Home » About MHCC » Research and Planning »  Research Studies and Publications » Building a Community of Learning: A Comprehensive Approach to Assisting At-Risk Students

Building a Community of Learning: A Comprehensive Approach to Assisting At-Risk Students

R. D. Walleri, C. L. Stoker and J. M. Stoering, "Building a Community of Learning: A Comprehensive Approach to Assisting At-Risk Students." Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 6 (1), Fall 1998 (pp. 15-26).

The project and research reported in this paper were partially funded by Title III, Higher Education Act, US Department of Education, Grant No. PO31A40375-95. The analysis and views expressed herein are the responsibility of the authors alone.

Student attrition continues to be a major concern in the higher education arena. Years of research and the development of strategies to improve student retention have resulted in little improvement. The present case study contends that retention programs seldom are holistic and comprehensive despite the general admonition that they should be in order to succeed. Building community among students and between students and faculty became the overall theme as the project evolved over several years. A Title III grant from the US Department of Education funded the retention project. The basis of the grant application was to replicate retention strategies that had proven successful at other institutions and as described in the literature on retention. Success in one setting, however, does not guarantee success in another. The retention project represented a change agent, and thus, organizational dynamics influenced project outcomes. A unique element in this case was that the institutional research office had overall administrative responsibility for the project. The findings may provide insights to researchers and practitioners on the factors influencing both successful and unsuccessful campus-based strategies for improving student retention.

Student attrition continues to be a major concern in the higher education arena, especially for at-risk students. Years of research and the development of strategies to improve student retention have resulted in little improvement. The present case study contends that retention programs seldom are holistic and comprehensive despite the general admonition that they should be in order to succeed.

The present study describes and offers analysis in three areas: (a) the design and implementation of a comprehensive program designed to improve student retention, (b) the organizational dynamics of change brought about by the retention project, and (c) the role of institutional research. Building community among students and between students and faculty became the overall theme as the project evolved over several years. This approach was heavily influenced by the work of Tinto (1987; Tinto, Goodsell-Love and Russo, 1996) and the "learning communities" movement in instruction. However, establishing a sense of community was also engendered through student intake services, advising and support services.

A Title III grant from the US Department of Education funded the retention project. The basis of the grant application was to replicate retention strategies that had proven successful at other institutions and as described in the literature on retention. Success in one setting, however, does not guarantee success in another. The retention project represented a change agent, and thus, organizational dynamics provided a context that influenced project outcomes. A unique element in this case was that the institutional research office held overall administrative responsibility for the project. The findings may provide insights to researchers and practitioners on the factors influencing both successful and unsuccessful campus-based strategies for improving student retention.

Researchers and practitioners have experimented with a number of isolated interventions in an attempt to improve retention rates. These interventions include early identification of at-risk students linked to remedial instruction (Capoor & Overstreet, 1993), compulsory placement into basic skills courses (Alfred & Lum, 1988), and mandatory counseling (Duckwall & Vallandingham, 1995). These interventions can somewhat improve retention rates, yet the improvements are moderate at best as reflected by the fact that retention rates have remained constant over the years (Tinto, 1987).

A common element found in much of the literature is that campus efforts to improve student retention are usually isolated, single treatment strategies. This situation appears to conflict with the general theoretical advice that retention efforts must be holistic with broad campus involvement in order to be successful (Bean, 1980; Spady, 1970; Tinto, 1975).

Astin (1975) emphasized the need to move toward cooperative efforts between student development and instruction. He stated that student involvement in the total academic environment is the single most important factor affecting the persistence of students. Support for retention strategies reflecting cooperation between non-academic and academic areas of post-secondary institutions continues to grow (Aitken, 1982; Endo & Harpel, 1982). In addition, one of the few promising exceptions to constant attrition rates despite intervention is the recently reported impact of learning communities, which move some of the burden of retaining students from student service areas to instruction as a way to address the broader education needs of students when "education" is taken to mean both social and intellectual growth.

Tinto (1996) collected both qualitative and quantitative data from three post-secondary institutions where educational programs were reshaped, away from the traditional lecture format, toward classroom settings (i.e., learning communities) that engaged students in learning together with their peers, thus supporting both the social and intellectual needs of first-time college students. Data indicated that participation in learning communities led to several positive outcomes including: helping students transition to college through the development of a peer support network; providing students with opportunities to actively share their learning experiences through seminars, group projects, and class discussions; and encouraging students to take ownership of the learning process by working collaboratively with their instructors. Data also confirmed that first-year college students who participated in learning communities persisted into the second year of college at rates that were considerably higher than for students enrolled in regular classroom settings.

Given theoretical work emphasizing the degree of fit between student and institution (Spady, 1970), some researchers began to identify specific areas of the conceptual models that might be useful to institutions in their efforts to positively influence retention rates. These investigations examined both non-academic (i.e., student development) and academic (i.e., instruction) programs and practices.

Several non-academic intervention strategies have received a great deal of attention for their possible positive impact on student retention. These strategies, which underscore the notion that student retention is dependent on more than just strong educational programs (Sharkey et al., 1987), include assessment and remediation (Pascarella et al., 1996), orientation programs (Fidler & Hunter, 1989; Gerber, 1970; Pascarella, Terenzini, & Wolfle, 1986), academic advising (Northman, 1987), freshman seminars (Dunphy, 1987; Nelson, 1987), and mentoring (Astin, 1975; Endo & Harpel, 1982; McCaffrey & Miller, 1982; Pascarella, 1980).

Investigations of academic strategies have yielded various program components regarded as critical to the design and success of academic retention programs (Levin & Levin, 1991). Among these program components are: curriculum reviews (Ratcliff, 1992); supplemental instruction (Abrams & Jernigan, 1984; Lunger & Neal, 1987); and instructional programs encouraging connections between students, faculty, and courses of study (Matthews, 1993; Tinto, 1996; Tinto, Goodsell-Love, & Russo, 1993; Tinto, Russo, & Kadel, 1994).

The project described here was designed to incorporate all of the above strategies into a comprehensive retention program. The premise was that the combination of these strategies would have a cumulative positive impact on student persistence, especially for at-risk students.

This is a descriptive case study of a single college supplemented by quantitative analysis of retention rates comparing treatment to control groups. The grant application defined at-risk students broadly, but targeted those students who were underprepared and/or who had declared general studies as their major with no clear educational goal. The project began in 1994-95 with a review and revision of student intake services (i.e., placement testing, advising and registration workshops, and a college success class) and intensive academic advising of at-risk students (i.e., a case-management approach to advising). Other components of the program included athlete mentoring; an enhanced study skills program (i.e., linked courses); curriculum reviews; and professional development activities for faculty and student personnel professionals. Peer mentoring and learning communities or integrated studies were initiated in 1997-98. Enhanced technology capabilities such as computerized placement testing have also been implemented, with an early-warning alert system and automated degree audit to be added by the end of the project in 1998-99.

Because this was a systemic, five-year project, it seemed logical to begin with review and improvement of student in-take procedures. In subsequent years, the project gradually expanded and continues to expand, encompassing instruction and the broader campus community.

Placement testing. For most new students, their first significant experience with the college involves scheduling and taking a placement test. In the early 1980s the college instituted mandatory testing for all entering students enrolling in nine or more credits, or in math or writing courses. Typically, 40% or more of entering students fail to meet established standards for college level course work in math, reading and/or writing. Such students are required to successfully remediate identified deficiencies before enrolling in college level courses.

Prior to the grant project, three separate tests assessed reading, writing and math, adding up to a timed, paper and pencil exercise taking three hours to complete. Students had to schedule appointments to take the test; drop-in testing was unavailable. In addition to concerns about customer service (e.g., the daunting length of the test might discourage potential students from attempting to enroll), the combination of tests seemed to lack coherence.

To assess the reliability and validity of the current placement tests, an outside firm conducted an analysis of a random set of test results. Findings revealed that the reading and writing tests were appropriate, but that the math test failed to differentiate among students at the lower end of skill levels. One problem with the math component was that students selected one of three math tests based on self-assessment of their math skills. Most students chose the algebra test, when in fact, the arithmetic test was more appropriate. A second problem was that the math test required students to use a graphing calculator. Thus, a significant portion of the test measured ability to use the calculator rather than math skills.

A solution to both the customer service and content problems of the prior testing system was found in converting to a computer-based adaptive test. Because the computer test adjusts the difficulty of questions based on a student's previous responses, testing time was reduced by half and the possibility of selecting an inappropriate math test was eliminated. After reviewing several options, faculty and staff selected the Accuplacer CPTs (Computerized Placement Tests) from The College Board. The test was implemented in the summer of 1996 and received positive reviews from the students. Initial results indicated that placement accuracy is comparable to or better than that of the previous tests. See attached separate reports for further details on the CPT program.

Advising and registration workshops. Students enrolling for the first time were encouraged to sign up for a comprehensive workshop as part of their in-take process. Each workshop had three components: (a) a 20-minute large-group presentation where students received free copies of printed materials (e.g., the current schedule of classes, a handout listing the steps required for registering into classes, another describing degree programs offered by the college); (b) a small-group academic advising session devoted to interpreting placement test scores, discussing the role of the academic advisor, and assisting students in developing a trial schedule of classes; and (c) individual registration times.

During the Fall 1995 registration period, the college offered 43 workshop sessions. These sessions were attended by 1,410 students, which represents a show rate just under 75%. At the end of each small group session, and prior to the individual registration times, students evaluated the workshop. Over half (58%) of the participants completed an evaluation form. Most (70-90%) agreed that they could use printed college materials to develop a trial schedule of classes and that they understood the registration process and their placement test scores. Students also rated the usefulness of information presented in the large- and small-group sessions. Only 25% of the students thought the large-group information was extremely useful whereas 75% of the students thought the small-group information was extremely useful. Given this disparity, staff from appropriate areas initiated discussions toward replacing the large-group component with a video.

College Success Class. This one-credit, ten-hour class focused on enhancing student success by developing students' self-understanding and identification with the college community. The class was offered in a variety of formats intended to meet the specific needs of similar types of students (e.g., student athletes, international students, or students receiving financial aid).

Discussions and brief lectures covered a variety of college-related topics, for example, student services, college policies and procedures, goal setting, and computing a grade-point-average. Students completed homework assignments such as visiting various campus locations in order to familiarize themselves with the resources available to them. Another important project was the educational plan. Each student had to develop a three-term educational plan and have it approved and signed by his or her academic advisor.

More than half of the students (65%) who enrolled in the class evaluated their experience. Most (73%) reported that they would "strongly recommend" or "recommend" the class to a friend. In general, students reported that the information covered in class was somewhat or very helpful. The largest percentages of students (80-85%) found the information on time management, goal setting, locating support services on campus, completing the educational plan, and computing their grade-point-average helpful. Students reported that the least helpful information was on diversity, money management, and living on one's own; only 10-12% of students rated this information as helpful.

In addition to the improvements made to intake services for all entering students, another major component of the comprehensive retention program was two pilot studies of intensive academic advising with small groups of at-risk students. Both pilot studies employed a case-management approach to academic advising. In both studies, each advisor was responsible for contacting a small case load of at-risk students throughout the term and assisting them with their academic progress.

Pilot study sample populations. For the purpose of the pilot studies, students were identified as at-risk of dropping out if they had not declared a specific major. Both sample populations consisted of randomly selected students from a pool of Fall term 1995 and 1996 students who were enrolled in college for the first time, had declared a General Studies major as well as students who may have had a professional-technical goal but were not yet admitted to the training program of their choice, and had enrolled in the College Success Class.

Of the 75 randomly selected students in the first-year pilot study, 9 dropped out at the very beginning of the Fall 1995 term. As with the general student population, the pilot students were generally white, but they were more likely to be female and somewhat younger. The pilot study students were also somewhat less academically prepared than other students attending college for the first time, There was no significant difference between the pilot students and other General Studies students in terms of the credit hours attempted during their first Fall term.

The second-year pilot study involved 101 students randomly selected from the pool of Fall term 1996 General Studies majors. These lists were then distributed to 11 faculty advisors who were given release time funded from Title III.

Schedule and content of contact with at-risk students. In the first-year pilot study, 8 Advising and Counseling staff members were expected to contact each student in their case load on three separate occasions during each term (fall, winter, spring), for a total of nine contacts per students for each academic year. This same schedule was expected of the 11 faculty advisors for the second-year project.

Each contact in both pilot study years had a specific timing and purpose. The initial telephone contact, which was to occur during the first three weeks of the term, provided an opportunity to establish rapport with the student and to discuss the student's educational plan. The second contact, also via telephone, was to occur just before mid-term examinations. Discussions were to focus on the student's progress in each class, thus serving as an early-warning system to ensure that students were maintaining standards of academic progress (i.e., a letter grade of C or better in all classes or a 2.00 overall grade point average). Additionally, advisors were expected to schedule a convenient time to meet one-on-one with each student. This third contact was directed toward reviewing each student's educational plan and to ensure that each student planned to register for the next term.

In each pilot study year, advisors maintained contact logs to record each time they made contact with students in their assigned case load. Data from the contact logs were used to determine the number of contacts staff made with students and the topics they discussed.

Students were not contacted as frequently as intended and many of the planned topics were not discussed. On average in the first-year pilot study, advisors contacted students 1.65 times during Fall term, 1.11 times during Winter term, and 0.64 during Spring term. This trend continued in the second-year pilot study. Again, on average, advisors contacted students 1.79 times during Fall term, 0.75 times during Winter term, and 0.27 times during Spring term. It should be noted that, in both pilot-study years, many of the students were difficult to reach, did not return telephone messages, or did not want to be contacted by college staff.

During the contacts in the first-year pilot study, only half of the students discussed their educational plan, less than half discussed registration for the next term, and one-third discussed education options or the current status of their classes. Across all three terms in the second-year pilot study, the status of current classes was the most common topic discussed in the contacts. The other most common topics of discussion were career interests, registration for the next term, and the students education plan.

Staff evaluation of the pilot studies. During the Spring of each pilot-study, the staff who acted as academic advisors reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of the pilot study and offered suggestions for improving the activity. Advisors from the first-year pilot study agreed that the activity was useful because it permitted timely intervention into otherwise unknown crises and reached students who otherwise might not have sought their services. Staff expressed concern, however, that time would not be allotted in their regular work schedule to fully implement this activity. In addition, staff pointed out that some students either did not need or did not heed unsolicited advice, may have found the contacts intrusive, and may have become dependent instead of empowered by participating in the intensive academic advising. Another difficulty was that some students could not easily be reached by telephone.

Advisors from the second-year pilot study were asked to focus on their perceptions of the goals and outcomes of the intensive advising effort and to talk about future directions. While advisors perceived multiple purposes of the project, the most common were: to find out the best way for faculty and staff at the college to provide advising services to students; to discover whether an intensive case management approach to advising works; and to gather information for larger, long-term interventions. Advisors also perceived multiple outcomes including: student retention, student success, and student progress toward goals. Advisors reported unanticipated outcomes such as: helping instructional faculty become more comfortable talking with at-risk students; raising faculty awareness about challenges in advising at-risk students; and improving faculty understanding of students' lifestyles. However, most staff said they did not think the project achieved its intended outcomes, and most felt that many of the reasons students leave college are beyond the control of the institution (e.g., moving, changing jobs, children, illness, financial problems). While some advisors were able to cite specific examples of how their intervention efforts helped in specific instances, all advisors expressed frustration with calling students who did not want help and with being unable to help students whose problems included major issues such as substance abuse and pregnancy. Nevertheless, many of the advisors felt that the intervention strategy had potential.

Student evaluation of the pilot studies. Students in the first-year pilot study had the opportunity to evaluate the intensive academic advising project via telephone surveys. Of the 66 students who had participated, about half (53%) were contacted and willing to discuss their participation. Students reported that they met with their advisor in person anywhere from one to ten times during the academic year (M = 3.70 times) and spoke on the telephone an average of three times. Many students (79%) said it was very easy to make appointments with their advisor and most (94%) said the appointments were scheduled at convenient times. The majority of students (80%) could also remember the name of their advisor. The second-year project began with 101 students; only 12 were participating at the end of three terms. Given this, and given that responses from students in the first-year study were not truly fruitful, the research corporation decided not to engage further in this aspect of the study. Student selection and staff training were overriding concerns in both pilot study years. See attached separate report on evaluation of the intensive intervention project.

The lessons learned from the two pilot studies will now be used by the Advising and Counseling staff to design an overall project for improving faculty advising.

The Title III grant project is comprehensive, addressing issues both in student services and instructional services. On the instructional services side, the major concern is on designing and implementing alternative delivery systems. Within this context, special emphasis is being placed on the development of learning communities as a way to better serve the social and intellectual needs of students toward improving retention of at-risk students. Considerable enthusiasm was fueled among the faculty by the Title III hosted learning communities conference with Tinto as the guest speaker in the Spring of 1996.

Defining Learning Communities. Learning communities represent a deliberate attempt to rearrange how courses are delivered. The movement is away from fragmented offerings and toward bringing together two or more courses that are connected in some way, such as a common theme or question. By way of simplified example, when a student enrolls simultaneously for a writing course and a history course, they are in a learning community. These integrated approaches to offering courses may include team teaching, linked or paired courses, block scheduling of classes, interdisciplinary courses, seminars, and student cohorts. Regardless of the specific arrangement, the intent of the curriculum restructuring is to help students foster a sense of belonging to the institution and to the course of study; thus, students have opportunities for greater social integration through a network of peer support, and for greater understanding of the material being studied as a result of the connectedness of the courses.

Pilot Study Design. The college implemented its first learning community pilot study during the Fall 1997 term. Two courses, writing and history, are being team taught. The intent is to have students discover and express their ideas through writing and through extended conversations with other students and their instructors. In order to understand the beliefs, behaviors, relationships, origins, and major contributions of historical figures and events, and their influence today, students will interpret information from a variety of sources (i.e., film, original writings, art, literature, music). Concurrent enrollment in both courses is required; students (N=38) attend class two days each week for a two-hour-and-forty-minute block of time.

Evaluation Design. Title III is contracting with an outside research agency to conduct an on-going, term-by-term, evaluation of the learning community pilot study. Evaluation questions are designed to gather both qualitative and quantitative data from students and faculty according to planned timelines over the three-term pilot study.

Additional Activities. Title III staff are working collaboratively with the college's Teaching and Learning Cooperative to increase the number of Learning Communities offered. This year, Requests for Proposals are being accepted Fall term for review and approval according to agreed-upon guidelines; release-time is available for faculty to engage in actual planning efforts during the Winter and Spring terms; implementation of additional pilot studies is scheduled to begin with the 1998-1999 academic year. Evaluation of these efforts will continue to be the function of an outside research agency.

As the above description and analysis suggests, the Title III retention project was comprehensive and represented a significant change agent for the college. Although additional follow up and analysis will be needed to arrive at a summative assessment of the project, organizational dynamics did and should be considered in any overall evaluation. One key element in this particular case was administrative turnover. Soon after the grant was awarded and the project implemented, a new dean of instruction and president were named following retirement of the incumbents. Both the directors of advising and counseling and developmental education left during the first year of the project, and both had been deeply involved in preparation of the grant application and design of the project. In the midst of all this change, continuity was sustained through a full-time director of the project funded by the grant with overall administrative responsibility by the director of institutional research. A second organizational dynamic was resistance to change among faculty and staff in areas directly affected by the project, which may have been exacerbated by the administrative turnover. In most cases, resistance was manifest in the lack of cooperation rather than direct and open opposition to a particular change or activity. An example was illustrated in the intensive intervention activity described above in which many of the staff failed to make the agreed upon contacts with the target students. Although the failure to make contacts was partially related to the inability to reach students by telephone, in other cases it was simply a lack of effort. An important strategy in addressing this issue was the ongoing assessment of each major activity by the external contractor. The assessments alerted responsible administrators to the problems and issues involved in an activity, enabling corrective action to be taken or revision of the activity.

A key element of the Title III grant program is to help build institutional self-sufficiency. Activities funded by Title III were designed to be absorbed by the institution and carried on after grant funding has ended. Building an effective retention program takes several years (especially attempting to realize actual improvements in student retention rates), so failure to institutionalize the project would in essence make the entire effort a waste. To prevent this occurrence, the Title III staff began an effort in the third year of the grant to shift responsibility to the key regular college staff. Through greater involvement of project committees and key administrators, it is anticipated that the changes initiated by the project will gain support and continue.

Role of Institutional Research. The institutional research office played a key role in the development of the retention program. The research director wrote the original grant application and was subsequently assigned as the project administrator. There were both advantages and disadvantages to this arrangement. One advantage was that institutional research is viewed as somewhat neutral in terms of campus politics and turf issues. Thus, the office's support for the changes initiated by the project were not viewed as promoting an ulterior agenda. The arrangement also facilitated the assessment work performed by outside contractors. In addition, at this college institutional research and computer services are a combined department, and thus, the data and computer applications needs of the project were closely coordinated.

There were both organizational and operational disadvantages to the role played by institutional research. Institutional research lies outside of the chain-of-command for the various areas of the college directly involved in the project (student services and instruction). Support for and follow up on implementation had to be mediated through other administrative offices. Institutional research staff became involved in the daily operations of advising and counseling, registration and other college functions more than one would normally expect. Although administrative responsibility was a unique organizational aspect of this project, the role of institutional research was critical in terms of the assessment activity. This would be the case either in providing direct assessment services or in coordinating and supporting the work of an external evaluator.

The general one-year retention rate at MHCC for first time in college students has been approximately 55%. Typically , students with professional/technical majors have slightly higher one-year retention rates than students with General Studies or transfer majors. Table 1 shows the overall retention rate for three cohorts of first-time in college students at MHCC. For any year, this calculation is based on the number of students from a cohort enrolled for credit at MHCC for the first time in the fall term (or summer term if they continue on) who have enrolled for credit again in the following spring term.

During the first pilot study in 1995-1996, the one-year retention rate was 74% for students who received the intensive academic advising. For other first time in college students, retention ranged from 47% to 65% depending on their involvement in the College Success class. In contrast, students in the second pilot study in 1996-1997 were retained at a rate of 50%. These findings, taken with the overall rates at the college, indicate that retention has not yet been positively affected by the changes made to services provided to students.

Despite the fact that retention rates have not shown improvement to date, there were other, somewhat more qualitative, outcomes of the Title III efforts that were encouraging. The more qualitative positive outcomes of the project can be summarized as follows.

• Higher levels of student satisfaction as found with student evaluations of the computerized placement testing and changes made in the advising and registration workshops and college success class.
• Better appreciation among faculty and staff of the problems confronting at-risk students and the challenges faced in addressing those problems.
• Higher morale and energy among faculty and staff as seen in the willingness to embrace learning communities.

The final two years of the grant will be critical in solidifying and refining the changes and initiatives brought about by the project. By the end of the grant period, it should be clear whether the changes have resulted in an increase in retention rates, which is the ultimate evaluative factor. The case study does demonstrate the importance of cross-campus coordination and energetic leadership to ensure effective implementation of strategies to improve student retention and success. The bottom line is that assisting at-risk students is a labor intensive effort. Time and effort of faculty and staff is a scarce resource in these tight budgetary times and even additional help, afforded in this case by a Title III grant, cannot guarantee success.

Abrams, H. G., & Jernigan, L. P. (1984). Academic support services and the success of at-risk college students. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 261-274.

Aitken, N. (1982). College student performance, satisfaction, and retention. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 32-50.

Alfred, R. L., & Lum, G. D. (1988). Remedial program policies, student demographic characteristics, and academic achievement in community colleges. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 12, 107-119.

Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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.

Capoor, M., & Overstreet, D. (1993, May). Assessment of multiple treatments used to help underprepared students. Paper presented at the 33rd Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, IL.

Duckwall, J. M., & Vallandingham, D. (1995, May). Long-term effects of mandatory counseling on under-prepared students. Paper presented at the 35th Annual Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Boston, MA.

Dunphy, L. (1987). College seminar at Trenton State College. In M. M. Stodt & W. M. Klepper (Eds.), Increasing retention: Academic and student affairs administrators in partnership (pp. 61-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Endo, J., & Harpel, R. (1982). The effects of student-faculty interaction on students' educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 16, 115-138.

Fidler, P., & Hunter, M. (1989). How seminars enhance student success. In M. Upcraft, J. Garner, & Associates (Eds.), The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gerber, S. (1970). Four approaches to freshman orientation. Improving College and University Teaching, 18, 57-60.

Levin, M. E., & Levin, J. R. (1991). A critical examination of academic retention programs for at-risk minority college students. Journal of College Student Development, 32, 323-334.

Lunger, M. A., & Neal, J. C. (1987). Strategies for learning: An adjunct study skills model. Journal of Reading, 31, 134-139.

McCaffrey, S., & Miller, T. (1982). Mentoring: An approach to academic advising. In F. B. Newton & K. L. Ender (Eds.), Student development practices: Strategies for making a difference (pp. 187-206). Springfield, IL: Thomas.

Nelson, J. E. (1987). Developing an extended orientation course. In M. M. Stodt & W. M. Klepper (Eds.), Increasing retention: Academic and student affairs administrators in partnership (pp. 53-59). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Northman, E. A. (1987). Advisement program for high-risk adult students. In M. M. Stodt & W. M. Klepper (Eds.), Increasing retention: Academic and student affairs administrators in partnership (pp. 74-81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 50, 545-595.

Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P., & Wolfle, L. (1986). Orientation to college and freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 155-175.

Pascarella, E. T., Whitt, E. J., Nora, A., Edison, M., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). What have we learned from the first year of the national study of student learning? Journal of College Student Development, 37, 182-192.

Ratcliff, J. L. (1992). What can we learn from course work patterns about improving the undergraduate curriculum? New Directions in Higher Education, 80, 5-12.

Sharkey, S. J., Bischoff, P. M., Echols, D., Morrison, C., Northman, E. A., Leibman, A., & Steele, B. (1987). Pioneering programs for retaining "at-risk" students. New Directions in Higher Education, 60, 61-85.

Spady, W. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64-85.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Education Research, 45, 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V., Goodsell-Love, A. & Russo, P. (1996, June). Building learning communities for new college students. Paper presented at the 11th AAHE Assessment and Quality Conference, Washington, DC.

Tinto, V., Goodsell-Love, A., & Russo, P. (1993). Building community. Liberal Education, 79, 16-21.

Tinto, V., Russo, P., & Kadel, S. (1994). Constructing educational communities in challenging circumstances. Community College Journal, 64, 26-30.