Factors Associated with Post-Secondary Student Retention at a Technical Campus
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As post-secondary institutions struggle to create conditions that support student success, they also struggle to maintain and successfully manage student retention. The study of retention within post-secondary education is complex, and significant models have been constructed in an effort to further understand the retention of students in post-secondary institutions (Astin, 1984, 1993; Bean, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1990; Bean & Metzner, 1985; Cabrera, Castañeda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Cabrera, Nora, & Castañeda, 1993; HeavyRunner & DeCelles 2002; Spady, 1970, 1971; Tinto, 1975, 1987, 1993; Webb, 1989). In an effort to further the study of student retention, the integrated model of student retention (Cabrera et al., 1992; Cabrera et al., 1993) identified the overlap in the student attrition model (Bean, 1980, 1982) and the student integration model (Tinto, 1975, 1987). The results highlighted that incorporating the two models provided an improved explanation of retention (Cabrera et al., 1993), and the integrated model was used as the theoretical foundations for this work. Considering students’ institutional and goal commitments, with an emphasis on both their career and major certainty, this research aimed to determine the factors associated with the first- to second-year retention of students enrolled at the Marine Institute campus of Memorial University. For institutions that offer direct-entry, career-focused programs or for those of a technical nature, this research has the potential to add value to the existing work on student retention. Using pragmatism as the philosophical approach to the research, an explanatory mixed-methods design was implemented, collecting quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2010). Survey data were collected from first-year students at the Marine Institute to investigate the factors they identified as associated with their post-secondary experience, certainty of their choices, and retention. In the second phase, focus groups were divided into four career disciplines and conducted with the intent to further explain the survey data. A principal component analysis was conducted and established nine factors from the survey data. Further analysis confirmed that in this specific sample, both major and career certainty contributed to students’ institutional commitment and that first- to second-year retention is most significantly impacted by institutional commitment, goal commitment, and intent. The student voice highlighted the value in the contribution and insight of faculty in the students’ commitment to the institution, including the certainty of their major and career. Obligation was expressed as a distinct element of goal commitment in this specific population and is one of the study outcomes that led to productive recommendations for future research and practice. This research will contribute to the available Canadian retention research and, more specifically, contribute to the development of improved retention and support practices in institutions that seek to support students studying in technical, career-oriented programs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,009 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».