University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Increasing retention rates in higher education

(USC Thesis Other)

Increasing retention rates in higher education

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 1

Increasing Retention Rates in Higher Education
by
Clinton Alexander Bullock

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 2019

Copyright 2019 Clinton Alexander Bullock

HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 2

Table of Contents
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 6
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 7
Introduction to the Problem of Practice .......................................................................................... 8
Organizational Context and Mission ...................................................................................... 8
Importance of Addressing the Problem .................................................................................. 9
Purpose of the Project and Questions ................................................................................... 10
Organizational Performance Goal ........................................................................................ 11
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal ............................................................. 11
Review of the Literature ............................................................................................................... 14
Financial Stress ..................................................................................................................... 14
Pre/Post-Graduation Employment Issues ............................................................................. 15
Personal Matters ................................................................................................................... 16
Big Picture ............................................................................................................................ 17
Student Services Officers Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .................... 18
Section A: Knowledge and Skills ......................................................................................... 18
Knowledge Influences .................................................................................................. 19
The Creation of a Diversity Center .............................................................................. 20
The Financial Charge of Building Out ......................................................................... 21
Section B: Motivation ........................................................................................................... 22
Self-Efficacy Theory .................................................................................................... 23
Self-Efficacy and Student Services Officers ................................................................ 23
Expectancy Value Theory ............................................................................................ 24
The Student Services Officers Value on the Building-Out Process ............................. 25
Section C: Organizational Influences ................................................................................... 26
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 3

Cultural Domains ......................................................................................................... 26
Establishing a Culture of Trust Among UNC Administrators and Student
Services Officers .......................................................................................................... 26
“Buy-in” Among Student Services Officers ................................................................ 27
Time and the Incorporation of Strategic Collaboration Among the UNC
Administrators and Student Services Officers ............................................................. 28
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Student Services Officers' Knowledge,
Motivation, and the Organizational Context ................................................................................. 30
Qualitative Data Collection........................................................................................................... 33
Interviews ............................................................................................................................. 33
Results and Findings ..................................................................................................................... 36
Results and Findings for Research Question No. 1 .............................................................. 37
Goal Achievement and Self-Efficacy........................................................................... 37
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 39
Results and Findings for Research Question No. 2 .............................................................. 40
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 42
Results and Findings for Research Question No. 3 .............................................................. 43
Summary ...................................................................................................................... 45
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 46
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................................................. 46
Increase SSO Knowledge Surrounding the Impact of Other Diversity
Centers.......................................................................................................................... 48
Increase SSO Procedural Knowledge Regarding the Building-Out Process ............... 49
Motivation Influences ........................................................................................................... 49
Increase the Perceived Value of Developing a Diversity Center ................................. 51
Increase Self-Efficacy of Student Services Officers .................................................... 51
Organization Recommendations .......................................................................................... 52
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 4

Increase Trust between the Student Services Officers and the UNC Senior-
Level Administrators .................................................................................................... 55
Increase the Student Services Officers Confidence in Meeting
Organizational Objectives ............................................................................................ 56
Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................ 58
Level 4: Results .................................................................................................................... 59
Level 3: Behavior ................................................................................................................. 60
Critical Behaviors......................................................................................................... 60
Required Drivers .......................................................................................................... 61
Organizational Support ................................................................................................ 63
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................................. 63
Learning Goals ............................................................................................................. 63
Program ........................................................................................................................ 64
Evaluation of the Components of Learning ................................................................. 64
Level 1: Reaction .................................................................................................................. 66
Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................................... 67
Immediately Following the Program Implementation ................................................. 67
Delayed for a Period after the Program Implementation ............................................. 67
Data Analysis and Reporting ................................................................................................ 68
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 69
References ..................................................................................................................................... 71
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 79
Appendix B: Credibility and Trustworthiness .............................................................................. 82
Appendix C: Ethics ....................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix D: Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................. 86
Appendix E: Immediate Feedback Survey ................................................................................... 87
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 5

Appendix F: Blended Evaluation Tool ......................................................................................... 88

HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 6

List of Tables
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals ................. 13
Table 2. Summary Table of Assumed Influences on Performance .............................................. 29
Table 3. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations .......................................... 47
Table 4. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations........................................... 50
Table 5. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ....................................... 54
Table 6. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes.......................... 60
Table 7. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ................................ 61
Table 8. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ............................................................. 62
Table 9. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program .......................................... 65
Table 10. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ...................................................... 66
Table 11. Evaluation of Organizational Changes & Readiness for the Creation of the
New UNC Diversity Center .......................................................................................................... 69

HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 7

List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework—The relationship between the KMOs, SSOs, and
the organization. ............................................................................................................................ 31

HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 8

Introduction to the Problem of Practice
Elevated attrition rates present problems for students, tax payers, and higher education
institutions alike. Koropeckyj, Lafakis, and Ozimek (2017) found that with respect to 4-year
universities and 2-year colleges combined, just 41% of students graduate on time—within 8
years for universities and 4 years for community colleges, respectively. Of those higher
education students who leave school without graduating, 75% of such students depart within the
first two years (DeBerard, Spielmans, & Julka, 2012). In fact, the United States possesses the
highest college dropout rate throughout the whole industrialized world (Ferguson, Schwartz, &
Symonds, 2011). Data collected from 1,669 universities across the country found that from
2010–2011, dropouts cost these institutions $16.5 billion (Raisman, 2013). The result equates to
not more than 30% of young adults earning a bachelor’s degree by their mid-20s (Ferguson et al.,
2011). If not rectified, postsecondary education attrition rates will continue to leave students
(especially those traditionally underrepresented) with massive amounts of student loan debt with
nothing to show for it, cost billions of taxpayer dollars, and financially cripple higher education
institutions and the U.S. economy on a whole (Johnson, 2012).
Organizational Context and Mission
The University of Northern California (UNC, a pseudonym) is small undergraduate and
graduate educational institution. The University caters to small class sizes, and its diverse
student body pursues degrees in a plethora of undergraduate and several graduate majors. The
university was founded by educators and community leaders who expressed a desire in exploring
innovative ways to meet the needs of a new generation, while empowering the local economy at
the same time. UNC serves students primarily from the state of California, and more than 30%
of its undergraduates originate from nearby counties. In that, the university prides itself on
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 9

making higher education available to everyone, particularly low-income and traditionally
underserved populations.
UNC boasts a mission that centers around a diverse learning environment founded on
academic excellence from which all students develop into prepared members of society and who
significantly contribute to the local and global community. A force that drives the latter revolves
around the institution’s concerted efforts to increase retention rates. In 2012, UNC’s freshman
retention rate settled below 40%. Specific to race, during that same period of time, retention
rates were as follows: African Americans—below 35%; Asian Americans, below—50%;
Latinos—below 50%; Native Americans—below 40%; biracial students—below 30%; and
White students—below 35%, respectively.
1
Currently, UNC employs approximately a few
hundred tenured or tenure-track faculty members, lecturers, adjunct faculty, advisors, and student
support staff in the administrative, admissions, academic, and advising departments. The
institution is driven by serving and educating the diverse population of California and, in
particular, the working class and those historically underrepresented and from low-income
families. The primary role of every UNC staff and faculty member centers on the realization of
the institution’s mission and the increase of overall retention rates.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of elevated attrition rates is important to solve for a variety of reasons.
When considering whether to remain enrolled at a higher education institution, it is essential that
students take various factors into consideration. Students are affected by fluctuating factors that
give way to high attrition rates, such as financial issues, employment stress, and personal

1
All numbers are approximated, so as not to identify the school in question.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 10

responsibilities. If higher education institutions do not increase overall retention rates, the
following four themes will continue to exist:
• The decrease of state funding (Ferguson et al., 2011)
• The decrease of specialized individuals in the workforce (Ascend Learning, 2012)
• Students will be left with massive school loan debt without the acquisition of a degree,
resulting in the lack of employment and other opportunities that would allow them to
repay said debt (Ferguson et al., 2011)
• Attrition rates will continue to serve as a charge in the billions of dollars to U.S.
taxpayers (Schneider & Yin, 2011)
Understanding what influences UNC’s ability to support higher retention rates and generating
appropriate recommendations will enable the school to meet its mission and serve its
stakeholders more effectively.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project centered on evaluating the degree to which UNC achieves its
goal of achieving a 10% retention rate increase every year until said rates settle around 90%, in
accordance with the president’s university-wide requirements. While a complete evaluation
project would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders of focus in this
analysis will be represented by the university’s Student Services Officers (SSOs). The analysis
centered on knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences related to achieving
the organizational goals. As such, the research questions that guide this study are illustrated
below:
1. How and to what extent are SSOs meeting their goal of being in compliance with UNC’s
retention goal of 90% by June 2022?
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 11

2. What are the SSOs’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
developing an action plan to address issues that hinder student retention on an academic
level?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and SSOs’ knowledge and
motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of SSO
knowledge, motivation, and organization that relate to achieving the university’s
retention rate of 90% by June 2022?
Organizational Performance Goal
In accordance with UNC’s mission to retain a multicultural learning environment that is
based on academic excellence, one of the primary goals of the institute is to increase overall
retention by 10% per academic year (from the 2016 rate of approximately 40%) until overall
rates settle around 90%. The University’s president established this goal in 2016–2017 academic
year as part of a 5- to 6-year transformation initiative, after consulting with other the senior-level
administrators who all expressed concern over elevated attrition rates. The achievement of said
goal will be measured by the Office of Admissions every semester, and final reports will be
produced at the end of each academic year.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
The collective efforts of all stakeholders contribute to the achievement and success of the
overall organizational goal of securing a 10% retention increase on a yearly basis until said rates
settle around 90%. While other administrators focus on admission and recruiting efforts, for
instance, SSOs concentrate on the concerns, needs, and maintenance of the current study body.
In that, this study centers on the six officers who conduct the daily operations associated with the
Office of Student Services at UNC. The SSOs in question consist of the director, the assistant
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 12

director, the coordinator, and three specialists. The stakeholders’ increased retention goal is
supported by UNC’s president, and 100% of administrators will need to implement compliance
procedures in order to fulfill the overall goal at hand. Said procedures include, but are not
limited to activities, such as creating and/or modifying policy that reinforce student retention,
reporting semiannual and annual retention rates, establishing additional support centers, and
executing admission matrices that predict student success. Failure to accomplish these goals
may give way to continued low retention rates. High attrition may lead to a loss of funding, for
instance, and will adversely affect the University’s ability to adequately provide quality service
and support to its students on a whole. Particular to the stakeholder group of focus, the SSOs
will have established a plan to build out a diversity center that better caters to the needs of all
students, particularly those traditionally underrepresented.
As indicated in Table 1, UNC’s mission is predicated upon the successful retention of
students. To accomplish said mission, the organizational performance centers on the notion that
by June 2022, the institution will be in compliance with the president’s requirement of achieving
a retention increase rate of 10% from the previous academic year. All other departmental goals
fall in line with the University’s overall mission. SSOs were assigned the task of establishing a
diversity center for the University, as several essential and distinct programs are run out of the
Office of Student Services, in particular those that specialize in the understanding of the needs of
a large majority of students.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 13

Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
To create, educate, and retain a multicultural learning environment that is based on academic excellence and the
production of community leaders.
Organizational Performance Goal
By August 2022, the University of Northern California will be in compliance with the president’s requirement of
achieving a retention increase rate of 10% from the previous academic year until overall rates settle around 90%.
UNC Faculty
By August 2020, faculty will
review and develop an action plan
to address issues with grades and
information from class surveys that
may hinder student retention.
Student Services Officers
By June 2020, SSOs will build out
a plan to create a diversity center
that specifically caters to the
concerns of their overall student
body, particularly those historically
underrepresented and underserved.
Advisors
By August 2020, advisors will
develop an action plan to address
issues that hinder student retention
on an academic and personal level.

HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 14

Review of the Literature
Elevated higher education attrition rates weaken the U.S. economy and hinder prosperity.
Some factors that contribute to high attrition rates include financial stress, pre/post-graduation
employment issues, and personal matters. Financial stress negatively impacts an individual’s
willingness to remain in college, as overall tuition and room and board increased 42% at 4-year
institutions from 2000–2010 (Heckman, Letkiewicz, Lim, & Montalto, 2014). Regarding the
issue of pre/post-graduation employment, up until 2012, underemployment rates for recent
college graduates settled at 45% (Abel, Deitz, & Su, 2014). In that, the prospect of having to
secure a job while in school and/or being underemployed or unemployed for recent graduates has
significantly influenced their attitude toward securing a higher education degree. With respect to
personal matters, Michalski (2014) found that 616 and 679 comment records were used to
develop a preliminary text analytics model in 2010 and 2011, respectively. He found that 53%
of students cited personal matters as the reason for attrition. In all, the issue of attrition has
worsened in the United States. In 2015, regarding community colleges specifically, Scrivener,
Weiss, Ratledge, Rudd, Sommo, and Fresques (2015) reported that just 20% of full-time students
graduated within 3 years and just 35% within 5 years (as a reminder, community colleges are 2-
year institutions). The latter statistic is key in that community colleges enroll 38% of total
undergraduates (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017), many of whom represent the
nonwhite, low-income, and first-generation community (Columbia University, 2017). Moreover,
Edwards and McMillan (2015) found that attrition rates were exceptionally high for indigenous,
part-time, external, and remote students, and those over 25 years of age.
Financial Stress
Ohio State University’s National Student Financial Wellness Study (2015) found that
70% of college students reported feeling stressed about finances; nearly 60% stated that they
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 15

were concerned about not being able to pay for school, and 50% were worried over having to pay
their monthly expenses. As a result, 32% of students reported that they frequently neglected
their studies due to financial stress. To elaborate, Fosnacht and Dong (2013) suggested that
finances serve as the leading cause of stress for higher education students. Many students
experience unmet need, for example, which is represented by the gap between college costs and
personal contributions. Upon analyzing data from the National Postsecondary Student Aid
Survey, Fosnacht and Dong (2013) found that the average student possessed an unmet need of
$6,000. They stated, “Unmet need is particularly problematic for students. Even if a student
does not have any unmet need, most undergraduates rely upon substantial loans to finance their
college educations” (Fosnacht and Dong, 2013, p. 4). The latter is particularly telling, as student
loans represent economic heartache for students upon graduation as well. According to the
Institute for College Access & Success (2014), the average U.S. student graduated with a
Bachelor of Arts degree with a debt of around $30,000. However, depending on the higher
education institution, many graduates ended up with a debt of over $70,000. In fact, college
tuition costs at both public and private universities have doubled since the 1980s (even while
accounting for inflation; College Board, 2019). Per the NSC Research Center (2017), student
loans alone discouraged 53% of students from remaining enrolled in higher education and forced
them to acquire full-time jobs instead.
Pre/Post-Graduation Employment Issues
High attrition rates among college students are also linked to full-time employment while
attending school full time, and concerns regarding job prospects upon graduation weighed in
heavily as well. Bennett, McCarty, and Carter (2015) found that up to 70% of students felt stress
due to financial concerns. With full-time jobs, and less time to devote to their studies, Triventi
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 16

(2014) found that, grades declined, which led to delayed graduation or a complete and total
withdrawal. Many students also took the economy into consideration upon deciding to remain
enrolled in school.
According to a study by Drexel University (2011), one-third of recent college graduates
secured positions that did not require a degree, which signifies underemployment (or mal-
employment). An even worse scenario than mal-employment is unemployment. Joblessness has
risen among college graduates and is higher than it has been in the past 25 years. Per the U.S.
Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2010, unemployment for all workers
hit a 25-year high at 10% (Abel et al., 2014). Abel et al. (2014) suggested that the economic
recession that began in 2001 continues to affect college graduates who are underemployed and
unemployed in general today. Similarly, Canon and Gascon (2012) believe that the recession has
negatively influenced the security of college graduates today. Taking the U.S. Census data into
account, Canon and Gascon (2012) suggested that the U.S. economy has continued to experience
jobless recovery, giving way to elevated college graduate unemployment rates. They conclude
that “these factors have increased the aggregate risk of pursuing a college degree” and assist in
facilitating the issue of decreased retention rates (Canon & Gascon, 2012, p. 17). Along with
financial stress and employment issues that surround one’s decision to withdraw from school,
personal matters represent a major factor in the elevation of attrition rates as well.
Personal Matters
While enrolled in higher education courses, personal responsibilities serve as a vital
factor in the attrition of many students across the United States. In data collected from surveys
between 2006–2008, Ferguson et al. (2011) found that 56% of students who enroll in a Bachelor
of Arts program across the United States completed their studies within 6 years; and at the
community college level, just 30% of students complete their course requirements within 3
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 17

years. The latter is telling, being as though Bachelor of Arts and community college programs
are normally completed in 4 and 2 years, respectively. Due to a variety of personal matters,
including competing factors concerning race, feelings of isolation, family, and jobs, Ferguson et
al. (2011) conclude that the United States possesses the highest college dropout rate throughout
the whole industrialized world. Michalski (2014) found that out of 1,300 comment records,
personal reasons represented 1 of the 2 major factors surrounding a student’s departure, which
included travel and domestic difficulties.
Big Picture
Delving deeper into the issue of retention, Raisman (2013) conducted a study of 1,669
universities across the United States and determined that from 2010–2011, due to attrition, these
institutions lost a total of almost $16.5 billion. Losses of this nature wreak economic havoc upon
many postsecondary institutions. In fact, Johnson’s (2012) research revealed that more than one
third of all higher education students do not complete degree requirements and drop out, costing
taxpayers more than $9 billion. Similarly, Johnson (2012) also revealed that college dropouts,
from just a single cohort of first-year students, cost the state and federal government $730
million in potential tax revenue during that same period of time. Ultimately, the elevated
number of those who leave school (irrespective of the reason) gives way to the financial
downfall of many higher education institutions, costing taxpayers billions of dollars, leaving
many former students in massive debt without a degree in hand, and posing a major threat to the
economic infrastructure and the forward progress of the United States on a whole.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 18

Student Services Officers Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The Clark and Estes (2008) analytical framework allows organizations to identify and
inspect any potential gaps between goals and performance by better understanding influences as
they pertain to the KMO resources. The following gives light to the KMO factors that influence
SSOs and their ability to meet their performance goal of creating out a diversity center to
increase retention rates at UNC. Section A examines the assumed influences, as they relate to
the knowledge and skills that affect stakeholder performance; while section B addresses the
assumed motivational influences that influence stakeholder performance. Finally, section C
centers on organizational influences and their impact on the realization of the stakeholder goal.
Section A: Knowledge and Skills
UNC’s mission centers on creating, educating, and retaining a multicultural learning
environment that is based on academic excellence and the production of community leaders.
One of the primary goals of the institute gives light to increasing retention by 10% per academic
year until overall rates settle around 90%. Therefore, by June 2020, Student Services Officers
(SSOs) will attempt to build out a plan to create a diversity center that specifically caters to the
concerns of the student body, especially UNC’s most underrepresented and underserved
population. In that, it remains essential to examine UNC and its SSOs’ knowledge and skill level
with reference to problem-solving. Assessing and analyzing organizational performance issues
involves the ability to understand the ways in which knowledge and skills influence employee
performance and their ability to realize goals that pertain to the organization in question (Rueda,
2011). According to Clark and Estes (2008), it is also pertinent to examine employees’
competency levels with respect to knowledge and skills, as said levels directly relate to and
affect job performance and goal attainment. The authors, additionally, contend that job
performance, critical thinking, and the realization of goals are predicated upon the knowledge
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 19

and skill level of employees (Clark & Estes, 2008). Carpenter (2012) suggests that the concept
of “transfer” may be defined as the application of learned information to novel contexts. In that,
the author argues that the success of the overall organization depends on employees and their
ability to obtain and successfully transfer their knowledge and skills to the organization in
question (Carpenter, 2012). The following focuses on knowledge-related influences that are
essential to the achievement of the SSOs and the attainment of their objective of establishing a
center of diversity to increase retention.
Knowledge Influences
According to Krathwohl (2002), there are four different types of knowledge: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge consists of basic information, or
isolated content elements, that are understood to solve a problem (Krathwohl, 2002). For
instance, those who understand the goals and mission of an organization represent the concept of
factual knowledge. Per Krathwohl (2002), the second type of knowledge (conceptual) highlights
the concept of inference—the ability to work through complex, organized forms of knowledge
and the relationship among basic elements that gives way to a broader perspective. An example
of conceptual knowledge involves that which surrounds classifications and categories, principles,
generalizations, theories, models, and structures (Krathwohl, 2002). Third, procedural
knowledge relates to the “how”—the way in which an activity or task is executed (Krathwohl,
2002). An illustration relating to this type of knowledge involves methods of inquiry and
knowledge of subject-specific skills, techniques, and the understanding of certain standard
operating procedures (Krathwohl, 2002). The fourth knowledge (metacognition), per Krathwohl
(2002), revolves around the awareness and knowledge of an individual’s thinking and learning,
which consists of strategies to realize a goal and self-knowledge. An example of metacognition
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 20

centers around students who question themselves regarding ways in which a certain task or
project was accomplished. The four types of dimensions expressed above signify the varying
degrees of knowledge that are needed to achieve a certain level of efficacy within an
organization. Regarding UNC, it remains necessary for SSOs to gain knowledge surrounding the
impact of other diversity centers that have assisted, directly or indirectly, to the retention of
students, particularly underrepresented groups, on other campuses across the country. The latter
consists of SSOs’ need to acquire knowledge surrounding the estimated cost for such a center,
accompanied by their knowledge as it pertains to the building-out process of a diversity center
(logistics, space, staff, etc.). This study examined two of the knowledge influences (factual and
conceptual), as they serve as key concepts in assessing the knowledge and skill level of the SSOs
that assist in realizing organizational goals.
The Creation of a Diversity Center
Given that UNC’s overall retention rate rested around 40%, understanding the underlying
issues through factual knowledge remains paramount. Uhlenwinkel (2014) suggests that
organizational success revolves around applying the appropriate amount of knowledge to any
given situation to maximize efficacy. For instance, the acquisition of knowledge relating to a
diversity center and its effect on attrition would assist UNC in the decision-making process
regarding this venture. A study related to the increase of retention that centers on factual
knowledge involves the University of Arizona. To assist in the success of their African
American student body, the institution established AASA (the African American Student Affairs
division) after students protested over the lack of resources, attention, and support provided to
African American students (University of Arizona, 2017a). AASA facilitates a “support system
that helps students achieve academic excellence and an enriching African American cultural
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 21

experience. . . . AASA provides opportunities for students to learn more about leadership, social
justice, and creating community” (University of Arizona, 2017b). This division assisted the
University in attaining tremendous results in the end. From 2004–2014, the number of students
of color increased by 105%; and, in 2012, retention rates regarding freshman-to-sophomore
students of color reached 80% for the first time in the institution’s history (University of
Arizona, 2017c). The aforementioned illustrates a proactive attempt to increase retention by
building a more diverse community. The above statistics represent factual knowledge that may
be utilized to assist SSOs, and UNC on a whole, in their efforts to achieve their desired outcomes
as well.
The Financial Charge of Building Out
Kinder and Lambert (2011) imply that success, with respect to organizational outcomes,
does not consist of two mutually exclusive concepts. They suggest that organizational
achievement lies at the intersection between factual and conceptual knowledge (Kinder &
Lambert, 2011). Given that Krathwohl (2002) describes conceptual knowledge as the
relationship between basic elements as they pertain to a larger scope, this also includes financial
models and structures that highlight the stakeholders’ goals. Specific to UNC, the latter may
occur by conceptualizing the way in which retention is positively affected by increased diversity
efforts. There have been many universities that have attempted to increase retention rates by
utilizing a variety of strategies. For instance, higher education institutions have secured donors
who have contributed millions of dollars to the diversity effort. In 2016, PwC, the world’s
largest accounting firm, donated $1.35 million to Bryant University to support diversity
initiatives centered around student scholarships and leadership development (Steinreich, 2016).
In 2017, Stony Brook University received a $1 million grant from the Howard Hughes Medical
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 22

Institute Inclusive Excellence Initiative to assist in increasing “the capacity of higher education
institutions to engage students from diverse, ethnic, family, and economic backgrounds and
nontraditional students” (Stony Brook University, 2017a). The aforementioned has aided in
producing higher than average retention rates for Bryant and Stony Brook University as well, as
said rates rests around 89% for both institutions, respectively (Stony Brook University,
2017b;U.S. News & World Report, 2019). Balancing factual and conceptual knowledge has
aided both universities in stabilizing high retention rates. In that, SSOs at UNC may seek to
utilize this model to ameliorate conditions among their student body as well.
Section B: Motivation
According to Mayer (2011), motivation represents a significant driving factor that allows
one to achieve outcomes, even through the most tumultuous of times. Additionally, motivation
aids many in producing quality work and remains key to the mental effort needed to realize
personal and professional goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Per Jensen (2012), organizational
achievement is predicated upon the motivation levels of its employees. Rueda (2011), for
instance, stresses that an organization’s performance and rapport amongst its employees depend
upon the motivational influences and constructs that contribute to them. In an effort to identify
and resolve performance issues within an organization, an assessment, with respect to
motivation, represents sound logic (Clark & Estes, 2008). Bandura (1991) argues that self-
efficacy centers around one’s belief that s/he possesses the ability to accomplish a given task.
Regarding the Expectancy Value theory, Eccles and Wigfield (2000) give light to the
understanding that individuals who highly value and believe in a specific objective are more
likely to execute it with authority. In that, this study focused on the two, above-mentioned
theories and the examination of the overall motivation levels of the SSOs at UNC.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 23

Self-Efficacy Theory
Bandura (1991) suggests that the Social Cognitive theory highlights the belief that self-
efficacy serves as the key in determining outcomes and behaviors that support the realization of
organizational goals. As self-efficacy represents the way in which one perceives his/her
capabilities to accomplish a given objective, the execution of a goal depends on an individual’s
ability to believe that s/he can accomplish the task at hand. In that, motivated or demotivated
behaviors stem from and depend upon the type of self-efficacy one possesses. Self-efficacy also
derives from two other constructs—personal and social (Pajares & Usher 2006). Pintrich (2003)
argues that the latter constructs contribute to the belief that surrounds one’s own capabilities and
also takes into account the belief that others possess with reference to someone else’s abilities as
well (e.g., feedback). The research suggests that self-efficacy within individuals affects their
perception, positively or negatively, which, in turn, affects their ability. The latter affects
motivation levels and assists or impedes one’s ability to execute (Bandura, 2000). Clark and
Estes (2008) indicate that positive self-efficacy gives way to motivated employees who believe
in their abilities and that they are able to effect change and realize objectives. However, Rueda
(2011) notes that for those who do not have faith in their own capabilities, they have a tendency
to become demotivated and not contribute to the organization on a whole.
Self-Efficacy and Student Services Officers
The execution of a given objective depends upon an individual’s self-efficacy and
motivation levels (Pajares & Usher, 2006). Collective self-efficacy gives light to the extent to
which employees are able to contribute to an organizational goal (Hayward, 2010). According to
Radda, Majidadi, and Akanno (2015), vicarious experiences (modeling) and professional
development opportunities give way to higher levels of self-efficacy. Additionally, trust and
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 24

faith in an organization represent key factors, with respect to self-efficacy and employees. In
that, employees generally become more motivated when they are confident in their abilities and
believe in the mission of the organization in question (Hayward, 2010). Regarding SSOs and
modeling, the assessment of other schools that exhibit similar demographics and concerns as
UNC assist in the planning and execution of specific, diverse initiatives. Per Kelleher (2014),
hours of professional development is also needed to produce effective administrators. In that, for
SSOs at UNC, leadership and diversity workshops serve as effective ways to raise self-efficacy
levels and produce the desired outcomes. Finally, trust in the organization on a whole represents
a significant factor with regard to levels of self-efficacy. To expand on the latter, nurturing and
sustaining a culture of collaboration, learning, and high expectations provide the platform for
self-efficacy within an individual. UNC may support this venture by creating a comprehensive
plan to support SSOs in an effort to reach their goal at hand (Kelleher, 2014). The
aforementioned (modeling, professional development opportunities, and trust in the
organization) represents factors that support self-efficacy among administrators and SSOs alike
and significantly contribute to the execution of their goal of increasing overall retention rates at
UNC.
Expectancy Value Theory
Eccles and Wigfield (2000) describe the Expectancy Value theory as value that is placed
on a goal to achieve a desired outcome. As self-efficacy represents the belief that one possesses
the capacity to perform a task, said notion relates to the Expectancy Value theory in that,
accompanied by motivation, it influences expectations and performance. In fact, the author
suggests that there are various reasons for which one may value a task. These reasons consist of
intrinsic, attainment, utility, and cost value. Intrinsic value centers on the way in which one feels
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 25

while involved in an activity. Attainment value represents individuals’ image regarding the way
in which they envision themselves currently and in the future. Utility value signifies the
assessment of a task, as it pertains to a specific outcome. Finally, cost value refers to cost in
differing capacities (money, time, etc.) that relate to accomplishing the goal in question (Eccles
& Wigfield, 2000). In the end, employees increase their performance when self-efficacy and
expectations remain high, which, many times, leads to the valuing of tasks and the successful
completion of organizational goals (Eccles & Wigfield (2000).
The Student Services Officers Value on the Building-Out Process
According to Eccles and Wigfield (2000), the amount of effort one gives to a specific
task depends upon the value placed on that particular activity. At the same time, the value
associated with a given task results from motivation and the level of self-efficacy within oneself
(Singh, 2016). Additionally, Radda et al. (2015) suggests that the extent to which individuals
engage in a particular task directly relates to interest levels. In fact, employees become more
faithful to their employer when their values correspond to those of the organization in question
(Welch, 2011). With respect to UNC’s goal of increasing retention rates, the Expectancy Value
theory, as it relates to SSOs and administrators on a whole, represents a key factor. Cancio,
Albrecht, and Johns (2014) found that a national survey illustrated the lack of administrative
support correlated with high rates of attrition. Therefore, developing a high sense of self-
efficacy gives way to increased levels of motivation and expectancy so that SSOs may
comprehend the value of developing an action plan to address issues that hinder student
retention. To gain a deeper understanding of value as it pertains to SSOs, Table 2 is illustrated
below to express the primary stakeholders’ motivational influences.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 26

Section C: Organizational Influences
The following explains the organizational influences that relate to the achievement of the
stakeholders’ objectives. More specifically, this section of the literature illustrates the
organizational influences that affect SSOs’ ability to achieve their stakeholder goal that is in
alignment with the overall organizational goal of realizing a schoolwide retention rate of 90%.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organizational influences that affect stakeholder performance
outcomes include policies, protocols, and procedures. The authors state that organizational
influences work in conjunction with knowledge and motivational influences to affect stakeholder
outcomes (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Cultural Domains
Organizational culture is comprised of two primary domains—cultural models and
cultural settings (Schein, 2004). The author suggests that cultural models serve as principles and
rules that are shared within an organization (Schein, 2004). For instance, a cultural model
represents that which governs UNC and SSOs overall. Schein (2004) states that cultural settings
represent an extension of a cultural model and maintains that cultural settings become realized
when organizational stakeholders internalize the cultural model in question and execute
performance tasks accordingly. The cultural setting at UNC may be illustrated by observing
communication practices, for instance, between stakeholders that are designed to produce
specific outcomes.
Establishing a Culture of Trust Among UNC Administrators and Student Services Officers
Educational environments in which administrators on various levels trust each other
facilitate a space that is conducive to the realization of overall organizational objectives
(Langley, Moen, Nolan, Nolan, Norman, & Provost, 2009). Morningstar, Kim, and Clark (2008)
state that those who feel undervalued in the workplace are more likely to create a contentious and
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 27

conflictive environment, which hinders organizational progress. The authors suggest that
respectful and professionally accountable relationships among professionals reduce disturbances
and allow educational stakeholders to focus on maximizing efficacy and realizing the
organizational goals at hand (Morningstar et al., 2008). To accomplish the monumental task of
significantly increasing retention at UNC, it is essential that administrative collaboration
increases on all levels so that trust may be established, leading to better decision-making and an
increased probability of achieving organizational objectives. To assess their opinions regarding
trust, SSOs were given interview questions that center on ways in which measures could be
implemented to increase trust and confidence among UNC administrators and the SSOs.
“B u y- in ” Among Student Services Officers
Stakeholders are more likely to assist in organizational success when collaboration exists
among all stakeholders. Langley et al. (2009) argues that high levels of collaboration among
team members increases ideas and enhances social support systems, which motivates
stakeholders and improves performance. They also suggest that stakeholders who work
collaboratively and possess an ideology that is more mission-minded with respect to the
organization in question experience a more satisfying work environment and assist in closing
performance gaps (Langley et al., 2009). As it pertains to UNC, building a better collaboration
platform between SSOs and UNC administrators creates “buy-in,” which serves as an essential
piece in facilitating the realization of stakeholder and organizational goals. Higher levels of
collaboration also ensure that all SSOs are included in the university’s goal of creating a
diversity center at UNC and that they receive adequate assistance to accomplish such a task from
the university’s senior-level administrators as well. To assess their opinions, SSOs were
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 28

provided with interview questions that center on ways in which measures could be implemented
to increase SSO buy-in.
Time and the Incorporation of Strategic Collaboration Among the UNC Administrators
and Student Services Officers
According to Fortin, Pathmasiri, Grintuch, and Deschênes (2010), organizations that
heavily focus on operations and administrative deadlines may hinder collaboration and overall
success. The authors also suggest that administrative responsibilities create time constraints that
place pressure upon team members, which affect their ability to collaborate more effectively. If
a lack of collaborative efforts exists, this may lead to significant levels of distrust between UNC
and SSOs that affect the organization’s goal of achieving a 90% retention rate in the coming
years. Bryan, Stiles, Burstein, Ergul, and Chao (2007) conclude that organizations that create the
space for team members to collaborate on a frequent basis increase morale and support an
environment where all feel valued. To assess their opinions, SSOs were given interview
questions that revolve around ways in which measures could be realized to lessen time
constraints in an effort to build a more cooperative and collaborative environment among UNC
administrators and SSOs. Clark and Estes (2008) state that KMO influences are not mutually
exclusive and significantly affect stakeholders and performance outcomes in all organizations.
Table 2 includes the SSOs’ organizational influences that express factors that affect UNC’s
objectives on a whole.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 29

Table 2
Summary Table of Assumed Influences on Performance
Source of
Assumed Influences
Assumed Influences on Performance
Knowledge Motivation Organization
Learning, and Motivation
and Organizational
Theory
Student Services Officers
(SSOs) need knowledge
surrounding the impact of
other “centers of
diversity” on retention on
other campuses across the
country.
SSOs need to see value in
developing an action plan
to address issues that
hinder student retention
on an academic level.
SSOs need to establish
trust between them and
the UNC administrators to
achieve the institutional
goal of increasing
retention.
SSOs need knowledge
surrounding the estimated
cost for such a venture
(i.e., space, staff).
SSOs need to believe that
they are capable of
building out a large-scale
plan to decrease attrition
rates.
SSOs need “buy-in” to
facilitate the realization of
stakeholder and
organizational goals.
SSOs need knowledge on
how to create/build out a
diversity center by 2020
based on the financial
constraints.
SSOs need a sufficient
amount of time from their
daily responsibilities to
participate in
collaboration efforts to
meet organizational
objectives.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 30

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Student Services Officers’
Knowledge, Motivation, and the Organizational Context
According to Maxwell (2013), a conceptual framework represents a visual or written
product that “explains, either graphically or in narrative form, the main things to be studied—the
key factors, concepts, or variables—and the presumed relationships among them” (p. 39).
Maxwell also states that the role of a thought-out conceptual framework defends and rationalizes
the validity of a study. The author suggests that the factors illustrated in a conceptual framework
relate to one another and assist in guiding the progress of the research in question. Clark and
Estes (2008) express that a profound understanding of the KMO influences, as they pertain to
stakeholders, allows the researcher to understand the catalysts that underline performance.
Understanding the KMO influences, as they relate to SSOs at UNC, allowed the researcher to
comprehend issues that affect the SSOs’ ability to build out a diversity center that is designed to
assist in the increasing of retention rates at the university on a whole. Figure 1 gives light to all
three KMO influences and the ways in which they work together to affect overall outcomes.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 31

Key

Organization

Stakeholder Influences

Stakeholder Goal

Simultaneous Interaction

Interaction Leads to

Stakeholder
Knowledge Influences
• The impact of other “centers for diversity”
• The overall cost of a diversity center
• Understanding the building-out process
regarding logistics
Motivation Influences
• Utility Value: Finding the value in SSOs’
assistance, as it relates to
retention/attrition
• Self-Efficacy: The belief that SSOs are
capable of servicing a diverse population
of students
Organizational Influences
• SSOs need to establish trust between them
and UNC administrators to achieve the
institutional goal of increasing retention at
the university.
• SSOs need “buy-in” from UNC
administrators to facilitate the realization
of stakeholder and organizational goals.
• SSOs need a sufficient amount of time
from their daily responsibilities to
participate in collaboration efforts to meet
organizational objectives.
Organization
• The creation of a
culture of trust
• Time dedicated to
collaboration and
organizational
objectives
• The establishment
of buy-in

Stakeholder Goal
• To be in compliance
w/the creation of a
center of diversity
• Assist in the overall
university retention rate
of 90%
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework—The relationship between the KMOs, SSOs, and the
organization.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 32

Figure 1 represents the relationship between the factors that influence the SSOs’
engagement with other UNC administrators and the organization on a whole, which gives way to
stakeholder and overall organizational objectives. The “organization” sphere illustrates UNC,
which represents the organization in question and the cultural models and settings that relate to
the university. The cultural influences within the sphere center on trust, time, collaboration, and
the establishment of buy-in, as they relate to organizational culture. The “stakeholder” sphere
represents stakeholder influences that include knowledge and motivation. These influences
engage with each other to realize the overall organizational goal and support the primary
stakeholder’s goal (square box) of creating a diversity center and meeting UNC’s yearly and 5-
to 6-year bottom line of raising retention rates 10% every year until they rest at around 90% on a
permanent basis. The above framework also suggests that the cultivation and development of the
knowledge and motivation influences, accompanied by the organizational culture and context,
facilitate the higher probability of the realization of stakeholder objectives.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 33

Qualitative Data Collection
This research study is qualitative in nature and was designed to acquire a more profound
understanding of the SSOs’ experiences with respect to meeting retention goals at the University
of Northern California. The researcher utilized a semistructured interview format that was
designed to obtain the working perspective of the SSOs on a whole (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The latter involved the usage of open-ended questions that sought to elicit revealing data and
experiences, as they pertain to the SSOs at UNC (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition,
Patton’s (2015) 6 types of interview questions were utilized to more properly capture
information regarding the interviewees’ experience, opinions, and knowledge. The interview
questions were crafted to draw out a deeper comprehension of the KMO influences that manifest
themselves in the research subjects’ behavior, which affect performance as it relates to retention
efforts. It was essential to understand the SSOs’ factual knowledge and to also comprehend the
role that the university played in assisting in the retention efforts at UNC. The interview
questions were also designed to explore the motivational influences that relate to the value that
SSOs place on their ability to participate in a large-scale retention initiative. Ultimately, the
utilization of open-ended questions to elicit responses that relate to the KMO influencers played
a key role in the interview process.
Interviews
The interviews conducted in relation to this study were formal in nature, semistructured,
and included 12, open-ended questions (see Appendix A). All questions were peer reviewed.
The open-ended questions were designed to allow interviewees the opportunity to respond and
express themselves freely. The semistructured interview allowed the researcher to explore and
delve more deeply into the SSOs’ views regarding the president’s long-term retention mandate.
A nonprobability, purposeful sample of the six SSOs was utilized. All interviews were
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 34

conducted via Zoom (see Appendix B regarding credibility and trustworthiness). The latter was
due to the fact that the university in question is located 6 to 10 hours north of Los Angeles,
California. Since the researcher is based in Southern California, a Zoom session made the most
sense for everyone involved. Six interviews were conducted, and each lasted no longer than 60
minutes, per Maxwell’s (2013) recommendation. To soothe any potential anxiety issues related
to the interview process, the interviewer employed various practices in preparation for the
interview process itself. In that, the researcher expressed gratitude for the research subjects’
time, provided information regarding confidentiality, notified them of their ability to withdraw
from the study at any time, and sought permission to record the video via Zoom (Glesne, 2011;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In addition, the researcher reminded the interviewees that their
participation in the study was completely voluntary and that their responses were confidential.
The latter was also outlined in the informed, consent document for the interviewees’ convenience
(Glesne, 2011). The interviewer attempted to ensure that levels of confidentiality remained high
by relaying that all notes and/or recordings were to be analyzed only by the researcher and then
destroyed following the completion of the study (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Weiss, 1994). The
researcher also relayed to the research subjects that their identities and the university’s name and
any identifiable information were to be altered (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Research subjects
were reminded that they may withdraw from the study at any time and that they were not
obligated to respond to any question that made them feel significantly uncomfortable (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). The interviewer asked for permission to record the interview sessions, and
their decision regarding the matter was respected (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Weiss, 1994). All
subjects agreed to be recorded, however. Last, copies of the questions were provided to the
research subjects, and they were then allowed to ask questions prior to the interview (Bogdan &
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 35

Biklen, 2007; Weiss, 1994). It was the goal of the interviewer to create an environment that was
positive and conducive to the smooth processing of the interview on a whole.
The researcher began by engaging in small talk. According to Merriam and Tisdell
(2016), engaging in small talk and asking noncontentious questions in the beginning represents
an effective way to ease into the actual interview. The researcher then shared the purpose of the
interview, which centered on better understanding the SSOs’ role in the retention of students at
UNC (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the end, engaging in small talk and being
transparent regarding the purpose of the research study created a more positive experience for all
involved. Incentives were not announced, so as not to coerce or bias (see Appendix C regarding
ethical standards and procedures) the study participants in any way. Nevertheless, at the end of
the study, all participants received a thank-you card, expressing gratitude and appreciation on the
researcher’s part. A card of this kind gave way to rapport-building and an ongoing dialog
(Patton, 2015) between the researcher and the subjects, even upon the end of the data-gathering
process. Rapport-building represents an essential aspect in establishing trust and confidence
among those who participated in the study.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 36

Results and Findings
The following provides a comprehensive review of the qualitative findings based on
semistructured interviews with the Student Services Officers at the University of Northern
California and analyzed documents conducted in response to the research questions at hand. As
a reminder, the overall purpose of the interview centered on evaluating the degree to which UNC
was meeting the goal of increasing retention rates at the University by 10% each year, with the
ultimate goal of having said rates rest at around 90%. The analysis explored the KMO factors
that influence SSOs in their efforts to achieve the University’s objective. The following
questions guided the study, and question No. 4 were addressed in the recommendations and final
section of this study:
1. How and to what extent are SSOs meeting their goal of being in compliance with UNC’s
retention goal of 90% by June 2022?
2. What are the SSOs’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
developing an action plan to address issues that hinder student retention on an academic
level?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and SSOs’ knowledge and
motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of SSO
knowledge, motivation, and organization that relate to achieving the university’s
retention rate of 90% by June 2022?
Qualitative data, in the form of interviews, was collected in an attempt to answer the
above-mentioned research questions. The Student Services Officers are comprised of six
individuals—the director, assistant director, coordinator, and three specialists (see Appendix D
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 37

regarding study limitations and delimitations)—and all of the SSOs participated in the study over
the video conferencing medium, Zoom. The SSOs were digitally recorded and, from the
transcript, the most common themes were analyzed and identified and are revealed within this
section. In the first phase of analysis, open coding was utilized, where empirical and a priori
codes from the conceptual framework were sought out and applied. Phase 2 consisted of an
analysis that was conducted in which the empirical and prior codes were aggregated into
analytic/axial codes. The third phase comprised of identifying pattern codes and themes that
came to light in relation to the above framework and research questions.
This section addresses each research question with the influences that derived from the
data within the Clark and Estes (2008) KMO conceptual framework. The first research question
addressed the degree to which SSOs are meeting their goal of being in compliance with UNC’s
retention goal. The second centered on the SSOs’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences related to developing an action plan. The third question took into consideration the
interaction between organizational culture and SSOs’ knowledge and motivation; and the fourth
question was based on recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of SSO
knowledge, motivation, and organization. Implications of the study and a summary conclude
this section and, to reiterate, the final research question is addressed in the next and final unit of
this study.
Results and Findings for Research Question No. 1
How and to what extent are SSOs meeting their goal of being in compliance with UNC’s
retention goal of 90% by June 2022?
Goal Achievement and Self-Efficacy
This section presents data collected and reported by the SSOs regarding the achievement
of university’s retention rate objectives. To answer the research question at hand, all six SSOs
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 38

were asked the following interview questions (only the most relevant and significant responses
are noted):
1. What is currently being done by the SSOs to increase retention rates to 90% by June
2022?
2. How is progress tracked with respect to the plan of increasing retention rates at the
university?
In response to the interview question No. 1, about half of the SSOs displayed high levels
of optimism based on informal student feedback. The director stated, “I think that we’ve done a
great job of getting the word out and holding student conversations regarding the matter.
Students seem very receptive and enthusiastic too.” Specialist #1 mirrored that response: “I’ve
literally spoken to 100 students about the initiative and they seem excited. Until we get the
build-out plan approved, all we can do is build excitement and anticipation.” All other SSOs
displayed levels of optimism that were in range of that of the two noted interviewees.
Regarding interview question No. 2, there appeared to be a mediocre display of
understanding regarding the standard operating procedure and the tracking of the build-out plan.
The director stated,
Each month, our progress report goes to my supervisor. That’s all I know.
There’s not much feedback to see if we’re going in the right direction, but I have
an MBA. So, I am more equipped to deal with ambiguity in this area, where
others may not be.
The assistant director responded in a similar fashion: “We do a lot of hard work. We just
wish that there was more response from those above us.”
Since the end of the academic year in 2017, the Student Services Office received the
yearly retention rates from Registrar’s Office. The latter has allowed to the SSOs to measure the
university’s retention rates against their own efforts. Since the university president’s initiative to
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 39

significantly increase retention rates, said rates for first-time freshman (FTF) rose 10% by 2017.
The latter brought FTF retention rates to over 50%. The retention data in question made it
possible to better identify the gap between the organizational objective and the current
performance efforts achieved by the SSOs who were charged with building out diversity center.
During the interview, the SSOs addressed the 10% increase and expressed cautious optimism
with respect to the fact.
[Director:] We’ve spread the word on it (the build-out plan). We told them (the
students) that great things were coming to the campus. I think that helped (with
retention rates).
[Assistant Director:] We’ve been spreading the word. We also held double the
amount of diversity convos on campus to talk about race and identity. I think just
talking about these sensitive topics help retain students.
However, some of the SSOs were not as optimistic with regard their role as it relates to
the increase in retention rates.
[Coordinator:] There are many reasons why that increase happened that may not
have anything to do with our office. It’s hard to know, given the plethora of
possible factors.
Summary
With respect to the first research question, according to UNC’s data, it appears that the
university achieved its quota of increasing retention rates by 10 % in 2017 since the start of the
initiative in 2016 (the university has not released their 2018 retention rates as of this write-up).
The data collected during the interviews with the SSOs provides some insight regarding their
influence on the overall organizational goals. The data suggested that for some of the SSOs,
there are high levels of optimism regarding the build-out plan, as it pertains to student reception,
particularly. At the same time, the data also revealed a moderate lack of knowledge, connection,
and understanding between SSOs’ efforts and the current retention rate increase. The SSOs also
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 40

lacked knowledge regarding specific standard operating procedures that appear to affect
motivation and self-efficacy levels for some of the stakeholders in question.
Results and Findings for Research Question No. 2
This section presents data collected and reported by the SSOs regarding their knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences related to developing an action plan to address issues
that hinder student retention. To answer the research question at hand, all six SSOs were asked
the following interview questions:
3. How often, in a given month/semester, do SSOs meet with other departments to solve and
discuss attrition rates at the university?
4. Above the director of Student Services, who is in charge of ensuring that SSOs are
realizing the organizational goal?
5. How do SSOs interpret the university’s mission to achieve a 90% retention rate by 2022?
6. How optimistic are you in the university’s goal of achieving 90% retention rate by 2022?
Regarding interview question No. 3, the director stated, “We don’t all meet with other
departments. We’re kind of isolated in that way. I wished we shared more information
internally.” The assistant director expressed sentiments that were similar: “Collaborating with
other departments would help, but maybe those above want to put the pieces together
themselves.” Specialist No. 2 was a bit less diplomatic in his approach to the question: “I feel
like we’re shooting in the dark. We’ve never done anything like this before, and we get little
guidance. I was in charge of looking at cost and resources, and I’m like ‘I don’t know.’ It’s
frustrating.” The other SSOs expressed similar sentiments regarding the matter. “If they valued
the success of their own initiative, they’d communicate better,” expressed Specialist No. 2.
With respect to interview question No. 4, the director stated,
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 41

My supervisor receives a monthly report from me regarding our progress. I think
I’d like to meet more often, as this plan is supposed to be completely
conceptualized by June (2020), but he (the supervisor) isn’t as responsive as I’d
like him to be.
The coordinator added: “How are we supposed to know what’s going on if our director is
kept in the dark?” The rest of the SSOs expressed uncertainty when asked the question at hand.
Regarding interview question No. 5, all of the SSOs felt that the president’s objective to
reach 90% retention presented itself as “noble.” The director stated, “I like what the university is
trying to do. All of these initiatives are good-spirited. I interpret their efforts as noble.”
Specialist No. 3’s comments mirrored that of the director: “Being a part of such a grand initiative
is amazing. Diversification has always led to higher retention rates. A place where all feel
included is key, and we’re working on that.” The other SSOs interpreted the university’s
mission as “brave” and “honorable” as well.
Regarding interview question No. 6, the general consensus did not revolve around
optimism. The director stated, “I like to stay optimistic and push myself when I see challenges.
I like a good challenge, but that’s me personally. For my team to be optimistic, I think that they
must see the objective as realistic.” The assistant director mirrored the director’s response: “We
work together and do our best, but getting retention rates to 90% by 2022? That’s incredible!”
However, the coordinator was franker in his response: “To put that kind of pressure on us in
astounding! I mean, we’ve had little to no training! What are the ramifications? What happens
if we only get to 70%? Will there be cuts?” The other SSO’s expressed concern in this regard
for the security of their positions at UNC as well. Specialist No. 1 suggested,
It only makes sense that our jobs would be compromised. If you spend . . .
millions of dollars on a diversity center that doesn’t do what it was set out to do
(increase retention rates), something or somebody will be held responsible and
will have to go.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 42

Specialist No. 2 expressed uncertainty in the process yet felt more optimistic with regard
to her immediate supervisor: “I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I trust the director, and
we trust each other. I just don’t trust what goes on above us.”
Summary
Each SSO expressed a basic and fundamental understanding of UNC’s primary objective.
Per Clark and Estes (2008), the acquisition of basic information and terminology alone may
improve performance without other forms of aid. Similarly, Mayer (2011) stated that the
possession of knowledge and the basic understanding of facts represents an essential factor for
team members in their efforts to realize a specific goal. Yet, despite a basic understanding and
interpretation of the university’s long-term objectives, the SSOs overwhelmingly felt that they
were lost in the knowledge of the details regarding the build-out plan. According to the SSOs,
no formal training had occurred to prepare them for this venture. The data appears to express
that the SSOs lack knowledge regarding the “how” in building such a center from the ground up.
Although the director shared that her supervisor communicated exclusively with her, the lack of
communication from the top down lowered self-efficacy levels and did not make the rest of the
SSOs feel secure in their work or that they possessed the necessary knowledge needed to
accomplish the task at hand.
The motivational influences in this study express the confidence levels of the SSOs and
their ability to achieve the objective of increasing retention rates by building out a diversity
center. One hundred percent of the SSOs mentioned a high level of confidence in the director,
her background, and ability to guide the department in realizing the task in question. On a
whole, the SSOs feel supported by the director and by each other. However, some voiced
concern over job security, which affected motivation levels and lowered morale as well. SSOs
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 43

understand the intentions of developing an action plan to address student retention, but only to
the extent to which they are capable. To clarify, the data suggests that the SSOs value on the
building-out of a large-scale plan to decrease attrition rates was predicated upon their level of
self-efficacy pertaining to the matter itself. SSOs did not connect their elevated sense of team
efficacy to the probability of achieving their or the university’s overall objective.
As it pertains to organizational influences, all SSOs believed that the success of the
university initiative rested in the hands of UNC. They suggested that the lack of communication
from senior-level administrators hinders success within the Office of Student Services. SSOs
expressed dread regarding unforeseen challenges and the department’s ability to address said
challenges, given the lack of perceived support from UNC. It appears that a lack a trust exists
among the SSOs, as it pertains to UNC senior-level administrators; and the perception of
probable cuts upon the lack of realization of stakeholder and organizational goals stifle buy-in on
the part of the SSOs. In the end, though, major knowledge, motivational, and organizational
disconnects (gaps) have been identified, according to the collected data, and is assessed in the
final section in an effort to produce recommendations that are designed to meet stakeholder and
overall university objectives.
Results and Findings for Research Question No. 3
This section presents data collected that illustrate the interaction between organizational
culture and SSO’s knowledge and motivation. To answer the research question at hand, all six
SSOs were asked the following interview questions:
7. With respect to discussions surrounding the university’s goal, how would you describe
the communication between SSOs and other administrators from other departments?
8. How do you feel about the university’s receptiveness to the SSOs’ approach and
suggestions in implementing the university’s retention goal?
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 44

Regarding interview question No. 7, the SSOs declared a lack of communication between
their department and others. The director stated,
We don’t have much contact with other departments concerning this matter. I
mean, if I see another person who is in charge of their initiative in their
department, I may ask what they’re doing, but there’s no formal conversation
around it.
The assistant director stated, “No one knows what the other departments do (regarding
this matter). Not that we need to know, per se, but I wouldn’t like to find out that we’re doing
something similar to another department.” One of the specialists actually expressed
hopelessness and complacency in her response:
I just do what I’m told. I got tired of asking for clarification. My boss (the
director) does her best, but since we don’t have clear guidance and we don’t talk
to other departments, we are in the dark a bit. I feel like this was all for show
sometimes.
With respect to interview question No. 8, the SSOs believed that there was little to no
response from senior-level administrators, which highlights the lack of overall communication.
The director stated,
I have asked if we (the SSOs) could meet with my boss to discuss our progress,
but that hasn’t happened yet. I met with him like twice, but it wasn’t enough. I
think that he’s overworked and stressed too, but our needs as a department still
need to be better addressed.
The coordinator replied, feeling professionally “dismissed” after encountering a senior-
level administrator on campus:
I ran into the director’s supervisor on campus, and I said, professionally of course,
that it would be great if we met as a department to discuss this project as we move
forward. He said, “We’ll see what we can do,” and ran off! I felt dismissed. This
all seems like one big PC publicity stunt.
The rest of the SSOs were neutral with respect to the university’s receptiveness to their
suggestions, as only the director has direct access to a senior-level administrator.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 45

Summary
SSOs cited little confidence in UNC’s senior-level administrators to provide the support
or resources needed to assist in the Office of Students Services’ efforts to realize the diversity
center build-out plan. Overwhelmingly, the SSOs felt that pressure served as UNC’s tool in
achieving the goal at hand, not adequate support. Given the lack of perceived support from
UNC’s senior-level administrators, some of the SSOs believed that the build-out center served as
a “politically correct publicity stunt.” Almost all of the SSO were concerned that UNC’s
reputation would be damaged if the diversity center did not come to fruition on time. All six
interviewees stated that the need for additional staff and resources to achieve the stakeholder and
university goal remained paramount. They suggested that since the inception of the initiative,
more work has been bestowed upon them without the adequate support to aid in the execution of
the overall objective.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 46

Recommendations
The purpose of this project centers on evaluating the degree to which UNC achieves its
goal of achieving a 10% retention rate increase every year until said rates rest around 90%, in
accordance with the president’s university-wide requirements. While a complete evaluation
project would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholders of focus in this
analysis were represented by the university’s SSOs. The analysis centered on knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences related to achieving the organizational goals.
To reiterate, the research questions that guide this study are illustrated below:
1. How and to what extent are SSOs meeting their goal of being in compliance with UNC’s
retention goal of 90% by June 2022?
2. What are the SSOs’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
developing an action plan to address issues that hinder student retention on an academic
level?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and SSOs’ knowledge and
motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of SSO
knowledge, motivation, and organization that relate to achieving the university’s
retention rate of 90% by June 2022?
Knowledge Recommendations
The data collection process yielded results that are found in Table 3. Said table
demonstrates a list of knowledge influences that relate to the realization of the stakeholders’
goal, which was relayed at the time of data collection (during the formal interview process). The
acquisition of declarative knowledge (factual and procedural) regarding a specific topic serves as
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 47

a necessity so that it may be applied appropriately (Clark & Estes, 2008). Table 3 illustrates the
types knowledge influences that were validated in this study. The table also gives light to
context-specific recommendations for these influences based on the theoretical principles below.
Table 3
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Validated as
a Gap? Priority
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)

Yes, No
(Y, N)
SSOs need knowledge
surrounding the impact
of other “centers of
diversity” on retention on
other campuses across
the country. (D)
V Y Competency levels with
respect to knowledge
directly relate to and
affect job performance
and goal attainment
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Provide information
regarding research and
data acquisition
opportunities concerning
the connection between
diversity centers and
their impact on retention
rates at demographically
similar universities.
SSOs need knowledge
surrounding the
estimated cost for such a
venture (i.e., space,
staff). (D)
V Y Critical thinking and the
realization of goals are
predicated upon the
knowledge level of
employees (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Provide information
concerning research
opportunities and data
acquisition regarding the
first 3 years of cost based
on the establishment of a
diversity center at
demographically similar
universities.
SSOs need knowledge on
how to create/build out a
diversity center by 2020
based on the financial
constraints. (P)
V Y Conceptual knowledge
represents the
relationship between
basic elements as they
pertain to a larger scope,
which also includes
financial models and
structures that highlight
the stakeholders’ goals
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Provide training on the
building-out process of a
diversity center at
universities that
demonstrate similar
demographics as those of
UNC.

HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 48

Increase SSO Knowledge Surrounding the Impact of Other Diversity Centers
As previously illustrated, there were two assumed declarative influences, but the impact
of diversity centers was chosen as the most essential influence because other higher education
institutions whose retention rates were positively affected by the acquisition of such a center
serve as exemplary models for the goal at hand. In that, the results and findings indicate that all
of the SSOs need more declarative knowledge concerning the impact of diversity centers, as they
relate to retention rates at demographically similar institutions. The Information Processing
Theory has been selected to address the declarative knowledge gap in question. Clark and Estes
(2008) found that competency levels, with respect to knowledge, directly relate to and affect job
performance and goal attainment. The latter suggests that upon providing SSOs with the
information about the link between diversity centers and retention rates at other institutions, their
learning will be enhanced. As a result, it is recommended that SSOs be provided with
information regarding research and data acquisition opportunities that assist in supporting the
overall stakeholder goal.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), a profound comprehension of the assumed
influences allows the stakeholder to increase performance. They also contend that the
acquisition of critical information remains essential in realizing the overall goal in question
(Clark and Estes, 2008). The latter is key in understanding the impact that a diversity center has
on retention rates. Data collection assists in addressing the gap, as it pertains to SSOs’
knowledge and the creation of a diversity center. In that, the literature suggests that providing
SSOs with essential information regarding retention rates at similarly structured institutions
represent an efficient pathway to obtain the information needed to achieve the desired results.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 49

Increase SSO Procedural Knowledge Regarding the Building-Out Process
The data and findings indicated that the SSOs required more procedural knowledge
surrounding the “how” in executing the task of building out a diversity center. The Social
Cognitive theory represents the most effective theory to close the gap in question. Per Clark and
Estes (2008), critical thinking and the realization of goals are predicated upon the knowledge
level of employees. The latter would suggest that training represents an essential key in
increasing SSO knowledge to achieve the goal at hand. In that, it is recommended that SSOs
receive training on the building-out process of a diversity center at universities that demonstrate
similar demographics as those of UNC.
Krathwohl (2002) contends that conceptual knowledge represents the relationship
between basic elements and the larger scope. The latter scope includes financial models and
structures that highlight the stakeholders’ goals on a whole. In that, it is essential that SSOs
focus on the particulars of the building-out process of a diversity center, just as long as the
greater perspective is taken into consideration. Financial considerations and the
conceptualization of a diversity center may be addressed through various training sessions.
Procedural knowledge relates to the “how”—the manner in which an activity or task is executed
(Krathwohl, 2002). The latter strengthens the notion that training on the creation process of a
diversity center would assist in closing the SSO procedural knowledge gap and aid in the
realization of their overall goal.
Motivation Influences
Table 4 illustrates the motivation influences that were validated in this study. The latter
influences, with respect to the realization of the stakeholders’ goal, were disclosed during the
formal interview process. Bandura (1991) argues that self-efficacy centers around one’s belief
that s/he possesses the ability to accomplish a given task. The influences suggest that SSOs lack
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 50

the confidence that they are able to successfully build out such a massive socioeducational
program. In that, Table 3 demonstrates the motivation influences and the principles and context-
specific recommendations based on the said principles. Results from the qualitative research
were indicated as well.
Table 4
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Validated as a
Gap? Priority
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Yes, High
Probability or
No
(V, HP, N)
Yes, No
(Y, N)
SSOs need to recognize
the value in developing
an action plan to address
issues that hinder
student retention on a
socioacademic level.
V Y Use models that build
self-efficacy and
enhance motivation
(Pajares & Usher,
2006).
Provide SSOs with
various, exemplary
models that have been
successful at other
demographically similar
universities.
SSOs need to believe
that they are capable of
building out a large-
scale plan to decrease
attrition rates.
V Y Make certain that
everyone understands
that the team possesses
all of the necessary
skills to achieve the
goal. They must have
confidence in each other
as well as confidence in
themselves (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Provide the opportunity
during training for SSOs
to split up into two
groups and break down
the building-out process
into more manageable
pieces.

HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 51

Increase the Perceived Value of Developing a Diversity Center
SSOs need to recognize the value in developing an action plan to address issues that
hinder student retention on a socioacademic level. The SSOs’ lack of understanding of the value
in building out a diversity center gives light to the Expectancy Value theory, which would serve
as the most effective approach to address this motivational gap. Pajares and Usher (2006) found
that the utilization of models builds self-efficacy and enhance motivation. The latter implies that
providing SSOs with a specific blueprint regarding the execution of diversity centers and then
providing feedback on stakeholder progress would increase overall self-efficacy. Therefore, the
suggested recommendation for UNC centers on providing SSOs with various, exemplary models
that have been successful at other demographically similar universities.
According to Eccles and Wigfield (2000), the author focuses on the notion that
individuals who highly value and believe in a particular objective are more likely to realize the
goal in question. The author suggests that the Expectancy Value theory plays a key role in
securing optimal outcomes, as said theory focuses on the value placed on a desired result. In
concert with motivation, the Expectancy Value theory affects expectations and performance. Per
Cancio et al. (2014), the authors found that the lack of administrative support directly related to
high rates of attrition. In this regard, it would appear that if administrators supported the
institution’s SSOs by providing them with exemplary, diversity center models and recurrent
feedback, this would assist in their understanding of the overall value of such centers as a
significant retention resource.
Increase Self-Efficacy of Student Services Officers
SSOs are not confident that they are capable of building out a large-scale plan to decrease
attrition rates. As the SSOs lack confidence regarding the building-out of a diversity center, a
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 52

solution may be rooted in the Social Cognitive theory, which represents itself as the most
effective approach to address the motivation gap in this regard. Reassuring that the SSOs
possess all of the necessary skills to achieve the goal at hand increases confidence and self-
efficacy in the stakeholders themselves and in each other as well (Clark & Estes, 2008). In that,
the recommendation centers on providing the opportunity during trainings for SSOs to express
their individual strengths and split up into groups to break down the building-out process into
more manageable pieces and to set deadlines so that progress may be assessed in a timely
manner.
Pajares and Usher (2006) suggest that the realization of a particular goal is predicated
upon one’s level of self-efficacy and motivation. With respect to the stakeholders in question,
collective self-efficacy determines the extent to which motivation affects the quality of the
completed task (Hayward, 2010). Hayward (2010) also posits that employees become more
inspired when they are confident in their own abilities and trust the organization’s objective on a
whole. In the end, it appears that an increase in the quality of training sessions present the most
effective method in increasing self-efficacy among the SSOs. As previously mentioned, said
training sessions may consist of grouping stakeholders in accordance to their strengths, which
gives light to a culture of collaboration and collective learning. The latter represents factors that
support SSO self-efficacy and meaningfully contributes to the execution of the overall
stakeholder goal.
Organization Recommendations
Table 5 denotes a complete list of organizational influences that were validated during
the data collection process. Validation is based upon the organizational influences that were
most frequently mentioned during the interview process with respect to achieving the SSOs’
overall goal. Validation was also supported by the literature review herein, an assessment of the
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 53

organization, and the cultural domains listed below. Clark and Estes (2008) state that
organizational influences are affected by stakeholder performance outcomes that consist of
policies, protocols, and procedures. Additionally, organizational culture is comprised of two
primary domains—cultural models and cultural settings (Schein, 2004). The author suggests that
cultural models represent principles and rules that are shared within an organization, and cultural
settings serve as an extension of a cultural model and come to fruition when organizational
stakeholders internalize the cultural model in question and execute performance tasks
accordingly (Schein, 2004). Table 5 illustrates the aforementioned and gives light to the
recommendations for the organizational influences under consideration.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 54

Table 5
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Validated as a
Gap? Priority
Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Yes, High
Probability, No
(V, HP, N)
Yes, No
(Y, N)
SSOs need to establish
trust between them and
the UNC senior-level
administrators to
achieve the institutional
goal of increasing
retention.
V Y Communicate
constantly and candidly
to those involved with
the plans and progress
of the overall retention
goal (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Provide timely,
corrective feedback on
all documents and
build-out plans
submitted to UNC’s
senior-level
administrators by the
SSOs.
SSOs need “buy-in” to
facilitate the realization
of stakeholder and
organizational goals.
V Y Stakeholders who work
collaboratively and
possess an ideology
that is more mission-
minded with respect to
the organization in
question experience a
more satisfying work
environment and assist
in closing performance
gaps (Langley et al.,
2009).
Allow SSOs to attend
senior-level
administrator meetings
that pertain to the
establishment of a
diversity center and to
those surrounding other
plans to increase
retention at UNC.
SSOs need a sufficient
amount of time from
their daily
responsibilities to
participate in
collaboration efforts to
meet organizational
objectives.
V Y Bryan, Stiles, Burstein,
Ergul, and Chao (2007)
conclude that
organizations that
create the space for
team members to
collaborate on a
frequent basis increase
morale and support an
environment where all
feel valued.
Reallocate a certain
percentage of the
SSOs’ time to conduct
research and meetings.

HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 55

Increase Trust between the Student Services Officers and the UNC Senior-Level
Administrators
As illustrated in Table 5, there were two cultural influences examined in this study, but
the establishment of trust was chosen as the most essential influence because buy-in serves as a
by-product of trust and gives way to overall morale and institutional confidence and
performance. In order to achieve the institutional goal of increasing retention rates at UNC, the
findings indicate that the SSOs need to establish trust between them and the UNC senior-level
administrators. A principle that stems from the Social Cognitive theory has been selected to
address this organizational gap. Organizational performance increases when communication
remains constant and candid to those involved with the plans and progress of the overall goal at
hand (Clark & Estes, 2008). The latter suggests that more interaction and constructive advice
would assist in increasing trust among all stakeholders. Therefore, the recommendation centers
on providing timely, corrective feedback on all documents and build-out plans submitted to
UNC’s senior-level administrators by the SSOs. As an example, every other week, SSOs would
submit an in-depth summarized version of the building-out process and its progress to the UNC
senior-level administrators. In turn, said administrators would provide detailed feedback,
allowing the SSOs to adjust course if needed.
Langley et al. (2009) state that educational environments in which administrators trust
and support each other give way to a space that contributes to the realization of the overall
organizational goals. Administrative trust represents an essential component and facilitates the
notion of buy-in across the university in question. The latter poses as a pivotal piece in making
people feel valued because, as Morningstar et al. (2008) state, those who feel undervalued and
unappreciated in the workplace are more likely to create a contentious and frustrating working
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 56

environment, which hinders organizational development. In addition, the previously mentioned
authors suggest that respectful and professionally accountable relationships among
administrators decreases organizational struggles and allows them to focus on maximizing
efficacy on various departmental levels (Morningstar et al., 2008). In that, the literature supports
the need to increase trust among administrators and the overall stakeholders, which would
heighten the possibility of achieving the organizational objectives at hand.
Increase the Student Services Officers Confidence in Meeting Organizational Objectives
The findings of the study indicate that the SSOs need a sufficient amount of time from
their daily responsibilities to participate in collaboration efforts to meet organizational
objectives. A principle rooted in the Organizational Change theory has been selected to address
this organizational gap. Bryan et al. (2007) conclude that organizations that create the space for
team members to collaborate on a frequent basis increase morale and support an environment
where all feel valued. The latter suggests that incorporating collaboration efforts into the work
week increases the probability of meeting organizational objectives. In that, it is recommended
that UNC senior-level administrators allow for the reallocation of a certain percentage of the
SSOs’ time to conduct research and meetings. For instance, one working day may serve as
“research day,” in an attempt to allocate 20% of the week to significant movements in the quest
to build out a diversity center.
Fortin et al. (2010) state that organizations that heavily concentrate on operations and
departmental deadlines may encumber collaboration and that administrative responsibilities
create time constraints that place pressure upon team members. A lack of collaboration may lead
to further, substantial levels of distrust between UNC’s senior-level administrators and the SSOs,
which may also affect the organization’s multiyear retention objectives. Bryan et al. (2007)
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 57

suggest that organizations that create the necessary space for employees to regularly collaborate
increase morale, leaving team members feeling more valued. The literature gives light to the
importance of collaborating and underscores the benefits that increase organizational
effectiveness and trust on a whole.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 58

Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The implementation and evaluation plan centers on the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(formerly the Kirkpatrick Four-Level Model of Evaluation). The latter model implies that the
evaluation process begins with the objectives of the organization and works in reverse order.
The purpose of said order allows the focus to remain on the program outcome, which is realized
through the improved, on-the-job performance of team members (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). In that, the leading indicators connect the researcher’s recommended solutions to the
organizational objectives and become more aligned with said objectives. The previously
mentioned reverse order sequence consists of four levels (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016):
• Level 4 highlights the degree to which the outcomes in question occur due to the training.
• Level 3 addresses the degree to which participants apply on their job that which they
learned while training.
• Level 2 identifies the degree to which participants absorb the knowledge and skills based
on their involvement in the training.
• Level 1 represents the degree to which participants find the training engaging and
relevant to their jobs.
It is essential that the SSOs establish buy-in with respect to the organizational goal at
hand. In that, the New World Kirkpatrick Model gives way to the implementation and
evaluation plan, which increases the probability of success and allows for buy-in to occur
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
UNC’s mission centers on the establishment of a diverse, learning environment that is
based on a high level of academic standard from which all students develop into productive
members of society who contribute to the global community. The goal of the 4-year institution
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 59

rests on achieving a 10% retention rate increase every year until overall rates settle around 90%.
The stakeholder goal surrounded the build-out of a diversity center by the officers of the Student
Services Office. The latter objective was established because, per the research herein,
universities that included diversity centers that catered to the needs of varying types of students
were proven to possess higher retention rates than those that do not.
This study assessed the knowledge, motivational, and organizational obstacles that
prevent the sustained enrollment of the average UNC student. The proposed solutions are
designed to assist in the realization of the build-out of the diversity center and achieve the
retention rates mandated by the University: 1) provide information (including university impact,
cost, and models) to the SSOs, 2) provide comprehensive build-out trainings, 3) provide timely
and constructive feedback to the SSOs, 4) allow the SSOs to attend senior-level meetings
concerning the building-out process, and 5) reallocate time during the work week so that SSOs
may solely focus on the establishment of the diversity center.
Level 4: Results
Table 6 illustrates a list of internal and external indicators in the form of outcomes,
metrics, and methods associated with Level 4 of the New World Kirkpatrick Model, which are
designed to guide an organization in realizing their desired objectives. Data in the table give
light to one external and three internal outcomes. The external outcome revolves around the
perception and reputation of the school in question; while the internal outcomes center on
increasing overall retention rates (especially for historically underrepresented groups), a build-
out plan for the establishment of a diversity center, and the approval of a build-out plan for the
diversity center. The tools that were utilized to collect data include the distribution of surveys,
enrollment databases, and conference logs. The internal and external outcomes may be brought
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 60

to fruition without issue, given the training and organizational support for the proposed diversity
center and overall organizational objectives.
Table 6
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Perception and reputation of school
increases.
Percentage of satisfied parents,
students, faculty, staff, and alumni.
Administer survey to parents
biannually to gauge school
perception and reputation.
Internal Outcomes
Increase overall retention rates
(especially for historically
underrepresented groups).
Percentage of retained students year
after year.
School enrollment databases will be
utilized to account for percentage of
retained students throughout the
next 4 to 6 years.
A build-out plan for the
establishment of a diversity center
is created.
Final build-out submission report
completed.
Build-out plan submitted to senior-
level administrators by June 2020.
Build-out plan for diversity center
approved.
Percentage of senior-level
administrators who sign off on the
final build-out plan.
Final minutes for conference report
log indicating build-out plan
approval.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest that critical behaviors represent key behaviors
that stakeholders consistently execute upon to realize the targeted outcomes. In that, the
stakeholders in question represent the Student Services Officers who are charged with increasing
retention rates at the university through innovative means. The first critical behavior centers on
the SSOs creating a build-out plan for a diversity center. The second critical behavior surrounds
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 61

establishing a budget that is reflective of the projected cost of the 3-year plan by the SSOs; and
the third critical behavior pertains to SSOs attending trainings specific to the creation of a
diversity center. The particular metrics, methods, and timing for these three behaviors are
illustrated in Table 7.
Table 7
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
SSOs create a build-out
plan for a diversity center.
Pre-established build-out
plan milestones met.
Measure the leading
indicators against the pre-
established, working
timeline.
Twice a month until the
completion of the project.
SSOs create a budget that
is reflective of the
projected cost of the 3-
year plan.
Projected 3-year data that
includes inflation and
miscellaneous items
submitted.
Benchmark SSO
projections against the
actual costs of other
demographically similar
educational institutions
that created diversity
centers.
Twice a month until
project completion.
SSOs attend training on
creating diversity center.
Percentage of those who
complete the training.
Acquire attendance list
from the training.
Once a month until
project completion.

Required Drivers
In order to realize the SSOs’ objective of creating a diversity center to increase retention
rates, the stakeholders in question need to understand the value of developing an action plan and
increasing self-efficacy regarding the goal at hand. SSOs also need to establish trust among all
administrative levels and to be granted a reasonable period of time to achieve the performance
goal. In that, various, required drivers will be used to support the SSOs’ plan of action, which
includes training, job aids, monthly meetings with senior-level administrators, and performance
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 62

recognition. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe required drivers as a set of “processes
and systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward performance of critical behaviors on
the job (location 491).” Examples of required drivers include, but are not limited to, job aids,
coaching, work review, and performance incentives. Table 8 illustrates the recommended
drivers that support the above-mentioned, critical behaviors and gives light to the timing of each
as well.
Table 8
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
(1, 2, 3 Etc.)
Reinforcing
SSO specialists provide and review job aids, including
checklist of leading indicators and details of other
collegiate, diversity centers.
Monthly 1, 2
Team meetings with SSOs and senior-level
administrators to establish/revisit goals and timeframes.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Feedback from executive-level administrators. Monthly 1, 2
Rewarding
Public acknowledgement via social media platforms and
the school newsletter when SSOs performance hits a
benchmark.
Semesterly 1, 2
Monitoring
SSO director tracks departmental progress toward the
stakeholders’ goal.
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Senior-level administrators shares reports from SSO
director/SSO team and from monthly meetings with the
overall departments.
Monthly 1, 2, 3
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 63

Organizational Support
There are various strategies that give light to organizational support of the SSOs’ critical
behaviors:
1. Senior-level administrators will provide timely, corrective feedback on all documents
and build-out plans submitted by the SSOs.
2. Senior-level administrators will reallocate a certain percentage of the SSOs’ time to
conduct research and collaborate internally.
3. Senior-level administrators will provide SSOs with various, exemplary centers of
diversity models.
4. Senior-level administrators will provide trainings on the building-out process of a
diversity center.
The above demonstrates the ways in which the organization will support the SSOs’
critical behaviors and aid them in achieving the university’s overall, retention objective.
Level 2: Learning
Learning Goals
Upon completion of the recommended solutions, Student Services Officers will be able
to:
1. Explain the impact of other diversity centers regarding retention rates on other similar
campuses across the country (D)
2. Present data for the estimated cost for building out a diversity center (D)
3. Apply steps and craft a benchmark schedule to adequately build out a diversity center (P)
4. Value the development of an action plan to address issues that hinder student retention
(Value)
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 64

5. Believe that they are capable of building out a large-scale plan to decrease attrition rates
(SE)
Program
In an effort to achieve the learning goals listed above, a training program will be
conducted. The program will consist of UNC’s standard operating procedures (SOPs), extended
history of retention rates from similar universities, different build-out plan designs, and budget
estimations. Timelines for performance markers will also be established during the training in
question. Student Services Officers will be afforded the opportunity to engage in collaborative
activities with other departments with respect to SOPs, retention-rate details, build-out plan
designs, and a timeline. In addition, SSOs will be allowed to craft job aids to assist with the
retention of information. The program will consist of five all-day sessions that occur over the
span of 5 work days. Each session will be devoted to one of the above-listed learning goals.
Student Services Officers will be allowed to design job aids and digitally and formally present to
their peers. To see the value in developing an action plan, retention-rate diagrams will be
included in the job aid design to give light to the cause and effect phenomenon regarding
diversity centers and said rates; and, ultimately, to assess self-efficacy levels among the SSOs,
the training will occasionally measure degrees of confidence from the participants through the
end-of-the-day feedback.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning
The application of knowledge with respect to problem-solving necessitates the
demonstration of declarative knowledge. The utilization of evaluation to determine the learning
of declarative and procedural knowledge represent an essential piece in assessing that which
participants have acquired. In addition, participants need to value and understand that learning
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 65

serves as a supportive step in applying the learned information at their place of work.
Participants must also express confidence in their ability to incorporate the knowledge and skills
in their daily tasks. The methods/activities of evaluation and timing are listed in Table 9.
Table 9
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(-ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks with multiple choice and open-ended
questions.
During the training.
Knowledge checks through discussions (individual/group). During the training.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Demonstrate job aid use during particular scenarios. During the training.
Illustrate presentation skills to peers. During the training.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discuss the value of increasing retention rates. During the training.
Survey participants regarding their level of proficiency before
and after the training.
Before and after training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Illustrate examples of performance success. During the training.
Verbal survey levels of self-efficacy following practice and
feedback.
End of training.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Create a weekly work schedule. During the training.
Establish a job performance plan. During the training.

HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 66

Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest that the evaluation of involvement with
respect to learning represents a process that is both summative and formative. The areas
measured include engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction. Formative evaluations
represent that which is performed during the training in question. Summative feedback is
traditionally collected after the training has taken place. Said evaluations are designed to be
voluntary and reflective in nature. Table 10 provides a list of components that measure reactions
to the recommended training program.
Table 10
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Attendance records. At the beginning of the workshop.
Asking meaningful questions. During the workshop.
Participation in collaborative activities. During the workshop.
Relevance
Check in with participants via discussion. End of each training session.
Customer Satisfaction
Training Evaluation. Anonymous survey after each day of
training.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 67

Evaluation Tools
Immediately Following the Program Implementation
The facilitator will conduct a morale check via in-person discussions during the
workshop to collect data on the components that measure reactions to the program (engagement,
relevance, and customer satisfaction) associated with Level 1. Participants will be monitored to
assess the degree to which they engaged in the workshop and levels of confidence regarding
future application of the acquired information. The training instructors will also determine the
participants’ attitudes toward the Level 1 components, including the relevance of utilized
materials and program quality. Regarding Level 2, training instructors will request that
participants share any pertinent knowledge obtained from the training and assess “commitment
to apply” levels. Participants will also be granted the opportunity to outwardly reflect on their
training experience via an end-of-course survey, which is designed to highlight knowledge
acquisition levels and participants’ attitudes toward the material in question (see Appendix E).
Delayed for a Period after the Program Implementation
Two months following the conclusion of the training, a follow-up survey will be
conducted. The timeframe in question allows the SSOs to fully implement that which was
learned in training. In that, impact may be seen and measured during this period of time as well.
The survey at hand will provide data that will be compared to the information that was
previously gathered throughout the original training process. The data will be analyzed and
assessed to determine areas of growth (or decline) in training relevance (Level 1), understanding
of the training information (Level 2), application of the information obtained from the training
(Level 3), and the impact on job performance (Level 4; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Appendix F gives light to a blended evaluation survey where these four levels are represented.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 68

Data Analysis and Reporting
Findings will be reported and presented via digital visual aids/PowerPoint, which are
designed to illustrate any changes that may have occurred since the training. Current data
regarding student retention rates, as compared to previous years, will serve as the focus of the
presentation. However, findings related to Student Services Officers’ knowledge, confidence,
and commitment (KCC) will also shared through the use of digital visual aids. Data, with
respect to the KCC, will also display changes that have occurred over time and during various
stages of the training in question. The findings will be shared at senior-level meetings to
maximize transparency efforts. The presentation will attempt to illustrate areas of effectiveness
and those in which growth may continue to occur through future trainings provided to the
Student Services Officers. Table 11 represents a dashboard with an example of the findings
derived from the immediate and delayed evaluations. Table 11 centers on the elements
associated with Level 1 of the New World Kirkpatrick Model. The organization in question will
utilize a similar visual reporting system to monitor Levels 2, 3, and 4.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 69

Table 11

Evaluation of Organizational Changes & Readiness for the Creation of the New UNC Diversity
Center
Evaluation Components
Participant Factors Training Module Post-Training Evaluation*
Engagement 100% attended 100% of the participants stated that their engagement
in the training assisted in their ability to understand
new information regarding the building-out of a
diversity center.
Relevance Participant Pulse Check
Embedded in the Training
100% of the participants found it relevant to embrace
the development of a diversity center.
Participant Satisfaction Participant Pulse Check
Embedded in the Training
66% of the participants were satisfied that they
understood the newly acquired knowledge and how
their efforts affect the university’s overall mission.
* Two months following the conclusion of the training.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was utilized to plan, implement, and evaluate the
recommendations for the University of Northern California to optimize the possibility of
achieving the stakeholder and organizational goal. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) created
an innovative and multitiered model that maximizes training efforts through the measurement of
implementation and self-efficacy levels. The model begins with the organizational results in
mind and gives light to an empowering, organizational change process through four distinct
levels to realize overall objectives. Learning represents the model’s fundamental principal,
which also serves as the basis for creating a diversity center to increase retention rates at UNC.
The implementation of the training and subsequent monitoring highlighted in the New World
Kirkpatrick model increases the ability for UNC to realize its ultimate goal of having retention
rates settle around 90% by 2022. The Model also allows the University of Northern California to
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 70

maximize its mission of establishing a diverse learning environment that is based on a high level
of academic standard from which all students develop into productive members of society and
contribute to the community—domestically and internationally.

HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 71

References
Abel, J. R., Deitz, R., & Su, Y. (2014). Are recent college graduates finding good jobs? Current
Issues in Economics and Finance, 20(1), 1–8. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1476501246?pq-origsite=gscholar
Ascend Learning, LLC. (2012, March). Student Attrition: Consequences, Contributing Factors,
and Remedies (2012). Retrieved April 17, 2019, from
https://www.atitesting.com/docs/default-source/research/attrition-
whitepaper_ati_2.pdf?sfvrsn=1be106e9_0
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50, 248–287.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bennett, D., McCarty, C., & Carter, S. (2015). The impact of financial stress on academic
performance in college economics courses. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal,
19(3, September 2015), 23. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1768629346?pq-origsite=gscholar
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5
th
Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bryan, T., Stiles, N., Burstein, K., Ergul, C., & Chao, P. C. (2007). “Am I supposed to
understand this stuff?” Youth with special health care needs readiness for transition.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(3), 330–338
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 72

Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2014). Combating the attrition of teachers of
students with EBD: What can administrators do? Intervention in School and Clinic,
49(5), 306–312. doi:10.1177/1053451213513953
Canon, M. E., & Gascon, C. S. (2012, June 27). College degrees: Why aren’t more people
making the investment? Arkansas Business, 29(26), 17.
Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(5), 279–283.
Clark, R. E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
College Board (2019). Tuition and Fees and Room and Board over Time. Retrieved April 17,
2019, from https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-fees-
room-and-board-over-time
Columbia University (2017). Community College Enrollment and Completion. Retrieved
September 4, 2017, from Community College Research Center website:
http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/Community-College-FAQs.html
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
DeBerard, S. M., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. C. (2012). Predictors of academic achievement
and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal,
38(1), 66–80. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from
http://www.se.edu/dept/native-american-center/files/2012/04/PREDICTORS-OF-
ACADEMIC-ACHIEVEMENT-AND-RETENTION-AMONG-COLLEGE-
FRESHMEN.pdf
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 73

Drexel University (2011). Rising Mal-Employment and the Great Recession: The Growing
Disconnection between Recent College Graduates and the College Labor Market.
Retrieved April 24, 2017, from website: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967808.pdf
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement Motivation.
Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0a28/c12a02140983603c7231ebae70564066f86b.pdf
Edwards, D., & McMillan, J. (2015, August 26). Completing university in a growing sector: Is
equity an issue? (Rep.). Retrieved September 4, 2017, from National Center for Student
Equity in Higher Education website:
https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/completing-university-in-a-growing-sector-is-
equity-an-issue/
Ferguson, R. F., Schwartz, R., & Symonds, W. C. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meeting the
challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st Century (Rep.). Retrieved
November 4, 2016, from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/sites/default/files//documents/Pathways_to_Prosperity_Feb2
011-1.pdf
Fortin, S., Pathmasiri, S., Grintuch, R., & Deschênes, M. (2010, July 30). ‘Access Arrangements’
for Biobanks: A Fine Line between Facilitating and Hindering Collaboration
(Publication). Retrieved November 7, 2017, from Public Health Genomics website:
https://www.karger.com/Article/PDF/309852
Fosnacht, K., & Dong, Y. (2013). Financial stress and its impact on first-year students’ college
experiences (Rep.). Retrieved November 4, 2016, from
http://cpr.indiana.edu/uploads/ASHE13FosnachtDongFinancialstress.pdf
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 74

Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. (4
th
ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Hayward, S. (2010). Engaging employees through whole leadership. Strategic HR Review, 9(3),
11–17. doi:10.1108/14754391011040028
Heckman, S. J., Letkiewicz, J. C., Lim, H., & Montalto, C. P. (2014). Financial stress, self-
efficacy, and financial help-seeking behavior of college students. Journal of Financial
Counseling and Planning, 25(2), 148–160. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1048681.pdf
Institute for College Access & Success (2014). Quick Facts About Student Debt. Retrieved April
4, 2019, from https://ticas.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/qf_about_student_debt.pdf
Jensen, O. B. (2012). The engagement of employees as a key to corporate success. Dynamic
Relationships Management Journal (DRMJ), 1(2), 45–56.
doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2012.v01n02a05.
Johnson, N. (2012, September). The institutional costs of student attrition. American Institutes of
Research. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from
http://www.deltacostproject.org/sites/default/files/products/Delta-Cost-Attrition-
Research-Paper.pdf
Kelleher, J. (2014). The Effects of Demographic and Situational Factors on the Perceived Self-
Efficacy of School Administrators (Doctoral dissertation, ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY).
(UMI No. 3581627)
Kinder, A., & Lambert, D. (2011). The National Curriculum Review: What geography should we
teach? Teaching Geography, 36, 93–95.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 75

Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Koropeckyj, S., Lafakis, C., & Ozimek, A. (2017). The Economic Impact of Increasing College
Completion. Retrieved April 17, 2019, from
https://www.amacad.org/sites/default/files/academy/multimedia/pdfs/publications/researc
hpapersmonographs/CFUE_Economic-Impact/CFUE_Economic-Impact.pdf
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Langley, G., Moen, R., Nolan, K., Nolan, T., Norman, C., & Provost, L. (2009). The
improvement guide (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.
(3
rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Michalski, G. V. (2014, April 1). In their own words: A text analytics investigations of college
course attrition. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38(9), 811–826.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/10668926.2012.720865
Morningstar, M. E., Kim, K-H., & Clark. G. M. (2008). Evaluating a transition personnel
preparation program: Identifying transition competencies of practitioners. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 31(1), 47–58.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 76

National Center for Education Statistics (2017). Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved
September 4, 2017, from website:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_303.70.asp
NSC Research Center (2017). Current Term Enrollment. Retrieved April 17, 2019, from website:
https://nscresearchcenter.org/currenttermenrollmentestimate-spring2017/
Ohio State University (2015). National Student Financial Wellness Study. Retrieved April 1,
2019, from https://cssl.osu.edu/posts/632320bc-704d-4eef-8bcb-
87c83019f2e9/documents/nsfws-key-findings-report.Pdf
Pajares, F., & Usher, E. (2006). Inviting Confidence in School: Invitations as a Critical Source of
the Academic Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Entering Middle School Students. Retrieved May 2,
2017 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ766998.pdf
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
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.
Radda, A. A., Majidadi, M. A., & Akanno, S. N. (2015). Employee engagement: The new model
of leadership. Indian Journal of Management Science, 5(2), 17–26.
Raisman, N. A. (2013, February). The Cost of College Attrition at Four-Year Colleges &
Universities. Policy Perspectives. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED562625
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Schein, E. H. (2004). The concept of organizational culture: Why bother? In E. H. Schein (Ed.),
Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed., pp. 3–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 77

Schneider, M. & Yin, L. (2011). The hidden costs of community colleges. American Institute for
Research. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED525253.pdf
Scrivener, S., Weiss, M., Ratledge, A., Rudd, T., Sommo, C., & Fresques, H. (2015). Doubling
Graduation Rates: Three-Year Effects of CUNY’s Accelerated Study in Associate
Programs (ASAP) for Developmental Education Students (Rep.). Retrieved September 4,
2017, from MDRC website:
http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/doubling_graduation_rates_fr.pdf
Singh, R. (2016). The impact of intrinsic and extrinsic motivators on employee engagement in
information organizations. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science,
57(2), 197–206. doi:10.12783/issn.2328-2967/57/2/11
Steinreich, A. (2016, February 16). PwC gives Bryant record $1.35 million gift to support
diversity initiatives. Retrieved July 20, 1017, from
http://www.bryant.edu/news/news-articles/2016/02/16/pwc-gives-bryant-record-1.35-
million-gift-to-support-diversity-initiatives/
Stony Brook University (2017a). University Receives $1 Million to Support Diversity, Inclusion
in STEM Education. (2017, June 21). Retrieved July 20, 2017, from
http://www.stonybrook.edu/happenings/alumni/university-receives-1-million-to-support-
diversity-inclusion-in-stem-education/
Stony Brook University (2017b) Fact Book. Retrieved July 19, 2017, from
https://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/irpe/fact_book/data_and_reports/_files/graduatio
n_retention/RetnRates2ndFall.pdf
Triventi, M. (2014). Does working during higher education affect students’ academic
progression? Economics of Education Review, 41, 1–13.
doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.03.006
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 78

Uhlenwinkel, A. (2014). Editorial factual knowledge and conceptual understanding. Geography,
99(Spring), 28–35.
University of Arizona. (2017a). African American Student Affairs: Welcome to AASA!
Retrieved March 23, 2017, from http://aasa.arizona.edu/
University of Arizona. (2017b). Diversity & Inclusion: Student Centers. Retrieved March 23,
2017, from https://diversity.arizona.edu/student-centers
University of Arizona. (2017c). Diversity by the Numbers. Retrieved March 23, 2017, from
https://diversity.arizona.edu/diversity-numbers-text-version
U.S. News & World Report (2019). Overview: Bryant University. Retrieved July 19, 2017, from
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/bryant-university-3402
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Chapter 1: Introduction. In Learning from strangers: The art and method of
qualitative interview studies (pp. 1–14). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication
implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 328–346.
doi:10.1108/13563281111186968

HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 79

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Interview Guide
Thank you very much for agreeing to participate in this study and for having signed the
consent form. As required by my Organizational Change and Leadership program with the
Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California, I am conducting research
in an effort to fulfill my doctoral requirements. The interview will last no longer than 60 minutes
and will consist of 12 questions and perhaps a few to follow-up. You may skip any question
with which you do not feel comfortable, and you may also discontinue the interview at any given
time.
Your responses may be summarized or modified in a way such that no particular
individual participant is identified. Your statements will be shared with the dissertation
committee, but as previously stated, your identities will be kept confidential. As required by my
doctoral program, I also plan to make specific recommendations that relate to assisting SSOs in
the retention of UNC students.
I will video record the interview via Zoom. Immediately following each interview, the
recording will be uploaded to an encrypted cloud and deleted from my PC. Upon request, I will
provide you with a copy of the interview session to ensure that your responses were accurately
represented. Upon the final defense of my dissertation, the recording will be completely erased.
I look forward to hearing your responses and perspectives.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 80

Interview Questions:
1. What is currently being done by the SSOs to increase retention rates to 90% by June
2022?
2. With respect to discussions surrounding the university’s goal, how would you describe
the communication between SSOs and other administrators from other departments?
3. In what ways do you feel supported, or not, by the university in implementing their
retention rate goal of 90% by June 2022?
*Probe: Were there any particular tools provided by the University’s administration
to assist in the realization of the organization’s goal?
4. How do you feel about the university’s receptiveness to the SSOs’ approach and
suggestions in implementing the university’s retention goal?
5. What are some overall recommendations that may assist the university in attaining higher
retention rates?
6. How often, in a given month/semester, do SSOs meet with other departments to solve and
discuss attrition rates at the university?
7. Above the director of Student Services, who is in charge of ensuring that SSOs are
realizing the organizational goal?
*Probe: Could you describe a typical meeting with the university’s higher-ups about
the retention goal at hand?
8. How do SSOs interpret the university’s mission to achieve a 90% retention rate by 2022?
9. What other kind of actions do you think that the SSOs should take in achieving the
university’s goal in lowering attrition rates?
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 81

10. How is progress tracked with respect to the plan of increasing retention rates at the
university?
*Probe: Who tracks them?
11. Are there any particular considerations that you believe the university may wish to take
into account regarding the realization of increased retention?
12. How optimistic are you in the university’s goal of achieving 90% retention rate by 2022?
Thank you again for your time. Your responses have proven invaluable to my research
study. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 82

Appendix B: Credibility and Trustworthiness
As it pertains to the research study at hand, credibility and trustworthiness was addressed.
According to Creswell (2014), qualitative research centers on the credibility and trustworthiness
of the acquired data and utilizes strategies to check the accuracy of the information obtained. In
qualitative terms, credibility speaks to research that relates to reality (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
That is, the research findings must coincide with that which is known to be true in relation to the
rest of the world. The degree to which the research study and its findings are applicable to other
circumstances (transferability) directly relates to the concept of trustworthiness (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, specific strategies were utilized to ensure credibility and
trustworthiness, and they included bias checking and peer debriefing.
In a qualitative study, the researcher serves as the data collection device, and it is
essential that s/he illustrate high levels of transparency regarding his/her background and biases
that may affect the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To address any potential prejudices and
misunderstandings, the researcher requested feedback from the study participants regarding the
findings drawn from the interviews. According to Maxwell (2013), the latter represents the most
effective way to diminish misunderstandings with respect to the interviewees’ comments and
gestures. If any prejudices or biases were found, the researcher fully disclosed this information
to increase credibility and trustworthiness on his part and to raise the integrity of the study itself.
No prejudices or biases were found on the researcher’s part regarding this study.
Member checking represents a key approach that was utilized to elevate the level of
accuracy and trustworthiness regarding the study as well. Said strategy revolved around (upon
request) sending each interviewee the notes and/or recordings acquired from the interview.
Then, a teleconference was scheduled to allow the interviewees the opportunity to share
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 83

comments and feedback regarding the findings (Creswell, 2014). The latter was found to be
unnecessary, however.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 84

Appendix C: Ethics
The researcher conducted a qualitative study and explained to the Student Services
Officers the purpose of the inquiry and methods to be used to collect the sought-after data
(Patton, 2015). Since the researcher has never served in any post for the university in question
and has never worked with/for any of the study respondents, there was no issue with respect to
power dynamic or bias. In that, the researcher was respectful, nonjudgmental, and
nonthreatening in the process, as rapport-building affects the types of data gained (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). In addition, meaning and understanding served as the centerpiece in answering
the research questions at hand (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Due to the amount of sensitive
information that was gathered, it was essential that ethics and integrity were taken into
consideration. In that, all study participants received an informed consent form before the
commencement of the study. Consent to participate in the study represented the most essential
piece before collecting data, as all participants were made aware of their voluntary participation,
complete confidentiality of shared information, and that a withdraw from the study at any time
would not result in a penalty or consequence (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The safety and security
of the study participants were safeguarded by submitting the study to the University of Southern
California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). Guidelines, with respect to the safety and rights
of study participants, were followed. All participants signed the consent form, and their
identities were kept confidential (Patton, 2015). In addition, study participants were given a
pseudonym to further protect their identity. All interviews were recorded. All recordings and
notes were kept in an encrypted cloud. Incentives were not announced, so as not to coerce or
bias the study participants in any way. However, at the end of the study, all participants received
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 85

a thank-you card. The latter served as a token of gratitude and appreciation on the researcher’s
part for the interviewees’ participation in the study.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 86

Appendix D: Limitations and Delimitations
This qualitative study centered on the utilization of interviews as the chief method for
collecting data. The study sought to bring to light the experiences and perceptions of the Student
Services Officers, as they attempted to build out a plan to create a diversity center at UNC and
assist in the university’s objective to increase student retention rates by 10% per year until said
rates rested at around 90%. Regarding limitations and weaknesses of the study in question, some
participants may not have been as forthcoming, given their status in the department and the
university on a whole. The latter presented itself as a significant limitation, as it appeared that
more lower level officers were franker in their responses, while those of higher status appeared
to respond in a more diplomatic way. The study was also limited by the performance influences
that were chosen as the focus of the study, and factors outside of the knowledge, motivation, and
organization framework may have served as factors as well. In addition, as the study’s interview
sample consisted of a small department of six people, varying perspectives from a larger
population size and other departments was not obtained. Data was limited to the information
shared during the interviews. However, the results will serve to better inform best practices at
the University of Northern California but may not necessarily be applied to other institutions.
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 87

Appendix E: Immediate Feedback Survey

Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. The training was relevant to the
work that I do. 1 2 3 4 5
2. The training was interesting to
me. 1 2 3 4 5
3. The training added value to the
work that I do. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I can immediately apply what I
have learned. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I am confident in applying what I
have learned. 1 2 3 4 5
6. The training allowed for practice
and feedback. 1 2 3 4 5
HIGHER EDUCATION RETENTION RATES 88

Appendix F: Blended Evaluation Tool
Survey Items (a 5-point Likert scale with the range of strongly disagree, disagree, N/A,
agree, strongly agree).
Level One: Reaction
Engagement
1. I was encouraged to participate by the instructor.
2. The course was interesting.
Relevance
3. The course assisted in implementing that which I learned to my job.
Satisfaction
4. I would recommend the training program.
Level Two: Learning
5. The training assisted in my understanding of the importance of a diversity center as it
pertains to retention rates.
6. I feel confident in applying what I learned in the training to my job.
Level Three: Behavior
7. I have the resources needed to finish the build-out of a diversity center.
8. I have the support to apply what I learned in the training.
Level Four: Results
9. I have experienced gains in the diversity center’s build-out plan following the workshop.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Elevated attrition rates present problems for students, taxpayers, and higher education institutions alike. With respect to four-year universities and two-year colleges combined, just 41% of students graduate on time—within 8 years for universities and 4 years for community colleges, respectively. Of those higher education students who leave school without graduating, 75% of such students depart within the first two years. In fact, the United States possesses the highest college dropout rate throughout the whole industrialized world. Data collected from 1,669 universities across the country found that from 2010–2011, dropouts cost these institutions $16.5 billion. The result equates to not more than 30% of young adults earning a bachelor’s degree by their mid-20s. If not rectified, post-secondary education attrition rates will continue to leave students (especially those traditionally underrepresented) with massive amounts of student loan debt with nothing to show for it, cost billions of taxpayer dollars, and financially cripple higher education institutions and the U.S. economy on a whole.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Low teacher retention rates in private schools

PDF

Increasing institutional retention: a gap analysis

PDF

Underrepresented and underserved: barriers to academic success for students of color in higher education

PDF

Rethinking Hispanic attrition rates at U.S. post-secondary institutions: an evaluation study conducted at Latino private college

PDF

First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

PDF

The issue of remediation as it relates to high attrition rates among Latino students in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Critical factors impacting the exodus from teaching ranks: an evaluative study of an independent Christian school

PDF

High attrition rate of preschool teachers in Hong Kong: an evaluation study

PDF

Staying power: new teacher retention and educator preparation

PDF

Lack of alumni giving in an international school in Asia

PDF

Alternative remediation: increasing retention among students assigned remediation at post-secondary institutions in the United States

PDF

Increasing financial aid resources available to support low-income first-generation college students: an evaluation study

PDF

Leadership engagement to promote employee retention and career paths within the senior assisted living industry

PDF

Disability, race, and educational attainment - (re)leveling the playing field through best disability counseling practices in higher education: an executive dissertation

PDF

Beginning teachers’ perceptions of induction program support

PDF

A wellness paradigm to attenuate attrition

PDF

Employee engagement and leadership collaboration: a gap analysis of performance improvement teams in healthcare

PDF

Improving workforce diversity and inclusion in higher education leadership

PDF

Central-American Latinx: the silenced diaspora

PDF

Examining donor engagement strategies: an exploratory study of the impact of performance gaps on donor retention and cultivation within higher education development offices

Asset Metadata

Creator Bullock, Clinton Alexander (author)

Core Title Increasing retention rates in higher education

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 06/18/2019

Defense Date 05/01/2019

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

Tag attrition,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Freking, Fred (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member), O'Reilly, Erin (committee member)

Creator Email cabulloc@usc.edu,clintonabullock@yahoo.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-176895

Unique identifier UC11660097

Identifier etd-BullockCli-7498.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-176895 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-BullockCli-7498.pdf

Dmrecord 176895

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Bullock, Clinton Alexander

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