ࡱ> 7 fbjbjUU 7|7|blppp84E^RLhqEsEsEsEsEsEsE$G IExxxEF%EF%F%F%xqEF%xqEF%F%\-AC @.&pxBCTE0ECJ>#JCF%STUDENT RETENTION - ANALYZE, CLASSIFY AND EVALUATE YOUR INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES. WORKSHOP FOR 2006 ACADEMIC CHAIRPERSONS CONFERENCE. Linzi J Kemp, Academic Area Coordinator Center for Distance Learning, Empire State College, State University of New York Description This workshop encourages participants to evaluate their institutional practices, administrative processes and systems, for contribution to, and detraction from student retention. The approach is that of student relationship management (SRM), through the utilization of an adapted marketing model. Keywords Student. Retention. Practices. Processes. Systems. Relationship. Management. Customer. Marketing. Voice. BCG. Abstract This workshop encourages participants to evaluate their institutional practices, administrative processes and systems for contribution to, and detraction from student retention. The approach is that of student relationship management (SRM), through the utilization of an adapted marketing model. The adapted model (BCG) is a tool to analyze and classify the contribution of institutional practices to student retention. Following analysis and classification, participants evaluate the information for future institutional action on student retention. Purpose Statement Rowley (2003) says so often institutions may instigate retention initiatives without understanding the problem. The purpose of this workshop is to understand the problem through an investigation of current institutional retention initiatives. Other outcomes of the workshop include shared information and recommendations on student retention initiatives. Research Question The research question is; What new information can an analysis and classification of institutional practices contribute to the topic of student retention? Introduction The presenter of this workshop is a faculty member with the Center for Distance Learning (CDL) and the Center for International Programs at Empire State College. Empire State College is one of the 64 institutions of the State University of New York (SUNY) with nearly 16,000 students studying through 35 teaching locations in seven regions throughout New York State. The presenters position is that of Academic Area Coordinator, managing an academic program in a role similar to that of an academic chairperson. Student retention is relevant to the audience of chairpersons at this workshop because of its cost implications for institutions of higher education. A cost value analysis compares the retention of students favorably to the cost of acquiring new students (Kotelnikov, 2004). The topic of student retention is of further relevance as a high student attrition rate may lead to unfavorable comparisons between universities. Attrition is defined by Catalano & Eddy, (1993; Wells, 2003, p. 230) as leaving college, regardless of reason, without completing degree requirements (p.53). Besides these implications of student attrition, administrators are concerned about the loss of opportunity for students who drop out. For the nation, low rates of undergraduates affects the countrys potential for economic competition and continuing prosperity (Raab & Adam, 2005, Seidman, 2005). Improvements in student retention are therefore of concern to all who work in higher education because: For the want of a degree, the employee was lost, For the want of this employee, the business was lost, For the want of that business, the country was lost And all for the want of a degree! The Problem of Student Retention Depressingly, the resources of institutional monies, administrative time and faculty writing has failed to substantially increase student retention nationally. This is despite the reporting of retention data for every college in the country (National Council for Education Statistics (NCES)), despite a center concentrated on the study of student retention (Center for the Study of College Student Retention) and despite an academic journal (Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice) with 88 pages of references focused on the issue. Recent figures reveal that nearly 575 of all drop-outs from four year institutions leave before the start of their second year (Tinto, 1996, p.1; Raab & Adam, p. 87). Statistics show that only 50% of those who enter higher education actually earn their bachelors degree (Department of Education, Center for Educational Statistics; Seidman). Saba (2000), in the area of distance learning, suggests that since the British Open University opened its doors in 1971 one of the problems has been retention. At the authors institution, student retention was set as a college priority in 2000 and continues to remain a college-wide goal (internal documents, 2000, 2005). For Empire State College, the published current retention figures are 39% for full-time students (FT) and 55% (Part-time (PT)), compared with a group (other SUNY schools) showing retention rates of 78% (FT) and 55% (PT) (NCES, 2005). There are problems faced in recording accurate student retention data, particularly notable in a college serving mainly part-time and adult students. Given these problems, an institutional objective at Empire State College is to develop and publish an adult student retention model (internal document, 2005). For internal planning and external publication, it is important to gain understandable figures about student retention, especially when the enrollment projections are set to increase; adult students (age 35+) + 5% (to 3.3 million) by 2014; PT students + 14% to 7.6 million (Hussar, 2005). However, for many colleges, various enrollment and persistence patterns highlights the complexity of gaining a true story of student retention (Seidman). But whilst questions are raised about the validity of the currently recorded and published data, the problem of student attrition is constant. The retention focus for an academic area coordinator/academic chair is at the program level. A goal for CDL is to increase the current headcount of 4,500 matriculated students by improved retention practices and recent course completion data shows that on average 75% of the students complete their courses. But a concern is that students do not continue to graduation, even though there are high numbers completing courses. Different institutions find student retention a problem at other stages e.g. Motorola University, one of the first corporate universities into online curriculum found low course completion, although it is not stated what was defined as low (Moskhinskie, 2001). There have been implications that more students will drop out of online classes than traditional face-to-face classes (Diaz, 2002). In contrast, the Wright State University College of Nursing and Health has an online retention rate ranging from 85 to 93% (OBrien & Renner, 2002). It is important to consider student retention at many points of their college experience because: For the want of an assignment, the course was lost, For the want of a course, the program was lost, For the want of a program, the degree was lost, etc.! A student encounters many institutional people and practices on the journey to a degree, student retention is therefore an institution-wide responsibility. There are many valid voices in an organization (Boje and Dennehy, April 2000), which can contribute various perspectives on internal practices. The drawing together of varied perspectives can contribute to a view of the educational institution as a whole system of student retention, rather than one of separated parts. One such forum at the CDL is the monthly meeting of faculty and professionals where, in October 2004, the presenter facilitated a version of this workshop. This current workshop for academic chairpersons offers an opportunity to extend the findings from the initial internal workshop. Literature Review The literature review concentrates on student retention issues from the perspective of where and how the institution intervenes in the life of a student. This review considers students as a majority, whereas literature focused on minority student retention issues can be sought further in the works of Swail, Redd & Perna, 2003, Gaither, 2005. As this author works primarily in online education, the literature search also consulted works on that educational model (Diaz, Keller, 1987 in Chyung, OBrien & Renner). A further resource for student retention issues is an extensive review of literature and websites, provided in Adam & Gaithers (2005) annotated bibliography. Tintos and Astins works provide insight in the psychological and sociological field of student life. The Student Integration Model (Tinto, 1975 cited in Swail, Redd & Perna, Sandiford, 2003, and Tinto, 1993 cited in Raab & Adam) is arguably the most well known model of student retention. The Tinto model considers how integrated are the formal and informal college systems, because an effective integration of such systems increases the likelihood of a students institutional commitment and reduces the chance of them leaving. Tinto also posits that retention is linked to a students pre-entry attributes e.g. test scores, as well as to the students interaction with the social system e.g. peer group (Wells). In the non-traditional environment of adult learners and distance learning, questions arise about the validity of the Tinto Model (Wells, Nesler, 2004). The relevancy of pre-entry attributes can be affected, over time, either positively or negatively. For example, an adult student may have had the pre-entry attributes on leaving high school, but a lack of use, through the years, could leave them now unprepared for college. Or those adults who may have needed a remedial course in Math or English when younger, might have improved in that area through work experience. Interaction with academic systems and peer groups in a virtual environment, as opposed to a campus, could also change the significance of Tintos model in modern spatial and temporal educational settings. Astin (1977, 1985 cited in Seidman) attributes student retention to the colleges involvement with the student, through a retention formula of positive experiences and interventions. These experiences and interventions reinforce persistency, increasing the individual students commitment to complete a degree. Again, Astin concentrates mainly on the traditional model of education. Moving from a psychological/sociological perspective, but still considering the institutional systems and processes is the Organizational Elements Model (Kaufman, 1988; Chyung). The model posits an integration of the means (input) and ends (outputs) of the student experience. Those students who are happy with inputs and processes at the University will more likely accomplish and experience successful learning outcomes. The Kaufman model is of interest from the perspective of inputs and processes. However, there is a lack of attention to connecting institutional processes with the student, as the processes are considered in isolation from them. Consideration of retention practices, through the perspective of organizational involvement with the student, caused this author to regard the topic within a marketing framework. The framework is that of Customer Relationship Management (CRM), a CRM business strategy places the customer at the center of the organizations universe (Grant & Anderson). Student Relationship Management (SRM) has developed from CRM and is about forming a relationship with the student through offering quality and service (Lemon, 2004). Raab & Adam refer to the Kellogg Commission report (1997), Returning to our Roots: The Student Experience, that characterizes universities as communities that need to be student centered and [put] students first (p. 98). A student-centered pedagogical approach fits with SRM by placing the student at the center of learning and the teacher as a guide on the side. There is some objection to likening students to customers, in a belief that education has swung too far towards being focused on the student as customer/client. Demands are made from those who reject the customer stance towards more rigor and less flexibility in institutional relationships with the student (Keller, 1992 cited in Fredenberger, Marshall and Ware, 1996). Equally, through SRM, educational and marketing perspectives are brought together through the student voice and self-identification as customer (Langan, 1997). Within a marketing framework, customer relationship management, as applied to higher education is conceived as both a business strategy and a tool for improving student retention (Grant & Anderson, 2002). The University of Illinois specifically looks to SRM to provide a strategy to promote student retention by adding value through a personalized approach (Shaik, 2005). The University of Michigan (2005) has a project underway to develop an SRM system, the aim being to provide an overview of when and how a student interacts with the university. Initially the SRM system developed at Michigan will be for admissions and recruitment purposes, but it is anticipated that, when tested, others, who interact with the student population, will make use of the system. Milliron (1999, 2001) terms CRM, as applied to the community college environment, as Learner Relationship Management (LRM). John Moores University U.K. has an LRM project to interpret CRM systems for higher education, to deliver a truly learner-centred business model (Taylor, 2001). In this age of SRM it is noteworthy that the prospective student is encouraged to access a schools data (including retention statistics) through portals such as the students.gov site. There the student, like any customer, is free to make comparisons between available products (schools) and thereby make more informed decisions on choice of school. It is therefore appropriate to incorporate SRM as a strategy, it places the student at the center in any retention model and maintains the institutional focus on helping students (Swail et al). The theoretical framework The framework used derives from the business strategy of Customer Relationship Management/Student Relationship Management. Consequently, institutional practices are evaluated through the lens of an adapted marketing approach known as the BCG matrix (Boston Consulting Group; Kotler, 2006). The BCG matrix classifies products according to their contribution to the success of an organization. A basic summary is: STARs - products that require investment (time/money) for success. QUESTION MARKs - products where there is a question as to whether they are successful . CASH COWs - Established and successful products. DOGs - Products that are unsuccessful. The BCG formula has been adapted (Kemp, 2004) for the purposes of analyzing institutional practices thus, STARs - Practices that need investment (time/money) to retain students. QUESTION MARKs -Practices with an uncertain contribution to student retention. CASH COWs - Established and successful practices that retain students. DOGs - Practices that do not retain students. Collection of data Brainstorm all participants (15 minutes) Following the life cycle of students, participants initially brainstorm how their institutions support registration through to graduation (Fredenberger Marshall & Ware). At this stage, the data is recorded onto a flipchart to be used as stimulation for the analysis that will be conducted in workshop groups. Analysis of Data Groupwork (30 minutes) Workshop participants are randomly divided into four groups (profiled as 1. Star, 2. Question mark, 3. Cash cow, 4. Dog). Numbering participants as 1-4 in sequence facilitates random group membership. A maximum of six members per group will support members ability to contribute to the group discussion. Initially using the brainstormed data, the objective for each group is to reach a decision as to which institutional practices fit into their profile. Further practices may also be considered at this stage. Decision-making is dependant on group members sharing their knowledge of institutional practices. A volunteer records, onto a flipchart, the practice and a brief rationale for classifying it as within the groups profile. Evaluation of Data Feedback (20 minutes 5 minutes per group, 15 minutes evaluative discussion) A nominated speaker from each group feeds back information from the analysis stage to all participants; a table (Appendix I) is supplied for individuals to record these findings. Workshop participants then evaluate that information through a further discussion on the practice/classification rationale. Participants have recorded the workshop information (Appendix I) and can use it further to facilitate a discussion on student retention at their home institution. The workshop findings are then a way to open up further internal inquiry into student retention within institutions of Higher Education. Conclusion In conclusion, the workshop will have collected data through a brainstorm session on institutional practices, analyzed those practices into classifications and evaluated the rationale for such classifications. Supported by the findings from the workshop, further internal discussions on student retention can then take place at individual institutions. A step forward will have been taken to utilize a relationship management approach to student retention. Enabling institutions of higher education to further support students in achieving their goal of a degree (Rowley). Appendix  SEQ Appendix \* ARABIC 1 Table for recording classifications $*? References Adam, A. J & Gaither, G.H. (Spring, 2005). Retention in Higher Education: A Selective Resource Guide in G. H. Gaither (ed). (2005). Minority Retention: What Works? New Directions for Institutional Research. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Boje, D. M. & Dennehy, R. (April 2000). Managing in the Postmodern World. (3rd ed.). [ HYPERLINK http://cbae.nmsu.edu/-dboje http://cbae.nmsu.edu/-dboje]. Center for the Study of College Student Retention. [http://www.cscsr.org/]. Chyung, S.Y. (2001). Systematic and Systemic approaches to Reducing attrition Rates in Online Higher Education. The American Journal of Distance Education, Vol.15 No. 3. Diaz, D.P. (May/June 2002). Online Drop Rates Revisited. The Technology Source Archives at the University of North Carolina. Retrieved October 2005. [http;//ts.mivu.org]. Fredenberger, W.B., Marshall, L. and Ware F.A. Jr. (March 1996). Continuous improvement: a case study in student relations. Benchmarking: An International Journal. 3 (3): 21-31. Gaither, G.H. (ed). (2005). Minority Retention: What Works? New Directions for Institutional Research. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Grant, G.B. & Anderson, G. (2002). Customer Relationship Management: A Vision for Higher Education in R. N. Katz and Associates, Web Portals and Higher Education Technologies to Make IT Personal. EDUCAUSE and NACUBO. Jossey-Bass. Hussar. W.J. (2005). Projections of Education Statistics to 2014 (NCES 2005-074). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. Seidman, A (ed.). [http://www.cscsr.org/retention_journal.htm]. Kotelnikov, V. (2004). Customer Retention, Driving Profits Through Giving Customers Lots of Reasons to Stay. Business E-Coach. Retrieved September 2004. [http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/crosscuttings/customer_retention.html]. Kotler, P. Armstrong, G. (2006). Principles of Marketing (11th ed.). New Jersey. Prentice Hall. Langan , T. (April, 1997). Online education : a students perspective. Campus- Wide Information Systems.14 (4):128-132. Lemon, C. (Sept 27, 2004). Challenges in Marketing and Student Relationship Management in Higher Education. A BrandSequence Whitepaper. Retrieved November 2004. [www.brandsequence.com/pdf/mktng_srm_high_ed.pdf]. Milliron, M.D. (1999). From Leads to Lifelong Learners. Community College Week; 05/31/99, Vol. 11 Issue 22, p4, 2p. Retrieved December, 2005. [http://search.epnet.com.library.esc.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=tfh&an=1914670]. Milliron, M.D. (January, 2001). Touching students in the digital age: The move toward learner relationship management (LRM). Learning Abstracts World Wide Web Edition. Volume 4, Number 1. Retrieved December 21, 2005. [http://www.league.org/publication/abstracts/learning/lelabs0101.htm]. Moshinskie, J. and the elite think Tank (Summer 2001). How to Keep E-Learners from E-scaping. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development. Nesler, M. (July 8, 2005). Student Retention at Empire State College. 2005 Governance Retreat. Center for Institutional Research, Empire State College. National Center for Educational Statistics. Integrated Postsecondary education data system (IPEDs) glossary. Retrieved December, 2005. [ HYPERLINK "http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/index.asp?charindex=R" http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/index.asp?charindex=R]. NCES Integrated Postsecondary education data system (IPEDs). Retrieved December, 2005. [http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/]. OBrien, B.S & Renner, A.L. (2002). Online Student Retention: Can It Be Done? ED_MEDIA 2002 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications. Proceedings (14th, Denver, Colorado, June 24-29, 2002). Raab, L & Adam, A.J. (Spring 2005). The University College Model: A Learning Centered Approach to Retention and Remediation. In G.H. Gaither (ed.), Minority Retention: What Works? New Directions for Institutional Research. 125: 87-107. Rowley J. (2003). Retention: rhetoric or realistic agendas for the future of higher Education. The International Journal of Educational Management 17 (6): 248-253. Saba, F. (July 15, 2000). Student Attrition: How to Keep Your Online Learner Focused. Distance Education Report. Vol. 4. No. 14. Sandiford, J.R.; Jackson, D.K. (2003). Predictors of First Semester Attrition and Their Relation to Retention of Generic Associate Degree Nursing Students. Paper presented at the annual Meeting of the Council for the Study of Community Colleges (Dallas, TX, April 5, 2003). Seidman, A. (1989). Recruitment begins with retention: Retention begins with recruitment. Colleague. State University of New York, 40-45. Seidman, A. (2005). College Student Retention Formula for Student Success. Westport: American Council on Education and Praeger. Shaik, N. (2005) Service Center: A SRM Strategy to Promote Student Retention. Retrieved December 30, 2005. [http://www.ce.ucf.edu/asp/aln/2005sessions/presentations/1129578821986.ppt] Swail, W. S. with Redd, K.E., & Perna, L.W. (2003). Retaining Minority Students in Higher Education, A Framework for Success. Ashe-Eric Higher Education Report. 30 (2). Taylor, J. (2001). Learner Relationship Management: The Road to Customer Service, Presented at EDUCAUSE Annual Conferences (2001). Retrieved December, 2005. [http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=666&ID=EDU0196&bhcp=1]. University of Michigan (2005). Student Relationship Management (SRM). Retrieved December, 2005. [http://www.businessintelligence.umich.edu/projects/srm.html]. Wells, M.I. (July-August, 2003). An Epidemiologic Approach to Addressing Student Attrition in Nursing Programs. Journal of Professional Nursing. Vol 19, No. 3. pps. 230-236. Bibliography Adelman, C. 1999. Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor's Degree Attainment . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.  HYPERLINK "http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/toolbox.html" http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/toolbox.html American College Testing Program (ACT), 2006. Retrieved December, 2005. [http://www.act.org/news/releases/2002/11-15-02.html]. Bauman, Z. (1992). Intimations of Postmodernity. Routledge, London. Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organisations. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Gergen, K. J. (2000). Organizational Science in a Postmodern Context. Draft copy for Journal of Behavioural Sciences. [ HYPERLINK http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/kgergen1/text10.html http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/kgergen1/text10.html]. Kemp, L. J. (2003). Organisational Team: modern and postmodern perspectives of primary health care. London : The British Library. http://www.bl.uk/ Matthew, B., Miles, A. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. (2nd ed.). London: Sage. Students. Gov. Information portal on education. [http://www.students.gov]. U.S. Department of Education. (1998). National Center for Education Statistics. Unit Record Versus Aggregate Data: Perspectives on Postsecondary Education Data Collection, Retention, and Release, NCES 98-280, prepared by David Stevens and Michael McGuire for the Council of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Working Group on Unit Record Data Versus Aggregate Data. Washington, DC. PAGE  :CDa b s t u   M " s{ms:` !##l$m$%%"&j&-50<00111)22566(8H88i9B*OJPJQJph6OJPJQJ OJPJQJ5 6OJQJ 6B*phB*OJQJph 5OJQJOJQJKT9:CD` a t u   $a$ 1$7$8$H$$a$$a$$a$ff   " # 6m12_`  $a$`$a$ ####%%++//H5I5k9l9;;;;K=L==== >J>K>$a$ ^`1$7$8$H$$a$i9l9;;K=>????APAQAlCLD_D`D`EaEEFF GGUIVIbIcI{I|I}I~IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIȾطجطj5OJQJU CJOJQJOJQJmHnHujOJQJU OJPJQJ 5OJQJ5B*OJQJphB*OJQJphOJQJCJOJPJQJDK>>>>N???????@>A?APAQAhAKDLD_D`DD GGG 1$7$8$H$$a$ & F $a$$ & Fa$$a$GUIVIWIXIIIIIIIs f & Fd$Ifm$$Ifl0}f!064 la $$Ifa$ 1$7$8$H$1$7$8$H$ IIIIIIIIIIIIII x x x x & Fd$Ifm$$Ifl0}f!064 la & Fd$If IIII x & Fd$If & Fd$Ifm$$Ifl0}f!064 laIIIIIIIIIIIII x x x x & Fd$If & Fd$Ifm$$Ifl0}f!064 la IIII $$Ifa$m$$Ifl0}f!064 laIIII x & Fd$If & Fd$Ifm$$IflZ0}f!064 laIIII x & Fd$If & Fd$Ifm$$Ifl0}f!064 laIIIIIIIIIIIII x x x x & Fd$If & Fd$Ifm$$Ifl0}f!064 la IIII x & Fd$If & Fd$Ifm$$Ifl0}f!064 laIIIIIII x x & Fd$If & Fd$Ifm$$Ifl0}f!064 laIIIIIIIIIIIjJJJJK.K2K4K>K?KfKgKhKKKKKKKKCLLLMMMMLNN)ObOOPPTPPQ2QQQQQQŲ B*ph>*B*OJQJph6B*OJQJphB*OJQJph6PJPJ 0JOJQJjWOJQJUjOJQJU H*OJQJ 6OJQJ6OJPJQJB*OJPJQJph OJPJQJ CJOJQJOJQJ5IIIIIIIIQJJJ xrmeeYY 1$7$8$H$`1$7$8$H$$a$ ! & Fd$If & Fd$Ifm$$Ifl0}f!064 la J|p.?߆SPl53O 堮A()fA }-.mMzk/f욅Md4R(JG)u"OTW Q*JW4j܍j4`>HC( 4n@h${ȱ3l\\cs5QYFex(T(̝ ܄2q-J).P6>/}VS .SPBHZ8$iR7yp1hG&Ml λJ{@{]X|r wC(/HO`p3o.'E^_ !ߨo-i<*<ߪ;*8+Wǹ8]8F25@GQ+B-=7#ҙoQoso̤A܋r5Wn_Gp7W,pK[]4D4FSzFӌjtt5N\"zc6=qE陫@z>}TRM% Bl@S* VÎzPT v|!Nւͪ tݕk A Gս>.#xNN\\4E-b))q/HHΡ3ijRb4cHQFgvKYs|RS JI!w| ՁnjAG5 Q5P[T/H< Gܥ]RrDI2Fy-=%Tv IA*NK!A~JʂJ*C8 tnz/HD3>3# 8KQ( pBk m}Ίc,\~PR+UEa^ȑMEqRaJձ(KpX^1aWZ^./>uoi3j].!*|AboIY8"$D4H@ C!-hwptX:}6V["LGtD78o㠃n,vP;LE1qk[I+B8n'vTWQܟ>r/Q:> OX|%.%HQ (!   s߄;M?Cn3#>D̝s$Cx߃!~^Ӈk;cX@hT #vS l? ۶U34g=、iib@eYEgΨ[DQ;3R:AM ߐQSWk=i]٧hhƞw穨Qvd<BKarTKP,E_Fh%nSTگFJ 5T&˂%'/|V覲p _Dg1]wavk ڠhVڊ snJ>*ǩ^O_SR 4׸OsM15GL_H)% ].)鎬{2z*tW#@L b-F4+ExWQo]^Ou]A]JWY:@bS c迹0Hc с&HD \C s@kw]oK[d&Sxdw I90:&J^瓒K*;jS Ktrj3ڃhsUi~ z]cՂqCsg@a#: wHW=vuY_ukzEqW]Vॶk]Zx^25L*T)'Dޠax_ih5gq!:^v`xBshz)oN BԞ3G zn45v"Q{Az2mIn,t{e;$19MwQkݕDK1o`S="#:E.)A#uy+?ԕZwUZjZU/]Q-a>VsoJ=wXk׉! 2 D oC%rMe"+]gY:pZ: $dt591UtTgjW76Jۑ vy}ڋZa?/4;x8o BF/ӓø=+n&9E(+$<ϗ +r=.5 *PmsYR`g8]x1jG1\[ & I7g.ø<{H(GOO78l:}8wy2ıB'ຼՐrwBZܾ π<P[cn6s8_qB U6to*>Hr>)ݖ&i) QSyo.sK+WK)\ yR;]ڒK>TyZ(itԎ9(gUhǷ|dR xeW?iW25Z4jEZ\ql#\Оs,QXZSiIΊO3hl.QF WW /Q{=D}F|czzmM>i%:};jߏyi,WHTRYGE =46bzxI6d׵ty"r^KE$-,?g %?ޥPE%Uw]EcpLܵx#*ZwU*!rF/QxB-+e= $c`}KQ9 MTڮRIQr,S=cĬ&Q'>YoKȾq֒Z`]h 6_BfjXKп>69y3|'D 奯o*=|g|H)Mvrɐ42K eP ҊE[s4mɴ-XﭴӦLahq6I,1g7Q1ubHirZ4~4~eհ)< UTScCujem-ik-! KCm&hGX/eyqV[`QAO4VpxkG= xAM-#ZQnlP>)5|&֊3)%:c+xe _|c;?L\e>}KX&_>?ڟ6Da3M6=460`C:PFjtmK[[}m5 .|U+i__^R:ѱet|j[hM[k>Z~~GjQ?B+އ:~Ghh?qO~iI@ˀ?%pGRF*46>uYa F>5^m67AuZKVɷ⾽};1V׏~ Xnﳸ%W-f1-{a/ oIC[v+VȟRU bk'ZO-gzܗM>)줏f[vGьf_҆1ڥ E9ƖෛECd`ml޶ᭈmxOfZ"[klE^W؟ѵO7ۯim҂5D~Fs*}e;O;O>cx?qoָ~hT?`@B` е٠3w0ܡ@?>ZԼ@SV+k`}$#bc"ZsKb]@m|Rh.I&y&:ؗVrZxo o|U+kGZ6'Ф~E#-#-9Id崠u%s!.OL tl#GHD)X"@@D4G f ́5C I8Rjxxo} {c].kyg_}n8X bh3{2NjMFLf5qr> ͮ"&>ӎvA!>Xkj- %L ~EvH +eD%Mv'oSVV"“;/ys3Í+I+ Ob{< o4h^L[G1zW_";0K%҃0 #8B2+|n!KyK9|>P[˟p΢:x^x-N:h;>g$KtIhe7KO_pdJM;*.%e}j9tR,h7Z6r6ُr"7kAsG&l|[-'xⳲ/&%,:XĞaqUP%PIP1GGI|=+s̃&<^ru 16,Ad'M7"c)ewW"/$/$J>; 2' Q{^^$!k̐H*n).7i>ZR֣5An)G:IBkn[Iw塲~Фi~+*::kJ *nz =~AmLIs73CcmQ=vEh4!_&:__3y-$ 1i} qPpM,i[# B]Oh#*ZLiEY6 =F@4qAa%G3u}MDMZkT?p&G 3d*vKǡlg[Ҹ[h}]%onHJzB΀U2^&IH ᒮZ#6v6M|-/!mJ--UR[im):®}䢎K:knSvC$T Zjkki[L맇P??ugl}wtvN~maMИY/#,мZck}*˲V6dL3I~i?\ҝ}"@vii|դ֗e$ǵrJGCx^,G`=t=+݈jo $ީd;Ug@+͢>8VBZ%BW7di+=jޱ: xt }l~k רS/jUh"&)-"NA|~;#@ ^dZR]Hom* l ("a:L9KdlQ7R |hb74MXP5VL~iuZko z }ʖ@gn ];ACmxyh"vZLzZ8&pY)=e Ĺɽ>;Yi*D&U7h%վ$h`lӥXe6p1G܅^bi4h!D҈U4VOٷZzTm^2jmBo[lVEպB{g$4Q;jTDKy6-(ߧc&Rri.(qir[FqyC <s2L}}!gTo9q^oۓS!Au1d1Mxߏ?H.oW#v 6GqY78o*h,񨄦s99 x߁}?H_eeKu}p .{R03 }"[o9qT;2C!MZK%mJy3S{ )ܖp'^50Dr&H@Pp﬍..6:՟qGSO8ꊡ@q tX OG4=8ȝ:L6{,Wr՜e4&SiyK[b:Йy{8g)KƟӷCVȿ |wP. \Eg\VK@e&t^vKO諑,Ex.yl%?+1I~|WH[`r#v)ChFF+ Iz"P+Mx%djARMK)^J,ʡ(C]Z&Ha-yAeTJ<)&_ N(@;r*GCV2N/;oB4{H19O<"t[ _u1%gWsNZJ AJE#dTVK-T| d 5p'17X~) a"Q.}2Uym91(]*v;]a^޷#½A ŐA/bh9d[iIe""cg,5L%4gK[z\i`u-~cqQ&Eu5CU,ԑNm*{ѳ ԨOѝRՂg4'TASx1h-M-4JL;y9]t Mx mG<EE؟3tV<&:Dk2Tigg%UD(22ˊptT:*f頓$:zQ79:Q5vEn+E[>*~G6B1m-g[:JZ7Z,kl*vYOםԷھ]qH{em'nhGv^K+ݮY2n9톕sj"g7-/3ZL{ &m oZz?bez;'~ IEL$u[a4\2'5ָRLH\y2r)R B e+wϭnsxs]{^qWܒ2.qe$\VYr~Ke<.6v1gWB&Rڕ>r]gF[UͲQL+CqXJ %< z$x"ע4R4JO(' գg;*!NP1A%=DT Q Og##W(ǏǏ9z tgDH Oc(4,C:N1va<ߢš8tK9"8+8-";ιu3!CC.@c`. "tUi1(xD:mV>J lsSq"nVL\spH8/4# Ƀ: :>JG*kԌ3PWBݠCwH'i  LW3<E[WZ}.fkTRVsg|r#Tqe.[ڀ~p+9b]*--nYvt;]b 5uqRwV{ߎǸr.=e @<2SJC(-m-Cϔ JMJɰzD;)*SLJq'k8*e"#"Fj){mnLw,7PџSCDx UސH݁#[6Wp'ib0zfE7694>~:w=&*R6Y=%!Rb27_J`meس.V4M] !nO=JM`Oyʆ۝PKpϊPFOZ*V k8%M-S5CNIe1/H!n[׿!W}j|.{K)Q|L1(< o|*`EMrF¾8xN&4)!wZH a&H BܔR>B|JoE4!P=AxRiP1PExxhh0f|ę+wR%!yL%2QXa'܀gׄ!s%JE( 2 l(6_pgRyx{<տy֭9s"dyT\A8 1|SQ-9*`2lX] 7,S+A,<5얔 S"X2vD݌JBoqNA+x^~nnW; mn/GEq8*b^힋PlxrZOOpp _݋L cX.q8mC/G6X0ݦi.w whMD5>9g>[VӚWQ\Ώqt8 dphۍjfqW'Gσ;)?1(("!;1EO%=Gtomd?;ڇ8=6!~C[;YotN0yx÷]87ۋ9Ho1Ӑq78Sg_89<߀b`. yb/=r>Ž 6x:[G:Jǝ;q?wc>(OBEΐp0&q!&G! qgKĺ~rktq(v䙅{'/jaÀI̠#c+WP[:{"#,)VteԵ+ԋQ_B gi žAh&h\TXFibv9֭X^3 @G`9:(mq4ؗH!+-rZ8 n`?bxx%vmFyAS5SSgG+eƤl<i-iiD) V; Ό9 bCk,έx=W\T_r;ex>Ce ϐ9<_zsX2sqUTr}Gt!`}@4,vkmڬMiڋHө.y!=^s; ?}7Qqzݍy>:zMף.LnwB[ѽUSRUBGS#Kݵ=Mcߜ: RqdsFt+ѷDG}\|`O yM4c ѩ6 sWmKY"bv .֢xFlv]e';(DMr\uw{!yFQ/B{Q%|-ՌOn7DAZbu2W WIkbZrTqVRY䳫)w\}9![cҿӏCMƙE c gvd{$SY{ínntp +MƊnw1,YVIQN~qW%{*1sHYS$t[RJ#*'mLe 4]Bi 2 2' VԲ5,CV:]x/M\!/3|dko>@V{*,Q8Ds)<Ȓux,rlƫ% |-̻MioϿH(nHn#CYCpEi̥ nַUY$"Ge _2 qؔre!gR6Ke098_F^'5e/*ױ=q]w;o8}N{cGC̓1bA:XpI.JN!(SQJ)X2b]wI.q%FJPRg#9'GNJ^5ޮ&,JZqzQꂱ RGus)/8HKAղtfUr:͕:w70G?F#Tl~?o z.wWpnp/l!9DqKStuI϶>w)O|Yƚï~CɞO~ľQO;Cüi-iHR>\~3ʳD?JJ=&e/+}mפ͖TX:)$c^is^=>]*_ (wQq'=Gs[]ɭ7ֿrpYI{q7h}X",'\RN+w =jeaF4Z2[{e3Xq;k6Y(bo &q}%l gEx:cchl>QWZAA7G)7n6=b8O=;?bW&\GS_{?'bv/5#lI|?Z\?/f9|!3[i5َPcS͵6 ˁ6Xd[6Byׅ6Sro;]^Z5Қ -Gkq?IKZޏ~6􃵕諾|'|=`_]r:U@MNy~? : ک' ='9O/27gI/԰Xj/~e,a9}[XͭoiJ~# 4㭙nʷ6uU/e=6<&F6װ0̭ylOg}b; nvǶ}${m_7>=I1{]e휯iuh|?CW?:U#Cן7{̙݅Ӻw!h/K/ ?aOS+ɫƐi!(bm-Bfl5V3)m%{bbZooz6MAetaID>|SG:'0Sz=Vs=c/cx?huWF_)uϪK}!]?/A, 6#N9н=ۍX'5#b(^O7j_,g䣚 7çؾ%fGK?;i(nXe/Ĵ2>0"{ Xu8*dm}F'!>MCy>Xb.Ml:<5 1y۰0^]=.{3㈯p<>6#NVjF.ݵlD"܆e9̇-y0~3gGdl܈tVZ4.KkU'U$w4ָV>\y 和2TI)!AnQ9]p3ȕe0)S9T2K/N&9::'Q ;IE%}O_~WkOB-W]~@e}ݸxVgǃ.<',Jcy6 4R ? x@3-2tRB$'>I2#8dಒZ K}Xzw x!p@ HãyZ / 7@^(»%h_ g=]zrJ@^(,#dj, |'y42(Z -E2j@ZmHItZ (z% ^mY?[,q vpk+"Fo1Uq),{g 2ď@&[Ͼ-&-akL}i-LCCǗrHFJ9zzY/=eR_HI9,@1粋 "x,WDo_=}Jk~ DGcN/uU8D#bϏ+ 휋r ſ 1Awa$>w")tgP8ϥͼrZZ^~Vyķi7?}GH|D I\UbB+ydP)“ϒH h7>L ZVx:G x)gZ^lysv?%dOc%o!D;~?{|1|?%/8/yy2h bzZ > $02Z&Kc{D_È;Ҿ}$~ЌSi Ai@A`x\O"{JDOb!i`9riWߔ_2&cnr-wyhR2h0\ʀ 2yO09 ׅ~^ sW/y&"u᱒2၈nx] }=^?%ݗBR'#I>GRB*޻I?C2)#?> :l;HoAZ*eTGRJWI~U &)ץޔ>La\d^zI 9~Q h~k8mh3)tkvV{Cn\]:%/JnBny[[ Tڛ:LiKmjti奄IY3FA-;uT)hV (5tnUL@+ d盛g=#} #_b2!t!VuRjlC/?%iA9QU)W4GUmѓzOF2k&>وqc~ºiX?B$ !+<r8w x?G?uk͚E62߄@\ᨲ';Qσeiפd50KㄌIF+}.i7 ǁ ?TR%Ǻ$nG1]ȑ#Gw!DIFaTÒcME> Adre_0>žW} oOI7|'d`@ U8w3x?=iqP/9@a㒈J6dl_?cͯ{6b n9[a7gL3d.p~ZN?ˆq(h>t86; ΋1Gz̮_yMF;ÂѲS3_s7_o9IKL􍁓ȷ>&e썔ӠRH'dΒZKjk ɭ$"Բ=|x..ij%u6FB`k$w} 3o%o$Io!l< <%(9$Ɂ0`k?;~_>bC/I}'~uOW؇w{ z>&_I@:m$}^9KN_O~:hbUf2_ 4 |! ez129[J߁s-~!?iΟ886h1|WY^r=(WquƟ~)3N/KpvX ēف8; ˦A/o%3 |?OκW2 ;:ํEz^sߟg4FCKraG2߿ 8H`22$1fr@!"6SF{AZo-ipN)ySAv'4`Ψ}[jI?W{&O+ACMz=GaJ>'(T* ..*EJA5ؼi [2/MEl1Le:\{1䲏+|j9 ~_ $H< ~E4ǿElƑ ~!堌)^VX qx @q-Ԕ,jiRLr2^+HFi&&Hy+4x~qnT;$цN1<9:`4R5Uu6OcOI =^%&QE}^ ߯et}+{>DG}ˢ}Ka,=j~ 'AIm>em x/h|dl'mV[noo`AM|yk>쭍=Ȇ6j-?-]vrA2vy݀LWmkv>l/i}„U,U%dPh:f@VXZ|v _O.gQ_*JAR3Y_6.@Ŷպ1 Y/rW}-gm^dŪX&9agUlk!6k:gA>M׶>k켵+7TzZL )flOh0Mn4BhաQ=wP3Ai Ԏ"‹bFTzh}~~DԅQWM}.LԎSGNH=Y<թd#@1nBp.bMo)aqx7ι/DyK http://cbae.nmsu.edu/-dbojeyK 8http://cbae.nmsu.edu/-dbojeUDyK 8http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/index.asp?charindex=RyK phttp://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/index.asp?charindex=R%DyK ,http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/toolbox.htmlyK Xhttp://www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/toolbox.htmlMDyK 6http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/kgergen1/text10.htmlyK lhttp://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/kgergen1/text10.html i@@@ Normal CJOJPJQJ_HmH sH tH 8@8 Heading 1$@& 5OJQJF@F Heading 2$$@&a$5B*OJQJph>@> Heading 3$$@&a$ 5OJQJPP Heading 4$1$7$8$@&H$5B*OJPJQJph<A@< Default Paragraph FontBB@B Body Text$7$8$H$a$ OJPJQJ@Q@@ Body Text 3$a$5OJPJQJ,@, Header  !, @", Footer  !&)@1& Page Number>P@B> Body Text 26B*OJQJph(U@Q( Hyperlink>*B*TTbT Block Text"1$7$8$H$]^ OJPJQJ."@. Caption xx5lC@l Body Text Indent$#d1$7$8$H$^#`B*OJPJQJphdR@d Body Text Indent 2"01$7$8$H$^`0 OJPJQJbT9:CD`atu" #   6 m 12_`!!''++H1I1k5l57777K9L9999 :J:K::::N;;;;;;;<>=?=P=Q=h=K@L@_@`@@ CCCUEVEWEXEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEQFFFGIIIIIIIIIIJQX`ff689;<=>?@ABCDEGHIKMOf7bE{E}E>GgGGR7SoSf]]]f___b XXXX! appendix1 _Hlt533582582 _Hlt518988806YE]I_b@E]d_bT  ) HWgKUT[GQ!!8&A&007 7T9_999======E#FRFwFFFF G0G:GGG,HDHHHHHIIKIOI|IIIIJ*KUKaKbKKLLLMMMMMNNTNXN^NxNyNNOOKOkOlOOOOOOoPvPPPC JK0122fk3U5 6 <$<$$$'.(...H1H133 7 76969L9L9R9T9W9W999999999%:*:J:K:bE~Ebb Linzi KempBMacintosh HD:Users:linzikemp:Desktop:Kemp, L - Retention paper.docLKEMPrC:\Documents and Settings\LKEMP\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of Kemp, L - Retention paper.asdLKEMPVC:\Documents and Settings\LKEMP\Desktop\studentretention\Kemp, L - Retention paper.docLKEMPVC:\Documents and Settings\LKEMP\Desktop\studentretention\Kemp, L - Retention paper.docLKEMPVC:\Documents and Settings\LKEMP\Desktop\studentretention\Kemp, L - Retention paper.docLKEMPVC:\Documents and Settings\LKEMP\Desktop\studentretention\Kemp, L - Retention paper.docLKEMPVC:\Documents and Settings\LKEMP\Desktop\studentretention\Kemp, L - Retention paper.docLKEMPlC:\Documents and Settings\LKEMP\Desktop\studentretention\Kemp, L - Student Retention paper Feb 9 06 2006.docLKEMPlC:\Documents and Settings\LKEMP\Desktop\studentretention\Kemp, L - Student Retention paper Feb 9 06 1030.docLKEMPC:\Documents and Settings\LKEMP\Desktop\studentretention\retention_presentation\Kemp, L - Student Retention paper Feb 9 06 1030.doc pbWKNKJZk^6C`K tn^8p2M;pNvh0r@Pn-r7urհs-nS*^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.h^`.h^`.hpLp^p`L.h@ @ ^@ `.h^`.hL^`L.h^`.h^`.hPLP^P`L.h^`.h^`.hpLp^p`L.h@ @ ^@ `.h^`.hL^`L.h^`.h^`.hPLP^P`L.h^`.h^`.hpLp^p`L.h@ @ ^@ `.h^`.hL^`L.h^`.h^`.hPLP^P`L.h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h^`.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.h^`.h^`.hpLp^p`L.h@ @ ^@ `.h^`.hL^`L.h^`.h^`.hPLP^P`L. PnNvhW2M;JZks`K 7urxx`o@CJ$OJQJo(l ;BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE^_`bb@EEtEEbP@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial- __3z Times?1 Courier New;Wingdings qhFFFHjQ) 7v!20dcpA2q]Purpose statement, Specific Focus, topic, Research Question, why problem, questions important Linzi KempLKEMPOh+'0  ,< LX t   ^Purpose statement, Specific Focus, topic, Research Question, why problem, questions importantQurp Linzi KemptinzNormaleLKEMPe3EMMicrosoft Word 9.0S@V@Aa&@Ș[&@&i&HjQ՜.+,D՜.+,X hp  :Empire State Collegeu)c ^Purpose statement, Specific Focus, topic, Research Question, why problem, questions important Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA@]N 6http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/kgergen1/text10.htmlm# ,http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/toolbox.html=g8http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/glossary/index.asp?charindex=R}*http://cbae.nmsu.edu/-dboje  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F t&.&Data Qo\1TableJWordDocumentSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjjObjectPool t&.& t&.&  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q