University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Provisional admission in higher education: a case study in retention, persistence, and matriculation in academia

(USC Thesis Other)

Provisional admission in higher education: a case study in retention, persistence, and matriculation in academia

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 1

PROVISIONAL ADMISSION IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A CASE STUDY IN
RETENTION, PERSISTENCE, AND MATRICULATION IN ACADEMIA

by

Monique L. Logan

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2017

Copyright 2017 Monique L. Logan
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 2

DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my family. First, I must thank my Parents, for
their enduring love, encouragement, and supreme confidence that carried me all the way to the
finish line. My Mother and Father were my most ardent supporters, my loudest cheerleaders.
Second, I would like to dedicate my dissertation to my Sisters who attentively experienced the
entire progression with me from the application period to the voluminous doctoral coursework,
culminating with the completion of the dissertation. They had always adamantly pushed me to
pursue studies at the doctoral level. I finally listened in the fall of 2014. I had a yearning that
would not go away and that throbbing and unexplainable ache lead me to the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California (USC).
I would like to thank my talented Nieces for their amazing creativity throughout my
doctoral program. Their artwork, stickers of encouragement, and expressions of love and
support bolstered my faith on the painstaking journey. Last but not least, I would like to dedicate
my dissertation to my Son. He lived with me day in and day out, listening to a recurring mantra.
I cannot, I have doctoral coursework to do. I cannot, I am working on my dissertation. I will be
forever indebted to him for the sacrifices endured throughout the duration of the doctoral
coursework and dissertation process. He was in the 8
th
grade when I began the Organizational
Change and Leadership (OCL) program at USC and this fall he will be entering the 11
th
grade.
Funny how time flies when you are writing a dissertation but it certainly does not appear
that way in the midst of the doctoral voyage. The expedition was daunting. The process was
exhilarating. The path was formidable. The road was phenomenal. It has been incredibly
empowering to close the world off and settle in for the excruciating agony of completing
doctoral coursework and writing a dissertation. Yet, I would not have had it any other way. The
gut-wrenching process was worth every bit of the anguish and sacrifice experienced during the
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 3

odyssey to understand the world of the Scholastic Achiever. How they saw the world mattered!
Now, you are able to enter their world with me. I thank you for allowing me to blossom like a
fragrant flower in the springtime. Throughout the program at USC, I always dared myself to
complete exceptional work as a doctoral student. The goal was to do the finest job imaginable in
transporting the experiences of the study to the printed page with your loyal, faithful, and abiding
love. I sincerely hope everyone will be proud of the finished product!
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Where do I begin? How do I even start to thank those who made it possible for me to
reach this point in the dissertation trajectory? First, to my dissertation chair, Dr. Julie Slayton,
who tirelessly worked with me to see me through to the end. Dr. Slayton always pushed me to
bring the best product forward, compelling me to unveil an exceptional contribution to the field
as a scholar-practitioner. I will always be indebted to her for her meticulousness, durability, and
indefatigable endurance throughout the dissertation process. I could not imagine having anyone
else as my dissertation chair. I was destined to be assigned to Dr. Slayton. I would love to come
back and speak to her future advisory students as they enter the initial stages of the dissertation
process. She has taught me so much about how others see the world and the lens of assumptions
that we all bear. Dr. Slayton is a mentor and an example of incomparable excellence. I honor
her fortitude. I salute her tenacity. I am in awe of her stamina. I hope to be like her one day,
when I grow up.
I would like to thank Dr. Darnell Cole and Dr. Leeanne Dunsmore for agreeing to serve
on my dissertation committee. Without the committee, none of this would be possible. My
committee members were very supportive throughout the process. I am very grateful to know
that they believed in the work I was creating and now publishing. I am thankful for their
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 4

presence on the dissertation committee. I revere their scholarly endeavors at USC and their
professional enterprises beyond the gateways of the University Park Campus in Los Angeles.
Next, I would like to thank my co-workers, past and present, for supporting me on all
fronts as I traveled the wayward journey to complete my dissertation and doctoral coursework.
The Center for Student Success at United University believed in me. They knew that I had the
resolve to complete my doctorate degree. They frequently checked on me, whether at work or
away from work. They gave me pats on the back along the way, even though I kept quiet about
the doctoral adventure the majority of the time. They were there for me, serving as a cushion to
fall back on when I needed respite from the myopic dissertation tunnel. I would especially like
to recognize the director of my department for her unyielding support and her ringing
endorsement of my doctoral venture. Her conviction in what I was capable of achieving never
wavered. I cherish what she represents. She exudes faith, loyalty, compassion, and
uncompromising courage to make the world we live in a better place for all. Her resilience is
unmatchable. She is the epitome of selflessness. United University is extremely fortunate to
have her in our realm of academia.
Before we leave the institution, I would like to thank a former non-traditional United
University student for the pillar of strength that he provided throughout the span of my doctoral
studies. He went out on a limb back in 2012, telling me that I should have my doctorate degree.
Eventually, I listened to him as well as to many others (personally and professionally), and I
pursued a doctoral program of studies.
I would like to acknowledge my Organizational Change and Leadership Cohort
members. They often commended me on my completed coursework, class presentations, and
dissertation assignments. They believed in my capability to be successful in the program. I
would especially like to thank a fellow OCL colleague. Her steadfast support always provided a
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 5

breath of fresh air. She always took the time to reach out to me and let me know that I was a
shining example of a remarkably goal-oriented doctoral student at USC. I would also like to
recognize the members of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. (OCL Cohort) for the unremitting
exchange of inspirational messages and our signature Delta stole and bracelet.
I would like to thank the inaugural OCL steering committee for accepting me as a
member of the first Cohort and for permitting me to become a member of the Rossier student
body. I had always wanted to attend USC but did not know how that would ever be possible.
Then, one day, back in the fall of 2014, I did a search on the computer and typed in the
box…online doctoral program at USC and the rest is history! The august door opened and I was
able to attend such a prestigious institution way on the other side of the United States. While
there, I learned to Fight On!
A hearty thank you to the OCL Program Office for steadily keeping the Inaugural Cohort
on track toward the completion of the degree. We could not have finished our doctoral studies
without the cooperative and concerted efforts of program administration, faculty, and staff.
In closing, I would like to thank the Scholastic Achievers who participated in this study.
I am honored to work with this population of students at UU. They willingly agreed to let me
enter their world. I am beholden to the sacrifices that they made to participate in the research
study. Thank you Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort. Without you, there would be no
dissertation. Without you, there would be no Dr. Monique L. Logan, Ed.D. Continue down the
road of optimism, the trail of enthusiasm, and the path of perseverance. Best wishes to each one
of you as you continue to matriculate at UU!

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3
LIST OF TABLES 9
LIST OF FIGURES 10
LIST OF FOOTNOTES 11
ABSTRACT 12
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 13
Introduction of the Problem 13
Organizational Context and Mission 14
Organizational Performance Goal 16
Related Literature 17
Importance of the Problem 18
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 19
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals 21
Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal 22
Purpose of the Project and Question 23
Methodological Framework 23
Definitions 24
Organization of the Study 25
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 26
Literature Related to Provisional Student Persistence 27
Provisional Admission Programs at Colleges and Universities 27
Provisional Admission Characteristics and Demographics at
Colleges and Universities 27
Provisional Admission Program Models and Practices at
Colleges and Universities 31
Provisional Admission Programs and Organizational Leadership 43
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences 45
Knowledge and Skills 45
Knowledge Types 45
Stakeholder Knowledge Influences 46
Declarative Knowledge Influences 47
Procedural Knowledge Influences 47
Metacognitive Knowledge Influences 47
Stakeholder Motivation Influences 50
Expectancy-Value Theory 50
Scholastic Achiever Expectations and Values 51
Self-efficacy Theory 51
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

Scholastic Achiever Self-efficacy 52
Stakeholder Organization Influences 55
Organizational Cultural Model Influences 55
Organizational Cultural Setting Influences 60
Scholastic Achievers and Institutional Persistence 60
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context 63
Conclusion 66

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 68
Purpose of the Project and Question 68
Framework for the Study 68
Participating Stakeholders 68
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criterion and Rationale 68
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and
Rationale 69
Data Collection and Instrumentation 70
Interviews 72
Data Analysis 77
Credibility and Trustworthiness 86
Ethics 91
Limitations and Delimitations 96
Conclusion 97

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 98
Participating Stakeholders 99
Findings 101
Findings for Knowledge and Motivation Influences 102
Findings for Organization Influence 112
Conclusion 127

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION 131
Introduction of the Chapter 131
Framework of the Chapter 131
Organizational Context and Mission 132
Organizational Performance Goal 134
Description of Stakeholder Groups 134
Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study 136
Purpose of the Project and Question 137
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 137
Knowledge Recommendations 137
Motivation Recommendations 146
Organization Recommendations 152
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 161
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 161
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations 164
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 166
Level 3: Behavior 167
Critical Behaviors 167
Required Drivers 170
Monitoring 175
Organizational Support 176
Level 2: Learning 177
Learning Goals 177
Program 177
Components of Learning 179
Level 1: Reaction 180
Evaluation Tools 181
Data Analysis and Reporting 183
Summary 188
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 191
Limitations 194
Future Research 196
Conclusion 198

REFERENCES 204
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Interview Protocol 215
APPENDIX B: Information Sheet 219
APPENDIX C: Recruitment Letter 221
APPENDIX D: Interview Screener 222
APPENDIX E: Level 1 and Level 2 Evaluation Instrument 223
APPENDIX F: Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 Evaluation Instrument 226

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 9

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 21
Table 2. Knowledge Influences 49
Table 3. Motivation Influences 54
Table 4. Organization Influences 62
Table 5. Scholastic Achievers Demographic Information 100
Table 6. Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 136
Table 7. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 139
Table 8. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 147
Table 9. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 155
Table 10. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 166
Table 11. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Scholastic Achievers’ 169
Evaluation

Table 12. Required Drivers to Support Scholastic Achievers’ Critical Behaviors 172
Table 13. Components of Learning for the Program 179
Table 14. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 181
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 10

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Scholastic Achievers KMO Conceptual Framework 65
Figure 2. Map of HBCUs across the United States and Internationally 184
Figure 3. Sinek (2009) Start With Why to Inspire Action 184
Figure 4. Scholastic Achievers Cycle of Academic and Social Integration 186
Figure 5. Scholastic Achievers Excel and Exceed, Culminating with Graduation 187
Figure 6. Dashboard to Communicate Early Intervention Successes to Stakeholders 188
Figure 7. Scholastic Achievers Explore Collegiate Possibilities as first-year College 190
Students

Figure 8. Scholastic Achievers Golden Graduation Cap and Diploma 203

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 11

LIST OF FOOTNOTES
Footnote 1. Retention rates measured the percentage of first-time students who 16
were seeking bachelor’s degrees who returned to the institution to
continue their studies the following Fall (College Navigator, 2013).

Footnote 2. The term utility value was used interchangeably with expectancy-value 102
Theory.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 12

ABSTRACT
The study employed the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to investigate the
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influence the retention,
persistence, and matriculation of provisionally admitted students identified as Scholastic
Achievers at United University (UU). Assumed causes of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational barriers were generated from related literature, learning and motivation theories,
and professional knowledge. The analysis of this qualitative case study validated all the
knowledge and motivation causes. The analysis did not validate two of the organizational
causes. A total of 17 recommendations are provided for the validated and non-validated causes.
The solutions scrutinized the bounding, framework, limitations and delimitations of the research
study. An implementation and evaluation plan is offered, which utilized the Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) framework.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 13

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The educational problem addressed in this study was the retention, recruitment, and
graduation practices of one Historically Black College and University (HBCU). The university
suffered from the same challenges as other HBCUs. As with its peer institutions, the practices
employed by the university were not leading to retention and graduation, students were failing to
persist. Due to decreasing enrollment rates, declining retention rates, and low graduation rates,
peer institutions have been closing their academic doors (Harper & Harper, 2006; Murphy &
Hicks, 2006). Historically, Black Colleges and Universities have worked “uniquely” with the
first-generation and provisional student populations (Harper & Harper, 2006; Murphy & Hicks,
2006). These institutions are attracting first-generation and provisional students to HBCUs. In
addition, once the students are enrolled, these colleges and universities are working in unusual
ways to support the needs of the students.
It is important to place the presenting problem in its historical context. At the end of the
Civil War, HBCUs served as the only path to higher education for the Black community
(Harmon, 2012). In 1862, the Morrill Land-Grant Act was passed to promote agriculture
sciences and mechanical arts education in the United States (Harper, Patton, & Wooden, 2009;
White House Initiative on HBCUs, 2015). According to Harper et al. (2009), in 1890, the
second Morrill Act was established to challenge the discriminatory admissions practices in the
formerly Confederate states. Harper et al. (2009) and the White House Initiative on HBCUs
(2015) stated that land-grant legal status was extended to HBCUs at this time. The states were
given a choice to either admit African Americans or create separate institutions (White House
Initiative on HBCUs, 2015). Thus, HBCUs became the predominant path to higher education for
the Black community (Murphy & Hicks, 2006). Many HBCUs have continued to serve as a
refuge for Black students seeking the HBCU experience and the kinship that is forged between
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 14

matriculating students (Harper & Harper, 2006). In fact, today, there are 105 HBCUs. While
HBCUs make up only 3% of all colleges and universities nationwide, they enroll 16% of all
Black students attending higher education institutions (Harmon, 2012). HBCUs have continued
to benefit from federal financial support (Harper & Harper, 2006; White House Initiative on
HBCUS, 2015).
Yet, the current climate in Washington, D.C. threatens HBCUs’ ability to continue the
work they have been doing for 150 years. The current administration has sent mixed messages
about the value of the work being done by HBCUs. On the one hand, the President held a
meeting with presidents from across the HBCUs, ostensibly in an effort to show support for the
work done by their universities and his belief that educating African Americans is important
(Kreighbaum, 2017). Moreover, according to Kreighbaum (2017), “institutional aid was
preserved in the White House budget.” On the other hand, Kreighbaum (2017) also noted that
the President’s budget proposed “significant cuts to programs that serve disproportionate
numbers of minority students at HBCUs” (p. 1).
In the next section of the chapter, I present the Organizational Context and Mission, the
Organizational Performance Status, the Related Literature, Address the Importance of the
Problem, the Organizational Performance Goal, furnished a description of the Stakeholder
Groups, explained the Purpose of the Project and Question, outlined the Methodological
Framework, and provided Definitions of the study’s keywords.
Organizational Context and Mission
The name of the Historical Black University that I focused on was United University
(UU), located in the Southern portion of the United States. UU is a 4-year, private higher
education institution. The mission of UU, as published in the Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 (2012)
is:
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 15

United University is nourished by its heritage and energized by a commitment to
excellence and diversity. Its mission is to: 1) Provide an intellectually challenging and
spiritually enriching environment for learning; 2) Empower students to develop values
for success; and 3) Develop scholars, leaders, and lifelong learners of a global society.
(p. 4)
As articulated in the Strategic Plan, 2012-2017, “United University is a liberal arts
institution of higher education and center of excellence for the preparation of students and the
development of leaders” (p. 4). UU is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools (UU Quick Facts, 2013). There are four undergraduate Academic Schools within the
University: The School of Business; the School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology; the
School of Education, Psychology, Social Work and Interdisciplinary Studies; and the School of
Humanities and Social Sciences.
UU is one of the nation’s oldest HBCUs, founded in 1865 (UU Quick Facts, 2013). The
University was originally established on a jail site, located in the Southern portion of the United
States (UU Quick Facts, 2013). The jail was originally a holding cell for runaway slaves. UU
was founded after the merger of two older schools. Later, the first college for African-American
Women and another college would merge with the former institutions, now recognized as UU
(UU Quick Facts, 2013).
At the time of this study, approximately 1,700 students attended UU annually, which
included 400 graduate students in the School of Theology (College Navigator, 2013). The
majority of undergraduate students matriculating at UU were recent secondary education
graduates/post-secondary age students between the ages of 17-24, with 92% under the age of 24
(College Navigator, 2013). According to UU, Fall 2015 data disclosed that the first-generation
population was 35% at the institution (UU Quick Facts, 2015). The institution was an HBCU
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 16

with 95% of undergraduate students identified as Black or African American (College
Navigator, 2013). Upon reviewing the Fall 2015 statistical breakdown of gender at UU, 55% of
the students were female and 45% of the students were male (College Navigator, 2013).
Organizational Performance Goal
The educational problem at UU was the retention of students at the HBCU (College
Navigator, 2013). The related performance goal for the institution was written in the
institution’s strategic plan: by August 2017, “it is expected that the average retention rate for
second year students will increase to 70%” (UU Strategic Plan, 2012, p. 14).
The last publicly available data revealed that the retention rate
1
at UU was 50% and at the
time of the new strategic plan, the goal of increasing retention by 20% was the future forecast
(College Navigator, 2013; UU Strategic Plan, 2012). The present organizational performance
status represented a 20% gap toward the attainment of the 70% retention rate goal for second
year students (UU Strategic Plan, 2012). In order to fulfill the vision and mission of the
University, the successful development and matriculation of students, it was incumbent upon UU
to work toward meeting measurable Strategic Plan initiatives.
Related Literature
To support students who were at risk of not persisting, UU developed a program called
Scholastic Achievers. The program supported approximately 18% of entering freshman who had
been identified as needing additional resources in order to persist through the first year.
According to the Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Special Programs at UU, 80.4%
or 66 students out of the 82 Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort were classified as first-
generation college students (UU Quick Facts, 2015). Thus, it was essential to emphasize first-

1
Retention rates measured the percentage of first-time students who were seeking bachelor’s degrees who returned
to the institution to continue their studies the following Fall (College Navigator, 2013).
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 17

generation college students as part of the reviewed literature. In addition, literature on low-
income students was also included as students who do not persist are also often coming from
low-income environments.
Cholo (2014) indicated that 30% of entering freshmen in the United States are first-
generation college students. Moreover, according to Cholo (2014), 50% of the entire college
population was made up of first-generation college students. HBCUs traditionally recruit first-
generation college students or students whose parents did not receive education beyond the high
school diploma (Harper & Harper, 2006). This continues today albeit with a smaller percentage
of HBCU students falling in this category (Harper & Harper, 2006).
Murphy and Hicks (2006) examined the variance in academic expectations of first-
generation undergraduates attending a doctoral-granting, public 4-year historically Black
university. According to Murphy and Hicks (2006), a multitude of factors impeded the success
of first-generation students: poor pre-college preparation, lower career aspirations, lack of family
support, lack of faculty and peer support, fear of the college environment, and poor study skills
or habits, decrease rates of degree attainment. They suggested that promoting support services
with this specific population was instrumental to students effectively maneuvering amidst the
halls of academia at HBCUs in the 21
st
Century.
HBCUs draw more low-income and first-generation students than majority institutions
(Harper & Harper, 2006; Lum, 2012; Murphy & Hicks, 2006). Approximately 89% of low-
income first-generation students leave college within 6 years without a degree (Cholo, 2014),
with more than a quarter leaving after their first year. The existing trend created a dropout rate
four-times that of higher-income, second-generation college students (Cholo, 2014).

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 18

Importance of the Problem
The problem of retention at UU was important to solve for a variety of reasons. The
White House Initiative on HBCUs (2015) promoted “excellence, innovation, and sustainability”
within these respective institutions. The very existence of the White House Initiative on HBCUs
(2015) signaled the importance of keeping these institutions open and one way to do this was to
improve retention rates. As U.S. citizens, equal opportunity in higher education is strengthened
by the existence of HBCUs (Harmon, 2012). HBCUs are representative of the American dream
and educational opportunity (Harmon, 2012; Harper & Harper, 2006; Murphy & Hicks, 2006).
As one of the remaining HBCUs and celebrating 152 years of offering a corridor to higher
education, it was important that UU continued to thrive and serve as a place to foster the
American dream, facilitating educational opportunities for some students who are likely to need
the additional support that they could receive from an HBCU.
In the Fall of 2015, 17.9% or 82 out of 456 first-year freshman students were
provisionally admitted to UU (UU Quick Facts, 2015). According to the Office of Institutional
Research, Planning, and Special Programs at UU, the Fall 2016 retention rate for Scholastic
Achievers was 54.8% or 45 students out of the original 82 Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers
Cohort returned to UU for the Fall 2016 semester (UU Quick Facts, 2016). The provisional
students at UU were identified as Scholastic Achievers and were a critical cog in the cyclical
wheel of retention and graduation best practices at HBCUs. As suggested by Harper and Harper
(2006) and Murphy and Hicks (2006), targeting early retention measures and engendering an
attitude of “persistence” among students supported campus-wide matriculation efforts.
According to the UU Strategic Plan (2012), “These challenges are welcomed with an
uncompromising commitment to sustaining the future of United University with a pledge to
students at the core of its mission” (p. 5). Moreover, “UU contributes to the social, cultural,
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 19

economic and environmental vitality of the community, the state, and the nation” (UU Strategic
Plan, 2012, p. 5).
The data provided by the Office of the President at UU and the Office of Institutional
Research, Planning, and Special Programs at UU via College Navigator (2013) informed
University stakeholders about the significance of the project. The current retention and
graduation practices of HBCUs are an existing educational problem (Harper & Harper, 2006;
Murphy & Hicks, 2006). The significance of the project was to work toward the attainment of
the 70% retention rate goal for second year students (UU Strategic Plan, 2012). The importance
of solving the problem was to ameliorate opportunities for students to succeed at UU.
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
There are three stakeholder groups that played a role in the retention of Scholastic
Achievers. I described each group as the individuals directly contributed to and benefitted from
the achievement of the organization’s goal. The Scholastic Achievers population at UU was the
first stakeholder group identified. The acceptance of provisionally admitted students had
steadily increased at UU (College Navigator, 2013). At a time of declining enrollment, UU
chose to accept more provisional students to maintain enrollment numbers (College Navigator,
2013). With an increase in the provisional student population at UU, an additional set of
challenges had become readily apparent. Maintaining and increasing retention rates, while
accepting more provisional students demanded UU to position and deposit the appropriate
resources and services to handle the academic needs of the Scholastic Achievers population.
Again, the Fall 2015 provisional student population at UU was 17.9% or 82 out of 456 first year
freshman students were provisionally admitted (UU Quick Facts, 2015). According to the
Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Special Programs at UU, the Fall 2016 retention
rate was 54.8% or 45 students out of the original 82 Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 20

returned for the Fall 2016 semester (UU Quick Facts, 2016). The Fall 2015 Scholastic
Achievers Cohort consisted of 80.4% first-generation college students or 66 out the 82 Fall 2015
Scholastic Achievers Cohort were first-generation college students. Scholastic Achievers were
provisional students who were admitted to UU with a high school GPA ranging between a 2.0
and 2.29. The retention of the Scholastic Achievers population at UU contributed to the
successful matriculation of the targeted group of students from freshman year to sophomore year
and the organizational goal to increase the average retention rate from 50% to 70% for second
year students. The next stakeholder group was the Center for Student Success (CSS) at UU.
Coordination and administration of the Scholastic Achievers program was under the direction of
CSS and facilitated by the department’s Retention Coordinator. Goals and objectives were
designed to meet UU’s organizational goal to increase the average retention rate for second year
students from 50% to 70%. The final stakeholder group was the Division of Academic Affairs at
UU. The Division of Academic Affairs supervised the CSS department and monitored the
Scholastic Achievers program. The director of the CSS department and the Retention
Coordinator reported to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, Assistant Vice President for
Academic Affairs, and the Vice President for Institutional Research, Planning, and Special
Programs and addressed the matriculation of the Scholastic Achievers population at UU,
implementing initiatives to attain the organizational goal to increase the average retention rate
for second year students from 50% to 70%.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 21

Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission

Mission Statement

United University is nourished by its heritage and
energized by a commitment to excellence and diversity.

Its mission is to:
1. Provide an intellectually challenging and spiritually enriching environment for learning;
2. Empower students to develop values for success; and
3. Develop scholars, leaders, and lifelong learners of a global society.

To accomplish this mission, United University offers a broad range of educational opportunities
that advance liberal arts education, teaching, research, science, technology, continuing education,
civic engagement, and international experiences
(UU Strategic Plan, 2012).
Organizational Performance Goal

It is expected that the average retention rate for second year students at United University will
increase to 70% by August 2017 (UU Strategic Plan, 2012).

Scholastic Achievers
(2.0-2.29 high
school GPA)
Center for Student Success Division of Academic Affairs
By August 2016, 60% of the
Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers
population would earn 30
credit hours and a minimum
GPA of a 2.5 or above by the
end of the freshman year.
By August 2015, 100% of the
faculty/staff members
assigned to the Center for
Student Success would
construct and execute five
academic interventions to
address the educational goals
and objectives of the
Scholastic Achievers
program, integrating
initiatives throughout the
By August 2015, 100% of the
administrators assigned to the
Division of Academic Affairs
would generate and implement
five retention strategies to
support the successful
matriculation of the Scholastic
Achievers population
throughout the academic year,
directing faculty and staff to
interactively collaborate with
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 22

academic year to achieve
organizational goals.
the Center for Student Success,
the UU Retention Coordinator,
and the Scholastic Achievers
Cohort to achieve
organizational goals.

Stakeholder for the Study and Stakeholder Performance Goal
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders would contribute to the achievement of the
overall organizational goal of a 50% to 70% average retention rate increase for second year
students at UU by August 2017 (UU Strategic Plan, 2012), it was important to understand the
perception of what supported or impeded the ability of Scholastic Achievers to persist at the
institution and to successfully matriculate to the second year of college at UU. Therefore, the
stakeholders of focus for this study were the Scholastic Achievers population at UU. The
stakeholders’ goal, supported by the CSS department and the Division of Academic Affairs was
that by August 2016, 60% of the fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers population would earn 30 credit
hours and a minimum GPA of a 2.5 GPA or above by the end of the freshman year. Students
must earn a minimum of 30 credit hours to be classified as a sophomore student at UU. The 2.5
GPA goal was based on a 4.0 GPA calculation scale. Failure to accomplish this goal would lead
to the persistence of low retention, adversely impacting the organization’s graduation rates and
organizational goals. The retention of the Scholastic Achievers population at UU affected the
organization’s overall goal to increase the average retention rate from 50% to 70% for second
year students by August 2017.
Again, the Fall 2015 provisional student population at UU was 17.9% or 82 out of 456
first-year freshman students were provisionally admitted (UU Quick Facts, 2015). According to
the Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Special Programs at UU, the Fall 2016
retention rate was 54.8% or 45 students out of the original 82 Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 23

Cohort returned for the Fall 2016 semester (UU Quick Facts, 2016). The Fall 2015 Scholastic
Achievers Cohort consisted of 80.4% first-generation college students or 66 out the 82 Fall 2015
Scholastic Achievers Cohort were first-generation college students (UU Quick Facts, 2015).
Purpose of the Project and Question
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to
examine the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that interfered with
the retention of provisional students identified as Scholastic Achievers at UU, specifically from
the freshman year to the sophomore year in college. The analysis began by generating a list of
possible or assumed interfering elements and then examined these systematically and focused on
actual or validated interfering elements. While complete gap analysis would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder focused on in this analysis was the
provisional student population at UU, identified as Scholastic Achievers. The retention of the
targeted stakeholder group, the provisional student population at UU or Scholastic Achievers,
represented the performance problem of practice (College Navigator, 2013).
As such, the question that guided this study was the following:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that
influence the retention of United University’s provisionally admitted students
identified as Scholastic Achievers?
Methodological Framework
The educational problem at UU was the retention of students at the University (College
Navigator, 2013). Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework was utilized in conjunction
with what was known about persistence for Black and other historically marginalized students to
understand the performance gap at UU and the retention of students from freshman year to
sophomore year. As previously noted, the acceptance of provisionally admitted students had
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 24

steadily increased at UU (College Navigator, 2013). The related performance goal for the
institution was written in the institution’s strategic plan: by August 2017, “it is expected that the
average retention rate for second year students will increase to 70%” (UU Strategic Plan, 2012,
p. 14).
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helped to
clarify organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization was employed as part of the larger study
approach. Assumed interfering elements were generated based on professional knowledge and
related literature. I used an interview guide protocol as my data collection technique. This study
imparted, revealed, and generated findings to assess the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational performance outcomes of participants in the Scholastic Achievers program at UU,
which will be communicated to invested stakeholders at the conclusion of the study. The long-
term expected outcomes relevant to the problem of practice are targeted to address the
organizational problem—the retention of students at UU—a HBCU (College Navigator, 2013).
Definitions
Center for Student Success (CSS)- Retention Coordinator’s department at United University
(CSS Standard Operating Procedure, 2015).
First-generation College Student- Students whose parents did not receive education beyond the
high school diploma (Murphy & Hicks, 2006).
Historically Black College and University (HBCU)- In order to teach the uneducated Black
American population, and later the undereducated Black American/minority population,
Historically Black Colleges and Universities burgeoned across the U.S. following the federal
repeal of slavery. The Higher Education Act of 1965 defines an HBCU as “…any college that
was established prior to 1964, whose principal mission was, and is, the education of black
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 25

Americans, and that is accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or association
determined by the Secretary of Education…” (Harmon, 2012; Harper & Harper, 2006; Lum,
2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2015, p. 1).
Provisional Student- Students admitted to UU with a high school GPA between 2.0-2.29.
Retention- Retention rates measure the percentage of first-time students who are seeking
bachelor's degrees who return to the institution to continue their studies the following fall
(College Navigator, 2013).
Scholastic Achiever- Provisional population at United University, entered institution with 2.00-
2.29 high school GPA.
United University- UU.
University of Southern California- USC.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this dissertation. This chapter provided the reader with
the key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about the provisional student
population and the retention rate for second year college students. The organization’s mission,
goals and stakeholders as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis were introduced. Chapter
Two provides a review of relevant literature surrounding the scope of the study and the assumed
interfering knowledge, motivation and organizational elements. Chapter Three details the
methodology pertaining to the choice of study participants, data collection, and analysis.
Chapter Four presents the findings and data analysis. Chapter Five offers the solutions,
implementation and evaluation recommendations.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 26

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This literature review examined the root causes of gaps in the implementation of the
Scholastic Achievers program at United University (UU). The review begins with the
importance of provisional admission programs at colleges and universities to expand 4-year
college access and to strengthen the academic skills and persistence of underprepared students.
This is followed by an overview of provisional student characteristics and demographics at
colleges and universities, provisional admission program models and practices at colleges and
universities, and provisional admission programs and organizational leadership.
The review presents an in-depth discussion on research-based and research-tested post-
secondary collegiate readiness, high school to college transition strategies, Summer Bridge
programs, first-year experience programs, learning communities/cohorts, student engagement,
institutional commitment, and institutional persistence. This section included research on
knowledge of faculty/student relationships, faculty/student communication, learning outcome
assessment influences, academic advising systems, academic mentoring roles, provisional
admission program initiatives, and provisional admission program resources.
Finally, the review highlighted research on college retention rates, degree completion
rates, and college matriculation, providing insights into the assumed organizational causes
contributing to gaps in the implementation of the Scholastic Achievers program. The literature
review concludes with a description of the Scholastic Achievers AIM for Excellence:
Achievement, Involvement, and Motivation program at UU, designed to support the provisional
student population. A summary of the assumed knowledge and skills, motivation and
organizational gaps is outlined. Moreover, the need for further research is established.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 27

Literature Related to Provisional Student Persistence
Some of the assumed and identified knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
causes influencing the academic achievements of Scholastic Achievers are those that have been
identified in the persistence literature for students who are known to encounter persistence
challenges. Thus, related literature is presented below and is categorized by relevant headings.
Provisional Admission Programs at Colleges and Universities
Provisional admission characteristics and demographics at colleges and universities. Tinto
(1988) studied Stages of Student Departure, reflecting on the longitudinal character of student
leaving. The author traced the Rites of Passage through the lens of social anthropology and
Dutch anthropologist Arnold Van Gennep. The process of establishing memberships in
traditional societies stems from Van Gennep’s work with tribal societies and “the movement of
individuals and societies through time and with the mechanisms which promote social stability in
times of change” (p. 440). The area of study most related to Scholastic Achievers and the
process of student departure concentrated on the movement of individuals from membership in
one group to membership in another group.
Tinto (1988) recounted how Van Gennep’s work allows one to reflect upon the
longitudinal process of student persistence within the college environment. The author relayed
that college students move from one community or set of communities (high school and family)
to another community within the confines of the collegiate domain. College students like those
of the tribal societies “must separate themselves, to some degree, from past associations in order
to make the transition to eventual incorporation in the life of the college” (p. 442). Hence, in the
midst of these transitions, difficulties are encountered, reflecting shifts of community
membership from individual personality clashes or institutional membership tribulations. Tinto
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 28

(1988) stated that becoming a new member of a community or becoming a new student in
college decrees permitting the new setting to become your home away from home (academically
and socially). Resolve and institutional persistence are required, “separation, transition, and
incorporation” must be traveled through as stages or passages in order for the student to
complete his or her degree program (p. 442).
Tinto (1988) expressed that the first year and definitely, the first semester, were critical to
student persistence and degree completion. The UU Retention Coordinator worked intrusively
with the Scholastic Achievers Cohort during this consequential period in the collegiate career of
the provisionally admitted student. Tinto (1988) reported that institutional policies must be
sensitive to the separation and transitional dilemmas of new students. Tinto (1988) said, “Long-
term academic and social assistance is required during the first months of the college career”
(p. 451).
First year programs and the provisional student at colleges and universities. In 2012, The
University of New Orleans (UNO) created the Office of First Year Experience (FYE) to combat
a freshman retention problem and persistence data. Hoffshire, Ralston, and Lacho (2013) stated
that the retention of students was a principal factor in the invaluable attainment of a bachelor’s
degree. The authors reported that only 50% of those who enter college eventually earn a
bachelor’s degree, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Center for Education
Statistics. The Office of First Year Experience in the Office of Enrollment Services at UNO
initially opened with a Director of First Year Experience and three Student Success Counselors.
The Office of Enrollment Services operated within the Division of Student Affairs and
Enrollment Management, working collaboratively with the Admissions and New Student
Orientation offices.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 29

The key role of the Office of First Year Experience was to offer a diverse array of
services to all first year and transfer students throughout their freshman at UNO, assisting new
students in their transition to the college environment. The office staff referred students to the
resources available on campus, providing information to freshman students, academic coaching
throughout the semester, as well as offering student outreach programming initiatives through a
variety of University departments. Hoffshire et al. (2013) stated that the Office of First Year
Experience was considered a “one-stop-shop” for new and first year student needs. First Year
Experience staff visited freshman level courses, meet with faculty, college deans, and advisors,
while planning programs and events in collaboration with other departments. “Start Strong
Fest,” a collaboration with Student Affairs, Career Services, and Financial Aid connected first-
time students with requisite university resources during the first month of classes.
Another event led by the First Year Experience (FYE) staff at UNO named “Into the
Halls,” invited and encouraged faculty and staff members to visit student residence halls (more
than 30 participated). Faculty and staff at UNO spoke with students about available campus
resource services. UNO programs were continually assessed, developed, and evaluated by
administrators. Furthermore, the FYE office spearheaded an Academic Re-Boot Camp with
workshops held for students to work with Student Success Counselors. The goal was to increase
student motivation, time management, and classroom preparedness skills. Extended academic
coaching opportunities are announced as well to reinvigorate student learning and motivation.
Provisional admission and accountability at HBCUs. According to W. Edwards Deming in
Senge (1990), “people are born with… motivation, self-esteem, dignity, curiosity to learn, joy in
learning” (p. 7). Senge (1990) wrote, “the natural energy for changing reality comes from
holding a picture of might be that is more important to people than what is” (p. 9).
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 30

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) traditionally recruited first-
generation college students or students whose parents did not receive education beyond the high
school diploma (Harper & Harper, 2006). According to Murphy and Hicks (2006), a multitude
of factors impeded the success of first-generation students: poor pre-college preparation, lower
career aspirations, lack of family support, lack of faculty and peer support, fear of the college
environment, poor study skills or habits, and decreasing rates of degree attainment; one might
contemplate the role of professional accountability in education (Burke, 2004). Support services
should specifically be promoted with this targeted population of students. These earmarked
sources of help and assistance are instrumental to effectively maneuvering amidst the halls of
academia at HBCUs in the 21
st
Century, suggest Murphy and Hicks (2006).
Amid the enrollment climate, HBCUs examined the best strategies to surmount the lack
of post-secondary preparation at the collegiate level for “market and professional accountability”
purposes (Burke, 2004). HBCUs worked uniquely with the first-generation and provisional
student populations (Harper & Harper, 2006; Murphy & Hicks, 2006), which represented
“market accountability” objectives (Burke, 2004). Inclusion and the acknowledgement of an
existing achievement gap opens the lens of equal opportunity and equal access or closes the lens
by promoting exclusionary customs and distinct advantages for one group versus another at a
given institution.
There are dangers to the myopic single story stance, igniting sovereignty among the
dominant group. The professoriate must not be complicit in their respective positions but
embrace accountability mechanisms, improving access and equity for all students. A heightened
level of engagement and an amplified meter of critical consciousness must be ingrained within
University educators to vanquish the performance level disparities of first-generation college
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 31

students and the provisional student population, reckoning alignment with professional
accountability (Burke, 2004; Green, 2015; Tambiasca, 2015).
The White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities promoted
continual “excellence, innovation, and sustainability” at HBCUs (Harmon, 2012), kindling
bureaucratic and political accountability venues (Burke, 2004). As U.S. citizens, equal
opportunity in higher education was strengthened by the existence of Historically Black Colleges
and Universities; providing optimism and the prospect of academic promise to the first-
generation, provisionally admitted, low socioeconomic status college student (Harmon, 2012).
According to Filback and Green (2013), unique leadership opportunities flourished for Schools
of Education within higher education institutions’ considering “mandates to serve all learners…”
(p. 12), rousing a “market and professional accountability” platform (Burke, 2004). The authors
embraced challenging preliminary assumptions and reflecting on our own biases as it relates to
“who can or cannot succeed in school” (p. 13).
Concerted Student Retention Efforts in Higher Education
Provisional admission program models and practices at colleges and universities. Tinto
(2006) provided a historical perspective on student retention initiatives in higher education. Five
decades ago student attrition was studied from the viewpoint of psychology. Student retention
related to “individual attributes, skills, and motivation” (p. 2). The onus was on the students and
a “blame the victim” versus the institution mentality prevailed. According to Tinto (2006), the
landscape changed in the 1970’s, due to a better understanding of the relationships between
individuals and society. Hence, the environment received consideration and the role that the
institution played in student persistence decisions (academic and social systems of the
institution). Tinto (2006) moved into present-day discussions and reflected an emphasis on
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 32

classroom practices, student learning, student persistence, and the influence of institutional
investments in faculty and staff development programs on student learning outcomes.
Institutional efforts to increase student retention were pivotal to the practice of faculty
and staff development programs. Faculty pedagogy and its link to student retention were hailed
as central areas for continued retention research. Tinto (2006) acknowledged the impact of
learning communities on student retention and the practices that ignited student persistence. The
author tackled varying institutional actions and specific programs and practices that led to
effective organizational programs for students, weathering organizational policies while inviting
prevalent student retention measures.
Curtis and Underwood (2013) illustrated an example at The University of North Carolina
at Wilmington (UNCW), developing the Pre-Orientation Registration Process (PORP) to work
with incoming students to adjust registration issues, including providing curriculum information
prior to students’ arrival on campus. The University College Coordinator of Orientation
Programming at UNCW sought the assistance of other institutional offices, such as the Office of
Admissions, the College of Arts and Sciences, the Information Technology Services Division,
the Registrar’s Office, Student Accounts, and Transition Programs designed and implemented in
the three-pilot phase Pre-Orientation Registration Process (PORP) over Fall 2010, Spring 2011
and Fall 2011.
Selected groups of incoming freshmen received an invitation to participate in PORP.
Students were required to complete an online tutorial, and then had a week to register for classes
prior to attending orientation. In addition, students had phone and e-mail access to advisors
during the registration open-window week. Students are currently able to register prior to the
beginning of freshman orientation due to the successful piloting of PORP and the incorporation
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 33

of New Student Orientation strategies, allowing on-campus computer labs to avoid the former
networking problems that occurred (Curtis & Underwood, 2013).
In 2000, Duke University developed a “book-bagging” web-based registration system
concept, now the model for pre-orientation registration programming. Before students met with
an academic advisor, they were given an online “book bag” and were required to fill it with
courses that meet established policy limitations (no time conflicts, course availability,
prerequisites, etc., as connected to course scheduling). Prior to the traditional on-campus
freshmen orientation program, information and tools such as online tutorial systems that
“educated, prepared, and permitted” students to register online accelerated the process before the
arrival of students for the semester (Curtis & Underwood, 2013).
Institutional commitment to the attainment of a college degree. In the Pell Institute for the
Study of Opportunity in Higher Education article, Tinto (2006) described the disproportionately
academically underprepared student and the role that developmental education should play in
institutional retention strategies. The author referenced how “access to higher education has
increased but greater equality in the attainment of 4-year college degrees has not followed suit;
higher education has become a revolving door, the promise of a Bachelor’s degree unfulfilled”
(p. 12).
Too few institutions were willing to commit needed resources and address the deeper
structural issues that ultimately shaped student persistence. They were willing to append
retention efforts to their ongoing activities, but much less willing to alter those activities in ways
that addressed the deeper roots of student attrition. According to Tinto (2006), “while most
faculty members are willing to publicly proclaim the importance of retaining each and every
student, they typically do not see retaining students as their job” (p. 9).
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 34

Tinto (2006) stated that at the root of student retention was successful student education,
which was the job of faculty. The conversations about student retention needed to switch to a
dialogue about the actions that could support student education in turn improving student
learning, recommended Tinto (2006). Aligned institutional reward systems to promote behaviors
that reinforced student retention goals and invested resources that adopted faculty and staff
reward systems were additional suggestions proposed by the author.
The new student days program. Perrine and Spain (2008) at Eastern Kentucky University asked
if orientation programs benefitted institutions in non-obvious ways. Freshmen orientation
programs were implemented to increase students’ commitment to college, which can affect
retention, suggested Perrine and Spain (2008). The authors relayed that orientation programs
were designed to aid in student transition and to enhance student success by familiarizing
incoming students to college life.
The New Student Days Program at Eastern Kentucky University was designed to
encourage social and academic integration of all incoming freshman into the university
community. Resuming the discussion on UNO’s incoming student retention efforts, the Office
of First Year Experience worked with first-time freshman students through New Student Days,
Mentoring Programs, and Academic Success Committees and found that freshman orientation
classes seem to be one component of strong retention programs, aiding the student’s assimilation
into college life (Hoffshire et al., 2013). Cross-divisional partnerships circumvent the abyss of
silos to advance the institution and its goals.
Davig and Spain (2004) postulated that a persistent question remained, concerning how
to select the most effective orientation course requirements related to college adjustment and
integration into the institution. The freshman academic orientation course or General Studies
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 35

Orientation (GSO 100) was an example of one of the targeted curricular enterprises at Eastern
Kentucky comparable to University 1001 or University Success at UNO where Student Success
Counselors facilitated the curriculum. At Eastern Kentucky University and UNO, the academic
orientation course was one-credit-hour and held weekly throughout the fall and spring semesters
for first-time College students.
Tinto’s stage model of persistence. Perrine and Spain (2008) wrote that many freshman
orientation programs are based on the work of Tinto (1975). The students’ feelings of
connection with the institution should influence college persistence, according to Perrine and
Spain (2008). Moreover, Davig and Spain (2004) discussed the seminal work of Tinto’s “stage
model of persistence” and “student integration model” (1975, 1993), pertaining to “intentional”
orientation course topics and activities. Daddona (2000) shared that for over 100 years colleges
and universities had designed and implemented programs to help alleviate “freshman
disorientation.” Daddona and Cooper (2002), as Perrine and Spain (2008), asserted that
orientation programs were a “jumpstart” for incoming college freshman, serving as momentum
for programs to provide services and resources to aid in the transition of the first-year college
student.
One addendum, Daddona (2000) admitted that freshmen needs and concerns that were
not met during similar orientation programs, in addition to the other needs that surfaced during
the first several weeks of school, allowed for future opportunities to develop activities and
programs to assist students in the areas that manifested throughout the critical freshman year.
Moreover, Murphy and Hicks (2006) concurred with Daddona and Cooper (2002), developed
and implemented orientation programs lasting throughout the academic year could engender in
students an attitude of persistence.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 36

Leadership and communication in higher education. The following leadership values were
indispensable at the inception of building relationships and setting the stage for accomplishment
and triumph in the heightened corridors of academic excellence in a collegiate environment. The
following was adapted from Bennis and Goldsmith (2010):
Clear communication (strong value); How could I have been clearer about my
performance expectations for my students? What were the guidelines for the results I
wanted my students to achieve? How were the goals of the classroom communicated?
Could the goals of the classroom have been communicated more powerfully? What
ethical principles did I value most in myself and in my students? How could I have
increased my capacity to support diversity in my classroom? How could I have
encouraged greater diversity in my organization in positions of influence and power?
How could I recognize the achievements of my students more effectively, in or outside of
the classroom? What could one do to effectively empower students and colleagues in
CSS, the Division of Academic Affairs, and throughout UU? (pp. 30-35)
According to Senge in Lakos and Phipps (2004), one must “continually enhance the
capacity to create what one wants to create” in the classroom (p. 347). The authors conveyed
that educators now emphasized student-learning outcomes and using assessment as a means for
improvement in teaching and learning. “Total quality management in the classroom is the “key
lever for creating an institutional culture of improvement and inquiry…” (Lakos & Phipps,
2004, p. 349).
Hence, Lakos and Phipps (2004) asked about performance ethic. The Retention
Coordinator must be “continuously committed to assessment work, understanding its
importance” to the success of the classroom and the organization (p. 352). Classroom priorities
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 37

shall center around engagement, motivation, and feedback, capitalizing on the articulated
organizational goals and expectations. Lakos and Phipps (2004) stated, “goal attainment is a
shared responsibility” (p. 356).
Benchmarking, access, and support and the provisionally admitted student. In reviewing the
Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education report on Provisional Admission
Practices: Blending Access and Support to Facilitate Student Success (Nichols & Clinedinst,
2013), I examined the institutional profiles of California State University-Stanislaus, Fayetteville
State University in North Carolina, and Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina. The
designated institutions worked closely with the provisional student population by mandating
attendance during the respective Summer Bridge programs. They provided intentional academic
counseling, academic tutoring, and require provisionally admitted students to utilize the
resources and support services readily available to the target population. Provisional students
were selected either by program directors (California-Stanislaus, Winthrop University) or
through the Office of Enrollment Management/Admissions (Fayetteville State, United
University).
At UU, provisional students were identified as Scholastic Achievers. The program was
officially titled Scholastic Achievers Aim for Excellence: Achievement, Involvement, and
Motivation (AIM). The program was a component of the retention efforts in the CSS department
at UU, a department within the Division of Academic Affairs. At California-Stanislaus, the
director of Retention and Advising Services supervised the Educational Opportunity Program
(EOP) and administered the provisional admission program. Fayetteville State, like California-
Stanislaus, Winthrop, and UU, created a program name and/or acronym to identify provisional
students. The CHEER Scholars Program was coordinated by an assistant professor of English at
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 38

Fayetteville State University and the acronym stands for Creating Higher Expectations for
Educational Readiness. The provisional admission program at Winthrop University was titled
Learning Excellent Academic Practices (LEAP). The program, directed by an associate
professor of Math, was housed within the institution’s University College.
Fayetteville State University was the only HBCU highlighted other than UU.
Historically speaking, the American Baptist Home Mission Society founded UU in 1865 after the
end of the Civil War to educate freed slaves (UU Quick Facts, 2013). California-Stanislaus and
Winthrop University were not predominately Black institutions. Furthermore, the undergraduate
population of the other three institutions was between 5,000-7,000 students (California-
Stanislaus, Fayetteville State, and Winthrop). UU’s undergraduate population was a little over
1,300 students. Nevertheless, each of the four institutions proactively directed monies,
resources, and services to “assist students with the academic and social transition from high
school to college” (Nichols & Clinedinst, 2013, p. 17). At California-Stanislaus and Fayetteville
State, the provisional admission summer programs were free of charge to students. Winthrop
University assessed a nominal program fee to help cover program costs but UU’s program price
was $2,000, which until recently did not include books. Weekend excursion activities were
available to students for non-curricular social interaction but most require additional out-of-
pocket expenses incurred by program participants.
Once provisional students met Summer Bridge program requirements upon successful
completion of the summer academy, students were then fully admitted into the respective
institutions (California-Stanislaus, Fayetteville State, and UU). Yet, at Winthrop University,
previously admitted provisional students were required to take Principles of the Learning
Academy (ACAD 101) during the fall semester.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 39

Measurable outcomes at UU. Returning to accountability, which lay in analyzing the academic
records of provisionally admitted students at the end of the first semester and again at the close
of the freshman year, an infrastructure was imperative to maintain the momentum of the Summer
Bridge program. Here are some of the performance indicators: Has the former provisional
student maintained satisfactory academic progress? Has the former provisional student
capitalized on support services and outside classroom learning opportunities (Academic Student
Engagement Sessions, sign-in logs)? Has the former provisional student earned the amount of
credit hours necessary to reach sophomore classification status (30)? Has the former provisional
student returned for his or her second semester at UU? Has the former provisional student
returned for his or her sophomore year at UU? Has the former provisional student engaged in
extracurricular activities during freshman year (Freshman Experience, sign-in logs)? Has the
former provisional student met monthly with an upper-class mentor during freshman year (Peer
Advisory Leadership Students, sign-in logs)?
The enrollment management practices of peer institutions, related to high school GPA,
SAT/ACT guidelines, recommendation letters, supplementary provisional student essay
requirements (UU), first-generation college student status, low-income student considerations,
and the cost or non-costs attached to program initiatives, were some of the pertinent facets of
provisional admission. Meanwhile, other peer institutions had dissimilar provisional admission
prerequisites. Next, we looked at the curriculum of the Summer Bridge programs, the peer
institutions taught math and English and held study hall sessions or subject lab hours during
provisional programs as well. However, UU offered a third curriculum course, College
Orientation or GST 007: Scholastic Seminar (7 credit hours can be earned during the Summer
Bridge program). Peer institutions selectively determined which and how many credit hour
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 40

courses were offered during the duration of the summer programs. Program administrators and
Summer Bridge staff deliberated the course options and personnel hiring decisions. Ancillary
conventions of interest included, how many students were able to attend (enrollment cap), cut off
application dates, residency requirements (summer program, home on weekends), and length of
the provisional student program. Responses to these questions empowered the Retention
Coordinator who contemplated restructuring the Scholastic Achievers program throughout the
summer months and academic year at UU.
Equitable academic, personal, and social supports to engage and connect provisionally
admitted students to cultivate persistence. Conner and Rabovsky (2011) reviewed
“intergenerational equity” or the distribution of resources to ensure equity across generations in
contrast to “vertical equity,” which combats unequal policies targeting unequal groups (p. 102).
The authors summarized by bridging the magnitude of “access and success to a quality education
beyond high school for students of all backgrounds, in exposing disparities in our society and the
growing gaps in higher education inequities” (p. 106).
Tinto (2012) reiterated that academic support was critical during the first year of college.
He expanded the discussion by inserting that student success was very much in question and still
malleable to institutional intervention. He reported that first-year college students attempted to
adjust behaviors to the new academic demands and new social demands of college or university
life, especially during the first year. Students who were academically and socially engaged with
academic staff and peers in classroom activities were more likely to succeed in the classroom,
leading to social affiliations and social support, which generated classroom success (Tinto,
2012).
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 41

Consolvo (2002) asserted that institutions that provided academic, social, and personal
support services to students encouraged their persistence to graduation. Consolvo (2002)
announced that the Center for Learning and Student Success at Washburn University, located in
Topeka, Kansas, took a multidisciplinary approach and supported students with academic and
professional assistance; while combining a variety of services which offered a comprehensive
approach to help students succeed.
Consolvo (2002) conveyed that the improved student services model was more effective,
efficient, and convenient for students; enabling students to have a “one-stop shopping”
experience, similar to UNO’s First Year Experience office. The author indicated that Academic
Advising, Testing Services, Career Services, and Counseling Services were housed together in
the same location; prompting students to access several resource/intervention possibilities
simultaneously. Consolvo (2002) added that faculty and staff readily referred students to the
Center for Learning and Student Success location at Washburn University, navigating students in
the most strategic and advantageous direction.
Departmental staff in the Center for Learning and Student Success, like similar divisional
units at other Universities, coordinated New Student Orientation with the Admissions Office.
The Admissions Office at UU was recognized as the Enrollment Management department.
Departmental staff at Washburn taught the Freshman Experience course at the Kansas institution
and introduced students to the resources and services available within the Center for Learning
and Student Success. Consolvo (2002) commended the integration of services, facilitating a
bridge between academic services and student services as well as academic affairs and student
affairs. She lauded the combined services and central sources of information for faculty and staff
in assisting students to thrive and flourish universally. Consolvo (2002) found that the service
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 42

model design operated as an effective Student Affairs retention tool and implemented holistic
and collaborative approaches to assist students experiencing the transition to college; while
meeting the academic, personal, and career needs of students.
Equity, race, and resources in higher education. Martz (2013) remarked that 40 years after the
U.S. Supreme Court rejected consolidation of public school districts to achieve racial integration
in a southern metropolitan area, one in every three black students in the specified region attended
a school with a population that was at least 90% black. Unlike Gorski’s (2008) assessment of
Ruby Payne’s framework for training teachers, “attributing a litany of vices to poor people,”
including a lack of ambition (p. 138). Gorski (2008) professed that the public must be convinced
through Ruby Payne’s lens that “class inequities do not result from imbalances in access,
opportunity, or power, but from deficiencies among economically disadvantaged people”
characterized as “deficit theory thinking via unsubstantiated stereotypes” (p. 138).
Exclusion or inclusion, reward or punish, elevate or oppress, credit or discredit, value or
disvalue were previously debated in the context of provisional admission programs,
characteristics and demographics, provisional admission models and practices, and retention
efforts (Nichols & Clinedinst, 2013). Equitable resources in post-secondary education were not
the legal obligation of states, while conjecture acknowledged that an associate’s degree was now
viewed as “the minimal credential necessary to attain social and economic security” (Dowd &
Grant, 2006, p. 169). The authors clarified “horizontal equity,” creating equal funding for
students with equal needs (p. 169). Yet, “vertical equity” provided greater resources for students
with greater needs (p. 169). Dowd and Grant (2006) stated, “equal funding is considered just
when students have equal needs but unjust when students have disparate needs” (p. 169).

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 43

Closing the Gap
Provisional admission programs, performance, outcomes, historical roots, and
organizational leadership. Rabovsky tackled whether poor performance should be met with
reduced or increased resources. Meanwhile, increased efficiency and improved performance
systematically assessed the strengths and weaknesses of a program. In the case of higher
education, graduation rates, the performance of minority students, and differentiation (not from a
top-down design) “called for major reforms” (Rabovsky, 2012, p. 675). The author suggested,
“alleviating achievement gaps, emphasizing student outcomes, altering institutional behavior and
activities, and amending spending preferences to improve students’ educational experiences,
with aims to shift administrative priorities, ameliorating organizational performance…”
(Rabovsky, 2012, p. 700).
Korobova and Starobin (2015) cited five benchmarks of effective educational practice for
student engagement, satisfaction, and academic success among international and American
students: level of academic challenge, student-faculty interaction, enriching educational
experiences, supportive campus environment/quality of relationships, and supportive campus
environment/institutional emphasis. Kuh (2003, 2005) as cited in Korobova and Starobin (2015)
reported that college students learned more when efforts were directed to a combination of
educationally purposeful activities, which contributed to collegiate success; acknowledging
Astin’s 1999 Student Involvement Theory as one of the theoretical frameworks of the study.
Rabovsky (2012) referenced, “differentiation and excellence within… policy design”
(pp. 675, 700). When I attended meetings where the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data
System (IPEDS) was reviewed, a census survey of U.S. higher education institutions,
institutional outcomes were deliberated and analyzed. Dowd and Grant (2006) utilized IPEDS
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 44

for community college data gathering and shared state finance “equity and efficiency” research.
Just as in the nonprofit sector (Melendez, 2001), Hillman, Tandberg, and Fryar (2015) provided
the route followed in new performance funding in higher education, “expectations to make
performance a priority, set performance goals, measure results, and be accountable for
outcomes” (p. 2).
Stakeholder goals, communication, and motivation. In deference to organizational leadership
and remaining cognizant as well as vigilant to “keep the main thing, the main thing,” the
Retention Coordinator’s role in CSS was to sustain the retention of Scholastic Achievers
attending UU, which compelled me to incessantly track organizational goals. Bennis and
Goldsmith (2010) avowed, “leadership calls for clear communication about goals, performance,
expectations and feedback” (p. 30). First, Northouse (2016) defined leadership as “a process
whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 6). The
aim was to continue developing as a leader “who does the right thing” (Northouse, 2016, p. 14).
Wagner (2007) recalled Einstein, “formulation of the problem is often more important
than the solution. Too often in education, we start with answers before we have understood the
problem we are trying to solve” (p. 4). In other words, “learn the history,” concluded Julius,
Baldridge, and Pfeffer (1999). The authors expounded, “every issue has roots in the past. The
wise tactician searches for the historical bases of an issue, information that helps in planning
strategy” (p. 122).
Clark and Estes (2008) listed four factors to increase motivation in the work environment,
“help people develop self- and team-confidence in work skills” and another factor was “to create
a positive emotional environment for individuals and teams at work” (pp. 90-97). Moreover, one
must be insightful, regarding the examination of the “big three” causes of performance gaps:
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 45

“people’s knowledge and skills; their motivation to achieve the goal (compared with other work
goals they must achieve); and organizational barriers or inadequate work processes” (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 43). The goal will always be to avoid Lencioni’s The Five Dysfunctions of a
Team (2002). The level of performance outcomes was determined by the bottom-line results and
data findings.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
Knowledge and Skills
The Scholastic Achievers population at UU consisted of provisionally admitted, first-year
college students entering the University with a 2.00-2.29 high school GPA. Ascertaining the
fundamental knowledge and skills compulsory to achieving academic success was imperative to
incorporating instrumental student retention strategies, while aiming to meet college completion
goals and improve graduation rates at UU. The identified organizational performance goal was
that by August 2017, the average retention rate for second year students would increase to 70%.
A literature review followed, focusing on the knowledge-related influences that Scholastic
Achievers encountered as first-time college students at a 4-year university. Execution in this
area was germane to the achievement of the Scholastic Achievers stakeholder goal and the
organization’s global goal. An analysis of the relevant literature commenced, enumerating the
requisite knowledge for successful matriculation at UU.
Knowledge types. Krathwohl (2002) categorized the cognitive process dimension by revising
Bloom’s Taxonomy. According to Krathwohl (2012), the Taxonomy of educational objectives
was a framework that classified statements of expectations or intentions for students to learn as a
result of instruction. The knowledge dimensions include factual knowledge, conceptual
knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge. Krathwohl (2002) reported
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 46

that the revision of the original Taxonomy was a two-dimensional framework, consisting of
knowledge and cognitive processes; providing an organizational structure to classify educational
goals, objectives, standards, activities, and assessments, visually representing a specific course or
unit. Applying universally recognized meanings to grouped objectives could ameliorate
learning. Optimal performance linked with learner communication was critical to learning.
According to Mayer (2011), the science of instruction was how to help people learn, indicating
the instructional methods that work for teaching the types of knowledge to the types of learners
under which circumstances.
In our context, the learners were the provisionally admitted Scholastic Achievers at UU,
under the administration, supervision, and direction of the Division of Academic Affairs, the
CSS department, and the CSS Retention Coordinator. Specifying a change in knowledge was the
first element in the instructional objective and pertinent to the successful matriculation of the
Scholastic Achievers population. A change in knowledge was followed by the goal to clarify
how the knowledge would be utilized when the revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational
objectives was applied (Krathwohl, 2002).
Stakeholder knowledge influences. I reviewed literature pertinent to the awareness and
comprehension of my stakeholder group, the Scholastic Achievers at UU. My department, CSS,
under the governance of the Division of Academic Affairs, worked intentionally with targeted
populations, provided students with information on academic policies, procedures, and
programs; helped students develop suitable educational and career goals; as well as monitored
and evaluated progress toward the achievement of student goals, as appropriate referrals were
made to various campus resources and student support services (CSS Standard Operating
Procedure, 2015). In addition, CSS worked with students to develop decision-making skills and
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 47

short-term and long-range plans; promoted the continual assessment of academic and educational
plans and realistic goal setting, with improved student matriculation and student retention as the
UU objective (CSS Standard Operating Procedure, 2015).
We turned to the declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive
knowledge influences impacting the collegiate matriculation of Scholastic Achievers at UU.
Consequently, the distinctive populations and strategic initiatives positioned in high gear within
the confines of the institution.
Declarative knowledge influences. Scholastic Achievers needed to know the meaning of
freshman orientation programming goals for first-year college students. Factual knowledge was
knowledge of meaning and definitions (Krathwohl, 2002).
Procedural knowledge influences. Scholastic Achievers needed to know how to apply and
implement effective high school to college transition strategies. Scholastic Achievers needed to
know how to maneuver through the academic advising process successfully. Procedural
knowledge was how to carry out the tasks (Krathwohl, 2002). Rueda (2011) referred to
procedural knowledge as knowing how to do something; relating to methods of inquiry, specific
or finite skills, techniques, and methodologies required to accomplish a task. Academic advising
and registration are intertwined. At UU, you have to receive academic advising clearance before
you can register for classes. This means meeting with your assigned academic advisor at UU.
Metacognitive knowledge influences. Learners need to have awareness and control of their
higher-level cognitive processes (Baker, 2006). As learners, Scholastic Achievers needed to
know how to evaluate their own strengths and challenges as first-year college students. The
perception or belief of UU administrators, faculty, and staff was that metacognitive awareness
was essential to student persistence, especially to at-risk populations like Scholastic Achievers.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 48

Metacognitive knowledge was the awareness of how one thinks about the internal learning
process (Krathwohl, 2002). Accordingly, learning would depend on the effective use of
cognitive processes (memory and attention, activation of relevant background knowledge) and
the deployment of cognitive strategies for goal achievement. Baker (2009) added that effective
execution of the learner’s task and the application of compulsory strategies was fundamental to
goal attainment.
Mayer (2011) distilled metacognitive strategies and how the learner knew when to use
the appropriate learning process. The author detailed two metacognitive components, awareness
(knowing how one learns) and control (knowing how to monitor and control one’s learning), and
their metacognition and learning dimension roles.
In the next section, Table 2, the Knowledge Worksheet delineated the assumed
knowledge influences and knowledge influence assessments for the Scholastic Achievers
population of first-year, provisionally admitted students at UU.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 49

Table 2
Knowledge Influences

Assumed Knowledge Influences Knowledge Influence Assessment
Declarative:
(Factual):

Scholastic Achievers needed to know the
meaning of freshman orientation
programming goals for first-year college
students.

(Conceptual):

Scholastic Achievers needed to know how
to earn 30 credit hours during the
freshman year of college.

The researcher asked the stakeholder group open-ended
questions about the resources and student support services
available at the University to assist in the successful
matriculation of Scholastic Achievers.

The researcher asked the stakeholder group open-ended
questions about the resources and student support services
available at the University to assist in the successful
matriculation of Scholastic Achievers.
Procedural:

Scholastic Achievers needed to know how
to apply and implement effective high
school to college transition strategies.

Scholastic Achievers needed to know how
to maneuver through the academic
advising process successfully.

The researcher asked the stakeholder group open-ended
questions about the resources and student support services
available at the University to assist in the successful
matriculation of Scholastic Achievers.
The researcher asked the stakeholder group open-ended
questions about academic advising.
The researcher will ask the stakeholder group open-ended
questions about registration.
Metacognitive:

Scholastic Achievers needed to know how
to evaluate their own strengths and
challenges as first-year college students.

Scholastic Achievers were interviewed to assess their
active choice, mental effort, persistence, self-regulation,
and reflective practice/s’ strengths and weaknesses inside
and outside of the classroom.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 50

Motivation
In this section, I offered literature integral to discerning the motivation of Scholastic
Achievers at UU. Mayer (2011) referred to motivation as one of his mighty “Mighty Ms,” the
other recognized “Mighty M” was metacognition. Mayer (2011) stated that motivation to learn
was demonstrated by the amount of effort a student exerted to understand information, engaging
in such cognitive processes as selecting, organizing, and integrating. Therefore, the prerequisite
to meaningful learning was motivation (Mayer, 2011). According to Mayer (2011), motivation
was internal and personal activation may initiate, maintain, and energize goal directed behavior
evolvement. Clark and Estes (2008) espoused that humans were made up of two cooperating
psychological systems—knowledge and motivation. The authors stated that knowledge told us
how to do things but motivation kept us moving, letting one know how much effort to spend on
tasks. Clark and Estes (2008) described the three motivational processes that posed as
opportunities or potential problems: people choosing (or failing to choose) to actively pursue a
goal; people having many goals and distractions and do not persist at a specific goal; and people
choosing a goal and are persisting in the face of distractions, but decide how much mental effort
to invest in goal achievement. Next, we turned to a review of the literature.
Expectancy-value theory. I explored Expectancy-Value Theory and Self-Efficacy in relation to
motivation and the persistence of Scholastic Achievers at UU. Eccles (2009) condensed the
expectancy-value model, two central motivational questions endured: Can the individual do the
task? and Does the individual want to do the task? Pajares (2009) wrote that intrinsic motivation
and personal accomplishment are interconnected to self-efficacy beliefs. One must believe that
their actions would yield the coveted end results or the incentive to act or persist when
confronted with impediments wanes. Mayer (2011) maintained that one conception of
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 51

motivation was that students would work harder to learn when they believed that their hard work
would pay off.
According to Eccles (2009), whether the individual can do the task predicts better
performance and more motivation to pursue more challenging tasks. The ability to master
academic work required confidence and was a strong predictor of school achievement among
academically struggling students, reported the National Research Council as cited in Eccles
(2009). Thus, fully engaging in learning required the preference to perform a task. The
perceived value of schoolwork was determined by four related constructs (Eccles, 2009). One
construct critical to the Scholastic Achievers population was utility value or how valuing the task
could lead to achieving long range goals or receiving immediate or long range external rewards
(Eccles, 2009).
Utility value was determined by how well a task fit into an individual’s goals and plans or
fulfills other psychological needs (Eccles, 2009). What were the costs of not valuing tasks to
achieve specified goals? What were the costs of not valuing tasks that can lead to future plans?
What were the costs to the Scholastic Achievers if individual students did not meet credit hour
and GPA requirements during the freshman year? What were the costs to CSS, the Division of
Academic Affairs, and the institution? Next, we turned to the Scholastic Achievers at UU.
Scholastic Achievers expectations and values. Scholastic Achievers needed to see the value in
successfully completing the first year of college by meeting or exceeding all program guidelines.
Self-efficacy theory. Bandura (2005) stated that people are self-organizing, proactive, self-
regulating, and self-reflecting. The author extensively researched and studied the theory of
cognitive regulation of motivation, affect, and action, verifying the function of personal efficacy
beliefs as the basis for action (Bandura, 2005). The cognitive skills required to complete the
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 52

numerous activities that incorporated gaining and using information to solve problems were
significant to the Scholastic Achievers population matriculating at UU.
Pajares (2009) wrote that self-efficacy beliefs were formed by interpreting four sources of
information: mastery experience, vicarious experience, social persuasions, and physiological
reactions. Pajares (2009) asserted that mastery experience or the interpretation of one’s own
performance was the most influential source for most individuals. Hence, individuals weighed
the effects of their actions, interpretations or effects, and created their efficacy beliefs.
Moreover, verbal messages and social persuasions influenced self-efficacy beliefs by helping one
to exert the extra effort and persistence required to succeed or the other way around. Pajares
(2009) discovered that effective persuaders actively cultivated people’s beliefs in their
capabilities and ensured along the way that the envisioned success was attainable.
Pajares (2009) enumerated the various ways self-efficacy beliefs can augment human
accomplishment and well-being, which influences the choices people make, the courses of action
they pursue, as well as competence and confidence levels related to the tasks and activities
selected. Regardless of the factors operating, added Pajares (2009), core beliefs were rooted in
the capability to accomplish the behavior; which determined how much effort people were
willing to expend on an activity, how long they would continue when confronted with obstacles,
and resiliency in the face of adverse situations.
Scholastic Achievers self-efficacy. Scholastic Achievers needed to believe that they were
capable of earning a 2.5 or above GPA and 30 credit hours as first-year college students in the
Scholastic Achievers program. Tinto (2012) articulated that if student completion initiatives
were not reaching into the classroom, such investments were unlikely to affect student success.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 53

The author advises, direct actions to augment the classroom; particularly the first-year classroom,
by constructing classroom “attributes” that lead to the probability of students succeeding.
In the next section, Table 3, the Motivation Worksheet delineated the assumed motivation
influences and motivation influence assessments for the Scholastic Achievers population of first-
year, provisionally admitted students at UU.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 54

Table 3
Motivation Influences

Assumed Motivation Influences How Will It Be Assessed?
Utility Value:

Scholastic Achievers needed to see the
value in successfully completing the first
year of college by meeting or exceeding all
program guidelines.

Interviews:

How important was academic achievement to you?

How important was meeting the requirements of the
Scholastic Achievers program in your first year of college?

To what degree did you value your ability to earn a 2.5 GPA
or above by the end of your freshman year?

To what degree did you value your ability to earn 30 credit
hours by the end of your freshman year?

How meaningful was your enrollment status as an admitted
freshman student in the Scholastic Achievers program?
Self-Efficacy:

Scholastic Achievers needed to believe that
they were capable of earning a 2.5 or above
GPA and 30 credit hours as first-year
college students in the Scholastic
Achievers program.

Interviews:

Interview questions that asked Scholastic Achievers about
their confidence level and ability to achieve specified
academic (GPA) and credit hour goals, while utilizing student
support resources and services at UU.

I am confident in my ability to earn a 2.5 or above GPA by
the end of my freshman year.

I am confident in my ability to earn 30 credit hours by the end
of my freshman year.

I know that I will be successful in the Scholastic Achievers
program.

I am confident in my ability to assess my academic strengths
and weaknesses.

I know where to go on campus for Scholastic Achiever, first-
year student resources, services, and supplemental support at
UU.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 55

Organization
The Scholastic Achievers population at UU were provisionally admitted, first-year
college students entering the University with a 2.00-2.29 high school GPA. Outlining several of
the structural components central to meeting the stated performance goals of Scholastic
Achievers were relevant to illustrating student retention strategies, while working to meet college
completion goals and increase retention rates at UU. The organizational performance goal was
that by August 2017, the average retention rate for second year students will increase to 70%.
A literature review followed, converging the organization-related influences that
Scholastic Achievers encountered as first-time college students at a 4-year university.
Amelioration in this area was foundational to the academic achievement of Scholastic Achievers,
some of the requisite organizational indicators for successful matriculation at UU comprised:
organizational cultural models and cultural settings; aspirational and organizational provisional
admission programs at colleges and universities; provisional admission program models and
practices; provisional admission program equity; and provisional admission programs and
organizational leadership. We reviewed literature to detect the assumed organizational
influences and barriers potentially impeding the stakeholder group, the Scholastic Achievers at
UU.
Organizational cultural model influences. Scholastic Achievers did not have sufficient
support from faculty to achieve the stated performance goals. Organizational effectiveness
increased when leaders repeatedly identified, articulated, focused the organization’s effort on and
reinforced the organization’s vision; they led from the why (Knowles, 1980).
American College Testing (ACT, 2010) conducted the Fourth National Survey that
asked, What Works in Student Retention? Information was collected from colleges and
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 56

universities to aid in identifying and fully understanding the role of an array of practices on
college student retention and persistence to degree-completion. Chief Academic Officers and
administrators in similar positions were asked to respond to two issues: college student attrition
and retention. According to ACT (2010), “the primary purpose of ACT’s surveys has been to
assess these individuals’ perceptions of specific causes of attrition and one of the many factors
that may affect retention” (p. 3).
The survey focused on seven student success initiatives that are typically used in higher
education institutions in the United States: Summer Bridge programs, pre-term orientation,
special academic/transition seminars, learning communities, early warning/academic alert
systems, service learning, and undergraduate research. ACT (2010) shared that when Summer
Bridge programs were included as an institutional success initiative, students were often required
to attend. Such was the case at UU, the provisional admitted student was mandated to attend
UU’s Summer Bridge program, with the possibility of earning a minimum of seven credit hours
during the program. Students were tested for math and English placement courses;
developmental and non-developmental sections were offered. An introductory college
orientation course rounded out the Summer Bridge program curriculum.
Scholastic Achievers fell in the provisional admission category at UU and if a Summer
Bridge program was held at UU the summer prior to the Scholastic Achievers first semester of
college enrollment, the students were required to attend. Survey respondents were asked to
pinpoint the goals and outcomes of Summer Bridge programs. ACT (2010) ranked the results
from the highest to lowest percentages of institutional importance:
• Academic readiness for the first year
• Exposure to expectations of college-level courses
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 57

• Development of camaraderie and sense of connection to the institution
• Social/personal readiness for the first year
• Retention/Graduation rates
• Meaningful interaction with faculty (p. 3)
According to ACT (2010), the University of South Carolina’s National Resource Center
for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition (NRC) was the recognized
academic/transition seminar authority (p. 11). National surveys of first-year seminars were
conducted on a three-year recurring cycle. Again, academic/transition seminars were one
component of the survey of undergraduate student success initiatives out of seven interventions
demarcated by 4-year institution respondents. The survey cited underprepared students as a sub-
population enrolled in first-year seminar sections. First-generation students were another sub-
population labeled as a “unique” section of first-year seminar.
At UU, Scholastic Achievers were required to take the semester Scholastic Seminar
General Studies course (GST 007) with the CSS Retention Coordinator/Scholastic Achievers
Coordinator. Furthermore, Scholastic Achievers were required to enroll in the Retention
Coordinator’s semester College Orientation course during the Summer Bridge program. Both
courses were offered in the Fall and Spring semesters. However, only College Orientation was
available during the Summer Bridge program, not GST 007: Scholastic Seminar. If UU held a
Summer Bridge program, which was open to non-provisional students and required of
provisional students, the Scholastic Achievers (provisional students) would only enroll in GST
007: Scholastic Seminar during the fall semester; completing College Orientation over the
summer.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 58

ACT (2010) delineated survey response percentages for First-year Seminar institutional
goals from highest to least:
• Greater understanding of your institution’s academic culture
• Connections between students
• Improved retention and/or graduation rates
• Higher levels of academic achievement
• Connections between students and faculty
• Higher utilization levels of campus resources
• Improved critical thinking (p. 13)
Scholastic Achievers at UU formed a Cohort community of provisionally admitted
students encompassing one of the seven student success initiatives ACT (2010) distinguished as
First-year Learning Communities. ACT (2010) defined learning communities as “curricular
structures in which small cohorts of students -typically 15 to 25- are co-enrolled in two or more
courses generally from different disciplines with or without a common residential environment”
(p. 43). The characteristics of First-Year Learning Communities noted by survey respondents as
common to First-year learning communities encompassed:
• Students are co-enrolled in two or more courses, and faculty work closely to link
course content
• One of the courses is a first-year seminar
• Learning communities are connected to residential living
• Courses in a learning community are linked by a common intellectual theme
• Student affairs professionals are involved in the delivery of out-of-class experiences
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 59

• Students are co-enrolled in two or more courses, but faculty have limited interaction
(p. 21)
UU’s Scholastic Achievers were co-enrolled in GST 007: Scholastic Seminar and/or
College Orientation. Scholastic Achievers were required to enroll in both courses as first-year,
freshman seminar students. The courses were connected by the theme Scholastic Achievers AIM
for Excellence: Achievement, Involvement, and Motivation. Some of the ACT (2010) goals and
outcomes of Learning Communities per survey respondents, Chief Academic Officers at colleges
and universities in the U.S., encompassed:
• Student-student interaction
• Higher levels of academic achievement
• Improved retention and/or graduation rates
• Faculty-to-student interaction
• Linkages between different disciplinary perspectives
• Improved critical thinking
• Faculty-to-faculty collaboration (p. 23)
The ACT (2010) national survey, “Enhancing Student Success and Retention throughout
Undergraduate Education” opened the window to a variety of student success initiatives offered
by U.S. 4-year institutions. ACT (2010) wrote, two of the seven areas of focus (summer bridge
programs and pre-term orientation) are “uniquely” designed for first-year students. The goal at
UU was to address the critical needs of the targeted subpopulation/s. Specifically, Scholastic
Achievers, provisionally admitted students, received additional academic services in
academic/transition seminars and through learning communities after completing the Summer
Bridge program.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 60

Summer Bridge programs as defined by ACT (2010) were “academic programs offered
for students during the summer before the first year of college” (p. 43). The role of the program
was to provide preparatory academic and/or social support before the first semester of the first
year of college. ACT (2010) stated that provisionally admitted students were the most likely
group to be required to participate in Summer Bridge programs.
Organizational cultural setting influences. Scholastic Achievers were not successfully
communicating with faculty, staff, administrators, Enrollment Management, CSS, and the Office
of Academic Affairs. Organizational effectiveness increased when leaders regularly encouraged
open lines of communication (Kegan, 2000 as cited in Mezirow, 2003). Organizational
effectiveness increases when leaders frequently ensure that employees have the resources needed
to achieve the organization’s goals (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003).
Scholastic Achievers and institutional persistence. Scholastic Achievers were provisionally
admitted students who entered UU with a 2.00-2.29 high school GPA. Tinto (1975) discussed
the student’s past educational experiences in relation to dropout. He cited Astin (1971),
“performance in high school, as measured either by grade-point average or rank in class, has
been shown to be an important predictor of future college performance” (p. 102). I looked at the
factors surrounding the Scholastic Achiever’s high school background by studying the
provisional admission requirements and by scrutinizing the weekly Seminar topics and
discussions. Tinto (1975) established that these areas might affect individual performance and
persistence in college. Thus, programs were put in place to bridge the academic preparation gap
of targeted student populations such as Scholastic Achievers through the Summer Bridge
program, the establishment of Learning Cohorts/Communities, and First-year Seminars at UU.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 61

Adapting Lakos and Phipps’ (2004) culture of assessment and organizational change, to equip
the targeted population:
Actively listen to the voice of the customer, use information about the customer and the
changing environment to improve quality or develop new services…changing service
attitudes—must not only be the expectations in a new culture, they must be evident in the
entire organizational design and its actions. The continuance of externally focused
activities and the repeated articulation of purpose must be deliberately developed.
(p. 359)
In the next section, Table 4, the Organization Worksheet delineated the organization
influencers, the assumed organizational influences, and the organization influence assessments
for the Scholastic Achievers population of first-year, provisionally admitted students at UU.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 62

Table 4
Organizational Influences

Possible Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:

Scholastic Achievers did not have
sufficient support from faculty, staff,
and administrators to achieve stated
performance goals.

Interview questions asked Scholastic Achievers about
their perceptions of faculty resistance to the admittance
and enrollment of Scholastic Achievers.

Cultural Model Influence 2:

Scholastic Achievers did not find the
culture of the organization supportive
toward their academic achievement at
UU.

Interview questions asked Scholastic Achievers about
their beliefs and attitudes concerning academic
achievement and the matriculation of Scholastic
Achievers at UU.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:

Scholastic Achievers did not
communicate with faculty, staff,
administrators, Enrollment
Management, the Center for Student
Success, and the Office of Academic
Affairs.
Interview questions to Scholastic Achievers identified
the communication gap between faculty, staff,
administrators, Enrollment Management, the Center for
Student Success, and the Office of Academic Affairs,
in reference to the Scholastic Achievers program at
UU.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:

Scholastic Achievers did not have the
resources to achieve their goals.
There is organizational misalignment
of resources.
Interview questions to Scholastic Achievers about the
annual budget, programs, participation levels,
materials, staffing, and funding resources directed
toward the Scholastic Achievers program.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 63

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the purpose of a conceptual framework was to
outline the terms, concepts, models, thoughts, and ideas of the study. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) added, “drawing from the literature, you identify what is known about the topic, what
aspect of the topic you are going to focus on, what is not known, why it is important to know it,
and the precise purpose of the study” (pp. 86-87). Maxwell (2013) wrote,
The most important thing to understand about your conceptual framework is that it is
primarily a conception or a model of what is out there that you plan to study, and of what
is going on with these things and why. (p. 39)
I presented each of the potential influencers above, independent of each other. I
recognized that they do not remain in isolation from one another. I demonstrated the way that I
believe the potential influencers interacted with each other and the theory that I espouse, in
relation to the way the world works for Scholastic Achievers at UU. As a reminder, the research
question guiding the study follows: What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational elements that influence the retention of UU’s provisionally admitted students
identified as Scholastic Achievers? Mertens (2010) defined the transformative worldview as an
“action agenda to help marginalized peoples, seeking reform to change lives of the participants
and the institutions…” (as cited in Creswell, 2014, p. 9). Identifying the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational elements that influenced the retention of this student population
bolstered the utility value, self-efficacy, metacognitive skills, and organizational influences that
interfere with UU’s goal of a 70% retention rate for second year students (UU Strategic Plan,
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 64

2012, p. 14.). Expectantly, consistent with Creswell’s (2014) notion, to “raise their
consciousness or advance an agenda for change” (p. 10).
Scholastic Achievers can be categorized as a “marginalized” group of students at UU
(UU Strategic Planning Core Group, 2012). The student population entered the University with
a belief that they are “disenfranchised” due to the provisional student label. Inequities based on
socioeconomic class result in asymmetric power relationships (Mertens, 2010 as cited in
Creswell, 2014). Evidence appeared in the burgeoning enrollment of provisionally admitted
first-generation college students at UU (College Navigator, 2013). Hence, many faculty, staff,
and administrators had verbally expressed disdain at the influx of this escalating student
population. The socioeconomic disparities between the first-generation, provisionally admitted
student and the faculty senate power brokers clashed within the corridors of UU. The prevailing
argument revolved around helping those who are perceived helpless academically, educationally,
and socially. The retention, persistence, and matriculation trepidations beckoned an audience
during heated debates regarding the advancement of the Academy in the 21
st
Century versus the
mission of the institution and its guiding principles.
My conceptual framework united the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational elements that influenced the retention of the Scholastic Achievers population at
UU. The conceptual framework converged the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational elements that influenced the persistence of Scholastic Achievers at UU. The
conceptual framework linked the overarching theme of the study (program equity, marginalized
students), the stakeholder goals, and the organizational goals of the study and unraveled the
Scholastic Achievers mystery by attempting to locate the right piece of the Scholastic Achievers
puzzle through a transformative worldview lens.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 65

The conceptual framework attempted to visually illustrate that the students’ knowledge
and motivation were influenced by the types of knowledge they came to school with and the way
the organization behaved in relation to them. In order to persist, Scholastic Achievers required
the amalgamation of utility value, self-efficacy, meta-cognitive skills, and organizational support
systems and resources to reinforce student persistence at UU. See the Conceptual Framework,
below, in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Scholastic Achievers KMO Conceptual Framework
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 66

Conclusion
The Scholastic Achievers program at UU was charged with directing the successful
matriculation of provisionally admitted students as they enter the collegiate environment. The
Retention Coordinator at UU was the coordinator of the Scholastic Achievers program. The
Retention Coordinator was a full-time faculty/staff member in CSS at UU. The department was
aligned with the Division of Academic Affairs, reporting to the Vice President for Academic
Affairs.
Scholastic Achievers are identified during the Enrollment Management process
throughout the calendar year as applicants apply to UU. High school students with a 2.0-2.29
high school GPA are required to participate in the Scholastic Achievers program. The Retention
Coordinator served as an academic advisor throughout the Cohort’s freshman year at UU. The
students registered for GST 007: Scholastic Seminar. The course was a college orientation and
collegiate transition class taught by the Retention Coordinator. The theme for the course was
Scholastic Achievers AIM for Excellence: Achievement, Involvement, and Motivation. The
class met weekly during the fall and spring semesters. Scholastic Achievers were mandated to
enroll in the course in the first semester of the freshman year. Additional program requirements
were previously outlined, which included attending weekly Tutorial Sessions, bi-weekly inner
office meetings with the Retention Coordinator, participation in the monthly Academic Student
Engagement Sessions: Student Success Series, attendance at designated Scholastic Achiever
Evening Events and Workshops, and actively participating in the Panther PALS (Peer Advisory
Leadership Students) mentoring program.
As review, the role of the Retention Coordinator and the ultimate goal of the Scholastic
Achievers program was to comprehend and confront the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 67

organizational indicators that influence the retention of the provisionally admitted population at
UU, in turn impacting the organizational goal to “increase the average retention rate for second
year students” (UU Strategic Plan, 2012, p. 14). Some of the assumed and identified knowledge,
motivation, and organizational causes influencing the academic achievements of Scholastic
Achievers comprised: The lack of factual knowledge concerning how to earn credit hours during
the freshman year of college (determines University classification at the end of the academic
year) and how that translated into a GPA, the lack of conceptual knowledge that Scholastic
Achievers exhibited, in reference to the transition from high school to college, the lack of
procedural knowledge to effectively navigate through the academic advising process during
registration--upon arrival on campus and officially selecting a major, the lack of metacognitive
knowledge, regarding the evaluation of strengths and challenges as first-time college students
entering UU; appropriately gauging the utility value of the Scholastic Achievers program,
acknowledging self-efficacy beliefs; while accurately interpreting the Cultural Model
(faculty/student relationships, performance goals, and academic achievement) of the
Organization and the Cultural Setting of the Organization (communication and resources).
The methodological framework and methodology of the study followed in Chapter 3.
Participating stakeholders, data collection and instrumentation, credibility and trustworthiness,
validity and reliability, ethics, in addition to limitations and delimitations were addressed. I
presented my research design and methods for data collection and analysis in Chapter 3.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 68

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to
examine the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influenced the
retention of provisionally admitted students identified as Scholastic Achievers at UU,
specifically from the freshman year to the sophomore year. The study generated a list of
possible or assumed interfering elements and turned to examining these systematically, focusing
on actual or validated interfering elements. I presented my research design and methods for data
collection and analysis in Chapter 3.
Participating Stakeholders
While complete gap analysis would have focused on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes the stakeholder focused on in the case study was the provisional student population at
UU, identified as Scholastic Achievers. The incoming freshman students were provisionally
admitted to the institution with a 2.0 to 2.29 high school GPA. The retention of the targeted
stakeholder group, the provisional student population at UU or Scholastic Achievers, represented
the performance problem of practice (College Navigator, 2013).
As such, the question that guided this study was the following:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that
influence the retention of United University’s provisionally admitted students
identified as Scholastic Achievers?
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Criterion 1. Provisionally admitted freshman students enrolled at UU during the 2015-
2016 academic year (2.00-2.29 high school GPA).
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 69

Criterion 2. The Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort assigned to the Scholastic
Achievers program administered by the Retention Coordinator in the CSS department at UU.
Criterion 3. The Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort enrolled at UU for the Fall 2016
semester (male and female Scholastic Achievers).
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Purposeful sampling of the stakeholder group was utilized during the study to conduct
interviews and/or focus groups. The Fall 2015 sample consisted of 82 Scholastic Achievers.
The population sample consisted of the Fall 2016 continuing/returning Fall 2015 provisionally
admitted freshman students of the remaining Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort. The Fall
2016 Scholastic Achiever figure was 45 out of the original 82 Scholastic Achievers or 54.8%. I
attempted to interview one-on-one, a subset of the continuing/returning Fall 2015 Scholastic
Achievers Cohort enrolled at UU during the Fall 2016 semester. The ideal sample for the
research study was 7 to 10 interview respondents, a diverse group of Scholastic Achievers were
anticipated. The study ended up with 10 Scholastic Achievers participating in the case study.
I selected the Scholastic Achiever participants from the GST 007: Scholastic Seminar
course sections (6), held during the Fall 2015 semester at UU (Scholastic Achievers, mandatory
registration at UU). Scholastic Achievers were required to enroll in GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar during their first semester at UU. This was a mandatory program component.
In my role as the instrument of data collection, the recruitment strategy entailed
individually e-mailing the Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort at their respective UU e-mail
addresses. As the instrument of data collection, I solicited the information from the Office of
Institutional Research, Planning, and Special Programs after receiving Institutional Review
Board approval to proceed with the research study. I was granted Institutional Review Board
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 70

approval by UU on July 19, 2016. I was granted Institutional Review Board approval by the
University of Southern California on October 19, 2016.
The rationale was based on the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
elements that influenced the retention of UU’s provisionally admitted students identified as
Scholastic Achievers. According to Maxwell (2013), a sampling frame helps to bound what the
researcher was going to do. I talked with a certain kind of informant and the informant was
important to the study. Merriam and Tisdell (2009) wrote that establishing criteria would guide
case selection and I as the researcher selected a case that met the criteria.
Merriam and Tisdell (2009) stated that purposeful sampling enabled the investigator to
uncover and understand the sample while gaining insight. Therefore, the goal for the
investigator was to select a sample where the most can be learned. Maxwell (2013) suggested
selecting groups or participants in which the researcher could establish the most productive
relationships, facilitating the research questions to be answered. Maxwell (2013) asserted to
deliberately select individuals or cases to test the theories that began the study or that developed
during the study. Local meaning, processes, and contextual influences could be clarified in
certain settings.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
I conducted face-to-face interviews through a Transformative Worldview telescopic lens.
A recruitment letter (Appendix C) was sent to the Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers population via
the receipt of the requested e-mail addresses from UU’s Office of Institutional Assessment,
Research and Special Programs. Next, Scholastic Achievers were provided a study Information
Sheet to read and review for those interested in participating in the study. At the next stage of
the process, Scholastic Achievers were given an Information Sheet to read and review, verbally
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 71

acknowledging that they had decided to participate in the study. Scholastic Achievers would be
asked to participate in a 2-hour, open-ended question format, audio/video-recorded interview.
The majority of Scholastic Achiever interviews were less than 2-hours (60-75 minutes). Most of
the interviews were closer to just over 1-hour.
Information such as whether the interview respondent was a first-generation college
student, his or her major, prior academic achievement, current academic achievement, socio-
economic status, and residence away from UU were collected during the interviews via a
Screener document (see Appendix D). The Screener contained 9 questions. I held one-on-one,
in-person interviews with study participants upon receiving his or her verbal agreement to
participate after Scholastic Achievers read and reviewed the Information Sheet. Research study
interview dates and times were selected at that point (2-hour window). The one-session, 1-hour
or more (60-75 minutes), audio/video-recorded interviews, upon receipt of verbal permission to
record and/or videotape provided a more comprehensive understanding of the Scholastic
Achiever experience from a qualitative methodological approach. My goal was to interview 7-
10 Scholastic Achievers. I interviewed 10 Scholastic Achievers. Moreover, the interview
instrument was used to inform the practitioner/researcher serving as the Retention Coordinator in
the CSS department but in the role of Scholastic Achiever researcher during the Fall 2016
semester, concerning the relationship between the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational influences that shaped the persistence, retention, and matriculation of Scholastic
Achiever program participants attending UU. At the time of data collection, the Interview
Protocol instrument was deemed not as robust as originally anticipated. More information was
provided in the Limitations and Delimitations section of Chapter 3 as well as in the Limitations
section of Chapter 5.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 72

Interviews
Patton (2002) relayed that “we interview people to find out from them those things we
cannot directly observe. Qualitative approaches to interviewing shared the commitment to ask
open-ended questions that offered the persons being interviewed the opportunity to respond in
their own words, expressing their own personal perspectives” (p. 348). Qualitative interviewing
formats incorporated: the informal conversational interview; the general interview guide
approach; and the standardized open-ended interview. I utilized the general interview guide
approach. Patton (2002) stated that the interview guide listed the questions or issues that are to
be explored in the course of an interview. The interview guide was prepared to ensure that the
“lines of inquiry” are pursued with each individual interviewed (p. 343). Patton (2002)
suggested that the framework of the guide allowed the interviewer to “develop questions,
sequence questions, and make decisions about which information to pursue in greater depth”
(p. 344).
Krueger and Casey (2009) pondered listening to the brain or the heart. Researchers study
the emotional factors that influenced behavior. Hence, Krueger and Casey (2009) discovered,
“many decisions in life are not made as a result of a rational process but instead emerge from
emotions and feelings associated with the product or topic” (p. 50). When listening to the brain,
Krueger and Casey (2009) found that study participants tended to think about the topic and offer
their answers. Conversely, when listening to the heart, the researcher asked for less factual
information and encouraged discussion on feelings. Krueger and Casey (2009) reported that it
was helpful to include both thinking and feeling questions, because “together they provide better
understanding” (p. 50). A taxonomy of motives was offered which noted that motives drive
behaviors. Krueger and Casey (2009) argued that, “identifying the motives related to the study
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 73

topic and discovering important factors that influence decisions” could unlock the research door
(p. 51).
My interview protocol contained topics or subjects germane to Scholastic Achievers. I
was able to “explore, probe, and ask questions that will elucidate and illuminate that particular
subject” (p. 343). Therefore, as principal investigator, I built conversations within the realm of
the Scholastic Achievers population at UU, but around predetermined subjects. The interview
guide served as a checklist and outlined the issues to be discussed in advance of the interview,
safeguarding that all pertinent areas were covered during the interview. According to Patton
(2002), the advantage of an interview guide was that it made sure that the “interviewer/evaluator
has carefully decided how best to use the limited time available in an interview situation. The
guide helps interviewing a number of different people more systematic and comprehensive by
delimiting in advance the issues to be explored” (p. 343).
According to Patton (2002), “the purpose of qualitative interviewing is to capture how
those being interviewed view their world, to learn their terminology and judgments, and to
capture the complexities of their individual perceptions and experiences. The fundamental
principal of qualitative interviewing is to provide a framework within which respondents can
express their own understandings in their own terms” (p. 348). Patton (2002) continued, “we
cannot observe everything. We cannot observe feelings, thoughts, and intentions. We cannot
observe behaviors that took place at some previous point in time. We cannot observe how
people have organized the world and the meanings they attach to what goes on in the world. We
have to ask people questions about those things” (p. 341). Patton (2002) stated, the role of
interviewing was to “gather the stories and perspectives” of other people (p. 341).
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 74

The questions of my “unique informants”—Scholastic Achievers—fell in the following
Patton (2002) categories and themes, as I discovered and distinguished the worldview of the
participants: experience and behavior questions, opinion and values questions, feeling questions,
knowledge questions, sensory questions, background/demographic questions, the time frame of
questions, What Scholastic Achievers did in the past? What Scholastic Achievers are doing now
in the present? and What Scholastic Achievers plan to do in the future? or stakeholder attitudes
based on time frame (pp. 348-352). Patton (2002) introduced “A Matrix of Question Options”
generating situational, event, or programmatic interview questions based on the information that
the researcher needs to obtain (p. 352). The author tackled sequencing questions, wording
questions, open-ended questions, clarity of questions, rapport (stance toward person being
interviewed) and neutrality (stance toward content of what the person being interviewed says),
role playing and simulation questions, presupposition questions, prefatory statements and
announcements, probes and follow-up questions; and processing feedback during the interview,
support and recognition responses, and maintaining control and enhancing the quality of
responses.
I became privy to the special terms that are commonly used by Scholastic Achievers
attending UU. I absorbed the daily language used by Scholastic Achievers when they discussed
settings, activities, or any other collegiate-related matters? Patton (2002) noted that the recurrent
theme was “the importance of using language that is understandable and part of the frame of
reference of the person being interviewed. Taking care to find out what language the interviewee
uses may produce clearer questions for the respondent during the interview” (p. 362). I
attempted to be sensitive to the “languaculture” of Scholastic Achievers, “leading the researcher
beyond the words into the nature of the speaker’s world” (Agar as cited in Patton, 2002, p. 362).
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 75

Patton (2002) explained, enrich data collection during interviewing by “increasing clarity,
communicating respect, and facilitating rapport,” which was the acknowledged feat to surmount
(p. 363). Using words that reflect the worldview of Scholastic Achievers enriched the quality of
data collection.
I respect Scholastic Achievers. Therefore, as Patton (2002) asserted, “what they say to
me during interviews important to me because of who was saying it. I conveyed to them that
their knowledge, experiences, attitudes, and feelings are important” (pp. 365-366). I used
transitions as announcements, letting Scholastic Achievers know “this is where we have been
and this is where we are going” (Patton, 2002, p. 371). My interviews with Scholastic Achievers
remained “two-way conversations because the connection will be established throughout the
interview, communicating what information is desired and why that information is important,
letting the interviewee know how the interview is progressing” (Patton, 2002, p. 374). As Kvale
stated, “the interview is an interaction” (Kvale as cited in Patton, 2002, p. 374).
According to Patton (2002), as the interviewer, I maintained awareness of how the
interview was flowing, how the interviewee was reacting to questions, and what kinds of
feedback were appropriate and helpful to maintain the flow of communication (p. 375). I
controlled the interview by knowing what I wanted to find out; asked focused questions to obtain
relevant answers; listened attentively to assess the quality and relevance of responses; and gave
appropriate verbal and nonverbal feedback to the person being interviewed (Patton, 2002,
pp. 375-376). Moreover, Patton (2002) stated, “information that helps the interviewee
understand the purpose of the overall interview and the relationship of particular questions to that
overall purpose is important information that goes beyond asking questions. Understanding the
purpose of questions increased the motivation of the interviewee to respond openly and in detail”
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 76

(Patton, p. 377). I communicated respect and increased clarity during my Scholastic Achiever
interviews and explained why certain questions were being asked and entertained any
reservations or uncertainties that arose during the interviews. As principal investigator, I
delivered the purpose of the interview in a brief opening statement at the beginning of the
interview and facilitated rapport with the Fall 2015 Scholastic Achiever sitting across from me in
the interview setting during the first stages of the interview.
I conducted one 1-hour interview or longer with each study participant (60-75 minutes).
The goal was to interview a minimum of 7-10 Scholastic Achievers. I interviewed 10 Scholastic
Achievers during the research study. There were 13 interview questions in the Interview
Protocol (see Appendix A). However, there were many more probes and prompts within each of
the 13 questions contained in the protocol. The interviews were informal in my approach to the
stream of conversation but formal with the unequivocal use of an Interview Guide during each
interview. The interview guide was structured. However, a semi-structured dialogue developed
based on the interviewee’s responses to given questions or responses to follow-up probes. This
was the best approach to data collection in extracting in-depth, qualitative data from the
interviewed Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers, while establishing the connection about the purpose
of the research study. I conducted the interviews in secure, confidential locations at UU. A
private conference room area in the Library and a private conference room area in Ellison Hall
served as interview locations. In the library, seven interviews were held and in Ellison Hall,
three interviews were conducted, both sites were on the UU campus.
The interview questions were connected to the study’s Conceptual Framework by asking
Scholastic Achievers overt questions that pertained to the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational elements that influenced the persistence, retention, and matriculation of Scholastic
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 77

Achievers at UU. The purpose of the study was to examine the problem of practice at UU by
identifying the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements interfering with
the persistence, retention, and matriculation of Scholastic Achievers. Pursuing the research goal
by answering the research question was the mission of the study, in grappling with the Scholastic
Achievers Stakeholder Goal. The Organizational Goal was to increase retention rates and
graduation rates at UU (UU Strategic Plan, 2012, p. 14).
Data Analysis
I entered the field after receiving USC and UU Institutional Review Board Study
Approval (October 19, 2016 and July 19, 2016, respectively) and after confirming participant
interview dates and times as well as the private, secluded UU conference room location. I
arrived at least 1-hour before the interview start time to set the room up prior to any interview
beginning. I placed the tape recorder on the table, placed the tape in the tape cassette, checked
the operation of the tape recorder, placed a writing utensil/miscellaneous supplies container on
the table and most importantly, the information sheet and recruitment letter were positioned in
front of the research participant to allow him or her to review the documents once again
(Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively). I asked study participants if they had any
additional questions pertaining to those two documents. Students were also asked to complete a
brief Screener form prior to the interview beginning (Appendix D). There were nine Screener
questions which included: gender, first-generation college student, Pell Grant recipient, major,
GPA, credit hours earned, home state, etc. I wrote the Scholastic Achievers label (SA, two
initials representing his or her last name, and interview number) at the top right corner of the
Screener form after the Scholastic Achiever completed the document and handed it to me. The
interview protocol was in front of me on a clipboard as I prepared to interview the study
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 78

participant, and water plus hard candy was placed on the table for research participants. I also
adjusted the lighting in the room as well as the temperature as needed for the comfort and
contentment of participants being interviewed. I actually took a picture of the setting to refer to
for future interviews and the staging of the interview conference room for reference. I locked the
room to the interview door to prevent any interruptions, informing participants before doing so
and I put the conference room telephone on do not disturb.
For my 10 interviews, data analysis began during data collection. I wrote reflective
memos after interviews, recording my thoughts about the participant’s interview, nonverbal
behaviors, verbal reactions, and unanticipated surprises occurring during data collection. Also, I
documented the feelings and reactions that I experienced within the interview setting in addition
to the planning that I carried out in organizing the qualitative interview materials: such as
acquiring the tape recorder and tapes, checking the tape recorder and tapes to ensure that the
equipment would work in the field, bringing an extension cord to the UU conference room to
plug in the tape recorder as a back-up to the C batteries placed in the device, as well as extra
tapes, regardless of the number of interviews scheduled for a given day, purchasing in-the-field
notebooks for extensive note-taking purposes during the interview, bringing index cards and
sticky notes to the interview for accompanying, special emphasis in-the-field notetaking,
securing enough writing utensils to take notes with to document the in-the-field reflections and
comments in real-time, having a creative container to place the writing utensils in during the
interviews, including highlighters, multiple colored pens, pencils, white out, paper clips and a
stapler for organization, recalling the decision to buy water and the selection of the hard candy
for the study participants, in case their mouths got dry or they got thirsty, and making sure I had
a rolling book bag and backpack to carry everything to the interview site.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 79

It was critical for the book bag and rolling cart to be organized by section and by
interview component. I reassembled the interview materials in the same manner as originally
sorted, after each interview or after each set of interviews, in an attempt to continuously secure
the necessities for the in-the-field qualitative study. I checked the rolling cart and book bag prior
to each interview to make sure that everything was in place for the next interview or round of
interviews. I documented my thoughts, concerns, and initial suppositions about the data in
relation to my conceptual framework and research question through reflective memos. I
transferred the recent experiences visualized in my head by dictating the occurrences into a
written format, recalling the interview circumstances and incidents that had transpired through
reflective and later through analytic memo writing.
I reviewed the reflective memos before aggregating the findings into more detail-oriented
analytic memos that unify themes, meanings, labels, categories, and codes, expectantly
permeating throughout the qualitative data. Once I left the field, interviews were transcribed by
a transcription service. Upon receiving the electronic versions of the transcribed interview
transcript data, the first phase of analysis began as I conducted open coding, looking for
empirical codes, and examining a priori codes from the conceptual framework. A second phase
of analysis was carried out where empirical and a priori codes were aggregated into
analytic/axial codes. I continued to discern the relationships between the a priori and in vivo
codes during and after data collection. In the third phase of data analysis, I identified the pattern
codes and themes that evolved in relation to the conceptual framework and research study
question. Engaging in multiple phases of analysis empowered me throughout the stages of the
process as I completely immersed myself in the material during data collection, after data
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 80

collection, and incessantly during the analysis and writing phases of the Scholastic Achievers
qualitative study.
Moreover, this process saturated me in the pattern codes and themes that persistently
materialized in conjunction with the development of a codebook. The codebook consisted of the
labels that represented the study participants, the themes that surfaced during open coding, the
individual in vivo responses, and the frequency of each individual empirical response per each
theme/category. I counted codes for frequency and reliability to illustrate typical and atypical
data patterns, with a goal of working toward credible conclusions always at the forefront of my
research. Information depicting the surfacing study themes and the total frequency per each
theme/category are discussed in Chapter 4 of the dissertation, recounting the typicality of the
data. Again, a priori codes, conceptual framework codes, and empirical codes converged with
individual respondent information in illuminating the answer to the research question. The codes
merged into patterns during subsequent data collection, permeating this fluid stage of analysis.
I utilized my conceptual framework in the analysis section as a beacon to shed light on
the respondent information that developed and emerged during the interview process. In
addition, I commissioned my conceptual framework to serve as an instrument, a tool, a device,
and indicator of the interrelated empirical material that subtly percolated like a teapot,
reverberating across the respondent information gathered during the in-the-field data collection
period. I moved from codes to themes to patterns to findings by linking the empirical/in vivo
data, the conceptual framework, the research question, and the typicality of the respondent
information. I unified the information by threading a needle and weaving the data together until
the patches of data become a completed Scholastic Achievers quilt.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 81

I aligned the empirical codes, the a priori codes, the themes, the patterns, and the
frequency of the respondent information patterns within the KMO framework. The knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influence the retention of United
University’s provisionally admitted students identified as Scholastic Achievers supported the
foundation of the data analysis, which navigated toward the root causes of the elements and
influences molding, constructing, and establishing the study’s findings. I embraced the process
of discovery, digging deep and allowing the data to speak to me. I worked through iterative
cycles of induction and deduction and employed qualitative research best practices, allowing the
coding process to drive the ongoing data to accomplish the supreme goal of answering the
Scholastic Achievers research question.
Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2014) stated, “people are meaning finders and meaning
makers…” prior to enumerating the tactics for generating meaning in qualitative data analysis:
noting patterns, themes; seeing plausibility; clustering (what goes with what); making metaphors
(achieve more integration among diverse pieces of data); counting; making
contrasts/comparisons; and partitioning variables (differentiation) are a few of the
recommendations (p. 277). The authors beseeched me to systematically assemble a coherent
understanding of the data. Thus, the tactics forwarded by Miles et al. (2014) were “building a
logical chain of evidence and making conceptual/theoretical coherence” (p. 277). According to
the authors, the critical question was “whether the meanings you find in qualitative data are
trustworthy and right” (p. 277). One of my required jobs was to interrogate myself as the
instrument of data collection, as I pondered this dilemma throughout the research study.
In my role as the instrument of data collection, my goal was to recognize how I might
have been filtering the data. I had to ask myself, am I creating a self-fulfilling prophecy during
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 82

data collection and continuing to skew the findings throughout data analysis? I wondered
whether I exhibited preferences for some participants’ voices over others due to the biases that I
brought to the research study as principal investigator? I faced these possibilities to increase the
credibility and trustworthiness of the study’s findings.
Alkin (2011) maintained, “you must be guided by the questions to be answered—what
are you trying to find out?” (p. 166). Accordingly, I considered how the data that I acquired
might be examined in answering the research study question. Alkin (2011) added, “what are the
activities or predictors that you believe contributed to the attainment of those outcomes
[independent variables]?” p. 166The goal of the analytic process that I embarked upon was the
rigorousness of the analysis to safeguard, preserve, and maintain the credibility and
trustworthiness of the data collected. Following Corbin and Strauss’s (2008) purpose of
analytical tools, I sought to envision new possibilities in the data versus holding on to “the
technical literature and personal experiences, avoided standard ways of thinking about
phenomena, stimulated the inductive process, not taking anything for granted, avoided rushing
past ‘diamonds in the rough’ when examining data, asked questions to break through
conventional thinking, while fruitfully labeling concepts and provisional category identification”
(p. 67).
Some of the Corbin and Strauss (2008) strategies that I exercised and adapted for
qualitative data analysis encompassed: questioning (probed, thought outside of the box, became
acquainted with the data); comparing the data during the collection process; grasped the meaning
of events; researcher sensitivity; examined assumptions, biases, and those of participants; altered
initial interpretations; thought about the various meanings of words; used the flip-flop technique
(turned a concept “inside out” or upside down,” obtaining a different perspective on the phrase or
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 83

word); drew upon personal experience (HBCU culture); waved the red flag as necessitated
during data collection (terms, extremes either way, questioned everything, did not accept the
common view or perspective, looked for contradictory or opposite cases); looked at language
(insight discerned about Scholastic Achievers via in vivo codes); looked at emotions and feelings
expressed during interviews (Scholastic Achiever cues for the meaning of events); seized words
that indicated time (change or shift in time, frames events); frequently interjected metaphors and
similes to color language to explain Scholastic Achiever circumstances and conditions (carries
more meaning and paints a graphic picture); looked for negative cases—case that does not fit the
pattern, exception to the action/interaction/emotional response of other Scholastic Achievers—
(pp. 69-84).
Returning to and adapting Miles et al. (2014), the first bits of the data that I pulled
together were leads that suggested important variables to follow up on during data collection. I
did not get locked into patterns too quickly by prematurely naming the memorable mountainous
material of meaning. I allowed the data to transform into the most “compelling themes,” cross-
checking uncompromisingly along the way as the authors suggested. I contemplated recurring
phrases via inductive in vivo codes, with my research question always in the forefront, as I
reminded myself of the central emphasis of the Scholastic Achievers study. Miles et al. (2014)
spotlighted what pattern codes looked like and for me the data collection process comprised
categories or themes, causes/explanations, relationships among people, and theoretical
constructs.
Corbin and Strauss (2008) stated that it was imperative that we understand our data and
recommended that we move beyond the data’s surface. I excavated the data during the coding
process and extracted what the Scholastic Achievers data disclosed. I made meaning and
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 84

understanding of the pieces and slices of data, using the endorsed analytic tools that enabled me
to dig deeper. Indeed, I did go beneath the images and words of the Scholastic Achievers cohort.
I did question the data. What was really happening within each Scholastic Achievers story that
united the codes, themes, and patterns?
Coding and analysis are very personal processes and I have made them my own.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that this stage of qualitative research was daunting. I
concurred with the authors. It has required an incredible amount of discipline. There was a vast
amount of qualitative data that I sorted through, selected, and “wove into a coherent narrative”
(p. 269). Modifying Merriam and Tisdell (2016), my presentation of the data has postulated the
topography of the Scholastic Achievers research study and my aim had been to fulfill the
preliminary promise within a framework that best answered the research question.
In discriminating the objective among the copious notes and transcripts, I intended to tell
the reading audience that the process of data collection and analysis evolved organically. My
system for keeping track of the voluminous data, analysis, and reflections led me to concede
early on that I “cannot explain to others what I do not understand myself” (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, p. 272). I achieved a balance between the descriptions, interpretations, evidentiary
materials, and analyses. I meticulously and painstakingly organized the Scholastic Achiever
interviews and descriptions, advancing the manageability of analysis.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) applied the forest for the trees analogy. The information that
I gleaned from the individual Scholastic Achiever interviews meant more upon assembling,
aggregating, and reconfiguring Cohort patterns. Modifying Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the
“precipitous peak” of the Scholastic Achievers research project was a continual climb along a
“circuitous path” (p. 221). The progress certainly was “laborious” yet rewarding with
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 85

“breathtaking revelations and fresh vistas” as I became enveloped by unique vantage points
emanating from the Scholastic Achievers population at UU to answer the research question:
What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influence the
retention of United University’s provisionally admitted students identified as
Scholastic Achievers?
I ensured that the findings were consistent with the data collected. I approached writing
the findings and results by methodically and fastidiously scouring over the data, my in-the-field
notes contained in research study notebooks, my in-the-field notecards, my in-the-field sticky
notes, my in-the-field reflective memos, my analytical memos, and my 10 Scholastic Achiever
interview transcripts, which included pages and pages of transcribed interviews (nearly 300). I
investigated and scrutinized the material, untangling the interview webs as I pledged to connect
the interview dots. Corbin and Strauss (2008) citing Miles and Huberman (1994) reference
coding and its relationship to analysis: “to review a set of fieldnotes, transcribed or synthesized
and to dissect them meaningfully while keeping the relations between parts intact, is the stuff of
analysis…differentiate and combine the data retrieved and the reflections made…” (p. 66).
I wrote my findings and results by reviewing the problem of practice in Chapter 1 of the
dissertation. I wrote my findings and results by reviewing the literature in Chapter 2 of the
dissertation. I wrote my findings and results by reviewing the methodology in Chapter 3 of the
dissertation. I wrote my findings and results by reviewing my Dissertation Committee’s
Dissertation Proposal recommendations (August 29, 2016). I wrote my findings and results by
assembling the Scholastic Achiever interviews into one coherent, credible, and trustworthy story,
elucidating the KMO elements that influence the retention of Scholastic Achievers at UU.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 86

I collected the data during the end of the month of October 2016. I began analyzing the
data during the data collection process during the end of the month of October 2016 and after
data collection during the month of November 2016. I began writing my Chapter 4 findings and
results after having the interview transcripts transcribed, after reading and re-reading the
transcripts, after reading and re-reading my interview notes, after reading my reflective and
analytical memos, after practicing the steps during the process of creating a Scholastic Achievers
data sandwich (research question, theme, assertion/claim, findings: data presentation and
selection, findings: commentary and analysis), and after creating a codebook for the study as a
guide and manual for analysis. I captured the Scholastic Achiever research findings and results
through the months of November 2016, December 2016, January 2017, February 2017, March
2017, and the month of April 2017 for inclusion in Chapter 4 of the dissertation.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

As principal investigator, I increased and maintained the credibility and trustworthiness
of the study by recognizing that the “trustworthiness of the data is tied directly to the
trustworthiness of those who collect and analyze the data—and their demonstrated competence”
(Patton as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 260). I think “rigorously about everything,
including methods and analysis because one has to trust that the study was carried out with
integrity and that it involves the ethical stance of the researcher” (Patton as cited in Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016, p. 260). Patton (2002) reminded us, “we bear the burden of demonstrating that our
methods involve rigor and skill” (p. 340). Bogdan and Biklen (2007) stated that, “if you conduct
your research in a systematic and rigorous way and develop trust, you soon will become privy to
certain information and opinions about which even insiders might not be aware” (p. 98).
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 87

According to Creswell (2014), “a transformative theory is a lens for looking at a problem,
recognizing the non-neutrality of knowledge, the pervasive influence of human interests, and
issues such as power and social relationships” (p. 75). As principal investigator of the Scholastic
Achievers case study, the problem of practice reflected performance improvement within the UU
community: I declared a theoretical lens (transformative worldview); my viewpoint was written
with an advocacy lens (program equity); the literature review did include discussions of diversity
and oppression; the participants were labeled by the author (Scholastic Achievers); the data
collection and outcomes benefitted the Scholastic Achievers population and UU (retention and
matriculation outcomes/stakeholder goals/organizational goals); the participants were actively
engaged in the project (Scholastic Achievers); power relationships were indicated in the
development of the research (organizational confluence of cultural model and cultural setting);
the goal of the study was to advocate for change and equity on behalf of the Scholastic Achievers
population matriculating at UU (adapted from Sweetman et al., 2010; Mertens, 2010 as cited in
Creswell, 2014).
Creswell (2014) conveyed Mertens’ (2010) work defining the transformative worldview
as an “action agenda to help marginalized peoples, seeking reform to change lives of the
participants and the institutions…” (p. 9). My role at UU was to empower the Scholastic
Achievers, the first-year, formerly identified provisional student population who entered the
University with a 2.0-2.29 high school GPA. My position in CSS provided a voice for our
Scholastic Achievers. Expectantly, as Creswell (2014) wrote, the role was to “raise their
consciousness or advance an agenda for change” (p. 10). Scholastic Achievers were categorized
as a “marginalized” group of students at UU (UU Strategic Planning Core Group, 2012). This
student population entered the University “disenfranchised” but my job as Retention Coordinator
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 88

was to change the paradigm within the “hallowed halls and dear old grounds” of UU (Creswell,
2014, p. 10; UU Strategic Planning Core Group, 2012). Inequities based on socioeconomic
class result in “asymmetric power relationships” (Mertens, 2010 as cited in Creswell, 2014,
p. 10). Evidence appears in the burgeoning enrollment of provisionally admitted first-generation
college students at UU (College Navigator, 2013).
I worked, increased, and maintained the credibility and trustworthiness of the study by
being reflective throughout the process. I wrote descriptive Memos and kept a detailed Audit
Trail as I conducted the research. I noted the steps in preparation of the interview process, the
actual interview process, and post-interview reflections. I looked for researcher bias and the
existence of power dynamics as Coordinator of the Scholastic Achievers program. I recognized
the role I represented as a former instructor of interviewed Scholastic Achievers. I purposefully
sampled Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers. I supported the research findings with the research
literature in the areas of retention, persistence, and matriculation at HBCUs and as it pertained to
provisionally admitted students. I utilized a coding/thematic system to categorize the data and
supported the findings between and among interviewed study participants.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) addressed internal validity, examining how research findings
matched reality: “How congruent are the findings with reality? Are investigators observing or
measuring what they think they are measuring” (p. 242). In other words, “data do not speak for
themselves; there is always an interpreter, or a translator, one cannot observe or measure a
phenomenon/event without changing it” (p. 242). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) asserted, “validity
must be assessed in terms of something other than reality”; the lens becomes credibility, or “are
the findings credible given the data presented” (p. 242)? Merriam and Tisdell (2016) defined
reliability as the replication of research findings. The authors asked, “if the study is repeated,
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 89

will it yield the same results” (p. 250). Moreover, Merriam and Tisdell (2016) relayed that
“reliability in a research design is based on the assumption that there is a single reality and that
studying it repeatedly will yield the same results” (p. 250). The authors shared that this was a
central concept of traditional experimental research, “focusing on the discovery of causal
relationships among variables and uncovering laws to explain phenomena” (p. 250).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) provided a summary of some of the regularly operated
strategies to enhance the rigor, trustworthiness, internal validity, reliability, and generalizability
of qualitative studies:
1. Triangulation—Using multiple investigators, sources of data, or data collection
methods to confirm emerging findings.
2. Member checks/Respondent Validation—Taking tentative interpretations/findings
back to the people from whom they were derived and asking if they are plausible.
3. Adequate engagement in data collection—Adequate time spent collecting data such
that the data become “saturated” this may involve seeking discrepant or negative
cases.
4. Researcher’s position or reflexivity—Critical self-reflection by the researcher
regarding assumptions, worldview, biases, theoretical orientation, and relationship to
the study that may affect the investigation.
5. Peer review/examination—Discussions with colleagues regarding the process of
study, the congruency of emerging findings with the raw data, and tentative
interpretations.
6. Audit trail—A detail account of the methods, procedures, and decision points in
carrying out the study.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 90

7. Rich, thick descriptions—Providing enough description to contextualize the study
such that readers will be able to determine the extent to which their situations match
the research context, and hence, whether findings can be transferred.
8. Maximum variation—Purposefully seeking variation or diversity in sample selection
to allow for a greater range of application of the findings by consumers of the
research. (p. 259)
Maxwell (2013) shared a detailed Validity Matrix. The researcher asks herself/himself
several reflective questions: What did I need to know? Why did I need to know this? What kind
of data answered the questions? Analysis plans? Validity threats? Possible strategies for
dealing with validity threats? and Rationale for Strategies (pp. 130-134). Uncovering the
answers to these questions and taking these definitive steps facilitated my quest to “avoid
researcher bias and reactivity” (p. 125). Maxwell (2013) provided a Validity Test checklist:
Intensive, long-term involvement, rich data, respondent validation, intervention, searching for
discrepant evidence and negative cases, Triangulation, Number, and Comparison (pp. 126-129).
The strategies that I used to ensure confidence in my sample was the purposeful sampling
of the Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort at UU. My goal was to interview a minimum of 7-
10 Scholastic Achievers to ensure confidence in my sample. I interviewed 10 Scholastic
Achievers. I interviewed the participants who volunteered to participate after they read the
Information Sheet and Recruitment Letter (Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively). I did not
coerce any Scholastic Achiever to participate in the research study. I was reflective about my
actions as the Scholastic Achievers Coordinator in the capacity of interviewer/researcher. As
principal investigator, I wrote the interview protocol questions in a non-judgmental, non-biased,
and objective manner. I sought to avoid any conflicts of interest. I had not taught the Fall 2015
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 91

Scholastic Achievers since the Fall 2015 semester at UU. I addressed the bias in non-responses
and probed with a follow-up question. I extracted more responsive answers from the interview
participant. I did not belabor the point if the interviewee continued to maintain a non-responsive
stance.
Ethics
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), “although policies, guidelines, and codes of
ethics have been developed…actual ethical practice comes down to the individual researcher’s
own values and ethics” (p. 261). Organizational and Institutional Review Boards (IRB) set
guidelines such as “do no harm” and informed consent. The authors outlined, “relational ethics
mean being aware of one’s own role and impact on relationships and treating participants as
whole people rather than as just subjects…” (Tracy as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 261).
Therefore, the protection of subjects from harm, the right to privacy, the notion of informed
consent, and the issue of deception all need to be considered ahead of time, confirmed Merriam
and Tisdell (2016). The authors reported that the “situational and relational nature of ethical
dilemmas depends not upon a set of general pre-established guidelines but upon the
investigator’s own sensitivity and values” (p. 261).
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) emphasized that ethical dilemmas are likely to emerge during
the collection of data and in the dissemination of findings. The researcher-participant
relationship and the research purpose are paramount ethical considerations in qualitative
research.
An “Ethical Issues Checklist” enumerated 12 items to consider when engaging in
qualitative research (Patton as cited in Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pp. 264-265):
1. Explaining the purpose of the inquiry and methods to be used
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 92

2. Reciprocity (what’s in it for the interviewee and issues of compensation)
3. Promises
4. Risk assessment
5. Confidentiality
6. Informed Consent
7. Data access and ownership
8. Interviewer mental health
9. Ethical advice (who will be your counselor on ethical matters)
10. Data collection boundaries
11. Ethical and methodological choices
12. Ethical versus legal
As the qualitative researcher, I focused on meaning and understanding in order to
answer the research question (Merriam & Tisdell, 2009). To do this, it was important that I
made ethical choices when conducting the study because so much of the data collection entailed
conversation. In particular, an Information Sheet was given to all participants at the
commencement of the study (Appendix B and Appendix C). According to Glesne (2011),
informed consent was necessary to ensure the participants were aware that their participation was
voluntary, all the discussions would be kept confidential, and they could withdraw at any point
without penalty. To ensure the safety of the participants, I submitted my study to the University
of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) and followed their rules and guidelines
regarding the protection of the rights and welfare of the participants in this study (USC approval
to conduct research study received 10/19/16). To ensure the safety of the participants, I
submitted my study to the UU Institutional Review Board for approval and followed their rules
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 93

and guidelines regarding the protection of the rights and welfare of the participants in this study
at my site of employment and host institution.
Each participant received the Information Sheet (Appendix B). I reminded interview
respondents that this study was voluntary and that their identity would be kept confidential.
Prior to the research study, I received permission to audio/video record the interviews and
provided participants with transcripts of the interviews, if requested, which allowed them the
opportunity to ensure that I had not changed their words. I reminded the participants that I
would not provide any incentives so as not to coerce them. However, at the conclusion of the
study I personally thanked the interview respondents for their participation. This lack of
incentive was a way to minimize the possibility that participants would feel coerced to
participate. Personally thanking Scholastic Achievers served as a way to show my appreciation
to study participants for the time expended during the interviews and for sharing their
experiences with the principal investigator, as recommended by experienced field researchers.
On July 19, 2016, I received Institutional Review Board approval from UU to conduct
my research study. I was given a 1-year time period to collect the data at the location. I
respected the participants in the study. Participation in the Scholastic Achievers study at UU was
voluntary. I valued the willingness of Scholastic Achievers to participate in the study. In
addition, I accepted that participants might cease participation at any time (none ceased
participation). I told study participants that they would not face any consequences/liabilities if
they decided to end participation in the study. The one-session and 1-hour or more (60-75
minutes), open-ended format interview was audio and video recorded with the permission of
study participants and the audio/video recordings were recorded on mini-cassettes and
maintained by the principal investigator in a locked container outside of UU. Interview
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 94

transcripts were stored on the principal investigator’s flash drive/s, which were stored in the
same locked container as the audio/video recordings. The research participants granted approval
to audio and video record, audio-only, or video-only the interview. The Scholastic Achievers
interviewed and received an Information Sheet and after reading and reviewing the research
study information, returned the document to the principal investigator at UU.
The principal investigator managed, monitored, and safeguarded the audio/video-
recordings. Participants had the right to review/edit the audio/video-recordings or transcripts.
The principal investigator and transcribers had access to the recordings. The audio/video-
recordings were not used for educational purposes. The audio/video-recordings and interview
transcription documents will be erased/deleted or shredded immediately after the conclusion of
the study. The research study’s flash drive/s will be destroyed immediately after the completion
of the study. The information will not be released to any other party for any reason. Personal
information, research data, and related records were coded by themes and stored on the
investigator’s flash drive/s to prevent access by unauthorized personnel. The personnel that did
have access to the personal information, research data, and related records included Ms. Monique
L. Logan, M.Ed., M.I.S. and Dr. Julie Slayton, JD, PhD and the Institutional Review Board
Committees at the University of Southern California and United University.
My potential interest in the outcome of the research study was to identify the knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influenced the retention of United
University’s provisionally admitted students identified as Scholastic Achievers to improve the
Scholastic Achievers program at UU? During the Fall 2015 semester at UU, I served as the sole
program coordinator and as an instructor in the Scholastic Achievers program. I still hold this
position with the University. However, now I am directly working with the Fall 2016 Scholastic
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 95

Achievers Cohort. Again, the Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort have not had the principal
investigator as a direct contact instructor, advisor, academic engagement facilitator, or
coordinator, since the Fall 2015 semester at UU.
Any confusion of my dual role as Scholastic Achiever Coordinator was elucidated by
clarifying that the UU students participating in the research study were former Scholastic
Achiever program students and former GST 007: Scholastic Seminar students of the principal
investigator (mandatory Scholastic Achiever course). So, the Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers
Cohort do not have direct contact with the principal investigator at UU. Indeed, they do have
direct access to the Retention Coordinator but that was based on the Scholastic Achiever’s
decision to come by the office of the Retention Coordinator. I explained to Fall 2015 Scholastic
Achiever study participants that I was functioning in the role of researcher versus in the role of
Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort Coordinator and any decisions that I made and pursued
were to answer the study’s research question.
As mentioned earlier, I am a graduate of a Historically Black College and University
(HBCU). My undergraduate HBCU is recognized as one of the premier HBCU’s in the nation
(College Navigator, 2013). I carry the HBCU experience with me as I walked the grounds of my
institution of employment. UU is an HBCU founded in 1865 by the American Baptist Home
Mission Society to educate freed slaves after the end of the Civil War (VUU Quick Facts, 2013).
As a black, upper middle class female, whose Mother graduated from UU in 1960, I conceded
that I have a personal stake in the improvement of the problem of practice. My bias was my
vested interest in the viability, sustainability, and legacy of UU.
There are two more potential bias factors that were scrutinized. I am a lifelong member
of the city in which UU is located. Yes, I have lived in other states but this city is my hometown.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 96

I did grow up in the suburbs outside of the metropolitan area surrounding the campus.
Nevertheless, I have been familiar with UU for as long as I can remember. Moreover, my
grandmother retired from UU. When I go to the Archives section of the library, I can view
photos of my Mother and Grandmother in yesteryear yearbooks. The assumptions that I bear
incorporated the belief that any student can succeed given the opportunity and provided the
access to engage in an environment of higher learning. I fervently contend that success lies in
the palm of your hands if you reach out and grasp “the promise of a limitless future” (UU
Strategic Planning Core Group, 2012).
Limitations and Delimitations
The principal investigator was the Coordinator of the Scholastic Achievers program at
UU. The program coordinator taught the study participants during the Fall 2015 semester in
GST 007: Scholastic Seminar. The investigator no longer had one-on-one contact with study
participants through the Scholastic Achievers program or the UU seminar course. The
anticipated limitations included the reality that the study participants were my former students
who could have answered the interview questions by telling me what they think I wanted to hear.
I cannot control the former college instructor/student power dynamics that came into play as
Coordinator of the program. The implications for the data were vast, because if the complete
veracity of some of the participants was due to the prior relationship with me as the
researcher/interviewer in the role of the instrument of data collection and interviewee/Scholastic
Achiever the limitations to the findings and results of the study might lack credibility.
The decision to interview the research participants in a 1-hour or more (60-75 minutes),
audio/video-recorded, face-to-face setting on the campus of UU could have influenced the
truthfulness of respondents as well, even though we were in a confidential setting. My goal was
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 97

to interview a minimum of 7-10 Scholastic Achievers to counter the limitations of the study.
The questions that I asked remained free from researcher bias and were not phrased in a way that
struck at the heart of the previous instructor/student relationship. I avoided any perceived
conflicts of interest in the study. Again, I had not taught any of the Fall 2015 Scholastic
Achievers since the Fall 2015 academic year at UU.
There were more limitations and delimitations that would not materialize until during the
time the study was actually conducted. These comprised the bounding of the case study which
included 10 Scholastic Achievers and only Scholastic Achievers from the Fall 2015 Cohort.
Also, only 2 out of the 10 respondents were males. In addition, the K, M, and O framework
bound the study in such a way that limited participant responses. Furthermore, the lack of a
robust Interview Protocol instrument inhibited fully developed or elaborated answers to the
research question. Yet, the original Interview Protocol instrument initially emerged as if it
would satiate the impending data collection efforts. These matters arose but were beyond the
purview of the study to solve due to research study constraints.
Conclusion
Chapter 3 addressed the methodology of the study. The participants of the study, the
interview criterion and rationale, the interview recruitment strategy and rationale, data collection
and instrumentation, data analysis, the credibility and trustworthiness, ethics, and limitations and
delimitations were detailed to ensure that the study’s methodology followed the USC and UU
IRB-approved protocol and stipulations.
The next chapter in the dissertation was Chapter 4. This chapter shared the findings of
the study and analysis of the data collected, making meaning of participant responses.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 98

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to
examine the knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational elements that interfere with the
retention of provisional students identified as Scholastic Achievers at United University (UU),
specifically from the freshman year to sophomore year. The research question was: What are the
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influence the retention of
United University’s provisionally admitted students identified as Scholastic Achievers?
The analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed interfering elements and
then by examining these systematically, concentrated on actual or validated interfering elements
based interview data. The stakeholder focused on in this analysis was Scholastic Achievers. The
retention of Scholastic Achievers represented the performance problem of practice (UU Strategic
Plan, 2012).
The acceptance of provisionally admitted students had steadily increased at UU (College
Navigator, 2013). At a time of declining enrollment, UU chose to accept more provisional
students to maintain enrollment numbers (College Navigator, 2013). With an increase in the
provisional student population at UU, an additional set of challenges had become readily
apparent. Maintaining and increasing retention rates, while accepting more provisional students
demanded UU to position and provide the appropriate resources and services to handle the
academic needs of this population.
As stated in chapter one, during Fall 2015, the provisional student population at UU was
17.9% or 82 out of 456 first year freshman were provisionally admitted to the University (UU
Quick Facts, 2015). The Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort consisted of 80.4% first-
generation college students or 66 out the 82 students (UU Quick Facts, 2015). These students
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 99

were admitted to UU with a high school GPA ranging between a 2.0 and 2.29. According to the
Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Special Programs at UU, the Fall 2016 retention
rate was 54.8% or 45 students out of the original 82 students (UU Quick Facts, 2016). The
organizational goal was to increase the average retention rate from 50% to 70% for second year
students.
This chapter presents the findings in the categories of knowledge and motivation and
organization. There are four findings presented. First, I provide an overview of the 10
Scholastic Achievers who participated in my study. Then, I discuss the findings and themes.
Participating Stakeholders
Interviews were conducted with 10 Scholastic Achievers. Table 5 summarizes the
Scholastic Achievers interviewed (see below). Six of the 10 participants earned a 3.0 GPA or
better; two students earned a 2.5 GPA; and two students fell at or below a 1.5 GPA. The two
students matriculating at or below a 1.5 GPA were on academic probation at the institution at the
time of the interviews. Six of the 10 Scholastic Achievers received Pell Grant assistance through
the federal government to attend college. The socio-economic status of undergraduate students,
specifically, provisionally admitted students is imperative to consider when reviewing the
background or college readiness of the student population (Nichols & Clinedinst, 2013).
Likewise, 6 out of the 10 interview respondents were first-generation college students, an
additional critical component of college readiness (Nichols & Clinedinst, 2013). Documenting
the declared majors showcased data about the Scholastic Achievers’ fields of study and the
academic curriculum trajectory.
Pertaining to cumulative credit hours, 7 out of the 10 interview respondents earned 30
credit hours or more at the end of the freshman year. The majority of those who did not were the
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 100

lower academic performers (2 out of the 3). Jacob, a high academic performer, was a student-
athlete at UU. He dropped a few courses during the academic year while his sport was in season.
However, Jacob still maintained a 3.0 GPA. Participants traveled from a few regionally located
areas to attend UU. Only 2 out of the 10 respondents were female.
Table 5
Scholastic Achievers Demographic Information

Three distinct groups emerged from the data. There were students who had performed
well in school in academically in their first year, others who had managed to meet the basic
academic expectations of the university, and a final group who were clearly struggling
Respondent Declared
Major
GPA Cumulative
Credit
Hours
Gender First-
Generation
Pell
Grant
Recipient
Geographic
Residence
Michael Education 2.5 30 M No Yes Virginia
Jacob Entrepreneurial
Management
3.0 24 M No No Maryland
John Criminal Justice 2.5 31 M Yes Yes Virginia
Phillip Fine Arts 3.0 30 M Yes Yes Virginia
Evan Mass
Communications
3.6 30 M Yes Yes New Jersey
Chris Biology 3.5 30 M Yes Yes Virginia
Matthew Criminal Justice 1.1 20 M No No Virginia
Stephanie Entrepreneurial
Management
3.0 30 F Yes Yes Maryland
Lisa Psychology 1.5 17 F Yes No Maryland
Todd Computer
Information
Systems
3.7 31 M No No Washington,
D.C.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 101

academically. Thus, the interview respondents were compartmentalized into performance bands.
The high-performance band consisted of participants who fell between a 3.0 GPA and up. The
middle-performance band was comprised of participants who had a 2.5 GPA. The low-
performance band consisted of participants who fell below a 2.5 GPA. There were six
participants who fell in the high-performance band (Chris, Evan, Jacob, Phillip, Stephanie,
Todd). There were two participants who fell in the middle-performance band (John and
Michael). There were two students who fell in the low-performance band (Lisa and Matthew).
Findings
In this section I present the findings of the research study, which are organized into two
categories: Knowledge (K) and Motivation (M) and Organization (O) influencers that emerged in
relation to the research question and the conceptual framework. Each of the categories had
findings and Finding 3 and Finding 4 had themes that evolved within the findings. The three
findings related to knowledge and motivation were: 1) All students saw college as something that
was important to them and they all wanted to succeed (utility value); 2) All students recognized
the demands of college. To some extent, all engaged in metacognitive acts. On the other hand,
not all students were able to act on what they understood to be behaviors and actions they needed
to take to find success in college; and 3) Students who did not follow through on those actions
they needed to for success had lower self-efficacy than those who were able to enact those
behaviors that contributed to their academic success. The four findings related to organizational
influences were: 1) The program Coordinator provided the administrative, instructional, and
personal support to facilitate the retention, persistence, and matriculation of Scholastic Achievers
to achieve performance goals; 2) The Resources and Support Services at UU played an important
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 102

role in the Scholastic Achievers’ ability to achieve performance goals; 3) UU Faculty, Staff, and
Offices influenced the persistence of Scholastic Achievers to achieve performance goals; and
4) The Panther PALS Mentoring Program did not influence the persistence of Scholastic
Achievers.
I would be remiss if I did not explain how the Chapter 4 findings intersected and
coincided with one another. The Knowledge and Motivation as well as Organizational
influences visibly merged and created blurred lines. Furthermore, the utility value,
metacognitive, and self-efficacy findings overlapped throughout Chapter 4 but were
compartmentalized based on the perimeters of the case study.
The chapter proceeds as follows. First, I present the findings associated with knowledge
and motivation influences. Next, I present the findings connected to organizational influences.
Finding 1: All students saw college as something that was important to them and they all
wanted to succeed (Utility Value, Knowledge and Motivation Influence).
The first finding to emerge from the data was that all students saw college as something
that was important to them and they all wanted to succeed. The Knowledge and Motivation
influence was organized by three themes, the Utility Value, Metacognitive, and Self-Efficacy
themes. Out of the 10 study respondents, 8 expressed the importance of attending college and
being successful as a factor influencing their persistence at UU. Utility value was defined as
seeing the importance of performing well at UU (minimum 2.5 GPA and 30 credit hours).
2

The Utility Value construct was critical to the Scholastic Achievers population or how
valuing the task can lead to achieving long range goals or receiving immediate or long range
external rewards (Eccles, 2009). Utility value was determined by how well a task fit into an
individual’s goals and plans or fulfills other psychological needs (Eccles, 2009).

2
The term utility value was used interchangeably with expectancy-value theory.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 103

Participant responses provided insight into the role the value they placed on attending and
succeeding in college in relation to retention and persistence. The expectancy-value model can
be narrowed down to two central motivational questions: Can the individual do the task? and
Does the individual want to do the task (Eccles, 2009)?
Some of the necessary academic steps that led toward persistence in the first year of
college were recounted by John, a middle-performance band student, who stated “being a college
student takes a lot of work. You must be mindful of due dates to avoid doing work at the last
minute.” He highlighted that using index cards to study was a system that he developed as a
student in the Scholastic Achievers program. John recognized that preparing for classes as a
college student takes a lot of preparation. He stated that he kept track of due dates and
developed a system to study as a student in the Scholastic Achievers program. John took the
necessary academic steps to lead toward his persistence at UU. John said that he sees that there
are things that he has to do to make it in college because college takes a lot of work. John
utilized the tools to do the work of a college student. John did meet the stakeholder goal, earning
a 2.5 GPA and 31 credit hours at the end of his freshman year. Nevertheless, during his
interview John expressed that he was working harder to raise his GPA to join campus
organizations that require a higher GPA for membership.
John indicated that “partnering with classmates to study and saying no, prioritizing,” had
worked for him in meeting academic goals. In addition, John explained, “having friends who put
academics first helps me to have someone to go to and talk to for encouragement and assignment
reminders.” Furthermore, developing a system for success was paramount in proactively
overcoming academic challenges as entering provisional students. Tinto (1988) expressed that
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 104

the first year and definitely, the first semester, are critical to student persistence and degree
completion.
The Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort figured out early on that provisional
admission afforded cohort members the opportunity to attend a 4-year college (10 out of the 10).
Scholastic Achievers acknowledged that the work ethic exhibited in high school would be
counterproductive in college and would not rise to the expectations of the Scholastic Achievers
program at UU. Partnering with fellow Scholastic Achievers and classmates on academic
assignments and course projects could assist them in meeting academic achievement goals.
Phillip, a high-performance band student, noted that he had to manage his time better and
when he was struggling in a class he needed to go to the professor and seek outside classroom
assistance. Like John, Phillip realized the steps that he had to take to lead to persistence at UU.
Phillip added that working with classmates, reading outside of class time, listening in class, and
switching gears when required got things clicking for him. According to Phillip, “joining study
groups, connecting with students who have previously taken the class, and balancing my
academics along with other obligations has proved successful for me.” Phillip could recite the
academic steps that lead to persistence during his first year of college at UU. Phillip earned a 3.0
GPA and 30 credit hours at the end of his freshman year.
However, Lisa and Matthew, low-performance band students, both recounted utility
value steps taken to lead toward persistence as Scholastic Achievers but the GPA and earned
credit hour goals were not met by the end of their freshman year. For example, Matthew stated
that he visited professors during office hours to get help, even taking pictures of the professor’s
office hours posted on the door. He said, “continue working with the teacher during office hours
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 105

to get extra help.” Also, Matthew reported that he reached out to classmates because if he was in
a hard class, “tried to get help from anyone I could.”
Yet, Matthew’s grades and credit hours do not reflect the utility value practices that he
highlighted in meeting GPA and earned credit hour goals as a Scholastic Achiever. Lisa
described how she should have tried to do more, like increasing classroom interactions and
talking to professors. Lisa commented, “get help when needed, anything can help to improve a
grade.” She exclaimed, “I need to take more initiative. I want to be more motivated. I need to
have more faith in myself to do better academically.” Matthew and Lisa both struggled
academically but shared different experiences in not meeting stakeholder objectives. One was
more proactive than the other but the results were very similar.
Matthew spoke about getting out of his comfort zone/getting out of his shell and how his
own inertia stymied his persistence at UU. On the other hand, Matthew identified steps and
actions that he took to persist at UU. However, seeing the value in completing certain requisite
tasks to reach college persistence goals but not fully following through on those identified steps
sent mixed messages during Matthew’s interview. He highlighted needing to get more help and
the need to be more trusting. Yet, Matthew mentioned that he reached out to classmates and
professors. It sounded like Matthew and Lisa were metacognitively aware and had the
knowledge to persist but they only partially enacted the necessary academic steps and behaviors
to demonstrate utility value/expectancy-value in order to persist successfully at UU. This
respondent data was used as an example of utility value and how the Scholastic Achiever
recognized the importance of being successful in college. However, this could also be viewed as
a lack of self-efficacy, Finding 3.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 106

Mayer (2011) maintained that one conception of motivation was that students would
work harder to learn when they believed that their hard work would pay off. According to
Eccles (2009), whether the individual can do the task predicts better performance and more
motivation to pursue more challenging tasks. Thus, fully engaging in learning requires the
preference to perform a task. The Scholastic Achievers conceptual framework addressed the
motivational influences tackled by students in the program, examining utility value through the
lens of academic steps to lead to persistence in the first year of college.
Finding 2: All students were able to recognize the demands of college. To some extent, all
engaged in metacognitive acts. On the other hand, not all students were able to act on what
they understood to be behaviors and actions they needed to take to find success in college
(Metacognition, Knowledge and Motivation Influence).
The second finding to emerge from the data was that students’ ability to persist was in
part related to the fact that they were metacognitive about what they needed to do to succeed in
their first year. More specifically, all 10 respondents expressed that college was more rigorous
than high school. In addition, they identified behaviors they needed to adopt and actions that
they needed to take in order to succeed.
First, with respect to recognizing the difference between high school and college, all 10
indicated in one way or another that they saw college as demanding more from them than their
high schools did. For example, Todd, a high-performance band student, stated that “high school
to college is a whole ‘nother’ ball game.” He recognized that college was more complicated than
high school. It can be inferred from his statement that college was harder, bigger, and more
challenging than high school. His recognition was an example of meta-cognition because he was
reflecting on his experience in high school and seeing the difference between those experiences
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 107

and his current circumstances at UU. Todd also admitted that he was a “little scared about what
was ahead as a first semester college student.” His initial trepidation about college, “he was a
little scared” indicated that he was aware that college would be different than his previous
experience as a high school student, something he had not experienced yet.
In addition to their awareness of the differences in rigor, these 10 students also were
aware of the behaviors and activities that they needed to engage in so that that they could
succeed. These behaviors ranged from learning new skills to participating in Scholastic
Achiever sponsored activities. For example, Todd, a high-performance band student, explained
that through his participation in the Scholastic Achievers program, he learned that, “good time
management is important if you don’t want to fall behind in classes.” Stephanie, another high-
performance band respondent, reflected: “we must make daily choices in college.” Both
respondents recognized that their actions played a significant role in whether they were
successful. Todd recognized the importance of time management, Stephanie understood that the
choices she made contributed to her success. Similarly, Todd was aware that he benefited from
the comradery of other provisionally admitted students. He believed that his peers could relate to
where he was coming from as Scholastic Achievers and as new students at UU. He added that
he asked fellow Scholastic Achievers for help during the transition/adjustment period to college
because he realized that his success as a freshman would depend on a circle of support. Todd
said, “I talk to my peers in our Scholastic Achievers Seminar class.” Similarly, Stephanie said,
“spending time with Scholastic Achievers in class and talking through different experiences as
new college students made a difference for me.”
Moreover, both Todd and Stephanie recognized that participating in the Scholastic
Achievers program activities contributed to their success. Stephanie said, “the Scholastic
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 108

Achievers Seminar class helped with learning everything around campus.” She also noted that
attending Scholastic Achiever programs, “helped me figure things out.” Like Todd, Stephanie’s
persistence was grounded in Scholastic Achiever Cohort experiences and she recognized the
benefit of developing relationships with goal-oriented peers in order to be a successful college
freshman. For example, Stephanie shared, “freshman in the Scholastic Achievers program
helped me figure things out.” Todd and Stephanie utilized metacognitive awareness in selecting
their peer group to stay on track and persist. In addition, both Todd and Stephanie’s statements
were consistent with Tinto’s (2006) assertion that participation in a learning community
contributes to students’ ability to persist.
Tinto (1988) stated that becoming a new member of a community or becoming a new
student in college requires “separation, transition, and incorporation.” These periods have to be
traveled through as stages or passages in order for the student to complete his or her degree
program (p. 442). Todd and Stephanie learned quickly that associations in college were crucial
to grasping the landscape at UU. Ten out of 10 Scholastic Achievers realized that connecting
with classmates early on was central to their success during the first semester of college.
Yet, 4 out of the 10 Scholastic Achievers were less successful during the freshman year at
UU. Middle and low-performance band students were able to recognize the demands and engage
in metacognitive acts but were not able to translate those understandings into action (John,
Michael, Lisa, and Matthew), earning a 2.5 or below GPA. For example, one of the low-
performance band students, Lisa, admitted that she did not ask for help when she needed it even
though she recognized there were certain things she would have to do to be fully admitted to the
University. Now, Lisa is on academic probation. Matthew, another low-performance band
student, acknowledged that he had time management issues and that he too should have asked for
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 109

help by reaching out more. Matthew remarked, I need to be more trusting and open toward
people trying to help me.” He added, “I need to get out of my shell and my comfort zone to do
better.” Like Lisa, Matthew is also on academic probation. Michael, a middle-performance
band student, relayed, “college is what you make it.” He said that he understood the importance
of networking with people during the initial transition period. Michael commented, “I don’t
want to feel uncomfortable going to someone on campus for information, if it will help me be
successful.” While, John talked about the social side of his freshman year in college. He
discussed how the transition lead him to realize that there was “too much freedom in college, put
restraints on freedom to be a successful Scholastic Achiever.” Out of the 10 Scholastic
Achievers interviewed, 6 were able to translate metacognition, the demands of college, and the
ability to take action into successful performance goal outcomes, earning a 3.0 or above GPA.
It was crucial for me to examine both ends as well as the middle of the academic
spectrum of interview respondents. Regardless of where they landed, each stipulated key factors
that could help or hinder the transition to UU. For some, the transition was a success, for others,
academic probation was the end result and the possibility of losing financial aid to cover tuition
expenses.
All students were able to recognize the demands of college. To some extent, all engaged
in metacognitive acts. On the other hand, not all students were able to act on what they
understood to be behaviors and actions they needed to take to find success in college. Again, out
of the 10 Scholastic Achievers interviewed, 6 were able to act on the behaviors that led to college
success (high-performance band students).
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 110

Finding 3: Students who did not follow through on those actions they needed to for success
had lower self-efficacy than those who were able to enact those behaviors that contributed
to their academic success (Self-Efficacy, Knowledge and Motivation Influence).
The third finding to emerge from the data was that students who did not follow through
on those actions they needed to for success had lower self-efficacy than those who were able to
enact those behaviors that contributed to their academic success. Out of the 10 study
respondents, 8 expressed the significance of self-efficacy as a factor influencing their persistence
at UU. Pajares (2009) wrote that intrinsic motivation and personal accomplishment are
interconnected to self-efficacy beliefs. One must believe that their actions will yield the coveted
end results or the incentive to act or persist when confronted with impediments wanes.
Moreover, self-efficacy as a motivational influence was contemplated through the prism of the
Scholastic Achievers beliefs that they were capable of successful academic mastery as first-year
college students.
Evan, a high-performance band student, said, “I take my academics seriously but I can
still do better. I am motivated to do better.” Evan recognized that he was capable of successful
academic mastery as a first-year college student. Evan commented that he learned that he must
help himself before he can help others. Here, it sounded like Evan grasped the fact that he would
have to take his academics seriously before he would be able to help others do the same thing.
Todd, a high-performance band student, found that doing his homework first was a priority for
him, “schoolwork comes first.” He added, “everything else falls in place if you put your
schoolwork first.” Todd said that he keeps his momentum going when it comes to good grades,
“in order to reach my main goal of graduating on time.” When Todd put his schoolwork first, he
prioritized, continuing on the path to graduate with his class. Todd expressed that he was
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 111

capable of academic mastery as a first-year college student by making the appropriate choices to
be successful.
Chris, a high-performance band student, disclosed, “if I had not picked up the pace, my
first year in college would not have gone so well. I stayed calm, did not panic, and understood
what I had to do and did it.” The student remarked that his plans have been to continue to stay
focused and “not letting anything get in the way of achieving a goal.” Chris learned that he was
capable of successful academic mastery as a first-year college student but he had to make
adjustments along the way. He closed with, “I know what I want. I have a goal in mind. I just
realized that I like to learn. It is a good feeling to sit in class and know what they are talking
about.” Chris signaled that he was capable of academic mastery as a first-year college student
through his appreciation and comprehension of course material as he set his sights on a
successful first year at UU.
Michael, a middle-performance band student, found, “college requires that I study harder,
it is not easy but I can do it if I put my mind to it.” Michael reported that if he managed his time
better by studying and being more prepared for classes he could get the GPA that he wanted,
which was a 3.0. Michael mentioned that forming study groups with classmates and going to
professors for help would help him improve his GPA. So, Michael believed that he could meet
his academic goals if he invested the extra effort that it would take to see his name on the Dean’s
List at UU.
Bandura (2005) stated that people are self-organizing, proactive, self-regulating, and self-
reflecting. The author extensively researched and studied the theory of cognitive regulation of
motivation, affect, and action, verifying the function of personal efficacy beliefs as the basis for
action (Bandura, 2005).
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 112

Finding 4: UU sustained the Scholastic Achievers connection to the institution, supporting
persistence (Organization Influence).
The fourth finding to emerge from the data was how the organization kept Scholastic
Achievers connected to UU to support persistence. There are three themes that were discovered:
1) The role of the program Coordinator and the persistence of Scholastic Achievers; 2) Campus
Resources and Support Services such as computer labs, library services, tutoring centers, etc.; 3)
Faculty or other UU Staff and Offices on campus who demonstrated care for students; and
4) The Panther PALS Mentoring Program did not influence the persistence of Scholastic
Achievers.
Theme 1: The Scholastic Achievers Coordinator influenced the retention, persistence, and
matriculation of program participants to achieve performance goals. The first theme was
related to the role the Scholastic Achievers Coordinator played in the retention, persistence, and
matriculation of study participants. The Organization influence is organized by three themes: 1)
The Coordinator, Cultural Model and Cultural Setting theme;
2) The Resources and Support Services, Cultural Model and Cultural Setting theme; and the
3) The UU Faculty, Staff, and Offices, Cultural Model and Cultural Setting theme, in relation to
the persistence of Scholastic Achievers matriculating at UU. Out of the 10 Scholastic Achievers
interviewed, 9 expressed how instrumental their relationship with the Scholastic Achievers
Coordinator had been to their initial high school to college academic and transition success.
Leadership values were indispensable at the inception of building relationships and
setting the stage for accomplishment and triumph in the heightened corridors of academic
excellence in a collegiate environment. The following was adapted from Bennis and Goldsmith
(2010):
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 113

Clear communication (strong value); How could I have been clearer about my
performance expectations for my students? What were the guidelines for the results I
wanted my students to achieve? How were the goals of the classroom communicated?
Could the goals of the classroom have been communicated more powerfully? What
ethical principles did I value most in myself and in my students? How could I recognize
the achievements of my students more effectively, in or outside of the classroom?
(pp. 30-35)
Again, out of the 10 Scholastic Achievers interviewed, 9 expressed how instrumental
their relationship with the Scholastic Achievers Coordinator had been to their initial high school
to college academic and transition success. Lisa, a low-performance band student, indicated,
“Ms. Jefferson is very helpful. She is gearing us to be headed in the right direction.” Lisa
added, “I turn to Ms. Jefferson because she is easy to talk to about anything.” Lisa stated that
Ms. Jefferson pushed Scholastic Achievers to do great things. Lisa’s comments aligned with the
Coordinator Influence theme: Ms. Jefferson was instrumental in the retention, persistence, and
matriculation of study participants attending UU. The interview respondent noted the
helpfulness of the Coordinator and how it led Scholastic Achievers in the right direction. The
ease to talk to the Coordinator about anything including pushing interview participants “to do
great things” linked the role played by the Coordinator in influencing the persistence of 9 out of
the 10 Scholastic Achievers.
Matthew’s, a low-performance band student, respondent statements implied a student
headed toward a successful path at UU, regarding his staying on track and reaching out to get
help from the Coordinator because she got things in order. Matthew stipulated, “Ms. Jefferson is
the main person I talked to and she helped me to get things in order and stay on track. Ms.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 114

Jefferson is helpful, leading me down a straight path and I turn to her because I trust her.”
Matthew continued, saying that he prefers to go talk to the Coordinator because she gets
everything in order out of the whole group. Matthew had reiterated Lisa’s comments. The
Scholastic Achievers Coordinator was the main person he talked to when trying to get things in
order and “stay on track.”
According to Matthew, the Coordinator’s helpfulness steered him “down a straight path”
and that led him to trust her. The Coordinator’s helpfulness and assistance in facilitating the
persistence of Scholastic Achievers was influenced by her work with study participants in
leading them down a purposeful path in order to keep Scholastic Achievers on the persistence
trajectory.
However, Matthew expressed that he needed to be more trusting. He stated that he
trusted the Scholastic Achievers Coordinator but he also said that he visited professor’s offices.
The Coordinator’s role was to lead Scholastic Achievers down a purposeful persistence path at
UU or attempt to establish a rapport with students by providing assistance and being helpful.
Yet, in carrying out these tasks all of the academic and organizational needs for every Scholastic
Achiever matriculating at the institution were not met based on student performance outcomes.
It seemed that leadership from the Coordinator was beneficial to most of the Scholastic
Achievers mandated to participate in the program (9 out of the 10 interviewed). Direction,
guidance, and tutelage from every corner of the University was received through open channels
of communication with the Scholastic Achievers Coordinator. The Coordinator may be in her
office talking to a Scholastic Achiever, in the GST 007: Scholastic Seminar course, facilitating
the class curriculum, or presenting during Academic Student Engagement Sessions: Student
Success Series workshops, which are developed and lead by the Scholastic Achievers
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 115

Coordinator. It was important to now turn to other Scholastic Achievers in different GPA
categories to capture their opinions about the Coordinator and their retention, persistence, and
matriculation at the institution.
Michael, a middle-performance band student, mentioned the following, “Ms. Jefferson
helped me a lot and I seek her out for answers to questions. Ms. Jefferson assists me when I
need direction about what to do about something on campus.” Michael reported that sometimes
you might not want to hear what Ms. Jefferson has to say but she has your best interest at heart.
Michael’s statements referenced the help and assistance provided by the Scholastic Achievers
Coordinator as well as how she had the best interests of study participants at “heart” underscored
the instrumental role played in the retention, persistence, and matriculation of study participants.
Jacob, a high-performance band student, highlighted that Ms. Jefferson made him
comfortable and that when he needed help he turned to Ms. Jefferson. He said that he visited
Ms. Jefferson weekly because he preferred to talk to her. According to Jacob, Ms. Jefferson
encouraged him to push through obstacles. Scholastic Achievers preferring to talk to the
Coordinator and the comfort level experienced when they needed help exemplified the
instrumental role served by the Coordinator in encouraging the persistence of study participants
“pushing through obstacles” on the campus of UU.
John, a middle-performance band student, also said that he sought out Ms. Jefferson for
assistance, talking to her to about keeping his grades up and getting help on campus. John said
that he turned to Ms. Jefferson when he has questions about the workload in a class. “Ms.
Jefferson gives the best examples and will not lead you the wrong way.” John remarked that Ms.
Jefferson encouraged him by helping him the best way she can. Talking to Scholastic Achievers
about keeping their grades up and turning to the Coordinator about class workloads represented
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 116

how the Scholastic Achievers Coordinator played an instrumental role in the persistence,
retention, and matriculation of study participants, leading them the right way the “best way she
can.”
Phillip, a high-performance band student, relayed that conversations with Ms. Jefferson
helped him to prioritize his time and his GPA rose. Phillip conveyed that Ms. Jefferson helped
him through a rough patch at school by helping to keep him on track. Phillip said, “My GPA
would not be as high as it is without Ms. Jefferson. I would not be here right now without Ms.
Jefferson.” Phillip said that he went to Ms. Jefferson for everything because she encouraged him
and stayed on top of him. Phillip added that education tips from Ms. Jefferson benefitted him his
freshman year. According to Phillip, “Ms. Jefferson went beyond the call of duty.”
Chris, another high-performance band student, commented, “Ms. Jefferson asks what can
we do to make things better for you here. Ms. Jefferson is someone who cares and wants you to
progress forward.” Helping Scholastic Achievers prioritize their time which led to a Dean’s List
GPA, while keeping Scholastic Achievers on track through encouragement and staying on top of
current UU matters related to persistence personified that the Coordinator played an instrumental
role in the retention and matriculation of study participants by “going above and beyond the call
of duty.” Asking Scholastic Achievers what needed to be done to make things better for them at
UU illustrates commitment toward the stakeholder population and the cognizance to take active
and vigilant steps to see them progress, persist, retained, and matriculating at the institution.
Todd, another high-performance band student, said that Ms. Jefferson made him more
comfortable to face his first semester of college. Todd found that Ms. Jefferson had an open-
door policy if you needed help or information. He said that made him prefer to talk to Ms.
Jefferson about Scholastic Achiever events and University programs. Todd added that Ms.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 117

Jefferson provided guidance about adjusting to college and the campus. Todd recalled that he
was open-minded about the advice from Ms. Jefferson and if he had questions he would ask
them. Emboldening Scholastic Achievers to feel more comfortable about facing their first
semester of college, while having an open-door policy, typified that the Scholastic Achievers
Coordinator played an instrumental role in the persistence, retention, and matriculation of study
participants who preferred to talk to her about the adjustment to college.
Organizational effectiveness increased when leaders encouraged open lines of
communication (Kegan, 2000 as cited in Mezirow, 2003). As the leader of the Scholastic
Achievers program at UU, study/program participants have indicated that accessibility to the
program coordinator was essential in finding out pertinent information as incoming,
provisionally admitted freshman students figuring out what to do academically and transitionally.
In addition, having a safe haven and listening ear attuned to the needs of the Scholastic
Achievers Cohort played an instrumental role in the persistence of study participants.
Rabovsky (2012) tackled whether poor performance should be met with reduced or
increased resources. Lisa and Matthew come to mind in weighing the argument of performance
versus resources. Both students indicated that the Coordinator played an important role in their
persistence irrespective of GPA and credit hours earned. On the other hand, increasing
efficiency and improving performance could systematically assess the strengths and weaknesses
of a program. In the case of higher education, graduation rates, the performance of minority
students, and differentiation (not from a top-down design) called for major reforms (Rabovsky,
2012, p. 675). The author suggested, alleviating achievement gaps, emphasizing student
outcomes, altering institutional behavior and activities, and amending spending preferences to
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 118

improve students’ educational experiences, with aims to shift administrative priorities,
ameliorating organizational performance… (Rabovsky, 2012, p. 700).
Theme 2: Resources and Support Services at UU influenced the persistence of Scholastic
Achievers to achieve performance goals. Out of the 10 Scholastic Achievers interviewed, 8
reported that the Resources and Support Services at UU successfully influenced their persistence
to achieve performance goals. Organizational effectiveness increased when leaders identified,
articulated, focused the organization’s effort on and reinforced the organization’s vision; they led
from the why (Knowles, 1980). Organizational effectiveness increased when leaders insured that
employees have the resources needed to achieve the organization’s goals (Waters, Marzano, &
McNulty, 2003). Scholastic Achievers addressed what worked for them in the classroom,
outside of the classroom, and around campus when considering the resources and support
services at UU.
Phillip, one of the students in the high-performance band, mentioned that he used campus
resources like the printer labs, computer labs, library student services, and the tutoring center for
help with class subjects. Phillip specifically recognized the Center for Student Success and how
the department helped him during his freshman year. Phillip exclaimed, “phenomenal, they do
the job right.” He stated that he went to the Tutoring Center when he didn’t understand
something. He continued, “the tutoring center helped make things easier for me and made a
difference.” Procuring campus resources, pointing out the work of certain UU departments, as
well as acknowledging how getting help in a UU resource area made a difference, influenced the
persistence of Scholastic Achievers in achieving performance goals as they took advantage of
available resources and support services.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 119

Tinto (2006) provided a historical perspective on student retention initiatives in higher
education. Five decades ago student attrition was studied from the viewpoint of psychology.
Student retention related to “individual attributes, skills, and motivation” (p. 2). The onus was
on the students and a “blame the victim” versus the institution mentality prevailed. According to
Tinto (2006), the landscape changed in the 1970’s, due to a better understanding of the
relationships between individuals and society. Hence, the environment received consideration
and the role that the institution played in student persistence decisions (academic and social
systems of the institution). Tinto (2006) moved into present-day discussions and reflected an
emphasis on classroom practices, student learning, student persistence, and the influence of
institutional investments in faculty and staff development programs on student learning
outcomes. We will now move into the interview participant data for the next theme.
Theme 3: UU Faculty, Staff, and Offices influenced the persistence of Scholastic Achievers
to achieve performance goals. Out of the 10 Scholastic Achievers interviewed, 6 expressed
that the faculty, staff, and offices at UU demonstrated care and were helpful. Michael, a middle-
performance band student, noted that “most offices around campus answer my questions when I
don’t understand things and I’m able to visit professors in their offices for one-on-one visits
outside of class time.” Michael added that professors are helpful and the Center for Student
Success helped him with school and life.” Jacob, a high-performance band student, remarked,
“professors will meet you outside of class time and take their time to make sure that you are
prepared for a test.” Jacob relayed that he regularly visited his major advisor’s office and
utilized library resources weekly. He said that he went to faculty to ask questions and they are
helpful as well as the Center for Student Success. Phillip, a high-performance band student
exclaimed, “faculty and staff on campus are very responsive and always willing to help.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 120

Returning to Jacob, he commented that professors will sit down with you, provide
information, and give guidance in the right direction. Jacob inserted, “campus departments and
offices are helpful overall.” Based on Michael, Jacob, and Phillip’s interview responses, helpful
and responsive professors and departments on campus, faculty that addressed student questions,
and the availability of professors during office hours contributed to the persistence of Scholastic
Achievers as they consumed the resources and support services at UU to achieve performance
goals. The Scholastic Achievers program coordinator works in The Center for Student Success.
Evan, another high-performance band student, noted, “information provided by campus
offices have helped me to be successful. Professors take time to get to know you and are willing
to help.” Evan found that professors worked with students even after you no longer had them for
a class and they would still remember your name. According to Evan, “professors will help if
you reach out to them and they will not give up on you.” UU offices provided helpful
information to Scholastic Achievers, professors took the time to get to know them, the
willingness of professors who helped Scholastic Achievers even after they were no longer
current students, and professors not giving up on Scholastic Achievers influenced the persistence
of study participants in achieving performance goals.
John, a middle-performance band student, articulated that student organizations and
faculty/staff advisors helped students with campus issues. Chris, a high-performance band
student, reported that professors taught him how to compete and that they cared about students.
Chris gave examples such as professors who helped with class assignments and made you feel
like a person instead of a number was important to him as a freshman attending UU. Lisa, a low-
performance band student, stated that professors knowing your name and talking to students
made a difference to her as a freshman. She added that caring professors, meeting students
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 121

halfway, and working with students to help them pass was helpful. When student organizations
and faculty/staff advisors helped students with campus issues and taught a Scholastic Achiever
how to compete that revealed how resources and support services were coming together at the
University, which influenced the persistence of Scholastic Achievers in achieving performance
goals.
Professors helping Scholastic Achievers with class assignments and making them feel
like a person versus a number was important to interview respondents and influenced the
persistence of Scholastic Achievers in achieving performance goals at UU. Meeting study
participants halfway and working with Scholastic Achievers to help them be successful
influenced the persistence of interview respondents in achieving performance goals at UU.
Departments and offices that are most helpful academically and transitionally are hailed
for creating a more conducive educational environment for learning and for accommodating a
supportive transition for provisionally admitted students (ACT, 2010; Nichols & Clinedinst,
2013). Scholastic Achievers revealed the benefits of open door policies, frequent
communication with faculty and staff, a positive demeanor, availability, accessibility, and
cooperation with students. However, polar opposite outcomes are detrimental contributory
factors to the dearth of academic resources, transitional support services, and a contrary
countenance when such aspects are not prioritized or revisited by institutional members
commissioned to provide the instrumental resources, support services, and responsive customer
service influencing the persistence of the provisionally admitted population of stakeholders.
Scholastic Achievers have voiced the need for open and frequent communication with
UU professors. Many have disclosed that this preferred form of discourse was currently taking
place at the University. UU sustained the Scholastic Achievers connection to the institution,
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 122

which was overwhelmingly expressed by interview respondents in supporting Persistence via the
Cultural Model and Cultural Setting of the Organization. The data showcased optimism albeit
the incorporation of campus enhancements such as advancements in technology and building
infrastructures appeared to be imperative in order to influence the persistence of 2 out of the 10
study participants in achieving performance goals at UU.
Adapting Lakos and Phipps’ (2004) culture of assessment and organizational change, to
equip the targeted population:
Actively listen to the voice of the customer, use information about the customer and the
changing environment to improve quality or develop new services…changing service
attitudes—must not only be the expectations in a new culture, they must be evident in the
entire organizational design and in its actions. The continuance of externally focused
activities and the repeated articulation of purpose must be deliberately developed.
(p. 359)
Tinto (2006) referenced how “access to higher education has increased but greater
equality in the attainment of 4-year college degrees has not followed suit; higher education has
become a revolving door, the promise of a Bachelor’s degree unfulfilled” (p. 12). Too few
institutions were willing to commit needed resources and address the deeper structural issues that
ultimately shaped student persistence. They were willing to append retention efforts to their
ongoing activities, but much less willing to alter those activities in ways that addressed the
deeper roots of student attrition.
The conversations about student retention needed to switch to a dialogue about the
actions that could support student education in turn improving student learning, recommended
Tinto (2006). Aligned institutional reward systems to promote behaviors that reinforced student
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 123

retention goals and invested resources to adopt faculty and staff reward systems were additional
suggestions proposed by Tinto (2006).
Clark and Estes (2008) listed four factors to increase motivation in the work environment,
“help people develop self- and team-confidence in work skills” and another factor was “to create
a positive emotional environment for individuals and teams at work” (pp. 90-97). Moreover,
according to Clark and Estes (2008), one must be insightful, regarding examination of the “big
three” causes of performance gaps—(a) “people’s knowledge and skills, (b) their motivation to
achieve the goal (compared with other work goals they must achieve), and (c) organizational
barriers or inadequate work processes” (p. 43).
Panther PALS Mentoring Program
Theme 4: The Panther PALS Mentoring Program did not influence the persistence of
Scholastic Achievers (Knowledge and Organization Influence). One of the themes that
emerged was that the majority of the participants did not have relationships with their Panther
PALS Mentors. Only 4 out of the 10 Scholastic Achievers interviewed stated that they had
relationships with their Mentor. The importance of this theme, while the Panther PALS mentors
had been regarded by the Scholastic Achievers Program as fundamental to the success and
persistence of Scholastic Achievers, overall, participants communicated that their relationships
with their mentors did not influence their ability to persist. More generally, mentoring programs
have been promoted as a way to support student persistence (Hoffshire et al., 2013). In fact,
Nichols and Clinedinst (2013) suggest that mentoring is one important element of a program that
supports provisionally admitted students in relation to their academic and social transition from
high school to college.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 124

Out of the 10 study respondents, 4 believed that the upper-class mentors contributed to
their ability to complete the first year of college successfully by addressing their strengths and
challenges at UU during the high school to college transition stages. Jacob, Evan, and Chris
were three out of the four Scholastic Achievers who connected with their mentors through the
mutual interaction and unified program participation. Jacob, Evan, Chris were each high-
performance band students. Todd, a high-performance band student, was the fourth Scholastic
Achiever who had a relationship with his Panther PALS mentor.
Some Scholastic Achievers described how a few of the mentors reached out to mentees
not in his or her group. Phillip (high-performance band student), Matthew (low-performance
band student) and Lisa (low-performance band student) had no recollection of their mentors and
could not describe any experiences in the program with the assigned mentor. John (middle-
performance band student), Michael (middle-performance band student), and Stephanie (high-
performance band student) could only recall limited examples of mentor/mentee interaction.
Again, only 4 out of the 10 respondents cited his or her mentor as a key factor in
facilitating persistence at UU. However, one of the four who did have a close relationship with
his mentor was Jacob, a student in the high-performance band. He explained that he first had
contact with his mentor prior to enrolling at UU. He exchanged e-mail or text messages with
him during the Summer of 2015. Jacob said that a close relationship developed. He said, “me
and my mentor are close, blood can’t make us any closer. My mentor is the brother I never had.”
Jacob stated that his mentor was still available to him whenever he needed him. “We still talk
frequently on the phone, around campus, and in the cafeteria.” Jacob said that he regularly
attended Scholastic Achiever meetings with his mentor and they see each other regularly even
now. “My mentor encourages me to make it.” Jacob experienced his mentor as someone who
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 125

was there for him from the very beginning. He was a part of Jacob’s life prior to his enrolling,
was “like a brother” to him, an ongoing part of his life. He was there prior to Jacob’s arrival on
campus proved to be a productive connection for Jacob. The close relationship Jacob formed
with his mentor and the continuation of their initial connection beyond the Scholastic Achievers
program enabled him to persist outside of the Cohort, enabling him to “make it” at UU. Jacob
experienced first-hand, the value that can be found in a successful mentor/mentee relationship
and the advantages afforded by this union in evaluating his own strengths and challenges as a
freshman in college deliberating the appropriate path to follow.
Reviewing knowledge, factual knowledge was knowledge of meaning and definitions
(Krathwohl, 2002). Rueda (2011) referred to procedural knowledge as knowing how to do
something; relating to methods of inquiry, specific or finite skills, techniques, and methodologies
required to accomplish a task. Panther PALS were thought to fill the gaps in the program
between the Coordinator or the Organization and the transition to collegiate life from a student-
to-student, Cohort perspective. Yet, the case study did not bear this assumption to be an
influencer on the persistence of most respondents. Out of the 10 Scholastic Achievers
interviewed, only 4 stated that the mentor relationship was instrumental to his or her persistence
at UU.
Tinto (1988) recounted how Van Gennep’s work allows one to reflect upon the
longitudinal process of student persistence within the college environment. The author relayed
that college students move from one community or set of communities (high school and family)
to another community within the confines of the collegiate domain. Evan, another high-
performance band student, talked with his mentor about personal matters and student success
issues. Evan said he needed someone his own age to give him information. “He is closer to my
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 126

age and can relate to him.” Evan made a profound statement as well, “I turn to my mentor
because I want to surround myself with better people, people better than me; my mentor’s good
advice rubs off and I continue to follow it.”
Evan reported that he appreciated the relationship and the positive suggestions from his
mentor. He said that he communicated frequently with his mentor, attending Scholastic
Achiever workshops continually, talking about college experiences together, and how to handle
certain situations. Evan’s experience was counter to the majority of study participants, only 4
out of the 10 respondents found his or her mentor to be a valuable influence on his or her
persistence.
Tinto (1988) conveyed that the first year and definitely, the first semester, are critical to
student persistence and degree completion. Chris, another high-performance band student, said
that he still talks to his mentor today and that he can recall when they first met. “We grew close
and he is a cool friend. My mentor is a role model, hard worker, honest, straight-forward, and
motivated.” Chris identified mentor traits that could lead to persistence in college, such as hard
worker and motivated. Furthermore, stating that someone was a role model signals that you look
up to that person and perhaps intend to replicate similar behaviors. In this case, the identified
behaviors could lead to persistence at UU.
Tinto (1988) explained that institutional policies must be sensitive to the separation and
transitional dilemmas of new students. However, mentoring programs designed to facilitate and
alleviate some of the transitionary obstacles facing Scholastic Achievers have not been
substantially considered as relevant institutional policy factors. This theme had the lowest
number of experiences shared by Scholastic Achievers when comparing the frequency and
typicality of each theme. I can infer that the mentoring dynamic of the program was not
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 127

operating at its peak capacity, perhaps negatively impacting program goals and objectives or
more significantly the retention, persistence, and matriculation of Scholastic Achievers attending
UU. We will now close Chapter 4 by concluding the chapter.
Conclusion
The interview findings validated and did not validate some of the assumed causes of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that influenced the retention, persistence, and
matriculation of Scholastic Achievers. The case study’s findings and themes answered the
research question through the examination and reflection of the Scholastic Achievers responses
to the research study interview questions developed and pertaining to making meaning of the
data collected. Although the findings and themes converged throughout the chapter, the data
represented the voices of the 10 Scholastic Achievers interviewed and captured their responses.
The four themes included: (a) All students saw college as something that was important
to them and they all wanted to succeed (utility value); (b) All students were able to recognize the
demands of college. To some extent, all engaged in metacognitive acts. On the other hand, not
all students were able to act on what they understood to be behaviors and actions they needed to
take to find success in college; (c) Students who did not follow through on those actions they
needed to for success had lower self-efficacy than those who were able to enact those behaviors
that contributed to their academic success (Knowledge and Motivation Influences); (d) UU
sustained the Scholastic Achievers connection to the institution, supporting persistence
(Organization Influence).
The interview respondents were divided into three categories. The high-performance
band consisted of participants who fell between a 3.0 GPA and up. The middle-performance
band was comprised of participants who had a 2.5 GPA. The low-performance band consisted of
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 128

participants who fell below a 2.5 GPA. There are six participants who fell in the high-
performance band (Chris, Evan, Jacob, Phillip, Stephanie, Todd). There are two participants
who fell in the middle-performance band (John and Michael). There are two students who fell in
the low-performance band (Lisa and Matthew).
Each theme’s section began with an overview of the findings, followed by presentation of
the evidence that supported the claim and analyzed the data, connecting the data to support the
assertions in the findings. An abbreviated synopsis of the Conceptual Framework united the
study’s concepts with the research findings and themes throughout the interviews. An abridged
recap of the applicable literature was integrated within each section. The Scholastic Achievers
interview responses organized by theme were close in response frequency and typicality within
the following findings: (a) All students saw college as something that was important to them and
they all wanted to succeed (Utility Value, Knowledge and Motivation Influence); (b) All students
were able to recognize the demands of college. To some extent, all engaged in metacognitive
acts. On the other hand, not all students were able to act on what they understood to be
behaviors and actions they needed to take to find success in college (Knowledge and Motivation
Influence); (c) Students who did not follow through on those actions they needed to for success
had lower self-efficacy than those who were able to enact those behaviors that contributed to
their academic success (Knowledge and Motivation Influence); and (d) UU sustained the
Scholastic Achievers connection to the institution, supporting persistence (Organization
Influence).
However, student persistence and metacognitive awareness were not influenced by
respondent participation in the Panther PALS Mentorship Program (Knowledge and
Organization Influence). The PALS Mentorship Program was much lower in typicality and
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 129

frequency (lowest number of empirical codes). Furthermore, the Resources and Support
Services, Cultural Model and Cultural Setting theme influenced the persistence of Scholastic
Achievers to successfully achieve performance goals at UU departed from the empirical data
ranges of the 3 other findings (Organization Influence). The Resources and Support Services,
Cultural Model and Cultural Setting theme was much higher in typicality and frequency.
This led me to conclude that Mentor relationships in the Scholastic Achievers program
did not influence the success or lack of success/persistence of interview respondents at UU based
on the low number of empirical codes that made meaning of study participant data. On the other
hand, the Resources and Support Services, Cultural Model and Cultural Setting theme contained
the highest number of empirical codes that made meaning of study participant data, which
indicated that the Resources and Support Services at UU were influencing participants in the
Scholastic Achievers program to persist.
The next chapter presented potential solutions for the validated causes of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps. Although the data did not validate two of the assumed
organizational gaps, Cultural Model and Cultural Setting influences, the evidence-based
solutions described in the next chapter were offered, designed, and derived from relevant
research.
The assumed influences were validated and not validated in Chapter 4 and categorized
under knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences. The study
interviews made meaning through the data collected during the participant interviews. The
participant responses to knowledge interview questions were classified under declarative
knowledge or factual and conceptual knowledge, procedural knowledge, and metacognitive
knowledge. The participant responses to motivation interview questions were organized under
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 130

utility value and self-efficacy. The participant responses to organizational interview questions
were grouped under cultural model, cultural setting, and resources and support services. The
participant responses made meaning through the data collected during the case study. The
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influenced the retention of
UU’s provisionally admitted students identified as Scholastic Achievers were validated and not
validated during the data collection period of the case study.
The next chapter examined the solutions, implementation and evaluation of the findings.
Chapter 5 provided recommendations to pursue, study limitations to revisit, and future research
to consider.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 131

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) was used to plan, implement, and evaluate the
solutions and recommendations outlined in reference to the retention, persistence, and
matriculation of the Scholastic Achievers population attending UU. The authors notified training
professionals to begin by focusing on the Level 4 results that the organization endeavors to
achieve through the introduction of the training intervention. In the Kirkpatrick Model (2016),
training refers to a wide variety of knowledge, motivation and organization interventions. In this
instance, training refers to the Scholastic Achievers program at UU. The goal of the intervention
was to facilitate Scholastic Achievers’ reactions (Level 1), learning (Level 2), and behaviors
(Level 3) in ways that produce the desired outcomes and results (Level 4) at UU. Kirkpatrick
and Kirkpatrick (2016) stated that Level 4 Results were the reason that training is performed.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stipulated three major reasons to evaluate training
programs: (a) to improve the program, (b) to maximize the transfer of learning to behavior and
subsequent organizational results, and (c) to demonstrate the value of training to the organization
(p. 5). Leading indicators are a vital component of the process, suggesting whether “critical
behaviors” are headed in the right direction, steering Scholastic Achievers along the path to the
preferred retention, persistence, and matriculation results.
Required drivers have been added to the progress of the model, reinforcing, monitoring,
encouraging, and rewarding the behaviors required of Scholastic Achievers. “Creating a culture
and expectation that individuals are responsible for maintaining the knowledge and skills to
enhance their own performance will encourage individual accountability and empowerment”
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 15).
The job of training is to contribute to stakeholder results. The implementation and
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 132

evaluation plan commenced with a focus on the Level 4 results that UU was striving to achieve.
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 3 is the most important level to evaluate
and invest in for “mission-critical” programs. Scholastic Achievers are applying what they
learned during the intervention in Level 3, which is the introduction of the Scholastic Achievers
program. Mission-critical initiatives begin with a plan for what will happen before, during, and
after training to make the intended impact on the desired outcomes.
To optimize the achievement of the stakeholder goal and the organizational goal, the knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influence the retention of Scholastic
Achievers were studied and examined. The knowledge and skills, utility value, self-efficacy,
metacognitive skills, and organizational influences were identified to assess the interference with
UU’s goal of a 70% retention rate for second-year students (UU Strategic Plan, 2012).
This chapter organized the categories of validated and not validated influences within the
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization sections of the paper. The chapter continued
by assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, the limitations, future research, and
the conclusion closed Chapter 5.
Organizational Context and Mission
The name of the Historical Black University that I focused on was United University
(UU), located in the Southern portion of the United States. UU is a 4-year, private higher
education institution. The mission of UU, as published in the Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 (2012)
is:
United University is nourished by its heritage and energized by a commitment to
excellence and diversity. Its mission is to: 1) Provide an intellectually challenging and
spiritually enriching environment for learning; 2) Empower students to develop values
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 133

for success; and 3) Develop scholars, leaders, and lifelong learners of a global society.
(p. 4)
As articulated in the Strategic Plan, 2012-2017, “United University is a liberal arts
institution of higher education and center of excellence for the preparation of students and the
development of leaders” (p. 4). UU is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and
Schools (UU Quick Facts, 2013). There are four undergraduate Academic Schools within the
University: The School of Business; the School of Mathematics, Science, and Technology; the
School of Education, Psychology, Social Work and Interdisciplinary Studies; and the School of
Humanities and Social Sciences.
UU is one of the nation’s oldest Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU),
founded in 1865 (UU Quick Facts, 2013). The University was originally established on a jail
site, located in the Southern portion of the United States (UU Quick Facts, 2013). The jail was
originally a holding cell for runaway slaves. UU was founded after the merger of two older
schools. Later, the first college for African-American Women and another college would merge
with the former institutions, now recognized as UU (UU Quick Facts, 2013).
Approximately 1,700 students attended UU annually, which includes 400 graduate
students in the School of Theology (College Navigator, 2013). The majority of undergraduate
students matriculating at UU were recent secondary education graduates/post-secondary age
students between the ages of 17-24, with 92% of whom are under the age of 24 (College
Navigator, 2013). According to UU, Fall 2015 data disclosed that the first-generation population
was 35% at the institution (UU Quick Facts, 2015). The institution is an HBCU with 95% of
undergraduate students identified as Black or African American (College Navigator, 2013).
Upon reviewing the Fall 2015 statistical breakdown of gender at UU, 55% of the students were
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 134

female and 45% of the students were male (College Navigator, 2013).
Organizational Performance Goal
UU is a HBCU with 95% of undergraduate students identified as Black or African
American (College Navigator, 2013). The educational problem at UU was the retention of
students at the HBCU (College Navigator, 2013). The related performance goal for the
institution was written in the institution’s strategic plan: by August 2017, “it is expected that the
average retention rate for second year students will increase to 70%” (UU Strategic Plan, 2012,
p. 14).
Retention rates measure the percentage of first-time students who are seeking bachelor's
degrees who return to the institution to continue their studies the following fall (College
Navigator, 2013). The last publicly available data revealed that the retention rate at UU was
50% and at the time of the new strategic plan, the goal of increasing retention by 20% was the
future forecast (College Navigator, 2013; UU Strategic Plan, 2012). The present organizational
performance status represented a 20% gap toward the attainment of the 70% retention rate goal
for second year students (UU Strategic Plan, 2012). In order to fulfill the vision and mission of
the University, the successful development and matriculation of students, it was incumbent upon
UU to work toward meeting measurable Strategic Plan initiatives.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders would contribute to the achievement of the
overall organizational goal of a 50% to 70% average retention rate increase for second year
students at UU by August 2017 (UU Strategic Plan, 2012), it was important to understand the
perception of what supports or impedes the ability of Scholastic Achievers to persist at the
institution and to successfully matriculate to the second year of college at UU. Therefore, the
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 135

stakeholders of focus for this study were the Scholastic Achievers population at UU. The
stakeholders’ goal, supported by the CSS department and the Division of Academic Affairs was
that by August 2016, 60% of the fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers population would earn 30 credit
hours and a minimum GPA of a 2.5 GPA or above by the end of the freshman year. Students
must earn a minimum of 30 credit hours to be classified as a sophomore student at UU. The 2.5
GPA goal was based on a 4.0 GPA calculation scale. Failure to accomplish this goal would lead
to the persistence of low retention, adversely impacting the organization’s graduation rates and
organizational goals. The retention of the Scholastic Achievers population at UU affected the
organization’s overall goal to increase the average retention rate from 50% to 70% for second
year students by August 2017.
Again, the Fall 2015 provisional student population at UU was 17.9% or 82 out of 456
first year freshman students were provisionally admitted (UU Quick Facts, 2015). According to
the Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Special Programs at UU, the Fall 2016
retention rate was 54.8% or 45 students out of the original 82 Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers
Cohort returned for the Fall 2016 semester (UU Quick Facts, 2016). The Fall 2015 Scholastic
Achievers Cohort consisted of 80.4% first-generation college students or 66 out the 82 Fall 2015
Scholastic Achievers Cohort were first-generation college students.
Table 6, below, outlines the organizational mission, global goal and stakeholder
performance goals in reference to the goal of the stakeholder group for the study.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 136

Goal of the Stakeholder Group for the Study
Table 6
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission

Mission Statement

United University is nourished by its heritage and
energized by a commitment to excellence and diversity.

Its mission is to:
1. Provide an intellectually challenging and spiritually enriching environment for learning;
2. Empower students to develop values for success; and
3. Develop scholars, leaders, and lifelong learners of a global society.

To accomplish this mission, United University offers a broad range of educational opportunities
that advance liberal arts education, teaching, research, science, technology, continuing
education, civic engagement, and international experiences
(UU Strategic Plan, 2012).
Organizational Performance Goal

It is expected that the average retention rate for second year students at United University will
increase to 70% by August 2017 (UU Strategic Plan, 2012).

Scholastic Achievers
(2.0-2.29 high
school GPA)
Center for Student Success Division of Academic Affairs
By August 2016, 60% of the
Fall 2015 Scholastic
Achievers population would
earn 30 credit hours and a
minimum GPA of a 2.5 or
above by the end of the
freshman year.
By August 2015, 100% of the
faculty/staff members
assigned to the Center for
Student Success would
construct and execute five
academic interventions to
address the educational goals
and objectives of the
Scholastic Achievers program,
integrating initiatives
By August 2015, 100% of the
administrators assigned to the
Division of Academic Affairs
would generate and implement
five retention strategies to
support the successful
matriculation of the Scholastic
Achievers population
throughout the academic year,
directing faculty and staff to
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 137

throughout the academic year
to achieve organizational
goals.
interactively collaborate with
the Center for Student Success,
the UU Retention Coordinator,
and the Scholastic Achievers
Cohort to achieve
organizational goals.

Purpose of the Project and Question
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to
examine the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that interfered with
the retention of provisional students identified as Scholastic Achievers at UU, specifically from
the freshman year to the sophomore year in college. The analysis began by generating a list of
possible or assumed interfering elements and then by examining these systematically, focused on
actual or validated interfering elements. While complete gap analysis would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder focused on in this analysis was the
provisional student population at UU, identified as Scholastic Achievers. The retention of the
targeted stakeholder group, the provisional student population at UU or Scholastic Achievers,
represented the performance problem of practice (College Navigator, 2013).
As such, the question that guided this study was the following:
1. What are the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that
influence the retention of United University’s provisionally admitted students
identified as Scholastic Achievers?
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Data collection is complete for the Scholastic Achievers research project. The
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 138

Knowledge influences in Table 2 represent the prioritized list of assumed knowledge influences.
The knowledge domain framework was guided by Krathwohl (2012). The Taxonomy of
educational objectives is a framework that classifies statements of expectations or intentions for
students to learn as a result of instruction. The knowledge influences have been validated based
on the most frequently mentioned knowledge influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal
during formal interviews and supported by the literature review, including What Works in
Student Retention (2010), the UU Strategic Plan (2012), the CSS Standard Operating Procedure
(2015), Clark and Estes’ gap analysis framework (2008), and Tinto’s (1975) “stage model of
persistence” which unraveled the longitudinal process of student persistence within the college
environment.
Tinto (1975) relayed that college students move from one community or set of
communities (high school and family) to another community within the confines of the collegiate
domain. College students like those of the tribal societies “must separate themselves, to some
degree, from past associations in order to make the transition to eventual incorporation in the life
of the college” (p. 442). Tinto (1988) stated that becoming a new member of a community or
becoming a new student in college decrees permitting the new setting to become your home
away from home (academically and socially). Resolve and institutional persistence are required,
“separation, transition, and incorporation” must be traveled through as stages or passages in
order for the student to complete his or her degree program (p. 442).
As such, as indicated in Table 7, the Knowledge influences have been validated and have a
high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 7 also shows recommendations for
these validated influences based on theoretical principles.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 139

Table 7
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priorit
y
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-
Specific
Recommenda
tion
Scholastic Achievers
needed to know the
meaning of freshman
orientation
programming goals for
first-year college
students. (D)
V Y Information learned meaningfully
and connected with prior
knowledge is stored more quickly
and remembered more accurately
because it is elaborated with prior
learning (Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).

Provide
information
that outlines
the meaning
of freshman
orientation
goals for first-
year college
students,
connecting to
the prior
knowledge of
Scholastic
Achievers in
the role of a
new student.

Scholastic Achievers
needed to know how to
earn 30 credit hours
during the freshman
year of college. (D)
V Y Acquiring skills for expertise
frequently begins with learning
declarative knowledge about
individual procedural steps (Clark
et al., 2008).

Provide
information
and training
that enables
Scholastic
Achievers to
acquire the
skills for
expertise,
beginning
with
learning the
declarative
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 140

knowledge
pertaining to
the
individual
procedural
steps to
know how to
earn 30
credit hours.
Scholastic Achievers
needed to know how to
apply and implement
effective high school to
college transition
strategies. (P)
V Y To develop mastery, individuals
must acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and
know when to apply what they
have learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).

Provide
training
including
demonstra-
tion, practice
and
feedback on
effective
high school
to college
transition
strategies.

Scholastic Achievers
needed to know how to
maneuver through the
academic advising
process successfully.
(P)
V Y Learning is highly dependent on
“goal- directed practice” and
targeted feedback” (Ambrose,
2010).

Provide
training that
will facilitate
Scholastic
Achievers
successfully
maneuvering
through the
steps of the
academic
advising
process at UU
by presenting
a
demonstration
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 141

and
opportunities
to practice
moving
through the
academic
advising
process while
receiving
feedback.

Scholastic Achievers
needed to know how to
evaluate their own
strengths and
challenges as first-year
college students. (M)
V Y Modeled behavior is more likely to
be adopted if the model is credible,
similar (e.g., gender, culturally
appropriate), and the behavior has
functional value (Denler et al.,
2009).

Provide
training, using
peer models
incorporating
the
assessment of
Scholastic
Achievers
metacognitive
strategies in
the GST 007
course
curriculum so
Scholastic
Achievers can
develop and
build their
skills in
evaluating
their strengths
and
weaknesses as
first-year
college
students.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 142

Declarative knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. It is imperative for
Scholastic Achievers to know the meaning of freshman orientation programming goals as first-
year college students, without this knowledge, Scholastic Achievers would not know the
importance of earning 30 credit hours during the freshman year of college. Declarative
knowledge is factual knowledge or knowledge of meaning and definitions (Krathwohl, 2002).
According to Schraw and McCrudden (2006), when information is learned meaningfully and
connected with prior knowledge, it is stored more quickly and remembered more accurately
because it is elaborated with prior learning. Helping individuals identify and understand
important points helps connect new knowledge to prior knowledge and to construct meaning
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). The proposal is to close the identified and prioritized declarative
knowledge gaps by providing information that outlines the meaning of freshman orientation
goals for first-year college students, connecting to the prior knowledge of Scholastic Achievers
in the role of a new student.
Tinto (1988) conveyed that the first year and definitely, the first semester, are critical to
student persistence and degree completion. Institutional policies must be sensitive to the
separation and transitional dilemmas of new students. Tinto (1988) stated, “Long-term academic
and social assistance is required during the first months of the college career” (p. 451). Perrine
and Spain (2008) wrote that many freshman orientation programs are based on the work of Tinto
(1975). The students’ feelings of connection with the institution should influence college
persistence, according to Perrine and Spain (2008). Moreover, Davig, and Spain (2004)
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 143

discussed the seminal work of Tinto’s “stage model of persistence” and “student integration
model” (1975, 1993), pertaining to “intentional” orientation course topics and activities.
Daddona (2000) shared that for over 100 years colleges and universities have designed and
implemented programs to help alleviate “freshman disorientation.” Daddona and Cooper (2002),
as Perrine and Spain (2008), asserted that orientation programs are a “jumpstart” for incoming
college freshman, serving as momentum for programs to provide services and resources to aid in
the transition of the first-year college student. It is critical for Scholastic Achievers to know the
meaning of freshman orientation programming goals in order for them to be successful as first-
year college students at UU.
Procedural knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. It is vital for Scholastic
Achievers to know how to apply and implement effective high school to college transition
strategies before they can even maneuver through the academic advising process successfully.
Procedural knowledge is how to carry out the tasks (Krathwohl, 2002). Rueda (2011) referred to
procedural knowledge as knowing how to do something; relating to methods of inquiry, specific
or finite skills, techniques, and methodologies required to accomplish a task. According to Clark
and Estes (2008), in order to close the procedural gap and achieve all parts of the desired goal,
people need to know what parts of the goal they do not know how to achieve. Clark and Estes
(2008) stated that “education might help peopled handle novel and unexpected future challenges
and problems” (p. 59). Schraw and McCrudden (2006) conveyed, individuals acquire
component skills by practicing and integrating them and knowing when to apply what they have
learned on the road to developing mastery. The proposal is to close the identified and prioritized
procedural knowledge gaps by providing training including demonstration, practice and feedback
on effective high school to college transition strategies.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 144

Curtis and Underwood (2013) illustrated such an example. The University of North
Carolina at Wilmington (UNCW) developed the Pre-Orientation Registration Process (PORP) to
work with incoming students to adjust registration issues, including providing curriculum
education prior to students’ arrival on campus. The University College Coordinator of
Orientation Programming at UNCW sought the assistance of other institutional offices, such as
the Office of Admissions, the College of Arts and Sciences, the Information Technology
Services Division, the Registrar’s Office, Student Accounts, and Transition Programs to design
and implement the three-pilot phase Pre-Orientation Registration Process (PORP) over Fall
2010, Spring 2011 and Fall 2011. Students were required to complete an online tutorial, and
then had a week to register for classes prior to attending orientation. In addition, students had
phone and e-mail access to advisors during the registration open-window week. Students are
currently able to register prior to the beginning of freshman orientation due to the successful
piloting of PORP applying and the incorporation of New Student Orientation strategies at
UNCW. Applying and implementing effective high school to college transition strategies is
pivotal to the success of Scholastic Achievers at UU. Hence, successfully maneuvering through
orientation and registration procedures is instrumental to the process and the beginning of the
collegiate career.
Metacognitive knowledge solutions, or description of needs or assets. Scholastic Achievers
need to know how to evaluate their own strengths and challenges as first-year college students in
order to adjust and adapt to the collegiate environment. Metacognitive knowledge is the
awareness of how one thinks about the internal learning process (Krathwohl, 2002). Baker
(2006) asserted that learners need to have awareness and control of their higher-level cognitive
processes. Denler et al. (2009) found that modeled behavior is more likely to be adopted if the
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 145

model is credible, similar (e.g., gender, culturally appropriate), and the behavior has functional
value. According to Baker (2006), providing opportunities for learners to engage in guided self-
monitoring and self-assessment promotes metacognition. Furthermore, learners should have
opportunities to debrief the thinking process after completing a learning task to further promote
metacognition (Baker, 2006). The proposal is to close the identified and prioritized
metacognitive knowledge gaps by providing training, using peer models incorporating the
assessment of Scholastic Achievers metacognitive strategies in the GST 007 course curriculum
so Scholastic Achievers can develop and build their skills in evaluating their strengths and
weaknesses as first-year college students.
Tinto (2012) reported that first-year college students attempted to adjust behaviors to the
new academic demands and new social demands of college or university life, especially during
the first year. Therefore, Scholastic Achievers need to know how to evaluate their own strengths
and challenges as first-year college students, encountering the academic and social demands
prevalent within the college campus. Students who are academically and socially engaged with
academic staff and peers in classroom activities were more likely to succeed in the classroom,
leading to social affiliations and social support, which generate classroom success (Tinto, 2012).
In the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education article, Tinto
(2006) described the disproportionately academically underprepared student and the role that
developmental education should play in institutional retention strategies. Scholastic Achievers
fall into the academically underprepared category, entering UU with a high school GPA below
full admittance requirements. Tinto (2012) referenced how “access to higher education has
increased but greater equality in the attainment of 4-year college degrees has not followed
suit…” (p. 12). Scholastic Achievers are provisionally admitted students and categorized by UU
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 146

as conditionally accepted. The problem of practice in this research study focused on the
retention, persistence, and matriculation of Scholastic Achievers. The Scholastic Achievers in
the case study attend a HBCU founded not long after the Civil War ended, with a mission to
provide higher education opportunities for all who enter through its accessible doors. The
assessment of metacognitive strategies can develop and build the evaluation skills of Scholastic
Achievers, learning to confront strengths and weaknesses as first-year college students.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Data collection is complete for the Scholastic Achievers research project. The
Motivation influences in Table 3 represent the complete list of validated motivation influences.
The motivation domain framework was guided by Mayer (2011), who referred to motivation as
one of his mighty “Mighty Ms,” the other recognized “Mighty M” is metacognition. Mayer
(2011) stated that motivation to learn is demonstrated by the amount of effort a student exerts to
understand information, engaging in such cognitive processes as selecting, organizing, and
integrating. Therefore, the prerequisite to meaningful learning is motivation (Mayer, 2011).
According to Mayer (2011), motivation is internal and personal activation may initiate, maintain,
and energize goal directed behavior evolvement.
The motivation influences have been validated based on the most frequently mentioned
motivation influences in achieving the stakeholders’ goal during formal interviews and supported
by the literature review and the review of motivation theory. Clark and Estes (2008) espoused
that humans are made up of two cooperating psychological systems—knowledge and motivation.
The authors state that knowledge tells us how to do things but motivation keeps us moving,
letting one know how much effort to spend on tasks. Clark and Estes (2008) described the three
motivational processes that pose as opportunities or potential problems: people choosing (or
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 147

failing to choose) to actively pursue a goal; people having many goals and distractions and do
not persist at a specific goal; and people choosing a goal and are persisting in the face of
distractions, but decide how much mental effort to invest in goal achievement.
Through qualitative data collection, the assumed Motivation influences of UU’s
Scholastic Achievers have been validated. Persistence and mental effort are consistent assets of
the Scholastic Achievers who did earn 30 credit hours or more (7 out of the 10) and a 2.5 or
above GPA (8 out of the 10). As such, as indicated in Table 8, the motivational influences have
been validated and have a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 8 also shows
the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 8
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priorit
y
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Scholastic Achievers
needed to see the
value in successfully
completing the first
year of college by
meeting or exceeding
all program
guidelines.
V Y Rationales that include
a discussion of the
importance and utility
value of the work or
learning can help
learners develop
positive values (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich, 2003).

Provide
information and
education that
articulates the
importance of
successfully
completing the
first year of
college and
meeting or
exceeding all
program
guidelines,
incorporating
rationales that
include a
discussion of the
importance and
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 148

utility value of the
work or learning to
help learners
develop positive
values.
Scholastic Achievers
needed to believe that
they were capable of
earning a 2.5 or above
GPA and 30 credit
hours as first-year
college students in the
Scholastic Achievers
program.
V Y Learning and
motivation
are enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for
success
(Pajares, 2006).

Provide
information, job
aids, and education
that expound upon
Scholastic
Achievers
believing and
acknowledging
that they are
capable of earning
a 2.5 or above
GPA and 30 credit
hours as first-year
college students in
the Scholastic
Achievers
program,
enhancing their
positive
expectancies for
success.

Expectancy-Value. Scholastic Achievers need to see the value in successfully completing the
first year of college by meeting or exceeding all program guidelines. Rationales that include a
discussion of the importance and utility value of the work or learning can help learners develop
positive values (Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). Furthermore, this would suggest that mentors in
the Panther PALS program can model values, enthusiasm and interest in the Scholastic
Achievers program, facilitating opportunities for Scholastic Achievers to see the value in
successfully completing the first year of college by meeting or exceeding all program guidelines.
Therefore, the recommendation then is for the organization to provide information and education
that articulates the importance of successfully completing the first year of college and meeting or
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 149

exceeding all program guidelines, incorporating rationales that include a discussion of the
importance and utility value of the work or learning, helping learners to develop positive values
(Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003).
Eccles (2009) condensed the expectancy-value model, two central motivational questions
endured: Can the individual do the task? and Does the individual want to do the task? According
to Eccles (2009), whether the individual can do the task predicts better performance and more
motivation to pursue more challenging tasks. The ability to master academic work requires
confidence and is a strong predictor of school achievement among academically struggling
students, reported the National Research Council as cited in Eccles (2009). Scholastic Achievers
are provisionally admitted students who enter the University with less than a 2.3 high school
GPA. This classifies Scholastic Achievers as academically struggling students entering college.
The perceived value of schoolwork is determined by four related constructs (Eccles, 2009). One
construct critical to the Scholastic Achievers population is utility value or how valuing the task
can lead to achieving long range goals or receiving immediate or long range external rewards
(Eccles, 2009).
Utility value is determined by how well a task fits into an individual’s goals and plans or
fulfills other psychological needs (Eccles, 2009). What are the costs of not valuing tasks to
achieve specified goals? What are the costs of not valuing tasks that can lead to future plans?
What are the costs to the Scholastic Achievers if individual students do not meet credit hour and
GPA requirements during the freshman year? What are the costs to CSS, the Division of
Academic Affairs, and the institution? From a theoretical perspective, then, it would appear that
increasing the expectancy-value of Scholastic Achievers would improve their learning and
motivation; thus, ameliorating their performance and persistence, in supporting the attainment of
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 150

retention and matriculation goals at UU.
Value. Scholastic Achievers need to believe that they are capable of earning a 2.5 or above GPA
and 30 credit hours as first-year college students in the Scholastic Achievers program. Learning
and motivation are enhanced when learners have positive expectancies for success (Pajares,
2006). This would suggest to make it clear to Scholastic Achievers that they are capable of
learning what is being taught or are capable of earning a 2.5 or above GPA and 30 credit hours as
first-year college students. In addition, providing scaffolded instructional support for Scholastic
Achievers early on, while building multiple opportunities for practice and gradually removing
supports could benefit the goal-directed practice of program participants. Moreover, frequent,
accurate, credible, targeted and private feedback on progress in learning and performance, while
providing opportunities for Scholastic Achievers to observe their Panther PALS mentors
demonstrate engaged behavior that has practical value, represents credible and similar models
within the program. The recommendation then is for the organization to provide information,
job aids, and education that expound upon Scholastic Achievers believing and acknowledging
that they are capable of earning a 2.5 or above GPA and 30 credit hours as first-year college
students in the Scholastic Achievers program, enhancing their positive expectancies for success.
Bandura (2005) stated that people are self-organizing, proactive, self-regulating, and self-
reflecting. The author extensively researched and studied the theory of cognitive regulation of
motivation, affect, and action, verifying the function of personal efficacy beliefs as the basis for
action (Bandura, 2005). The cognitive skills required to complete the numerous activities that
incorporated gaining and using information to solve problems were significant to the Scholastic
Achievers population matriculating at UU. Pajares (2009) wrote that self-efficacy beliefs are
formed by interpreting four sources of information: mastery experience, vicarious experience,
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 151

social persuasions, and physiological reactions. Pajares (2009) asserted that mastery experience
or the interpretation of one’s own performance is the most influential source for most
individuals. Hence, individuals weigh the effects of their actions, interpretations or effects,
creating their efficacy beliefs.
Yet, verbal messages and social persuasions influence self-efficacy beliefs by helping one
to exert the extra effort and persistence required to succeed or the other way around. Pajares
(2009) discovered that effective persuaders actively cultivate people’s beliefs in their capabilities
while ensuring along the way that the envisioned success is attainable. Fellow Scholastic
Achievers may positively or negatively influence one another during their year of participation in
the Scholastic Achievers program. While in the field, actively studying the problem of practice,
interview evidence supported the aforementioned finding. Hence, Scholastic Achievers cited
fellow Fall 2015 cohort members as instrumental conduits to the achievement of individual
goals. Meanwhile, mentors are trained to verbally and socially venture into the arena of
persuading Scholastic Achievers to exert the necessary extra effort to persist and succeed in
accomplishing individual as well as program goals.
Pajares (2009) enumerated the various ways self-efficacy beliefs can augment human
accomplishment and well-being, which influences the choices people make, the courses of action
they pursue, as well as competence and confidence levels related to the tasks and activities
selected. From a theoretical perspective, then, it would appear that increasing the self-efficacy of
Scholastic Achievers would improve their learning and motivation; thus, ameliorating their
performance and persistence, in supporting the attainment of retention and matriculation goals at
UU.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 152

Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Data collection is complete for the Scholastic Achievers research project. The
Organization influences in Table 4 represent the complete list of validated organization
influences. Organizational effectiveness increases when leaders identify, articulate, focus the
organization’s effort on and reinforce the organization’s vision; they lead from the why
(Knowles, 1980). Scholastic Achievers did not find the culture of the organization supportive of
their academic achievement.
American College Testing (ACT, 2010) conducted the Fourth National Survey that asks,
What Works in Student Retention? Information is collected from colleges and universities to aid
in identifying and fully understanding the role of an array of practices on college student
retention and persistence to degree-completion. Chief Academic Officers and administrators in
similar positions were asked to respond to two issues: college student attrition and retention.
According to ACT (2010), “the primary purpose of ACT’s surveys has been to assess these
individuals’ perceptions of specific causes of attrition and one of the many factors that may
affect retention”
(p. 3).
The survey focused on seven student success initiatives that are typically used in higher
education institutions in the United States: Summer Bridge programs, pre-term orientation,
special academic/transition seminars, learning communities, early warning/academic alert
systems, service learning, and undergraduate research. Summer Bridge programs as defined by
ACT (2010) are “academic programs offered for students during the summer before the first year
of college”
(p. 43). The role of the program is to provide preparatory academic and/or social support before
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 153

the first semester of the first year of college. Tinto (1975) found that these components might
affect individual performance and persistence in college. Thus, programs are put in place to
bridge the academic preparation gap of targeted student populations such as Scholastic Achievers
through the Summer Bridge program, the establishment of Learning Cohorts/Communities, and
First-year Seminars at UU.
ACT (2010) stated that provisionally admitted students were the most likely group to be
required to participate in Summer Bridge programs. ACT (2010) shared that when Summer
Bridge programs are included as an institutional success initiative, students are often required to
attend. Such is the case at UU, the provisional admitted student is mandated to attend UU’s
Summer Bridge program, with the possibility of earning a minimum of seven credit hours during
the program. Students are tested for math and English placement courses; developmental and
non-developmental sections are offered. An introductory college orientation course rounds out
the Summer Bridge program curriculum.
Scholastic Achievers fall in the provisional admission category at UU and if a Summer
Bridge program is held at UU the summer prior to the Scholastic Achievers first semester of
college enrollment, the students are required to attend. Survey respondents were asked to
pinpoint the goals and outcomes of Summer Bridge programs. ACT (2010) ranked the results
from the highest to lowest percentages of institutional importance:
• Academic readiness for the first year
• Exposure to expectations of college-level courses
• Development of camaraderie and sense of connection to the institution
• Social/personal readiness for the first year
• Retention/Graduation rates
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 154

• Meaningful interaction with faculty (p. 3)
Through qualitative data collection, the assumed Organization influences were not
validated based on the most frequently mentioned Organization influences in achieving the
stakeholders’ goal during formal interviews and supported by the literature review and the
review of organization theory. As such, as indicated in Table 9, the organizational influences
were not validated but represent a high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 9
also shows the recommendations for these influences based on theoretical principles.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 155

Table 9
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence: Cause,
Need, or Asset*

Validated
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priorit
y
Yes,
No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Scholastic Achievers
did not find the culture
of the organization
supportive toward their
academic achievement
at UU.
N Y Effective change
begins by addressing
motivation influencers;
it ensures the group
knows why it needs to
change. It then
addresses
organizational barriers
and then knowledge
and skills needs (Clark
& Estes, 2008).

Provide
information and
education to
address the
cultural motivation
influencers
impacting the
academic
achievement of
Scholastic
Achievers to
ensure that the
organization
knows why it
needs to change;
addressing
organizational
barriers as well as
knowledge and
skills needs.
Scholastic Achievers
did not have the
resources to achieve
their goals. There is an
organizational
misalignment of
resources.
N Y Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.)
needed to do their job,
and that if there are
resource shortages,
then resources are
aligned with
organizational priorities
(Clark & Estes, 2008).

Provide the
resources that are
needed for
effective change
to facilitate goal
achievement for
Scholastic
Achievers,
aligning resources
with
organizational
priorities.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 156

Cultural models. It is imperative that the culture at UU support the Scholastic Achievers
Cohort and the academic goals of the learning community participants. The original cultural
model, Organization influence assumption was that Scholastic Achievers did not find the culture
of the organization supportive toward their academic achievement at UU. Yet, through the data
collection process, it became apparent that Scholastic Achievers found the culture of the
organization supportive toward their academic achievement at UU. Effective change begins by
addressing motivation influencers; it ensures the group knows why it needs to change. It then
addresses organizational barriers and then knowledge and skills needs (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Hence, this would suggest, as currently in practice in one insular form at UU, the requirement
that Scholastic Achievers take the semester Scholastic Seminar General Studies course with the
CSS Retention Coordinator/Scholastic Achievers Coordinator was one supportive facet within
the cultural model. Yet, much more deliberate support across the entire University is necessary,
as cited by the minority of Scholastic Achievers during data collection. Furthermore, Scholastic
Achievers are required to enroll in the Retention Coordinator’s semester College Orientation
course during the Summer Bridge program. Both courses are offered in the Fall and Spring
semesters. However, only College Orientation is available during the Summer Bridge program,
not Scholastic Seminar. If UU holds a Summer Bridge program, which is open to non-
provisional students and required of provisional students, the Scholastic Achievers (provisional
students) will only enroll in Scholastic Seminar during the fall semester; completing College
Orientation over the summer. Therefore, the recommendation then is for the organization to
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 157

repeatedly provide information and education to address the cultural motivation influencers
impacting the academic achievement of Scholastic Achievers to ensure that the organization
knows why it needs to continue to change; addressing organizational barriers as well as
knowledge and skills needs. The organization provides the resources that are needed for
effective change to facilitate goal achievement for Scholastic Achievers, aligning resources with
organizational priorities. The organization considers the effectiveness of the Panther PALS
mentoring program on the persistence of Scholastic Achievers.
ACT (2010) delineated survey response percentages for First-year Seminar institutional
goals from highest to least:
• Greater understanding of your institution’s academic culture
• Connections between students
• Improved retention and/or graduation rates
• Higher levels of academic achievement
• Connections between students and faculty
• Higher utilization levels of campus resources
• Improved critical thinking (p. 13)
Scholastic Achievers at UU formed a Cohort community of provisionally admitted
students encompassing one of the seven student success initiatives ACT (2010) recognized as
First-year Learning Communities. ACT (2010) defined learning communities as “curricular
structures in which small cohorts of students -typically 15 to 25- are co-enrolled in two or more
courses generally from different disciplines with or without a common residential environment”
(p. 43). The characteristics of First-Year Learning Communities noted by survey respondents as
common to First-year learning communities encompassed:
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 158

• Students are co-enrolled in two or more courses, and faculty work closely to link
course content
• One of the courses is a first-year seminar
• Learning communities are connected to residential living
• Courses in a learning community are linked by a common intellectual theme
• Student affairs professionals are involved in the delivery of out-of-class experiences
• Students are co-enrolled in two or more courses, but faculty have limited interaction
(p. 21)
UU’s Scholastic Achievers are co-enrolled in Scholastic Seminar and/or College
Orientation. Scholastic Achievers are required to enroll in both courses as first-year, freshman
seminar classes. The courses are connected by the theme Scholastic Achievers AIM for
Excellence: Achievement, Involvement, and Motivation. Some of the ACT (2010) goals and
outcomes of Learning Communities per survey respondents, Chief Academic Officers at colleges
and universities in the U.S., encompassed:
1. Student-student interaction
2. Higher levels of academic achievement
3. Improved retention and/or graduation rates
4. Faculty-to-student interaction
5. Linkages between different disciplinary perspectives
6. Improved critical thinking
7. Faculty-to-faculty collaboration (p. 23)
The ACT (2010) national survey, “Enhancing Student Success and Retention throughout
Undergraduate Education” opened the window to a variety of student success initiatives offered
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 159

by U.S. 4-year institutions. ACT (2010) wrote, two of the seven areas of focus (summer bridge
programs and pre-term orientation) are “uniquely” designed for first-year students. The goal at
UU is to address the critical needs of the targeted subpopulation/s. Specifically, Scholastic
Achievers, provisionally admitted students, received additional academic services in
academic/transition seminars and through learning communities after completing the Summer
Bridge program. From a theoretical perspective, then, it would appear that the ACT (2010)
recommendations could be instrumental to the academic achievement of Scholastic Achievers
and a culture of academic success at UU.
Cultural settings. It is critical for Scholastic Achievers to have the resources to succeed at UU.
However, the original assumption was that the cultural setting, Organization influence would
find that Scholastic Achievers did not have the resources to achieve their goals. Moreover, there
was an organizational misalignment of resources. Yet, through the data collection process, it
became apparent that Scholastic Achievers found that they did have the resources to achieve
their goals. There was an alignment of resources.
Continual effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources (equipment,
personnel, time, etc.) needed to do their job, and that if there are resource shortages, then
resources are aligned with organizational priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008). The provisional
student population has been deemed a priority by University administration (CSS Standard
Operating Procedure, 2015; UU Strategic Plan, 2012). This would suggest that UU continue to
prioritize the resources made available to Scholastic Achievers for goal achievement and optimal
success. Therefore, the recommendation then is for the organization to continue providing the
resources that are needed for continuous effective change to facilitate goal achievement for
Scholastic Achievers, aligning resources with organizational priorities.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 160

Kezar and Eckel (2002) adopted a two-tiered cultural framework to examine the effect of
institutional culture on change strategies across six institutions over a four-year period. The two
research questions addressed: (a) Is the institutional culture related to the change process, and
how is it related? (b) Are change processes thwarted by violating cultural norms or enhanced by
culturally sensitive strategies? Kezar and Eckel (2002) cited and referenced two theories for the
exploration of the relationship of culture and change, including Bergquist’s (1992) four academic
cultures and Tierney’s (1991) individual institutional framework. Using case study methods
(interviews, document analysis, and observation, the researchers studied (a) senior administrative
support, (b) collaborative leadership, (c) robust design (vision), (d) staff development, and (e)
visible actions. Culturally appropriate strategies and culture layers (enterprise, institutional,
group) were both investigated in relation to cultural theory assumptions, through Kezar and
Eckel’s (2002) research on institutional culture and change. Kezar and Eckel (2002)
recommended practitioners “to become cultural outsiders in order to observe their institutional
patterns” (p. 437). The authors recounted the six, primary multidisciplinary categories of change
theories: biological, teleological, political, life cycle, social cognition, and cultural (p. 437).
Kezar and Eckel (2002) asserted that comprehensive change, such as in this study, is best
viewed through a values and beliefs framework. The authors examined Bergquist’s (1992)
cultural plus archetypes and found organizations that effect change (a) evaluate collegial culture,
(b) assess managerial culture, (c) contemplate developmental culture, and (d) consider
negotiating culture—all parallel to Tierney’s (1991) individual institutional culture. They also
discovered that organizations committed to effective change (a) promote the environment,
(b) review the mission, (c) capture socialization, (d) summarize information, (e) explore strategy,
and (f) deliberate leadership efforts. Additionally, the authors infused the core change strategies
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 161

of (a) senior administrative support, (b) collaborative leadership, (c) robust design, (d) staff
development, and (e) visible actions in deciphering the framework (pp. 440-441). Kezar and
Eckel (2002) addressed the relationship between the individual cultures and the ways these
strategies emerged. The authors suggested that at all institutions and among every strategy there
was a relationship. Thus, “change strategies seem to be successful if they are culturally coherent
or aligned with the culture” (pp. 456-457). Furthermore, Kezar and Eckel (2002) found that
“leaders might be more successful in facilitating change if they understood the cultures in which
they were working, developing and matching the strategies for change; recognizing if the
institutional culture should be challenged, rather work within it at the higher education
institution” (pp. 457-458). From a theoretical perspective, then, it would appear that the
literature would support the exigency for the regularity of effective change efforts to ensure that
everyone has the resources required to do their job, aligning resources with organizational
priorities.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stipulated three major reasons to evaluate training
programs: (a) to improve the program, (b) to maximize the transfer of learning to behavior and
subsequent organizational results, and (c) to demonstrate the value of training to the organization
(p. 5). The authors stated that effective training provides relevant knowledge and skills and
participants feel confident enough to apply them on the job. The 50
th
anniversary of the four
levels marked a turning point for Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), as the authors recognized
the societal changes that had transpired over the decades in work and training environments. In
the Kirkpatrick Model (2016), training referred to a wide variety of knowledge, motivation and
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 162

organization interventions.
In Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), the startling news was that the four levels are
driven in reverse. Leading indicators are a vital component of the process, suggesting whether
“critical behaviors” are headed in the right direction to steer the organizational ship along the
path to the preferred results. Required drivers have been added to the progress of the model,
reinforcing, monitoring, encouraging, and rewarding the behaviors required of employees.
“Creating a culture and expectation that individuals are responsible for maintaining the
knowledge and skills to enhance their own performance will encourage individual accountability
and empowerment” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 15). Are participants actively involved
in and contributing to his or her learning experience? Is the training relevant? Will it be used by
participants once they leave the cozy confines of the training environment?
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) closed part one by demarcating the three phases of a
program: (a) Planning (define program outcomes, return on expectations, success factors,
identifying critical behaviors and required drivers, necessities for success, design the
intervention, design the evaluation tools, using blended evaluation tools, using actionable
intelligence); (b) Execution (preparing participants for training, tying training to performance
during training, support and accountability after training, demonstration of value phase); and
(c) Demonstration of Value (compiling the planned data and telling a compelling story of value;
starting with an effective plan that creates and demonstrates program value from the very
beginning).
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stated that Level 4 Results were the reason that
training is performed. The job of training is to contribute to stakeholder results. The
implementation and evaluation plan commenced with a focus on the Level 4 results that
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 163

organizations are striving to achieve. Using the four levels upside down, sets you “apart from
and ahead of the crowd.” The authors asked us to contemplate what metrics the training will
directly influence. To use a sports analogy, similar to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), we
must track what is working in the ring during each and every round. In the corner, we must
make the necessary adjustments to earn a knockout or win the decision by going to the
scorecards at the sound of the final bell.
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 3 is the most important level to
evaluate and invest in for “mission-critical” programs. During Level 3, participants are applying
what they learned during the training as he or she returns to the day-to-day job environment. As
such, the authors shared, to circumvent the precarious tumble down the steep hill, design,
develop, and deliver training programs by building in the evaluation components at the forefront
of the undertaking. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommend focusing evaluation
resources on Levels 3 and 4 to ensure that utilization of multiple evaluation methods and tools
distinguishes how training improved job performance and contributes to organizational results.
Incorporating the analysis of evaluations and integrating the findings via program developments
and performance supports organizational initiatives. As such, to “start with the end,”
demonstrates genuine concern for the future success of program participants.
In addition, continuous improvement efforts serve as indicators along the climb, during
the attempt to surmount any assistance and support stumbles in facilitating the zenith of job
performance -- targeted program outcomes and results. “Executing Kirkpatrick programs with
excellence is mission critical, so these things are nonnegotiable” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016, p. 57). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) advocated partnerships, policies, and cross-
functional teams in delivering a “return on expectations” for key stakeholders. Mission-critical
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 164

initiatives begin with a plan for what will happen before, during, and after training to make the
intended impact on the desired outcomes.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
UU is the name of the Historical Black University studied and is located in the Southern
portion of the United States. UU is a 4-year, private higher education institution. The mission of
UU, as published in the Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 (2012) is:
United University is nourished by its heritage and energized by a commitment to
excellence and diversity. Its mission is to: 1) Provide an intellectually challenging and
spiritually enriching environment for learning; 2) Empower students to develop values
for success; and 3) Develop scholars, leaders, and lifelong learners of a global society.
(p. 4)
UU is a HBCU with 95% of undergraduate students identified as Black or African
American (College Navigator, 2013). The educational problem at UU was the retention of
students at the HBCU (College Navigator, 2013). The related performance goal for the
institution was written in the institution’s strategic plan: by August 2017, “it is expected that the
average retention rate for second year students will increase to 70%” (UU Strategic Plan, 2012,
p. 14).
Retention rates measure the percentage of first-time students who are seeking bachelor's
degrees who return to the institution to continue their studies the following fall (College
Navigator, 2013). The last publicly available data revealed that the retention rate at UU was
50% and at the time of the new strategic plan, the goal of increasing retention by 20% was the
future forecast (College Navigator, 2013; UU Strategic Plan, 2012). The present organizational
performance status represented a 20% gap toward the attainment of the 70% retention rate goal
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 165

for second year students (UU Strategic Plan, 2012). In order to fulfill the vision and mission of
the University, the successful development and matriculation of students, it was incumbent upon
UU to work toward meeting measurable Strategic Plan initiatives.
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders will contribute to the achievement of the overall
organizational goal of a 50% to 70% average retention rate increase for second year students at
UU by August 2017 (UU Strategic Plan, 2012), it was important to understand the perception of
what supports or impedes the ability of Scholastic Achievers to persist at the institution and to
successfully matriculate to the second year of college at UU. Therefore, the stakeholders of
focus for this study were the Scholastic Achievers population at UU. The stakeholders’ goal,
supported by the CSS department and the Division of Academic Affairs was that by August
2016, 60% of the fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers population would earn 30 credit hours and a
minimum GPA of a 2.5 GPA or above by the end of the freshman year. Students must earn a
minimum of 30 credit hours to be classified as a sophomore student at UU. The 2.5 GPA goal
was based on a 4.0 GPA calculation scale. Failure to accomplish this goal would lead to the
persistence of low retention, adversely impacting the organization’s graduation rates and
organizational goals. The retention of the Scholastic Achievers population at UU affected the
organization’s overall goal to increase the average retention rate from 50% to 70% for second
year students by August 2017. The expectations for the desired outcomes or results of the
recommendations for the stakeholder will result in an increase in the Retention Rate for second
year students at UU.
Table 10 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for Scholastic Achievers.
If the internal outcomes are met as expected as a result of freshman orientation programming and
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 166

courses, in addition to organizational support for Scholastic Achievers’ performance at UU, then
the external outcomes should also be realized.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 10
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Scholastic Achievers
graduate in four years.
UU Retention Rate for second
year students.
College Navigator (2017) will
provide the UU Retention Rate
data.
2. Scholastic Achievers
attend graduate school
upon graduation.
UU Retention Rate for second
year students.
College Navigator (2017) will
provide the UU Retention Rate
data.
3. Scholastic Achievers
find career-related
employment upon
graduation.
UU Retention Rate for second
year students.
College Navigator (2017) will
provide the UU Retention Rate
data.
4. Scholastic Achievers
graduate with a 3.0 or
above GPA.
UU Retention Rate for second
year students.
College Navigator (2017) will
provide the UU Retention Rate
data.
5. Scholastic Achievers
serve on the UU
Enrollment
Management/Admissions
Committee upon
graduation. .
UU Retention Rate for second
year students.
College Navigator (2017) will
provide the UU Retention Rate
data.
6. Scholastic Achievers
earned a 2.5 or above
GPA and 30 credit hours
as first-year students in
the Scholastic Achievers
program.
UU Retention Rate for second
year students.
College Navigator (2017) will
provide the UU Retention Rate
data.

Internal Outcomes
7. Scholastic Achievers
are enrolled in 15 to 16
credit hours during the
first and second semesters
at UU.
Enrollment records. The SA program coordinator
will review enrollment records
at the close of the fall and spring
semesters at UU.

Enrollment record access will be
provided by the Registrar’s
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 167

Office.
8. Scholastic Achievers
met weekly with the
program coordinator to
review effective high
school to college
transition strategies in
GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar.
GST 007: Scholastic Seminar
attendance records, SA Office
sign-in log records, and SA
Excel spreadsheets.
The SA program coordinator
will review and track class
attendance, office appointments,
and walk-in visit records.
9. Scholastic Achievers
registered for classes
within the pre-registration
period during the first and
second semesters at UU.
Enrollment records.

The SA program coordinator
will review registration records.
Registration record access will
be provided by the Registrar’s
Office.
10. Scholastic Achievers
articulated weekly the
strengths and challenges
experienced during the
freshman year at UU in
GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar.
GST 007: Scholastic Seminar
attendance records, SA Office
sign-in log records, and SA
Excel spreadsheets.
The SA program coordinator
will review and track class
attendance, Office
appointments, and walk-in visit
records.
11. Scholastic Achievers
met or exceeded all
program guidelines.
UU end-of-the-semester
records.
The SA program coordinator
will review end-of-the-semester
records.

End-of-the semester record
access will be provided by the
Registrar’s Office.
12. Scholastic Achievers
earned a 2.5 or above
GPA and 30 credit hours
as first-year students in
the Scholastic Achievers
program.
GST 007: Scholastic Seminar
attendance records, SA Office
sign-in log records, and SA
Excel spreadsheets.
The SA program coordinator
will review and track class
attendance, office appointments,
and walk-in visit records.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The focus on first-generation college students served as a backdrop to
retention, persistence, and matriculation conversations within the HBCU community,
environment, and higher education marketplace. The purpose was to provide a well-rounded
discussion on the variety of concerns facing UU, the Scholastic Achievers program, and existing
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 168

collegiate pathways. According to the Office of Institutional Research, Planning, and Special
Programs at UU, 80.4% or 66 students out of the 82 Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort were
classified as first-generation college students (UU Quick Facts, 2015). Therefore, the first-
generation emphasis was vital to the trajectory of the study.
The Scholastic Achievers Cohort will have to demonstrate that they are capable of
enrolling in 15 to 16 credit hours during the first and second semesters at UU. Scholastic
Achievers will need to demonstrate that they are capable of attending the required weekly
course, GST 007: Scholastic Seminar, as program participants. In addition, Scholastic Achievers
will need to demonstrate that they are able to make and attend weekly appointments with the
program coordinator to review effective high school to college transition strategies. Scholastic
Achievers will need to demonstrate that they are capable of successfully registering for classes
during the pre-registration period at UU. Scholastic Achievers need to demonstrate that they are
able to articulate the strengths and challenges experienced during the freshman year at UU.
Scholastic Achievers must demonstrate that they are capable of meeting or exceeding all
program guidelines. Scholastic Achievers must demonstrate that they are capable of earning a
2.5 or above GPA and 30 credit hours as first-year students in the Scholastic Achievers program.
In the Fall of 2015, 17.9% or 82 out of 456 first-year freshman students were
provisionally admitted to UU (UU Quick Facts, 2015). According to the Office of Institutional
Research, Planning, and Special Programs at UU, the Fall 2016 retention rate for Scholastic
Achievers was 54.8% or 45 students out of the original 82 Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort
returned to UU for the Fall 2016 semester (UU Quick Facts, 2016). The provisional students at
UU are identified as Scholastic Achievers and are a critical cog in the cyclical wheel of retention
and graduation best practices at HBCUs.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 169

Targeting early retention measures and engendering an attitude of “persistence” among
students supports campus-wide matriculation efforts (Harper & Harper, 2006; Murphy & Hicks,
2006). According to the UU Strategic Plan (2012), “These challenges are welcomed with an
uncompromising commitment to sustaining the future of United University with a pledge to
students at the core of its mission” (p. 5). Moreover, “UU contributes to the social, cultural,
economic and environmental vitality of the community, the state, and the nation” (UU Strategic
Plan, 2012, p. 5). The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome behaviors
appears in Table 11.
Table 11
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Scholastic Achievers’ Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Scholastic
Achievers will enroll
in 15 to 16 credit
hours during the first
and second semesters
at UU.
Enrollment records at
the close of the fall
and spring semesters
at UU.
Enrollment record
access will be provided
by the Registrar’s
Office.
The Scholastic
Achievers
Orientation sessions
held at the
beginning of the
first and second
semesters at UU
delineates the
Scholastic Achiever
enrollment process.
2. Scholastic
Achievers will meet
weekly with the
program coordinator
to review effective
high school to college
transition strategies in
GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar.
GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar attendance
records, SA Office
sign-in log records,
and SA Excel
spreadsheets.
Class attendance, Office
appointments, and walk-
in visits will be tracked.
GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar meets
weekly for 55
minutes in the fall
and spring
semesters at UU.
3. Scholastic
Achievers are able to
successfully register
for classes within the
pre-registration period
during the first and
Scholastic Achiever
registration records at
the close of the UU
pre-registration
period.
Registration record
access will be provided
by the Registrar’s
Office.
Academic Advising
month meetings are
held with Scholastic
Achievers in
October during the
fall semester and in
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 170

second semesters at
UU.
March during the
spring semester in
preparation for the
pre-registration
period at UU.
4. Scholastic
Achievers are able to
articulate weekly the
strengths and
challenges
experienced during
the freshman year at
UU in GST 007:
Scholastic Seminar.
GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar attendance
records, SA Office
sign-in log records,
and SA Excel
spreadsheets.
Class attendance, Office
appointments, and walk-
in visits will be tracked.
GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar meets
weekly for 55
minutes in the fall
and spring
semesters at UU.
5. Scholastic
Achievers are meeting
or exceeding all
program guidelines.
End-of-the-semester
records at UU.
End-of-the-semester
records will be provided
by the Registrar’s Office
at the close of the fall
and spring semesters.
Scholastic
Achievers are
required to meet
with the program
coordinator weekly
to address and
discuss program
guidelines.
6. Scholastic
Achievers express
weekly in GST 007:
Scholastic Seminar
that they believe they
are capable of earning
a 2.5 or above GPA
and 30 credit hours as
first-year students in
the Scholastic
Achievers program.
GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar attendance
records, SA Office
sign-in log records,
and SA Excel
spreadsheets.
Class attendance, Office
appointments, and walk-
in visits will be tracked.
GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar meets
weekly for 55
minutes in the fall
and spring
semesters at UU.

Required drivers. The Scholastic Achievers population at UU consists of provisionally
admitted, first-year college students entering the University with a 2.00-2.29 high school GPA.
Ascertaining the fundamental knowledge and skills compulsory to achieving academic success
was imperative to incorporating instrumental student retention strategies, while aiming to meet
college completion goals and improve graduation rates at UU. The identified organizational
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 171

performance goal was that by August 2017, the average retention rate for second year students
would increase to 70%. Scholastic Achievers needed to know how to earn 30 credit hours during
the freshman year of college in learning the meaning of freshman orientation programming goals
for first-year college students. Hence, Scholastic Achievers needed to know how to apply and
implement effective high school to college transition strategies in evaluating their own strengths
and challenges as first-year college students.
A literature review focused on the knowledge-related influences that Scholastic
Achievers encountered as first-time college students at a 4-year university. Execution in this
area was germane to the achievement of the Scholastic Achievers stakeholder goal and the
organization’s global goal. An analysis of the relevant literature, enumerated the requisite
knowledge for successful matriculation at UU.
Expectancy-Value Theory (Eccles, 2009) and Self-Efficacy (Pajares, 2009) were studied
in relation to the motivation and persistence of Scholastic Achievers at UU. Therefore,
Scholastic Achievers must believe that their actions would yield the coveted end results or the
incentive to act or persist when confronted with impediments wanes. Scholastic Achievers
needed to recognize the importance of utility value or how valuing the task could lead to
achieving long-range goals. What were the costs of not valuing tasks to achieve specified goals?
What were the costs of not valuing tasks that could lead to future plans? What were the costs to
the Scholastic Achievers if individual students did not meet credit hour and GPA requirements
during the freshman year? Scholastic Achievers needed to believe that they were capable of
earning a 2.5 or above GPA and 30 credit hours as first-year college students in the Scholastic
Achievers program.
Demarcating several of the structural components at UU was central to meeting the stated
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 172

performance goals of the Scholastic Achievers population. Identifying the organizational
support systems or hindrances were relevant in illustrating student retention strategies, while
working to meet college completion goals to increase retention rates at UU (College Navigator,
2013; UU Strategic Plan, 2012). Converging the organization-related influences that Scholastic
Achievers encountered as first-time college students at a 4-year university while rectifying work
in this area is foundational to the academic achievement of Scholastic Achievers. Some of the
requisite organizational indicators for successful matriculation at UU comprised: (a)
organizational cultural models and cultural settings, (b) aspirational and organizational
provisional admission programs at colleges and universities, (c) provisional admission program
models and practices, (d) provisional admission program equity, (e) provisional admission
programs and organizational leadership.
Literature to detect the assumed organizational influences and barriers potentially
impeding the stakeholder group, the Scholastic Achievers at UU, as well the findings, uncovered
that Scholastic Achievers did find the culture of the organization supportive toward their
academic achievement at UU. Furthermore, Scholastic Achievers did have the resources to
achieve their goals. There was not an organizational misalignment of resources. Table 12 shows
the recommended drivers to support the critical behaviors of Scholastic Achievers.
Table 12
Required Drivers to Support Scholastic Achievers’ Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job Aid including a student
advising and registration
manual for Scholastic
Achievers.
Academic Advising month
during the fall and spring
semesters at UU and Pre-
Registration month during the
fall and spring semesters at
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 173

UU (October and November;
March and April).
Information pertaining to next
week’s class will provide a
preview of weekly high
school to college transition
assignments and
requirements.
Ongoing and Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Job Aid including a student
advising and registration
manual for Scholastic
Achievers.
Academic Advising month
during the fall and spring
semesters at UU and Pre-
Registration month during the
fall and spring semesters at
UU (October and November;
March and April).
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Information pertaining to next
week’s class will provide a
preview of weekly strengths
and challenges experienced
during the high school to
college transition period.
Ongoing and Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Job Aid including a checklist
pertaining to Scholastic
Achiever program guidelines.
Ongoing and Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Job Aid including a student
manual pertaining to
Scholastic Achievers earning
a college GPA and earning
college credit hours.
Ongoing and Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Encouraging
Coaching Scholastic
Achievers about the transition
to college in GST 007:
Scholastic Seminar and during
office appointments
Ongoing and Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Feedback shared with
Scholastic Achievers about
the transition to college in
GST 007: Scholastic Seminar
and during office
appointments
Ongoing and Weekly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Collaboration with Scholastic
Achievers during weekly
programs and activities
addressing the transition to
college
Ongoing and Weekly
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 174

Rewarding
Performance incentive at Mid-
Terms when GPA and credit
hours meet or exceed program
guidelines (gift card raffle)
October and March 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Performance incentive when
Scholastic Achiever has
attended 4 or more Academic
Student Engagement Sessions
and Workshops at Mid-Term
point of the semester (gift
card raffle)
October and March 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Public acknowledgement for
meeting or exceeding program
guidelines at Mid-Term point
of the semester (Faculty
Meeting/Freshman Class
Meeting)
October and March 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Public acknowledgement for
attending 4 or more Academic
Student Engagement Sessions
and Workshops at Mid-Term
point of the semester (gift
raffle)
October and March 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Performance incentive at
Finals when GPA and credit
hours meet or exceed program
guidelines (gift raffle)
December and May 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Performance incentive at
Finals when Scholastic
Achiever has attended 4 or
more Academic Student
Engagement Sessions and
Workshops post Mid-Term
point of the semester (gift
raffle)
December and May 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Public acknowledgement for
meeting or exceeding program
guidelines post Mid-Term
point of the semester (Faculty
Meeting/Freshman Class
Meeting)
December and May 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Public acknowledgement for
attending 4 or more Academic
Student Engagement Sessions
and Workshops post Mid-
December and May 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 175

Term point of the semester
(Faculty Meeting/Freshman
Class Meeting)

Monitoring. Seven strategies could be used to ensure that the Required Drivers occur:
(a) the program coordinator can assess the weekly performance of Scholastic Achievers; (b) the
program coordinator can create opportunities during faculty meetings to share goal outcomes;
(c) the program coordinator can create opportunities during freshman class meetings to share
Scholastic Achiever accomplishments; (d) at the mid-term point of the semester, the program
coordinator can ask Scholastic Achievers to self-report their expectancy-value and self-efficacy
regarding high school to college transition strategies; (e) at the mid-term point of the semester,
the program coordinator can ask Scholastic Achievers to self-report the strengths and challenges
experienced during the first semester; (f) at the end of the semester, the program coordinator can
ask Scholastic Achievers to self-report their expectancy-value and self-efficacy regarding high
school to college transition strategies; (g) at the end of the semester, the program coordinator can
ask Scholastic Achievers to self-report the strengths and challenges experienced during the
freshman year. Regular, monthly checks and balances can help the organization monitor
progress, make adjustments, and swiftly change course, if results do not match expectations
during the monitoring phases.
Supplementary monitoring efforts can integrate building relationships with the entering
Scholastic Achievers population at UU. Also, maintaining frequent communication with faculty
members in the respective schools to support students academically throughout the freshman
year, initially commencing during the Freshman Orientation Advising period, could increase
monitoring efforts. The aim is to eliminate some of the challenges that incoming Scholastic
Achievers may encounter to retain members of the Cohort. One of the nation’s leading research
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 176

organizations for enrollment management, Noel-Levitz, champions institutions becoming more
proactive, intervening early to preserve student success and retention. The task of the Scholastic
Achievers coordinator encompasses: (a) highly interactive faculty/student dynamics,
(b) excellent communication skills, (c) flexibility, and (d) the enthusiasm to motivate students
from the initial introduction at the Scholastic Achievers Orientation through the sessions allotted
for (a) academic advising and registration, (b) GST 007: Scholastic Seminar, as well as
(c) weekly office appointments.
UU’s Strategic Plan, 2012-2017 (2012), signals “fostering a culture for continuous
improvement that is responsive to change and increased expectations, while implementing
activities and initiatives to build a university-wide system to assess student learning,
engagement, and satisfaction” (p. 61). Developing an evidence-based model, data driven, is
advocated by key administrators in strengthening and coordinating retention efforts in all areas.
Frequent, quick checks can help the organization monitor progress and make adjustments if
results do not match expectations at that time.
Organizational support. The Critical Behaviors and Required Drivers that are monitored for
performance in the above sections assume that the recommendations at the organizational level
have been implemented. In this case, for the stakeholder to achieve their goals, the organization
would need to provide information and education to address the cultural motivation influencers
impacting the academic achievement of Scholastic Achievers to ensure that the organization
knows why it needs to continue to change; addressing organizational barriers as well as
knowledge and skills needs. Furthermore, the organization would need to provide the resources
that are needed for effective change to facilitate goal achievement for Scholastic Achievers,
aligning resources with organizational priorities. The organization considers the effectiveness of
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 177

the Panther PALS mentoring program on the persistence of Scholastic Achievers.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the completion of the recommended solutions, most notably the
Scholastic Achievers program, the stakeholders will be able to:
Summarize the meaning of freshman orientation programming goals for first-year college
students. (D)
1. Explain how to earn 30 credit hours during the freshman year of college. (D)
2. Apply and implement effective high school to college transition strategies. (P)
3. Carry out the academic advising process successfully. (P)
4. Reflect on their strengths and challenges as first-year college students. (M)
5. Describe the value in successfully completing the first year of college by meeting or
exceeding all program guidelines. (Value)
6. Recognize that they are capable of earning a 2.5 or above GPA and 30 credit hours as
first-year college students in the Scholastic Achievers program.
(Self-efficacy)
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section, will be achieved within a
Cohort/Learning Community program at UU. The Scholastic Achievers program is developed to
address the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influence the
retention of Scholastic Achievers. The Scholastic Achievers program is designed to facilitate the
academic achievement and collegiate development of the Scholastic Achievers population at UU.
The program targets the fundamental post-secondary transition skills indispensable to collegiate
retention, persistence, and matriculation within the Scholastic Achievers population, during the
first year of college. The Scholastic Achievers program at UU emphasizes the crucial
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 178

knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influence the retention of
Scholastic Achievers during the fall and spring semesters of the freshman year.
Scholastic Achievers will enroll in GST 007: Scholastic Seminar in the first semester at
UU. The class will meet weekly for 55 minutes. The program coordinator is the instructor for
the course. As part of the Cohort/Learning Community program, Scholastic Achievers will meet
with the program coordinator in her office on a weekly basis. Another program component
mandates weekly tutorial sessions in the University Testing and Tutoring Center (minimum of 3
hours a week). In addition, program participants are required to attend monthly Academic
Student Engagement Sessions: Student Success Series workshops on campus at UU. The
program coordinator is the administrator of the workshops.
Scholastic Achievers will receive information, training, and job aids as facets of an
educational acculturation into the program. Furthermore, the information, training, and job aids
are imperative for first-year college students transitioning from high school to college at UU.
The information, training, and job aids shall incorporate (a) the transition strategies necessary for
Scholastic Achievers to be successful at the institution, (b) the academic advising and
registration procedures to meet program guidelines, (c) the enrollment requirements to meet
program objectives, (d) the metacognitive reflection methods vital in the freshman year, (e) the
value of successfully completing the first year of college, (f) the capacity of the organization to
facilitate the Scholastic Achievers program, and (g) the requisite program expectations central to
a successful first year at the University.
According to Tinto (2012), students engaged academically and socially with academic
staff and peers were more likely to succeed in the classroom. Academic support is essential
during the first year of college, “when student success is still so much in question and still
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 179

malleable to institutional intervention” (Tinto, 2012, p. 5). Therefore, collegiate delegations
supporting students in acquiring the necessary coping skills in college during the “enrollment
and transition processes” may assist efforts toward meeting retention, persistence, and
matriculation goals (Murphy & Hicks, 2006).
Components of learning. Demonstrating declarative knowledge is often necessary as a
precursor to applying knowledge to solve problems. Thus, it is important to evaluate learning for
both declarative and procedural knowledge being taught. It is also important that learners value
the freshman orientation programming and courses as prerequisites to using their newly learned
knowledge and skills as first-year college students. However, they must also be confident that
they can succeed in applying their knowledge and skills and be committed to using them as
freshman in college. As such, Table 13 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these
components of learning.
Table 13
Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair,
think, share” and other individual/group
activities.
In the GST 007: Scholastic Seminar course
during and after class via weekly
appointments.
Knowledge checks using multiple choice. In the GST 007: Scholastic Seminar course
during and after class via weekly
appointments.
Knowledge checks using short-answer. In the GST 007: Scholastic Seminar course
during and after class via weekly
appointments.
Knowledge checks using essays. In the GST 007: Scholastic Seminar course
during and after class via weekly
appointments.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Demonstration in groups and individually of
using the job aids to successfully perform the
skills.
During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar at the
end of each unit.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 180

During the GST 007: Scholastic seminar
course using scenarios with multiple-choice
items.
During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar at the
end of each unit.
During the GST 007: Scholastic seminar
course using scenarios with short-answer
items.
During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar at the
end of each unit.
During the GST 007: Scholastic seminar
course using scenarios with essay items.
During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar at the
end of each unit.
Quality of feedback from peers during group
sharing.
During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar at the
end of each unit.
Individual application of the skills using the
Jenzabar Learning Mgmt. System (LMS).
During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar at the
end of each unit.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
survey asking students about their level of
proficiency before and after training.
At the end of GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.

Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Coordinator/Instructor’s observation of
participants’ statements and actions
demonstrating that they see the benefit of what
they are being asked to do as Scholastic
Achievers.
During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.
Discussions of the value of what they are being
asked to do as Scholastic Achievers.
During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
item.
After GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey items using scaled items. Following each GST 007: Scholastic Seminar
unit.
Discussions following practice and feedback. During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
item.
After GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice. During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.
Create an individual action plan. During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment
item.
After GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.

Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) reported that Level 1: Reaction entailed participants
finding the training favorable, engaging, and relevant. The authors specified focusing on
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 181

formative evaluation, obtaining feedback when participants are still in the setting and there is
still time to act. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) admonished to keep Level 1: Reaction
simplistic, conserving time and resources for more important levels. The method(s) or tool(s)
listed below determine how the participants react to the learning event(s). As such, Table 14 lists
the Scholastic Achievers engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction reactions to the
learning event(s).
Table 14
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observation by instructor/coordinator Ongoing during GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.
Completion of online modules/units During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar
Attendance During GST 007: Scholastic Seminar
Course evaluation Two weeks after GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with participants via survey
(online) and discussion (ongoing).
After every module/unit in GST 007:
Scholastic Seminar.
Course evaluation Two weeks after GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with participants via survey
(online) and discussion (ongoing).
After every module/unit in GST 007:
Scholastic Seminar.
Course evaluation Two weeks after GST 007: Scholastic Seminar.

Evaluation Tools
An evaluation instrument has been created to assess the components to measure Reaction
to the GST 007: Scholastic Seminar course/Scholastic Achievers program and components of
Learning for the GST 007: Scholastic Seminar course/Scholastic Achievers program and at UU.
See Appendix E to review the evaluation instrument for Level 1: Reaction and Level 2:
Learning.
Immediately following the program implementation. During the GST 007: Scholastic
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 182

Seminar course, the Scholastic Achievers coordinator will collect data about the start, duration,
and completion of modules and units by the participants. These data will indicate the
engagement with the course material. The Jenzabar LMS will also administer brief surveys after
each unit requesting Scholastic Achievers to indicate the relevance of the material to the
Scholastic Achievers’ performance in the program and their overall satisfaction with the content
and delivery of the GST 007: Scholastic Seminar course.
For Level 1, during the GST 007: Scholastic Seminar course, the instructor/coordinator
will conduct periodic brief pulse-checks by asking Scholastic Achievers about the relevance of
the content to the Scholastic Achievers program and organization, delivery, and learning
environment. Level 2 will include checks for understanding using games or competition among
groups in responding to questions and scenarios drawn from the content.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately six weeks after the
implementation of the GST 007: Scholastic Seminar course, and then again at twelve weeks, the
Scholastic Achievers coordinator will administer a survey containing open and scaled items
using the Blended Evaluation approach to measure, from the participant’s perspective,
satisfaction and relevance of GST 007: Scholastic Seminar (Level 1), confidence and value of
applying their learning (Level 2), application of the learning to the Scholastic Achievers program
and the support from the Program Coordinator and peers they are receiving (Level 3), and the
extent to which their performance in the Scholastic Achievers program has led to retention,
persistence, and matriculation at UU (Level 4, Results).
An evaluation instrument has been created to assess the outcomes, metrics, and methods
for external and internal outcomes for Scholastic Achiever program participants and the critical
behaviors, metrics, methods, and timing for Scholastic Achiever program participants. See
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 183

Appendix F to review the evaluation instrument for Level 3: Behavior and Level 4: Results.
Data Analysis and Reporting
“If you have a dream, you must protect it,” a line delivered by Will Smith in the movie
the Pursuit of Happyness (2006) was applicable to Scholastic Achievers forging a path at UU
and the mission of the White House Initiative on HBCUs (2015). The White House Initiative on
HBCUs (2015) promotes “excellence, innovation, and sustainability” within the respective
institutions. The very existence of the White House Initiative on HBCUs (2015) signaled the
importance of keeping the institutions open and one way to do this was to improve retention rates
(Harper & Harper; Murphy & Hicks, 2006). Olding (2013) suggested, tapping into peer
advocates at the outset to engender trust as the conduit to change on the Organizational
Communication highway. In turn, this facilitated the navigational process to embrace new
organizational behaviors, while connecting messages to how things change, and the “rippling
cascade” of stakeholder feedback.
HBCUs are representative of the American dream and educational opportunity (Harmon,
2012; Harper & Harper, 2006; Murphy & Hicks, 2006). As one of the oldest remaining HBCUs
and celebrating 152 years of educating students, it was important that UU continued to thrive and
serve as a place to foster the American dream by providing educational opportunities for students
who are likely to need the additional support that they can receive from an HBCU.
As U.S. citizens, equal opportunity in higher education is strengthened by the existence
of HBCUs (Harmon, 2012). Figure 2, below, provides a map of HBCUs across the United States
and internationally.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 184

Figure 2. Map of HBCUs across the United States and internationally.
The following narrative represents the dialogue that will open the initial meeting with
stakeholders, pertaining to data analysis and the reporting of pertinent information about the
Scholastic Achievers program at UU. I would like to start by sharing a classic movie scene,
starring Marlon Brando, On the Waterfront (1954): “You don’t understand Charlie, I coulda’ had
class, I coulda’ been a contender, I coulda’ been somebody…” (Marlon Brando as Terry in On
the Waterfront, 1954).
I want my Scholastic Achievers to be contenders @ United University! Therefore, I must
summon Sinek’s (2009) charge as highlighted in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Sinek (2009) Start With Why to Inspire Action.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 185

The Scholastic Achievers program worked to facilitate the precarious transition between
the corridors of the high school and the “hallowed halls and dear old grounds” of the college
campus at UU. Participation in the Scholastic Achievers program strove to alleviate “freshman
disorientation” at UU long after freshman orientation has ended. Targeting an attitude of
persistence among students may catapult the retention and matriculation goals of the institution.
The objective was to improve the problem of practice through a performance improvement
dissertation in practice model to assess, develop, and advance the retention, persistence, and
matriculation of Scholastic Achievers attending UU.
Organizational Goal

It is expected that the average retention rate for second year students at United University will
increase to 70% by August 2017 (UU Strategic Plan, 2012).
Stakeholder Goal
By August 2016, 60% of the Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers population will earn 30 credit
hours with at least a 2.5 GPA or above by the end of the freshman year at United University
(UU Strategic Plan, 2012).
United University: Guiding Principles (abridged)
Students: United University is a student-centered institution of higher education; therefore,
providing successful learning opportunities will guide everything we do (UU Strategic Plan,
2012, p. 4).
Continuous Improvement: Program review, assessment and evaluation are critical to United
University’s success and must be included in all aspects of the delivery of academic and student
support services (UU Strategic Plan, 2012, p. 4).
An overview of the emphasis on the academic and social integration of Scholastic
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 186

Achievers is revealed in Figure 4 below (cyclical diagram), which pertained to the above cited
Guiding Principles.

Figure 4. Scholastic Achievers Cycle of Academic and Social Integration.
As Freire (1993), I expect Scholastic Achievers to ACT and REFLECT UPON THEIR
WORLD, in order to transform it. Let’s interject two more movie scenes, Apollo Creed told
Rocky in Rocky III (1982), “there is no tomorrow.” While, Scarlett O’Hara exclaimed at the
ending scene of Gone With The Wind (1939), “tomorrow—is another day.” Well, which
tomorrow will Scholastic Achievers pursue at United University? “There is no tomorrow or
tomorrow—is another day?” The choice lies within a conviction to excel and exceed,
maintaining expectations of excellence along the pathway to GRADUATION! See the Figure 5
LEAP below.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 187

Figure 5. Scholastic Achievers excel and exceed, culminating with graduation.
Intervention findings shall be reported after administering the immediate and delayed
instruments by assembling Board of Trustee members, the University President, the Vice
President for Academic Affairs, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Vice
President for Student Affairs, the Vice President for Financial Affairs and members of the
Faculty Senate in the President’s Conference Room in Pickford Hall. A compelling storyline
shall be conveyed as well as evidence and data pertaining to the retention, persistence, and
matriculation of Scholastic Achievers. The body shall assemble on the 15th of each month.
The on-the-job support package (formal and informal) is instrumental throughout this
process in monitoring the successful implementation of the intervention. The aim is to pinpoint
the factors that contribute to a positive impact on performance and the achievement of
organizational objectives as accountability measures. The task is to examine the relevance,
credibility, compelling nature of and efficiency in planning, doing, checking and acting as we
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 188

revise, continue, and expand our resources, activities, and output to ameliorate our outcomes.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), “when analysis indicates that knowledge and skills are
required to close a performance gap, determine the solution that will close the gap”
(p. 63).
Dashboard Learning goals, the Components of Learning, Components to Measure
Reactions to the Program, Results and Leading Indicators, Critical Behaviors, and Required
Drivers shall be detailed during the monthly touch points, providing the data that will assist the
organization in making good decisions; while demonstrating the value of the Scholastic
Achievers program in achieving the stakeholder goal and organizational goal. Multiple success
factors lead to successful implementation. The key is to communicate early successes to keep
everyone motivated. Maximizing outcomes by responding to the “return on effort” inspires and
leads the way for others within the organization or program. Furthermore, the dashboard shall
represent the impetus to correct problems to avoid compromising the end goal during its
formative stages. The success of Scholastic Achievers at UU was mission-critical to retention
initiatives. The outcome of the intervention should improve the performance of Scholastic
Achievers matriculating at the institution, while contributing measurably to organizational
results. See the Figure 6 Communications Dashboard below.

Figure 6. Dashboard to communicate early intervention successes to stakeholders.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) was used to plan, implement, and evaluate the
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 189

recommendations outlined in reference to the retention, persistence, and matriculation of the
Scholastic Achievers population attending UU. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) admonished
trainers to navigate the slippery slope of training with care, evading the hazards of the perilous
ascent up the precipitous peak of “desired results.” The authors notified training professionals to
begin by focusing on the Level 4 results that the organization endeavors to achieve through the
introduction of the training intervention. Using the four levels upside down would set UU “apart
from and ahead of the crowd.” Senge (1990) wrote, “the natural energy for changing reality
comes from holding a picture of might be that is more important to people than what is” (p. 9).
By communicating and contemplating the contributions to the Level 4 result early on in
the planning process, the influential organizational metrics could be discussed prior to
implementing the intervention. So, to circumvent the precarious tumble down the steep hill at
UU the Scholastic Achievers intervention shall: (a) Design, develop, and deliver training
programs by building in the evaluation components at the forefront of the undertaking versus in
the rear-view mirror; (b) Save evaluation resources for Levels 3 and 4; (c) Utilize multiple
evaluation methods and tools, revealing how training improved job performance and contributed
to organizational results; and (d) Analyze evaluations and integrate the findings via program
developments and performance support initiatives.
To optimize the achievement of the stakeholder goal and the organizational goal, the
knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influence the retention of
Scholastic Achievers were addressed and dissected. The knowledge and skills, utility value, self-
efficacy, metacognitive skills, and organizational influences were identified to assess the
interference with UU’s goal of a 70% retention rate for second-year students (UU Strategic Plan,
2012). Consistent with Creswell (2014), role of the author was to “raise their consciousness or
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 190

advance an agenda for change” (p. 10). The sought-after outcome and result was program
equity, “as a catalyst to improve and change outcomes in higher education” (Bensimon, Hao, &
Bustillos, 2007, p. 145). Thus, meeting the goal of increased retention rates and graduation rates
at the higher education institution (UU Strategic Plan, 2012). The integration of implementation
and evaluation tools was invaluable to the retention, persistence, and matriculation of Scholastic
Achievers, serving as a valid and reliable appraisal of “return on effort” at the 4-year, private
HBCU located in the Southern portion of the United States.
The beginning of each and every semester marks a fresh start for returning UU students
and the foundation of the collegiate experience for our new UU family members. Whether it is
their very first semester on the campus or their last year, students should “fiercely” pursue
academic excellence and social integration at the start of every semester, continuing throughout
the close of the academic year. Participants in the Scholastic Achievers program are encouraged
to implement universal approaches to the principles of academic achievement, self-actualization,
and rewarding accomplishments within and beyond the walls of the classroom. Recall the
following applicable quote attributed to Kotter via Ayad (2014), “change is a process and not an
event.” Scholastic Achievers are Exploring the Possibilities of Change as first-year college
students matriculating at UU (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Scholastic Achievers explore collegiate possibilities as first-year college students.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 191

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The educational problem at UU was the retention of students at the University. (College
Navigator, 2013). Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis framework was utilized in conjunction
with what was known about persistence for Black and other historically marginalized students to
understand the performance gap at UU and the retention of students from freshman year to
sophomore year. As previously noted, the acceptance of provisionally admitted students had
steadily increased at UU (College Navigator, 2013). The related performance goal for the
institution was written in the institution’s strategic plan: by August 2017, “it is expected that the
average retention rate for second year students will increase to 70%” (UU Strategic Plan, 2012,
p. 14).
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helped to
clarify organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the
preferred performance level within an organization was employed as part of the larger study
approach. Assumed interfering elements were generated based on professional knowledge and
related literature. I used an interview guide protocol as my data collection technique. This study
imparted, revealed, and generated results and findings to assess the knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational performance outcomes of participants in the Scholastic Achievers
program at UU, which will be communicated to invested stakeholders at the conclusion of the
study. The long-term expected outcomes relevant to the problem of practice are targeted to
address the organizational problem—the retention of students at UU—a HBCU (College
Navigator, 2013).
The Gap Analysis framework worked efficiently and effectively for the Scholastic
Achievers case study. As principal investigator, I was able to compartmentalize the knowledge
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 192

and skills gaps, motivation gaps, and organization gaps. In categorizing, classifying, and
assessing the KMO factors, the Scholastic Achievers research study revealed the elements that
were influencing the retention of this targeted group of UU students. The case study design was
appropriate for this study because Scholastic Achievers typically make up less than 25% of the
incoming freshman class at UU. While complete gap analysis would have focused on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes Scholastic Achievers were the stakeholder of interest.
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to
examine the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influenced the
retention of provisionally admitted students identified as Scholastic Achievers at UU,
specifically from the freshman year to the sophomore year. The study generated a list of
possible or assumed interfering elements and turned to examining these systematically, focusing
on actual or validated interfering elements. The KMO framework combined diagnosing and
solving the Scholastic Achievers performance problems at UU with nominal resources required.
The benefits of stakeholder participation as well as accuracy and completeness were considered,
contemplated, and gauged in relation to the validity and reliability of the case study.
The strengths of the K, M, and O Model (Clark & Estes, 2008) created the opportunity
for me to study the Scholastic Achievers knowledge-base. What did they not know that they
needed to know in order to persist at UU? I examined what kept the Scholastic Achievers
moving toward persistence (Motivation). Furthermore, I was able to study the Organizational
influences that impacted their persistence at UU (Cultural Model & Cultural Setting).
In order to close the gap or gaps, it was crucial to uncover the K, M, or O influences
interfering with stakeholder goals and implement the solutions via recommendations. The
framework opened my eyes through individual examination. I was able to recognize, through the
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 193

research study, what specific K, M, or O gaps/s needed to be addressed to achieve the Scholastic
Achiever goal of persistence at UU.
Turning to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), the foundation of the Chapter 5
framework, and applying the strengths to the Scholastic Achievers case study, the following
framework points capitalized on (a) improving the program, (b) maximizing the transfer of
learning, and (c) demonstrating the value of training/program/intervention to the organization
(p. 5). Therefore, "creating a culture and expectation that individuals are responsible for
maintaining the knowledge and skills to enhance their own performance will encourage
individual accountability and empowerment” (p. 15). Are Scholastic Achievers actively
involved in and contributing to the learning experience? Is the training/program/intervention
relevant? Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) stipulate three phases of a program (a) planning,
(b) execution, and (c) value. Therefore, in reference to Scholastic Achievers and persistence at
UU, as Coordinator, I must follow Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick's mantra, "make sure that every
mission-critical initiative begins with a plan for what will happen before, during, and after
training to make the intended impact on the desired outcomes" (p. 31). I must monitor, adjust,
reinforce, encourage, and reward Scholastic Achievers in seeking the planned outcomes through
results, behavior, learning, and reaction.
Clark and Estes (2008) reminded us that evaluation substantiates organizational decisions
to make "mid-course corrections" empowering the organization to augment
training/program/intervention influences while still shielding investments. As the Clark and
Estes (2008) framework recommended, work goals should be “concrete, challenging, and
current.” Thus, how could I motivate Scholastic Achievers to “engage or make a choice, persist
in the face of distractions, and apply effort to succeed” (Clark & Estes, 2008)? This conundrum
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 194

beckoned review of the research question that guided the study: What are the knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influence the retention of United University’s
provisionally admitted students identified as Scholastic Achievers?
Limitations
The principal investigator was the Coordinator of the Scholastic Achievers program at
UU. The program coordinator taught the study participants during the Fall 2015 semester in
GST 007: Scholastic Seminar. The investigator no longer had one-on-one contact with study
participants through the Scholastic Achievers program or the UU seminar course. The
anticipated limitations included the reality that the study participants were my former students
who could have answered the interview questions by telling me what they think I wanted to hear.
I cannot control the former college instructor/student power dynamics that came into play as
Coordinator of the program. The implications for the data were vast, because if the complete
veracity of some of the participants was due to the prior relationship with me as the
researcher/interviewer in the role of the instrument of data collection and interviewee/Scholastic
Achiever the limitations to the findings and results of the study might lack credibility.
The decision to interview the research participants in a 1-hour or more, audio/video-
recorded, face-to-face setting on the campus of UU could have influenced the truthfulness of
respondents as well, even though we were in a confidential setting. My goal was to interview a
minimum of 7-10 Scholastic Achievers to counter the limitations of the study. The questions
that I asked remained free from researcher bias and were not phrased in a way that struck at the
heart of the previous instructor/student relationship. I avoided any perceived conflicts of interest
in the study. Again, I had not taught any of the Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers since the Fall
2015 academic year at UU. I explained to Fall 2015 Scholastic Achiever study participants that I
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 195

was functioning in the role of researcher versus in the role of Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers
Cohort Coordinator and any decisions that I made and pursued were to answer the study’s
research question.
The interview protocol was approved by the Dissertation Chair and the Institutional
Review Boards at USC (Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, OPRS) and UU (IRB
Chair). The number of participants in the research study met and exceeded the original goal.
However, there were only 2 female respondents versus 8 male respondents interviewed. Aspects
of the study could have been enhanced and strengthened by doubling the number of research
participants and/or having more of a balance of males to females and vice versa, increasing the
validity and reliability of the study.
Nevertheless, I felt like I had established an excellent rapport with both genders during
the time of the Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers program. Males and females frequently met with
me in CSS during scheduled appointments. Perhaps, a year removed, things change and some
students move on to the next phase at the institution. Furthermore, triangulation methods
comprising observations, document analysis, and brief surveys might have increased the number
of respondents, while diversifying the data collection methods of the case study.
I am a graduate of a Historically Black College and University (HBCU). My
undergraduate HBCU is recognized as one of the premier HBCU’s in the nation (College
Navigator, 2013). I carry the HBCU experience with me as I walked the grounds of my
institution of employment. My Mother graduated from UU in 1960, I conceded that I have a
personal stake in the improvement of the problem of practice. My bias was my vested interest in
the viability, sustainability, and legacy of UU.
There are two more potential bias factors that were scrutinized. I am a lifelong member
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 196

of the city in which UU is located. I have been familiar with UU for as long as I can remember.
Moreover, my grandmother retired from the university. When I go to the Archives section of the
library, I can view photos of my Mother and Grandmother in previous UU yearbooks. The
assumptions that I bear incorporated the belief that any student can succeed given the
opportunity and provided the access to engage in an environment of higher learning. I fervently
contend that success lies in the palm of your hands if you reach out and grasp “the promise of a
limitless future” (UU Strategic Planning Core Group, 2012).
I would be remiss if I did not explain how the relationships within the Chapter 4 findings
intersected and coincided with one another. The Knowledge and Motivation as well as
Organizational influences visibly merged and created blurred lines. Furthermore, the utility
value, metacognitive, and self-efficacy findings overlapped throughout Chapter 4 but were
compartmentalized based on the perimeters of the case study. The big ideas of the study were
partially lost in translation due to the framework of the study and how the case study was bound,
which limited the study. Meanwhile, the solution was complex and required alternatives beyond
the purview of the study.
Future Research
1. Unbound the case study to include all relevant stakeholders as listed in Chapter 1.
2. Unbound the case study to cross Scholastic Achiever Cohorts.
3. Unbound the case study to follow Scholastic Achievers until graduation.
4. Triangulate methods to add document analysis, observation, and surveys.
5. Delve further into the research for prioritized assumed influences not validated (K/M
& O).
6. Expand the review of research for validated causes, needs, or asset recommendations.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 197

7. Provide recommendations for influences not included in Chapter 5 but included in
Chapter 2, due to study constraints.
8. Future research could follow-up on the implementation of the intervention.
9. Future research could evaluate the implementation of the intervention.
10. Track down Scholastic Achievers who withdrew or transferred from UU to
understand the influences that interfered with their retention, persistence, and
matriculation while attending UU (upon approval).
11. Future research could continue studying the role of mentorship programs and
provisionally admitted students in academia.
12. Future research could circumvent isolating the K, M, and O influencers related to
persistence and success in college (investigate laterally versus sequestration).
13. Future research could avoid isolating the findings and themes related to utility value,
metacognition, and self-efficacy, in reference to college persistence (study
resourcefully across subjects and conundrums versus silos).
14. Future research would not be bounded by the data collection Interview Protocol
instrument.
15. Future research could continue studying the role of provisional admission programs in
higher education.
16. Future research could investigate the current climate in Washington, D.C. and the
potential impact on HBCUs.
17. Future research could examine the role of program allocation funding, studying the
correlation between stakeholder performance goals, organizational outcomes, and
budgeted apportions.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 198

Conclusion
Do you want your child to attend college? UU is one of the 105 HBCUs offering
optimism and educational opportunity across the U.S. (Department of Education, 2015).
Targeting early retention measures and engendering an attitude of persistence among Scholastic
Achievers by tracking the students during the first-year of college to facilitate a route to the
graduation finish line was the goal. The objective was to introduce Scholastic Achievers to the
academic winner’s circle, empowering students to wave the checkered flag in victory lane.
Scholastic Achievers are taking the road less traveled by at UU. The question remained, were
my assumptions, “my windows on the world, scrubbed off” sufficiently so that the light could
come in during the case study (Asimov, 2017)?
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) “make sure that every mission-critical
initiative begins with a plan for what will happen before, during, and after the training to make
the intended impact on the desired outcomes” (p. 31). In this instance, the training or initiative
refers to the Scholastic Achievers program at UU. The organizational problem at UU was the
retention of students at the HBCU (College Navigator, 2013). The related performance goal for
the institution was written in the institution’s strategic plan: by August 2017, “it is expected that
the average retention rate for second year students will increase to 70%” (UU Strategic Plan,
2012, p. 14).
Retention rates measure the percentage of first-time students who are seeking bachelor's
degrees who return to the institution to continue their studies the following fall (College
Navigator, 2013). The last publicly available data revealed that the retention rate at UU was
50% and at the time of the new strategic plan, the goal of increasing retention by 20% was the
future forecast (College Navigator, 2013; UU Strategic Plan, 2012). The present organizational
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 199

performance status represented a 20% gap toward the attainment of the 70% retention rate goal
for second year students (UU Strategic Plan, 2012). In order to fulfill the vision and mission of
the University, the successful development and matriculation of students, it was incumbent upon
UU to work toward meeting measurable Strategic Plan initiatives.
While the joint efforts of all stakeholders would contribute to the achievement of the
overall organizational goal of a 50% to 70% average retention rate increase for second year
students at UU by August 2017 (UU Strategic Plan, 2012), it was important to understand the
perception of what supports or impedes the ability of Scholastic Achievers to persist at the
institution and to successfully matriculate to the second year of college at UU.
Therefore, the stakeholders of focus for this study were the Scholastic Achievers
population at UU. The stakeholders’ goal, supported by the CSS department and the Division of
Academic Affairs was that by August 2016, 60% of the fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers
population would earn 30 credit hours and a minimum GPA of a 2.5 GPA or above by the end of
the freshman year. Students must earn a minimum of 30 credit hours to be classified as a
sophomore student at UU. The 2.5 GPA goal was based on a 4.0 GPA calculation scale. Failure
to accomplish this goal would lead to the persistence of low retention, adversely impacting the
organization’s graduation rates and organizational goals. The retention of the Scholastic
Achievers population at UU affected the organization’s overall goal to increase the average
retention rate from 50% to 70% for second year students by August 2017.
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008) to
examine the knowledge and skills, motivation and organizational elements that interfere with the
retention of provisional students, identified as Scholastic Achievers at UU, specifically from the
freshman year to sophomore year in college. The analysis began by generating a list of possible
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 200

or assumed interfering elements and then by examining these systematically, focused on actual
or validated interfering elements. While complete gap analysis would focus on all stakeholders,
for practical purposes the stakeholder focused on in this analysis was the provisional student
population at UU, identified as Scholastic Achievers. The retention of the targeted stakeholder
group, the provisional student population at UU or Scholastic Achievers, represented the
performance problem of practice (College Navigator, 2013).
The Fall 2015 provisional student population at UU was 17.9% or 82 out of 456 first year
freshman students were provisionally admitted (UU Quick Facts, 2015). According to the Office
of Institutional Research, Planning, and Special Programs at UU, the Fall 2016 retention rate was
54.8% or 45 students out of the original 82 Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort returned for
the Fall 2016 semester (UU Quick Facts, 2016).
Study participant data included (a) 70% earned at least 30 credit hours or more at the end
of the freshman year and met or exceeded the stakeholder goal, and (b) 80% earned at least a 2.5
GPA and met or exceeded the stakeholder goal. The Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers Cohort
consisted of 80.4% first-generation college students or 66 out the 82 Fall 2015 Scholastic
Achievers Cohort were first-generation college students. Regarding study participants, 6 out of
the 10 Scholastic Achievers interviewed were first-generation college students or 60%. In
addition, 60% of the Scholastic Achievers interviewed were Pell Grant recipients (federal
financial aid monies).
The Knowledge Solutions included: (a) provide information that outlines the meaning of
freshman orientation goals for first-year college students, connecting to the prior knowledge of
Scholastic Achievers in the role of a new student; (b) provide information and training that
enables Scholastic Achievers to acquire the skills for expertise, beginning with learning the
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 201

declarative knowledge pertaining to the individual procedural steps to know how to earn 30
credit hours; (c) provide training including demonstration, practice and feedback on effective
high school to college transition strategies; (d) provide training that will facilitate Scholastic
Achievers successfully maneuvering through the steps of the academic advising process at UU
by presenting a demonstration and opportunities to practice moving through the academic
advising process while receiving feedback; (e) provide training, using peer models incorporating
the assessment of Scholastic Achievers metacognitive strategies in the GST 007 course
curriculum so Scholastic Achievers can develop and build their skills in evaluating their
strengths and weaknesses as first-year college students; (f) consider the effectiveness of the
Panther PALS mentoring program on the persistence of Scholastic Achievers.
The Motivation Solutions included: (a) providing information and education that
articulates the importance of successfully completing the first year of college and meeting or
exceeding all program guidelines, incorporating rationales that include a discussion of the
importance and utility value of the work or learning to help learners develop positive values; and
(b) provide information, job aids, and education that expound upon Scholastic Achievers
believing and acknowledging that they are capable of earning a 2.5 or above GPA and 30 credit
hours as first-year college students in the Scholastic Achievers program, enhancing their positive
expectancies for success.
The Organization Solutions included: (a) provide information and education to address
the cultural motivation influencers impacting the academic achievement of Scholastic Achievers
to ensure that the organization knows why it needs to continue to change; addressing
organizational barriers as well as knowledge and skills needs; (b) provide the resources that are
needed for effective change to facilitate goal achievement for Scholastic Achievers, aligning
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 202

resources with organizational priorities; and (c) consider the effectiveness of the Panther PALS
mentoring program on the persistence of Scholastic Achievers.
The implications of the case study were to inform the wider problem of practice to
inaugurate changes in provisional admission student programming not only at UU or HBCUs but
across the landscape of academia. As an Organizational Change and Leadership pioneer at USC
as a member of the Inaugural Cohort, I am at the vanguard of my problem of practice. I serve as
a visionary leader, analyzing the data to ignite the transformation within UU to solve our “unique
and novel” problems.
Building the momentum of the program among faculty and staff, while forging tenacity
among Scholastic Achievers, required me to motivate my students to engage or make a choice,
persist in the face of distractions and apply the effort to succeed (Clark & Estes, 2008). I am the
arbitrator of the program. I played the role of the sleuth, detecting the K, M, and O influences
creating interference as I continued on the trail of the Scholastic Achievers.
One of the guiding principles at UU heralds the student-centered landscape of the
institution, in delivering successful learning opportunities to improve student engagement and
retention (UU Strategic Plan, 2012). Conversely, Sirkin, Keenan, and Jackson (2005) confront
the hard side of change management, “the more things change, the more they stay the same
(p. 108). The historical background of UU reverberates throughout the organizational culture.
The driving force behind our daily vocation derives from a mission statement soaring from the
emancipation of slaves, the 13
th
amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the end of the Civil
War.
No mountain is unconquerable, Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay proved that
back in 1953 as they reached the summit of Mount Everest. Evoking these images spurred me to
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 203

consider the confluence of “deliberate, intricate planning and preparation” to reach the
stakeholder goal, while monitoring, adjusting, reinforcing, encouraging, and rewarding
participants in the Scholastic Achievers program.
The objectives were to lead to the retention, persistence, and matriculation of the
stakeholder population. Kotter (2009) stated to establish urgency while communicating a “clear
and compelling” vision. My job was to “galvanize our human talents” at UU to reach the
organization’s goals, Kotter’s (2009) “guiding coalitions.” According to Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016), “executing mission critical programs with excellence is nonnegotiable”
(p. 57).
So, the case study pondered what we must do at UU to emphatically but prudently drive
stakeholder behavior toward the winds of change. Therefore, starting with “why” and
connecting back to the mission of the organization could link the anticipated outcomes, which
represented at least three acts of the Scholastic Achievers play. Lights, camera, action…
Judicious decisions lie ahead at UU. The administration, faculty, and staff must perform their
leading roles so Scholastic Achievers can earn not that priceless gold statue but that prized
undergraduate degree. Scholastic Achievers, Fight On! to earn your degree. See Figure 8,
below, symbolizing the definitive goal.

Figure 8. Scholastic Achievers golden graduation cap and diploma.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 204

References
Alkin, M. C. (2011). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (5th
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Section R, pp. 166-179.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Asimov, I. (2017). Isaac Asimov Home Page. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/search?q= isaac+asimov+assumption+quotes&rlz=1C1EJFA_
Ayad, M. (Illustrator). (2014, June 21). Kotter’s 8-Step change model. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKXuTMfcO5c&feature=youtu.be
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/
reference/article/metacognition/
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt
(Eds.), Great minds in management (pp. 9–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Retrieved from https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?SessionID=
E064018003U&Action=10&Type=10&Value=111295
Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, B. (2010). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a leader (4th
ed., pp. 30–35). New York, NY: Perseus Books. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Bensimon, E. M., Hao, L., & Bustillos, L. T. (2007). Measuring the state of equity in higher
education. In P. Gandara, G. Orfield, & C. Horn (Eds.), Expanding opportunity in higher
education: Leveraging promise (pp. 143–166). Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 205

Bing. (2017). Persistence Images. Retrieved from https://www.bing.com/images/search?q
=bing+images+persistence&id=B9BEEF1569B465341D3A55095297DA9A42C93D83&
FORM=IQFRBA
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Chapter 3, pp. 82-102. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Bolman, L. G., Deal, T. E., & Ebooks Corporation. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership (5th ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Borgogni, L., Russo S. D., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions of
the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5–13. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Burke, J. C. (2004). Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic,
and market demands. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), The many faces of accountability (pp. 1–24).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Cholo, A. (2014, Spring). For first-gens is college worth it? Futures in Urban Ed., 6-7.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Pub. Inc.
Conner, T. W., & Rabovsky, T. M. (2011). Accountability, affordability, access: A review of the
recent trends in higher education policy research. Policy Studies Journal, 39(s1), 93–112.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 206

Consolvo, C. (2002). Building student success through enhanced, coordinated student services.
Journal of College Student Development, 43(2), 284. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/195177688?accountid=14749
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Chapter 4, pp. 65-86. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Curtis, R. T., & Underwood, Z. W. (2013). Pre-orientation registration program: Turning high
school seniors into engaged college freshmen. College and University, 89(1), 61-66.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1496068917?accountid=14749
Daddona, M. F. (2000). The perceived needs of freshmen prior to and after participation in a
college orientation program (Order No. 9984118). Available from ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304620015).
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304620015?accountid=14749
Daddona, M. F., & Cooper, D. L. (2002). Comparison of freshmen perceived needs prior to and
after participation in an orientation program. NASPA Journal, 39(4), 300-318. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/223530379?accountid=14749
Davig, W. B., & Spain, J. W. (2004). Impact on freshmen retention of orientation course content:
Proposed persistence model. Journal of College Student Retention, 5(3), 305-323.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/196712536?accountid=14749
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2009). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 207

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education
Statistics. (2013). Retrieved from College Navigator http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator
/?q= virginia+union+university&s=all&id=234164#retgrad
Dowd, A. C., & Grant, J. L. (2006). Equity and efficiency of community college appropriations:
The role of local financing. The Review of Higher Education, 29, 167–194. Retrieved
from https://reserves.usc.edu/ares/ares.dll?SessionID= J121534871B&Action=
10&Form=50&Value=110622
Dowd, A. C., & Bensimon, E. M. (2015). Engaging the "race question”: Accountability and
equity in US higher education. New York: Teachers College Press. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Eccles, J. (2009). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Filback, R., & Green, A. (2013, Fall). New directions for diversity at USC Rossier.
Futures in Urban Education, 12-13.
Freire, P., 1921-1997. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Goggle Docs. (2017). Data Analysis and Reporting Images. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/imghp?hl=en&ei=Erz8WO6YGoKzm
QGesLCACg&ved=0EKouCAIoAQ
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 208

Gorski, P. (2008). Peddling poverty for profit: Elements of oppression in Ruby Payne's
framework. Equity & Excellence in Education, 41(1), 130-148.
doi:10.1080/10665680701761854
Green, A. (2015). Definition and history of accountability: Introduction to accountability.
Retrieved from https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu/mod/page/view.php?id=81315
Habley, W., Valiga, M., McClanahan, R., & Burkum, K. (2010). What works in student
retention? ACT: Report for all colleges and universities. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED515398
Harmon, N. (2012). The role of minority-serving institutions in national college completion
goals. Institute for Higher Education Policy, 1-9. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Harper, J., & Harper, S. (2006). HBCUs: Higher education institutions in transition.
Metropolitan Universities, 17(2), 78-88. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Harper, S. R., Patton, L. D., & Wooden, O. S. (2009). Access and equity for African American
students in higher education: A critical race historical analysis of policy efforts. The
Journal of Higher Education, 80(4), 389-414. Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1210&context=gse_pubs
Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Fryar, A. H. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of "new"
performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis.
doi: 10.3102/0162373714560224
Hoffshire, M. D., Ralston, N., & Lacho, K. J. (2013). College freshmen retention: The first year
experience program. Allied Academies International Conference. Academy of
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 209

Educational Leadership. Proceedings, 18(1), 31-35. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1515705458?accountid=14749
Julius, D. J., Baldridge, J. V ., & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A memo from Machiavelli. The Journal of
Higher Education, 70(2), 113-132. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.
libproxy.usc.edu
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in
higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016b). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education (revised and updated). New
York: Cambridge. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=
the+modern+practice+of+adult+education&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C47
Korobova, N., & Starobin, S. S. (2015). A comparative study of student engagement,
satisfaction, and academic success among international and American students. Journal
of International Students, 5(1), 72-85. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.
libproxy.usc.edu
Kotter, J. P. (2009, March-April). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. IEEE
Engineering Management Review, 33; 37(3), 42-48. doi:10.1109/EMR.2009.5235501
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.libproxy2.usc.edu
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 210

/stable/1477405?pq-origsite=summon&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Kreighbaum, A. (2017, March). What Did Black Colleges Win From Meeting With Trump?
Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.
com/news/2017/03/21/trump-budget-protected-institutional-aid-black-colleges-not-
programs-help-black?width=775&height=500&iframe=true
Lakos, A., & Phipps, S. (2004). Creating a culture of assessment: A catalyst for organizational
change. Libraries and the Academy, 4(3), 345–361. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Lencioni, P. (2002). The five dysfunctions of a team: A leadership fable (1st ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Lipton, M. (1996). Demystifying the development of an organizational vision. Sloan
Management Review, 37(4), 83-92. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.
libproxy.usc.edu
Lum, L. (2012). The next phase. Currents, 38(6), 26-31. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Melendéz, S. E. (2001). The nonprofit sector and accountability. New Directions for
Philanthropic Fundraising, 31, 121–132. doi: 10.1002/pf.3107 Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 211

Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education,
1(1), 58-63. doi:10.1177
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Chapter 11, pp. 277-317. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Murphy, C. G., & Hicks, T. (2006). Academic Characteristics among first-generation and non-
first generation college students. College Quarterly, 9(2), 1-20. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Nichols, A., & Clinedinst, M. (2013) Provisional admission practices: Blending access and
support to facilitate student success. Washington, DC: Pell Institute for the Study of
Opportunity in Education.
Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Olding, E. (2013). Communicating for Effective Organizational Change. Gartner Symposium:
Barcelona, Spain. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bbeK8Pr2Qk
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/
reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/
reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications. Chapter 7, pp. 339-348. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.
libproxy.usc.edu
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 212

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications. Chapter 7, pp. 348-380. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.
libproxy.usc.edu
Perrine, R. M., & Spain, J. W. (2008). Impact of a pre-semester college orientation program:
Hidden benefits? Journal of College Student Retention, 10(2), 155-169.
doi:10.2190/CS.10.2.c
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Rabovsky, T. M. (2012). Accountability in higher education: Exploring impacts on state budgets
and institutional spending patterns. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 22(4), 675–700. Retrieved from http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org.
libproxy2.usc.edu/content/22/4/675
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/
Senge, P. M. (1990). The leader's new work: Building learning organizations. Sloan
Management Review, 32(1), 7-22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.
libproxy.usc.edu
Sinek, S. (2009). How great leaders inspire action. [Video podcast]. TEDx Talk: Puget Sound.
Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_
how_great_leaders_inspire_action
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 213

Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005, October). The hard side of change management.
Harvard Business Review, 83(10), 108-118. Retrieved from http://search.
proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Smith, W. (Actor). (2006). The Pursuit of Happyness [Motion picture]. United States: Sony
Pictures.
Tambiasca, T. (2015). Review of definitions and types of accountability: Four key elements of
accountability. Retrieved from https://2sc.rossieronline.usc.edu /mod/page/
view.php?id=81315
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical Synthesis of Recent Research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.
libproxy2.usc.edu/stable/1170024
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of Student Departure: Reflections on the Longitudinal Character of
Student Leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438–455. Retrieved from
http://doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.2307/1981920
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and Practice of Student Retention: What Next? Journal of College
Student Retention, 8(1), 1-19. Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://
search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/196725129?accountid=14749
Tinto, V. (2012). Enhancing student success: Taking the classroom success seriously. The
International Journal of The First Year In Higher Education, 3(1), 1-8.
doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v3i1.119
United University. (2013). Quick facts about United University. Richmond, V A: Author.
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 214

United University. (2015). CSS Standard Operating Procedure. Richmond, V A: Author.
United University. (2015). Quick facts about United University. Richmond, V A: Author.
United University. (2016). Quick facts about United University. Richmond, V A: Author.
United University, Strategic Planning Core Group. (2012). United University Strategic Plan,
2012-2017. Richmond, V A: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges
and Universities. Retrieved from http://sites.ed.gov
Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2002). Cognitive
load theory and aging: Effects of worked examples on training efficiency. Learning and
Instruction, 12(1), 87–105. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Wagner, T. (2007). Leading for change. Education Week [H. W. Wilson - EDUC], 26(45), 29-32.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Waters, M., & Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). What 30 years of research tells us about
the effect of leadership on student achievement. Retrieved from https://scholar.
google.com/scholar?start=10&q=waters+marzano+and+mcnulty&hl=en&as_sdt=0,47

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 215

APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol
I would like to ask you some questions about your educational experiences in high school:
I. Pre-Scholastic Achiever: Secondary Education Experiences in High School
1. What are your reasons for wanting to attend college?
a. Describe the importance you place on earning a college degree.
b. What did you plan to do differently academically in college?
c. Did you succeed during your freshman year?
At this time, we will change directions and move into another area of discussion, I would
like to ask you some questions about your decision to attend United University:
II. The Scholastic Achievers Program at United University
2. When did you find out that you were accepted to United University?
a. How did that make you feel?
b. What made you feel that way?
3. Do you remember meeting the Scholastic Achiever Coordinator?
a. How did she make you feel?
b. What made you feel that way?
c. What should she have done differently?
4. Has the Scholastic Achiever Coordinator assisted you during your transition
from high school to college?
a. Can you cite a specific example?
b. Can you cite a specific example of when she could have provided more
assistance?
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 216

5. Do you remember meeting your Scholastic Achiever mentor for the first time
(Panther PALS)?
a. Describe your first impressions?
b. Were your first impressions accurate?
6. Did you work with your Scholastic Achiever (SA) mentor throughout the
semester?
a. If so, tell me about your experience with the SA mentor?
b. Describe your relationship with the SA mentor?
c. Give me an example you think really represents the way you interacted
with your SA mentor?
d. Under what circumstances did the two of you interact?
7. What if anything has changed for you as you prepare to face the demands of a
college sophomore?
a. Has your confidence level increased?
b. Describe specific examples of how your confidence level has increased.
8. Tell me about your classes for the Fall 2016 semester?
a. How are you planning to approach classes that you think might be
harder for you?
b. In the past, when you have been in a class that you have found to be
hard for you, what have you done?
c. How have you handled the challenge?
d. Are there people you seek out when you are having difficulty?
e. If so, who are they?
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 217

f. How do they help you?
9. Tell me about your expectations for the Fall 2016 semester?
a. How are you planning to approach situations that might be challenging?
b. In the past, when things get tough outside of the classroom, what have you
done?
c. Are there people you seek out when you are having difficulty?
d. If so, who are they?
e. How do they help you?
10. Tell me about your experience with faculty?
a. Have you had positive experiences with faculty?
b. Share some examples of positive experiences with faculty?
c. Have you had negative experiences with faculty?
d. Share some examples of negative experiences with faculty?
e. Are there faculty members you seek out for assistance?
f. If so, who are they?
g. How do they help you?
11. Tell me about your experiences with resources and support services on
campus?
a. Are there offices that have been helpful?
b. Share some examples of positive experiences with offices?
c. Are there offices that have been not as helpful?
d. Share some examples of your experiences with these offices?
e. Are there offices you seek out for assistance?
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 218

f. If so, what offices?
g. How do these offices help you?
We are now going to end the interview with two additional questions about your
participation in the Scholastic Achievers’ program at United University:
III. Scholastic Achievers: Interview Conclusion
12. If you are a first-generation college student, how has that distinction
influenced your first year of college as a Scholastic Achiever at United
University?
a. Please provide examples of scenarios where you have been conscious of
your first generation college student status here on campus.
13. Is there anything that has not been covered during the interview, regarding the
Scholastic Achievers program that you would like to address?
Thank you for your time. Good luck in your sophomore year at United University.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 219

APPENDIX B
Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Waite Phillips Hall
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION SHEET FOR RESEARCH

SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS: PERSISTENCE TO MATRICULATION

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by principal investigator, Ms.
Monique L. Logan, M.Ed., M.I.S., and faculty advisor, Dr. Julie Slayton, JD, PhD at the
University of Southern California, because you are a member of the Fall 2015 Scholastic
Achievers Cohort at United University and at least 18-years of age or older. Your participation is
voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read
the consent form. You may also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. You
will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of the study is to understand the influences that promote the retention of Scholastic
Achievers at United University, examining the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational elements that influence the retention of provisionally admitted students, identified
as Scholastic Achievers at United University.

STUDY PROCEDURES
This research study will only include people who voluntarily choose to participate. If you
volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a two-hour audio-
recorded interview with the principal investigator, Ms. Monique L. Logan. The study may
require more than one scheduled interview in order to complete the interview. Therefore, more
than one appointment day and time may have to be scheduled with the principal investigator. The
interview will take place in a private conference room setting at United University. You will be
asked open-ended questions pertaining to what knowledge and motivation elements Scholastic
Achievers identify as contributing to their ability to persist and the organizational elements that
Scholastic Achievers identify as contributing to their persistence. You do not have to answer any
questions you do not want to; if you do not want to be taped, handwritten notes will be taken.
You can still participate in the study if you do not wish to be audio-recorded.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 220

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with the Scholastic Achievers program,
United University and/or Ms. Monique L. Logan will not be affected whether or not you
participate in this study.

The principal investigator is the Coordinator of the Scholastic Achievers program at United
University. However, this study will be conducted by Ms. Monique L. Logan in her role as a
USC student.

If you are not comfortable participating in this study due to your personal or professional
relationship with Ms. Monique L. Logan, and/or think that your responses might be biased by
your relationship with her, you should not participate.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your study data will be kept confidential to the best of the ability of the research. However, if we
are required to do so, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members of the
research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program
(HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the
rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be stored on a flash drive purchased by the principal investigator. The principal
investigator will manage, monitor, and safeguard the data and audio-recordings. You have the
right to review/edit the audio-recordings or transcripts. At the completion of the study, direct
identifiers will be destroyed. The de-identified study data will be retained for three years per
institutional policy.

The results of this research may be made public, shared with participating sites and quoted in
professional journals and meetings, but results from this study will only be reported as a group
such that no individual respondents can be identified. No identifiable information will be
included.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact: Principal
Investigator, Ms. Monique L. Logan via email at moniqull@usc.edu or by phone at (804) 360-
0199 or Faculty Advisor, Dr. Julie Slayton via email at jslayton@rossier.usc.edu or by phone at
(213) 740-3292, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles,
CA 90089.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 221

APPENDIX C
Recruitment Letter
Hello,

As an Organizational Change and Leadership doctoral student in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California, I invite you to participate in gathering data
about your experiences in the Scholastic Achievers program during the Fall 2015 semester at
United University.

The purpose of the study is to examine the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
elements that influence the retention of provisionally admitted students, identified as Scholastic
Achievers at United University.

You are eligible to participate in the study as a member of the Fall 2015 Scholastic Achievers
Cohort at United University. You must be aged 18 and up to participate. The information
gathered about the Scholastic Achievers program might be used to make improvements to the
program within the United University community.

Your participation consists of a two-hour audio-recorded interview. However, the study may
require more than one scheduled interview with the principal investigator in order to complete
the interview. Therefore, more than one appointment day and time may have to be scheduled.
The interview will take place in a private conference room setting at United University. You do
not have to answer all of the questions. You do not have to answer any questions you do not
want to answer; if you do not want to be taped, handwritten notes will be taken. You can still
participate in the study if you do not wish to be audio-recorded.

Your participation is voluntary and the alternative is not to participate. Please review the
attached information sheet to learn more about the study and to decide if you would like to
participate.

Thank you for your consideration.

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 222

APPENDIX D
Interview Screener
1. Male or Female (circle)

2. Are you a first-generation college student?

3. Do you receive the Pell Grant as part of your Financial Aid award?

4. What is your major?

5. What is your cumulative GPA?

6. How many credit hours did you earn at the end of your freshman year?

7. What state are you from or what state were you in when you graduated from high school?

8. Do you remember your experiences in the Scholastic Achievers program?

9. Are you ready to be back at United University?

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 223

APPENDIX E
Level 1 and Level 2 Evaluation Instrument
(During and immediately following program implementation)
Please read each survey question carefully. Respond to the question by clicking on the number
that corresponds to your response. The minimum score starts with the number 1 (strongly
disagree) and the maximum score ends with the number 4 (strongly agree). The survey should
take less than 15 minutes to complete. Thank you for your time and participation.

1. I believe the Scholastic Achievers program is valuable and worthwhile as I consider my
experiences as a freshman in college?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
2. My confidence level is increasing regarding the application of high school to college
transition strategies?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
3. I am committed to applying what I have learned in the Scholastic Achievers program as a
student at UU?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
4. Which of the following are freshman orientation goals? (Select ALL that apply)
(a) time management (b) procrastination (c) study skills (d) developing mentorship
relationships (e) poor attendance in classes (f) not completing coursework
5. I am an involved and engaged participant in the Scholastic Achievers program and in GST
007: Scholastic Seminar?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
6. The material that I am learning in GST 007: Scholastic Seminar is relevant to me as a
program participant?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 224

7. I am satisfied with my progress in the Scholastic Achievers program and GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
8. I am more familiar with locating the resources and support services available on campus?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
9. My understanding of the academic advising and registration process is improving?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
10. I know the specific period to meet with my academic advisor for registration each semester?
(a) March and October (b) February and September (c) August and January
(d) I don’t know
11. I know how to register for classes?
List the steps to register for classes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
12. I know how to evaluate my own strengths and challenges as a first-year college student?
Provide one strength:

Provide one challenge:

13. I see the value in successfully completing the first year of college by meeting or exceeding
all program guidelines?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 225

14. I believe that I am capable of earning a 2.5 or above GPA and 30 credit hours as a first-year
college student?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
15. I find UU supportive toward my academic achievement?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
16. I have received sufficient support from United University’s faculty, staff, and
administration outside of the Scholastic Achievers program?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
17. I have the necessary resources and support services in place to assist me in achieving my
academic goals?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
18. I am benefitting from my participation in the Scholastic Achievers program?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
19. I am adequately prepared to continue at UU based on my participation in the Scholastic
Achievers program?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
20. I am capable of being a successful college freshman?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 226

APPENDIX F
Levels 1, 2, 3, and 4 Evaluation Instrument
(Delayed for a period after the program implementation, complete at 6 weeks and 12 weeks)
Please read each survey question carefully. Respond to the question by clicking on the number
that corresponds to your response. The minimum score starts with the number 1 (strongly
disagree) and the maximum score ends with the number 4 (strongly agree). The survey should
take less than 15 minutes to complete. Thank you for your time and participation.

1. I believe the Scholastic Achievers program is valuable and worthwhile as I consider my
experiences as a freshman in college?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
2. My confidence level is increasing regarding the application of high school to college
transition strategies?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
3. I am committed to applying what I have learned in the Scholastic Achievers program as a
student at UU?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
4. Which of the following are freshman orientation goals? (Select ALL that apply)
(a) time management (b) procrastination (c) study skills (d) developing mentorship
relationships (e) poor attendance in classes (f) not completing coursework
5. I am an involved and engaged participant in the Scholastic Achievers program and in GST
007: Scholastic Seminar?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
6. The material that I am learning in GST 007: Scholastic Seminar is relevant to me as a
program participant?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)

RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 227

7. I am satisfied with my progress in the Scholastic Achievers program and GST 007: Scholastic
Seminar?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
8. I am more familiar with locating the resources and support services available on campus?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
9. My understanding of the academic advising and registration process is improving?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
10. I know the specific period to meet with my academic advisor for registration each semester?
(a) March and October (b) February and September (c) August and January
(d) I don’t know
11. I know how to register for classes?
List the steps to register for classes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
12. I know how to evaluate my own strengths and challenges as a first-year college student?
Provide one strength:

Provide one challenge:

13. I see the value in successfully completing the first year of college by meeting or exceeding
all program guidelines?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 228

14. I believe that I am capable of earning a 2.5 or above GPA and 30 credit hours as a first-year
college student?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
15. I find UU supportive toward my academic achievement?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
16. I have received sufficient support from United University’s faculty, staff, and administration
outside of the Scholastic Achievers program?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
17. I have the necessary resources and support services in place to assist me in achieving my
academic goals?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
18. I am benefitting from my participation in the Scholastic Achievers program?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
19. I am adequately prepared to continue at UU based on my participation in the Scholastic
Achievers program?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
20. I am capable of being a successful college freshman?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
21. I am able to support my goals and objectives using the course materials in GST 007:
Scholastic Seminar to reinforce the goals and objectives of the program?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
22. I am able to support my goals and objectives by attending program meetings and activities
outside of the classroom which reinforce the goals and objectives of the program
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
23. I am encouraged through collaborative efforts and peer modeling to perform at my best
academically as a program participant?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
RETAINING SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVERS 229

24. I am encouraged through feedback and coaching to perform at my best academically as a
program participant?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)
25. I feel appropriately rewarded and publicly acknowledged for achieving academic goals at
UU?
(strongly disagree) 1 2 (disagree) 3 (agree) 4 (strongly agree)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The study employed the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to investigate the knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational elements that influence the retention, persistence, and matriculation of provisionally admitted students identified as Scholastic Achievers at United University (UU). Assumed causes of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers were generated from related literature, learning and motivation theories, and professional knowledge. The analysis of this qualitative case study validated all the knowledge and motivation causes. The analysis did not validate two of the organizational causes. A total of 17 recommendations are provided for the validated and non-validated causes. The solutions scrutinized the bounding, framework, limitations and delimitations of the research study. An implementation and evaluation plan is offered, which utilized the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) framework.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Employee retention and the success of a for-profit cosmetics company: a gap analysis

PDF

Employee churn in afterschool care: an evaluation study of manager influences on employee retention and turnover

PDF

Civic learning program policy compliance by a state department of higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

First-year retention: Community college students -- a gap analysis

PDF

Factors impacting four-year postsecondary matriculation at a college-preparatory, Catholic high school: an innovation study

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

A case study of promising practices mentoring K-12 chief technology officers

PDF

Effective services provided to community college student-athletes: a gap analysis

PDF

Preventing excessive force incidents by improving police training: an evaluation study of a use-of-force training program

PDF

Spiritual persistence of high school alumni: an evaluation model

PDF

Advancing retention strategies at a historically Black university

PDF

The effects of organizational culture on millennial engagement and turnover in start-ups: an innovation study

PDF

Curriculum mapping initiative: an evaluation study

PDF

Improving workforce diversity and inclusion in higher education leadership

PDF

Knowledge, motivation, and organization influences on persisting leadership demographics in a military organization: perspectives on diversity and inclusion from minority female officers

PDF

College and career readiness through independent study: an innovation study

PDF

Higher education mid-level professional staff and strategic planning: an evaluation study

PDF

Big-four consulting firm female senior manager engagement, retention and productivity in pursuit of the partner level

PDF

Toward effective succession planning in higher education: a field study

PDF

Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis

Asset Metadata

Creator Logan, Monique LaVonne (author)

Core Title Provisional admission in higher education: a case study in retention, persistence, and matriculation in academia

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/10/2017

Defense Date 06/05/2017

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Academia,first-generation college student,Higher education,historically black college and university,matriculation,OAI-PMH Harvest,persistence,provisional admission,provisional student,retention,student success

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Cole, Darnell (committee member), Dunsmore, Leeanne (committee member)

Creator Email mllogan@hotmail.com,moniqull@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-394615

Unique identifier UC11264453

Identifier etd-LoganMoniq-5490.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-394615 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-LoganMoniq-5490.pdf

Dmrecord 394615

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Logan, Monique LaVonne

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA