The impact of TRIO Student Support Services on academic performance of non-traditional students at a public state college in Georgia

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of TRIO Student Support Services (SSS) on academic performance of non-traditional students and perceived experiences of its recent graduates at a public state college in Georgia. A mixed-methods design was employed for data collection including (1) year-to-year retention rates of 480 SSS and non-SSS students, (2) three-year graduation rates and cumulative grade point averages of 2010–2013 and 2013–2016 cohorts and (3) two focus group interviews with eight 2016 SSS graduates. Significant differences were found in year-to-year retention rates and three-year graduation rates between SSS and non-SSS students. The graduates also reported that TRIO SSS assisted them in degree completion by offering (1) academic advisement, (2) degree planning, (3) development of self-confidence through motivation and mentorship, (4) academic resources and (5) a family-oriented environment. The results proved that TRIO SSS-assisted non-traditional students interacting with academic and social components of the institution, which helped to increase student retention and graduation rates.

Keywords

TRIO Student Support Services retention graduation non-traditional students academic performance

Introduction

Complete College America (2011) projected that over 60% of jobs in Georgia will require some form of a college education by 2020, whether a certificate, a two-year degree or a four-year degree. Due to this demand for degree attainment to be competitive in the workforce, college enrolment of non-traditional students who are in the age of 25 or older is increasing. According to Hussar and Bailey (2014), the projected population of students 25–34 will increase by 20% between 2011 and 2022, and students 35 and older will increase by 25%. Snyder and Dillow (2013) reported that enrolment of students under 25 increased by 35% in contrast to the 41% rise in enrolment of students 25 and over. It is evident that more non-traditional students are returning to college. Hagelskamp et al. (2013) estimated 23% of individuals without degrees between the ages of 18 and 55 were considering enroling at various institutions such as vocational schools, colleges or universities within two years to complete a certificate or degree. ‘Once enroled in college, understanding factors associated with student persistence is critical to strengthening the educational pipeline and achieving the broad economic and social goals fundamental to American society’ (Wolniak et al., 2012, p. 795). Hence, higher education institutions must not only enrol students but also ensure they graduate. Due to the increase in enrolment of non-traditional students, it is imperative that higher education institutions provide academic programmes and support services that meet the needs of this unique population.

Literature review

Shillingford and Karlin (2013) defined the non-traditional student with characteristics such as delayed enrolment, part-time or full-time college attendee, part-time or full-time employment, financial independence, has dependents other than a spouse, single parenthood and who is in the age of 25 or older. The more characteristics that apply to a student, the greater the risk is for a student to withdraw from college (Hoyt et al., 2010). Ross-Gordon (2011) indicated that one key characteristic that distinguishes the non-traditional students from other college students is the probability that they are managing many other life roles in addition to attending college, including spouse, full-time employee, caregiver, parent and community member. Thus, non-traditional students are at a higher risk of not completing a degree programme. The lack of research on non-traditional student persistence prohibits higher education institutions from making informed decisions regarding policies and practices that would facilitate graduation and retention.

To address the retention of at-risk populations such as non-traditional students, first-generation students, and low-income students, many institutions host a federally funded programme known as TRIO Student Support Services (SSS). ‘TRIO’ is the term that represents the various federally funded programmes that offer academic support services such as academic advising, counselling, degree planning, financial assistance, mentoring, study skills assistance, tutoring and cultural activities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

In the mid-1970s, Tinto (2012a) introduced his theory regarding the issues contributing to students’ early departures from college. Tinto revealed that if students are unable to negotiate through major adjustment phases successfully, they might choose to depart a higher education institution early. These phases include (1) pre-entry attributes, (2) initial intentions, goals, and commitments, (3) institutional experiences, (4) academic and social integration into the higher education community and (5) later goals and commitments. Tinto asserted that academic performance is shaped by the experiences and interactions within all of the phases identified. By providing clear guidance of what is needed to be successful would positively influence their academic success and degree completion. Social experience also determines a student’s decision to remain in college, both on and off campus; these include a student believing he or she has an affiliation with peers as well as a connection with the faculty and staff on campus.

Comprehensive support programmes such as the TRIO SSS have shown that student participation in such programmes improved persistence (Astin, 1993; Watson, 2016). The U.S. Department of Education (2015) awards funding via a grant competition. Grant recipients provide assistance with academic development, assist students with basic college requirements and motivate students to complete their postsecondary education. The primary goal of TRIO SSS is to increase the retention, persistence, and matriculation of its programme participants (Jean, 2011). TRIO SSS provides services to facilitate access and successful degree completion of first-generation and low-income students, and students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Although age, enrolment, employment, and family status characterize non-traditional students, they too are also likely to be first-generation and low-income students (Gilardi & Guglielmetti, 2011). Therefore, some non-traditional students may qualify for participation in the TRIO SSS programme.

Since the beginning of TRIO SSS in 1968, several studies have found that TRIO SSS influenced the retention and graduation rates of its participants (Chaney et al., 1998; Kitchens, 2016; Thomas et al., 1998; U.S. Department of Education, 2010). While these studies demonstrated the effectiveness of TRIO SSS, the literature was limited to programme effectiveness as it related only to traditional students at four-year colleges. Non-traditional students are more likely to attend community colleges, and they enrol with numerous factors that put them at risk of departure (Bean & Metzner, 1985). In comparison to four-year colleges, two-year or community colleges enrol more non-traditional students because of convenient locations, open admissions policies and a wide variety of programme offerings for their respective communities. However, students who attend two-year colleges are far less likely to complete a degree than students at four-year colleges (Brock, 2010). Currently, there is little research that evaluates the retention rates, graduation rates, and cumulative grade point averages (GPAs) of non-traditional TRIO SSS students who attend two-year colleges. Students who are labelled non-traditional now represent the largest subset of students in the nation (Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2012). Because non-traditional students represent not only the future of higher education but also the future of the nation (Lumina Foundation, 2013).

This study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of a TRIO SSS programme on academic performance of non-traditional students and perceived experiences of its recent graduates at a public state college in Georgia. The TRIO SSS programme at the Georgia public state college provides services that include, but are not limited to the following: academic advising, counselling, degree planning, financial assistance, mentoring, study skills assistance, tutoring and cultural activities (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). There is little research that provides insight into the impact of TRIO SSS programmes on non-traditional students (Bailey & Alfonso, 2005). Due to the dearth in research, limitations are placed on college administrators in making decisions using best practices that could increase non-traditional student degree completion. This study would provide insight on how TRIO SSS helps this population with academic support as they navigate their roles as students, full-time employees, and providers for their families. The following five questions were used to guide this study:

What is the academic performance of SSS students?

Is there a statistically significant difference in the year-to-year retention rates of SSS and non-SSS students?

Is there a significant difference in the three-year graduation rates between SSS and non-SSS students?

Is there a statistically significant difference in the cumulative GPAs of SSS and non-SSS students?

How do recent SSS graduates perceive their overall programme experience?

Methods

Research design

Mixed methods were used in this study to measure the impact of a TRIO SSS programme on academic performance of its non-traditional students at a public state college in Georgia. An explanatory sequential design was adopted using a quantitative approach followed by a qualitative approach to aid in explaining the quantitative data in more detail. The collected quantitative data regarding academic performance included year-to-year retention rates, three-year graduation rates, and cumulative GPAs. t-Tests were utilized to analyse the quantitative data. Focus groups were conducted to collect qualitative data examining the recent graduates’ perceived programme experiences. The responses were transcribed and coded to identify themes.

Quantitative data regarding both SSS and non-SSS students identified as non-traditional students were provided by the Office of Institutional Research to ensure content validity. Retention rates, graduation rates, and cumulative GPAs were typical and reliable data used to measure students’ academic performance in schools. To increase the validity of the interview process, the field-testing of the interview protocol was conducted before hosting focus groups (Krueger & Casey, 2015). The interview data were transcribed and reviewed by participants to ensure accuracy. The authors worked with an experienced qualitative researcher to establish inter-coder reliability during the coding process.

Context and participants

The site of this study was Georgia College, a pseudonym used to refer to the institution. The University System of Georgia (USG) classifies Georgia College as a state college located in a large metropolitan area. The institution serves a 15-county area as a part of the USG. The undergraduate enrolment of the college is 3139, which is the largest state college to host a TRIO SSS programme. The college has a significant proportion of non-traditional students that is common in a community college or two-year campuses (Juszkiewicz, 2014). The average age of the students enroled in the college is 25.2. Students are all commuter students, and while attending classes, many continue to work full- or part-time.

The Georgia College offers associate of science and associate of arts degrees in over 40 disciplines, designed for transfer to a four-year institution. The college also offers six bachelor degrees. The institution awards over 300 degrees per year and has a combined graduation rate of 10%. Many of the students enroled at Georgia College are academically underprepared because 70% are required to take remedial coursework before enroling in college-level course. The campus was funded to host a TRIO SSS programme starting in the fiscal year 2010. Therefore, this institution was appropriate for the study because of its non-traditional population and six years of hosting a TRIO SSS programme.

To obtain the largest range of data and perspectives, in the quantitative portion, year-to-year retention rates of 240 SSS and 240 non-SSS students identified as non-traditional students from 2010 to 2016 were collected. The non-SSS students were selected using stratified sampling techniques to ensure a homogeneous group for the comparison so gender would not affect the study results (The Pennsylvania State University, 2017). Concerning three-year graduation rates and cumulative GPAs, the data from 2010–2013 and 2013–2016 cohorts were used for the comparison. In the qualitative portion, the 2016 graduates who participated in the TRIO SSS programme were invited to take part in the focus group interviews to understand their overall programme experiences (Krueger & Casey, 2015). This sample was selected because graduates have experienced all the services provided to TRIO SSS participants and would provide a holistic point of view. In total, eight students accepted the invitation to attend focus groups and share their experiences with the TRIO SSS programme. In total, two focus group interviews were conducted.

Results

Research question one

As shown in Table 1, the retention rate of non-traditional students who participated in TRIO SSS from the Fall semester of 2010 through the Fall semester of 2011 was 83%, from the Fall semester of 2011 through the Fall semester of 2012, the retention rate was 75%, from the Fall semester 2012 through the Fall semester of 2013, the retention rate was 73%, from the Fall semester of 2013 through the Fall semester of 2014, the retention rate was 70%, from the Fall semester of 2014 through the Fall semester of 2015, the retention rate was 70% and from the Fall semester of 2015 through the Fall semester of 2016, the retention rate was 75%. The retention rate dropped from 83% in 2010–2011 to 70% in 2013–2014, and remained 70% in 2014–2015. However, the retention rate increased to 75% in 2015–2016.

Table 1.

Year-to-year retention rates of SSS students from 2010 to 2016.

Year	n	M	SD
2010–2011	40	.83	.38
2011–2012	40	.75	.44
2012–2013	40	.73	.45
2013–2014	40	.70	.46
2014–2015	40	.70	.46
2015–2016	40	.75	.44

As shown in Table 2, the three-year graduation rates for SSS students who entered college in the Fall 2010 and graduated by Summer 2013 (2010–2013 cohort) was 40%. The graduation rate for SSS students who entered college in Fall 2013 and graduated by Summer 2016 (2013–2016 cohort) was 48%. The three-year graduation rates increased from 40% in 2010–2013 to 48% in 2013–2016.

Table 2.

Three-year graduation rates of SSS students from 2010 to 2016.

Cohort	n	M	SD
2010–2013	40	.40	.50
2013–2016	40	.48	.51

As shown in Table 3, the average GPA for the 2010–2013 cohort was 2.92 and for the 2013–2016 cohort was 3.02. The cumulative GPA increased from 2.92 in 2010–2013 to 3.02 in 2013–2016.

Table 3.

Cumulative GPAs of SSS students from 2010 to 2016.

Cohort	n	M	SD
2010–2013	40	2.92	.34
2013–2016	40	3.02	.33

The SSS students’ academic performance resulted in a positive trend from 2010 through 2016. The three-year graduation rates and cumulative GPAs increased, respectively. Although there was a decrease in year-to-year retention rates from 2012 through 2015, the retention rate increased in 2015–2016.

Research question two

The year-to-year retention rates of SSS and non-SSS students were collected from students who enroled in the college during the Fall 2010 and re-enroled at the college during the Fall semesters in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. An independent samples t test was used to compare SSS and non-SSS students’ retention rates by year from 2010 to 2016. Significant differences in retention rates were shown between SSS and non-SSS students in 2010–2011, 2011–2012, 2012–2013, 2013–2014, 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 (see Table 4). The retention rates of SSS students were significantly higher than non-SSS students, which indicated that there was a positive impact of the TRIO SSS programme on non-traditional students’ retention rates from 2010 to 2016.

Table 4.

Results of t test for year-to-year retention rates by group from 2010 to 2016.

Year	Group						MD	t	df
	SSS			non-SSS
	M	SD	n	M	SD	n				p	Cohen’s d
2010–2011	.83	.38	40	.33	.47	40	.50	5.18*	75	.000	1.17
2011–2012	.75	.44	40	.35	.48	40	.40	3.88*	78	.000	0.87
2012–2013	.73	.45	40	.40	.50	40	.33	3.06*	77	.003	0.69
2013–2014	.70	.46	40	.43	.50	40	.28	2.55*	78	.013	0.56
2014–2015	.70	.46	40	.45	.50	40	.25	2.31*	77	.024	0.52
2015–2016	.75	.44	40	.43	.50	40	.33	3.09*	77	.003	0.68

*p < .05.

Research question three

The three-year graduation rate data were collected from two cohorts, 2010–2013 and 2013–2016. The 2010–2013 cohort of students were SSS and non-SSS students who enroled in the college during the Fall 2010 and graduated by Summer 2013. The 2013–2016 cohort of students were SSS and non-SSS students who enroled in the college during the Fall 2013 and graduated by Summer 2016. An independent samples t test was used to compare SSS and non-SSS students’ graduation rates from 2010–2013. The mean graduation rate for SSS students was .40, and the mean for non-SSS students was .10. The t test results(t = 3.26, p < .05) showed a statistically significant mean difference in graduation rates between SSS and non-SSS students from 2010 to 2013 (see Table 5). The mean graduation rate of SSS students was significantly higher than non-SSS students from 2010 to 2013, indicating that there was a positive impact of the TRIO SSS programme on non-traditional students’ graduation rates.

Table 5.

Results of t test for three-year graduation rates by group from 2010 to 2016.

Cohort	Group						MD	t	df
	SSS			non-SSS
	M	SD	n	M	SD	n				p	Cohen’s d
2010–2013	.40	.50	40	.10	.30	40	.30	3.26*	65	.002	0.73
2013–2016	.48	.51	40	.18	.38	40	.30	2.99*	73	.004	0.67

*p < .05.

Another independent samples t test was used to compare SSS and non-SSS students’ graduation rates from 2013 to 2016. The mean graduation rate for SSS students was .48, and the mean for non-SSS students was.18. The t test results(t = 2.99, p < .05) showed a statistically significant mean difference in graduation rates between SSS and non-SSS students from 2013 to 2016 (see Table 5). The mean graduation rate of SSS students was significantly higher than non-SSS students from 2013 to 2016, which indicated that there was a positive impact of the TRIO SSS programme on non-traditional students’ graduation rates.

Research question four

Cumulative GPAs of SSS and non-SSS students were collected from two cohorts, 2010–2013 and 2013–2016. An independent sample t test was used to compare SSS and non-SSS students’ cumulative GPAs from 2010 to 2013. The mean cumulative GPA of SSS students was 2.92, and the mean for non-SSS students was 2.80. Although the mean cumulative GPA of SSS students was slightly higher than non-SSS students, the t test results(t = 1.63, p > .05) did not show a statistically significant difference between these two groups from 2010 to 2013 (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Results of t test for cumulative GPAs by group from 2010 to 2016.

Cohort	Group						MD	t	df
	SSS			non-SSS
	M	SD	n	M	SD	n				p	Cohen’s d
2010–2013	2.92	.34	40	2.80	.32	40	.12	1.63	78	.107	0.36
2013–2016	3.02	.33	40	2.99	.18	40	.02	.40	61	.690	0.11

*p < .05.

Another independent samples t test was used to compare SSS and non-SSS students’ cumulative GPAs from 2013 to 2016. The mean cumulative GPA of SSS students was 3.02, and the mean for non-SSS students was 2.99. Again, although the mean cumulative GPA of SSS students was slightly higher than non-SSS students, the t test results(t = .40, p > .05) did not show a statistically significant difference between these two groups from 2013 to 2016 (see Table 6).

Research question five

Of eight participants (four male and four female) who attended focus group interviews, two received their Associate in Arts (A.A.) in elementary education, three participants received their Associate of Science (A.S.) in business administration, one participant earned an A.A. in criminal justice, one received an A.S. in computer science and one earned an A.S. in pre-nursing. The following themes were generated from their responses.

Obstacles encountered as a non-traditional student

The obstacles these non-traditional participants encountered relate to (1) academic assistance, (2) self-confidence and (3) support with manoeuvring the campus. Several participants mentioned the need for additional academic assistance. If non-traditional students do not receive the assistance they need to overcome the obstacles, it would probably hinder their learning. For example, Participant Red 4 stated, ‘I had not taken in over thirty years and I knew stating out it would be hard for me. I worried about finding extra help’.

Self-confidence can also be an obstacle to non-traditional students. They usually feel less confident in their own abilities to complete coursework because of their age, experience with new tools and time available for coursework completion. Non-traditional students also indicated that they need support with manoeuvring the campus. Just like Participant Blue 3 stated,

because I was an older student, I felt out of place in some of my classes. The younger students would answer the questions faster than I would during class and I felt old and slow. At the time, I felt as if I should not have returned to school to earn my degree.

TRIO SSS’s role in overcoming obstacles

Participants did convey that TRIO SSS played an important role in helping non-traditional students overcome obstacles. The various TRIO services enabled them to be successful in completing their degree programmes. These services included (1) academic advisement, (2) degree planning, (3) development of self-confidence through motivation and mentorship, (4) academic resources and (5) a family-oriented environment. Academic advisement and degree planning are the two major components of the TRIO SSS programme. Academic advisement includes making sure students have adequate skills to complete their degree programmes. According to Tinto (2012b), self-confidence and mentorship are vital resources for college completion. Participants expressed that TRIO SSS programme helped them build self-confidence and offered mentorship. For example, Participant Red 4 stated, ‘I really felt out of place when I first started school. But TRIO made [me] feel accepted and I felt like a real college student’.

TRIO SSS provides a variety of academic resources including (1) tutoring, (2) college transfer assistance and (3) access to a computer lab with unlimited printing. Participants did perceive the helpfulness of these academic resources offered by the TRIO SSS programme. For example, Participant Blue 4 commented:

TRIO is the only office on campus that helps students with transferring to a 4-year school. When I was in my final semester at this school, I had no idea how the transfer process worked. My TRIO counselor met with me and researched my current school’s catalog to make sure that I take the appropriate classes to transfer. This was so helpful too because I was able to start at my new school with no problems and all of my classes transferred.

Due to the limited number of computers on campus, students are required to utilize crowded computer labs that include fee-based printing. The TRIO lab on this campus provides free unlimited printing. Several participants expressed their appreciation for the TRIO computer lab. For example, Participant Red 3 stated, ‘the free printing in the computer lab was a blessing to me’.

TRIO SSS programme also provides a family-oriented environment due to the small number of participants it serves. This small inclusive environment enables the TRIO SSS staff to have a personal relationship with programme participants. Participants expressed that they received support and love from the TRIO SSS staff, and considered TRIO SSS as their extended family. TRIO SSS was a place they felt connected with the campus. Although all TRIO SSS participants are traditional, non-traditional, first-generation, low-income or disabled, a common bond exists despite their differences. For example, Participant Red 1 said, ‘TRIO always motivated you to get involved on campus and to establish a relationship with faculty and other staff members’. Participant Red 2 added, ‘I consider TRIO as my extended family. They have supported me all the way through graduation’. Overall, it is evident that TRIO SSS was impactful with students completing their degree programmes. TRIO SSS played a vital role in retaining participants. Among the services offered by TRIO, participants mentioned the top three helpful services were (1) academic advisement, (2) tutoring and (3) mentoring.

The role of the TRIO SSS staff

Participants expressed that TRIO SSS staff played significant roles in helping overcome the obstacles they encountered and had a positive impact on their programme experiences. Specifically, TRIO SSS staff adopted the roles of the counsellor, tutor, and director. Besides, several participants mentioned their positive experiences with the tutors. For example, Participant Blue 3 mentioned, ‘The tutors were amazing because they were very patient with me and they did not rush me during my sessions like the tutors in the other departments’. Overall, the participants were very appreciative of the entire TRIO SSS staff. Motivation provided by TRIO SSS staff is influential for student success. Positive relationships with faculty and staff are the centrepiece for student retention.

Enhancements for the TRIO SSS programme

Although TRIO SSS programmes are restricted to federal legislation and regulations of the U.S. Department of Education, some features can be modified to accommodate students. Many of the participants expressed the need for increasing campus awareness of TRIO SSS and addressing how it can benefit students. For example, Participant Red 1 stated, ‘all of the instructors and professors should advertise TRIO in their syllabi or on the online class portal to tell more students about the program’. Participants also mentioned that offering multiple communication channels of programme services would be helpful. Some participants even suggested that having evening access to programme services would benefit more students. On this campus, TRIO SSS programme’s office hours are within the institution’s operating hours of 8:30 am to 5:15 pm. Overall, the participants agreed that TRIO SSS still provided a positive experience. Because of the positive experiences they received, all participants mentioned that they were likely to recommend TRIO SSS to their peers, which showed a strong commitment to the programme.

Integrating quantitative and qualitative data

Quantitative data showed the SSS students’ academic performance resulted in a positive trend from 2010 to 2016. The three-year graduation rates and cumulative GPAs increased, respectively. Although there was a decrease in year-to-year retention rates from 2012 through 2015, the retention rate increased in 2015–2016. Quantitative data also indicated statistically significant differences in year-to-year retention rates and three-year graduation rates between SSS and non-SSS students from 2010 to 2016. The retention rates and graduation rates of SSS students were significantly higher than non-SSS students. Although the data did not show a statistically significant difference in cumulative GPAs between these two groups, the mean cumulative GPA of SSS students was slightly higher than non-SSS students. Quantitative findings have shown that the TRIO SSS programme had a positive impact on student academic success.

The qualitative data collected from the focus group interviews were consistent with the quantitative findings. All focus group participants expressed their positive experiences with the TRIO SSS programme. They conveyed that TRIO played an important role in helping non-traditional students overcome obstacles related to (1) academic assistance, (2) self-confidence and (3) support with manoeuvring the campus. TRIO supported them to be successful in completing their degree programmes by offering (1) academic advisement, (2) degree planning, (3) development of self-confidence through motivation and mentorship, (4) academic resources and (5) a family-oriented environment. The participants considered academic advisement, tutoring and mentoring as the top three helpful services offered by TRIO. According to the participants, TRIO staff did play significant roles as the counsellor, tutor, and director in helping them overcome the obstacles and had a positive impact on their programme experiences. Due to the positive experiences they received, all participants showed a strong commitment to the programme and expressed that they were likely to recommend TRIO SSS to their peers.

Discussion

The retention rates of the TRIO SSS students were measures of who entered the Georgia College in the Fall semester of 2010 and re-enroled in the subsequent Fall semesters. During the first year (2010–2011), the retention rate of TRIO participants was 83%. However, there was an 8% decrease in the retention rate in the following year (2011–2012). It was evident that this decrease was a result of the Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) policy implemented at the Georgia College during the 2011–2012 academic year. SAP stated that students who did not complete at least 67% of their courses maintain a minimum 2.0-GPA or exceed 99 credit hours were not in compliance with the SAP policy. As a result, they were not eligible to receive federal student aid. The enrolment and retention rate at the Georgia College also decreased in 2011–2012 because students could not pay for tuition and fees without federal student aid. TRIO SSS was proactive in slowing the attrition rate by conducting workshops for students to inform them of the SAP policy. Academic advisement is essential to a student’s decisions to remain in college (Drake, 2011). The TRIO staff revised the academic advisement component that included informing students of their completion rate and GPA status. As a result, the retention rate increased to 75% in 2015–2016.

In addition, there was an 8% increase in three-year graduation rates between two cohorts (2010–2013 and 2013–2016 cohorts). The cumulative GPAs also increased from 2.92 in 2010–2013 to 3.02 in 2013–2016. The increased graduation rates and cumulative GPAs yielded a positive trend on SSS students’ academic performance from 2010 through 2016.

The t test results indicated statistically significant mean differences in year-to-year retention rates and three-year graduation rates between SSS and non-SSS students from 2010 to 2016. Although the results did not show a statistically significant difference in cumulative GPAs between these two groups, the mean cumulative GPA of SSS students was slightly higher than non-SSS students. These findings were consistent with the studies that showed SSS students have higher retention rates, graduation rates and GPAs than non-SSS students (Mahoney, 1998; The Pell Institute, 2009; U.S. Department of Education, 2010).

All focus group participants expressed their positive experiences with the TRIO SSS programme. Although they encountered some obstacles related to (1) academic assistance, (2) self-confidence and (3) support with manoeuvring the campus as non-traditional students, they did convey that TRIO SSS assisted them in degree completion by offering (1) academic advisement, (2) degree planning, (3) development of self-confidence through motivation and mentorship, (4) academic resources and (5) a family-oriented environment. Among the services offered by TRIO SSS, the participants considered academic advisement, tutoring and mentoring the top three helpful services that helped students remain in college and graduation. Through the participation in TRIO SSS, non-traditional students gained self-confidence enabling them to transition to self-advocacy, becoming more engaged in a learning community, feeling excited about learning, and feeling respected (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Students who can advocate for themselves are positioned for academic success.

Participants also expressed that they received support and love from the programme, and consider TRIO SSS as their extended family. TRIO SSS was a place they felt connected with the campus. This result was similar to Schomer and Gonzalez-Monteagudo’s (2013) study results regarding the importance of receiving support from friends, acquaintances and campus personnel to help non-traditional students persist towards degree completion. The participants’ positive connection to TRIO SSS increased campus engagement and satisfactory college experiences (Bannister, 2009). TRIO SSS staff played significant roles as the counsellor, tutor, and director in helping non-traditional students overcome the obstacles and had a positive impact on their programme experiences. Because of the positive experiences they received, all participants mentioned that they were likely to recommend TRIO SSS to their peers, which showed a strong commitment to the programme. This was consistent with Mahoney’s (1998) study results indicating that participants placed a high value on the programme and its staff.

Implications

Additional support for non-traditional students

Non-traditional students face cultural barriers, the lack of family support and the lack of academic preparedness (Spellman, 2007) and they need academic assistance, self-confidence, and support with manoeuvring the campus. Support programming must be implemented to address those barriers and needs. Woosley and Shepler (2011) claimed that programming for at-risk populations should be designed to provide equal opportunity despite their backgrounds. Participants in this study indicated that the success of TRIO was due to the supportive relationships, and access to academic services and resources provided by the programme, which related to the academic and social components mentioned in Tinto’s student departure theory. Although the TRIO SSS programme is limited to serve only 140 students, services could be replicated through institutional support and additional funding. This extension would provide similar support and a positive collegiate experience for all non-traditional, first-generation, low-income and disabled students. Academic support programmes that provide services such as academic advising, counselling, degree planning, financial assistance, mentoring, study skills assistance, tutoring and cultural activities for this population would be beneficial.

Inclusive campus culture

Student support programmes that promote academic success are impactful only if the campus supports such programmes. TRIO programmes are funded 100% by the U.S. Department of Education grants, while institutions offer minimal to no financial support beyond the grants. The purpose of these federal TRIO grants is to supplement what the institution is doing to promote the success of disadvantaged populations, not to fund the entire campus’s programming efforts for this population. At-risk populations such as non-traditional students need more than TRIO programmes. Being part of an expanded campus campaign to ensure their success would provide an optimal experience. Goncalves and Trunk (2014) claimed that the lack of inclusion and availability services to non-traditional students prohibits successful academic performance. TRIO SSS programmes are voluntary. Campus initiatives to promote student success with mandatory requirements would be helpful. This type of policy is rare and would require a campus culture change to be realized. The support of friends, acquaintances, and faculty is essential for non-traditional students to succeed on campus (Schomer & Gonzalez-Monteagudo, 2013).

Quality of personnel

As mentioned throughout this study, supportive relationships are critical to student success (Coleman, 2014), which relates to the social experience mentioned in Tinto’s theory. Therefore, it is important that institutions have the right personnel on campus. These individuals should be devoted, compassionate and dedicated to student success. Academic support personnel occasionally are required to work beyond the 40-h workweek to meet needs. This effort requires sacrifice and commitment to student success. Although TRIO SSS is a federally funded programme that is required to comply with rules and regulations, it is not necessary for an institution to follow these government guidelines. An astute administrator and staff can replicate the positive aspects of how TRIO SSS personnel deliver support services and establish supportive relationships. The entire campus personnel can provide quality support services to minimize barriers to student success.

Limitations

This study was limited to the first-time full-time non-traditional students enroled at a Georgia public state college entering the TRIO SSS programme from 2010 to 2016. The eligible non-SSS student groups were stratifiedly selected from the first-time full-time enrolment from 2010 to 2016 to have a homogeneous group for the comparison. Another limitation was the difficulty to identify the extent to which the eligible non-SSS students were receiving assistance across campus in other service programmes provided by the institution. However, all enroled students had access to the same support services on campus. A final possible limitation may result from the fact that TRIO SSS students self-selected for the programme. They might be a more motivated, stimulated group that would seek out assistance more than the non-SSS student group.

Conclusions

Performance-based funding is an increasing trend in higher education. Institutional funding for state institutions is based on performance factors such as retention and graduation rates (Drake, 2011). It is imperative that institutions implement successful degree completion policies. The enrolment of non-traditional students in higher education is projected to increase by 2022. Along with the increasing population of non-traditional students, there will be an increase of first-generation, low-income and disabled students enroled in institutions in the future (Drake, 2011; Hussar & Bailey, 2014). Higher education institutions should increase support for all students to decrease attrition rates, especially disadvantaged student backgrounds (Tinto, 2012a). TRIO SSS grants are beneficial resources from the U.S. Department of Education (2015) that support first-generation, low-income and disabled students to complete a college degree programme while becoming self-advocates. Providing examples of successful TRIO SSS programmes would lead to positive academic performance and social experience for non-traditional, first-generation, low-income and disabled students.

This study investigated the impact of a TRIO SSS programme on the year-to-year retention rates, three-year graduation rates, cumulative GPAs and the perceived experiences of its recent graduates who were non-traditional students at a public state college in Georgia. Using Tinto’s theory of student departure as the foundational framework, the study was guided by five research questions intended to determine the trend on SSS students’ academic performance, the differences existed in the year-to-year retention rates, three-year graduation rates and cumulative GPAs between SSS and non-SSS students, and understands the students’ programme experiences.

The results showed a positive trend on SSS participants’ academic performance including three-year graduation rates and cumulative GPAs. Although there was a decrease in year-to-year retention rates from 2012 through 2015, the retention rate increased in 2015–2016. When compared to non-SSS students, SSS students had higher academic performance, which showed a positive impact of the TRIO SSS programme on academic success of non-traditional students. Focus group participants conveyed that TRIO SSS assisted them in academic success and degree completion by offering (1) academic advisement, (2) degree planning, (3) development of self-confidence through motivation and mentorship, (4) academic resources and (5) a family-oriented environment.

Tinto’s theory of student departure proposes students enter college with pre-existing attributes to begin interacting with the academic and social components of the institution (Tinto, 2012b). These interactions influence a student’s decision to remain or depart from the institution. SSS students in this study entered the Georgia College with the attributes of non-traditional students. Based on the study results, it was evident that TRIO SSS had a positive impact on their academic performance and social experience. Participants were committed and considered themselves connected to the TRIO SSS programme. As a result, a significant number of participants remained at the institution to complete their degree programmes.

Although this study contributed to the body of research on the impact of TRIO SSS on non-traditional students’ academic performance, it is not exhaustive. Multiple institutions should be included in future research to garner a complete assessment of TRIO SSS because student experiences may vary by institution. As discussed regarding the results, campus faculty and staff have a major influence on a student’s collegiate experience. Further research is also needed on the experiences of students who remain in college compared to those who depart. It would provide a greater understanding of issues facing non-traditional students.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge and thank the administrators, faculty, staff, and students at the Georgia College for their assistance with conducting our research. Their patience and willingness to assist with our study made this research project an enjoyable journey.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

E-Ling Hsiao

References

Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance. (2012). Pathways to success: Integrating learning with life and work to increase national college completion (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 529 485).

Astin

A. W.

(1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.

Bailey

T. R.

Alfonso

(2005). Paths to persistence: An analysis of research on program effectiveness at community colleges (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 484239). New Agenda Series, 6(1), 1–38.

Bannister

S. J.

(2009). The experiences of non-traditional students utilizing Student Support Services: A qualitative study [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database (UMI No. 304912104).

Bean

Metzner

(1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55, 485–540.

Brock

(2010). Young adults and higher education: Barriers and breakthroughs to success (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ 883081). Future of Children, 20(1), 109–132.

Chaney

Muraskin

L. D.

Cahalan

M. W.

Goodwin

(1998). Helping the progress of disadvantaged students in higher education: The federal SSS program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(3), 197–215. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164492

Coleman

T. G.

(2014). First generation. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 60(25), 24–28.

Complete College America. (2011). Time is the enemy: The surprising truth about why today’s college students aren’t graduating … and what needs to change. http://www.completecollege.org/docs/Time_Is_the_Enemy.pdf

10.

Drake

J. K.

(2011). The role of academic advising in student retention and persistence. About Campus, 16(3), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.20062

11.

Gilardi

Guglielmetti

(2011). University life of non-traditional students: Engagement styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 33–53.

12.

Goncalves

S. A.

Trunk

(2014). Obstacles to success for the nontraditional student in higher education. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 19, 164–172.

13.

Hagelskamp

Schleifer

DiStasi

(2013). Is college worth it for me? How adults without degrees think about (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 547419). Public Agenda.

14.

Hoyt

Howell

Touchet

Young

Wygant

(2010). Enhancing non-traditional student learning outcomes in higher education. PAACE Journal of Lifelong Learning, 19, 23–37.

15.

Hussar

W. A.

Bailey

T. M.

(2014). Projections of education statistics to 2022. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

16.

Jean

(2011). Bootstraps: Federal TRIO programs, if funded, could help close income gap. The New England Journal of Higher Education, 1. http://www.nebhe.org/the journal

17.

Juszkiewicz

(2014). Community college students and federal student financial aid: A primer (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 557996). American Association of Community Colleges.

18.

Kitchens

K. W.

(2016). The persistence and retention of students participating in a student success program [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database (UMI No. 10587585).

19.

Krueger

Casey

(2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

20.

Lumina Foundation. (2013). Goal 2025. http://www.luminafoundation.org/goal_2025/goal3.html

21.

Mahoney

R. G.

(1998). Components of TRIO’s success: How one student support services program achieved success. Journal of Negro Education, 67(4), 381–388.

22.

Ross-Gordon

J. M.

(2011). Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student population that is no longer non-traditional. Peer Review, 13(1), 26–29.

23.

Schomer

Gonzalez-Monteagudo

(2013). Participation in higher education: Barriers and opportunities for non-traditional students in higher education in Germany and Spain. Studies in the Education of Adults, 45(2), 148–161.

24.

Shillingford

Karlin

(2013). The role of intrinsic motivation in the academic pursuits of non-traditional students. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 25(3), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20033

25.

Snyder

T. D.

Dillow

S. A.

(2013). Digest of education statistics 2012. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014015.pdf

26.

Spellman

(2007). Enrolment and retention barriers adult students encounter. The Community College Enterprise, 13(1), 63–79.

27.

The Pell Institute. (2009). National studies find TRIO programs effective at increasing college enrolment and graduation. http://www.pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-Studies_Find_TRIO_Programs_Effective_May_2009.pdf

28.

The Pennsylvania State University. (2017). 3.5 Simple random sampling and other sampling methods. https://onlinecourses.science.psu.edu/stat100/node/18

29.

Thomas

E. P.

Farrow

E. V.

Martinez

(1998). A TRIO program’s impact on participant graduation rates: The Rutgers University SSS program and its network of services. The Journal of Negro Education, 67(4), 389–403.

30.

Tinto

(2012a). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. University of Chicago Press.

31.

Tinto

(2012b). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

32.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National evaluation of student support services: Examination of student academic outcomes after six years. Policy and Program Studies Service, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Department of Education. http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/student-support/final-report.pdf

33.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Student support services. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/triostudsupp/index.html

34.

Watson

C. L.

(2016). The impact TRIO student support services program activities and non-TRIO activities have on educational degree attainment of former community college students [Doctoral dissertation]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database (UMI No. 10301618).

35.

Wolniak

G. C.

Mayhew

M. J.

Engberg

M. E.

(2012). Learning’s weak link to persistence. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(6), 795–823.

36.

Woosley

Shepler

D. K.

(2011). Understanding the early integration experiences of first-generation college students. College Student Journal, 45(4), 700–714.