
Webb, 1989). Dropouts scored lower on standardized test designed to measure ability,
such as ACT, than did persisters (Cohen & Brawer, 1982; DiCarlo, 1980). Moline
(1987) found admission test scores and high school grades to be two strong predictors
of retention during the 1970s and 1980s. Nelson. Scott, and Breyan (1984) and Zarvel
and others (1991) also found precollege academic achievement and aptitude variables as
useful predictors of persistence.
Studies by Astin. Korn, and Green (1987) showed that students with the
highest test scores are six times more likely to earn a bachelor's degree in 4 years than
those with the lowest scores. Students with the highest scores and grade point averages
are 15 times more likely to earn a bachelor's degree in 4 years than those with the
lowest scores.
Wall (1996) conducted a four-semester study at Atlantic Community College to
determine which were the factors that affected retention. Academic success, measured

36
by previous semester grade point average, was found to be a strong determinant of
retention for all semesters and for long-term attendance and graduation. Students who
tested into developmental courses on the basic skills test and who completed a required
developmental course during their first semester persisted at the same or a higher rate as
students who tested at college level, while developmental students who did not
complete a developmental course in their first semester had significantly lower retention
rates (Wall. 1996).
Matonak's (1987) study of student retention on an academically disadvantaged
community college student population is supportive of the constructs in Tinto's theory.
The positive effects of academic integration on retention was consistent with the model,
and with results of previous studies on commuter students (Fox. 1986; Nora, 1987).
The negative influence of social integration on retention was inconsistent with the
hypothesized model, yet it was consistent with previous research on similar
populations (Fox. 1986). Although initial commitments accounted for a significant
portion of the variance in academic integration and social integration, the results did not
substantiate the hypothesized positive relationship between initial commitments and
retention.
Incongruence and isolation. Tinto (1993) described incongruence as a lack of
institutional fit. It refers to the condition where the student perceives him/herself as
being at odds with the institution. The mismatch may be between the abilities, skills,
and interests of the students and the demands placed upon the individual by the
academic system. Typically, incongruence is manifested in the student's judgment that

37
the school's intellectual or social climate is unsuited or irrelevant, or even contrary, to
his or her own preferences (Tinto. 1993). Incongruence may be the result of poor
decision making in college choice. Cope and Hannah (1975) indicated that poor college
choice is the cause of at least 20% of college transfers.
In exploring the relationship between student incongruence and satisfaction.
Lenning, Beal, and Saur (1980) reported that persistence may be related more to
willingness and ability to endure dissatisfaction than to the dissatisfaction itself. Citing
dissonance theory, they speculated that "students with strong perceptions of personal
needs that are not being met will be more likely to try to remedy the discrepancy (i.e..
by dropping out) than those who consider their unmet needs to be less serious" (p. 51).
Tinto (1993) stated that individual isolation, the absence of sufficient contact
between the student and other members of the social and academic communities, leads
to departure from the institution. Tinto (1982) noted that the more time faculty gave to
their students, and students to each other, the more likely were students to complete
their education. He pointed out that such contacts appeared to be essential components
in the process of social and intellectual development and concluded that institutions
should encourage those contacts whenever and wherever possible. Astin (1977)
supported the premise that student and faculty interaction have a stronger relationship
to student satisfaction with the college experience than any other involvement, variable,
or .indeed, any other student or institutional characteristic. Pascarella and Chapman
(1983b), using a large multi-institutional sample of 2,326 college students, observed that
social and academic integration, while not directly influencing persistence, had

38
significant indirect effects on persistence. This influence on persistence operated
through institutional commitment and goal commitment.
Tinto (1975) stressed that interaction with faculty not only increased social
integration and institutional commitment but also increased the individual's academic
integration. Pascarella and Terenzini (1978) found that only two of the six types of
interactions studied were significantly related to academic achievement: discussion of
intellectual matters and discussion of career concerns with faculty. Astin and Panos
(1969) found that after controlling for pre-enrollment characteristics, students'
familiarity with their instructors was related to significant increases in academic
achievement. Furthermore, a study by Beal and Noel (1980) established that a caring
attitude of faculty and staff is the most potent retention force on campus.
The impact of interaction can vary with different populations. Bean and Vesper
(1994) found that faculty contact was not significant to female or male honor students
when surveyed regarding student satisfaction with college. Furthermore, results
indicated that contact with advisors, having friends, and living on campus were
significantly related to satisfaction for females but not for male honors students at a
large research university (Bean & Vesper, 1994).
Although Tinto's model of student retention postulates an approximate parity
between social and academic integration, Munro (1981) found the effect size for the
influence of academic integration on persistence to be moderately strong. Munro
studied 6,018 first-time, full-time. 4-year college entrants. She observed significant
direct and indirect effects for academic integration, goal commitment, and high school

39
average on persistence in college. Social integration, however, had no significant direct
or indirect effect on persistence.
For commuter colleges, the findings for academic integration and social
integration have been mixed. In a study of commuter students attending an urban
university, direct and indirect effects of academic integration on persistence were
observed by Pascarella. Duby. and Iverson (1983). Contradicting Tinto's formulation,
social integration was found to have a negative impact on persistence. An increase in
social integration represented an increased risk for withdrawal. In other studies by
Pascarella and Chapman (1983a). Pascarella and Wolf (1985), and Tinto (1987. 1993),
academic integration appears to have greater effects on attrition than does social
integration, especially in commuter institutions. Academic integration was found to
influence significantly social integration and not to influence persistence among
academically disadvantaged students at a 2-year commuter institution (Fox. 1986)
When looking specifically at community colleges, results from Napoli's (1996)
meta-analysis of community college literature indicated that both academic integration
and social integration play important roles in the decision to persist in college.
Pascarella, Smart, and Etherington (1986) found both social and academic integration to
have direct and indirect effects on long-term (9-vear) persistence and graduation among
2-year community college students. A study by Bers and Smith (1991) found both
integration measures significantly related to persistence in 2-year community college
students. Their study underscored social integration making a larger contribution in
discriminating persisters from nonpersisters. than does academic integration, at the

40
community college. Work by Napoli (1996) further showed that the impact of social
integration is greatest for term-to-term persistence and diminishes over time.
The findings regarding social integration are not consistent. Work by Mulligan
and Hennessy (1990) showed that direct and indirect effects have been observed for
academic integration, but not for social integration, among students attending a 2-year
community college. A study by Halpin (1990) failed to detect any effect for social
integration among 2-year community college students.
Two interventions designed to address academic and social isolation in the
classroom are Learning Communities and Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs). A
qualitative case study of FIGs was conducted by Tinto and Goodsell (1993) at a large
public, research university. In this study, freshmen enrolled in specific thematically
linked courses during their first semester. Results showed that FIGs allowed students
to interact repeatedly with a consistent set of peers across their classes. This, in turn,
enabled students to form a social network in which other academic support mechanisms
could begin to operate. Tinto and Goodsell indicated that FIGs are a potentially
powerful way of affecting students' first year college experiences.
Similar to FIGs, learning communities at a community' college consist of groups
of students taking two or more classes together. Learning communities create the
opportunity for students to provide each other with social and academic support while
professors integrate class content. Tinto and Love (1995) found that when compared to
traditional students, learning community students' perception of classes, other students,
faculty, counselors, campus climate, and their own involvement were generally more

41
positive. Learning community students earned more credits and had higher grade point
averages than traditional students, yet learning community students had only a slightly
higher persistence rate than the comparison students (77.7% versus 75.9%). In general,
learning community students indicated that group work and peer collaboration was
easier and more fun than traditional methods.
External Obligations/Familv and Financial
Tinto (1993) stated that every student is subject to the effects of external forces
upon his or her participation in college. The two external forces that stand out in
shaping persistence are obligations and finances. The first refers to the responsibilities
individuals have in regard to their associations with groups of communities external to
school. The latter refers to one's ability to fund his or her college attendance. External
factors have been found to have a greater influence on the dropout decision for students
at commuter institutions than social integration (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Tinto. 1987,
1993).
Allen's (1994) study of student withdrawal behavior at Angelo State University
in Texas highlighted the role of family. The study focused upon 343 respondents of
823 first-time freshmen. Results found three characteristics distinguished persisters
from dropouts and from transfer students: (a) greater encouragement from family, (b)
better academic performance, and (c) greater commitment to the institution.
Encouragement from family was the most significant of these factors (Allen. 1994).
When turning to educational funding issues, early studies of the importance of
financial factors show a potential relationship to persistence. Summerskill's (1962)
A

42
review of the literature found that in 16 out of 21 studies financial reasons were ranked
among the top three most important factors in attrition.
Tinto (1982) found that much of the impact of finances on a student’s academic
decisions occurred at the point of entry into higher education. Financial issues
influenced decisions of whether or not to attend college. Thereafter, financial impact
helped to mold choice about specific institutions of initial entry. Cope and Hannah
(1975) found similar results and reported that the lack of finances was more of a barrier
to starting college than it was to finishing college. Tinto (1993) also observed that when
students' experiences were positive, they were more likely to accept greater financial
burdens in order to continue attendance than when experiences were unsatisfactory.
Earl (1989) analyzed student financial aid in terms of its effects on admissions
policies, attrition and retention rates, stop-out rates, transfer rates, and graduation rates.
His source was literature related to student financial aid and published between 1970
and 1981. He discovered that most studies using a national or statewide base find that
financial aid significantly affects enrollment in American colleges and universities.
Financial aid has been found to be a significant factor in the recruitment and retention
process, and it also helps students decide whether to attend a public or private
institution (Earl, 1989).
Stampen and Cabrera (1988) investigated three basic student financial aid issues
in 4-year colleges: the targeting of overall aid. aid packaging for different recipient
groups, and financial aid's role in motivating persistence. Their findings show that aid is
distributed mainly to low income students, compensates for low-income disadvantages.

43
and encourages students' persistence. From Porter's (1990) review of data from private
4-year institutions taken from the "High School and Beyond" study, he determined that
students who received grants in their first year of study were more likely to remain
enrolled than students without grants.
Cabrera (1990) conducted a study using a national sample of 1.375 college
students attending public 4-year institutions. They tested a hypothesis concerning
economic and noneconomic variables on college persistence. Findings indicated financial
variables moderate the effect of goal commitment on persistence. In another study also
by Cabrera (1992), funding at commuter colleges was studied. A survey of 466
students in a large, urban commuter college investigated the relationship of student
finances to academic persistence. Results suggested that financial aid (a) equalizes
opportunities for students, thus decreasing attractiveness of alternatives, (b) facilitates
academic and social integration, and (c) increases student commitment to the institution.
Work
Working while attending school is inevitable for many students in America's
higher education system. Dey, Astin. and Korn, (1991) reported that over 20% of all
entering first-year students indicated that the probability was very good that they
would have to find employment outside their school. National data from the
Cooperative Institutional Research Program (Astin, 1993) showed that 36% of all first-
year students entering American colleges and universities in 1990 reported that they
would have to find employment to assist in paying for their college expenses.

44
Being employed during the school year generates risks. Astin (1972) found that
students had less of a chance of staying in college if they were employed during the
school year. This variable was the fourth most important predictor of attrition among
students at 4-year colleges and universities. Research is reasonably consistent that
employment off campus (typically measured in number of hours employed per week)
has a negative influence on both year-to-year persistence in college and completion of a
bachelor's degree (Anderson 1981; Astin. 1982; Ehrenberg & Sherman. 1987; Staman.
1980).
The impact on retention and educational attainment of working on campus
appears to be just the opposite of off-campus employment. Research by Pascarella and
Terenzini (1991), Anderson (1981), Astin (1982). and Velez (1985) indicated that part-
time employment on campus positively influences both persistence and degree
completion, even after controls are made for such factors as academic aptitude,
educational aspirations, high school achievement, and family socioeconomic origins.
Furthermore, other researcher have found that it is the amount of time per week
spent working that is significantly related to attrition. Lenning. Beal, and Sauer (1980)
found that part-time employment was positively correlated with persistence, especially
when the job was under 25 hours per week, was on campus, the student started
working as a freshman, and the student received little or no support through grants or
loans. When the job exceeded 25 hours per week, it negatively impacted persistence. It
has been speculated by Lenning, Beal, and Sauer that part-time on-campus jobs
promoted retention by providing additional involvement in campus life.

45
Pascarella et al. (1994a) studied the impact of on-campus and off-campus work
on first-year student cognitive outcomes. With controls made for precollege cognitive
level and other relevant influences, amount of on- and off-campus work had little
negative impact on first-year students' reading comprehension, mathematics
achievement, or critical thinking. In fact, there was no significant difference on any of
the three cognitive outcomes among students who worked on campus, students who
worked off campus, and students who did not work during the first year.
Work and/or family obligations typically limit a student's academic load to part-
time or less. When observed by itself, a student's full-time/part-time status becomes a
significant attrition variable. Moore (1995) and Windham (1994) found that full-time
attendance at the community college is the most prevalent characteristic of persisters.
The most salient characteristic among studies of nonpersisters is part-time attendance
(Feldman, 1993; Price, 1993).
In a study by Breindel (1997), the number of units carried, as opposed to
gender, age or ethnicity, was the principal predictor of credit student persistence. For
new credit students who enrolled in 12 units or more. 67% persisted to the subsequent
fall semester. This compares to 46% of those carrying 6 to 11.9 units and 27% of those
carrying 5.9 or fewer units (Breindel, 1997).
Moore (1995) conducted a study at San Juan College that took into account
several definitions of persistence, including re-enrollment in the subsequent term, re¬
enrollment the following fall semester, and persistence in relation to indicators of
student educational goals such as full-time or degree-seeking status. In 1991 and 1992,

46
fall to fall persistence rates for part-time, degree-seeking students were 42% and 35%.
respectively, and 59% and 46% for full-time, degree-seeking students. Semester to
semester persistence rates for fall 1993 were 79% for full-time students and 45% for
part-time students, with higher fall to spring persistence rates than spring to fall rates.
In general, all full-time students persisted at a higher rate than part-time students
(Moore, 1995).
In the spring of 1995 Westchester Community College in New' York surveyed
all students who attended for the first time in fall 1993 but did not return the following
spring semester. While only 56.2% of the first-time students in 1993 attended part-
time, 75% of the 1,208 students who did not return had attended part-time (Lee. 1996).
College Orientation Course Studies
Tinto (1982) stressed an emphasis for programs designed to promote student-
faculty interaction. Concluding his remarks on general retention strategies. Tinto noted
that successful retention programs were most frequently longitudinal in character, were
also always integrally tied to the admissions process, and their implementation
generally involved a wide range of institutional characters. College orientation courses,
taken the first term of entry, fit Tinto's criteria for successful retention programming.
Approximately two-thirds of all 2-year and 4-year colleges and universities offer
some type of new student seminar. The primary goal of almost 70% of these courses is
providing students with an extended orientation to the institution, to themselves as
learners, to essential academic skills, and to the purpose of higher education (Barefoot &
Fidler, 1996). Gordon (1989) stated that 40% of the institutions that responded to a

47
survey from the National Orientation Directors Association utilized a freshman course
or seminar to assist student adjustment to college and to enhance student persistence.
Of the 1.010 survey responses to the 1994 National Survey of Freshman Seminar
Programs by Barefoot and Fidler (1996). 350 responses were from community colleges.
Two hundred-twenty (60%) of the responding community colleges indicated that they
offered a "first-year" or "new student" course.
Rice and Devore (1992) found extended orientation courses equally common at
2- and 4-year colleges but different in administrative structures and content emphases.
From a national study, 2-year college courses were found to have larger class sizes,
shorter duration, and less varied content and were less likely to be required or to
introduce an academic discipline.
In a study by Fidler (1991), data were collected and analyzed indicating that
students who participated in the freshman seminar course exhibited higher sophomore
retention rates than nonparticipants for 14 consecutive years. Furthermore, seminar
participants were also more likely to persist to graduation (Shanley & Witten. 1990).
Similar retention-enhancing effects of the freshman seminar have been found for "high-
risk" students who did not meet regular admission requirements (Fidler & Hunter,
1989). Fidler (1985) reported freshman-to-sophomore retention rates averaged 81% for
University 101 participants in contrast to 75.8% for nonparticipants.
Keenan and Gabovitch (1995) conducted a longitudinal study to assess the
effect of a 1 -credit, 8-week freshman seminar on student development and retention.
Outcomes measured were knowledge of college resources and services, utilization of

48
academic support services, increases in self-assessed learning skills, increases in
students' career maturity, and retention of students from the first to second semester of
their freshman year. For 4 years beginning in spring 1992. students in the course and in
a control group completed a questionnaire during the first and last weeks of the
semester. Results suggested positive effects of seminar participation on all of the
measures. Students in the seminar scored consistently higher than students in the
control group regarding student development and integration into the campus culture.
Students in the seminar were also far more likely to use tutoring and other academic
support services than control students (Keenan & Gabovitch. 1995).
Hoff (1994) led a research group in a study that examined the effects of a Dalton
Junior College student success course. All students were in college for the first time.
The sample included 405 class participants and 500 control participants. Among the
findings were that at the end of their first year, class students were progressing more
quickly through their program and that class students returned at significantly higher
rates both after the first quarter and after the first year.
A study was conducted at Sacramento City College to determine the effects of
enrolling in a first-semester student success course on academic performance and
persistence. Matched pairs of students, one who took the semester-long course and one
who did not. were compared in terms of number of college credit hours completed, grade
point average, and dropout rate. From two equal-sized pools totaling over 250
students, 40 pairs of students were randomly matched on reading levels, writing levels,
and number of hours employed. Over the seven semesters of the study, the dropout

49
rate of the treatment group was half that of the control group. Students in the treatment
group earned a grade of C or better in four times as many math courses. When the total
number of college credits earned was examined, the treatment group completed 326%
more units than the control group. After seven semesters, the GPAs of the two groups
were almost identical (Stupka. 1993).
A study of the Harrisburg Area Community College Master Student course was
conducted to track academic achievement, including number of semesters enrolled and
total credits carried and earned for 115 students that took the course in 1992. The
results indicated that the group had a mean cumulative grade point average of 2.21 at the
end of summer 1993, compared to a college-wide GPA of 2.64. The sample was not
representative of the general student population, but researchers indicated that the
course did help student performance, at least on a short-term basis (Lum & Signor,
1994).
A study at DeKalb College in Clarkston. Georgia, was conducted to determine
whether the needs of students were satisfied by the orientation classes and if there were
differences between the evaluation of freshmen in the 5-week classes as compared to
those in the 10-week classes. Approximately 1.300 freshmen evaluated the classes at
the final class session. In general, student evaluations of the 5-week sections were more
positive tan evaluations of the 10-week sections. In the 5-week course 91.5% of the
freshmen felt that the program planning session was essential or very important for the
beginning freshmen, while 71.5% of the freshmen in the 10-week classes felt the same.
Vocational/career planning were considered essential or very important by 70.8% of the

50
5-week sample and 56.4% of the 10-week sample. Study skills sessions appeared least
effective (Ozaki, 1994).
A study by Sloan (1991) intended to analyze whether a college orientation
course at Broward Community College was effective in building institutional
commitment, defined as re-enrollment after 1 year. Using regression analysis, the
orientation course was significant as the second best predictor of first-term grade point
averages, while total credit hours paid for the first semester were the best predictors.
The overall findings indicated that the combination of factors (gender, race/ethnic group,
degree program, total credits paid for. college preparatory/college level status, and
enrollment in the orientation course) is more significant in explaining mean differences in
first-term grade point average than in explaining significant difference in re-enrollment or
graduation rates. Findings indicated a strong relationship between enrollment in the
orientation course and 1-year re-enrollment in the college for part-time A.A. degree¬
seeking students (Sloan. 1991)
Results of a study by McIntyre (1993) did not support the hypothesis that the
college orientation course has a significant effect on persistence or success as defined as
higher GPA or enrollment status. In his study, students who had not declared a major
were required to enroll and participate in the course.
After reviewing the research on the freshman orientation class in their synthesis
of more than 2,500 studies on how college programs and experiences affect student
development. Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) concluded, "The weight of the evidence
suggests that a first-semester freshman seminar ... is positively linked with both

51
freshman-year persistence and degree completion. The positive link persists even when
academic aptitude and secondary' school achievement are taken into account" (pp. 419-
420).
Adjustment and Difficulty
College orientation classes in the community college have been found to supply
students with information essential to their academic socialization and adjustment to
college. Coll and VonSeggem (1991) wrote that college orientation classes facilitate
adjustment to college by providing (a) descriptions of college program offerings, (b) the
college's expectations for students, (c) information about assistance and services for
examining interests, values, and abilities, (d) encouragement to establish working
relationships with faculty, (e) information about sendees that help wdth adjustment to
college, and (f) financial aid information.
Students entering college may lack confidence in their ability to be successful
students. Self-appraisal can be a critical factor in student adjustment. Taylor (1988)
evaluated the effect of an extended orientation course on community college students'
self-appraisal of problem-solving behaviors. It was hypothesized that students who
completed the class would see themselves as more effective problem solvers, assess
their academic skills at a higher level, be more familiar with and use campus resources at
a higher rate, and perform better academically than would control subjects. All subjects
completed the Problem-Solving Inventory, an Academic Skills Evaluation, and the
Campus Resource Utilization Checklist in a pre-/posttest quasi-experimental design.
Differences in academic performance w'ere assessed by comparing GPA and persistence

52
rates for two quarters. Analysis indicated that subjects reported a significant increase in
academic self-confidence but not problem-solving appraisal. Treatment groups were
more familiar with 82% of the campus resources than were control but did not use
services at a higher rate. When educational background was covaried, treatment subjects
achieved significantly higher GPAs for the first quarter; and there were no significant
differences in second quarter GPA or retention rates (Taylor. 1988).
In a study by Davis-Underwood and Lee (1994). the results of the analysis of
variance indicated that students who participated in the freshman orientation course had
a significantly higher mean freshman year GPA than nonparticipants. Seminar
participants earned an average GPA of 2.63, while nonparticipants earned an average
GPA of 2.35. Fidler and Hunter (1989). Stupka (1986). and Wilkie and Kuckuck
(1989) found GPAs of course participants to be significantly higher than those
achieved by matched control groups of nonparticipants.
Fidler (1985) found that freshmen who participated in University 101 had a
higher probability of returning for the sophomore year, in spite of a greater percentage
of higher risk students than nonparticipants. Research indicates that participation in
college orientation classes raises the academic performance of low-achieving students (as
identified by below-average entrance test scores and high school rank) relative to that of
students with more qualified admission characteristics (Fidler. 1991). Research further
suggests that participation in a first-year extended orientation class has particularly
dramatic effects on academically at-risk students who are disproportionately
represented in community colleges (Roueche & Roueche. 1993).

53
The results of the study by Blackhust (1994) are consistent with research
regarding academic achievement and freshman orientation courses. Such research
suggests that freshman orientation courses increase the academic performance of low-
achieving students relative to other students. While not tested directly by this study,
this hypothesis is supported by the finding that students with relatively low grade
point averages found the freshman orientation course the most useful in helping them
succeed academically. Analysis of data by Craig (1994) indicated a significant
relationship between participation in the course and retention and academic
performance for all freshmen, whether they were considered to be at risk or not. Of the
at-risk students, nearly four out of five who participated in the course were still
enrolled in college 1 year after their initial freshman semester.
A study examined the impact of a 1 -credit study skills course on the academic
achievement and retention of second-semester freshman probationary students at a
state-supported university with a student population of over 13,000 in western
Pennsylvania. The study compared academic performance of the treatment and
nontreatment groups as measured by grade point averages, academic hours attempted,
and academic hours earned during the semester the treatment occurred as well as
subsequent semesters of study. The population had a grade point average below 1.5 on
a 4.0 scale at the end of their first semester at the university. Forty-one students in
1985 and 54 in 1986 of the invited students participated in the class. The control group
was identified as those probationary students not choosing to participate in the study.
At the conclusion of the spring semester the experimental group in each year of the

54
study earned a significantly higher grade point average than did the control group.
However these GPAs for all groups were still lower than a C average. Both
experimental groups earned significantly more academic hours during the spring
semester than did the comparison control group. The experimental group had
significantly higher grade point averages than did students in the control group 2 years
following the 1985 intervention. There were no statistically significant differences
between the two groups in regard to hours attempted and hours earned. One year
following the intervention. 14% more of the students in the treatment group than in the
nontreatment group were still enrolled at the university. This difference also was
evident 2 years following intervention, when 9% more of the students in the treatment
group were still enrolled at the university than were nontreatment (Lipsky & Ender.
1990). However, an initial study of the freshmen seminar at the University of North
Carolina (Maisto. Davis. Keyes. & Tammi. 1987) found no significant differences
between seminar participants and nonparticipants on measures of academic success and
retention.
Addressing special populations, a study examined the effectiveness of a freshman
orientation course for learning-disabled (LD) and nonleaming-disabled (NLD) students.
In a longitudinal records review study, the retention or graduation rates and grade point
averages of 680 LD and NLD students who did and did not complete a freshman
seminar were analyzed. Results suggested that students who completed the seminar
graduated at a higher rate than control students and that LD students graduated at a
higher rate than NLD students. Learning-disabled students who completed the

55
freshman seminar experienced the highest graduation rate, followed by NLD students
who participated in the seminar, and then students who did not take the seminar and
were NLD. The lowest graduation rate was for LD students who did not take the
seminar. Grade point averages were generally not significantly different between the
LD and NLD groups in relation to participation in the freshman orientation course
(Green, 1995).
Incongruence and Isolation
During 1987-1988, Manor Junior College developed a semester-long freshman
orientation course designed to help students understand the college system, to
strengthen students' identification with their vocational program and career choice, and
to improve students' academic competencies and confidence in their ability to achieve
academic success. Students met in groups for 2 hours per week to discuss a variety of
topics. Students were also given weekly writing assignments related to their vocational
programs and career goals. Student participants reported having difficulty maintaining
close ties with the freshman orientation course instructor the semester following the
course. They also expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of work required by the
noncredit seminar (Suffet. 1988).
Another study was designed to gather information about students' informal
faculty contacts and their participation in extracurricular activities. The results of the
nine-item paper-and-pencil questionnaire showed that seminar participants engaged in
significantly more informal faculty contacts than nonparticipants. Seminar participants
also reported being engaged in significantly more extracurricular activities than

56
nonparticipants. No significant gender effects were found (Davis-Underwood & Lee.
1994).
Summary'
In summary’, when looking at the variables most often associated with
retention-gender. age. and race—it appears there is inconclusive evidence to determine if
men and women differ in persistence patterns. Furthermore, attrition in nontraditional-
age students is impacted more significantly by factors external to education, and
characteristics of student background and academic ability are greater predictors of
persistence than race. In addition, students attending 2-year institutions are more likely
to drop out of school than those attending 4-year institutions. The difference in
dropout rates among these students more typically arises from institutional conditions
than from the academic ability of the students attracted to either type of institution.
The high rate of dropping out at the early stages of college entry points to the role of
college adjustment and goal commitment. First-year college orientation classes are
related to freshman year persistence and to degree completion.

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Chapter Organization
In this chapter the study's design, research questions, participants, research and
data collection procedures, and analysis are described. The purpose of this study was to
explore whether there is a significant relationship between taking a community college
orientation course during the first term and the retention, persistence, and time to degree
completion of academically prepared students.
Research Design
Inferential statistics were used to describe the effect of an orientation class taken
during the first term in college on retention, course withdrawals, grade point average,
course repetitions, and number of credit hours accumulated before graduation. The study
retrospectively covers a 4-year period. Because random assignment of students to a
treatment and nontreatment group was not possible, an ex post facto design was used.
The ex post facto model is effective in evaluating the effects of a treatment not originally
designed for research purposes (Huck, Cormier. & Bounds, 1974) and to study possible
causes after they may have exerted their effect upon other variables (Borg & Gall, 1989).
The study was longitudinal in structure, assessing historical data after the first
semester, and at the end of the first, second, third, and fourth year of the initial treatment.
Legislative action taken in the fall of 1995 brought changes to curriculum and withdrawal
57

58
policy in the state of Florida. To remove the influence of these changes upon the study,
the period being observed is 1991-1995.
Research Questions
This study examined the following research questions:
1. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class
and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term ) in retention
after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?
2. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class
and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term ) in number of
course withdrawals after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?
3. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class
and those w'ho have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term ) in GPA after
1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?
4. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class
and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term ) in total
number of courses repeated after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?
5. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class
and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in total number
of credit hours at time of graduation?
6. Do age, gender, and race interact with taking a college orientation course (in their
first term) to affect retention, course withdrawal, GPA, courses repeated, and number of
credit hours taken at time of graduation?

59
Participants
The participants in this investigation consisted of male and female students from
Miami-Dade Community College. Okaloosa-Walton Community College. Santa Fe
Community College, and Tallahassee Community College. Miami-Dade Community
College, located in a large urban community in the southern part of the state, has an
unduplicated Associate in Arts Degree Program headcount of 25.693 students
(Department of Education. Division of Community Colleges. 1997). Okaloosa-Walton
Community College, located in a small coastal community in the northwestern part of the
state, has an unduplicated Associate in Arts Degree Program headcount of 4. 023 students
(Department of Education. Division of Community Colleges, 1997). Santa Fe Community
College, located in a medium-sized urban community in the north-central part of the state,
has an unduplicated Associate in Arts Degree Program headcount of 11.526 students
(Department of Education. Division of Community Colleges. 1997). Tallahassee
Community College, located at the state capitol in the north-central part of the state, has
an unduplicated Associate in Arts Degree Program headcount of 7.656 students
(Department of Education. Division of Community Colleges. 1997). These four Florida
institutions were chosen because they have similar general academic graduation
requirements, offer similar college orientation classes, and vary in institutional size and
location.
In order to be selected into the study, participants had to be first time in college for
the academic term starting fall of 1991, had completed at least the first term they were
enrolled, were Associate of Arts degree seeking, maintained full time status during the first
term, and did not test into college preparatory classes according to state standards in effect

60
during the 1991 fall term. All students meeting these criteria were included in the study.
The study tracked the same cohort of students until they graduated, stopped attending
college, or at the end of 4 years. The academic performance and persistence of students
who had completed a college orientation class during their first term was compared to
students who did not take a college orientation class during their first term in college.
Research Procedure
Data for this study were gathered by a computer search of the historical database
files from each of the four participating institutions. Data collection was coordinated by
the researcher with the assistance of the Office of Institutional Research at Santa Fe
Community College, using data reported by the Florida Division of Community Colleges.
Data Collection and Analysis
Measurements were taken at the end of the first term and at the end of first,
second, third, and fourth years. The dependent variables were date of degree completion
or end of continuous enrollment, cumulative grade point average at the end of each
measurement period, total number of course withdrawals at the end of each measurement
period, total number of course repetitions at the end of each measurement period, and total
number of credit hours attained at the end of each measurement period. The independent
variables were participation/nonparticipation in a college orientation class, sex. race. age.
and institution of attendance. Four institutions of varying size and geographic locations
have been chosen to observe if these variables influence persistence.
Quantitative data analysis was used to evaluate the five research questions
outlined. To assess population demographics, descriptive statistics of central tendency

61
and dispersion were used. An analysis of variance model was applied to address questions
1 through 6.
Summary'
The purpose of this study was to ascertain through the use of historical academic
records if there is a significant relationship between taking a community' college orientation
course during the first term and the retention, persistence, and time to degree completion
of students. Student data encompassing a 4-year time period were collected from four
community' colleges that varied in institutional size and location. Data analysis for this
study applied descriptive statistics of central tendency and dispersion, and analysis of
variance models.

CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to explore w hether there is a significant
relationship between taking a community college orientation course during the first term
in college and the retention, persistence, and time to degree completion of students. An
examination was made to see whether an orientation class impacts retention, number of
course withdrawals, students' grade point average over the long term, number of courses
repeated, and the total number of credit hours required to complete the degree.
Data were collected from Miami-Dade Community College, Okaloosa-Walton
Community College, Santa Fe Community College, and Tallahassee Community College.
The resulting sample totaled 1,400 participants, of which 31.57% (N=442) had taken a
college orientation class their first term and 68.43% (N=958) that had never taken a
college orientation class. When the sample is viewed by individual institutions, there
were 21.33% (N=167) of the participants that had taken a college orientation class their
first term and 78.67% (N=616) that had never taken a college orientation class at Miami-
Dade Community College; 91.54% (N=l 19) of the participants that had taken a college
orientation class their first term and 8.46% (N=l 1) that had never taken a college
orientation class at Okaloosa Walton Community College; 48.70% (N=l 31) of the
participants that had taken a college orientation class their first term and 51.30% (N=138)
that had never taken a college orientation class at Santa Fe Community College; and
11.47% (N=25) of the participants that had taken a college orientation class their first
62

63
term, and 88.53% (N=193) that had never taken a college orientation class at Tallahassee
Community College.
The gender division of the sample was 50.21% female (N=703) and 49.79% male
(N=697). Of the female participants, 33% (N=471) had taken a college orientation class
their first term, and 67% (N=232) had never taken a college orientation class. Of the male
participants. 30.13% (N=210) had taken a college orientation class their first term, and
69.87% (N=487) had never taken a college orientation class.
The racial/ethnic divisions of the sample were 51.4% white (N=720), 36.8%
Hispanic (N=515), 8.9% African American (N=125), 2.4% Asian (33). and 0.5% other
minority (N=7). Of the white participants, 38.33% (N=276) had taken a college
orientation class their first term, and 61.67% (N=444) had never taken a college
orientation class. Of the Hispanic participants. 19.42% (N=100) had taken a college
orientation class their first term, and 80.58% (N=415) had never taken a college
orientation class. Of the African American participants, 48% (N=60) had taken a college
orientation class their first term, and 52% (N=65) had never taken a college orientation
class. Of the Asian participants. 18.18% (N=6) had taken a college orientation class their
first term, and 81.82% (N=27) had never taken a college orientation class. None of the
other minority participants had taken a college orientation class their first term.
The age of the sample ranged from 15 to 44 years of age. with a mean age of 19.68
years of age. The standard deviation was 2.10.
The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was used to compute analysis of variance
(ANOVA) for the dependent and independent variables. The level of significance for all
analyses was set at p < .05. This study examined the following research questions:

64
1. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class
and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in retention
after 1 year. 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?
An ANOVA was performed to test for mean differences in the variable of status
(completed a college orientation class during the first term of college as opposed to not
having taken a college orientation class during the 4-year period of the study ) for retention
over the 4-year period of the study. The results indicated that there was no significant
difference found for the means of the independent variable of status. Table 1 shows the
means and standard deviations for the retention variable of students who had taken the
orientation class their first term and for students who had never taken the class.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of the Variable Retention for Students First and Never
First
Never
Variable
N
Mean
SD
N
Mean
SD
Retention
442
3.45701357
0.94001889
951
3.48370137
0.94004332
2. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class
and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in number of
course withdrawals after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?
An ANOVA was performed to test for mean differences in the variable of status
for number of course withdrawals after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years. There was
no significant difference found for the independent variable of status at the end of years 1,
2, 3, or 4. Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the total number of course

65
withdrawals for students who had taken the orientation class their first term and for
students who had never taken the class.
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of the Variable Withdrawal for Students First and Never
Variable
First
Never
N
Mean
SD
N
Mean
SD
Withdrawals 1
442
0.97511312
1.30646938
951
1.07045216
1.32278801
Withdrawals 2
442
2.18778281
2.27846769
951
2.35331230
2.26536556
Withdrawals 3
442
2.99773756
3.00830209
951
3.28706625
3.19582473
Withdrawals 4
442
3.41402715
3.50872997
951
3.70347003
3.66324253
3. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class
those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in grade point
average after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?
An ANOVA was performed to test for mean differences in the variable of
status for grade point average at the end of years 1, 2, 3, and 4. There was no
significant difference found for the independent variable of status at the end of years
1.2, 3, or 4. Table 3 shows the means and standard deviations of the grade point average
for students who had taken the orientation class their first term and for students who had
never taken the class.
4. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation
class and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in total
number of courses repeated after 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years?

66
Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of the Variable Grade Point Average for Students First
and Never
Variable
First
Never
N
Mean
SD
N
Mean
SD
GPA Year 1
442
2.83476944
0.76461336
951
2.76646810
0.81220269
GPA Year 2
407
2.66605018
0.76016249
856
2.69091551
0.74779122
GPA Year 3
324
2.68291730
0.69720083
735
2.71155841
0.68446290
GPA Year 4
189
2.58157764
0.61907624
433
2.67210337
0.57705572
An ANOVA was performed to test for mean differences in the variable of status
for total number of courses repeated at the end of years 1, 2, 3, and 4. There was no
significant difference found for the independent variable of status at the end of years 1. 2.
3, or 4. Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations for total number of courses
repeated for students who had taken the orientation class their first term and for students
who had never taken the class.
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations of the Variable Courses Repeated for Students First and
Never
Variable
First
Never
N
Mean
SD
N
Mean
SD
Repeat Year 1
442
0.29864253
0.62193318
951
0.28601472
0.65067091
Repeat Year 2
442
1.44796380
1.44223872
951
1.40063091
1.41880588
Repeat Year 3
442
2.22398190
1.99024024
951
2.31650894
2.16083093
Repeat Year 4
442
2.65610860
2.45028968
951
2.72344900
2.58095598

67
5. Is there a difference between students who have taken a college orientation class
and those who have not taken a college orientation class (in their first term) in total number
of credit hours at time of graduation?
Degrees were awarded to 705 participants; 220 (31.21%) of the graduates had
attended a college orientation class during their first term in college, while 485 (68.79%)
had never taken a college orientation class. An ANOVA was performed to test for mean
differences in the variable of status for total number of credit hours completed at the time
of graduation. There was no significant difference found for the independent variable of
status for total number of credit hours completed at the time of graduation. Table 5
shows the means and standard deviations of the total number of credit hours at time of
graduation for students who had taken the orientation class their first term and for
students who had never taken the class.
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations of the Total Number of Hours at Graduation for
Students First and Never
First
Never
Variable
N
Mean
SD
N
Mean SD
Hours
220
55.96363636
18.09282371
483
58.03271222 16.92166742
6. Do age, gender, and race interact with taking a college orientation course (in their
first term) to affect retention, course withdrawal, grade point average, courses repeated,
and number of credit hours taken at time of graduation?

68
The analysis of the data indicate that no significant interaction was found between
age, gender, and race affecting retention, course withdrawal, grade point average, courses
repeated, and the number of credit hours taken at time of graduation.
Although the findings were not a part of the study, significant difference was
observed between the variables of gender, race/ethnicity, age, retention, course
withdrawals, grade point average, course repetitions, and number of credit hours at time of
graduation. The differences are listed below.
Retention. There was significant difference found between the means for the
independent variable of gender (F = 8.66, p = 0.0033). The ANOVA for retention over
the 4-year period of the study is shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Analysis of Variance of Retention by Status. Participant Age, Participant Gender, and
Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
30.6353807
2.7850355
3.22
0.0002
Error
1379
1194.4012735
0.8661358
Corrected Total
1390
1225.0366643
STATUS
1
0.23795158
0.23795158
0.27
0.6003
AGE
1
2.2024441
2.20244411
2.54
0.1 1 10
GENDER
1
7.50414382
7.50414382
8.66
0.0033*
RACE
3
5.24358248
1.74786083
2.02
0.1095
AGE*STATUS
1
0.23825365
0.23825365
0.28
0.6000
STATUS*GENDER
1
0.53929166
0.53929166
0.62
0.4302
STATUS*RACE
3
3.97353360
1.32451 120
1.53
0.2051
*p < .05

69
Course withdrawals. For year 1 there was significant difference found between
the means for the independent variable of race (F = 4.10. p = 0.0060). The ANOVA for
number of course withdrawals for year 1 is shown in Table 7. For year 2 there was
significant difference found between the means for the independent variable of race (F =
9.63, p = 0.0001). The ANOVA for number of course withdrawals for year 2 is shown in
Table 8. For year 3 there was significant difference found between the means for the
independent variables of gender (F = 8.47, p. = 0.0037) and race (F = 10.05. p = 0.0001).
The ANOVA for number of course withdrawals for year 3 is shown in Table 9. For year
4 there was significant difference found between the means for the independent variables
of gender (F = 7.69, p = 0.0056 and race (F = 10.12, p = 0.0001). The ANOVA for
number of course withdrawals for year 4 is shown in Table 10.
Table 7
Analysis of Variance of Grade W for First Year bv Status. Participant Age, Participant
Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
37.3148491
3.3922590
1.97
0.0280
Error
1379
2375.6657404
1.7227453
Corrected Total
1390
2412.9805895
STATUS
1
0.3945499
0.3945499
0.23
0.6323
AGE
1
0.3385731
0.3385731
0.20
0.6576
GENDER
1
4.3060102
4.3060102
2.50
0.1 141
RACE
3
21.1824458
7.0608153
4.10
0.0066*
AGE*STATUS
1
0.3953943
0.3953943
0.23
0.6320
STATUS*GENDER
1
1.3074086
1.3074086
0.76
0.3838
STATUS*RACE
3
7.6185752
2.5395251
1.47
0.2198
*p < .05

70
Table 8
Analysis of Variance of Grade W for Second Year by Status. Participant Age. Participant
Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF Sum of Squares
Mean Square F Value Pr>F
Model
1 1
219.228604
Error
1379
6950.360181
Corrected Total
1390
7169.588785
STATUS
1
5.327525
AGE
1
2.117441
GENDER
1
15.195126
RACE
3
145.650272
AGE*STATUS
1
5.315728
STATUS*GENDER
1
8.115119
STATUS*RACE
3
15.496801
*p < .05
19.929873
3.95
0.0001
5.04145
5.327525
1.06
0.3041
2.117441
0.42
0.5170
15.195126
3.01
0.0827
48.550091
9.63
0.0001*
5.315728
1.05
0.3046
8.115119
1.61
0.2047
5.165600
1.02
0.3806
Table 9
Analysis of Variance of Grade W for Third Year by Status. Participant Age. Participant
Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
496.363717
45.123974
4.71
0.0001
Error
1379
13221.839015
9.587991
Corrected Total
1390
13718.202732
STATUS
1
1.525925
1.525925
0.16
0.6900
AGE
1
0.003586
0.003586
0.00
0.9846
GENDER
1
81.237458
81.327458
8.47
0.0037*
RACE
3
289.171837
96.390612
10.05
0.0001*
AGE*STATUS
1
1.522830
1.522830
0.16
0.6903
STATUS*GENDER
1
3.936260
3.936260
0.41
0.5218
STATUS*RACE
3
14.942826
4.980942
0.52
0.6689
*p < .05

71
Table 10
Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
627.403604
57.036691
4.48
0.0001
Error
1379
17574.963038
12.744716
Corrected Total
1390
18202.366643
STATUS
1
1.834703
1.834703
0.14
0.7044
AGE
1
0.002768
0.002768
0.00
0.9882
GENDER
1
98.035054
98.035054
7.69
0.0056*
RACE
3
386.847499
128.949166
10.12
0.0001*
AGE*STATUS
1
1.834346
1.834346
0.14
0.7045
STATUS*GENDER
1
11.254532
11.254532
0.88
0.3475
STATUS*RACE
13.512303
4.504101
0.35
0.7867
*p < .05
Grade point average. For year 1 there was significant difference found between the
data for the independent variables of age (F = 12.42, p = 0.0004) and gender (F = 27.64. p
= 0.0001). The ANOVA for grade point average at the end of year 1 is shown in Table 11.
For year 2 there was significant difference found between the data for the independent
variables of age (F = 10.24. p = 0.0014) and gender (F = 16.56. p = 0.0001). The
ANOVA for grade point average at the end of year 2 is shown in Table 12. For year 3
there was significant difference found between the data for the independent variables of
age (F = 7.12, p = 0.0077) and gender (F = 21.31, p = 0.0001). The ANOVA for grade
point average at the end of year 3 is shown in Table 13. For year 4 there was significant
difference found between the data for the independent variables of age (F = 5.00,

72
Table 11
Analysis of Variance of Grade Point Average for First Year bv Status. Participant Aue.
Participant Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
37.3315640
3.3937785
5.54
0.0001
Error
1379
844.0847950
0.6120992
Corrected Total
1390
881.4163590
STATUS
1
0.0045372
0.0045372
0.01
0.9314
AGE
1
7.6019451
7.6019451
12.42
0.0004*
GENDER
1
16.9169813
16.9169813
27.64
0.0001*
RACE
3
3.3885290
1.1295097
1.85
0.1370
AGE*STATUS
1
0.0042822
0.0042822
0.01
0.9334
STATUS*GENDER
1
0.2449933
0.2449933
0.40
0.5271
STATUS*RACE
3
2.1797364
0.7265788
1.19
0.3133
*p < .05
Table 12
Analysis of Variance of Grade Point Average for Second Year bv Status. Participant Age,
Participant Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
22.2090554
2.0190050
3.67
0.0001
Error
1249
686.8816814
0.5499453
Corrected Total
1260
709.0907369
STATUS
1
0.01440218
0.01440218
0.03
0.0715
AGE
1
5.63229663
5.63229663
10.24
0.0014*
GENDER
1
9.10677269
9.10677268
16.56
0.0001*
RACE
3
1.20788600
0.40262867
0.73
0.5329
AGE*STATUS
1
0.01426665
0.01426665
0.03
0.8721
STATUS*GENDER
1
0.00023712
0.00023712
0.00
0.9834
STATUS*RACE
3
0.67785190
0.22595063
0.14
0.7452
*p < .05

73
Table 13
Analysis of Variance of Grade Point Average for Third Year bv Status. Participant A«ze.
Participant Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
21.0784390
1.9162217
4.18
0.0001
Error
1047
479.9840352
0.4584375
Corrected Total
1058
501.0624741
STATUS
1
0.21867360
0.21867360
0.48
0.4899
AGE
1
3.26612552
3.26612552
7.12
0.0077*
GENDER
1
9.77137202
9.77137202
21.31
0.0001*
RACE
3
1.01590818
0.33863606
0.74
0.5291
AGE*STATUS
1
0.21904526
0.21904526
0.48
0.4896
STATUS*GENDER
1
0.00020426
0.00020426
0.00
0.9832
STATUS*RACE
3
2.78825962
0.92941987
2.03
0.1084
*p < .05
p = 0.0257) and gender (F = 4.37. p = 0.0369). The ANOVA for grade point average
at the end of year 4 is shown in Table 14.
Course repetition. For year 1 there was no significant difference found in any
variable on total number of courses repeated. For year 2 there was significant difference
found between the means for the independent variables of gender (F = 7.53. p = 0.0061)
and race (F = 9.28. p = 0.0001). The ANOVA for total number of courses repeated at the
end of year 2 is shown in Table 15. For year 3 there was significant difference found
between the means for the independent variables of gender (F = 5.83. p = 0.0159) and
race (F = 11.50. p = 0.0001). The ANOVA for total number of courses repeated at the
end of year 3 is shown in Table 16. For year 4 there was significant difference found
between the means for the independent variables of gender (F = 5.72, p = 0.0169) and

74
Table 14
Analysis of Variance of Grade Point Average for Fourth Year by Status. Participant Age-
Participant Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
7.37353517
0.67032138
1.95
0.0309
Error
610
209.60979766
0.34362262
Corrected Total
621
216.98333283
STATUS
1
0.47987170
0.47987170
1.40
0.2378
AGE
1
1.71927736
1.71927736
5.00
0.0257*
GENDER
1
1.50302624
1.50302624
4.37
0.0369*
RACE
3
2.41403692
0.80467897
2.34
0.0722
AGE*STATUS
1
0.84124716
0.48124716
1.40
0.2371
STATUS*GENDER
1
0.05551744
0.05551744
0.16
0.6879
STATUS*RACE
3
1.3563 1888
0.45210629
1.32
0.2683
*p < .05
Table 15
Analysis of Variance of Total Number of Courses Repeated at End of Second Year bv
Status. Participant Age. Participant Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
98.5165411
8.9560492
4.53
0.0001
Error
1379
2729.1383835
1.9790706
Corrected Total
1390
2827.6549245
STATUS
1
1.6799207
1.6799207
0.85
0.3570
AGE
1
5.1530455
5.1530455
2.60
0.1068
GENDER
1
14.9025726
14.9025726
7.53
0.0061*
RACE
3
55.0703488
18.3567829
9.28
0.0001*
AGE*STATUS
1
1.68363220
1.68363220
0.85
0.3565
STATUS*GENDER
1
0.1239002
0.1239002
0.06
0.8025
STATUS*RACE
3
7.1254743
2.3751581
1.20
0.3084
*p < .05

75
Table 16
Analysis of Variance of Total Number of Courses Repeated at End of Third Year bv
Status. Participant Age. Participant Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
262.318836
23.847167
5.55
0.0001
Error
1379
5920.656002
4.293442
Corrected Total
1390
6182.974838
STATUS
1
0.628400
0.628400
0.15
0.7021
AGE
1
9.139642
9.139642
2.13
0.1448
GENDER
1
25.021574
25.021574
5.83
0.0159*
RACE
3
148.177154
49.392385
1 1.50
0.0001*
AGE*STATUS
1
0.628710
0.628710
0.15
0.7020
STATUS*GENDER
1
1.946039
1.946039
0.45
0.5009
STATUS*RACE
3
10.277452
3.425817
0.80
0.4950
*p < .05
race (F — 11.32. p = 0.0001). The ANOVA for total number of courses repeated at the
end of year 4 is shown in Table 17.
Number of credit hours at time of graduation. There was significant difference
found between the means for the independent variables of race (F = 6.34, p = 0.003). The
ANOVA for total number of credit hours completed at the time of graduation is shown in
Table 18.
This chapter presented discussion of the procedures for the analysis and the
results of this research. The results of the statistical analyses reveal that there were no
differences in group means between the individuals that participated in the college
orientation class and those that did not. These analyses indicate that taking a college
orientation class the first term at a community college does not have significant effect on

76
Table 17
Analysis of Variance of Total Number of Courses Repeated at End of Fourth Year bv
Status. Participant Age. Participant Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
377.503092
34.318463
5.50
0.0001
Error
1379
8596.873616
6.234136
Corrected Total
1390
8974.376707
STATUS
1
1.724725
1.724725
0.28
0.5990
AGE
1
12.211825
12.211825
1.96
0.1619
GENDER
1
35.662231
35.662231
5.72
0.0169*
RACE
3
211.618224
70.539408
11.32
0.0001*
AGE*STATUS
1
1.719932
1.719932
0.28
0.5995
STATUS*GENDER
1
9.082397
9.082397
1.46
0.2276
STATUS*RACE
3
21.340644
7.113548
1.14
0.3313
*p < .05
Table 18
Analysis of Variance of Total Number of Credit Hours at Time of Graduation by Status.
Participant Age. Participant Gender, and Participant Race
Source
DF
Sum of Squares
Mean Square
F Value
Pr>F
Model
1 1
8713.19005
792.10819
2.71
0.0020
Error
691
201640.85609
291.81021
Corrected Total
702
210354.04615
STATUS
1
370.76455
370.76455
1.27
0.2601
BYEAR
1
70.27562
70.27562
0.24
0.6238
GENDER
1
318.27432
318.27432
1.09
0.2967
RACE
3
5552.67397
1850.89132
6.34
0.0003*
BYEAR*STATUS
1
367.95877
367.95877
1.26
0.2619
STATUS*GENDER
1
99.74374
99.74374
0.34
0.5590
STATUS*RACE
3
1 198.74887
399.58296
1.37
0.2510
*p < .05

77
retention, course withdrawal patterns, grade point average, courses repetition patterns,
and the total number of credit hours at time of graduation. A discussion of these results
and recommendations for further research are presented in Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Purpose Overview
This study was designed to explore whether there is a significant relationship
between taking a community college orientation course during the first term and the
retention, persistence, and time to degree completion of students. The relationship of the
findings to the six research questions is discussed in this chapter. The remainder of this
chapter includes limitations of the study, implications of the findings and
recommendations, and the chapter summary.
Discussion of Results
Research Question 1
The first research question addressed the issue of whether or not there is a
difference in retention between students who have taken an orientation class their first
term in college and those who have never taken an orientation class. Retention for this
study was based upon continuous enrollment either until degree completion or to the
point at which a student has not registered for classes for the following academic term.
According to Tinto (1993), integration with the social and academic systems of a college
early in a student’s career is believed to enhance the individual's intentions and
commitments and, in turn, facilitates student retention. The college orientation class is
designed to integrate a student into the social and academic communities of the college,
therefore, promoting improved retention.
78

79
Results of this study indicate that students who had taken the class did not have a
difference in retention at the end of year 1, 2, 3, or 4 than students who had not taken the
college orientation class. There was no statistically significant difference between the
two student populations. The data indicated that a one hour college orientation class
does not impact retention of students at the community college who have completed a 1 -
credit-hour college orientation course during their first term.
Research Question 2
The second research question explored whether there is a difference in the number
of course withdrawals between students who have taken an orientation class their first
term in college and those who have never taken an orientation class. There was no
significant difference found in the number of course withdrawals between the two groups
studied over the 4-year period
A student’s commitment to the institution and to the goal of college graduation
may be reflected in his/her course withdrawal pattern. A course withdrawal is not solely
an academic performance, or preparedness, indicator. Students at a community college
may withdraw from coursework due to schedule conflicts, economic issues, or as a result
of family or personal crisis. Integration into the academic and social systems of the
college promotes goal and degree completion (Tinto. 1993), thus reducing the need to
withdraw from coursework. The results of this study indicate that the orientation class is
not a sufficient intervention to influence course withdrawal over a longer time span.
Research Question 3
The third research question examined whether there was a difference in means of
grade point averages between students who had taken an orientation class their first term

80
in college and those who had never taken a college orientation class. The study does not
seem to support that one class at the start of a student's academic has a lasting impact on
academic performance through a 4-year tenure. There was no significant difference in
grade point averages between the two groups studied.
Research Question 4
The fourth research question examined the relationship between the number of
courses a student repeated during their academic career and their attendance in a college
orientation course their fist term in college. According to Tinto’s (1993) theory of
student retention, the frequency of course repetition, as well as any educational
attainment strategy, is mediated by a student’s connection to both the institution and
his/her own educational goals. Although not directly a measure of student commitment,
it appears that an orientation course taken during the first term does not affect a student's
connection to the institution. No significant difference was observed between the group
means for courses repeated based upon participation or nonparticipation in a college
orientation class.
Research Question 5
The fifth research question explored the total number of credit hours taken at the
time of graduation. The question attempted to understand if students who have taken a
college orientation class and have persisted to graduation have done so in a more efficient
manner. Efficiency is measured by the total number of credit hours accumulated at the
time the student requests to graduate. There was no significant difference in group means
for total number of hours at the time of graduation based upon participation or
nonparticipation in a college orientation class.

81
Research Question 6
The sixth research question sought to understand if there were any differences
within subsets of the population that had either taken or had not taken a 1-hour college
orientation class their first term at a community college. No direct main effect was
discovered between the study’s dependent and independent variables, nor was there any
significant interaction between the variables of age, gender, race/ethnicity, and
participation in the class. The results of the study indicate that a 1 -hour college
orientation class during the first term at a community college had no effect on the
dependent variables, regardless of the participant’s age, gender, or race/ethnicity'.
Although not a focus of the study, significant differences were found related to
gender, race/ethnicity, and age as they interacted with retention, number of class
withdrawals, grade point average, number of courses repeated, and total number of credit
hours at time of graduation independent of having taken, or not taken, a college
orientation class. Further analysis of these differences would have been beyond the scope
of this project.
The research questions attempted to assess the long-term impact of a college
orientation class upon first term, academically prepared community college students.
Based upon Tinto’s (1993) work, it was predicted that the class would have an effect
upon a student’s retention, number of course withdrawals, grade point average, number
of course repetitions, and total number of credit hours acquired at time of graduation
from the community college. The results of the study did not support the prediction.

82
Limitations
The study was limited by the inability to select randomly and assign participants
to classes and to control groups. This study did not control for the possibility that the
characteristics that shape a student’s decision to take, or not to take, a college orientation
class may also impact his/her future academic progress and success. The study was
unable to assess prior differences between those students who enrolled in the college
orientation class and those who did not. There may have been a variety of other factors,
particularly motivation, that could also relate to future performance in college. Davis-
Underwood and Lee (1994) suggested that students who choose to participate in a
freshman seminar course are probably different from those who choose not to participate
in terms of motivational level and educational goals.
For the population in this study, taking a 1-credit-hour college orientation class
during the first term in college did not influence the study's dependent variables. In the
absence of a pure experimental design, it is impossible to know if the outcomes of taking
the course have not been molded by selection factors.
Although the study found differences in retention by gender, these differences
were not related to the independent variable of participation/nonparticipation in an
orientation class. Equally, race/ethnicity and age appeared significant in relation to
retention variables but not in relation to having taken an orientation class. Caution
should be used not to make any generalizations about gender, age, or race/ethnicity based
on the findings of this study.

83
Implications of the Findings and Recommendations
This research has helped to increase understanding of the impact of taking a 1 -
credit-hour college orientation class at the time a student enters the community college.
There are implications for theory, college practice, and research.
Implications for Theory
Tinto’s (1993) model stated that individuals enter institutions of higher education
with varying background attributes and experiences. These characteristics affect the
student's initial goal commitment and initial commitment to the institution. As students
establish themselves within the new institution, they interact with two priman' systems in
the college community—the academic system and the social system. Over a period of
time, this interaction of background variables and initial commitments with the academic
and social systems results in varying degrees of academic integration and social
integration. The process of interaction leads to further changes in commitments, which
leads ultimately to persistence or departure from the college. Academic and social
integration are the factors most critical in the decision to drop out. “Given individual
characteristics, prior experiences, and commitments, the model argues that it is the
individuals integration into the academic and social systems of the college that most
directly relates to his continuance in that college” (Tinto, 1975, p. 96).
The college orientation class is designed to integrate the student into the social
and academic systems of college (Astin. 1993; Gardner. 1986). It was assumed the social
and academic interaction that takes place in a college orientation class enhances both
intentions and commitments. This study investigated if taking a 1-credit college
orientation class, which is presumed to build both academic and social community, leads

84
to greater retention for college ready participants over a 4-year period. Institutional
measures used to assess retention were enrollment, number of course repetitions and
withdrawals, and grade point average. The results of the research, however, did not find
support for linkages between Tinto’s theoretical model and a 1-hour orientation class.
Based upon Tinto's theory (1975), this research assumed that intentions and
commitment are continuously shaped and molded by the student’s experiences in college.
This study focused on the temporal character of persistence and the transition process
from past community to membership in the new communities of the college. Tinto did
not describe change in levels of intention and commitment in relation to a specific time
frame. Instead, he described integration as a fluid process not restrained by boundaries.
When viewing integration from an institutional programming viewpoint, academic and
social integration may have developmental qualities that are sequential or governed by
stage or time. Retention strategies may be limited in the minimum length of time
necessary before producing meaningful results. Although the research did not test or
measure student integration into the college, it may suggest that time plays a role in the
process of integration into the academic and social communities of a community college.
A longer period of academic contact than is possible in a single orientation class could
translate to measurable differences.
The study was based upon a 1-credit-hour class format. The college orientation
class is also taught at other institutions as a 2- and 3-credit-hour class. A survey of 696
higher education institutions by Barefoot (1992) reported that the majority of orientation
classes (85.6%) awarded academic credit. The majority of those classes were taught as 1-
credit-hour classes (44.8% awarded 1 credit hour, 13.15 awarded 2 credit hours, and

85
19.2% awarded 3 credit hours). Although this study indicates that a 1-credit-hour college
orientation class did not show long-term influence to retention factors, it would be
important to understand if this situation would change with longer periods of class
contact and follow-up campus activities. There may be a minimum threshold of time
necessary before it is possible to establish a meaningful environment in which integration
can take place. Additional study of the class in a 2- and 3-credit-hour format with
community involvement assignments is recommended.
The study did not find any influence from the college orientation class during the
4-year period. The fact that change was not observed may lend support to other studies
reporting that any positive influence of the orientation class diminishes over time
(Napoli, 1996; Belcher et al„ 1987). Although the 1-credit college orientation class may
provide a rich starting point for the new student, there is no indication that the benefits
from this experience are lasting.
Implications for College
College orientation classes may not be an appropriate response for all student
populations. A college orientation class has been shown to benefit students who are
academically disadvantaged. Blackhurst (1994) found that the college orientation class
taken the first term increases the academic performance of low-achieving students
relative to other students. All participants in this study were selected based upon their
college ready academic status. A college orientation class may be beneficial for students
who have skills deficits and reason to believe that they are not a full members of a
community of learning. The class could conceivably be better suited for remedial
students at their point of entry to the institution.

86
The study also leads to questions regarding what are the qualities that constitute
what is perceived as genuine community. Interventions designed to foster a sense of
community are structured within the bureaucracy of higher education. Structured
experiences may not be removed enough from the system to allow students a sense of
ownership. The college orientation class, as well as learning communities and other
retention strategies, may not manifest or capture the necessary serendipity of academic or
social integration. It is possible that students perceived the class environment to be
artificial.
Why would a college orientation class environment appear unnatural? The
students may not have identified the class as a “genuine" academic accomplishment. The
college orientation class does not satisfy general education requirements for any of the
four schools in the study. Although the class earns elective credits that are applied
towards degree satisfaction, the class is sometimes perceived not to be academically
challenging. This may generate from the course's nontraditional college subject material.
In observing the range of grades awarded for the orientation class at all four
institutions in the study, the class has a high success rate. For the 442 students in the
study who had completed a college orientation class. 285 (64.48%) received a grade of A;
100 (22.62%) received a grade of B; 41 (9.28) received a grade of C; 8 (1.81%) received
a grade of D; and 8 (1.81%) failed the class. The high success rate for students in the
class may have a reverse message to the participants. The course may be thought of as
being “easy." It is possible that if a class does not meet an individual's criteria as a valid
academic experience, the class may not create an effective academic or social integration
experience.

87
Recommendations for Future Research
This study leads to several recommendations for future research. These
recommendations could enhance the understanding of the impact of a college orientation
class at the community college level.
1. Given that the present study did not find that the 1-credit-hour orientation class
had an impact on the variables studied, it is important to know whether a longer period of
contact would create a measurable difference. Further investigation is necessary to
understand whether a 2- or 3-credit-hour orientation class is an adequately intensive
intervention to bring about change in retention, number or classes withdrawals, grade
point average, number of course repetitions, and total number of credit hours at time of
graduation.
2. Looking closer at institutional impact upon the campus environment can add to
the understanding of the college orientation class. How variations from one campus to
another impact the effectiveness of the college entry for students is not well understood.
Gordon and Crites (1984) asserted that the primary purpose of a college orientation class
must be defined by the needs of the students on a specific campus. Furthermore, data that
ignore institutional context will rarely be generalizable from institution to institution
(Cope & Hannah, 1975). This study focused on schools within a state system that
maintained similar degree requirements and common course classification. This may not
be enough to understand the differences of campus interaction upon the college
orientation class participants. A study that explores the influence of institutional
characteristics on college orientation classes is recommended.

88
3. When studying variables of retention, general institutional databases may not
be sufficient to measure critical differences in the student experience. The results of this
study may indicate that only knowing if a student has, or has not. taken the class is in
itself too broad a variable to determine what has impacted the developmental variables
under consideration. A broader range of student information would add insight to
understanding potential impact of the orientation process in facilitating the development
of academic and social community. Future research projects are recommended that study
additional retention markers, based on Tinto’s theory, that can be easily incorporated into
institutional databases. For example, although it was not possible in this study (due to the
use of historical data), knowing each participant's initial major and highest expected
degree would provide a more complete view of the individuals intentions and aspirations.
4. The study was restricted by the absence of random selection and
random assignment. It is impossible to know if the student who voluntarily chooses to
takes a college orientation class is different than one who does not register for the class
their first semester. Future research of the college orientation class would be enhanced
by an experimental, longitudinal design.
Summary
In this chapter, the results of the statistical analysis of the data are discussed. The
dependent variables were (a) date of degree completion or end of continuous enrollment,
(b) cumulative grade point average at the end of each measurement period, (c) total
number of course withdrawals at the end of each measurement period, (d) total number of
course repetitions at the end of each measurement period, and (e) total number of credit
hours attained at the end of each measurement period. The independent variables were

89
(a) participation/nonparticipation in a college orientation class, (b) sex, (c) race/ethnicitv.
and (d) age. Limitations of the research were considered. Implications of the results for
theory and college practice were discussed. Finally, suggestions were made for further
research.

REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (1991). Women at thirtvsomething: Paradoxes of attainment.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Allen, D. (1994, May). The Iliad and the odvssev of student attrition. Paper
presented at the Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research. New
Orleans, LA.
Alsalam, N. (1993). The condition of education 1993. Washington, DC: National
Center for Educational Statistics.
American College Testing Program. (1993). National dropout rates. ACT
institutional data file. 1993. Iowa City, I A: Author.
Anderson, K. (1981). Post-high school experiences and college attrition.
Sociology of Education. 54. 1-15.
Apps, J. W. (1991). The adult learner on campus: A guide for instructors and
administrators. Chicago: Follet.
Astin, A. W. (1972). College dropouts: A national profile (Vol. 7. No. IT
Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Office of Research.
Astin, A. W. (1973). The impact of dormitory living on students. Educational
Record. 54. 204-210.
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes.
and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1982). The American freshman. 1966-1981: Some implications for
educational policy and practice. Washington, DC: Department of Education, National
Commission on Excellence in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 227 070)
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of
priorities and practices in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
90

91
Astin. A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical vears revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A., Korn, W., & Green, K. (1987). Retaining and satisfying students.
Educational Record. 68. 36-41.
Astin, A.. & Panos, R. (1969). The educational and vocational development of
college students. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Baker, R. (1986). An analysis of retention and attrition at MiraCosta College.
Del Mar, CA: MiraCosta College.
Barefoot. B. O., & Fidler. P. P. (1996). The 1994 national survey of freshman
seminar programs: Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum. The Freshman
Year Experience Monograph Series. 20.
Beal, P. E.. & Noel. L. (1980). What works in student retention: The report of a
joint project of the American College Testing Program and the National Center for Higher
Education Management Systems. Iowa City. IA: American College Testing Program.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 197 635)
Bean. J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal
model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education. 12. 155-187.
Bean, J. P„ & Metzner. B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of non-traditional
undergraduate student attrition. Review of Education Research. 55. 485-540.
Bean, J. P., & Vesper, N. (1994. November). Gender differences in college
student satisfaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for the
Study of Higher Education. Tucson, AZ.
Belcher. M. J.. Ingold. S., & Lombard. M. (1987). Addressing retention through
an orientation course: Results from a north campus study (Research Report No. 87-24),
Miami, FL: Miami-Dade Community College.
Bell, C., Jr. (1984). Grades as a predictor of attrition. Community College
Review. 12(21. 13-19.
Bers, T. H.. & Smith, K. E. (1991). Persistence of community college students:
The influence of student intent and academic and social integration. Research in Higher
Education 32(51. 539-556.
Blackhurst. A. E. (1994). A comparison of student outcomes in freshman
seminar courses taught by faculty and student affairs professionals (Doctoral dissertation,
Ohio University, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International. 550 01. 3103A.

92
Blanc, R. A., Debuhr. L. E„ & Martin, D. C. (1983). Breaking the attrition cycle:
The effects of supplemental instruction on undergraduate performance and attrition.
Journal of Higher Education. 54. 80-90.
Boe, J., & Jolicoeur. P. (1989). The evolution of a freshman seminar. N AC AD A
Journal. 9(11.51-59.
Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Educational research: An introduction (5th
ed.). New York: Longman.
Bower. L. B. (1996). Promoting new student success in the community college.
In J. N. Hankin (Ed.), The community college: Opportunity and access for America's
first-vear students (pp. 11-18). Monograph Series Number 19, National Resource Center
for The Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition. University of South
Carolina.
Brawer, F. B. (1996). Retention-attrition in the nineties. ERIC Digest. Los
Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges.
Breindel, M. D. (1997). Persistence of students who entered College of the
Desert. Palm Desert. CA: Institutional Research, College of the Desert.
Brophy, D. L. (1986). Follow-up study of the fall 1984 Sierra College dropouts.
Rocklin, CA: Sierra Joint Community College.
Business/Higher Education Partnership. (1997). Higher education in Florida: An
update. Tampa, FL: Author.
Cabrera, A. F. (1990). Exploring the effects of ability to pay on persistence in
college. Review of Higher Education. 13131. 330-36.
Cabrera. A. F. (1992). The role of finances in the persistence process: A
structural model. Research in Higher Education. 33(5L 571-94.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1989). Tribal colleges:
Shaping the future of native Americans. Lawrenceville, NJ: Author.
Chapman, D. W., & Pascarella, E. T. (1983). Predictors of academic and social
integration of college students. Research in Higher Education. 19(31. 295-322.
Chickering, A. W. (1974). Commuters versus resident students: Overcoming
educational inequities of living off campus. San Francisco. CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen. A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1982). The American community college. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

93
Coll, K. M.. & VonSeggem, D. J. (1991). Community' college retention: Some
procedural and programmatic suggestions. Laramie WY.: University of Wyoming.
Cope, R. G. (1978). Why students stay, why they leave. New Directions for
Student Services. 3, 1-11.
Cope, R. G., & Hannah, W. (1975). Revolving college doors. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Craig, K. L. (1994). Student retention and academic performance: Relationship to
a freshman seminar/student success course (Doctoral dissertation. The University of
Southern Mississippi. 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(3). 0836A.
Crook, D., & Lavin. D (1989, April). The community college effect revisited: The
long-term impact of community college entry on B.A. attainment. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Cuseo, J. B. (1991). The freshman orientation seminar: A research-based
rationale for its value, delivery', and content. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for
the Freshman Year Experience, University of South Carolina.
Daniels, G. (1990. October). Student intention and retention in a community
college setting. Paper presented at the North East Association for Institutional Research,
Albany, NY.
Davis-Underwood. M.. & Lee, J. A. (1994). An evaluation of the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte freshman seminar. Journal of College Student Development.
35, 491-492.
Department of Education, Division of Community Colleges. (1997). Report for
the Florida community college system: The fact book. Tallahassee: Division of
Community Colleges, Bureau of Research and Information System.
Dey, E., Astin. A., & Kom. W. (1991). The American freshman: Twenty five
year trends. Los Angeles. CA: Cooperative Institutional Research Program.
DiCarlo, R. D. (1980). Greenfield Community' College: A follow-up survey
(September 1979 and September 1980) and study of the attrition at Greenfield
Community College. Greenfield. MA: Greenfield Community College.
Dougherty, K. (1987). The effects of community colleges: Aid or hindrance to
socioeconomic attainment? Sociology of Education. 60. 86-103.
Dougherty, K. (1992). Community colleges and baccalaureate attainment.
Journal of Higher Education, 63. 188-214.

94
Dougherty. K. J. (1994). The contradictory' college: The conflicting origins.
impacts and futures of the community college. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Dunphy, L., Miller, T. E., Woodruff, T., & Nelson, J. E. (1987). In Martha
Stodt & William Klepper (Eds.), Increasing retention: Academic and student affairs
administrators in partnership. New Directions for Higher Education (pp. 39-59). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Durkheim. E. (1951). Suicide, a study in sociology (J. Spaulding & B. Simpson.
Trans.). Glencoe. IL: The Free Press.
Earl, A. W„ Sr. (1989). A retrospective of the effect of financial aid on college
and university enrollment during a period of steady-state and decline. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 305 863)
Eckland. B. K. (1964). College dropouts who come back. Harvard Educational
Review. 30. 402-420.
Ehrenberg, R., & Sherman. D. (1987). Employment while in college, academic
achievement, and postcollege outcomes: A summary' of results. Journal of Human
Resources. 22. 1-23.
El-Khawas, E. H. (1988). Community college fact book. Macmillan series on
higher education. Riverside, NJ: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Feldman. M. J. (1993). Factors associated with one-year retention in a
community college. Research in Higher Education. 34(4). 503-12.
Fetters, W. (1977). Withdrawal form institutions of higher education: An
appraisal with longitudinal data involving diverse institutions. Washington. DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Fidler, P. P. (1985). Research summary—University 101. Unpublished
manuscript. University of South Carolina.
Fidler. P. (1991). Relationship of freshmen orientation seminars to sophomore
return rates. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience. 3 I'D. 7-38.
Fidler, P.P., & Hunter, M. S. (1989). How seminars enhance student success. In
M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner. & Assoc. (Eds.). The freshman year experience: Helping
students survive and succeed in college (pp. 216-237). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Florida Community College System. (1993). 1993 Interim accountability report.
Tallahassee, FL: Author.

95
Florida Statute 239.117. (1995a). 1995 Supplement to Florida Statutes 1994.
Florida Statute 240.115. (1995b). 1995 Supplement to Florida Statutes 1994.
Florida Statute 239.249. (1996). 1996 Supplement to Florida Statutes 1995.
Fox, R. (1986). Application of a conceptual model of college withdrawal to
disadvantaged students. American Educational Research Journal, 23. 415-424.
Gardner, J. N. (1986). The freshman year experience. College and University.
61, 261-274.
Gardner, J. N. (1989). Starting a freshman seminar program. In M. L. Upcraft &
J. Gardner. & Associates (Eds.). The freshman year experience: Helping students survive
and succeed in college (pp. 238-249). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gates, A. G., & Creamer, D. G. (1984). Two-year college attrition: Do student
or institutions characteristics contribute most? Communitv/Junior College Quarterly.
8(1-4), 39-51.
Glass, J. C., Jr., & Garrett, M. S. (1995). Student participation in a college
orientation course, retention, and grade point average. Community' College Journal of
Research and Practice. 19(21. 117-32.
Gold, B. K. (1981). LACC student survey, fall 1980: Research study number 81-
5. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles City College.
Gordon. V. N. (1989). Origins and purposes of the freshman seminar. In M. L.
Upcraft. J. Gardner, & Associates (Eds.), The freshman year experience: Helping
students survive and succeed in college (pp. 183-197). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gordon, V. N., & Crites, T. J. (1984). The freshman seminar course: Helping
students succeed. Journal of College Student Personnel. 25. 315-320.
Gorter, S. (1978). Non-returning students, spring 1978. Trenton, NJ: Mercer
County Community College.
Green, R. M. L. (1995). College success: An evaluation of a freshman orientation
course for learning-disabled and non-leaming-disabled students (Doctoral dissertation,
American International College, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International. 56(6L
2172A.
Grunder, P. G., & Hellmich, D. M. (1996). Academic persistence and
achievement of remedial students in a community college’s success program. Community
College Review. 24(2L 21-33.

96
Guyette, S., & Heth. C. (1983, April). American Indian higher education: Needs
and projections. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Montreal. Quebec, Canada.
Hackman, J. R., & Dysinger, W. S. (1970). Reactions to college withdrawal.
Journal of Experimental Education, 38(3). 23-31.
Haggerty, M. (1985). A comparison of selected variables of adult persisters and
nonpersisters over the age 24 at an urban commuter university (University of Pittsburgh.
1985). Dissertation Abstracts International. 46(6). 1530A.
Halpin, R. L. (1990). An application of the Tinto model to the analysis of
freshman persistence in a community college. Community College Review. 17(4). 22-32.
Hilton, T.. & Schrader. W. (1986, April). Pathways to graduate school: An
empirical study based on national longitudinal data. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Hoff, M. P. (1994, February). Five years of DCS 101: An empirical analysis.
Paper presented at the Annual Freshman Year Experience Conference, Columbia. SC.
Huck, S. W., Cormier, W. H.. & Bounds, W. G.. Jr. (1974). Reading statistics
and research. New York: Harper & Row.
Jalomo, R. E., Jr. (1995). First-year student experiences in community college:
Making transitions, forming connections, and developing perceptions of student learning.
University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and
Assessment. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 380 179)
Johnston, A. B. (1982). Tallahassee Community College retention study.
Tallahassee, FL: Tallahassee Community College.
Jones, D. J.. & Watson, B. C. (1990). "High risk" students in higher education:
Future trends (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3). Washington. DC: The
George Washington University, School of Education & Human Development.
Jones, S. W. (1988). No magic required: Reducing attrition at the community
college. Community College Review. 14121.15-18.
Keenan, K., & Gabovitch, R. (1995, October). Evaluating the impact of a
freshman seminar program on student development and retention. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference of the North East Association for Institutional Research. Burlington
VT.

97
Kester. D. L. (1980, April). Historical highlights of the three-vear northern
California attrition reduction effort: An overview, from a perspective that overlooks ten
years, of the highlights of a three-vear California community college research consortium
effort to reduce attrition among first-time, full-time freshmen. Paper presented at the
Annual Conference for Research and Development officers of the California Commission
and Junior College Association, Asilomar, CA.
Lanni, J. C. (1992, March). The longitudinal student success study: The entering
student survey. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for
Equal Opportunity in Higher Education. Washington, DC.
Lee, M. M. (1996). Student retention survey: Whv students did not return-
spring semester 1994. Valhalla. NY: Office of Institutional Research. Westchester
Community College.
Lenning, O. T.. Beal. P. E., & Sauer. K. (1980). Retention and attrition: Evidence
for action and research. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems.
Levitz. R.. & Noel, L. (1989). Connecting students to institutions: Keys to
retention and success. In M. L Upcraft., J. N. Gardner. & Assoc. (Eds.). The freshman
year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college (pp. 65-8IT San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lipsky, S. A.. & Ender. S. C. (1990). Impact of a study skills course on
probationary students" academic performance. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience.
2(1), 7-16.
Lum, G„ & Signor, P. (1994). Master student study. Fall 1992 class. Wildwood
campus. Harrisburg, PA: Harrisburg Area Community College.
Macmillian, T. F., & Kester, D. M. (1973). Promises to keep: NORCAL impact
on student attrition. Community and Junior College Journal, 43(51. 45-46.
Maisto, A. A., Davis, J., Keyes, L. N„ & Tammi. M.W. (1987, February). The
effectiveness of freshman seminars. Paper presented at the 1987 National Conference on
the Freshman Year Experience East. Columbia, SC.
Malin, J. T.. Bray, H. B., Dougherty. T. W., & Skinner, W. K. (1980). Factors
affecting the performance and satisfaction of adult men and women attending college.
Research in Higher Education. 13. 115-130.
Martin , N. K.. & Dixon. P. N. (1989). The effects of freshman orientation and
locus of control on adjustment to college. Journal of College Student Development, 30
362-367.

98
Matonak, A. J. (1987). The application of Tinto's theoretical model of
persistence to academically underprepared students in the community college (Doctoral
dissertation. University of Houston, 1987). Dissertation Abstracts International. 49(4).
0744A.
McCormick, A. C. (1990, November). Mobility7 of educational expectations: The
effect of community colleges. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association
for the Study of Higher Education, Portland, OR.
Mcintyre, N. J. (1993). University division academic and career 1010: The
impact of a freshman seminar course on student persistence (Doctoral dissertation. The
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International. 54(6).
2017A.
Metzner. B.S., & Bean. J. P. (1987). The estimation of a conceptual model of
nontraditional undergraduate student retention. Research in Higher Education. 27. 15-39.
Mingle, J. R. (1987). Focus on minorities: Trends in higher education
participation and success. Denver, CO: Joint publication of the Education Commission
of the States and the State Higher Education Executive Offices.
Mohammadi. J. (1994). Exploring retention and attrition in a two-year public
community college. Martinsville. VA: Patrick Henry Community College.
Moline, A. E. (1987). Financial aid and student persistence: An application with
causal modeling. Research in Higher Education Journal of the Association for
Institutional Research. AIR Forum Issue. 26(21. 130-147.
Moore. N. (1995). Persisters and attrition at San Juan College. Farmington. NM:
San Juan College, Office of Institutional Research, Grant Development, and Planning.
Mulligan, S. C., & Hennessy, J. J. (1990). Persistence in a community7 college:
Testing attrition models. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. Boston.
Munro, B. (1981). Dropouts from higher education: Path analysis of a national
sample. American Education Research Journal. 18(21. 133-141.
Napoli, A. R. (1996). Psychosocial factors related to retention and early
departure of two-year community college students (Doctoral dissertation. State
University of New York at Stony Brook, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International.
57(6), 4093B.
Naretto, J. A. (1995). Adult student retention: The influence of internal and
external communities. NASPA Journal, 32(21. 90-97.

99
Nelson, R. B., Scott, T. B., & Bryan. W. A. (1984). Precollege characteristics and
early college experiences as predictors of freshman year persistence. Journal of College
Student Personnel. 25. 50-54.
Nespoli, L. A., & Radcliffe, S. K. (1983). Follow-up of 1978 entrants, research
report number 32. Columbia, MD : Howard Community College.
Noel, L. (1985). Increasing student retention: New challenges and potential. In
L. Noel, R. Levitz. D. Saluri. & Associates (Eds.l. Increasing student retention (pp. 1-27).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Noel, L., Levitz. R.. & Saluri. D. (1985). Increasing student retention. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nora. A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A
structural model. Research in Higher Education. 26(1). 31-59.
Ozaki. R. H. (1994). Freshman orientation: A comparison of five-week versus
ten-week sessions. Clarkston, GA: Dekalb College.
Pantages, T. J.. & Creedon, C. F. (1977). Patterns of student-faculty informal
interaction beyond the classroom and voluntary freshman attrition. Journal of Higher
Education. 48. 540-552.
Pantages, T. J.. & Creedon, C. F. (1978). Studies of college attrition: 1950-1975.
Review' of Educational Research 48Í1), 49-101.
Pascarella, E. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and student outcomes.
Review of Educational Research. 50. 545-595.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985a). Students' affective development within the college
environment. Journal of Higher Education. 56(61. 640-63.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985b). The influence of on-campus living versus commuting to
college on intellectual and interpersonal self-concept. Journal of College Student
Personnel. 26(41. 292-99.
Pascarella, E., Bohr, L., Nora, A.. Zusman. B., Inman. P„ & Desler. M. (1993).
Cognitive impacts of living on campus versus commuting to college. Journal of College
Student Development. 34(31. 216-20.
Pascarella, E., Bohr, L., Nora. A., Desler, M., & Zusman, B. (1994a). Impacts on
on-campus and off-campus work on first year cognitive outcomes. Journal of College
Student Development. 35Í5T 364-70.

100
Pascarella, E., Bohr. L., Nora. A., Ranganathan. S. Desler. M. & Bulakowski. C.
(1994b). Impacts on 2-year and 4-year colleges on learning orientations: A preliminary
study. Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 18(61. 577-89.
Pascarella. E., Bohr, L., Nora. A., & Terenzini, P. (1995). Cognitive effects of 2-
year and 4-year colleges: New evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
17(1), 83-96.
Pascarella. E. T„ & Chapman. D. W. (1983a). A multi-institutional, path
validation of Tinto's model of college withdrawal. American Educational Research
Journal. 20. 87-102.
Pascarella. E. T.. & Chapman, D. W. (1983b). Validation of a theoretical model
of college withdrawal: Interaction effects in a multi-institutional sample. Research in
Higher Education. 19(1). 25-48.
Pascarella, E. T„ & Duby, P. B., & Iverson, B. (1983). A test and re¬
conceptualization of a theoretical model of college withdrawal in a commuter institution
setting. Sociology of Education. 56. 88-100.
Pascarella. E. T.. Smart. J.C., & Ethington, C.A. (1986). Long-term persistence
of two-year college students. Research in Higher Education. 24 (1)47-71.
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1978). Student-faculty informal relationships and
freshman year educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Research. 71. 183-189.
Pascarella. E. T.. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students.
findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Wolfe, L. M. (1986). Orientation to college
and freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Journal of Higher Education. 51.
155-175.
Pascarella, E. T.. & Wolfe. L. M. (1985). Persistence in higher education: A
nine-year test of a theoretical model. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Porter, O. F. (1990). Undergraduate completion and persistence at four-year
colleges and universities. Washington, DC: National Institute of Independent Colleges
and Universities.
Price. L. A. (1993). Characteristics of early student dropouts at Alleganv
Community College and recommendations for early intervention. Cumberland. MD :
Allegany Community College.

101
Quevedo-Garica, E. L. (1987). Facilitating the development of Hispanic college
students. In D. W. Wright (Ed.). Responding to the needs of today's minority students.
New directions for students services (pp. 49-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Raimst, L. (1981). College student attrition and retention (College Board Report
No. 81-1). New York: Entrance Examination Board.
Ramaker, J. (1987). Retention at Olympic College: A statistical report, fall
1986-winter 1987. Bermerton. WA: Olympic College.
Reinertson, J. (1986). What ever happened to the class of 1983? Flint. MI:
Charles Stewart Mott Community College.
Rice, R. L., & Devore, J. (1992). Extended orientation courses at two-year
colleges. Communitv/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 16(3). 221-30.
Rootman, I. (1972). Voluntary withdrawal from a total adult socializing
organization: A model. Sociology of Education. 45. 258-270.
Ross, J. M. (1989). Recruiting and retaining adult students in higher education.
In P.S. Cookson (Ed.). Recruiting and retaining adult students (pp. 49-62). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Ross, K. (1990). Eight myths about minorities in higher education. College
Board Review. 155. 12-19.
Roueche, J. E.. & Roueche, S. D. (1993). Between a rock and a hard place: The
at-risk student in the open door college. Washington, DC: Community College Press.
Rugg, E. A. (1983). Design and analysis considerations for longitudinal retention
and attrition studies. College and University. 58. 1 19-135.
Shanley, M. G., & Witten, C. H. (1990). University 101 freshman seminar
course: A longitudinal study of persistence, retention, and graduation rates. NASPA
Journal. 27(41. 344-352.
Shreve, C. (1995). Retention: NMC ends report. July 1995. Traverse City, MI:
Northwestern Michigan College.
Sloan, D. M. (1991). An analysis of the effect of a one-credit orientation course
on student retention (Doctoral dissertation, Florida International University, 1991).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 52(121. 4199A.
Smedley, B. D., Myers H. F., & Harrell, S. P. (1993). Minority-status stresses
and the college adjustment of ethnic minority freshmen. Journal of Higher Education. 64
434-452.

102
Smith, D. G. (1982). The next step beyond student development-Becoming
partners within our institutions. NASPA Journal. 19(4). 54-58.
Smith, M. E., & Glass, G. V. (1987). Research and evaluation in education and
the social sciences. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Smith, T. M. (1996). The condition of education 1996. Washington. DC:
National Center for Educational Statistics.
Spady. W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary
review and synthesis. Interchange. 1. 64-85.
Staman. E. M. (1980). Predicting student attrition at an urban college (Doctoral
dissertation. The College of William and Mary, 1979). Dissertation Abstracts
International. 40(8). 4440A.
Stampen, J. 0., & Cabrera. A.F. (1988). The targeting and packaging of student
aid and its effects on attrition. Economics of Education Review. 7( 1), 29-46.
Stupka, E. H. (1986). Student persistence and achievement: An evaluation of the
effects of an extended orientation course. Sacramento. CA: Sacramento City College.
Stupka, E. (1993). An evaluation of the short term and long term impact a
student success course has on academic performance and persistence. Sacramento. CA:
Sacramento City7 College.
Suffet, E. (1988). Freshman seminar: Final report. Jenkintown. PA: Manor
Junior College.
Summerskill, J. (1962). Dropouts from college. In N. Sanford (Ed.), The
American college (pp. 627-657). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Swift, J. S. (1987). Retention of adult college students. NACADA Journal. 7.
7-19.
Sydow, D. L., & Sandel. R. H. (1996. May). Making student retention an
institutional priority. Paper presented at the National Institute for Staff and
Organizational Development Conference on Teaching and Leadership Excellence. Austin.
TX.
Taylor, H. K. (1988). Evaluation of a community college extended orientation
course: Effect on self-appraisal and performance (Doctoral dissertation. University of
Washington, 1988). Dissertation Abstracts International. 49(4L 0736A.

103
Temple, M„ & Polk. K. (1986). A dynamic analysis of educational attainment.
Sociology of Education. 59. 79-84.
Terenzini, P. T.. & Pascarella. E. T. (1984). Freshman attrition and the
residential context. The Review of Higher Education. 7(2). 111-24.
Thompson. J. (1993). The effects of on-campus residence on first-time in college
students. NASPA Journal. 31(1). 41-47.
Tinto. V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of
current research. Review of Educational Research. 45. 89-125.
Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of
Higher Education. 53. 687-700.
Tinto, V. (1985). Dropping out and other forms of withdrawal form college. In
L. Noel. R. Levitz, D. Saluri. & Associates (Eds.). Increasing student retention (pp. 28-
43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Tinto, V. (1986). Retention: An admission concern. College and University-.
61(4), 290-93.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal
character of student leaving. Journal of Higher Education. 59(4). 438-455.
Tinto. V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V., & Goodsell, A. (1993, April). Freshman interest groups and the first
year experience: Constructing student communities in a large university. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the College Reading and Learning Association. Kansas City.
MO.
Tinto, V., & Love, A. G. (1995). A longitudinal study of learning communities at
LaGuardia Communin' College. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement.
Tracey. T. J., & Sedlacek. W. E. (1985). The relationship of noncognitive
variables to academic success: A longitudinal comparison by race. Journal of College
Student Personnel. 26. 405-410.
University System of Georgia. (1994). Student retention and graduation.
University System of Georgia. Atlanta, GA: University System of Georgia.

104
VanGennep. A. (1960). The rites of passage (M. Vizedon and G. Caffee,
Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Velez, W. (1985). Finishing college: The effects of college type. Sociology of
Education. 58. 191-200.
Waggener, A. T.. & Smith. C. K. (1993. November). Benchmark factors in
student retention. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational
Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Walker. D. K. P. (1988). Strategies for increasing retention of Hispanic students
in community colleges (Doctoral dissertation. University of Texas at Austin. 1988).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 49(9). 2515A.
Wall, M. (1996). From theory to practice: Using retention research to guide
assessment efforts at a community college. Mays Landing, NJ: Atlantic Community
College.
Webb. M. (1988). Freshman year retention at three campuses of a large urban
community college district: 1983-1986. Community/Junior College Quarterly. 12. 213-
242.
Webb. M. (1989). A theoretical model of community college student degree
persistence. Community College Review. 16. 42-49.
Wells, R. N.. Jr. (1989). The forgotten minority: Native Americans in higher
education. Canton. NY: St. Lawrence University.
Whitaker, D. C., & Pascarella, E. T. (1994). Two-year college attendance and
socioeconomic attainment: Some additional evidence. Journal of Higher Education. 65f2).
194-210.
Wilkie, C., & Kuchuck. S. (1989). A longitudinal study of the effects of a
freshman seminar. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience. 1(1) 7-16.
Windham, P. (1994, August). The relative importance of selected factors to
attrition at public community colleges. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference of
the Southeastern Association for Community Colleges, Savannah, GA.
Woodward. R. W. (1982). The effects of a freshman seminar program on
retention and program goals (Doctoral dissertation. University of Virginia, 1982).
Dissertation Abstracts International. 43Í5T 1449A.

105
Zarvell, R. K., Kuskie, M, Bertram, R., Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Jones. N. (1991).
A theoretical and practical guide to student development programs in enrollment
management. In Alan Gaisky (Ed.). The role of student affairs in institution-wide
enrollment management strategies (pp. 87-102). Washington DC: National Association of
Student Personnel Administrators, Inc.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
James Arthur Watson was bom in Miami, Florida. He obtained a Bachelor of
Arts degree in fine art at Hofstra University in 1975. He obtained a Bachelor of Design
degree at the University of Florida in 1982. Mr. Watson began work in the field of higher
education at the University of Florida in 1982. At the University of Florida he has
worked at both the J. Wayne Reitz Union and in the Office of Student Services. He has
also worked as a graduate assistant in the Office of Academic Affairs for Community
Colleges. In 1993 he completed an internship with the Division Student Affairs at the
North Campus of Miami-Dade Community College. His responsibilities at Miami-Dade
included teaching college orientation classes. In the fall of 1993. Mr. Watson began to
work at Santa Fe Community College. Mr. Watson is a counselor in the Counseling
Center.
106

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
iwtv /k
Gerardo M. Gonzalez,
Professor of Counselor
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Mary HoWafd-Hamilton
Associate Professor of Educational
Leadership, Policy, and Foundations
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Phyllis M. Meek
Associate Professor of Counselor
Education
I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to
acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
M. David Miller
Professor of Educational Psychology
This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of
Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
December 1999
Dean. College of Education^
Dean, Graduate School

¿ D
n so
1?99
^3 T8
UNIVERSITY OF



xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EDQRU1H7C_DEX32W INGEST_TIME 2014-06-16T22:40:32Z PACKAGE AA00022206_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

7+( ,03$&7 2) $77(1',1* $ &2//(*( 25,(17$7,21 &/$66 21 5(7(17,21 3(56,67(1&( $1' 7,0( 72 '(*5(( &203/(7,21 2) ),567 7,0( &20081,7< &2//(*( 678'(176 %\ -$0(6 $57+85 :$7621 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

'(',&$7,21 7KLV SURMHFW LV GHGLFDWHG ZLWK ORYH WR P\ PRWKHU 0\UD -HDQ :DWVRQ DQG WR WKH PHPRU\ RI P\ ODWH IDWKHU -RH $QGUHZV :DWVRQ

PAGE 3

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

PAGE 4

7$%/( 2) &217(176 $&.12:/('*0(176 LLL $%675$&7 YL &+$37(56 ,1752'8&7,21 7KHRUHWLFDO )UDPHZRUN 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP 1HHG IRU WKH 6WXG\ 3XUSRVH RI WKH 6WXG\ 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQV 'HILQLWLRQ RI 7HUPV 2UJDQL]DWLRQ RI WKH 6WXG\ 5(9,(: 2) 7+( 5(/$7(' /,7(5$785( *HQHUDO $WWULWLRQ5HWHQWLRQ 6WXGLHV 9DULDEOHV $VVRFLDWHG ZLWK $WWULWLRQ DQG 5HWHQWLRQ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH
PAGE 5

5(68/76 ',6&866,21 3XUSRVH 2YHUYLHZ 'LVFXVVLRQ RI 5HVXOWV 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ /LPLWDWLRQV ,PSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH )LQGLQJV DQG 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU 7KHRU\ ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU &ROOHJH 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU )XWXUH 5HVHDUFK 6XPPDU\ 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ Y

PAGE 6

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 7+( ,03$&7 2) $77(1',1* $ &2//(*( 25,(17$7,21 &/$66 21 5(7(17,21 3(56,67(1&( $1' 7,0( 72 '(*5(( &203/(7,21 2) ),567 7,0( &20081,7< &2//(*( 678'(176 %\ -DPHV $UWKXU :DWVRQ 'HFHPEHU &KDLUSHUVRQ *HUDUGR 0 *RQ]DOH] 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW &RXQVHORU (GXFDWLRQ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV UHVHDUFK ZDV WR VWXG\ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WDNLQJ D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV GXULQJ WKH ILUVW WHUP DQG WKH UHWHQWLRQ SHUVLVWHQFH DQG WLPH WR GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ RI ILUVW WLPH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV $ FRPSXWHU VHDUFK RI WKH KLVWRULFDO GDWD EDVH IURP IRXU DFDGHPLF LQVWLWXWLRQV LQ )ORULGD JHQHUDWHG D VDPSOH RI VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG HQUROOHG IRU WKH ILUVW WLPH LQ FROOHJH $OO SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DFDGHPLFDOO\ SUHSDUHG IRU FROOHJH OHYHO ZRUN 7KH DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH DQG SHUVLVWHQFH RI VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG FRPSOHWHG D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV GXULQJ WKHLU ILUVW WHUP ZDV FRPSDUHG WR VWXGHQWV WKDW GLG QRW WDNH D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV GXULQJ WKHLU ILUVW WHUP LQ FROOHJH 0HDVXUHPHQWV ZHUH WDNHQ DW WKH HQG RI WKH ILUVW WHUP DQG DW WKH HQG RI WKH ILUVW VHFRQG WKLUG DQG IRXUWK \HDUV $Q DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH PRGHO ZDV XWLOL]HG WR DGGUHVV WKH UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV YL

PAGE 7

5HVXOWV RI WKH VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VLV UHYHDOHG WKDW WKDW WDNLQJ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKH ILUVW WHUP DW D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH GRHV QRW KDYH DQ DIIHFW RQ UHWHQWLRQ FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDO SDWWHUQV JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV FRXUVH UHSHWLWLRQV SDWWHUQV DQG WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV DW WLPH RI JUDGXDWLRQ $ GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKH SURMHFW LPSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH ILQGLQJV DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK ZDV SUHVHQWHG 9OO

PAGE 8

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 6WXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ LQ WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHPDLQV D FULWLFDO LVVXH LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 6WDWLVWLFV VKRZ WKDW DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI IUHVKPHQ HQUROOHG LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ GURS RXW EHIRUH FRPSOHWLQJ WKHLU SURJUDPV %UDZHU f 7KLV QXPEHU KDV UHPDLQHG IDLUO\ VWDEOH VLQFH 6XPPHUVNLOOnV f HDUO\ VWXG\ RI UHWHQWLRQ 2YHU KDOI RI VWXGHQWV HQWHULQJ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ VWDUW LQ D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH (QUROOPHQW LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV URVH IURP VWXGHQWV LQ WR RYHU PLOOLRQ LQ $OVDODP f 5HVHDUFKHUV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH GURSRXW UDWH WHQGV WR EH KLJKHU IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV WKDQ IRU \HDU FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV %HDQ t 0HW]QHU 'RXJKHUW\ (O.KDZDV -RQHV 7LQWR f &RSH DQG +DQQDK f LQGLFDWHG WKDW DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV UHPDLQ LQ VFKRRO DIWHU WKHLU ILUVW \HDU 2I WKRVH ZKR UHPDLQ RQO\ b JR RQ WR FRPSOHWH DQ DVVRFLDWH GHJUHH 0DQ\ VWXGLHV LQGLFDWH WKDW D VWXGHQWnV GHFLVLRQ WR GURS RXW RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LV XVXDOO\ PDGH GXULQJ WKH IUHVKPDQ \HDU %HDQ 'XQSK\ 0LOOHU :RRGUXII t 1HOVRQ )HWWHUV 3DQWDJHV t &UHHGRQ 5RRWPDQ f )XUWKHUPRUH WKH PDMRULW\ RI VWXGHQWV PDNH WKHLU GHFLVLRQ WR OHDYH VFKRRO GXULQJ WKH ILUVW ZHHNV RI WKH IUHVKPDQ \HDU %ODQF 'H%XKU t 0DUWLQ *DUGQHU /HYLW] t 1RHO 1RHO =DUYHO HW DO f 7KHVH VHTXHQFHV DSSHDU WR LPSO\ VSHFLILF SDWWHUQV RI

PAGE 9

VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH )LQGLQJ DSSURSULDWH VWUDWHJLHV WR DVVLVW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKHLU HGXFDWLRQDO JRDOV FRQWLQXHV WR EH D SULRULW\ &ROOHJH SHUVLVWHQFH LV DIIHFWHG WR D JUHDW GHJUHH E\ WKH SURFHVV RI LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH VWXGHQWV DQG WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ $ VXEVWDQWLDO ERG\ RI UHVHDUFK VXJJHVWV WKDW LQWHJUDWLRQ LQWR WKH VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF V\VWHPV RI WKH FROOHJH RU XQLYHUVLW\ LV HVVHQWLDO WR DFDGHPLF VXFFHVV DQG DFKLHYHPHQW $VWLQ +DOSLQ f
PAGE 10

GHYHORSHG D WKHRU\ RI VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH IURP KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 7LQWR f 'XUNKHLP VXJJHVWHG WKDW VXLFLGH PD\ UHVXOW ZKHQ DQ LQGLYLGXDO LV XQDEOH WR LQWHJUDWH DQG HVWDEOLVK PHPEHUVKLS ZLWKLQ D VRFLHW\ 7LQWR SURSRVHG WKDW WKLV PRGHO LV DQDORJRXV WR VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH IURP HGXFDWLRQ 7LQWR f PDLQWDLQHG WKDW GXULQJ WKH IUHVKPDQ \HDU VWXGHQWV PD\ IHHO D VHQVH RI QRUPOHVVQHVV +H VWDWHG WKDW KDYLQJ JLYHQ XS WKH QRUPV DQG EHOLHIV RI SDVW DVVRFLDWLRQV DQG QRW \HW KDYLQJ DGRSWHG WKRVH DSSURSULDWH WR PHPEHUVKLS LQ D QHZ FRPPXQLW\ WKH LQGLYLGXDO LV OHIW LQ D VWDWH RI DW OHDVW WHPSRUDU\ DQRPLH SS f ,QWHJUDWLRQ LQWR D FDPSXV FRPPXQLW\ PD\ DOVR EH PRUH GLIILFXOW IRU VWXGHQWV ZKRVH IDPLOLHV FRPPXQLW\ DQGRU VFKRROV KDG YHU\ GLIIHUHQW QRUPV DQG SDWWHUQV RI EHKDYLRU WKDQ WKDW RI WKH QHZ FROOHJH &KDSPDQ t 3DVFDUHOOD 6PLWK 7LQWR f 7LQWR f WKHRUL]HG WKDW VWXGHQWV HQWHU D FROOHJH RU XQLYHUVLW\ ZLWK YDU\LQJ SDWWHUQV RI SHUVRQDO IDPLOLDO DQG DFDGHPLF FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG VNLOOV 7KHVH DWWULEXWHV KHOS WR VHW ERXQGDULHV RI LQGLYLGXDO DWWDLQPHQW DQG FRORU WKH FKDUDFWHU RI LQGLYLGXDO H[SHULHQFH ZLWKLQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ 7KHVH SDWWHUQV LQFOXGH WKH VWXGHQWnV LQLWLDO GLVSRVLWLRQ DQG LQWHQWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ FROOHJH DWWHQGDQFH DQG KLVKHU SHUVRQDO JRDOV 2Q WKH LQGLYLGXDO OHYHO WKH DWWULEXWHV RI LQWHQWLRQ DQG FRPPLWPHQW UHSUHVHQW ZKDW 7LQWR UHIHUV WR DV SULPDU\ URRWV RI GHSDUWXUH ,QWHQWLRQ UHIHUV WR D VWXGHQWnV YDOXH DQG ZLOOLQJQHVV WR ZRUN IRU GHJUHH DWWDLQPHQW 5HVHDUFKHUV KDYH REVHUYHG WKDW VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH GHILQLWH RU DGYDQFHG GHJUHH DVSLUDWLRQV ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR SHUVLVW WKDQ WKRVH ZLWK ORZHU RU XQGHWHUPLQHG GHJUHH JRDOV $VWLQ /HQQLQJ %HDO t 6DXHU 7LQWR f &RPPLWPHQW UHIHUV WR ERWK WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV HGXFDWLRQDORFFXSDWLRQDO JRDOV DQG WR

PAGE 11

KLVKHU JRDO RI VWXG\LQJ DW D VSHFLILF VFKRRO 6WXGHQWV ZLWK LGHQWLILHG FDUHHU JRDOV DQG D VHQVH RI SXUSRVH DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR SHUVLVW LQ FROOHJH %RH t -ROLFRHXU *RUGRQ .HVWHU 5DLPVW f LQ \HDU FROOHJHV JRDO FRPPLWPHQW VHHPV WR KDYH D VWURQJHU HIIHFW RQ UHWHQWLRQ WKDQ GRHV LQVWLWXWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQW &KDSPDQ t 3DVFDUHOOD 3DVFDUHOOD t &KDSPDQ Ef 7KH VWXGHQWnV LQWHQWLRQ DQG FRPPLWPHQW EHFRPH PRGLILHG DQG UHIRUPHG RQ D FRQWLQXLQJ EDVLV WKURXJK D VHULHV RI LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO DQG WKH DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO V\VWHPV RI WKH VFKRRO 7LQWR f VXJJHVWHG WKDW RQFH D VWXGHQW HQWHUV DQ LQVWLWXWLRQ H[SHULHQFHV RFFXU ZLWKLQ WKH DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO V\VWHPV WKDW LQYROYH LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK IDFXOW\ VWDII DQG RWKHU VWXGHQWV ,I WKRVH LQWHUDFWLRQV DUH SRVLWLYH DQG WKH VWXGHQW EHFRPHV HQJDJHG ZLWK WKRVH V\VWHPV WKHQ WKH VWXGHQWnV JRDOV DQG KLVKHU LQVWLWXWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQW ZLOO EH VWUHQJWKHQHG 6DWLVI\LQJ DQG UHZDUGLQJ HQFRXQWHUV ZLWK WKH IRUPDO DQG LQIRUPDO DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO V\VWHPV DUH SUHVXPHG WR OHDG WR JUHDWHU LQWHJUDWLRQ DQG WR VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ ,I WKH H[SHULHQFHV DUH QHJDWLYH DQG WKH VWXGHQW IDLOV WR EHFRPH LQWHJUDWHG ZLWKLQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ WKH VWXGHQW ZLOO EH PRUH OLNHO\ WR ZLWKGUDZ $ ZLGH YDULHW\ RI H[SHULHQFHV DQG LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ ZLOO LQIOXHQFH VWXGHQW LQWHJUDWLRQ 7LQWR f LGHQWLILHG IRXU VLJQLILFDQW DUHDV RI LQGLYLGXDO H[SHULHQFHV ZLWK WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ WKDW LPSDFW VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH 7LQWR FODVVLILHG WKHVH FOXVWHUV DV DGMXVWPHQW GLIILFXOW\ LQFRQJUXHQFH DQG LVRODWLRQ 7KH H[SHULHQWLDO RXWFRPHV RI WKHVH LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLOO UHVKDSH DQG PRGLI\ WKH VWXGHQWnV LQWHQWLRQV DQG FRPPLWPHQWV ([WHUQDO IRUFHV WKDW LQIOXHQFH LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ LQFOXGH RXWVLGH REOLJDWLRQV DQG SHUVRQDO ILQDQFHV 2EOLJDWLRQV UHIHU WR VWXGHQW UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV WR IDPLO\

PAGE 12

DQG ZRUN ZKHUHDV ILQDQFHV UHIHU WR WKH SURFHVV WKDW VXEVLGL]H FROOHJH DWWHQGDQFH ([WHUQDO IDFWRUV KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR KDYH D VLJQLILFDQW LQIOXHQFH RQ VWXGHQWnV GHFLVLRQ WR GURS RXW DW FRPPXWHU LQVWLWXWLRQV %HDQ t 0HW]QHU 7LQWR f 5HVSRQGLQJ WR UHVHDUFK WKDW KDG EHHQ FRQGXFWHG ZLWK VWXGHQWV IURP FRPPXWHU DQG \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV 7LQWR f UHYLVHG KLV RULJLQDO PRGHO RI FROOHJH VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH 7LQWR DGGUHVVHG WKH UHODWLYHO\ JUHDWHU LQIOXHQFH RI DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ WKDQ VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ IRU FRPPXWLQJ VWXGHQWV )R[ 3DVFDUHOOD t &KDSPDQ E 3DVFDUHOOD t :ROIH 7LQWR f 7KLV HPSKDVL]HV WKDW FRPPXWHU VWXGHQWVn LQYROYHPHQW ZLWK WKH FDPSXV ZLOO EH SUHGRPLQDQWO\ DFDGHPLFDOO\ RULHQWHG FRQWDFW &KLFNHULQJ f VXJJHVWHG WKDW GXH WR WKH QDWXUH RI FRPPXWHU LQVWLWXWLRQV FRPPXWHU VWXGHQWV ZHUH OHVV LQYROYHG LQ H[WUDFXUULFXODU DFWLYLWLHV WKDQ WKHLU UHVLGHQWLDO FRXQWHUSDUWV ,Q DGGLWLRQ 7LQWR FRQVLGHUHG WKH LQIOXHQFH RI H[WHUQDO FRPPLWPHQWV IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 7LQWRn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n DWWLWXGHV DERXW KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ DQG KHOS IRUP WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV DQG WKHLU

PAGE 13

LQVWLWXWLRQ 0DUWLQ t 'L[RQ f 7LQWR f UHIHUUHG WR RULHQWDWLRQ SURJUDPV DV WKH EHJLQQLQJV RI LQWHJUDWLRQ S f 7KH FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV ZKHQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK RWKHU IRUPV RI RULHQWDWLRQ SURFHVVHV PRUH IXOO\ LQWHJUDWHV WKH VWXGHQW LQWR WKH VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF V\VWHPV RI FROOHJH $VWLQ f 7KH SULPDU\ JRDO RI DQ RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LV WR SURPRWH UHWHQWLRQ WKURXJK D VWXGHQWnV LQWHJUDWLRQ LQWR WKH DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO V\VWHPV RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ *DUGQHU f 7KH FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LV GHVLJQHG WR SURYLGH VWXGHQWV ZLWK DQ RYHUYLHZ RI VFKRRO DQG VHUYLFHV DYDLODEOH GHYHORS WKHLU DFDGHPLF VNLOOV DQG WR HVWDEOLVK FRQQHFWLRQV WR ERWK WKH DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO FRPPXQLW\ RQ FDPSXV 3DVFDUHOOD 7HUHQ]LQL DQG :ROIH f DUJXHG WKDW VWXGHQWV H[SRVHG WR D IUHVKPDQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH ZLOO EH VRPHZKDW PRUH VXFFHVVIXOO\ LQWHJUDWHG LQWR WKH DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO V\VWHP GXULQJ WKH ILUVW \HDU 7KH\ LQGLFDWHG WKDW JUHDWHU LQWHJUDWLRQ SURGXFHG E\ DQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH ZRXOG OHDG WR LQFUHDVHG FRPPLWPHQW DQG WR D ORZHU OLNHOLKRRG RI YROXQWDU\ ZLWKGUDZDO IURP WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ &XVHRnV f UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHODWHG WR FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVVHV OHG WR KLV FODVVLILFDWLRQ RI VHYHQ VSHFLILF FXUULFXOXP FRQWHQW DUHDV 7KH DUHDV FRPPRQ WR PRVW FODVVHV LQFOXGH Df WKH PHDQLQJ YDOXH DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV RI D OLEHUDO DUWV HGXFDWLRQ Ef VHOI FRQFHSW DQG VHOIHVWHHP Ff SUREOHP VROYLQJ DQG GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ VHOHFWLRQ RI D FROOHJH PDMRU DQG D IXWXUH FDUHHU Gf JRDO VHWWLQJ DQG PRWLYDWLRQ Hf OHDUQLQJ VNLOOV DQG VWUDWHJLHV If VHOIPDQDJHPHQW PDQDJLQJ WLPH DQG VWUHVV DQG Jf LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQV (DFK RI WKHVH VXEMHFW DUHDV UHVSRQG WR RQH RI WKH IRXU FOXVWHUV RI LQGLYLGXDO H[SHULHQFH ZLWK WKH

PAGE 14

LQVWLWXWLRQ WKDW 7LQWR VXJJHVWV VKDSHV WKH LQGLYLGXDOn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f IRXQG WKDW FRPSOHWLRQ RI DQ RULHQWDWLRQ SURJUDP LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH GXULQJ WKH ILUVW WHUP RI HQUROOPHQW SURPRWHV DQG LPSURYHV VWXGHQW SHUIRUPDQFH UHJDUGOHVV RI DJH JHQGHU UDFH PDMRU HQWUDQFH H[DP VFRUHV RU HPSOR\PHQW VWDWXV 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP 7KH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH LV IDFHG ZLWK QHZ FRQGLWLRQV WKDW FRXOG OLPLW PDQ\ VWXGHQWVn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

PAGE 15

DSSUR[LPDWHO\ LQ WKH \HDU %XVLQHVV +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 3DUWQHUVKLS f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f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t +HOOPLFK f 6WXGHQWV ZKR KDYH QRW GHYHORSHG DQ LQLWLDO HGXFDWLRQDO IRFXV PD\ EH SHQDOL]HG RU EORFNHG IURP WKHLU JRDOV &XUUHQW )ORULGD OHJLVODWLRQ )ORULGD 6WDWXWH D )ORULGD 6WDWXWH E )ORULGD 6WDWXWH f LV FKDQJLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO

PAGE 16

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f KRZHYHU QRWHG WKDW WKH VWXG\ RI UHWHQWLRQ DW WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH KDV EHHQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ OHVV WKDQ WKDW DW WKH YHDU LQVWLWXWLRQ 7KHUH LV D QHHG WR ORRN FORVHU DW UHWHQWLRQ HIIRUWV DW WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH 0RVW VWXGLHV RI FROOHJHVn RULHQWDWLRQ FODVVHV IRFXV RQ WKH ILUVW \HDU LPSDFW RI WKH FRXUVH EXW WKH ORQJWHUP LPSDFW LV QRW NQRZQ 1DSROL f IRXQG WKDW WKH LPSDFW RI VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ LV JUHDWHVW IRU WHUPWRWHUP SHUVLVWHQFH \HW GLPLQLVKHV RYHU WLPH %HOFKHU ,QJROG DQG /RPEDUG f GLVFRYHUHG WKDW WKH LPSDFW RI D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV RQ *3$ DQG WKH FRXUVHnV SRVLWLYH LQIOXHQFH IRU QRQWUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV GLPLQLVKHV

PAGE 17

RYHU WLPH ,W LV QRW FOHDU LI WKH LPSDFW RI LQLWLDO UHWHQWLRQ VXFFHVV ZLOO FRQWLQXH WKURXJK WR GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ :RRGZDUGnV f VWXG\ RI VHPLQDU SURJUDPV DW VRPH VHOHFWHG LQVWLWXWLRQV IRXQG GLIIHUHQW UHVXOWV +H IRXQG FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVVHV WR ODFN LPSDFW RQ UHWHQWLRQ DQG IHOW LW ZDV GXH LQ SDUW WR WKH VKRUW GXUDWLRQ RI PDQ\ VWXGLHV $OVR UHWHQWLRQ KDG EHHQ FDOFXODWHG DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH ILUVW VHPHVWHU UDWKHU WKDQ DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI VRSKRPRUH \HDU +H DGYRFDWHG WKDW D WR\HDU ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXG\ ZDV QHFHVVDU\ WR GHWHUPLQH UHDO LPSDFW RQ UHWHQWLRQ DQG SURJUDP JRDOV 7LQWR f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f DQG :HEE f VWDWHG WKDW DFDGHPLF DELOLW\ LV D VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOH WR XQGHUVWDQGLQJ UHWHQWLRQ $VWLQ f DQG 0ROLQH f IRXQG WKH OHYHO RI DFDGHPLF DELOLW\ DV LQGLFDWHG E\ FROOHJH DGPLVVLRQ WHVW VFRUHV WR EH D VWURQJ SUHGLFWRU RI SHUVLVWHQFH $OWKRXJK GURSRXWV VFRUHG ORZHU RQ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWV GHVLJQHG WR PHDVXUH DELOLW\ WKDQ GLG SHUVLVWHUV &RKHQ t %UDZHU 'L&DUOR f 7LQWR f VWDWHG WKDW OHVV WKDQ b RI DOO VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUHV UHVXOWV IURP DFDGHPLF GLVPLVVDO %\ KROGLQJ DFDGHPLF DELOLW\ FRQVWDQW D EHWWHU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH LPSDFW RI LQWHJUDWLRQ VWUDWHJLHV DW WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH FDQ EH DFKLHYHG 7KHUH LV D QHHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV EHQHILWV VWXGHQWV YLHZHG DV DFDGHPLFDOO\ SUHSDUHG IRU FROOHJH

PAGE 18

3XUSRVH RI 6WXG\ 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR H[SORUH ZKHWKHU WKHUH LV D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WDNLQJ D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH GXULQJ WKH ILUVW WHUP DQG WKH UHWHQWLRQ SHUVLVWHQFH DQG WLPH WR GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ RI VWXGHQWV 7KLV VWXG\ LQYHVWLJDWHG LI DQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH KDV YDOXH DV D UHWHQWLRQ VWUDWHJ\ IRU WKH DFDGHPLFDOO\ SUHSDUHG VWXGHQW HQWHULQJ WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH $Q H[DPLQDWLRQ ZDV PDGH RI ZKHWKHU DQ RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LPSDFWV UHWHQWLRQ WKH VWXGHQWn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nV YDULDEOHV LQ D UHDO ZRUOG HQYLURQPHQW DQ H[ SRVW IDFWR GHVLJQ ZDV XVHG LQ WKLV UHVHDUFK 6PLWK t *ODVV f 'DWD IRU WKH VWXG\ ZHUH JDWKHUHG WKURXJK D FRPSXWHU VHDUFK RI WKH KLVWRULFDO GDWDEDVH ILOHV DW HDFK LQVWLWXWLRQ FRYHULQJ WKH \HDU SHULRG 7KLV VWXG\ LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH YDULDEOH RI DWWHQGLQJ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DV LW UHODWHV WR FROOHJH UHWHQWLRQ DQG WLPH WR FRPSOHWLRQ IRU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV

PAGE 19

5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQV ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf LQ UHWHQWLRQ DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf LQ QXPEHU RI FODVV ZLWKGUDZDOV DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf LQ *3$ DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf LQ WRWDO QXPEHU RI FRXUVHV UHSHDWHG DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf LQ WRWDO QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV DW WLPH RI JUDGXDWLRQ" 'R DJH JHQGHU DQG UDFH LQWHUDFW ZLWK WDNLQJ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf WR DIIHFW UHWHQWLRQ FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDO *3$ FRXUVHV UHSHDWHG DQG QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV WDNHQ DW WLPH RI JUDGXDWLRQ"

PAGE 20

'HILQLWLRQ RI 7HUPV )RU WKH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ WKH IROORZLQJ GHILQLWLRQV ZHUH XVHG $FDGHPLFDOO\ SUHSDUHG VWXGHQWV DUH DOO VWXGHQWV ZKR DUH HOLJLEOH WR HQWHU WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH DQG GR QRW WHVW LQWR FROOHJH SUHSDUDWRU\n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

PAGE 21

VWXG\ ,Q &KDSWHU WKH UHVXOWV IRU HDFK RI WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV DUH UHSRUWHG 7KH GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKH UHVXOWV WKH OLPLWDWLRQV RI WKH VWXG\ LPSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH ILQGLQJV DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK DQG FRQFOXVLRQ DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ &KDSWHU

PAGE 22

&+$37(5 5(9,(: 2) 7+( 5(/$7(' /,7(5$785( 7KLV FKDSWHU SUHVHQWV D UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH FRQFHUQLQJ VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ DQG UHWHQWLRQ LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ ,W LV RUJDQL]HG DV IROORZV Df D EULHI GHVFULSWLRQ RI DWWULWLRQUHWHQWLRQ VWXGLHV Ef D GLVFXVVLRQ RI VRPH VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOHV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK UHWHQWLRQ Ff DQ RYHUYLHZ RI VWXGLHV IRFXVLQJ XSRQ 7LQWRnV YDULDEOHV RI DWWULWLRQ UHWHQWLRQ DQG Gf D UHYLHZ RI FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV VWXGLHV *HQHUDO $WWULWLRQ5HWHQWLRQ 6WXGLHV $WWULWLRQ LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LV WKH ORVV RI VWXGHQWV IURP WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ GXULQJ WKH QRUPDO FRXUVH RI WKHLU SURJUDP 5HWHQWLRQ HIIRUWV DWWHPSW WR UHGXFH WKH VL]H RI WKLV ORVV DQG UHWDLQ D JUHDWHU QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWV XQWLO WKHLU HGXFDWLRQDO JRDOV KDYH EHHQ PHW 6XPPHUVNLOO f UHYLHZHG DWWULWLRQ VWXGLHV FRQGXFWHG RYHU D \HDU SHULRG IURP WR +LV ILQGLQJV VKRZHG WKDW DSSUR[LPDWHO\ KDOI RI WKH VWXGHQWV ILUVW PDWULFXODWHG LQ FROOHJH ZHUH QRW HQUROOHG E\ WKH HQG RI \HDUV ,Q DGGLWLRQ KH GRFXPHQWHG WKDW QHDUO\ b RI VWXGHQWV ZLWKGUHZ GXULQJ RU DW WKH HQG RI WKH ILUVW \HDU DQG WKDW WKH JUDGXDWLRQ UDWH DW WKH HQG RI \HDUV ZDV MXVW EHORZ b $FFRUGLQJ WR 6XPPHUVNLOO WKH SHUFHQWDJH RI VWXGHQWV OHDYLQJ FROOHJH RYHU D \HDU SHULRG GLG QRW FKDQJH VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ WKH GHFDGHV VWXGLHG 7HQ \HDUV ODWHU &RSH DQG +DQQDK f REVHUYHG WKDW WKH QDWLRQDO DWWULWLRQ UDWH KDG FRQWLQXHG WR EH KLJK IRU RYHU KDOI D FHQWXU\ DQG VHHPHG WR FKDQJH OLWWOH RYHU WLPH

PAGE 23

5DLPVWnV f VXPPDUL]HG QDWLRQDO VWDWLVWLFV UHODWLQJ WR UHWHQWLRQ DQG DWWULWLRQ IURP DOO W\SHV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQV +LV ILQGLQJV UHYHDOHG WKDW DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b WR b RI HQWHULQJ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV JUDGXDWHG ZLWK EDFKHORUnV GHJUHHV ZLWKLQ \HDUV IURP WKH LQLWLDO GDWH RI HQWU\ WKDW b WR b JUDGXDWHG IRUP VRPH FROOHJH ZLWKLQ \HDUV DQG WKDW DQ\ZKHUH IURP b WR b ZRXOG QHYHU UHFHLYH D FROOHJH GHJUHH 6LPLODUO\ 7LQWR f VWDWHG WKDW LQ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ PLOOLRQ VWXGHQWV EHJDQ FROOHJH IRU WKH ILUVW WLPH +H HVWLPDWHG WKDW PLOOLRQ RI WKHVH VWXGHQWV ZRXOG OHDYH WKHLU ILUVW LQVWLWXWLRQ ZLWKRXW UHFHLYLQJ D GHJUHH DQG DSSUR[LPDWHO\ WKUHH TXDUWHUV RI WKHVH VWXGHQWV ZKR GHSDUWHG IURP WKHLU LQLWLDO LQVWLWXWLRQ ZRXOG OHDYH WKH KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ V\VWHP ZLWKRXW HDUQLQJ DQ\ W\SH RI FROOHJH GHJUHH 6PLWK f UHSRUWHG WKDW DPRQJ VWXGHQWV ZKR EHJDQ WKHLU SRVWVHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ DW D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH LQ b FRPSOHWHG D GHJUHH DW VRPH LQVWLWXWLRQ E\ 2I WKHVH VWXGHQWV b FRPSOHWHG D FHUWLILFDWH RU DQ DVVRFLDWHnV GHJUHH DW WKHLU ILUVW LQVWLWXWLRQ 7KRVH ZKR GLG QRW FRPSOHWH DQ DZDUG DW WKHLU ILUVW LQVWLWXWLRQ VSHQW D VXEVWDQWLDO DPRXQW RI WLPH WKHUHDQ DYHUDJH RI PRQWKV RI HQUROOPHQW 1LQHWHHQ SHUFHQW RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH EHJLQQHUV WUDQVIHUUHG WR D SXEOLF \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG b WUDQVIHUUHG WR D SULYDWH \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQ 2I WKRVH ZKR WUDQVIHUUHG WR D \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQ b FRPSOHWHG DQ DVVRFLDWHnV GHJUHH EHIRUH WUDQVIHUULQJ %\ b RI WKRVH ZKR WUDQVIHUUHG WR \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV KDG FRPSOHWHG D EDFKHORUnV GHJUHH DQG b ZHUH VWLOO HQUROOHG DW D \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQ 6PLWK f

PAGE 24

&RSH f &RSH DQG +DQQDK f +DFNPDQ DQG '\VLQJHU f DQG 7LQWR f EHOLHYHG WKDW UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH KDG D WHQGHQF\ WR RYHUHVWLPDWH WKH DFWXDO DWWULWLRQ SUREOHP DV D UHVXOW RI GHILQLWLRQDO SUREOHPV (FNODQG f VWDWHG WKDW HDUO\ VWXGLHV RI DWWULWLRQ UDWHV KDYH EHHQ H[DJJHUDWHG GXH SULPDULO\ WR WKH IDLOXUH RI WKHVH VWXGLHV WR DOORZ IRU WKH SURORQJHG QDWXUH RI DFDGHPLF FDUHHU DQG IRU WKH GURSRXWV ZKR FDPH EDFN RU WUDQVIHUUHG WR RWKHU LQVWLWXWLRQV ,W LV QRW XQXVXDO IRU VWXGHQWV WR GLVFRQWLQXH WHPSRUDULO\ WKHLU FROOHJH VWXGLHV IRU D VHPHVWHU DQ HQWLUH \HDU RU PRUH %HFDXVH WKH ORVV LV WHPSRUDU\ LQ VXFK FDVHV 5XJJ f VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKHVH VWXGHQWV VKRXOG EH ODEHOHG VWRSRXWV WR GLVWLQJXLVK WKHP IURP GURSRXWV ZKRVH GLVFRQWLQXHG HQUROOPHQW LV FRQVLGHUHG SHUPDQHQW :KHQ WKLV GLVWLQFWLRQ LV RYHUORRNHG DWWULWLRQ ILJXUHV FDQ EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQIODWHG 3DQWDJHV DQG &UHHGRQ f QRWHG D EHJLQQLQJ WUHQG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH WR XVH PXOWLSOH FDWHJRULHV LQ FODVVLI\LQJ GURSRXWV DQG QRQn GURSRXWV WR DOORZ ILQHU GLVFULPLQDWLRQ EHWZHHQ FDWHJRULHV DQG FOHDUHU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI UHVXOWV
PAGE 25

*HQGHU 6WXGLHV KDYH VKRZQ PL[HG UHVXOWV ZKHQ DGGUHVVLQJ WKH LQIOXHQFH RI JHQGHU XSRQ DWWULWLRQ *HQGHU KDV EHHQ UHSRUWHG WR KDYH HLWKHU D QHJDWLYH RU QHXWUDO LPSDFW XSRQ DFDGHPLF SURJUHVV 7LQWR f IRXQG WKDW ZRPHQ GURS RXW IURP KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ WKDQ PHQ 5HODWLQJ SHUVLVWHQFH WR JHQGHU DQG JUDGHV $VWLQnV HDUO\ UHVHDUFK f VKRZHG WKDW ZRPHQ HDUQ KLJKHU JUDGHV WKDQ PHQ LQ KLJK VFKRRO DQG LQ FROOHJH $OWKRXJK KH GRHV QRW DFFRXQW IRU WKH SKHQRPHQRQ KH DOVR IRXQG WKDW ZRPHQ DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR GURS RXW RI FROOHJH DIWHU WKH IUHVKPDQ \HDU WKDQ PHQ LQ VSLWH RI VXSHULRU DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH 6WXGLHV E\ %URSK\ f DQG 5DPDNHU f FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH W\SLFDO \HDU FROOHJH GURSRXW ZDV OLNHO\ WR EH IHPDOH DGGLQJ WR WKH SRVLWLQJ WKDW ZRPHQ DUH DW JUHDWHU ULVN RI OHDYLQJ FROOHJH SUHPDWXUHO\ $ VWXG\ DW 9LUJLQLDnV 0RXQWDLQ (PSLUH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH DWWHPSWHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH UHDVRQV EHKLQG DQ XQXVXDOO\ KLJK UDWH RI VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ 7KH VWXG\ ZDV XQGHUWDNHQ E\ UHYLHZLQJ ZLWKGUDZDO IRUPV DQG FRQGXFWLQJ D WHOHSKRQH VXUYH\ ZLWK D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH VDPSOH RI VWXGHQWV 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW PRUH IHPDOHV WKDQ PDOHV ZLWKGUHZ IURP DOO FODVVHV EHIRUH WKH HQG RI WKH VHPHVWHU 6\GRZ t 6DQGHO f ,Q FRQWUDVW RWKHU VWXGLHV VKRZ DWWULWLRQ EHLQJ KLJKHU IRU PHQ .HVWHU LQ D UHSRUW VWDWHG WKDW JHQGHU LV RQH RI WKH WZR PRVW LPSRUWDQW GHWHUPLQLQJ YDULDEOHV UHODWLQJ WR SHUVLVWHQFH +LV ILQGLQJV UHYHDO WKDW ZRPHQ DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR FRPSOHWH XQGHUJUDGXDWH GHJUHHV LQ \HDUV 1HVSROL DQG 5DGFOLIIH f DQG $GHOPDQ f FRQFOXGHG WKDW IHPDOHV DW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR SHUVLVW LQ WKHLU VWXGLHV WKDQ PDOHV

PAGE 26

2WKHU VWXGLHV KRZHYHU LQGLFDWH OLWWOH GLIIHUHQFH LQ UDWHV RI DWWULWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH VH[HV 3DQWDJHV DQG &UHHGRQ f FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV VWURQJ HYLGHQFH WKDW VH[ ZDV QRW D VLJQLILFDQW YDULDEOH LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ SHUVLVWHQFH RU DWWULWLRQ %HDQnV f ILQGLQJV VKRZHG OLWWOH HYLGHQFH WKDW PHQ DQG ZRPHQ GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ SHUVLVWHQFH SDWWHUQV ,Q D IRXUVHPHVWHU VWXG\ DW $WODQWLF &RPPXQLW\n &ROOHJH WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK IDFWRUV DIIHFWHG UHWHQWLRQ :DOO f IRXQG WKDW JHQGHU DQG HWKQLFLW\ YDULDEOHV ZHUH QRW UHODWHG WR UHWHQWLRQ 5DFHHWKQLFLW\ 7KH \HDU FROOHJH VWXGHQW SRSXODWLRQ UHIOHFWV WKH GLYHUVLW\ RI UDFH DQG FXOWXUH IRXQG LQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQnV FRPPXQLW\f 7KH \HDU FROOHJH SRSXODWLRQ RIWHQ LQFOXGHV D ODUJH SHUFHQWDJH RI PLQRULW\ VWXGHQWV 7KH FOXVWHULQJ RI PLQRULW\ VWXGHQWV LQ \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV PD\ EH DWWULEXWHG WR D QXPEHU RI IDFWRUV LQFOXGLQJ SUR[LPLW\ ORZ FRVW WKH RSHQ DFFHVV SROLF\ DQG VRFLDO DFFHVVLELOLW\ RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV %RZHU f VWDWHG WKDW WKH SUHVHQFH RI ODUJH QXPEHUV RI PLQRULW\ VWXGHQWV LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV PDNHV WKH LVVXH RI PLQRULW\ VWXGHQWVn DFKLHYHPHQW DQ LPSRUWDQW LVVXH IRU WKHVH LQVWLWXWLRQV %RZHU SRLQWHG RXW WKDW ZKHQ WKH\ HQWHU WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH PDQ\ PLQRULW\ IUHVKPHQ ZLOO DOVR EULQJ ZLWK WKHP RQH RU PRUH DFDGHPLF DW ULVN FKDUDFWHULVWLFV -RQHV DQG :DWVRQ f DQG 6PHGOH\ 0\HUV DQG +DUUHOO f LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHVH RIWHQ LQFOXGH SRRU DFDGHPLF EDFNJURXQG ORZ VHOIFRQFHSW DQG EHLQJ D ILUVWJHQHUDWLRQ VWXGHQW LQ FROOHJH &RQVLGHULQJ WKDW WKH YDVW PDMRULW\ RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV DUH :KLWH VWXGLHV KDYH IRXQG D GLVSURSRUWLRQDWH SHUFHQWDJH RI GURSRXWV WR EH IURP PLQRULWLHV HVSHFLDOO\ $IULFDQ $PHULFDQV +LVSDQLFV DQG $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQV %DNHU *ROG

PAGE 27

-RKQVWRQ f 0LQJOH f LQGLFDWHG WKDW RQO\ LQ $IULFDQ $PHULFDQV DQG LQ +LVSDQLFV ZKR HQUROO LQ FROOHJH DIWHU KLJK VFKRRO ZLOO DFKLHYH VHQLRU VWDWXV LQ \HDUV 7KH DWWULWLRQ UDWH IRU FHUWDLQ PLQRULW\ JURXSV LV KLJKHU WKDQ WKH QDWLRQDO DYHUDJH IRU DOO VWXGHQWV $VWLQ f IRXQG WKDW $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VWXGHQWV KDG VRPHZKDW ORZHU SHUVLVWHQFH UDWHV WKDQ QRQ$IULFDQ $PHULFDQV EXW VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH UHODWLYHO\ KLJK DWWULWLRQ UDWHV RI WKHVH VWXGHQWV DW \HDU FROOHJHV RU XQLYHUVLWLHV ZHUH HQWLUHO\ DWWULEXWDEOH WR WKHLU UHODWLYHO\ ORZ KLJK VFKRRO JUDGHV DQG DELOLW\ WHVW VFRUHV +H DGGHG WKDW LQ DFWXDOLW\ $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VWXGHQWV ZHUH OHVV OLNHO\ WR GURS RXW WKDQ ZHUH QRQ$IULFDQ $PHULFDQnV ZKHQ DELOLWLHV DQG SDVW DFKLHYHPHQWV ZHUH FRPSDUDEOH ,Q D IROORZXS VWXG\ $VWLQ f KHOG FRQVWDQW WKH DFDGHPLF IDFWRUV LQ VWXGHQWVr EDFNJURXQGV HJ KLJK VFKRRO UDQN DQG VFKRODVWLF DSWLWXGH WHVW VFRUHVf DQG IRXQG QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV IRU VWXGHQWV ZKR ZHUH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ $VLDQ RU $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ 5DPDNHU f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

PAGE 28

DQG QRQVXFFHVV SDUWLFXODUO\ DPRQJ $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VWXGHQWV 3UHYLRXV VWXGLHV DW WKH VFKRRO KDYH UHYHDOHG WKDW $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VWXGHQWV HQUROOHG SDUWWLPH KDYH WKH ORZHVW VHPHVWHUWRVHPHVWHU UHWHQWLRQ UDWHV OHVV WKDQ bf ZKLOH IXOOWLPH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VWXGHQWV KDYH D UHWHQWLRQ UDWH RI PRUH WKDQ b ,Q WKLV VWXG\ VXUYH\V ZHUH UHWXUQHG E\ ILUVWWLPH VWXGHQWV IRU D b UHVSRQVH UDWH )LQGLQJV LQFOXGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDW ZKLOH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VWXGHQWV PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ LQWHQGHG WR HDUQ D GHJUHH DV FRPSDUHG WR RWKHU VWXGHQWV WKH\ PRUH RIWHQ DWWHQGHG RQ D SDUWWLPH EDVLV bf $OVR $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VWXGHQWV PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ UHSRUWHG KDYLQJ FRQFHUQV DERXW ILQDQFLQJ WKHLU HGXFDWLRQ WKDQ RWKHU JURXSV /DQQL f $ VWXG\ E\ :DONHU f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f $ IRFXV JURXS VWXG\ RI LQIOXHQFHV RI ILUVWWLPH +LVSDQLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV ZDV FRQGXFHG E\ -DORPR f 'HVSLWH WKH b JURZWK RI +LVSDQLF VWXGHQW HQUROOPHQW EHWZHHQ DQG FROOHJHV DUH QRW UHWDLQLQJ WKHVH VWXGHQWV 6WXGHQWUHODWHG IDFWRUV LQIOXHQFLQJ DWWULWLRQ LQFOXGH SRYHUW\ XQHPSOR\PHQW VRFLDO FODVV RULJLQV LQDGHTXDWH DFDGHPLF SUHSDUDWLRQ ZHDN VWXG\ KDELWV VHOIGRXEW ORZ VHOI

PAGE 29

HVWHHP DQG FXOWXUDO VHSDUDWLRQ -DORPRnV VWXG\ LQGLFDWHG VWXGHQW SHUFHSWLRQV DERXW OHDUQLQJ DELOLW\ DUH LQIOXHQFHG E\ SUHYLRXV DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW DQG SDVW LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK IDFXOW\ DQG SHHUV ERWK LQ DQG RXW RI FODVV 2YHUDOO DW OHDVW b RI :KLWH VWXGHQWV ZKR HQWHU FROOHJH REWDLQ D GHJUHH EXW OHVV WKDQ RQHWKLUG RI WKH $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV JUDGXDWH &DUQHJLH )RXQGDWLRQ IRU WKH $GYDQFHPHQW RI 7HDFKLQJ f *X\HWWH DQG +HWK f r HVWLPDWHG WKH GURSRXW UDWH IRI $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQV WR EH DV KLJK DV b :HOOV f LQGLFDWHG WKDW QHDUO\ WKUHH RXW RI IRXU $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV IDLO WR HDUQ GHJUHHV EHFDXVH RI SRRU DFDGHPLF SUHSDUDWLRQ LQDGHTXDWH ILQDQFLDO DLG RU SHUVRQDO SUREOHPV $ IDFWRU FRQWULEXWLQJ WR WKH KLJK DWWULWLRQ UDWH RI VWXGHQWV RI FRORU LV WKHLU H[SHFWDWLRQV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 6WXGHQWV RI FRORU DUH JHQHUDOO\ ILUVWJHQHUDWLRQ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV DQG KDYH QRW KDG WKH DGYDQWDJH RI KHDULQJ WKHLU SDUHQWV PHQWLRQ ZKDW FROOHJH ZDV OLNH IRU WKHP 4XHYHGR&DUFLD f 6WXGHQWV RI FRORU HQWHU WKHLU ILUVW \HDU RI FROOHJH ZLWK H[SHFWDWLRQV WKDW FRXUVHV DQG H[DPLQDWLRQV ZLOO UHVHPEOH WKHLU H[SHULHQFHV IURP KLJK VFKRRO 5RVV f SRLQWHG RXW WKDW PDQ\ GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ KLJK VFKRRO DQG FROOHJH DUH QRW UHDGLO\ DSSDUHQW WR ILUVWJHQHUDWLRQ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV $FDGHPLF IDPLOLDULW\ UHDOLVWLF VHOIDSSUDLVDO DQG SRVLWLYH VHOIFRQFHSW KDYH EHHQ UHODWHG WR SHUVLVWHQFH IRU $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ VWXGHQWV 7UDFH\ t 6HGODFHN f $JH $JH DV D YDULDEOH UHIOHFWV FRQIOLFWLQJ UHSRUWV LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH $VWLQnV f ZRUN VXSSRUWV WKH QRWLRQ WKDW DJH LV UHODWHG WR DWWULWLRQ DQG WKDW ROGHU VWXGHQWV DUH OHVV OLNHO\ WR SHUVLVW 7KH UDWH RI GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ IRU DGXOW VWXGHQWV LQ

PAGE 30

XQGHUJUDGXDWH GHJUHH SURJUDPV LV ORZ ZKHQ FRPSDUHG ZLWK WUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV %HDQ t 0HW]QHU f 1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ 1DUHWWR f VWDWHG WKDW WKH UHVHDUFK RQ UHWHQWLRQ RI DGXOW VWXGHQWV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ KDV EHHQ VFDWWHUHG DQG LV XVXDOO\ LQVWLWXWLRQ VSHFLILF 6WXGLHV E\ :LQGKDP f DQG 3ULFH f LQGLFDWHG SHUVLVWHUV DW WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH WR EH \RXQJHU VWXGHQWV DQG QRQSHUVLVWHUV WR EH ROGHU VWXGHQWV 6\GRZ DQG 6DQGHO f IRXQG VWXGHQWV EHWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI DQG ZHUH WLPHV PRUH OLNHO\ WR ZLWKGUDZ WKDQ VWXGHQWV RU \RXQJHU 0RKDPPDGL f LQ D VWXG\ RI VWXGHQWV DW 3DWULFN +HQU\ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH LQ 9LUJLQLD IRXQG DWWULWLRQ UDWHV DIWHU \HDU WR EH KLJKHU IRU WKRVH LQ WKH DJH UDQJHV RI DQG )HOGPDQ f VWXGLHG SUHHQUROOPHQW YDULDEOHV DV SUHGLFWRUV RI \HDU UHWHQWLRQ :KHQ REVHUYLQJ ILUVWWLPH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV )HOGPDQ IRXQG WKH ULVN RI GURSSLQJ RXW ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK \RXQJ VWXGHQWV EHWZHHQ \HDUV ROG ORZHU KLJK VFKRRO JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH SDUWWLPH DWWHQGDQFH DQG EHLQJ D PHPEHU RI DQ HWKQLF PLQRULW\ RWKHU WKDQ $VLDQ 6WDPDQ f 0DOLQ %UD\ 'RXJKHUW\ DQG 6NLQQHU f DQG +DJJHUW\ f IRXQG H[WHUQDO IDFWRUV WR EH DQ LPSRUWDQW UHDVRQ IRU DGXOW QRQSHUVLVWHQFH DQG HQFRXUDJHG FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI VXFK LQIOXHQFHV LQ IXWXUH VWXGLHV DQG PRGHOV IRU DGXOW VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ 6ZLIW f UHYLHZHG D VHULHV RI VWXGLHV RQ WKH UHWHQWLRQ RI DGXOW VWXGHQWV DQG IRXQG WKDW QRW DOO RI WKH UHVHDUFKHUV VXSSRUWHG WKH VDPH ILQGLQJV 7KH VWXGLHV ZHUH SULPDULO\ UHODWHG WR WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI SHUVLVWHUV DQG QRQSHUVLVWHUV KH P

PAGE 31

GLG QRWH KRZHYHU D WHQGHQF\ IRU DGXOW SHUVLVWHUV WR EH HQUROOHG IXOO WLPH DQG IRU H[WHUQDO LQIOXHQFHV WR EH WKH XVXDO FDXVH IRU QRQSHUVLVWHQFH %HDQ DQG 0HW]QHUnV f WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHO RI DGXOW VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ FRQWHQGHG WKDW H[WHUQDO HQYLURQPHQWDO YDULDEOHV H[HUW PRUH LQIOXHQFH WKDQ DFDGHPLF YDULDEOHV RQ GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ
PAGE 32

&RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH
PAGE 33

WKDW WKH GHWHUPLQDQWV RI UHWHQWLRQDWWULWLRQ DUH QRW VKDSHG E\ WKH 8 SH RI VWXGHQWV HQUROOHG LQ \HDU FROOHJHV EXW DUH LQIOXHQFHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ E\ LQVWLWXWLRQDO FRQGLWLRQV VXFK DV SURJUDPV SROLFLHV RUJDQL]DWLRQDO SDWWHUQV DQG LQWHUDFWLYH FOLPDWH DIWHU VWXGHQW PDWULFXODWLRQ $ VWXG\ RI WKH SRVVLEOH LQIOXHQFH RI D FROOHJHnV VWUXFWXUH DQG RUJDQL]DWLRQ RQ VWXGHQWVf HIIHFWLYH GHYHORSPHQW VXJJHVW WKDW VWXGHQWVn DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ WHQG WR PHGLDWH WKH LQIOXHQFHV RI VWUXFWXUDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 3DVFDUHOOD Df $VWLQ .RUQ DQG *UHHQ f FDXWLRQHG WKDW FRPSDULQJ UDWHV IURP GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI LQVWLWXWLRQV FDQ EH YHU\ PLVOHDGLQJ 3DVFDUHOOD DQG DVVRFLDWHV 3DVFDUHOOD HW DOf Ef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f VWXGLHG GDWD IURP WKH 1DWLRQDO /RQJLWXGLQDO 6WXG\ RI WKH +LJK 6FKRRO &ODVV RI 7KH\ REVHUYHG LQGLYLGXDOV \HDUV DIWHU KLJK VFKRRO JUDGXDWLRQ DQG IRXQG WKDW ZKHQ HGXFDWLRQDO

PAGE 34

DWWDLQPHQW LV KHOG FRQVWDQW VWXGHQWV LQLWLDOO\ HQUROOLQJ LQ D \HDU YV YHDU FROOHJHV DUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLVDGYDQWDJHG LQ RFFXSDWLRQDO DQG HFRQRPLF DWWDLQPHQWV :KLWDNHU t 3DVFDUHOOD f $OWKRXJK WKHUH DUH H[FHSWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH HQYLURQPHQW UHVLGHQWLDO OLYLQJ W\SLFDOO\ LV DQ H[SHULHQFH RI WKH \HDU RU XQLYHUVLW\ FDPSXV 7KH LQIOXHQFHV RI UHVLGHQWLDO YHUVXV WKH FRPPXWHU VWXGHQWVn H[SHULHQFH SDUDOOHOV WKDW RI DWWHQGLQJ D \HDU RU \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQ 7KRPSVRQ f H[DPLQHG LQIOXHQFH RI RQ FDPSXV UHVLGHQFH DV FRPSDUHG ZLWK RIIFDPSXV UHVLGHQFH RI ILUVW\HDU VWXGHQWV )LQGLQJV IURP VWXGHQWV UHYHDOHG WKDW SURJUHVV DQG UHWHQWLRQ ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU IRU RQFDPSXV VWXGHQWV UHJDUGOHVV RI UDFH JHQGHU RU DGPLVVLRQ W\SH 7KRPSVRQ f 3DVFDUHOOD Ef SURSRVHG D FDXVDO PRGHO WR H[DPLQH WKH LPSDFW RI UHVLGHQW OLYLQJ RQ VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW +H WHVWHG WKH PRGHO ZLWK FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH LQIOXHQFH RI RQFDPSXV OLYLQJ RQ LQWHOOHFWXDO DQG VRFLDO VHOI FRQFHSW LV LQGLUHFW DQG PHGLDWHG WKURXJK LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK IDFXOW\ DQG SHHUV 3DVFDUHOOD Ef /RRNLQJ DW LVVXHV UHJDUGLQJ WKH FRPPXWHU H[SHULHQFH 3DVFDUHOOD DQG DVVRFLDWHV 3DVFDUHOOD HW DO f WHVWHG WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW OLYLQJ RQ FDPSXV IRVWHUHG FRJQLWLYH JURZWK 7KH\ HVWLPDWHG UHODWLYH ILUVW\HDU JDLQV LQ UHDGLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ PDWKHPDWLFDO UHDVRQLQJ DQG FULWLFDO WKLQNLQJ RI UHVLGHQWV DQG FRPPXWHU ILUVW\HDU FROOHJH VWXGHQWV DW D ODUJH XUEDQ XQLYHUVLW\ &RQWUROOLQJ IRU SUHFROOHJH FRJQLWLYH OHYHO DFDGHPLF PRWLYDWLRQ DJH ZRUN UHVSRQVLELOLW\ DQG H[WHQW RI HQUROOPHQW UHVLGHQW VWXGHQWV KDG

PAGE 35

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nV 9DULDEOHV RI $WWULWLRQ5HWHQWLRQ 7LQWR f WKHRUL]HG WKDW D VWXGHQW HQWHUV KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ ZLWK YDU\LQJ SDWWHUQV RI SHUVRQDO IDPLOLDO DQG DFDGHPLF FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 7KHVH SHUVRQDO GLVSRVLWLRQV DUH UHSUHVHQWHG E\ ZKDW 7LQWR UHIHUV WR DV D VWXGHQWfV LQWHQWLRQ DQG FRPPLWPHQW $ VWXGHQWnV LQWHQWLRQV DQG FRPPLWPHQWV DUH VKDSHG WKRXJK LQGLYLGXDO H[SHULHQFH ZLWKLQ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ +RZ WKHVH LQWHUDFWLRQV UHIOHFW WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV H[SHULHQFH ZLOO GHWHUPLQH LI WKH VWXGHQW SHUVLVWV LQ FROOHJH 7LQWR LGHQWLILHG IRXU FOXVWHUV RI VWXGHQW H[SHULHQFH WKDW ZLOO VKDSH WKH RXWFRPH RI FROOHJH SHUVLVWHQFH DGMXVWPHQW GLIILFXOW\ LQFRQJUXHQFH DQG LVRODWLRQ 2EOLJDWLRQV DQG ILQDQFHV DUH IRUFHV RXWVLGH WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ WKDW DIIHFW WKH VWXGHQWnV GHFLVLRQ WR SHUVLVW RU GURS RXW RI WKH HGXFDWLRQDO V\VWHP ,QWHQWLRQ DQG &RPPLWPHQW 7LQWR f UHFRJQL]HG WKDW D VWXGHQWnV ZLOOLQJQHVV WR ZRUN WRZDUG WKH DWWDLQPHQW RI KLV RU KHU JRDO LV D VLJQLILFDQW SDUW RI WKH SURFHVV RI SHUVLVWHQFH LQ KLJKHU

PAGE 36

HGXFDWLRQ 7LQWR YLHZV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV LQWHQWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ DV DQ LPSRUWDQW LQGLFDWRU RI WKH SUREDELOLW\ RI GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ $ QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV KDYH IRXQG WKDW VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG GHILQLWH RU DGYDQFHG GHJUHH DVSLUDWLRQV ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR SHUVLVW WKDQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG ORZHU RU XQGHWHUPLQHG GHJUHH JRDOV $VWLQ /HQQLQJ %HDO t 6DXHU 0DF0LOOLDQ t .HVWHU 7LQWR f 7KH LPSDFW RI LQWHQWLRQV FDQ EH VHHQ LQ D VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG E\ :DJJHQHU DQG 6PLWK f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t 6PLWK f ,QGLYLGXDO FRPPLWPHQWV WDNH WKH IRUPV RI JRDO DQG LQVWLWXWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQWV *RDO FRPPLWPHQW DGGUHVVHV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FRPPLWPHQW WR SHUVRQDO DQG RFFXSDWLRQDO JRDOV $FDGHPLF ERUHGRP VHWV LQ IRU XQGHFLGHG VWXGHQWV EHFDXVH OHDUQLQJ LV QRW TXLWH DV UHOHYDQW WR WKRVH ZKR GR QRW KDYH D JRDO 1RHO S f ,QVWLWXWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQW GHVFULEHV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH\ DWWHQG 7LQWR f VWDWHG WKDW WKH JUHDWHU WKH FRPPLWPHQW LQ HLWKHU FDVH WKH JUHDWHU WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO SHUVLVWHQFH

PAGE 37

6WXGHQWV ZLWK LGHQWLILHG FDUHHU JRDOV DQG D VHQVH RI SXUSRVH DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR SHUVLVW LQ FROOHJH %RH t -ROLFRHXU *RUGRQ .HVWHU 5DLPVW f 'DQLHOV f DQDO\]HG WKH UHVXOWV RI DQ (QWHULQJ 6WXGHQW 6XUYH\ DGPLQLVWHUHG WR QHZ VWXGHQWV DW %URRNGDOH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 7KH VXUYH\ JDWKHUHG LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP VWXGHQWV RQ WKHLU JRDOV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG UHDFKHG D b UHVSRQVH UDWH 6XEVHTXHQW WUDFNLQJ RI VWXGHQWV UHYHDOHG WKDW UHWHQWLRQ ZDV KLJKHU IRU VWXGHQWV ZKR SODQQHG RQ JUDGXDWLRQ DQG VWXGHQWV ZKR SODQQHG RQ WUDQVIHUULQJ WKDQ IRU VWXGHQWV ZLWKRXW SODQV /HQQLQJ %HDO DQG 6DXHU f FRPPHQWHG WKDW D FRPPLWPHQW WR FROOHJH FOHDU FXW FROOHJH DQG FDUHHU JRDOV DQG FHUWDLQW\ RI JRDOV ZHUH DOO LPSRUWDQW IDFWRUV UHODWHG WR SHUVLVWHQFH ,Q \HDU FROOHJHV JRDO FRPPLWPHQW VHHPV WR KDYH D VWURQJHU HIIHFW RQ UHWHQWLRQ WKDQ GRHV LQVWLWXWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQW &KDSPDQ t 3DVFDUHOOD 3DVFDUHOOD t &KDSPDQ Df 0RKDPPDGL f IRXQG WKH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRUV RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ LQ RUGHU RI LPSRUWDQFH ZHUH VWXGHQW JRDOV KRXUV HQUROOHG SHU VHPHVWHU QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV FRPSOHWHG VHPHVWHU JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH DQG RYHUDOO *3$ 0RKDPPDGL DOVR IRXQG WKDW b RI WKH IDOO FRKRUW ZKR OHIW DIWHU \HDU KDG QR LQWHQWLRQ RI FRPSOHWLQJ D GHJUHH RU FHUWLILFDWH SURJUDP 7KHUH LV VRPH LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW WKH QDWXUH RI FRPPLWPHQW PD\ YDU\ EDVHG XSRQ JHQGHU $ VWXG\ WKDW DVVHVVHG JHQGHU GLIIHUHQFHV LQ VWXGHQW VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK FROOHJH ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR XQGHUVWDQG IXUWKHU ZKDW FRQWULEXWHV WR VWXGHQW SHUVLVWHQFH DQG VWXGHQW RXWFRPHV %HDQ DQG 9HVSHU f JDWKHUHG GDWD IURP ILUVW DQG VHFRQG

PAGE 38

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b IRU VWXGHQWV ZKRVH JRDO ZDV WR DGYDQFH LQ D MRE b IRU WKRVH VHHNLQJ WR JHW D QHZ MRE b IRU WKRVH VHHNLQJ WUDQVIHU DQG b IRU WKRVH UHSRUWLQJ QR JRDOV 6KUHYH f 7KH QDWXUH RI DQ LQVWLWXWLRQnV VWUXFWXUH PD\ LQIOXHQFH D VWXGHQWnV JRDO IRUPDWLRQ SURFHVV DIWHU WKH\ DUH DGPLWWHG LQWR WKH VFKRRO $ VWXG\ E\ 0F&RUPLFN f H[SORUHG WKH HIIHFW RI EHJLQQLQJ SRVWVHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ LQ D \HDU FROOHJH YHUVXV D \HDU FROOHJH DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU EDFNJURXQG FKDUDFWHULVWLFV JHQGHU UDFHHWKQLFLW\ VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV DQG PHDVXUHG DELOLW\f LQLWLDO HGXFDWLRQ JRDO FRPPLWPHQWV DQG VHFRQGDU\ DQG SRVWVHFRQGDU\ SURJUDP DQG SHUIRUPDQFH 'DWD ZHUH GUDZQ IURP WKH VHQLRU FRKRUW RI WKH +LJK 6FKRRO DQG %H\RQG GDWDEDVH 7KH VWXG\ LQYROYHG D VDPSOH RI VWXGHQWV 5HVXOWV LQGLFDWH WKDW EHJLQQLQJ SRVWVHFRQGDU\ HGXFDWLRQ LQ D YHDU FROOHJH LQFUHDVHV WKH OLNHOLKRRG RI D GRZQZDUG DGMXVWPHQW LQ H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG WKDW WKLV HIIHFW LV PRVW SURQRXQFHG DPRQJ WKRVH LQLWLDOO\ DQWLFLSDWLQJ JUDGXDWH VWXG\ 0F&RUPLFN f 5XJJ f VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKHUH LV D VHFRQG FDWHJRU\n RI VWXGHQWV FDOOHG DWWDLQHUV WKDW QHHGV WR EH GLVWLQJXLVKHG IURP GURSRXWV $WWDLQHUV DUH VWXGHQWV ZKR GLVFRQWLQXH

PAGE 39

WKHLU HQUROOPHQW EHIRUH JUDGXDWLRQ EXW DIWHU DFKLHYLQJ WKHLU SHUVRQDO JRDOV IRU FROOHJH VWXG\ 0DQ\ VWXGHQWV EHJLQ FROOHJH ZLWK HVWDEOLVKHG JRDOV ZKLFK IDOO VKRUW RI FRPSOHWLQJ D GHJUHH )URP WKHVH VWXGHQWVn SRLQW RI YLHZ WKH DFW RI ZLWKGUDZDO GRHV QRW QHFHVVDULO\ FDUU\ WKH ODEHO RI SHUVRQDO IDLOXUH WKDW SURIHVVLRQDOV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ QRUPDOO\ DVVRFLDWH ZLWK LW 5DLPVW f 7LQWR f VWDWHG WKDW WKH WHUP GURSRXW VKRXOG EH DSSOLHG RQO\ WR WKRVH IRUPV RI GHSDUWXUH LQYROYLQJ VWXGHQWV ZKR GLG QRW UHDVRQDEO\ FRPSOHWH ZKDW WKH\ LQWHQGHG WR DFKLHYH XSRQ FROOHJH HQWU\ 2WKHU VWXGLHV LQGLFDWH WKDW VWXGHQWV ZLOO PHHW WKHLU RZQ HVWDEOLVKHG JRDOV ZKLOH EHLQJ YLHZHG E\ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQV DV D GURSRXW 0RRUHnV f VWXG\ DW 6DQ -XDQ &ROOHJH LQGLFDWHG WKDW b RI VWXGHQWV ZKR OHIW DIWHU RQH VHPHVWHU UHSRUWHG WKH\ KDG DFKLHYHG WKHLU HGXFDWLRQDO JRDOV ,Q WKH VSULQJ RI :HVWFKHVWHU &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH LQ 1HZ
PAGE 40

PRUH OLNHO\ WR OHDYH EHFDXVH RI GLVVDWLVI\LQJ H[SHULHQFHV ZLWK WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ WKH\ DUH DWWHQGLQJ 1RHO f 7LQWR f FRQFOXGHG WKDW VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ LV DW OHDVW DV PXFK D IXQFWLRQ RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO EHKDYLRU DV LW LV RI VWXGHQW EHKDYLRU $GMXVWPHQW 7KHUH DUH WZR GLVWLQFW VRXUFHV RI GLIILFXOW\ LQ PDNLQJ WKH WUDQVLWLRQ WR FROOHJH 2QH PD\ EH WKH LQDELOLW\ RI LQGLYLGXDOV WR VHSDUDWH WKHPVHOYHV IURP SDVW IRUPV RI DVVRFLDWLRQ 7KH RWKHU GLIILFXOW\ DULVHV IURP DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV QHHG WR DGMXVW WR WKH QHZ DQG RIWHQ PRUH FKDOOHQJLQJ VRFLDO DQG LQWHOOHFWXDO GHPDQGV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 7LQWR f $ ODFN RI XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH QDWXUH RI WKH FROOHJH H[SHULHQFH KLQGHUV SHUVLVWHQFH 1RHO f ZURWH WKDW PDQ\ ILUVWJHQHUDWLRQ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV GR QRW EHQHILW IURP IDPLO\ PHPEHUVn SDVW H[SHULHQFHV 7KHUHIRUH ZKHQ FRQIURQWHG ZLWK WKH UHDOLWLHV DQG GHPDQGV RI FROOHJH OLYLQJ WKH\ PD\ IHHO WKH SUHVVXUH WR ZLWKGUDZ :RUNLQJ IURP D IRXQGDWLRQ EXLOW E\ 7LQWR f 3DVFDUHOOD 7HUHQ]LQL DQG :ROIH f WHVWHG WKH SULQFLSOHV RI 7LQWRnV PRGHO RI WKH SHUVLVWHQFHZLWKGUDZUDO SURFHVV XVLQJ D SUHFROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ SURJUDP DV WKH H[SHULPHQWDO LQWHUYHQWLRQ 7KH\ IRXQG WKDW WKH RULHQWDWLRQ H[SHULHQFH KDG DQ LPSDFW RQ IUHVKPDQ SHUVLVWHQFH ODUJHO\ E\ IDFLOLWDWLQJ D VWXGHQWnV LQLWLDO DELOLW\ WR FRSH ZLWK D QHZ VHW RI VRFLDO FKDOOHQJHV LQ DQ XQIDPLOLDU HQYLURQPHQW ,Q PDNLQJ WKHLU FRQFOXVLRQ 3DVFDUHOOD 7HUHQ]LQL DQG :ROIH VWDWHG WKDW GHYHORSLQJ LQLWLDOO\ VXFFHVVIXO LQWHJUDWLRQ LQWR WKH VRFLDO V\VWHP RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ ZDV WKH IDFWRU ZKLFK PRVW GLUHFWO\ LQIOXHQFHG FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG SHUVLVWHQFH (DUO\ UHVHDUFK LQGLFDWHV WKDW DWWULWLRQ LV KHDYLHVW GXULQJ DQG DW WKH HQG RI WKH IUHVKPDQ \HDU 5RRWPDQ f 5HVHDUFK FRQVLVWHQWO\ LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKH IUHVKPDQ \HDU

PAGE 41

LV WKH VWDJH ZKHQ WKH JUHDWHVW QXPEHU RI VWXGHQWV DUH DW ULVN RI GURSSLQJ RXW %HDQ )HWWHUV 'XQSK\ 0LOOHU :RRGUXII t 1HOVRQ f 3RUWHU f IRXQG WKDW WKH JUHDWHVW HQUROOPHQW ORVV LQ LQGHSHQGHQW FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV RFFXUUHG GXULQJ WKH ILUVW \HDU DQG DIWHU WKH HLJKWK VHPHVWHU $W OHDVW RQHKDOI RI DOO VWXGHQWV ZKR GURS RXW RI FROOHJH ZLOO GR VR GXULQJ WKHLU IUHVKPDQ \HDU 1RHO f DQG PDQ\ RI WKHVH VWXGHQWV ZLOO OHDYH GXULQJ WKH ILUVW WR ZHHNV RI WKHLU LQLWLDO VHPHVWHU %ODQF 'HEXKU t 0DUWLQ f 2WKHUV KDYH IXUWKHU QDUURZHG WKH IUHVKPDQnV PRVW FULWLFDO WUDQVLWLRQ WLPH D SHULRG ZKHQ WKH PDMRULW\ RI VWXGHQWV ZKR GURS RXW PDNH WKH GHFLVLRQ WR GR VR WR WKH ILUVW WZR WR VL[ ZHHNV RI VFKRRO =DUYHOO HW DO /HYLW] t 1RHO *DUGQHU f $QRWKHU DUHD LQ ZKLFK UHVHDUFKHUV KDYH VKRZQ LQWHUHVW LV LQ WKH VWXGHQWVn RZQ DVVHVVPHQW RI WKHLU H[SHULHQFHV ZKLOH HQUROOHG LQ FROOHJH WKHLU UHDVRQV IRU OHDYLQJ WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG WKHLU SODQV IRU WKH IXWXUH DIWHU OHDYLQJ FROOHJH 1HOVRQ 6FRWW DQG %U\DQ f IRXQG WKDW E\ WKH HLJKWK ZHHN RI WKH WHUP VWXGHQWV ZHUH DEOH WR VWDWH SODQV DERXW WKHLU QH[W WHUP DQG WKDW VWXGHQWV ZKR ZLOO QRW SHUVLVW FDQ EH LGHQWLILHG E\ WKH PLGGOH RI WKHLU ILUVW VHPHVWHU S f 'LIILFXOW\ 3HUVLVWHQFH LQ FROOHJH UHTXLUHV PRUH WKDQ DGMXVWPHQW 0LQLPXP VWDQGDUGV RI DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH PXVW EH DWWDLQHG +RZHYHU SULRU SHUIRUPDQFH DQG PHDVXUHV RI DELOLW\ DUH QRW YHU\ KLJKO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK GHSDUWXUH 7LQWR f /LPLWHG LQWHQWLRQV DQGRU ZHDN FRPPLWPHQWV PD\ EH PDQLIHVWHG LQ SRRU DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH $VWLQ f IRXQG WKDW SHUVLVWHQFH ZDV SRVLWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH LQ KLJK VFKRRO DQG FROOHJH DGPLVVLRQ WHVW VFRUHV :KLOH WKHVH

PAGE 42

PHDVXUHV FRXOG QRW DFFXUDWHO\ SUHGLFW ZKHWKHU D JLYHQ VWXGHQW ZRXOG GURS RXW $VWLQ QRWHG WKDW KLJK VFKRRO JUDGHV DQG DELOLW\ WHVW VFRUHV ZHUH E\ IDU WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW DYDLODEOH SUHGLFWRUV RI SHUVLVWHQFH IRU VWXGHQWV DW \HDU FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV 3DVFDUHOOD f IRXQG WKDW D VWXGHQWnV KLJK VFKRRO JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH LV WKH SUHHQUROOPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLF PRVW KLJKO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK FROOHJH JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH $FFRUGLQJ WR $VWLQ f WKH WZR PRVW LPSRUWDQW SUHGLFWRUV RI VWXGHQWVn JUDGHV LQ WKH VWXG\ ZHUH KLJK VFKRRO JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH DQG 6$7 YHUEDO VFRUHV 5HVHDUFK ILQGLQJV FRPSDULQJ GURSRXWV DQG SHUVLVWHUV ZHUH LQ DJUHHPHQW UHJDUGLQJ DFDGHPLF DELOLW\ DV D NH\ YDULDEOH %HOO *RUWHU 5HLQHUWVRQ :HEE f 'URSRXWV VFRUHG ORZHU RQ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVW GHVLJQHG WR PHDVXUH DELOLW\ VXFK DV $&7 WKDQ GLG SHUVLVWHUV &RKHQ t %UDZHU 'L&DUOR f 0ROLQH f IRXQG DGPLVVLRQ WHVW VFRUHV DQG KLJK VFKRRO JUDGHV WR EH WZR VWURQJ SUHGLFWRUV RI UHWHQWLRQ GXULQJ WKH V DQG V 1HOVRQ 6FRWW DQG %UH\DQ f DQG =DUYHO DQG RWKHUV f DOVR IRXQG SUHFROOHJH DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW DQG DSWLWXGH YDULDEOHV DV XVHIXO SUHGLFWRUV RI SHUVLVWHQFH 6WXGLHV E\ $VWLQ .RUQ DQG *UHHQ f VKRZHG WKDW VWXGHQWV ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW WHVW VFRUHV DUH VL[ WLPHV PRUH OLNHO\ WR HDUQ D EDFKHORUnV GHJUHH LQ \HDUV WKDQ WKRVH ZLWK WKH ORZHVW VFRUHV 6WXGHQWV ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW VFRUHV DQG JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV DUH WLPHV PRUH OLNHO\ WR HDUQ D EDFKHORUnV GHJUHH LQ \HDUV WKDQ WKRVH ZLWK WKH ORZHVW VFRUHV :DOO f FRQGXFWHG D IRXUVHPHVWHU VWXG\ DW $WODQWLF &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH WR GHWHUPLQH ZKLFK ZHUH WKH IDFWRUV WKDW DIIHFWHG UHWHQWLRQ $FDGHPLF VXFFHVV PHDVXUHG

PAGE 43

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f 0DWRQDNnV f VWXG\ RI VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ RQ DQ DFDGHPLFDOO\ GLVDGYDQWDJHG FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQW SRSXODWLRQ LV VXSSRUWLYH RI WKH FRQVWUXFWV LQ 7LQWRnV WKHRU\ 7KH SRVLWLYH HIIHFWV RI DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ RQ UHWHQWLRQ ZDV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH PRGHO DQG ZLWK UHVXOWV RI SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV RQ FRPPXWHU VWXGHQWV )R[ 1RUD f 7KH QHJDWLYH LQIOXHQFH RI VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ RQ UHWHQWLRQ ZDV LQFRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG PRGHO \HW LW ZDV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK RQ VLPLODU SRSXODWLRQV )R[ f $OWKRXJK LQLWLDO FRPPLWPHQWV DFFRXQWHG IRU D VLJQLILFDQW SRUWLRQ RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ DQG VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ WKH UHVXOWV GLG QRW VXEVWDQWLDWH WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ LQLWLDO FRPPLWPHQWV DQG UHWHQWLRQ ,QFRQJUXHQFH DQG LVRODWLRQ 7LQWR f GHVFULEHG LQFRQJUXHQFH DV D ODFN RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO ILW ,W UHIHUV WR WKH FRQGLWLRQ ZKHUH WKH VWXGHQW SHUFHLYHV KLPKHUVHOI DV EHLQJ DW RGGV ZLWK WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ 7KH PLVPDWFK PD\ EH EHWZHHQ WKH DELOLWLHV VNLOOV DQG LQWHUHVWV RI WKH VWXGHQWV DQG WKH GHPDQGV SODFHG XSRQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO E\ WKH DFDGHPLF V\VWHP 7\SLFDOO\ LQFRQJUXHQFH LV PDQLIHVWHG LQ WKH VWXGHQWnV MXGJPHQW WKDW

PAGE 44

WKH VFKRROnV LQWHOOHFWXDO RU VRFLDO FOLPDWH LV XQVXLWHG RU LUUHOHYDQW RU HYHQ FRQWUDU\ WR KLV RU KHU RZQ SUHIHUHQFHV 7LQWR f ,QFRQJUXHQFH PD\ EH WKH UHVXOW RI SRRU GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ LQ FROOHJH FKRLFH &RSH DQG +DQQDK f LQGLFDWHG WKDW SRRU FROOHJH FKRLFH LV WKH FDXVH RI DW OHDVW b RI FROOHJH WUDQVIHUV ,Q H[SORULQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VWXGHQW LQFRQJUXHQFH DQG VDWLVIDFWLRQ /HQQLQJ %HDO DQG 6DXU f UHSRUWHG WKDW SHUVLVWHQFH PD\ EH UHODWHG PRUH WR ZLOOLQJQHVV DQG DELOLW\ WR HQGXUH GLVVDWLVIDFWLRQ WKDQ WR WKH GLVVDWLVIDFWLRQ LWVHOI &LWLQJ GLVVRQDQFH WKHRU\ WKH\ VSHFXODWHG WKDW VWXGHQWV ZLWK VWURQJ SHUFHSWLRQV RI SHUVRQDO QHHGV WKDW DUH QRW EHLQJ PHW ZLOO EH PRUH OLNHO\ WR WU\ WR UHPHG\ WKH GLVFUHSDQF\ LH E\ GURSSLQJ RXWf WKDQ WKRVH ZKR FRQVLGHU WKHLU XQPHW QHHGV WR EH OHVV VHULRXV S f 7LQWR f VWDWHG WKDW LQGLYLGXDO LVRODWLRQ WKH DEVHQFH RI VXIILFLHQW FRQWDFW EHWZHHQ WKH VWXGHQW DQG RWKHU PHPEHUV RI WKH VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF FRPPXQLWLHV OHDGV WR GHSDUWXUH IURP WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ 7LQWR f QRWHG WKDW WKH PRUH WLPH IDFXOW\ JDYH WR WKHLU VWXGHQWV DQG VWXGHQWV WR HDFK RWKHU WKH PRUH OLNHO\ ZHUH VWXGHQWV WR FRPSOHWH WKHLU HGXFDWLRQ +H SRLQWHG RXW WKDW VXFK FRQWDFWV DSSHDUHG WR EH HVVHQWLDO FRPSRQHQWV LQ WKH SURFHVV RI VRFLDO DQG LQWHOOHFWXDO GHYHORSPHQW DQG FRQFOXGHG WKDW LQVWLWXWLRQV VKRXOG HQFRXUDJH WKRVH FRQWDFWV ZKHQHYHU DQG ZKHUHYHU SRVVLEOH $VWLQ f VXSSRUWHG WKH SUHPLVH WKDW VWXGHQW DQG IDFXOW\ LQWHUDFWLRQ KDYH D VWURQJHU UHODWLRQVKLS WR VWXGHQW VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH FROOHJH H[SHULHQFH WKDQ DQ\ RWKHU LQYROYHPHQW YDULDEOH RU LQGHHG DQ\ RWKHU VWXGHQW RU LQVWLWXWLRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLF 3DVFDUHOOD DQG &KDSPDQ Ef XVLQJ D ODUJH PXOWLLQVWLWXWLRQDO VDPSOH RI FROOHJH VWXGHQWV REVHUYHG WKDW VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ ZKLOH QRW GLUHFWO\ LQIOXHQFLQJ SHUVLVWHQFH KDG

PAGE 45

VLJQLILFDQW LQGLUHFW HIIHFWV RQ SHUVLVWHQFH 7KLV LQIOXHQFH RQ SHUVLVWHQFH RSHUDWHG WKURXJK LQVWLWXWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQW DQG JRDO FRPPLWPHQW 7LQWR f VWUHVVHG WKDW LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK IDFXOW\ QRW RQO\ LQFUHDVHG VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ DQG LQVWLWXWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQW EXW DOVR LQFUHDVHG WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ 3DVFDUHOOD DQG 7HUHQ]LQL f IRXQG WKDW RQO\ WZR RI WKH VL[ W\SHV RI LQWHUDFWLRQV VWXGLHG ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW GLVFXVVLRQ RI LQWHOOHFWXDO PDWWHUV DQG GLVFXVVLRQ RI FDUHHU FRQFHUQV ZLWK IDFXOW\ $VWLQ DQG 3DQRV f IRXQG WKDW DIWHU FRQWUROOLQJ IRU SUHHQUROOPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV VWXGHQWVn IDPLOLDULW\ ZLWK WKHLU LQVWUXFWRUV ZDV UHODWHG WR VLJQLILFDQW LQFUHDVHV LQ DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW )XUWKHUPRUH D VWXG\ E\ %HDO DQG 1RHO f HVWDEOLVKHG WKDW D FDULQJ DWWLWXGH RI IDFXOW\ DQG VWDII LV WKH PRVW SRWHQW UHWHQWLRQ IRUFH RQ FDPSXV 7KH LPSDFW RI LQWHUDFWLRQ FDQ YDU\ ZLWK GLIIHUHQW SRSXODWLRQV %HDQ DQG 9HVSHU f IRXQG WKDW IDFXOW\ FRQWDFW ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQW WR IHPDOH RU PDOH KRQRU VWXGHQWV ZKHQ VXUYH\HG UHJDUGLQJ VWXGHQW VDWLVIDFWLRQ ZLWK FROOHJH )XUWKHUPRUH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW FRQWDFW ZLWK DGYLVRUV KDYLQJ IULHQGV DQG OLYLQJ RQ FDPSXV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR VDWLVIDFWLRQ IRU IHPDOHV EXW QRW IRU PDOH KRQRUV VWXGHQWV DW D ODUJH UHVHDUFK XQLYHUVLW\ %HDQ t 9HVSHU f $OWKRXJK 7LQWRnV PRGHO RI VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ SRVWXODWHV DQ DSSUR[LPDWH SDULW\ EHWZHHQ VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ 0XQUR f IRXQG WKH HIIHFW VL]H IRU WKH LQIOXHQFH RI DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ RQ SHUVLVWHQFH WR EH PRGHUDWHO\ VWURQJ 0XQUR VWXGLHG ILUVWWLPH IXOOWLPH \HDU FROOHJH HQWUDQWV 6KH REVHUYHG VLJQLILFDQW GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW HIIHFWV IRU DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ JRDO FRPPLWPHQW DQG KLJK VFKRRO

PAGE 46

DYHUDJH RQ SHUVLVWHQFH LQ FROOHJH 6RFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ KRZHYHU KDG QR VLJQLILFDQW GLUHFW RU LQGLUHFW HIIHFW RQ SHUVLVWHQFH )RU FRPPXWHU FROOHJHV WKH ILQGLQJV IRU DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ DQG VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ KDYH EHHQ PL[HG ,Q D VWXG\ RI FRPPXWHU VWXGHQWV DWWHQGLQJ DQ XUEDQ XQLYHUVLW\ GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW HIIHFWV RI DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ RQ SHUVLVWHQFH ZHUH REVHUYHG E\ 3DVFDUHOOD 'XE\ DQG ,YHUVRQ f &RQWUDGLFWLQJ 7LQWRnV IRUPXODWLRQ VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ ZDV IRXQG WR KDYH D QHJDWLYH LPSDFW RQ SHUVLVWHQFH $Q LQFUHDVH LQ VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ UHSUHVHQWHG DQ LQFUHDVHG ULVN IRU ZLWKGUDZDO ,Q RWKHU VWXGLHV E\ 3DVFDUHOOD DQG &KDSPDQ Df 3DVFDUHOOD DQG :ROI f DQG 7LQWR f DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ DSSHDUV WR KDYH JUHDWHU HIIHFWV RQ DWWULWLRQ WKDQ GRHV VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ HVSHFLDOO\ LQ FRPPXWHU LQVWLWXWLRQV $FDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ ZDV IRXQG WR LQIOXHQFH VLJQLILFDQWO\ VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ DQG QRW WR LQIOXHQFH SHUVLVWHQFH DPRQJ DFDGHPLFDOO\ GLVDGYDQWDJHG VWXGHQWV DW D \HDU FRPPXWHU LQVWLWXWLRQ )R[ f :KHQ ORRNLQJ VSHFLILFDOO\ DW FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV UHVXOWV IURP 1DSROLnV f PHWDDQDO\VLV RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH OLWHUDWXUH LQGLFDWHG WKDW ERWK DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ DQG VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ SOD\ LPSRUWDQW UROHV LQ WKH GHFLVLRQ WR SHUVLVW LQ FROOHJH 3DVFDUHOOD 6PDUW DQG (WKHULQJWRQ f IRXQG ERWK VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ WR KDYH GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW HIIHFWV RQ ORQJWHUP YHDUf SHUVLVWHQFH DQG JUDGXDWLRQ DPRQJ \HDU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV $ VWXG\ E\ %HUV DQG 6PLWK f IRXQG ERWK LQWHJUDWLRQ PHDVXUHV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR SHUVLVWHQFH LQ \HDU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 7KHLU VWXG\ XQGHUVFRUHG VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ PDNLQJ D ODUJHU FRQWULEXWLRQ LQ GLVFULPLQDWLQJ SHUVLVWHUV IURP QRQSHUVLVWHUV WKDQ GRHV DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ DW WKH

PAGE 47

FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH :RUN E\ 1DSROL f IXUWKHU VKRZHG WKDW WKH LPSDFW RI VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ LV JUHDWHVW IRU WHUPWRWHUP SHUVLVWHQFH DQG GLPLQLVKHV RYHU WLPH 7KH ILQGLQJV UHJDUGLQJ VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ DUH QRW FRQVLVWHQW :RUN E\ 0XOOLJDQ DQG +HQQHVV\ f VKRZHG WKDW GLUHFW DQG LQGLUHFW HIIHFWV KDYH EHHQ REVHUYHG IRU DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ EXW QRW IRU VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ DPRQJ VWXGHQWV DWWHQGLQJ D \HDU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH $ VWXG\ E\ +DOSLQ f IDLOHG WR GHWHFW DQ\ HIIHFW IRU VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ DPRQJ \HDU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 7ZR LQWHUYHQWLRQV GHVLJQHG WR DGGUHVV DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO LVRODWLRQ LQ WKH FODVVURRP DUH /HDUQLQJ &RPPXQLWLHV DQG )UHVKPDQ ,QWHUHVW *URXSV ),*Vf $ TXDOLWDWLYH FDVH VWXG\ RI ),*V ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ 7LQWR DQG *RRGVHOO f DW D ODUJH SXEOLF UHVHDUFK XQLYHUVLW\ ,Q WKLV VWXG\ IUHVKPHQ HQUROOHG LQ VSHFLILF WKHPDWLFDOO\ OLQNHG FRXUVHV GXULQJ WKHLU ILUVW VHPHVWHU 5HVXOWV VKRZHG WKDW ),*V DOORZHG VWXGHQWV WR LQWHUDFW UHSHDWHGO\ ZLWK D FRQVLVWHQW VHW RI SHHUV DFURVV WKHLU FODVVHV 7KLV LQ WXUQ HQDEOHG VWXGHQWV WR IRUP D VRFLDO QHWZRUN LQ ZKLFK RWKHU DFDGHPLF VXSSRUW PHFKDQLVPV FRXOG EHJLQ WR RSHUDWH 7LQWR DQG *RRGVHOO LQGLFDWHG WKDW ),*V DUH D SRWHQWLDOO\ SRZHUIXO ZD\ RI DIIHFWLQJ VWXGHQWVn ILUVW \HDU FROOHJH H[SHULHQFHV 6LPLODU WR ),*V OHDUQLQJ FRPPXQLWLHV DW D FRPPXQLW\n FROOHJH FRQVLVW RI JURXSV RI VWXGHQWV WDNLQJ WZR RU PRUH FODVVHV WRJHWKHU /HDUQLQJ FRPPXQLWLHV FUHDWH WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ IRU VWXGHQWV WR SURYLGH HDFK RWKHU ZLWK VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF VXSSRUW ZKLOH SURIHVVRUV LQWHJUDWH FODVV FRQWHQW 7LQWR DQG /RYH f IRXQG WKDW ZKHQ FRPSDUHG WR WUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV OHDUQLQJ FRPPXQLW\ VWXGHQWVn SHUFHSWLRQ RI FODVVHV RWKHU VWXGHQWV IDFXOW\ FRXQVHORUV FDPSXV FOLPDWH DQG WKHLU RZQ LQYROYHPHQW ZHUH JHQHUDOO\ PRUH

PAGE 48

SRVLWLYH /HDUQLQJ FRPPXQLW\ VWXGHQWV HDUQHG PRUH FUHGLWV DQG KDG KLJKHU JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV WKDQ WUDGLWLRQDO VWXGHQWV \HW OHDUQLQJ FRPPXQLW\ VWXGHQWV KDG RQO\ D VOLJKWO\ KLJKHU SHUVLVWHQFH UDWH WKDQ WKH FRPSDULVRQ VWXGHQWV b YHUVXV bf ,Q JHQHUDO OHDUQLQJ FRPPXQLW\ VWXGHQWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW JURXS ZRUN DQG SHHU FROODERUDWLRQ ZDV HDVLHU DQG PRUH IXQ WKDQ WUDGLWLRQDO PHWKRGV ([WHUQDO 2EOLJDWLRQV)DPLOY DQG )LQDQFLDO 7LQWR f VWDWHG WKDW HYHU\ VWXGHQW LV VXEMHFW WR WKH HIIHFWV RI H[WHUQDO IRUFHV XSRQ KLV RU KHU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ FROOHJH 7KH WZR H[WHUQDO IRUFHV WKDW VWDQG RXW LQ VKDSLQJ SHUVLVWHQFH DUH REOLJDWLRQV DQG ILQDQFHV 7KH ILUVW UHIHUV WR WKH UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV LQGLYLGXDOV KDYH LQ UHJDUG WR WKHLU DVVRFLDWLRQV ZLWK JURXSV RI FRPPXQLWLHV H[WHUQDO WR VFKRRO 7KH ODWWHU UHIHUV WR RQHnV DELOLW\ WR IXQG KLV RU KHU FROOHJH DWWHQGDQFH ([WHUQDO IDFWRUV KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR KDYH D JUHDWHU LQIOXHQFH RQ WKH GURSRXW GHFLVLRQ IRU VWXGHQWV DW FRPPXWHU LQVWLWXWLRQV WKDQ VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ %HDQ t 0HW]QHU 7LQWR f $OOHQnV f VWXG\ RI VWXGHQW ZLWKGUDZDO EHKDYLRU DW $QJHOR 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ LQ 7H[DV KLJKOLJKWHG WKH UROH RI IDPLO\ 7KH VWXG\ IRFXVHG XSRQ UHVSRQGHQWV RI ILUVWWLPH IUHVKPHQ 5HVXOWV IRXQG WKUHH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV GLVWLQJXLVKHG SHUVLVWHUV IURP GURSRXWV DQG IURP WUDQVIHU VWXGHQWV Df JUHDWHU HQFRXUDJHPHQW IURP IDPLO\ Ef EHWWHU DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH DQG Ff JUHDWHU FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ (QFRXUDJHPHQW IURP IDPLO\ ZDV WKH PRVW VLJQLILFDQW RI WKHVH IDFWRUV $OOHQ f :KHQ WXUQLQJ WR HGXFDWLRQDO IXQGLQJ LVVXHV HDUO\ VWXGLHV RI WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI ILQDQFLDO IDFWRUV VKRZ D SRWHQWLDO UHODWLRQVKLS WR SHUVLVWHQFH 6XPPHUVNLOOnV f N

PAGE 49

UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH IRXQG WKDW LQ RXW RI VWXGLHV ILQDQFLDO UHDVRQV ZHUH UDQNHG DPRQJ WKH WRS WKUHH PRVW LPSRUWDQW IDFWRUV LQ DWWULWLRQ 7LQWR f IRXQG WKDW PXFK RI WKH LPSDFW RI ILQDQFHV RQ D VWXGHQWfV DFDGHPLF GHFLVLRQV RFFXUUHG DW WKH SRLQW RI HQWU\ LQWR KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ )LQDQFLDO LVVXHV LQIOXHQFHG GHFLVLRQV RI ZKHWKHU RU QRW WR DWWHQG FROOHJH 7KHUHDIWHU ILQDQFLDO LPSDFW KHOSHG WR PROG FKRLFH DERXW VSHFLILF LQVWLWXWLRQV RI LQLWLDO HQWU\ &RSH DQG +DQQDK f IRXQG VLPLODU UHVXOWV DQG UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH ODFN RI ILQDQFHV ZDV PRUH RI D EDUULHU WR VWDUWLQJ FROOHJH WKDQ LW ZDV WR ILQLVKLQJ FROOHJH 7LQWR f DOVR REVHUYHG WKDW ZKHQ VWXGHQWVn H[SHULHQFHV ZHUH SRVLWLYH WKH\ ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR DFFHSW JUHDWHU ILQDQFLDO EXUGHQV LQ RUGHU WR FRQWLQXH DWWHQGDQFH WKDQ ZKHQ H[SHULHQFHV ZHUH XQVDWLVIDFWRU\ (DUO f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f 6WDPSHQ DQG &DEUHUD f LQYHVWLJDWHG WKUHH EDVLF VWXGHQW ILQDQFLDO DLG LVVXHV LQ \HDU FROOHJHV WKH WDUJHWLQJ RI RYHUDOO DLG DLG SDFNDJLQJ IRU GLIIHUHQW UHFLSLHQW JURXSV DQG ILQDQFLDO DLGnV UROH LQ PRWLYDWLQJ SHUVLVWHQFH 7KHLU ILQGLQJV VKRZ WKDW DLG LV GLVWULEXWHG PDLQO\ WR ORZ LQFRPH VWXGHQWV FRPSHQVDWHV IRU ORZLQFRPH GLVDGYDQWDJHV

PAGE 50

DQG HQFRXUDJHV VWXGHQWVn SHUVLVWHQFH )URP 3RUWHUnV f UHYLHZ RI GDWD IURP SULYDWH \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV WDNHQ IURP WKH +LJK 6FKRRO DQG %H\RQG VWXG\ KH GHWHUPLQHG WKDW VWXGHQWV ZKR UHFHLYHG JUDQWV LQ WKHLU ILUVW \HDU RI VWXG\ ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR UHPDLQ HQUROOHG WKDQ VWXGHQWV ZLWKRXW JUDQWV &DEUHUD f FRQGXFWHG D VWXG\ XVLQJ D QDWLRQDO VDPSOH RI FROOHJH VWXGHQWV DWWHQGLQJ SXEOLF \HDU LQVWLWXWLRQV 7KH\ WHVWHG D K\SRWKHVLV FRQFHUQLQJ HFRQRPLF DQG QRQHFRQRPLF YDULDEOHV RQ FROOHJH SHUVLVWHQFH )LQGLQJV LQGLFDWHG ILQDQFLDO YDULDEOHV PRGHUDWH WKH HIIHFW RI JRDO FRPPLWPHQW RQ SHUVLVWHQFH ,Q DQRWKHU VWXG\ DOVR E\ &DEUHUD f IXQGLQJ DW FRPPXWHU FROOHJHV ZDV VWXGLHG $ VXUYH\ RI VWXGHQWV LQ D ODUJH XUEDQ FRPPXWHU FROOHJH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI VWXGHQW ILQDQFHV WR DFDGHPLF SHUVLVWHQFH 5HVXOWV VXJJHVWHG WKDW ILQDQFLDO DLG Df HTXDOL]HV RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU VWXGHQWV WKXV GHFUHDVLQJ DWWUDFWLYHQHVV RI DOWHUQDWLYHV Ef IDFLOLWDWHV DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ DQG Ff LQFUHDVHV VWXGHQW FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ :RUN :RUNLQJ ZKLOH DWWHQGLQJ VFKRRO LV LQHYLWDEOH IRU PDQ\ VWXGHQWV LQ $PHULFDnV KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ V\VWHP 'H\ $VWLQ DQG .RUQ f UHSRUWHG WKDW RYHU b RI DOO HQWHULQJ ILUVW\HDU VWXGHQWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH SUREDELOLW\ ZDV YHU\ JRRG WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG KDYH WR ILQG HPSOR\PHQW RXWVLGH WKHLU VFKRRO 1DWLRQDO GDWD IURP WKH &RRSHUDWLYH ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 3URJUDP $VWLQ f VKRZHG WKDW b RI DOO ILUVW \HDU VWXGHQWV HQWHULQJ $PHULFDQ FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV LQ UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG KDYH WR ILQG HPSOR\PHQW WR DVVLVW LQ SD\LQJ IRU WKHLU FROOHJH H[SHQVHV

PAGE 51

%HLQJ HPSOR\HG GXULQJ WKH VFKRRO \HDU JHQHUDWHV ULVNV $VWLQ f IRXQG WKDW VWXGHQWV KDG OHVV RI D FKDQFH RI VWD\LQJ LQ FROOHJH LI WKH\ ZHUH HPSOR\HG GXULQJ WKH VFKRRO \HDU 7KLV YDULDEOH ZDV WKH IRXUWK PRVW LPSRUWDQW SUHGLFWRU RI DWWULWLRQ DPRQJ VWXGHQWV DW \HDU FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV 5HVHDUFK LV UHDVRQDEO\ FRQVLVWHQW WKDW HPSOR\PHQW RII FDPSXV W\SLFDOO\ PHDVXUHG LQ QXPEHU RI KRXUV HPSOR\HG SHU ZHHNf KDV D QHJDWLYH LQIOXHQFH RQ ERWK \HDUWR\HDU SHUVLVWHQFH LQ FROOHJH DQG FRPSOHWLRQ RI D EDFKHORUnV GHJUHH $QGHUVRQ $VWLQ (KUHQEHUJ t 6KHUPDQ 6WDPDQ f 7KH LPSDFW RQ UHWHQWLRQ DQG HGXFDWLRQDO DWWDLQPHQW RI ZRUNLQJ RQ FDPSXV DSSHDUV WR EH MXVW WKH RSSRVLWH RI RIIFDPSXV HPSOR\PHQW 5HVHDUFK E\ 3DVFDUHOOD DQG 7HUHQ]LQL f $QGHUVRQ f $VWLQ f DQG 9HOH] f LQGLFDWHG WKDW SDUW WLPH HPSOR\PHQW RQ FDPSXV SRVLWLYHO\ LQIOXHQFHV ERWK SHUVLVWHQFH DQG GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ HYHQ DIWHU FRQWUROV DUH PDGH IRU VXFK IDFWRUV DV DFDGHPLF DSWLWXGH HGXFDWLRQDO DVSLUDWLRQV KLJK VFKRRO DFKLHYHPHQW DQG IDPLO\ VRFLRHFRQRPLF RULJLQV )XUWKHUPRUH RWKHU UHVHDUFKHU KDYH IRXQG WKDW LW LV WKH DPRXQW RI WLPH SHU ZHHN VSHQW ZRUNLQJ WKDW LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR DWWULWLRQ /HQQLQJ %HDO DQG 6DXHU f IRXQG WKDW SDUWWLPH HPSOR\PHQW ZDV SRVLWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK SHUVLVWHQFH HVSHFLDOO\ ZKHQ WKH MRE ZDV XQGHU KRXUV SHU ZHHN ZDV RQ FDPSXV WKH VWXGHQW VWDUWHG ZRUNLQJ DV D IUHVKPDQ DQG WKH VWXGHQW UHFHLYHG OLWWOH RU QR VXSSRUW WKURXJK JUDQWV RU ORDQV :KHQ WKH MRE H[FHHGHG KRXUV SHU ZHHN LW QHJDWLYHO\ LPSDFWHG SHUVLVWHQFH ,W KDV EHHQ VSHFXODWHG E\ /HQQLQJ %HDO DQG 6DXHU WKDW SDUWWLPH RQFDPSXV MREV SURPRWHG UHWHQWLRQ E\ SURYLGLQJ DGGLWLRQDO LQYROYHPHQW LQ FDPSXV OLIH

PAGE 52

3DVFDUHOOD HW DO Df VWXGLHG WKH LPSDFW RI RQFDPSXV DQG RIIFDPSXV ZRUN RQ ILUVW\HDU VWXGHQW FRJQLWLYH RXWFRPHV :LWK FRQWUROV PDGH IRU SUHFROOHJH FRJQLWLYH OHYHO DQG RWKHU UHOHYDQW LQIOXHQFHV DPRXQW RI RQ DQG RIIFDPSXV ZRUN KDG OLWWOH QHJDWLYH LPSDFW RQ ILUVW\HDU VWXGHQWVn UHDGLQJ FRPSUHKHQVLRQ PDWKHPDWLFV DFKLHYHPHQW RU FULWLFDO WKLQNLQJ ,Q IDFW WKHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH RQ DQ\ RI WKH WKUHH FRJQLWLYH RXWFRPHV DPRQJ VWXGHQWV ZKR ZRUNHG RQ FDPSXV VWXGHQWV ZKR ZRUNHG RII FDPSXV DQG VWXGHQWV ZKR GLG QRW ZRUN GXULQJ WKH ILUVW \HDU :RUN DQGRU IDPLO\ REOLJDWLRQV W\SLFDOO\ OLPLW D VWXGHQWnV DFDGHPLF ORDG WR SDUW WLPH RU OHVV :KHQ REVHUYHG E\ LWVHOI D VWXGHQWnV IXOOWLPHSDUWWLPH VWDWXV EHFRPHV D VLJQLILFDQW DWWULWLRQ YDULDEOH 0RRUH f DQG :LQGKDP f IRXQG WKDW IXOOWLPH DWWHQGDQFH DW WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH LV WKH PRVW SUHYDOHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI SHUVLVWHUV 7KH PRVW VDOLHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLF DPRQJ VWXGLHV RI QRQSHUVLVWHUV LV SDUWWLPH DWWHQGDQFH )HOGPDQ 3ULFH f ,Q D VWXG\ E\ %UHLQGHO f WKH QXPEHU RI XQLWV FDUULHG DV RSSRVHG WR JHQGHU DJH RU HWKQLFLW\ ZDV WKH SULQFLSDO SUHGLFWRU RI FUHGLW VWXGHQW SHUVLVWHQFH )RU QHZ FUHGLW VWXGHQWV ZKR HQUROOHG LQ XQLWV RU PRUH b SHUVLVWHG WR WKH VXEVHTXHQW IDOO VHPHVWHU 7KLV FRPSDUHV WR b RI WKRVH FDUU\LQJ WR XQLWV DQG b RI WKRVH FDUU\LQJ RU IHZHU XQLWV %UHLQGHO f 0RRUH f FRQGXFWHG D VWXG\ DW 6DQ -XDQ &ROOHJH WKDW WRRN LQWR DFFRXQW VHYHUDO GHILQLWLRQV RI SHUVLVWHQFH LQFOXGLQJ UHHQUROOPHQW LQ WKH VXEVHTXHQW WHUP UHn HQUROOPHQW WKH IROORZLQJ IDOO VHPHVWHU DQG SHUVLVWHQFH LQ UHODWLRQ WR LQGLFDWRUV RI VWXGHQW HGXFDWLRQDO JRDOV VXFK DV IXOOWLPH RU GHJUHHVHHNLQJ VWDWXV ,Q DQG

PAGE 53

IDOO WR IDOO SHUVLVWHQFH UDWHV IRU SDUWWLPH GHJUHHVHHNLQJ VWXGHQWV ZHUH b DQG b UHVSHFWLYHO\ DQG b DQG b IRU IXOOWLPH GHJUHHVHHNLQJ VWXGHQWV 6HPHVWHU WR VHPHVWHU SHUVLVWHQFH UDWHV IRU IDOO ZHUH b IRU IXOOWLPH VWXGHQWV DQG b IRU SDUWWLPH VWXGHQWV ZLWK KLJKHU IDOO WR VSULQJ SHUVLVWHQFH UDWHV WKDQ VSULQJ WR IDOO UDWHV ,Q JHQHUDO DOO IXOOWLPH VWXGHQWV SHUVLVWHG DW D KLJKHU UDWH WKDQ SDUWWLPH VWXGHQWV 0RRUH f ,Q WKH VSULQJ RI :HVWFKHVWHU &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH LQ 1HZn
PAGE 54

VXUYH\ IURP WKH 1DWLRQDO 2ULHQWDWLRQ 'LUHFWRUV $VVRFLDWLRQ XWLOL]HG D IUHVKPDQ FRXUVH RU VHPLQDU WR DVVLVW VWXGHQW DGMXVWPHQW WR FROOHJH DQG WR HQKDQFH VWXGHQW SHUVLVWHQFH 2I WKH VXUYH\ UHVSRQVHV WR WKH 1DWLRQDO 6XUYH\ RI )UHVKPDQ 6HPLQDU 3URJUDPV E\ %DUHIRRW DQG )LGOHU f UHVSRQVHV ZHUH IURP FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 7ZR KXQGUHGWZHQW\ bf RI WKH UHVSRQGLQJ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH\ RIIHUHG D ILUVW\HDU RU QHZ VWXGHQW FRXUVH 5LFH DQG 'HYRUH f IRXQG H[WHQGHG RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVHV HTXDOO\ FRPPRQ DW DQG \HDU FROOHJHV EXW GLIIHUHQW LQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH VWUXFWXUHV DQG FRQWHQW HPSKDVHV )URP D QDWLRQDO VWXG\ \HDU FROOHJH FRXUVHV ZHUH IRXQG WR KDYH ODUJHU FODVV VL]HV VKRUWHU GXUDWLRQ DQG OHVV YDULHG FRQWHQW DQG ZHUH OHVV OLNHO\ WR EH UHTXLUHG RU WR LQWURGXFH DQ DFDGHPLF GLVFLSOLQH ,Q D VWXG\ E\ )LGOHU f GDWD ZHUH FROOHFWHG DQG DQDO\]HG LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW VWXGHQWV ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU FRXUVH H[KLELWHG KLJKHU VRSKRPRUH UHWHQWLRQ UDWHV WKDQ QRQSDUWLFLSDQWV IRU FRQVHFXWLYH \HDUV )XUWKHUPRUH VHPLQDU SDUWLFLSDQWV ZHUH DOVR PRUH OLNHO\ WR SHUVLVW WR JUDGXDWLRQ 6KDQOH\ t :LWWHQ f 6LPLODU UHWHQWLRQHQKDQFLQJ HIIHFWV RI WKH IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU KDYH EHHQ IRXQG IRU KLJK ULVN VWXGHQWV ZKR GLG QRW PHHW UHJXODU DGPLVVLRQ UHTXLUHPHQWV )LGOHU t +XQWHU f )LGOHU f UHSRUWHG IUHVKPDQWRVRSKRPRUH UHWHQWLRQ UDWHV DYHUDJHG b IRU 8QLYHUVLW\ SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ FRQWUDVW WR b IRU QRQSDUWLFLSDQWV .HHQDQ DQG *DERYLWFK f FRQGXFWHG D ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXG\ WR DVVHVV WKH HIIHFW RI D FUHGLW ZHHN IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU RQ VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW DQG UHWHQWLRQ 2XWFRPHV PHDVXUHG ZHUH NQRZOHGJH RI FROOHJH UHVRXUFHV DQG VHUYLFHV XWLOL]DWLRQ RI

PAGE 55

DFDGHPLF VXSSRUW VHUYLFHV LQFUHDVHV LQ VHOIDVVHVVHG OHDUQLQJ VNLOOV LQFUHDVHV LQ VWXGHQWVn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t *DERYLWFK f +RII f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

PAGE 56

UDWH RI WKH WUHDWPHQW JURXS ZDV KDOI WKDW RI WKH FRQWURO JURXS 6WXGHQWV LQ WKH WUHDWPHQW JURXS HDUQHG D JUDGH RI & RU EHWWHU LQ IRXU WLPHV DV PDQ\ PDWK FRXUVHV :KHQ WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI FROOHJH FUHGLWV HDUQHG ZDV H[DPLQHG WKH WUHDWPHQW JURXS FRPSOHWHG b PRUH XQLWV WKDQ WKH FRQWURO JURXS $IWHU VHYHQ VHPHVWHUV WKH *3$V RI WKH WZR JURXSV ZHUH DOPRVW LGHQWLFDO 6WXSND f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t 6LJQRU f $ VWXG\ DW 'H.DOE &ROOHJH LQ &ODUNVWRQ *HRUJLD ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU WKH QHHGV RI VWXGHQWV ZHUH VDWLVILHG E\ WKH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVVHV DQG LI WKHUH ZHUH GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH HYDOXDWLRQ RI IUHVKPHQ LQ WKH ZHHN FODVVHV DV FRPSDUHG WR WKRVH LQ WKH ZHHN FODVVHV $SSUR[LPDWHO\ IUHVKPHQ HYDOXDWHG WKH FODVVHV DW WKH ILQDO FODVV VHVVLRQ ,Q JHQHUDO VWXGHQW HYDOXDWLRQV RI WKH ZHHN VHFWLRQV ZHUH PRUH SRVLWLYH WDQ HYDOXDWLRQV RI WKH ZHHN VHFWLRQV ,Q WKH ZHHN FRXUVH b RI WKH IUHVKPHQ IHOW WKDW WKH SURJUDP SODQQLQJ VHVVLRQ ZDV HVVHQWLDO RU YHU\ LPSRUWDQW IRU WKH EHJLQQLQJ IUHVKPHQ ZKLOH b RI WKH IUHVKPHQ LQ WKH ZHHN FODVVHV IHOW WKH VDPH 9RFDWLRQDOFDUHHU SODQQLQJ ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG HVVHQWLDO RU YHU\ LPSRUWDQW E\ b RI WKH

PAGE 57

ZHHN VDPSOH DQG b RI WKH ZHHN VDPSOH 6WXG\ VNLOOV VHVVLRQV DSSHDUHG OHDVW HIIHFWLYH 2]DNL f $ VWXG\ E\ 6ORDQ f LQWHQGHG WR DQDO\]H ZKHWKHU D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH DW %URZDUG &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH ZDV HIIHFWLYH LQ EXLOGLQJ LQVWLWXWLRQDO FRPPLWPHQW GHILQHG DV UHHQUROOPHQW DIWHU \HDU 8VLQJ UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV WKH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW DV WKH VHFRQG EHVW SUHGLFWRU RI ILUVWWHUP JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV ZKLOH WRWDO FUHGLW KRXUV SDLG IRU WKH ILUVW VHPHVWHU ZHUH WKH EHVW SUHGLFWRUV 7KH RYHUDOO ILQGLQJV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKH FRPELQDWLRQ RI IDFWRUV JHQGHU UDFHHWKQLF JURXS GHJUHH SURJUDP WRWDO FUHGLWV SDLG IRU FROOHJH SUHSDUDWRU\FROOHJH OHYHO VWDWXV DQG HQUROOPHQW LQ WKH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVHf LV PRUH VLJQLILFDQW LQ H[SODLQLQJ PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ ILUVWWHUP JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH WKDQ LQ H[SODLQLQJ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ UHHQUROOPHQW RU JUDGXDWLRQ UDWHV )LQGLQJV LQGLFDWHG D VWURQJ UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HQUROOPHQW LQ WKH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH DQG \HDU UHHQUROOPHQW LQ WKH FROOHJH IRU SDUWWLPH $$ GHJUHHn VHHNLQJ VWXGHQWV 6ORDQ f 5HVXOWV RI D VWXG\ E\ 0F,QW\UH f GLG QRW VXSSRUW WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WKH FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH KDV D VLJQLILFDQW HIIHFW RQ SHUVLVWHQFH RU VXFFHVV DV GHILQHG DV KLJKHU *3$ RU HQUROOPHQW VWDWXV ,Q KLV VWXG\ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG QRW GHFODUHG D PDMRU ZHUH UHTXLUHG WR HQUROO DQG SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH FRXUVH $IWHU UHYLHZLQJ WKH UHVHDUFK RQ WKH IUHVKPDQ RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU V\QWKHVLV RI PRUH WKDQ VWXGLHV RQ KRZ FROOHJH SURJUDPV DQG H[SHULHQFHV DIIHFW VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW 3DVFDUHOOD DQG 7HUHQ]LQL f FRQFOXGHG 7KH ZHLJKW RI WKH HYLGHQFH VXJJHVWV WKDW D ILUVWVHPHVWHU IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU LV SRVLWLYHO\ OLQNHG ZLWK ERWK

PAGE 58

IUHVKPDQ\HDU SHUVLVWHQFH DQG GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ 7KH SRVLWLYH OLQN SHUVLVWV HYHQ ZKHQ DFDGHPLF DSWLWXGH DQG VHFRQGDU\n VFKRRO DFKLHYHPHQW DUH WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQW SS f $GMXVWPHQW DQG 'LIILFXOW\ &ROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVVHV LQ WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR VXSSO\ VWXGHQWV ZLWK LQIRUPDWLRQ HVVHQWLDO WR WKHLU DFDGHPLF VRFLDOL]DWLRQ DQG DGMXVWPHQW WR FROOHJH &ROO DQG 9RQ6HJJHP f ZURWH WKDW FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVVHV IDFLOLWDWH DGMXVWPHQW WR FROOHJH E\ SURYLGLQJ Df GHVFULSWLRQV RI FROOHJH SURJUDP RIIHULQJV Ef WKH FROOHJHnV H[SHFWDWLRQV IRU VWXGHQWV Ff LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW DVVLVWDQFH DQG VHUYLFHV IRU H[DPLQLQJ LQWHUHVWV YDOXHV DQG DELOLWLHV Gf HQFRXUDJHPHQW WR HVWDEOLVK ZRUNLQJ UHODWLRQVKLSV ZLWK IDFXOW\ Hf LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW VHQGHHV WKDW KHOS ZGWK DGMXVWPHQW WR FROOHJH DQG If ILQDQFLDO DLG LQIRUPDWLRQ 6WXGHQWV HQWHULQJ FROOHJH PD\ ODFN FRQILGHQFH LQ WKHLU DELOLW\ WR EH VXFFHVVIXO VWXGHQWV 6HOIDSSUDLVDO FDQ EH D FULWLFDO IDFWRU LQ VWXGHQW DGMXVWPHQW 7D\ORU f HYDOXDWHG WKH HIIHFW RI DQ H[WHQGHG RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH RQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWVn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nHUH DVVHVVHG E\ FRPSDULQJ *3$ DQG SHUVLVWHQFH

PAGE 59

UDWHV IRU WZR TXDUWHUV $QDO\VLV LQGLFDWHG WKDW VXEMHFWV UHSRUWHG D VLJQLILFDQW LQFUHDVH LQ DFDGHPLF VHOIFRQILGHQFH EXW QRW SUREOHPVROYLQJ DSSUDLVDO 7UHDWPHQW JURXSV ZHUH PRUH IDPLOLDU ZLWK b RI WKH FDPSXV UHVRXUFHV WKDQ ZHUH FRQWURO EXW GLG QRW XVH VHUYLFHV DW D KLJKHU UDWH :KHQ HGXFDWLRQDO EDFNJURXQG ZDV FRYDULHG WUHDWPHQW VXEMHFWV DFKLHYHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU *3$V IRU WKH ILUVW TXDUWHU DQG WKHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ VHFRQG TXDUWHU *3$ RU UHWHQWLRQ UDWHV 7D\ORU f ,Q D VWXG\ E\ 'DYLV8QGHUZRRG DQG /HH f WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH LQGLFDWHG WKDW VWXGHQWV ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH IUHVKPDQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH KDG D VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU PHDQ IUHVKPDQ \HDU *3$ WKDQ QRQSDUWLFLSDQWV 6HPLQDU SDUWLFLSDQWV HDUQHG DQ DYHUDJH *3$ RI ZKLOH QRQSDUWLFLSDQWV HDUQHG DQ DYHUDJH *3$ RI )LGOHU DQG +XQWHU f 6WXSND f DQG :LONLH DQG .XFNXFN f IRXQG *3$V RI FRXUVH SDUWLFLSDQWV WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU WKDQ WKRVH DFKLHYHG E\ PDWFKHG FRQWURO JURXSV RI QRQSDUWLFLSDQWV )LGOHU f IRXQG WKDW IUHVKPHQ ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ 8QLYHUVLW\ KDG D KLJKHU SUREDELOLW\ RI UHWXUQLQJ IRU WKH VRSKRPRUH \HDU LQ VSLWH RI D JUHDWHU SHUFHQWDJH RI KLJKHU ULVN VWXGHQWV WKDQ QRQSDUWLFLSDQWV 5HVHDUFK LQGLFDWHV WKDW SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVVHV UDLVHV WKH DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH RI ORZDFKLHYLQJ VWXGHQWV DV LGHQWLILHG E\ EHORZDYHUDJH HQWUDQFH WHVW VFRUHV DQG KLJK VFKRRO UDQNf UHODWLYH WR WKDW RI VWXGHQWV ZLWK PRUH TXDOLILHG DGPLVVLRQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV )LGOHU f 5HVHDUFK IXUWKHU VXJJHVWV WKDW SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ D ILUVW\HDU H[WHQGHG RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV KDV SDUWLFXODUO\ GUDPDWLF HIIHFWV RQ DFDGHPLFDOO\ DWULVN VWXGHQWV ZKR DUH GLVSURSRUWLRQDWHO\ UHSUHVHQWHG LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 5RXHFKH t 5RXHFKH f

PAGE 60

7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ E\ %ODFNKXVW f DUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK UHVHDUFK UHJDUGLQJ DFDGHPLF DFKLHYHPHQW DQG IUHVKPDQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVHV 6XFK UHVHDUFK VXJJHVWV WKDW IUHVKPDQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVHV LQFUHDVH WKH DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH RI ORZ DFKLHYLQJ VWXGHQWV UHODWLYH WR RWKHU VWXGHQWV :KLOH QRW WHVWHG GLUHFWO\ E\ WKLV VWXG\ WKLV K\SRWKHVLV LV VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW VWXGHQWV ZLWK UHODWLYHO\ ORZ JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV IRXQG WKH IUHVKPDQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH WKH PRVW XVHIXO LQ KHOSLQJ WKHP VXFFHHG DFDGHPLFDOO\ $QDO\VLV RI GDWD E\ &UDLJ f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

PAGE 61

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b PRUH RI WKH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH WUHDWPHQW JURXS WKDQ LQ WKH QRQWUHDWPHQW JURXS ZHUH VWLOO HQUROOHG DW WKH XQLYHUVLW\ 7KLV GLIIHUHQFH DOVR ZDV HYLGHQW \HDUV IROORZLQJ LQWHUYHQWLRQ ZKHQ b PRUH RI WKH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH WUHDWPHQW JURXS ZHUH VWLOO HQUROOHG DW WKH XQLYHUVLW\ WKDQ ZHUH QRQWUHDWPHQW /LSVN\ t (QGHU f +RZHYHU DQ LQLWLDO VWXG\ RI WKH IUHVKPHQ VHPLQDU DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 1RUWK &DUROLQD 0DLVWR 'DYLV .H\HV t 7DPPL f IRXQG QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ VHPLQDU SDUWLFLSDQWV DQG QRQSDUWLFLSDQWV RQ PHDVXUHV RI DFDGHPLF VXFFHVV DQG UHWHQWLRQ $GGUHVVLQJ VSHFLDO SRSXODWLRQV D VWXG\ H[DPLQHG WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI D IUHVKPDQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH IRU OHDUQLQJGLVDEOHG /'f DQG QRQOHDPLQJGLVDEOHG 1/'f VWXGHQWV ,Q D ORQJLWXGLQDO UHFRUGV UHYLHZ VWXG\ WKH UHWHQWLRQ RU JUDGXDWLRQ UDWHV DQG JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV RI /' DQG 1/' VWXGHQWV ZKR GLG DQG GLG QRW FRPSOHWH D IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU ZHUH DQDO\]HG 5HVXOWV VXJJHVWHG WKDW VWXGHQWV ZKR FRPSOHWHG WKH VHPLQDU JUDGXDWHG DW D KLJKHU UDWH WKDQ FRQWURO VWXGHQWV DQG WKDW /' VWXGHQWV JUDGXDWHG DW D KLJKHU UDWH WKDQ 1/' VWXGHQWV /HDUQLQJGLVDEOHG VWXGHQWV ZKR FRPSOHWHG WKH

PAGE 62

IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU H[SHULHQFHG WKH KLJKHVW JUDGXDWLRQ UDWH IROORZHG E\ 1/' VWXGHQWV ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH VHPLQDU DQG WKHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR GLG QRW WDNH WKH VHPLQDU DQG ZHUH 1/' 7KH ORZHVW JUDGXDWLRQ UDWH ZDV IRU /' VWXGHQWV ZKR GLG QRW WDNH WKH VHPLQDU *UDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV ZHUH JHQHUDOO\ QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW EHWZHHQ WKH /' DQG 1/' JURXSV LQ UHODWLRQ WR SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKH IUHVKPDQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH *UHHQ f ,QFRQJUXHQFH DQG ,VRODWLRQ 'XULQJ 0DQRU -XQLRU &ROOHJH GHYHORSHG D VHPHVWHUORQJ IUHVKPDQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH GHVLJQHG WR KHOS VWXGHQWV XQGHUVWDQG WKH FROOHJH V\VWHP WR VWUHQJWKHQ VWXGHQWVn LGHQWLILFDWLRQ ZLWK WKHLU YRFDWLRQDO SURJUDP DQG FDUHHU FKRLFH DQG WR LPSURYH VWXGHQWVn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f $QRWKHU VWXG\ ZDV GHVLJQHG WR JDWKHU LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW VWXGHQWVn LQIRUPDO IDFXOW\ FRQWDFWV DQG WKHLU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ H[WUDFXUULFXODU DFWLYLWLHV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH QLQHLWHP SDSHUDQGSHQFLO TXHVWLRQQDLUH VKRZHG WKDW VHPLQDU SDUWLFLSDQWV HQJDJHG LQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH LQIRUPDO IDFXOW\ FRQWDFWV WKDQ QRQSDUWLFLSDQWV 6HPLQDU SDUWLFLSDQWV DOVR UHSRUWHG EHLQJ HQJDJHG LQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH H[WUDFXUULFXODU DFWLYLWLHV WKDQ

PAGE 63

QRQSDUWLFLSDQWV 1R VLJQLILFDQW JHQGHU HIIHFWV ZHUH IRXQG 'DYLV8QGHUZRRG t /HH f 6XPPDU\n ,Q VXPPDU\f ZKHQ ORRNLQJ DW WKH YDULDEOHV PRVW RIWHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK UHWHQWLRQJHQGHU DJH DQG UDFHf§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

PAGE 64

&+$37(5 0(7+2'2/2*< &KDSWHU 2UJDQL]DWLRQ ,Q WKLV FKDSWHU WKH VWXG\n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t %RXQGV f DQG WR VWXG\ SRVVLEOH FDXVHV DIWHU WKH\ PD\ KDYH H[HUWHG WKHLU HIIHFW XSRQ RWKHU YDULDEOHV %RUJ t *DOO f 7KH VWXG\ ZDV ORQJLWXGLQDO LQ VWUXFWXUH DVVHVVLQJ KLVWRULFDO GDWD DIWHU WKH ILUVW VHPHVWHU DQG DW WKH HQG RI WKH ILUVW VHFRQG WKLUG DQG IRXUWK \HDU RI WKH LQLWLDO WUHDWPHQW /HJLVODWLYH DFWLRQ WDNHQ LQ WKH IDOO RI EURXJKW FKDQJHV WR FXUULFXOXP DQG ZLWKGUDZDO

PAGE 65

SROLF\ LQ WKH VWDWH RI )ORULGD 7R UHPRYH WKH LQIOXHQFH RI WKHVH FKDQJHV XSRQ WKH VWXG\ WKH SHULRG EHLQJ REVHUYHG LV 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQV 7KLV VWXG\ H[DPLQHG WKH IROORZLQJ UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUP f LQ UHWHQWLRQ DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUP f LQ QXPEHU RI FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDOV DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZnKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUP f LQ *3$ DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUP f LQ WRWDO QXPEHU RI FRXUVHV UHSHDWHG DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV" ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf LQ WRWDO QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV DW WLPH RI JUDGXDWLRQ" 'R DJH JHQGHU DQG UDFH LQWHUDFW ZLWK WDNLQJ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf WR DIIHFW UHWHQWLRQ FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDO *3$ FRXUVHV UHSHDWHG DQG QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV WDNHQ DW WLPH RI JUDGXDWLRQ"

PAGE 66

3DUWLFLSDQWV 7KH SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKLV LQYHVWLJDWLRQ FRQVLVWHG RI PDOH DQG IHPDOH VWXGHQWV IURP 0LDPL'DGH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 2NDORRVD:DOWRQ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 6DQWD )H &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH DQG 7DOODKDVVHH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 0LDPL'DGH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH ORFDWHG LQ D ODUJH XUEDQ FRPPXQLW\ LQ WKH VRXWKHUQ SDUW RI WKH VWDWH KDV DQ XQGXSOLFDWHG $VVRFLDWH LQ $UWV 'HJUHH 3URJUDP KHDGFRXQW RI VWXGHQWV 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ 'LYLVLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV f 2NDORRVD:DOWRQ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH ORFDWHG LQ D VPDOO FRDVWDO FRPPXQLW\ LQ WKH QRUWKZHVWHUQ SDUW RI WKH VWDWH KDV DQ XQGXSOLFDWHG $VVRFLDWH LQ $UWV 'HJUHH 3URJUDP KHDGFRXQW RI VWXGHQWV 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ 'LYLVLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV f 6DQWD )H &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH ORFDWHG LQ D PHGLXPVL]HG XUEDQ FRPPXQLW\ LQ WKH QRUWKFHQWUDO SDUW RI WKH VWDWH KDV DQ XQGXSOLFDWHG $VVRFLDWH LQ $UWV 'HJUHH 3URJUDP KHDGFRXQW RI VWXGHQWV 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ 'LYLVLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV f 7DOODKDVVHH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH ORFDWHG DW WKH VWDWH FDSLWRO LQ WKH QRUWKFHQWUDO SDUW RI WKH VWDWH KDV DQ XQGXSOLFDWHG $VVRFLDWH LQ $UWV 'HJUHH 3URJUDP KHDGFRXQW RI VWXGHQWV 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ 'LYLVLRQ RI &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJHV f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

PAGE 67

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

PAGE 68

DQG GLVSHUVLRQ ZHUH XVHG $Q DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH PRGHO ZDV DSSOLHG WR DGGUHVV TXHVWLRQV WKURXJK 6XPPDU\n 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR DVFHUWDLQ WKURXJK WKH XVH RI KLVWRULFDO DFDGHPLF UHFRUGV LI WKHUH LV D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WDNLQJ D FRPPXQLW\n FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH GXULQJ WKH ILUVW WHUP DQG WKH UHWHQWLRQ SHUVLVWHQFH DQG WLPH WR GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ RI VWXGHQWV 6WXGHQW GDWD HQFRPSDVVLQJ D \HDU WLPH SHULRG ZHUH FROOHFWHG IURP IRXU FRPPXQLW\n FROOHJHV WKDW YDULHG LQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO VL]H DQG ORFDWLRQ 'DWD DQDO\VLV IRU WKLV VWXG\ DSSOLHG GHVFULSWLYH VWDWLVWLFV RI FHQWUDO WHQGHQF\ DQG GLVSHUVLRQ DQG DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH PRGHOV

PAGE 69

&+$37(5 5(68/76 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR H[SORUH Z KHWKHU WKHUH LV D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WDNLQJ D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH GXULQJ WKH ILUVW WHUP LQ FROOHJH DQG WKH UHWHQWLRQ SHUVLVWHQFH DQG WLPH WR GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ RI VWXGHQWV $Q H[DPLQDWLRQ ZDV PDGH WR VHH ZKHWKHU DQ RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LPSDFWV UHWHQWLRQ QXPEHU RI FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDOV VWXGHQWVn JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH RYHU WKH ORQJ WHUP QXPEHU RI FRXUVHV UHSHDWHG DQG WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV UHTXLUHG WR FRPSOHWH WKH GHJUHH 'DWD ZHUH FROOHFWHG IURP 0LDPL'DGH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 2NDORRVD:DOWRQ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 6DQWD )H &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH DQG 7DOODKDVVHH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 7KH UHVXOWLQJ VDPSOH WRWDOHG SDUWLFLSDQWV RI ZKLFK b 1 f KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG b 1 f WKDW KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV :KHQ WKH VDPSOH LV YLHZHG E\ LQGLYLGXDO LQVWLWXWLRQV WKHUH ZHUH b 1 f RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV WKDW KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG b 1 f WKDW KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DW 0LDPL 'DGH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH b 1 O f RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV WKDW KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG b 1 O f WKDW KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DW 2NDORRVD :DOWRQ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH b 1 f RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV WKDW KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG b 1 f WKDW KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DW 6DQWD )H &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH DQG b 1 f RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV WKDW KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW

PAGE 70

WHUP DQG b 1 f WKDW KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DW 7DOODKDVVHH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 7KH JHQGHU GLYLVLRQ RI WKH VDPSOH ZDV b IHPDOH 1 f DQG b PDOH 1 f 2I WKH IHPDOH SDUWLFLSDQWV b 1 f KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG b 1 f KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV 2I WKH PDOH SDUWLFLSDQWV b 1 f KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG b 1 f KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV 7KH UDFLDOHWKQLF GLYLVLRQV RI WKH VDPSOH ZHUH b ZKLWH 1 f b +LVSDQLF 1 f b $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ 1 f b $VLDQ f DQG b RWKHU PLQRULW\ 1 f 2I WKH ZKLWH SDUWLFLSDQWV b 1 f KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG b 1 f KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV 2I WKH +LVSDQLF SDUWLFLSDQWV b 1 f KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG b 1 f KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV 2I WKH $IULFDQ $PHULFDQ SDUWLFLSDQWV b 1 f KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG b 1 f KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV 2I WKH $VLDQ SDUWLFLSDQWV b 1 f KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG b 1 f KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV 1RQH RI WKH RWKHU PLQRULW\ SDUWLFLSDQWV KDG WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP 7KH DJH RI WKH VDPSOH UDQJHG IURP WR \HDUV RI DJH ZLWK D PHDQ DJH RI \HDUV RI DJH 7KH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ ZDV 7KH 6WDWLVWLFDO $QDO\VLV 6\VWHP 6$6f ZDV XVHG WR FRPSXWH DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH $129$f IRU WKH GHSHQGHQW DQG LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV 7KH OHYHO RI VLJQLILFDQFH IRU DOO DQDO\VHV ZDV VHW DW S 7KLV VWXG\ H[DPLQHG WKH IROORZLQJ UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQV

PAGE 71

,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf LQ UHWHQWLRQ DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV" $Q $129$ ZDV SHUIRUPHG WR WHVW IRU PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH YDULDEOH RI VWDWXV FRPSOHWHG D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV GXULQJ WKH ILUVW WHUP RI FROOHJH DV RSSRVHG WR QRW KDYLQJ WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV GXULQJ WKH \HDU SHULRG RI WKH VWXG\ f IRU UHWHQWLRQ RYHU WKH \HDU SHULRG RI WKH VWXG\ 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IRXQG IRU WKH PHDQV RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH RI VWDWXV 7DEOH VKRZV WKH PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU WKH UHWHQWLRQ YDULDEOH RI VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG WDNHQ WKH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG IRU VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG QHYHU WDNHQ WKH FODVV 7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV RI WKH 9DULDEOH 5HWHQWLRQ IRU 6WXGHQWV )LUVW DQG 1HYHU )LUVW 1HYHU 9DULDEOH 1 0HDQ 6' 1 0HDQ 6' 5HWHQWLRQ ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf LQ QXPEHU RI FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDOV DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV" $Q $129$ ZDV SHUIRUPHG WR WHVW IRU PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH YDULDEOH RI VWDWXV IRU QXPEHU RI FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDOV DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV 7KHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IRXQG IRU WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH RI VWDWXV DW WKH HQG RI \HDUV RU 7DEOH VKRZV WKH PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV RI WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI FRXUVH

PAGE 72

ZLWKGUDZDOV IRU VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG WDNHQ WKH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DQG IRU VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG QHYHU WDNHQ WKH FODVV 7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV RI WKH 9DULDEOH :LWKGUDZDO IRU 6WXGHQWV )LUVW DQG 1HYHU 9DULDEOH )LUVW 1HYHU 1 0HDQ 6' 1 0HDQ 6' :LWKGUDZDOV :LWKGUDZDOV :LWKGUDZDOV :LWKGUDZDOV ,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf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f LQ WRWDO QXPEHU RI FRXUVHV UHSHDWHG DIWHU \HDU \HDUV \HDUV DQG \HDUV"

PAGE 73

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV RI WKH 9DULDEOH *UDGH 3RLQW $YHUDJH IRU 6WXGHQWV )LUVW DQG 1HYHU 9DULDEOH )LUVW 1HYHU 1 0HDQ 6' 1 0HDQ 6' *3$
PAGE 74

,V WKHUH D GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR KDYH QRW WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LQ WKHLU ILUVW WHUPf LQ WRWDO QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV DW WLPH RI JUDGXDWLRQ" 'HJUHHV ZHUH DZDUGHG WR SDUWLFLSDQWV bf RI WKH JUDGXDWHV KDG DWWHQGHG D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV GXULQJ WKHLU ILUVW WHUP LQ FROOHJH ZKLOH bf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f WR DIIHFW UHWHQWLRQ FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDO JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH FRXUVHV UHSHDWHG DQG QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV WDNHQ DW WLPH RI JUDGXDWLRQ"

PAGE 75

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f 7KH $129$ IRU UHWHQWLRQ RYHU WKH \HDU SHULRG RI WKH VWXG\ LV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI 5HWHQWLRQ E\ 6WDWXV 3DUWLFLSDQW $JH 3DUWLFLSDQW *HQGHU DQG 3DUWLFLSDQW 5DFH 6RXUFH ') 6XP RI 6TXDUHV 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) 9DOXH 3U!) 0RGHO (UURU &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO 67$786 $*( *(1'(5 r 5$&( $*(r67$786 67$786r*(1'(5 67$786r5$&( rS

PAGE 76

&RXUVH ZLWKGUDZDOV )RU \HDU WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH PHDQV IRU WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH RI UDFH ) S f 7KH $129$ IRU QXPEHU RI FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDOV IRU \HDU LV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH )RU \HDU WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH PHDQV IRU WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH RI UDFH ) S f 7KH $129$ IRU QXPEHU RI FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDOV IRU \HDU LV VKHZQ LQ 7DEOH )RU \HDU WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH PHDQV IRU WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV RI JHQGHU ) S f DQG UDFH ) S f 7KH $129$ IRU QXPEHU RI FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDOV IRU \HDU LV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH )RU \HDU WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH PHDQV IRU WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV RI JHQGHU ) S DQG UDFH ) S f 7KH $129$ IRU QXPEHU RI FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDOV IRU \HDU LV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI *UDGH : IRU )LUVW
PAGE 77

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI *UDGH : IRU 6HFRQG
PAGE 78

7DEOH *HQGHU DQG 3DUWLFLSDQW 5DFH 6RXUFH ') 6XP RI 6TXDUHV 0HDQ 6TXDUH ) 9DOXH 3U!) 0RGHO (UURU &RUUHFWHG 7RWDO 67$786 $*( *(1'(5 r 5$&( r $*(r67$786 67$786r*(1'(5 67$786r5$&( rS *UDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH )RU \HDU WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH GDWD IRU WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV RI DJH ) S f DQG JHQGHU ) S f 7KH $129$ IRU JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH DW WKH HQG RI \HDU LV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH )RU \HDU WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH GDWD IRU WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV RI DJH ) S f DQG JHQGHU ) S f 7KH $129$ IRU JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH DW WKH HQG RI \HDU LV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH )RU \HDU WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH GDWD IRU WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV RI DJH ) S f DQG JHQGHU ) S f 7KH $129$ IRU JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH DW WKH HQG RI \HDU LV VKRZQ LQ 7DEOH )RU \HDU WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH GDWD IRU WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV RI DJH )

PAGE 79

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI *UDGH 3RLQW $YHUDJH IRU )LUVW
PAGE 80

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI *UDGH 3RLQW $YHUDJH IRU 7KLUG
PAGE 81

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI *UDGH 3RLQW $YHUDJH IRU )RXUWK
PAGE 82

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI 7RWDO 1XPEHU RI &RXUVHV 5HSHDWHG DW (QG RI 7KLUG
PAGE 83

7DEOH $QDO\VLV RI 9DULDQFH RI 7RWDO 1XPEHU RI &RXUVHV 5HSHDWHG DW (QG RI )RXUWK
PAGE 84

UHWHQWLRQ FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDO SDWWHUQV JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH FRXUVHV UHSHWLWLRQ SDWWHUQV DQG WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV DW WLPH RI JUDGXDWLRQ $ GLVFXVVLRQ RI WKHVH UHVXOWV DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ &KDSWHU

PAGE 85

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f LQWHJUDWLRQ ZLWK WKH VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF V\VWHPV RI D FROOHJH HDUO\ LQ D VWXGHQWfV FDUHHU LV EHOLHYHG WR HQKDQFH WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV LQWHQWLRQV DQG FRPPLWPHQWV DQG LQ WXUQ IDFLOLWDWHV VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ 7KH FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LV GHVLJQHG WR LQWHJUDWH D VWXGHQW LQWR WKH VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF FRPPXQLWLHV RI WKH FROOHJH WKHUHIRUH SURPRWLQJ LPSURYHG UHWHQWLRQ

PAGE 86

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fV FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG WR WKH JRDO RI FROOHJH JUDGXDWLRQ PD\ EH UHIOHFWHG LQ KLVKHU FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDO SDWWHUQ $ FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDO LV QRW VROHO\ DQ DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH RU SUHSDUHGQHVV LQGLFDWRU 6WXGHQWV DW D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH PD\ ZLWKGUDZ IURP FRXUVHZRUN GXH WR VFKHGXOH FRQIOLFWV HFRQRPLF LVVXHV RU DV D UHVXOW RI IDPLO\ RU SHUVRQDO FULVLV ,QWHJUDWLRQ LQWR WKH DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO V\VWHPV RI WKH FROOHJH SURPRWHV JRDO DQG GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ 7LQWR f WKXV UHGXFLQJ WKH QHHG WR ZLWKGUDZ IURP FRXUVHZRUN 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LV QRW D VXIILFLHQW LQWHUYHQWLRQ WR LQIOXHQFH FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDO RYHU D ORQJHU WLPH VSDQ 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ 7KH WKLUG UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ H[DPLQHG ZKHWKHU WKHUH ZDV D GLIIHUHQFH LQ PHDQV RI JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV EHWZHHQ VWXGHQWV ZKR KDG WDNHQ DQ RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP

PAGE 87

LQ FROOHJH DQG WKRVH ZKR KDG QHYHU WDNHQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV 7KH VWXG\ GRHV QRW VHHP WR VXSSRUW WKDW RQH FODVV DW WKH VWDUW RI D VWXGHQWnV DFDGHPLF KDV D ODVWLQJ LPSDFW RQ DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH WKURXJK D \HDU WHQXUH 7KHUH ZDV QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJHV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV VWXGLHG 5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ 7KH IRXUWK UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ H[DPLQHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH QXPEHU RI FRXUVHV D VWXGHQW UHSHDWHG GXULQJ WKHLU DFDGHPLF FDUHHU DQG WKHLU DWWHQGDQFH LQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH WKHLU ILVW WHUP LQ FROOHJH $FFRUGLQJ WR 7LQWRfV f WKHRU\ RI VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI FRXUVH UHSHWLWLRQ DV ZHOO DV DQ\ HGXFDWLRQDO DWWDLQPHQW VWUDWHJ\ LV PHGLDWHG E\ D VWXGHQWfV FRQQHFWLRQ WR ERWK WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ DQG KLVKHU RZQ HGXFDWLRQDO JRDOV $OWKRXJK QRW GLUHFWO\ D PHDVXUH RI VWXGHQW FRPPLWPHQW LW DSSHDUV WKDW DQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH WDNHQ GXULQJ WKH ILUVW WHUP GRHV QRW DIIHFW D VWXGHQWf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

PAGE 88

5HVHDUFK 4XHVWLRQ 7KH VL[WK UHVHDUFK TXHVWLRQ VRXJKW WR XQGHUVWDQG LI WKHUH ZHUH DQ\ GLIIHUHQFHV ZLWKLQ VXEVHWV RI WKH SRSXODWLRQ WKDW KDG HLWKHU WDNHQ RU KDG QRW WDNHQ D KRXU FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WKHLU ILUVW WHUP DW D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH 1R GLUHFW PDLQ HIIHFW ZDV GLVFRYHUHG EHWZHHQ WKH VWXG\fV GHSHQGHQW DQG LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV QRU ZDV WKHUH DQ\ VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH YDULDEOHV RI DJH JHQGHU UDFHHWKQLFLW\ DQG SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKH FODVV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ LQGLFDWH WKDW D KRXU FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV GXULQJ WKH ILUVW WHUP DW D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH KDG QR HIIHFW RQ WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH SDUWLFLSDQWfV DJH JHQGHU RU UDFHHWKQLFLW\n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fV f ZRUN LW ZDV SUHGLFWHG WKDW WKH FODVV ZRXOG KDYH DQ HIIHFW XSRQ D VWXGHQWfV UHWHQWLRQ QXPEHU RI FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDOV JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH QXPEHU RI FRXUVH UHSHWLWLRQV DQG WRWDO QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV DFTXLUHG DW WLPH RI JUDGXDWLRQ IURP WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH VWXG\ GLG QRW VXSSRUW WKH SUHGLFWLRQ

PAGE 89

/LPLWDWLRQV 7KH VWXG\ ZDV OLPLWHG E\ WKH LQDELOLW\ WR VHOHFW UDQGRPO\ DQG DVVLJQ SDUWLFLSDQWV WR FODVVHV DQG WR FRQWURO JURXSV 7KLV VWXG\ GLG QRW FRQWURO IRU WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WKDW VKDSH D VWXGHQWfV GHFLVLRQ WR WDNH RU QRW WR WDNH D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV PD\ DOVR LPSDFW KLVKHU IXWXUH DFDGHPLF SURJUHVV DQG VXFFHVV 7KH VWXG\ ZDV XQDEOH WR DVVHVV SULRU GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKRVH VWXGHQWV ZKR HQUROOHG LQ WKH FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DQG WKRVH ZKR GLG QRW 7KHUH PD\ KDYH EHHQ D YDULHW\ RI RWKHU IDFWRUV SDUWLFXODUO\ PRWLYDWLRQ WKDW FRXOG DOVR UHODWH WR IXWXUH SHUIRUPDQFH LQ FROOHJH 'DYLV 8QGHUZRRG DQG /HH f VXJJHVWHG WKDW VWXGHQWV ZKR FKRRVH WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ D IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU FRXUVH DUH SUREDEO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP WKRVH ZKR FKRRVH QRW WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WHUPV RI PRWLYDWLRQDO OHYHO DQG HGXFDWLRQDO JRDOV )RU WKH SRSXODWLRQ LQ WKLV VWXG\ WDNLQJ D FUHGLWKRXU FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV GXULQJ WKH ILUVW WHUP LQ FROOHJH GLG QRW LQIOXHQFH WKH VWXG\n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

PAGE 90

,PSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH )LQGLQJV DQG 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV 7KLV UHVHDUFK KDV KHOSHG WR LQFUHDVH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH LPSDFW RI WDNLQJ D FUHGLWKRXU FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DW WKH WLPH D VWXGHQW HQWHUV WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH 7KHUH DUH LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WKHRU\ FROOHJH SUDFWLFH DQG UHVHDUFK ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU 7KHRU\ 7LQWRfV f PRGHO VWDWHG WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV HQWHU LQVWLWXWLRQV RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ ZLWK YDU\LQJ EDFNJURXQG DWWULEXWHV DQG H[SHULHQFHV 7KHVH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DIIHFW WKH VWXGHQWnV LQLWLDO JRDO FRPPLWPHQW DQG LQLWLDO FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ $V VWXGHQWV HVWDEOLVK WKHPVHOYHV ZLWKLQ WKH QHZ LQVWLWXWLRQ WKH\ LQWHUDFW ZLWK WZR SULPDQn V\VWHPV LQ WKH FROOHJH FRPPXQLW\f§WKH DFDGHPLF V\VWHP DQG WKH VRFLDO V\VWHP 2YHU D SHULRG RI WLPH WKLV LQWHUDFWLRQ RI EDFNJURXQG YDULDEOHV DQG LQLWLDO FRPPLWPHQWV ZLWK WKH DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO V\VWHPV UHVXOWV LQ YDU\LQJ GHJUHHV RI DFDGHPLF LQWHJUDWLRQ DQG VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ 7KH SURFHVV RI LQWHUDFWLRQ OHDGV WR IXUWKHU FKDQJHV LQ FRPPLWPHQWV ZKLFK OHDGV XOWLPDWHO\ WR SHUVLVWHQFH RU GHSDUWXUH IURP WKH FROOHJH $FDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ DUH WKH IDFWRUV PRVW FULWLFDO LQ WKH GHFLVLRQ WR GURS RXW f*LYHQ LQGLYLGXDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV SULRU H[SHULHQFHV DQG FRPPLWPHQWV WKH PRGHO DUJXHV WKDW LW LV WKH LQGLYLGXDOV LQWHJUDWLRQ LQWR WKH DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO V\VWHPV RI WKH FROOHJH WKDW PRVW GLUHFWO\ UHODWHV WR KLV FRQWLQXDQFH LQ WKDW FROOHJHf 7LQWR S f 7KH FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LV GHVLJQHG WR LQWHJUDWH WKH VWXGHQW LQWR WKH VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF V\VWHPV RI FROOHJH $VWLQ *DUGQHU f ,W ZDV DVVXPHG WKH VRFLDO DQG DFDGHPLF LQWHUDFWLRQ WKDW WDNHV SODFH LQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV HQKDQFHV ERWK LQWHQWLRQV DQG FRPPLWPHQWV 7KLV VWXG\ LQYHVWLJDWHG LI WDNLQJ D FUHGLW FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV ZKLFK LV SUHVXPHG WR EXLOG ERWK DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO FRPPXQLW\ OHDGV

PAGE 91

WR JUHDWHU UHWHQWLRQ IRU FROOHJH UHDG\ SDUWLFLSDQWV RYHU D \HDU SHULRG ,QVWLWXWLRQDO PHDVXUHV XVHG WR DVVHVV UHWHQWLRQ ZHUH HQUROOPHQW QXPEHU RI FRXUVH UHSHWLWLRQV DQG ZLWKGUDZDOV DQG JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH UHVHDUFK KRZHYHU GLG QRW ILQG VXSSRUW IRU OLQNDJHV EHWZHHQ 7LQWRfV WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHO DQG D KRXU RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV %DVHG XSRQ 7LQWRnV WKHRU\ f WKLV UHVHDUFK DVVXPHG WKDW LQWHQWLRQV DQG FRPPLWPHQW DUH FRQWLQXRXVO\ VKDSHG DQG PROGHG E\ WKH VWXGHQWfV H[SHULHQFHV LQ FROOHJH 7KLV VWXG\ IRFXVHG RQ WKH WHPSRUDO FKDUDFWHU RI SHUVLVWHQFH DQG WKH WUDQVLWLRQ SURFHVV IURP SDVW FRPPXQLW\ WR PHPEHUVKLS LQ WKH QHZ FRPPXQLWLHV RI WKH FROOHJH 7LQWR GLG QRW GHVFULEH FKDQJH LQ OHYHOV RI LQWHQWLRQ DQG FRPPLWPHQW LQ UHODWLRQ WR D VSHFLILF WLPH IUDPH ,QVWHDG KH GHVFULEHG LQWHJUDWLRQ DV D IOXLG SURFHVV QRW UHVWUDLQHG E\ ERXQGDULHV :KHQ YLHZLQJ LQWHJUDWLRQ IURP DQ LQVWLWXWLRQDO SURJUDPPLQJ YLHZSRLQW DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ PD\ KDYH GHYHORSPHQWDO TXDOLWLHV WKDW DUH VHTXHQWLDO RU JRYHUQHG E\ VWDJH RU WLPH 5HWHQWLRQ VWUDWHJLHV PD\ EH OLPLWHG LQ WKH PLQLPXP OHQJWK RI WLPH QHFHVVDU\ EHIRUH SURGXFLQJ PHDQLQJIXO UHVXOWV $OWKRXJK WKH UHVHDUFK GLG QRW WHVW RU PHDVXUH VWXGHQW LQWHJUDWLRQ LQWR WKH FROOHJH LW PD\ VXJJHVW WKDW WLPH SOD\V D UROH LQ WKH SURFHVV RI LQWHJUDWLRQ LQWR WKH DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO FRPPXQLWLHV RI D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH $ ORQJHU SHULRG RI DFDGHPLF FRQWDFW WKDQ LV SRVVLEOH LQ D VLQJOH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV FRXOG WUDQVODWH WR PHDVXUDEOH GLIIHUHQFHV 7KH VWXG\ ZDV EDVHG XSRQ D FUHGLWKRXU FODVV IRUPDW 7KH FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV LV DOVR WDXJKW DW RWKHU LQVWLWXWLRQV DV D DQG FUHGLWKRXU FODVV $ VXUYH\ RI KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ LQVWLWXWLRQV E\ %DUHIRRW f UHSRUWHG WKDW WKH PDMRULW\ RI RULHQWDWLRQ FODVVHV bf DZDUGHG DFDGHPLF FUHGLW 7KH PDMRULW\ RI WKRVH FODVVHV ZHUH WDXJKW DV FUHGLWKRXU FODVVHV b DZDUGHG FUHGLW KRXU DZDUGHG FUHGLW KRXUV DQG

PAGE 92

b DZDUGHG FUHGLW KRXUVf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f f $OWKRXJK WKH FUHGLW FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV PD\ SURYLGH D ULFK VWDUWLQJ SRLQW IRU WKH QHZ VWXGHQW WKHUH LV QR LQGLFDWLRQ WKDW WKH EHQHILWV IURP WKLV H[SHULHQFH DUH ODVWLQJ ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU &ROOHJH &ROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVVHV PD\ QRW EH DQ DSSURSULDWH UHVSRQVH IRU DOO VWXGHQW SRSXODWLRQV $ FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV KDV EHHQ VKRZQ WR EHQHILW VWXGHQWV ZKR DUH DFDGHPLFDOO\ GLVDGYDQWDJHG %ODFNKXUVW f IRXQG WKDW WKH FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV WDNHQ WKH ILUVW WHUP LQFUHDVHV WKH DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH RI ORZDFKLHYLQJ VWXGHQWV UHODWLYH WR RWKHU VWXGHQWV $OO SDUWLFLSDQWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH VHOHFWHG EDVHG XSRQ WKHLU FROOHJH UHDG\ DFDGHPLF VWDWXV $ FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV PD\ EH EHQHILFLDO IRU VWXGHQWV ZKR KDYH VNLOOV GHILFLWV DQG UHDVRQ WR EHOLHYH WKDW WKH\ DUH QRW D IXOO PHPEHUV RI D FRPPXQLW\ RI OHDUQLQJ 7KH FODVV FRXOG FRQFHLYDEO\ EH EHWWHU VXLWHG IRU UHPHGLDO VWXGHQWV DW WKHLU SRLQW RI HQWU\ WR WKH LQVWLWXWLRQ

PAGE 93

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fJHQXLQH DFDGHPLF DFFRPSOLVKPHQW 7KH FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV GRHV QRW VDWLVI\ JHQHUDO HGXFDWLRQ UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU DQ\ RI WKH IRXU VFKRROV LQ WKH VWXG\ $OWKRXJK WKH FODVV HDUQV HOHFWLYH FUHGLWV WKDW DUH DSSOLHG WRZDUGV GHJUHH VDWLVIDFWLRQ WKH FODVV LV VRPHWLPHV SHUFHLYHG QRW WR EH DFDGHPLFDOO\ FKDOOHQJLQJ 7KLV PD\ JHQHUDWH IURP WKH FRXUVHnV QRQWUDGLWLRQDO FROOHJH VXEMHFW PDWHULDO ,Q REVHUYLQJ WKH UDQJH RI JUDGHV DZDUGHG IRU WKH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV DW DOO IRXU LQVWLWXWLRQV LQ WKH VWXG\ WKH FODVV KDV D KLJK VXFFHVV UDWH )RU WKH VWXGHQWV LQ WKH VWXG\ ZKR KDG FRPSOHWHG D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV bf UHFHLYHG D JUDGH RI $ bf UHFHLYHG D JUDGH RI % f UHFHLYHG D JUDGH RI & bf UHFHLYHG D JUDGH RI DQG bf IDLOHG WKH FODVV 7KH KLJK VXFFHVV UDWH IRU VWXGHQWV LQ WKH FODVV PD\ KDYH D UHYHUVH PHVVDJH WR WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV 7KH FRXUVH PD\ EH WKRXJKW RI DV EHLQJ fHDV\ ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW LI D FODVV GRHV QRW PHHW DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FULWHULD DV D YDOLG DFDGHPLF H[SHULHQFH WKH FODVV PD\ QRW FUHDWH DQ HIIHFWLYH DFDGHPLF RU VRFLDO LQWHJUDWLRQ H[SHULHQFH

PAGE 94

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f DVVHUWHG WKDW WKH SULPDU\ SXUSRVH RI D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV PXVW EH GHILQHG E\ WKH QHHGV RI WKH VWXGHQWV RQ D VSHFLILF FDPSXV )XUWKHUPRUH GDWD WKDW LJQRUH LQVWLWXWLRQDO FRQWH[W ZLOO UDUHO\ EH JHQHUDOL]DEOH IURP LQVWLWXWLRQ WR LQVWLWXWLRQ &RSH t +DQQDK f 7KLV VWXG\ IRFXVHG RQ VFKRROV ZLWKLQ D VWDWH V\VWHP WKDW PDLQWDLQHG VLPLODU GHJUHH UHTXLUHPHQWV DQG FRPPRQ FRXUVH FODVVLILFDWLRQ 7KLV PD\ QRW EH HQRXJK WR XQGHUVWDQG WKH GLIIHUHQFHV RI FDPSXV LQWHUDFWLRQ XSRQ WKH FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV SDUWLFLSDQWV $ VWXG\ WKDW H[SORUHV WKH LQIOXHQFH RI LQVWLWXWLRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RQ FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVVHV LV UHFRPPHQGHG

PAGE 95

:KHQ VWXG\LQJ YDULDEOHV RI UHWHQWLRQ JHQHUDO LQVWLWXWLRQDO GDWDEDVHV PD\ QRW EH VXIILFLHQW WR PHDVXUH FULWLFDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH VWXGHQW H[SHULHQFH 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ PD\ LQGLFDWH WKDW RQO\ NQRZLQJ LI D VWXGHQW KDV RU KDV QRW WDNHQ WKH FODVV LV LQ LWVHOI WRR EURDG D YDULDEOH WR GHWHUPLQH ZKDW KDV LPSDFWHG WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO YDULDEOHV XQGHU FRQVLGHUDWLRQ $ EURDGHU UDQJH RI VWXGHQW LQIRUPDWLRQ ZRXOG DGG LQVLJKW WR XQGHUVWDQGLQJ SRWHQWLDO LPSDFW RI WKH RULHQWDWLRQ SURFHVV LQ IDFLOLWDWLQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI DFDGHPLF DQG VRFLDO FRPPXQLW\ )XWXUH UHVHDUFK SURMHFWV DUH UHFRPPHQGHG WKDW VWXG\ DGGLWLRQDO UHWHQWLRQ PDUNHUV EDVHG RQ 7LQWRfV WKHRU\ WKDW FDQ EH HDVLO\ LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR LQVWLWXWLRQDO GDWDEDVHV )RU H[DPSOH DOWKRXJK LW ZDV QRW SRVVLEOH LQ WKLV VWXG\ GXH WR WKH XVH RI KLVWRULFDO GDWDf NQRZLQJ HDFK SDUWLFLSDQWn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f GDWH RI GHJUHH FRPSOHWLRQ RU HQG RI FRQWLQXRXV HQUROOPHQW Ef FXPXODWLYH JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH DW WKH HQG RI HDFK PHDVXUHPHQW SHULRG Ff WRWDO QXPEHU RI FRXUVH ZLWKGUDZDOV DW WKH HQG RI HDFK PHDVXUHPHQW SHULRG Gf WRWDO QXPEHU RI FRXUVH UHSHWLWLRQV DW WKH HQG RI HDFK PHDVXUHPHQW SHULRG DQG Hf WRWDO QXPEHU RI FUHGLW KRXUV DWWDLQHG DW WKH HQG RI HDFK PHDVXUHPHQW SHULRG 7KH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH

PAGE 96

Df SDUWLFLSDWLRQQRQSDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FODVV Ef VH[ Ff UDFHHWKQLFLWY DQG Gf DJH /LPLWDWLRQV RI WKH UHVHDUFK ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG ,PSOLFDWLRQV RI WKH UHVXOWV IRU WKHRU\ DQG FROOHJH SUDFWLFH ZHUH GLVFXVVHG )LQDOO\ VXJJHVWLRQV ZHUH PDGH IRU IXUWKHU UHVHDUFK

PAGE 97

5()(5(1&(6 $GHOPDQ & f :RPHQ DW WKLUWYVRPHWKLQJ 3DUDGR[HV RI DWWDLQPHQW :DVKLQJWRQ '& 2IILFH RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK DQG ,PSURYHPHQW $OOHQ 0D\f 7KH ,OLDG DQG WKH RGYVVHY RI VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO )RUXP RI WKH $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 1HZ 2UOHDQV /$ $OVDODP 1 f 7KH FRQGLWLRQ RI HGXFDWLRQ :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU (GXFDWLRQDO 6WDWLVWLFV $PHULFDQ &ROOHJH 7HVWLQJ 3URJUDP f 1DWLRQDO GURSRXW UDWHV $&7 LQVWLWXWLRQDO GDWD ILOH ,RZD &LW\ $ $XWKRU $QGHUVRQ f 3RVWKLJK VFKRRO H[SHULHQFHV DQG FROOHJH DWWULWLRQ 6RFLRORJ\ RI (GXFDWLRQ $SSV : f 7KH DGXOW OHDUQHU RQ FDPSXV $ JXLGH IRU LQVWUXFWRUV DQG DGPLQLVWUDWRUV &KLFDJR )ROOHW $VWLQ $ : f &ROOHJH GURSRXWV $ QDWLRQDO SURILOH 9RO 1R ,7 :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ 2IILFH RI 5HVHDUFK $VWLQ $ : f 7KH LPSDFW RI GRUPLWRU\ OLYLQJ RQ VWXGHQWV (GXFDWLRQDO 5HFRUG $VWLQ $ : f 3UHYHQWLQJ VWXGHQWV IURP GURSSLQJ RXW 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV $VWLQ $ : f )RXU FULWLFDO \HDUV (IIHFWV RI FROOHJH RQ EHOLHIV DWWLWXGHV DQG NQRZOHGJH 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV $VWLQ $ : f 7KH $PHULFDQ IUHVKPDQ 6RPH LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU HGXFDWLRQDO SROLF\ DQG SUDFWLFH :DVKLQJWRQ '& 'HSDUWPHQW RI (GXFDWLRQ 1DWLRQDO &RPPLVVLRQ RQ ([FHOOHQFH LQ (GXFDWLRQ (5,& 'RFXPHQW 5HSURGXFWLRQ 6HUYLFH 1R (' f $VWLQ $ : f $FKLHYLQJ HGXFDWLRQDO H[FHOOHQFH $ FULWLFDO DVVHVVPHQW RI SULRULWLHV DQG SUDFWLFHV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV

PAGE 98

$VWLQ $ : f :KDW PDWWHUV LQ FROOHJH )RXU FULWLFDO YHDUV UHYLVLWHG 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV $VWLQ $ .RUQ : t *UHHQ f 5HWDLQLQJ DQG VDWLVI\LQJ VWXGHQWV (GXFDWLRQDO 5HFRUG $VWLQ $ t 3DQRV 5 f 7KH HGXFDWLRQDO DQG YRFDWLRQDO GHYHORSPHQW RI FROOHJH VWXGHQWV :DVKLQJWRQ '& $PHULFDQ &RXQFLO RQ (GXFDWLRQ %DNHU 5 f $Q DQDO\VLV RI UHWHQWLRQ DQG DWWULWLRQ DW 0LUD&RVWD &ROOHJH 'HO 0DU &$ 0LUD&RVWD &ROOHJH %DUHIRRW % 2 t )LGOHU 3 3 f 7KH QDWLRQDO VXUYH\ RI IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU SURJUDPV &RQWLQXLQJ LQQRYDWLRQV LQ WKH FROOHJLDWH FXUULFXOXP 7KH )UHVKPDQ
PAGE 99

%ODQF 5 $ 'HEXKU / (f t 0DUWLQ & f %UHDNLQJ WKH DWWULWLRQ F\FOH 7KH HIIHFWV RI VXSSOHPHQWDO LQVWUXFWLRQ RQ XQGHUJUDGXDWH SHUIRUPDQFH DQG DWWULWLRQ -RXUQDO RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ %RH t -ROLFRHXU 3 f 7KH HYROXWLRQ RI D IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU 1 $& $' $ -RXUQDO %RUJ : 5 t *DOO 0 f (GXFDWLRQDO UHVHDUFK $Q LQWURGXFWLRQ WK HGf 1HZ
PAGE 100

&ROO 0 t 9RQ6HJJHP f &RPPXQLW\n FROOHJH UHWHQWLRQ 6RPH SURFHGXUDO DQG SURJUDPPDWLF VXJJHVWLRQV /DUDPLH :< 8QLYHUVLW\ RI :\RPLQJ &RSH 5 f :K\ VWXGHQWV VWD\ ZK\ WKH\ OHDYH 1HZ 'LUHFWLRQV IRU 6WXGHQW 6HUYLFHV &RSH 5 t +DQQDK : f 5HYROYLQJ FROOHJH GRRUV 1HZ
PAGE 101

'RXJKHUW\ f 7KH FRQWUDGLFWRU\n FROOHJH 7KH FRQIOLFWLQJ RULJLQV LPSDFWV DQG IXWXUHV RI WKH FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH $OEDQ\ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 1HZ
PAGE 102

)ORULGD 6WDWXWH Df 6XSSOHPHQW WR )ORULGD 6WDWXWHV )ORULGD 6WDWXWH Ef 6XSSOHPHQW WR )ORULGD 6WDWXWHV )ORULGD 6WDWXWH f 6XSSOHPHQW WR )ORULGD 6WDWXWHV )R[ 5 f $SSOLFDWLRQ RI D FRQFHSWXDO PRGHO RI FROOHJH ZLWKGUDZDO WR GLVDGYDQWDJHG VWXGHQWV $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK -RXUQDO *DUGQHU 1 f 7KH IUHVKPDQ \HDU H[SHULHQFH &ROOHJH DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ *DUGQHU 1 f 6WDUWLQJ D IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU SURJUDP ,Q 0 / 8SFUDIW t *DUGQHU t $VVRFLDWHV (GVf 7KH IUHVKPDQ \HDU H[SHULHQFH +HOSLQJ VWXGHQWV VXUYLYH DQG VXFFHHG LQ FROOHJH SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV *DWHV $ t &UHDPHU f 7ZR\HDU FROOHJH DWWULWLRQ 'R VWXGHQW RU LQVWLWXWLRQV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV FRQWULEXWH PRVW" &RPPXQLWY-XQLRU &ROOHJH 4XDUWHUO\ f *ODVV & -U t *DUUHWW 0 6 f 6WXGHQW SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ D FROOHJH RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH UHWHQWLRQ DQG JUDGH SRLQW DYHUDJH &RPPXQLW\n &ROOHJH -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH *ROG % f /$&& VWXGHQW VXUYH\ IDOO 5HVHDUFK VWXG\ QXPEHU /RV $QJHOHV &$ /RV $QJHOHV &LW\ &ROOHJH *RUGRQ 9 1 f 2ULJLQV DQG SXUSRVHV RI WKH IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU ,Q 0 / 8SFUDIW *DUGQHU t $VVRFLDWHV (GVf 7KH IUHVKPDQ \HDU H[SHULHQFH +HOSLQJ VWXGHQWV VXUYLYH DQG VXFFHHG LQ FROOHJH SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV *RUGRQ 9 1 t &ULWHV 7 f 7KH IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU FRXUVH +HOSLQJ VWXGHQWV VXFFHHG -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO *RUWHU 6 f 1RQUHWXUQLQJ VWXGHQWV VSULQJ 7UHQWRQ 10HUFHU &RXQW\ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH *UHHQ 5 0 / f &ROOHJH VXFFHVV $Q HYDOXDWLRQ RI D IUHVKPDQ RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH IRU OHDUQLQJGLVDEOHG DQG QRQOHDPLQJGLVDEOHG VWXGHQWV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ $PHULFDQ ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &ROOHJH f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO $ *UXQGHU 3 t +HOOPLFK 0 f $FDGHPLF SHUVLVWHQFH DQG DFKLHYHPHQW RI UHPHGLDO VWXGHQWV LQ D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHfV VXFFHVV SURJUDP &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 5HYLHZ

PAGE 103

*X\HWWH 6 t +HWK & $SULOf $PHULFDQ ,QGLDQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 1HHGV DQG SURMHFWLRQV 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH DQQXDO PHHWLQJ RI WKH $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ 0RQWUHDO 4XHEHF &DQDGD +DFNPDQ 5 t '\VLQJHU : 6 f 5HDFWLRQV WR FROOHJH ZLWKGUDZDO -RXUQDO RI ([SHULPHQWDO (GXFDWLRQ f +DJJHUW\ 0 f $ FRPSDULVRQ RI VHOHFWHG YDULDEOHV RI DGXOW SHUVLVWHUV DQG QRQSHUVLVWHUV RYHU WKH DJH DW DQ XUEDQ FRPPXWHU XQLYHUVLW\ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 3LWWVEXUJK f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ +DOSLQ 5 / f $Q DSSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH 7LQWR PRGHO WR WKH DQDO\VLV RI IUHVKPDQ SHUVLVWHQFH LQ D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 5HYLHZ f +LOWRQ 7 t 6FKUDGHU : $SULOf 3DWKZD\V WR JUDGXDWH VFKRRO $Q HPSLULFDO VWXG\ EDVHG RQ QDWLRQDO ORQJLWXGLQDO GDWD 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH DQQXDO PHHWLQJ RI WKH $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ 6DQ )UDQFLVFR +RII 0 3 )HEUXDU\f )LYH \HDUV RI '&6 $Q HPSLULFDO DQDO\VLV 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO )UHVKPDQ
PAGE 104

.HVWHU / $SULOf +LVWRULFDO KLJKOLJKWV RI WKH WKUHHYHDU QRUWKHUQ &DOLIRUQLD DWWULWLRQ UHGXFWLRQ HIIRUW $Q RYHUYLHZ IURP D SHUVSHFWLYH WKDW RYHUORRNV WHQ \HDUV RI WKH KLJKOLJKWV RI D WKUHHYHDU &DOLIRUQLD FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH UHVHDUFK FRQVRUWLXP HIIRUW WR UHGXFH DWWULWLRQ DPRQJ ILUVWWLPH IXOOWLPH IUHVKPHQ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO &RQIHUHQFH IRU 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW RIILFHUV RI WKH &DOLIRUQLD &RPPLVVLRQ DQG -XQLRU &ROOHJH $VVRFLDWLRQ $VLORPDU &$ /DQQL & 0DUFKf 7KH ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXGHQW VXFFHVV VWXG\ 7KH HQWHULQJ VWXGHQW VXUYH\ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO 0HHWLQJ RI WKH 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU (TXDO 2SSRUWXQLW\ LQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ :DVKLQJWRQ '& /HH 0 0 f 6WXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ VXUYH\ :KY VWXGHQWV GLG QRW UHWXUQ VSULQJ VHPHVWHU 9DOKDOOD 1< 2IILFH RI ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK :HVWFKHVWHU &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH /HQQLQJ 2 7 %HDO 3 ( t 6DXHU f 5HWHQWLRQ DQG DWWULWLRQ (YLGHQFH IRU DFWLRQ DQG UHVHDUFK %RXOGHU &2 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 0DQDJHPHQW 6\VWHPV /HYLW] 5 t 1RHO / f &RQQHFWLQJ VWXGHQWV WR LQVWLWXWLRQV .H\V WR UHWHQWLRQ DQG VXFFHVV ,Q 0 / 8SFUDIW 1 *DUGQHU t $VVRF (GVf 7KH IUHVKPDQ \HDU H[SHULHQFH +HOSLQJ VWXGHQWV VXUYLYH DQG VXFFHHG LQ FROOHJH SS ,7 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV /LSVN\ 6 $ t (QGHU 6 & f ,PSDFW RI D VWXG\ VNLOOV FRXUVH RQ SUREDWLRQDU\ VWXGHQWV DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH -RXUQDO RI WKH )UHVKPDQ
PAGE 105

0DWRQDN $ f 7KH DSSOLFDWLRQ RI 7LQWRnV WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHO RI SHUVLVWHQFH WR DFDGHPLFDOO\ XQGHUSUHSDUHG VWXGHQWV LQ WKH FRPPXQLW\n FROOHJH 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI +RXVWRQ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 0F&RUPLFN $ & 1RYHPEHUf 0RELOLW\ RI HGXFDWLRQDO H[SHFWDWLRQV 7KH HIIHFW RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO 0HHWLQJ RI WKH $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU WKH 6WXG\ RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 3RUWODQG 25 0FLQW\UH 1 f 8QLYHUVLW\ GLYLVLRQ DFDGHPLF DQG FDUHHU 7KH LPSDFW RI D IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU FRXUVH RQ VWXGHQW SHUVLVWHQFH 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 1HEUDVND/LQFROQ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ 0HW]QHU %6 t %HDQ 3 f 7KH HVWLPDWLRQ RI D FRQFHSWXDO PRGHO RI QRQWUDGLWLRQDO XQGHUJUDGXDWH VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ 5HVHDUFK LQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 0LQJOH 5 f )RFXV RQ PLQRULWLHV 7UHQGV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ DQG VXFFHVV 'HQYHU &2 -RLQW SXEOLFDWLRQ RI WKH (GXFDWLRQ &RPPLVVLRQ RI WKH 6WDWHV DQG WKH 6WDWH +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ ([HFXWLYH 2IILFHV 0RKDPPDGL f ([SORULQJ UHWHQWLRQ DQG DWWULWLRQ LQ D WZR\HDU SXEOLF FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH 0DUWLQVYLOOH 9$ 3DWULFN +HQU\ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 0ROLQH $ ( f )LQDQFLDO DLG DQG VWXGHQW SHUVLVWHQFH $Q DSSOLFDWLRQ ZLWK FDXVDO PRGHOLQJ 5HVHDUFK LQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ -RXUQDO RI WKH $VVRFLDWLRQ IRU ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $,5 )RUXP ,VVXH 0RRUH 1 f 3HUVLVWHUV DQG DWWULWLRQ DW 6DQ -XDQ &ROOHJH )DUPLQJWRQ 10 6DQ -XDQ &ROOHJH 2IILFH RI ,QVWLWXWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK *UDQW 'HYHORSPHQW DQG 3ODQQLQJ 0XOOLJDQ 6 & t +HQQHVV\ f 3HUVLVWHQFH LQ D FRPPXQLW\n FROOHJH 7HVWLQJ DWWULWLRQ PRGHOV 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH DQQXDO PHHWLQJ RI WKH $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ %RVWRQ 0XQUR % f 'URSRXWV IURP KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ 3DWK DQDO\VLV RI D QDWLRQDO VDPSOH $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQ 5HVHDUFK -RXUQDO 1DSROL $ 5 f 3V\FKRVRFLDO IDFWRUV UHODWHG WR UHWHQWLRQ DQG HDUO\ GHSDUWXUH RI WZR\HDU FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 1HZ
PAGE 106

1HOVRQ 5 % 6FRWW 7 % t %U\DQ : $ f 3UHFROOHJH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG HDUO\ FROOHJH H[SHULHQFHV DV SUHGLFWRUV RI IUHVKPDQ \HDU SHUVLVWHQFH -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 1HVSROL / $ t 5DGFOLIIH 6 f )ROORZXS RI HQWUDQWV UHVHDUFK UHSRUW QXPEHU &ROXPELD 0' +RZDUG &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 1RHO / f ,QFUHDVLQJ VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ 1HZ FKDOOHQJHV DQG SRWHQWLDO ,Q / 1RHO 5 /HYLW] 6DOXUL t $VVRFLDWHV (GVO ,QFUHDVLQJ VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 1RHO / /HYLW] 5f t 6DOXUL f ,QFUHDVLQJ VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 1RUD $ f 'HWHUPLQDQWV RI UHWHQWLRQ DPRQJ &KLFDQR FROOHJH VWXGHQWV $ VWUXFWXUDO PRGHO 5HVHDUFK LQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ f 2]DNL 5 + f )UHVKPDQ RULHQWDWLRQ $ FRPSDULVRQ RI ILYHZHHN YHUVXV WHQZHHN VHVVLRQV &ODUNVWRQ *$ 'HNDOE &ROOHJH 3DQWDJHV 7 t &UHHGRQ & ) f 3DWWHUQV RI VWXGHQWIDFXOW\ LQIRUPDO LQWHUDFWLRQ EH\RQG WKH FODVVURRP DQG YROXQWDU\ IUHVKPDQ DWWULWLRQ -RXUQDO RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 3DQWDJHV 7 t &UHHGRQ & ) f 6WXGLHV RI FROOHJH DWWULWLRQ 5HYLHZn RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK f 3DVFDUHOOD ( f 6WXGHQWIDFXOW\ LQIRUPDO FRQWDFW DQG VWXGHQW RXWFRPHV 5HYLHZ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 3DVFDUHOOD ( 7 Df 6WXGHQWVn DIIHFWLYH GHYHORSPHQW ZLWKLQ WKH FROOHJH HQYLURQPHQW -RXUQDO RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 3DVFDUHOOD ( 7 Ef 7KH LQIOXHQFH RI RQFDPSXV OLYLQJ YHUVXV FRPPXWLQJ WR FROOHJH RQ LQWHOOHFWXDO DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO VHOIFRQFHSW -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 3DVFDUHOOD ( %RKU / 1RUD $ =XVPDQ % ,QPDQ 3f t 'HVOHU 0 f &RJQLWLYH LPSDFWV RI OLYLQJ RQ FDPSXV YHUVXV FRPPXWLQJ WR FROOHJH -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 'HYHORSPHQW 3DVFDUHOOD ( %RKU / 1RUD $ 'HVOHU 0 t =XVPDQ % Df ,PSDFWV RQ RQFDPSXV DQG RIIFDPSXV ZRUN RQ ILUVW \HDU FRJQLWLYH RXWFRPHV -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 'HYHORSPHQW 7

PAGE 107

3DVFDUHOOD ( %RKU / 1RUD $ 5DQJDQDWKDQ 6 'HVOHU 0 t %XODNRZVNL & Ef ,PSDFWV RQ \HDU DQG \HDU FROOHJHV RQ OHDUQLQJ RULHQWDWLRQV $ SUHOLPLQDU\ VWXG\ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH -RXUQDO RI 5HVHDUFK DQG 3UDFWLFH 3DVFDUHOOD ( %RKU / 1RUD $ t 7HUHQ]LQL 3 f &RJQLWLYH HIIHFWV RI \HDU DQG \HDU FROOHJHV 1HZ HYLGHQFH (GXFDWLRQDO (YDOXDWLRQ DQG 3ROLF\ $QDO\VLV f 3DVFDUHOOD ( 7f t &KDSPDQ : Df $ PXOWLLQVWLWXWLRQDO SDWK YDOLGDWLRQ RI 7LQWRnV PRGHO RI FROOHJH ZLWKGUDZDO $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK -RXUQDO 3DVFDUHOOD ( 7 t &KDSPDQ : Ef 9DOLGDWLRQ RI D WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHO RI FROOHJH ZLWKGUDZDO ,QWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFWV LQ D PXOWLLQVWLWXWLRQDO VDPSOH 5HVHDUFK LQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ f 3DVFDUHOOD ( 7f t 'XE\ 3 % t ,YHUVRQ % f $ WHVW DQG UHn FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI D WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHO RI FROOHJH ZLWKGUDZDO LQ D FRPPXWHU LQVWLWXWLRQ VHWWLQJ 6RFLRORJ\ RI (GXFDWLRQ 3DVFDUHOOD ( 7 6PDUW -& t (WKLQJWRQ &$ f /RQJWHUP SHUVLVWHQFH RI WZR\HDU FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 5HVHDUFK LQ +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ f 3DVFDUHOOD ( t 7HUHQ]LQL 3 f 6WXGHQWIDFXOW\ LQIRUPDO UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG IUHVKPDQ \HDU HGXFDWLRQDO RXWFRPHV -RXUQDO RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 3DVFDUHOOD ( 7 t 7HUHQ]LQL 3 7 f +RZ FROOHJH DIIHFWV VWXGHQWV ILQGLQJV DQG LQVLJKWV IURP WZHQW\ \HDUV RI UHVHDUFK 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 3DVFDUHOOD ( 7 7HUHQ]LQL 3 7 t :ROIH / 0 f 2ULHQWDWLRQ WR FROOHJH DQG IUHVKPDQ \HDU SHUVLVWHQFHZLWKGUDZDO GHFLVLRQV -RXUQDO RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 3DVFDUHOOD ( 7 t :ROIH / 0 f 3HUVLVWHQFH LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ $ QLQH\HDU WHVW RI D WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHO 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $PHULFDQ (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ &KLFDJR ,/ 3RUWHU 2 ) f 8QGHUJUDGXDWH FRPSOHWLRQ DQG SHUVLVWHQFH DW IRXU\HDU FROOHJHV DQG XQLYHUVLWLHV :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO ,QVWLWXWH RI ,QGHSHQGHQW &ROOHJHV DQG 8QLYHUVLWLHV 3ULFH / $ f &KDUDFWHULVWLFV RI HDUO\ VWXGHQW GURSRXWV DW $OOHJDQY &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH DQG UHFRPPHQGDWLRQV IRU HDUO\ LQWHUYHQWLRQ &XPEHUODQG 0' $OOHJDQ\ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH

PAGE 108

4XHYHGR*DULFD ( / f )DFLOLWDWLQJ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI +LVSDQLF FROOHJH VWXGHQWV ,Q : :ULJKW (Gf 5HVSRQGLQJ WR WKH QHHGV RI WRGD\nV PLQRULW\ VWXGHQWV 1HZ GLUHFWLRQV IRU VWXGHQWV VHUYLFHV SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 5DLPVW / f &ROOHJH VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ DQG UHWHQWLRQ &ROOHJH %RDUG 5HSRUW 1R f 1HZ
PAGE 109

6PLWK f 7KH QH[W VWHS EH\RQG VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW%HFRPLQJ SDUWQHUV ZLWKLQ RXU LQVWLWXWLRQV 1$63$ -RXUQDO f 6PLWK 0 ( t *ODVV 9 f 5HVHDUFK DQG HYDOXDWLRQ LQ HGXFDWLRQ DQG WKH VRFLDO VFLHQFHV (QJOHZRRG &OLIIV 3UHQWLFH+DOO 6PLWK 7 0 f 7KH FRQGLWLRQ RI HGXFDWLRQ :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO &HQWHU IRU (GXFDWLRQDO 6WDWLVWLFV 6SDG\ : f 'URSRXWV IURP KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ $Q LQWHUGLVFLSOLQDU\ UHYLHZ DQG V\QWKHVLV ,QWHUFKDQJH 6WDPDQ ( 0 f 3UHGLFWLQJ VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ DW DQ XUEDQ FROOHJH 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 7KH &ROOHJH RI :LOOLDP DQG 0DU\ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO $ 6WDPSHQ t &DEUHUD $) f 7KH WDUJHWLQJ DQG SDFNDJLQJ RI VWXGHQW DLG DQG LWV HIIHFWV RQ DWWULWLRQ (FRQRPLFV RI (GXFDWLRQ 5HYLHZ f 6WXSND ( + f 6WXGHQW SHUVLVWHQFH DQG DFKLHYHPHQW $Q HYDOXDWLRQ RI WKH HIIHFWV RI DQ H[WHQGHG RULHQWDWLRQ FRXUVH 6DFUDPHQWR &$ 6DFUDPHQWR &LW\ &ROOHJH 6WXSND ( f $Q HYDOXDWLRQ RI WKH VKRUW WHUP DQG ORQJ WHUP LPSDFW D VWXGHQW VXFFHVV FRXUVH KDV RQ DFDGHPLF SHUIRUPDQFH DQG SHUVLVWHQFH 6DFUDPHQWR &$ 6DFUDPHQWR &LW\ &ROOHJH 6XIIHW ( f )UHVKPDQ VHPLQDU )LQDO UHSRUW -HQNLQWRZQ 3$ 0DQRU -XQLRU &ROOHJH 6XPPHUVNLOO f 'URSRXWV IURP FROOHJH ,Q 1 6DQIRUG (Gf 7KH $PHULFDQ FROOHJH SS f 1HZ
PAGE 110

7HPSOH 0f t 3RON f $ G\QDPLF DQDO\VLV RI HGXFDWLRQDO DWWDLQPHQW 6RFLRORJ\ RI (GXFDWLRQ 7HUHQ]LQL 3 7 t 3DVFDUHOOD ( 7 f )UHVKPDQ DWWULWLRQ DQG WKH UHVLGHQWLDO FRQWH[W 7KH 5HYLHZ RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ f 7KRPSVRQ f 7KH HIIHFWV RI RQFDPSXV UHVLGHQFH RQ ILUVWWLPH LQ FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 1$63$ -RXUQDO f 7LQWR 9 f 'URSRXW IURP KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ $ WKHRUHWLFDO V\QWKHVLV RI FXUUHQW UHVHDUFK 5HYLHZ RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK 7LQWR 9 f /LPLWV RI WKHRU\ DQG SUDFWLFH LQ VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ -RXUQDO RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ 7LQWR 9 f 'URSSLQJ RXW DQG RWKHU IRUPV RI ZLWKGUDZDO IRUP FROOHJH ,Q / 1RHO 5 /HYLW] 6DOXUL t $VVRFLDWHV (GVf ,QFUHDVLQJ VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ SS f 6DQ )UDQFLVFR -RVVH\%DVV 7LQWR 9 f 5HWHQWLRQ $Q DGPLVVLRQ FRQFHUQ &ROOHJH DQG 8QLYHUVLW\ f 7LQWR 9 f /HDYLQJ FROOHJH 5HWKLQNLQJ WKH FDXVHV DQG FXUHV RI VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV 7LQWR 9 f 6WDJHV RI VWXGHQW GHSDUWXUH 5HIOHFWLRQV RQ WKH ORQJLWXGLQDO FKDUDFWHU RI VWXGHQW OHDYLQJ -RXUQDO RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ f 7LQWR 9 f /HDYLQJ FROOHJH 5HWKLQNLQJ WKH FDXVHV DQG FXUHV RI VWXGHQW DWWULWLRQ QG HGf &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV 7LQWR 9 t *RRGVHOO $ $SULOf )UHVKPDQ LQWHUHVW JURXSV DQG WKH ILUVW \HDU H[SHULHQFH &RQVWUXFWLQJ VWXGHQW FRPPXQLWLHV LQ D ODUJH XQLYHUVLW\ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO 0HHWLQJ RI WKH &ROOHJH 5HDGLQJ DQG /HDUQLQJ $VVRFLDWLRQ .DQVDV &LW\ 02 7LQWR 9 t /RYH $ f $ ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXG\ RI OHDUQLQJ FRPPXQLWLHV DW /D*XDUGLD &RPPXQLQn &ROOHJH :DVKLQJWRQ '& 2IILFH RI (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK DQG ,PSURYHPHQW 7UDFH\ 7 t 6HGODFHN : ( f 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS RI QRQFRJQLWLYH YDULDEOHV WR DFDGHPLF VXFFHVV $ ORQJLWXGLQDO FRPSDULVRQ E\ UDFH -RXUQDO RI &ROOHJH 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO 8QLYHUVLW\ 6\VWHP RI *HRUJLD f 6WXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ DQG JUDGXDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ 6\VWHP RI *HRUJLD $WODQWD *$ 8QLYHUVLW\ 6\VWHP RI *HRUJLD

PAGE 111

9DQ*HQQHS $ f 7KH ULWHV RI SDVVDJH 0 9L]HGRQ DQG &DIIHH 7UDQVf &KLFDJR 7KH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV 9HOH] : f )LQLVKLQJ FROOHJH 7KH HIIHFWV RI FROOHJH W\SH 6RFLRORJ\ RI (GXFDWLRQ :DJJHQHU $ 7 t 6PLWK & 1RYHPEHUf %HQFKPDUN IDFWRUV LQ VWXGHQW UHWHQWLRQ 3DSHU SUHVHQWHG DW WKH $QQXDO 0HHWLQJ RI WKH 0LG6RXWK (GXFDWLRQDO 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ 1HZ 2UOHDQV /$ :DONHU 3 f 6WUDWHJLHV IRU LQFUHDVLQJ UHWHQWLRQ RI +LVSDQLF VWXGHQWV LQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJHV 'RFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV DW $XVWLQ f 'LVVHUWDWLRQ $EVWUDFWV ,QWHUQDWLRQDO f $ :DOO 0 f )URP WKHRU\ WR SUDFWLFH 8VLQJ UHWHQWLRQ UHVHDUFK WR JXLGH DVVHVVPHQW HIIRUWV DW D FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH 0D\V /DQGLQJ 1$WODQWLF &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH :HEE 0 f )UHVKPDQ \HDU UHWHQWLRQ DW WKUHH FDPSXVHV RI D ODUJH XUEDQ FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH GLVWULFW &RPPXQLW\-XQLRU &ROOHJH 4XDUWHUO\ :HEE 0 f $ WKHRUHWLFDO PRGHO RI FRPPXQLW\ FROOHJH VWXGHQW GHJUHH SHUVLVWHQFH &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH 5HYLHZ :HOOV 5 1 -U f 7KH IRUJRWWHQ PLQRULW\ 1DWLYH $PHULFDQV LQ KLJKHU HGXFDWLRQ &DQWRQ 1< 6W /DZUHQFH 8QLYHUVLW\ :KLWDNHU & t 3DVFDUHOOD ( 7 f 7ZR\HDU FROOHJH DWWHQGDQFH DQG VRFLRHFRQRPLF DWWDLQPHQW 6RPH DGGLWLRQDO HYLGHQFH -RXUQDO RI +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ If :LONLH & t .XFKXFN 6 f $ ORQJLWXGLQDO VWXG\ RI WKH HIIHFWV RI D IUHVKPDQ VHPLQDU -RXUQDO RI WKH )UHVKPDQ
PAGE 112

=DUYHOO 5 .XVNLH 0 %HUWUDP 5 1RHO / /HYLW] 5 t -RQHV 1 f $ WKHRUHWLFDO DQG SUDFWLFDO JXLGH WR VWXGHQW GHYHORSPHQW SURJUDPV LQ HQUROOPHQW PDQDJHPHQW ,Q $ODQ *DLVN\ (Gf 7KH UROH RI VWXGHQW DIIDLUV LQ LQVWLWXWLRQZLGH HQUROOPHQW PDQDJHPHQW VWUDWHJLHV SS f :DVKLQJWRQ '& 1DWLRQDO $VVRFLDWLRQ RI 6WXGHQW 3HUVRQQHO $GPLQLVWUDWRUV ,QF

PAGE 113

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

PAGE 114

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ PD$L IOL *HUDUGR 0 *RQ]DOH] 3URIHVVRU RI &RXQVHORU FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ f§ 0DU\ +RZKIG+DPLOWnRQ $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU RI (GXFDWLRQDO /HDGHUVKLS 3ROLF\ DQG )RXQGDWLRQV FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 3K\OOLV 0 0HHN $VVRFLDWH 3URIHVVRU RI &RXQVHORU (GXFDWLRQ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ bI! ; 0 'DYLG 0LOOHU 3URIHVVRU RI (GXFDWLRQDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQ DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 'HFHPEHU 'HDQ &ROOHJH RI (GXFDWLRQA 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 115

 Q IR Z A 7 81,9(56,7< 2)