Scholars have found that social and academic integration into an institution are of paramount importance to an individual student’s persistence at that institution. A variety of theoretical models, quantitative analyses, and qualitative investigations have focused on this phenomenon. A vast majority of these studies have utilized Tinto’s theory of college student departure. Tinto (1987) proposed that higher levels of integration into academic and social realms strengthened students’ learning and developed their commitment to staying enrolled. Strage (1999) noted that by the end of the 1980 's, researchers had reached consensus on the theroretical dimensions of retention for traditional college students. “The college population of today, however,
…show more content…
Tinto’s (1975, 1987) student integration model, one of the most ubiquitous theoretical frameworks in this arena, posited that a student’s social and academic interaction with his or her institution was paramount to the student’s decision to persist. Bean’s (1980, 1982) theory of student attrition and Astin’s (1975) theory of student engagement, “sought to understand the student departure puzzle by exploring other significant relationships between the student’s background characteristics, academic preparation, institutional environment, and college experience” (Ishitani & Reid, ????, p. 14) . Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, and Hengstler (1992) integrated Tinto’s and Bean’s theories to create a more robust and dynamic explanation of the student departure process. Later, Cabrera, Nora, and Castaneda (1993) provided strong support for the use of these models to understand student persistence at both traditional and commuter institutions. While all of these retention studies emphasize student involvement, their findings have been limited to certain institution types (for example, public versus private) due to using either single institutional data or data combining only a few …show more content…
First-generation college students, defined as students who had neither parent graduate from college, were more likely to come from low-income families (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005), were more likely to drop out during their freshman year (Ishitani, 2003), and, ultimately, were less likely to earn a college degree (Chen, 2005). First-year first-generation students faced a 71% higher risk of attrition than their counterparts who had two parents that had attained college degrees (Ishitani, 2003), had significantly lower academic aspirations (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006), and of on-campus involvement attributed to their propensity to live and work off-campus (Billson & Terry, 1982). Taken together, the cumulative effects of these factors threatened first-generation students’ social integration and, subsequent, persistence to a four-year degree. Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) suggested that when faculty become engaged with and influential in the lives of first-generation students, they validated their sense of belonging and ability to excel in their academics. In turn, students showed an increase in academic integration and longterm
Tinto’s (1975, 1987) student integration model, one of the most ubiquitous theoretical frameworks in this arena, posited that a student’s social and academic interaction with his or her institution was paramount to the student’s decision to persist. Bean’s (1980, 1982) theory of student attrition and Astin’s (1975) theory of student engagement, “sought to understand the student departure puzzle by exploring other significant relationships between the student’s background characteristics, academic preparation, institutional environment, and college experience” (Ishitani & Reid, ????, p. 14) . Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, and Hengstler (1992) integrated Tinto’s and Bean’s theories to create a more robust and dynamic explanation of the student departure process. Later, Cabrera, Nora, and Castaneda (1993) provided strong support for the use of these models to understand student persistence at both traditional and commuter institutions. While all of these retention studies emphasize student involvement, their findings have been limited to certain institution types (for example, public versus private) due to using either single institutional data or data combining only a few …show more content…
First-generation college students, defined as students who had neither parent graduate from college, were more likely to come from low-income families (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005), were more likely to drop out during their freshman year (Ishitani, 2003), and, ultimately, were less likely to earn a college degree (Chen, 2005). First-year first-generation students faced a 71% higher risk of attrition than their counterparts who had two parents that had attained college degrees (Ishitani, 2003), had significantly lower academic aspirations (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006), and of on-campus involvement attributed to their propensity to live and work off-campus (Billson & Terry, 1982). Taken together, the cumulative effects of these factors threatened first-generation students’ social integration and, subsequent, persistence to a four-year degree. Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) suggested that when faculty become engaged with and influential in the lives of first-generation students, they validated their sense of belonging and ability to excel in their academics. In turn, students showed an increase in academic integration and longterm