What are selected Appalachian colleges doing about attrition

Attention has been focused on retention/attrition both in national conferences and in numerous studies over the years by Alexander Astin, Tom MacMillan, Dorothy Knoell, Ida Long Rogers, Carol Shulman, Patrick Terenzini, and others.

National figures in higher education such as Clark Kerr, Jack Magarrell, and Robert L. Jacobson have been predicting static or declining enrollment in higher education since 1972. In light of all the attention and concern on the problem of enrollment, it is justifiable to ask, "What are colleges actually doing to improve retention?" The present study focused on the twenty-eight private four-year colleges of Central Appalachia, eastern Kentucky, east Tennessee, southwest Virginia, and West Virginia. The following questions were dealt with in the project:

1. According to college administrators, who do students leave their college?

2. What are college administrators' evaluations regarding the impact of various programs aimed at retention?

3. According to students, what retention programs are available and beneficial?

4. Do overall programs of colleges with high attrition differ from overall programs of colleges with low attrition?

5. What programs can any college institute or improve to decrease the student drop-out rate?

The findings for Question One indicates that administrators feel that financial problems, insufficient academic preparation, and lack of interest or commitment are the three leading reasons for dropping out.

The results of Question Two show that administrators are somewhat varied in their evaluations of programs. However, a developmental or basic studies program and a "good" advising program received the most support.

For Question Three the researcher found that a majority of the students expressed a need for helpful information about their previous academic records, comparisons of their abilities with other college students, and information on how to improve their study skills. Findings show needs for counseling in the area of personal problems and job placement; instruction in arts, crafts, and hobbies; and an improved student-faculty relationship. Much less than one-half of the students participated in many of the activities listed on the students' questionnaire, even though the students reported that these activities were available on campus. A majority of those participating were generally satisfied with their participation.

The findings for Question Four indicate that discernable differences between the high attrition and low attrition colleges were observed in the orientation programs, faculty tutoring programs, identification of high risk students in the admissions process, the formulation of study schedules, information on financial aid, general administratorstudent communication, class scheduling complaints, counseling programs, and faculty support.

Question Five can best be dealt with by listing the more important recommendations brought out in the study.

1. Supply adequate pre-enrollment information regarding finances, curriculum, and social activities.

2. Institute a well-organized developmental studies program.

3. Improve faculty-student communication and interaction.

4. Improve the counseling program.

5. Begin a faculty and peer tutoring program.

Further research on a local level is a prerequisite for establishing any new programs. Pre-college data, in-college surveys, compulsory exit interviews, and periodic follow-ups are suggested in order to compile a base of information.