Chaos,Bedbugs,and Delayed Starts: Stories of Student Retention During Extreme Organizational Upheaval

Abstract

Recent world events and the ever-changing nature of higher education mean that colleges and universities exist in a state of near-constant flux. This qualitative study explored the experiences of seven college seniors who persisted to graduation after beginning their college careers when their university was admitting lower-division students for the first time in the institution’s history—a significant organizational shift. Themes identified in the data highlight students’ choice to attend a college making major structural changes, what it was like to be the “first freshmen” when the institution was not fully prepared for their arrival, and the factors that led to their decision to persist at the institution. Using a theoretical framework of mattering, the findings suggest that helping students feel that they matter to the institution and reminding students that their adjustment may not be immediate are important strategies for those seeking to promote student retention.

Keywords

college student retention lower-division students mattering student engagement first-year students

Why do some students persist when others abandon their pursuit of a college education? This question continues to perplex higher education professionals. Without a doubt, demographic characteristics and first-generation status are important to consider (Ishitani, 2006; Soria & Stebleton, 2012), but there may other factors at play. For non-traditional aged students, for example, the student’s mindset toward their college education seems to have a significant impact (Berker & Horn, 2003). Student persistence is complex, and the answer seems to be about more than pre-college preparation or demographics.

Virtually all student affairs professionals and many faculty could share stories of students who persisted despite extreme circumstances. Likewise, many could commiserate with the frustration of seeing students who seem to have no barriers to success abandon their educational pursuits. Colleges and universities invest time, energy, and effort to provide high-quality and data-driven programs and services (Schuh et al., 2017), knowing the impact higher education can have on the development and professional growth of students (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). In addition, the growing prevalence of student debt (The Institute for College Access & Success, 2019) and concerns about how this debt is limiting opportunities and affecting the economy (e.g., Supiano, 2014) are resulting in increasing pressure for institutions of higher education to provide better services and meet the needs of students more effectively. The push for persistence comes from all directions.

Recognizing the urgency and complexity of the issue, we approach the issue of student retention by exploring the experiences of students whose college experience was less than ideal, due to an upheaval at the institution while they were students. Studying the experience of students who chose to stay—when many of their peers chose to leave the institution under the same circumstances—provides a unique perspective on student retention. The research question addressed in this study was: How do college seniors, who entered the university as members of the first two freshmen classes at the institution, describe their reasons for persistence?

Literature Review

Some educational stakeholders see student retention as a linear trajectory, and others view academic growth as a multi-dimensional process. Hu (2011) suggested that higher education institutions are paying more attention to two specific elements of student academic success: student persistence and student engagement. In fact, student persistence has been one of the most thoroughly researched areas in the field of higher education for decades (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 1998). Hu (2011) and Wilson (2016) agreed that educationally purposeful activities in and out of the classroom contribute significantly to student learning and personal development. If student retention and persistence are connected to student engagement, it is important to understand how these elements are related.

Student Persistence

College students face many decisions throughout their studies. Some students must decide whether they should work while attending college. Other students may face the decision to continue or discontinue a romantic relationship while in college. Some students have to decide whether attending college is worth utilizing financial aid (i.e., taking out loans). Likewise, students are often faced with a major dilemma through their college experience: Should I continue to graduation in times of adversity? Savage et al. (2019) argued that the decision to persist, for undergraduate students, is similar to deciding whether to stay in a romantic relationship or not.

The issue of college students leaving before the completion of their degree is significant: Approximately 65% of students attending a 4-year university in the United States leave prematurely (American College Testing Educational Services, 2018). Reasons for a student’s early departure can vary from transferring to another institution to being dismissed for poor academic performance. While Monaghan and Attewell (2015) argued that students are the ones most affected by departing before they finish their degree, Bowman and Denson (2014) defended the idea that low retention rates significantly affect the surrounding community’s perception of the quality of the institution. Therefore, it behooves educational stakeholders to understand student persistence so that they can put resources in place to better support and nurture this trait in students. This support will also demonstrate to the surrounding communities that the institution is contributing to the workforce and society. One aspect of student persistence is the commitment that an institution has toward their students’ academic success.

Tinto (1998) suggested that a major element in the quest to improve student persistence is an institution’s commitment to students. Given that many learning theories are based on frameworks from the behavioral sciences, the notion of commitment in the educational sense is similar to that of interpersonal relationships: a transactional nature between educational stakeholders such as professors, advisors, administrators, and students (Savage et al., 2019). Hu (2011) studied the relationship between student engagement and persistence and found that high-level engagement in social activities had positive effect in increasing student persistence in college. Hu (2011) defined high-level engagement as students working and associating with other students and faculty outside of the classroom four or more times a week. These ideas echo Kuh’s (2008) high impact academic practices, which highlight the importance of engagement in academic settings. Bowman and Denson (2014) and Burke (2019) suggested that college students are not only affected by their own experiences of progress, well-being, and opportunities but also by their perception of the message that their university communicates to them, especially surrounding the student’s worth and importance within the educational system.

Institutional Commitment

Public institutions across the United States and over the past decades have undergone a major shift in their definition and implementation of institutional commitment. Although there is a gap in educational research regarding how institutional disruptions affect student persistence, the concept of institutional commitment is clearly defined and investigated by researchers. Student demographics such as gender, first-generation status, and socio-economic experience can, at times, challenge an institution’s willingness to expand its processes to demonstrate a commitment to student success. Moran (2010) suggested that universities have and will continue to experience an influx of female student representation, a higher percentage of ethnic minorities, and a wider span of student age groups; therefore, the institution’s support of these students can be seen as a demonstration of fidelity and commitment to a changing society. How does this specifically relate to student persistence? Research indicates an institution’s communication either enhances or decreases a student’s willingness and ability to persevere in their academics (Bowden, 2011; Burke, 2019; Chaves, 2006; Monaghan & Attewell, 2015). These messages need to be continually evaluated, to demonstrate the institution’s commitment to meeting the needs of increasingly diverse students.

Within educational research, several models of institutional commitment exist. Wardley et al. (2013), for example, provided a model of institutional commitment based on the idea that students view institutional commitment as a measure of institutional fit. Administrators within higher education are discovering how students view institutional fit, as it relates to commitment, and are including it in their branding efforts. Bowden (2011) suggested that institutions market their brand by utilizing students to cultivate a relational foundation. The foundation between an institution and its consumers exists through an ongoing positive relationship between all stakeholders, but specifically between students and their professors, advisors, and administrators. Regarding institutional commitment, previous retention models have not focused on branding specifically, but they have highlighted the importance of an institution displaying their commitment as a means to recruit and retain students (Tinto, 1998).

In the behavioral sciences, effective communication is often described as a critical element of relational success. According to Arriaga and Agnew (2001), a strong relationship includes personal intentions to continue and maintain the relationship, along with a willingness to overcome challenges. Much like in interpersonal relationships, students want to feel that the intention of their institution is to continue their relationship. Nurturing the student-institutional relationship often occurs in the form of purposeful activities in and out of the classroom (Hu, 2011).

Student Mattering

One major ingredient in student engagement is mattering. According to Flett et al. (2019), mattering is an individual’s reflection of feeling important and significant to other individuals. A key aspect of Schlossberg’s (1989) educational research surrounding a college student’s sense of community is being recognized and valued. Chaves (2006) suggested that support services increase feelings of mattering in students. One can define student engagement as a support service, and in fact, more institutions are focusing on student engagement as a means to lower mental health issues faced by their student bodies (Flett et al., 2019). While mattering is a feeling, Rosenberg and McCullough (1981) suggested that it is also a motive; therefore, mattering may be an important ingredient for sustaining effective student engagement. Additionally, people in general need to feel that they matter to others (Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981). It is important for educational stakeholders to recognize that students who feel disconnected and indifferent, at the root, need to feel like they matter to each other. Students who feel disconnected and indifferent are more likely to experience hypersensitivity to the experiences of college, which can negatively affect their academic resiliency (Flett et al., 2019).

Student persistence, institutional commitment, and mattering all contribute to a student’s endeavor to complete a degree. How these elements interact depends on many variables, but research indicates that a student’s personal experience and connection with the institution (Bowden, 2011; Bowman & Denson, 2014; Burke, 2019) is at the root of a student’s decision to stay at that institution. Much like in personal relationships, institutions must nurture their commitment to their students so that students feel safe in embarking on an educational journey. However, what happens when conditions at the institution disturb their students’ educational experiences? This study explored a significant institutional disruption and the impact that disruption had on student persistence.

Method

The purpose of this case study was to explore retention among undergraduates who began their studies during a time of significant organizational change. This structural change affected every aspect of the student experience, and this research was conducted to answer the research question: How do college seniors, who entered the university as members of the first two freshmen classes at the institution, describe their reasons for persistence?

We used a qualitative approach for this study, built on semi-structured interviews and approved by the Institutional Review Board, to allow for maximum flexibility in exploring the research question and potentially unanticipated areas of inquiry. The study utilizes a case study design to maximize what could be learned about student persistence in a unique situation (Stake, 1995, p. 4). For reasons outlined in the next section, the period during which participants in this study began their college experience at “CoastalU” (a pseudonym) represents an “extreme case.” Yin (as cited in Patton, 2015) encouraged researchers to “choose the most significant case possible” because this may represent a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to contribute” (p. 52) to the body of knowledge. Creswell (2007) also indicated that “unusual cases” represent a way to “employ maximum variation” (p. 129) thereby more fully describing the phenomenon under question, and Flyvbjerg (2011) suggested that case studies allow the researcher to understand how a “string of concrete and interrelated events [occur] ‘at such a time, in such a place’” (p. 301) to shape the whole of the case. By looking at cases of student persistence in an extreme situation, therefore, this study explores questions of retention and persistence that many within higher education are seeking to understand (e.g., Chen, 2013).

Setting

CoastalU is a four-year, public institution in the South United States with a current enrollment of 4,378 (359 first-year students, 2,884 other undergraduates, 1,135 graduate students). For nearly 40 years, the institution served only upper-division undergraduates and graduate students. In response to demographic shifts within the region and with the approval of the state legislature, the institution admitted freshmen and other lower-division students, for the first time, during its 37th year of operation. This “downward expansion,” as it is referred to in the institution’s vernacular, resulted in a significant shift in the organization’s structure, function, and culture, and it was executed with an accelerated timeline. Before the expansion, the “typical” CoastalU student was a middle-aged White woman, taking classes part time, and attending evening or online classes. The institution is now 38% Hispanic and has been designated a Hispanic Serving Institution. In addition, most of the students are classified as first-generation college students (64% report parents with “no college” or “some college but no degree”). Virtually overnight, the student body became younger and significantly more diverse. The newly admitted freshmen attended school full time, took lower-division general education courses, enrolled in face-to-face classes, and lived in residence halls. They needed additional student services and structured activities. Likewise, faculty and staff were added to accommodate the growing student body, and existing faculty and staff were forced to develop new strategies for responding to and educating a very different population of students.

Participants and Data Collection

As is easily imagined, student retention during the first few years of downward expansion at CoastalU was very low. However, some students persisted. Given that many studies of student retention focus on “what went wrong,” we take as our focus here those students who endured adverse situations and yet stayed at the institution, receiving a degree despite challenging circumstances. Although this focus limited our potential sample, participants interviewed for this study provide a unique perspective on retention and persistence.

Working from a list provided by the admissions office, the first author and a graduate intern e-mailed students who (a) were enrolled during the first semester of downward expansion, (b) had maintained continuous enrollment, at least part time, and (c) were registered for classes during the semester when interviews were planned (fall or spring of their fourth year). In addition, the first author served on a university committee with Michael, who agreed to participate after being approached directly. Participants were also asked if they knew other students who met the inclusion criteria (i.e., snowball sampling; Patton, 2015). Participants began their studies at CoastalU during the first or second year that lower-division students were admitted to the institution (see Table 1). All but two participants (Adam and Susan) were interviewed during their final semester before graduation.

Table 1.

Participant Background.

Pseudonym	Major	First-generation	Extra-curricular involvement and other notes
Michael	Biology	No	Student body president
Adam	Criminal Justice	Yes	Student government 2 years; Resident Assistant 1 year; Worked in student activities office planning events; Helped with freshman orientation
Darlene	Psychology	Yes	Resident assistant 1 semester Finished college in three years; had earned college credits in high school, but had a poor college GPA because of bad advice from HS counselor; had a baby and got married during undergrad career
Kristin	Marketing	Yes	Played intercollegiate soccer her first year at CoastalU; student government 1 year; President of “National Society of Leadership and Success” 2 years; did social media marketing for the student activities office
Kylee	Psychology	No	Student leader for freshman orientation; served on several university committees
Michelle	Elementary Education	No	Played intercollegiate soccer at CoastalU; Kappa Delta Pi (education honor society); walk/run club
Susan	Communication	Yes	Married; out of school for 7 years before starting at CoastalU

Interviews ranged from 37 to 91 (59 minutes average). Interviews were conducted face-to-face and by Skype (where required due to geographic and scheduling challenges); all interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed.

Data Analysis, Credibility, and Trustworthiness

The first step in data analysis was reading transcripts carefully with the goal of understanding “behavior, issues, and contexts with regard to [this] particular case” (Stake, 1995, p. 78). The process continued with reading and re-reading the transcripts, keeping the research question in mind, looking for “repeated patterns of meaning” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 86), and creating initial codes. Those initial codes were then grouped and rearranged using a constant comparative approach (Patton, 2015), comparing each code to previous codes to create themes and sub-themes. This process resulted in the identification of five themes.

Creswell (2007) suggested that prolonged engagement with data is key to promoting the trustworthiness of qualitative data analysis; the first author carefully proofread the transcript of each interview, re-listening to interviews as necessary to ensure accuracy. The first author was also able to observe participants as they were engaged in activities around campus, noting their engagement with the campus and becoming familiar with the organizational challenges they described. These interactions served as a data triangulation (Stake, 1995), allowing for comparison of the participants’ experiences and the themes emerging in the data with observations of the campus climate.

Results

Through this study, we sought to understand participants’ experience of persistence, in the face of organizational change and culture shift. Analysis of transcripts resulted in the identification of five themes: aspiring to college, choosing a college, experiencing college, being first is unique, and deciding to stay. In the first three themes, participants described aspects of their college experience that are not unique to the years involving CoastalU’s organizational shift; therefore, we present an abbreviated description of those findings. Given the focus of this study on the persistence decisions made during times of organizational change, this section will highlight the last two themes.

Aspiring to, Choosing, and Experiencing College

It is important to keep in mind that even though these participants encountered a unique college setting (as described later), in many ways, their pre-college and early college experiences are similar to those reported on many college campuses. Kylee indicated, “I knew I was going to college no matter what. And I knew I was going to graduate from college. So I never really thought about it.” On the other hand, Michelle, who played college-level soccer for two years at CoastalU, did not really think about college until her senior year in high school: “I wasn’t really thinking I want universities or scouts to come scout me. … I just wanted to play [soccer].”

When it came to considering CoastalU specifically, it seemed like the only real option for some participants, due to misinformation given by high school counselors (Darlene) or family circumstances (Susan). For others, interactions with college recruiters and campus visits “lured me in even more,” as Adam described it. Several participants described CoastalU as a financially smart decision, especially since the institution was offering significant scholarships for members of the first freshmen class. Kristin said, “I saw it was pretty good—like it wasn’t too expensive, where I wasn’t going to make my mom go bankrupt or anything. So that was good.” Michael indicated that being part of the first freshmen class meant that “I could actually make a difference and set a foundation for everyone else that comes after me and I thought that was going to be a challenge, a good challenge.”

Most students face adjustments as they begin college, and participants in this study were no exception. Some students who had grown up in major metropolitan settings had to adjust to the small city where CoastalU is located. Susan had been out of school for seven years before enrolling and got married two weeks before school started, so she—like many non-traditional students—often “felt like the old lady, the odd ball out” when compared to her younger, more “traditional” classmates. Participants encountered the ups and downs of life: car accidents, challenging social situations, an unanticipated pregnancy, depression, financial struggles, and academic struggles. They got homesick and thought about quitting. However, eventually, they grew in their independence, adjusted to the residence halls and dorm food, and got involved in campus. They persevered.

Being First Is Unique

The arrival of lower-division students for the first time in CoastalU’s history was met with great fanfare. The move was critical to the ongoing vitality of the institution, and significant scholarships were awarded to incentivize students to be part of the first freshman class. For some students, like Darlene, “college was an unknown thing to me … I didn’t know what to expect,” so being part of the inaugural freshman class did not specifically shape their experience. Michael, on the other hand, was ready for the challenge: “I’m the type of person-, I don’t like it easy; I don’t like it just to be like, ‘Oh I’m going to do what everybody else is doing.’” Regardless of whether the student was anticipating challenges or not, they all faced situations that made their college experience—and their choice to persist—unique, as reflected in this theme in the data.

Settling In

Until the arrival of the “first freshmen,” CoastalU was strictly a commuter campus. Therefore, bringing residence halls online, with a very short turnaround, was a linchpin for the downward expansion. To expedite the process, CoastalU purchased and renovated an abandoned hotel close to campus to serve as the first residence hall. However, given the nature of large-scale, bureaucracy-laden projects, significant delays in construction and infrastructure development led to a two-week delay in the start of classes. Even with the late start, the residence halls were not ready when students arrived, so the university contracted with hotels around the city to house students on a temporary basis. In lieu of a cafeteria or meal plan, students were given Visa gift cards each week to use at restaurants around town.

In participants’ recollection, they were not told about the housing situation until they arrived at the campus; Adam indicated that his parents were “weirded out [and] confused” when they got to campus and learned of the arrangements. As time went on, the situation continued to evolve. Kylee and her roommate were relocated to a second hotel after finding bedbugs in their first room. Kristin was on the soccer team, and her coach moved the entire team from one hotel to another because of safety concerns. Each move was stressful, Michelle said, because she was afraid of leaving something behind. Furthermore, students who did not have their own cars were shuttled back and forth to campus on charter busses. As Darlene sarcastically suggested, “Of course. Let’s throw a bunch of newly fresh college kids into a hotel room. That sounds great.”

Students were moved out of the hotels in waves, as renovations were completed in the residence hall. Construction continued as students were moved in, which Michael said led to questions of safety, “just because there was so much construction going on …. There were always construction workers going in and out. The area wasn’t covered so you had people randomly from the community walking through.” Adam quipped that moving out of the hotels meant he would have to make his own bed and clean his own room again. Others talked about the shortcomings of resident assistants (RAs), the lack of programming and activities for students, the frequency of fire alarms in the middle of the night, and the inadequacy of the cafeteria. As Michael said, “Of course, certain students aren’t going to like the cafeteria, but for all students not to like the cafeteria, I thought that was an issue.”

It took time, but the issues were eventually mitigated. Procedures for hiring RAs were refined, leading to better hires and more effective staffing. Construction projects were completed, and more areas of the building were accessible to students. The university recognized the need to make larger investments in student life, so student affairs programming and personnel were expanded to provide more activities to fill the time.

Blazing a Trail, Academically

There was a torrential downpour on the first day of classes. In some ways, that stormy weather foreshadowed some of these students’ early experiences. When it came to course selection, there were not many options; most students were scheduled into the same classes. The tutoring center had not yet been given physical space, so there was very little in the way of student academic support. The late class start led many to wonder if semester breaks would be cut short.

At the same time, as Darlene stated, “everyone [was] adjusting. It wasn’t just us college kids.” For those who had worked for the institution for several years, the influx of freshmen required new modes of instruction (e.g., teaching face-to-face and during the day instead of online or in the evening) and new expectations for serving students. In addition, the addition of lower-division classes had necessitated adding several new faculty members, who were also finding their way in a new environment. As Michael described it:

There [were] a lot of people who were just hired. Like, who just came on the same time we did. They were just learning everything as they went on, too. So, we could see that as well. I did feel bad for certain people, because it wasn’t what they expected either.

To further complicate the transition, CoastalU was simultaneously implementing a new student information system, leading to chaos with registration and class schedules.

When I asked participants what they needed most that first semester, several mentioned the need for mentors or advisors. They also talked about needing better time management and more sleep. In terms of finding their way academically, however, several noted that being the “first freshmen” also meant that there were not really sophomores or many other upperclassmen around to interact with and learn from. Kylee wanted “someone who’s kind of been in our shoes to tell us like that it’s going to be okay. Like, you know like, there’s gonna be times where it’s up and down.” For Michelle, that kind of interaction would have felt more like “real college life.”

Deciding to Stay

Given all these challenges, it is not surprising that there was significant attrition—of both students and staff. Early in that first year, several participants took campus tours at other institutions or had conversations with their parents about whether it was worth it to persist through the struggles at CoastalU. However, at some point in each interview, as participants were recounting the frustrations and difficulties of those first days and months (and years, in some cases) on campus, we asked, “Why did you stay?” The final theme in the data explores participants’ decision to stay at CoastalU, despite the circumstances.

Exploring Reasons to Leave

In some cases, the immediate answer was a pragmatic one. Since CoastalU had delayed its start date that first semester, by the time the first freshmen wanted to leave or transfer elsewhere, there were no options; they were, essentially, stuck for at least one semester. Michael, for example, said that if there had been other options, he was 60% sure he would have left. Kylee decided against transferring when she realized that the campus she was considering was three hours from her family, and she did not want to be that far away from home (CoastalU was only two hours from home). As Kristin thought about leaving, she ultimately decided that “I didn’t want to go to a bigger city either, ‘cause then I was just going to get distracted by everything.”

Bureaucratic and systemic issues with housing also tested the resolve of several students. Near the end of the first year, students were told they would not be able to live on campus the following fall, to make room for the second incoming class of freshmen. Off-campus housing in the city where CoastalU is located was very scarce and very expensive, leaving students with virtually no affordable options. Near the end of the summer, the university reversed the policy, and would now be requiring returning students to live on campus, after many had already signed leases around town. As Michael stated: “They lost a lot of students in that time period. … You can’t tell students [you have to move off campus], and then be like, ‘oh yeah this university cares for me.’ You told me to go out and find housing.” Others decided that the hassles of transferring credits, choosing a new degree plan at a new institution, and having to start over developing friendships were just too great; staying at CoastalU became the less disruptive option. Darlene stayed because she had no idea what she would have done if she had left. When Kristin contemplated leaving, she determined that “the big picture was [that] I have more reasons to stay than to leave.”

Choosing Involvement

Kylee described her early years at CoastalU as “going to school just ‘cause I had to go to school … just going through the motions.” Her first semester was “horrible,” and she described herself as depressed, moody, and homesick. Her mom challenged her to “stick it out,” and during the second semester, “it clicked. Like you’re not home anymore. This is college; you need to have fun. Uh, you need to enjoy life outside your parents. … That’s when I started liking college.” She also said, “As soon as I wanted to be here … I started having fun.” She made friends and started hanging out in the student lounge where students developed a “if we were going to survive, we were going to survive together mentality.”

Students who participated in this study were, for the most part, very involved on campus (see Table 1). At the time of the interview, Michael was finishing his term as student body president. Adam worked as an RA in the residence halls for two years and also worked a part-time job at the mall. Michelle and Kristin played intercollegiate soccer for the first year or two. Kylee worked for the student activities office and helped plan several events for students. Some had been involved in campus committees or in developing the orientation sessions for incoming freshmen. Susan noted that she had not been very involved on campus, but she attributed this to her stage of life (married, living off campus, non-traditional student); co-curricular activities did not fit into her schedule. Michael connected his campus involvement as a part of his overall learning, saying, “If I didn’t do the whole student government route, there’s a lot of things I wouldn’t have known. I would have just been that one student complaining about every single thing.”

The campus was expanding, and at the time, the student affairs staff promoted an atmosphere of involvement and initiative. Lower-division students were a new phenomenon on campus, and many departments around campus were learning how to meet their needs. Therefore, several participants were student representatives on university-level committees related to housing/dining or student activities, and those early students had unprecedented access to upper-level administrators. In addition, there was not a structured process for approving new student organizations; those who wanted to start a recognized affinity group found it easy to do so. As a result, students who wanted to get involved on campus had many opportunities. For most of these participants, their campus involvement shaped their campus experience and connections, strengthening their commitment to CoastalU and promoting their retention.

Having an Impact

Beyond the intrinsic benefits of being involved on campus—making friends, developing as a leader, having fun—these students stayed at CoastalU because they were part of shaping the institution. The opportunity to be first, to create things and start traditions at the school, had been part of the recruiting pitch when the first freshmen were told about the university. As they reflected back on their time at the institution, they were able to recognize the ways this had happened. Darlene talked about how the director of student life “was always coming and asking” for her input about various student activities, which led to Darlene’s conclusion that “I guess I contributed a lot more than I thought” to the emerging culture at CoastalU. Adam made the off-handed comment that “my picture is everywhere on campus” (he had been part of a marketing photo shoot, and the images were used on the side of the campus shuttle busses); he also said, “I knew I would be one of the few that would have a voice. [CoastalU was] definitely something I can leave my mark on.” Having an impact was a common theme among participants, and Michael connected this unique opportunity to make a mark on the institution to his persistence:

I decided to stay because I felt like I could still, in a way, make a change at this university. Or, in a way, get things developed [during] my time here. Just because-, I came to school for my education, I was going to get an education. Um, being [in this small city], I had so much free time <laughing> with certain things. I enjoyed the social life of college, but at the same time, I wanted to make a difference. I didn’t want to come into [CoastalU] being the first freshman class and then leave [CoastalU] and not have anything accomplished.

As these participants neared graduation, they looked back and noticed that things were getting better. More activities were planned, more academic programs were being developed, and more courses were being offered each semester. First-year students were now participating in a formalized orientation program. Additionally, first-year seminars, residence life programs, and procedures were becoming more effective. Michelle commented:

[CoastalU is] growing and growing, I forgot I was even the first freshman. … It’s really cool to say we kind of helped get this university growing; it’s getting so much better. It’s nice. It’s really cool to say that. I was one of the first freshman.

Like the other participants, she had been part of something truly unique. She had endured and persisted, and she had made an impact.

Discussion and Implications

In much of the student retention literature, there seems to be an underlying assumption: If institutions could do everything perfectly, they would retain students more effectively. Without a doubt, institutional efforts are vital to student success and retention (Bowden, 2011; Burke, 2019), and the failure of those efforts leads to attrition. When colleges and universities (and faculty and staff) engage in intentional efforts (Kuh, 2008), students thrive and persist. However, the experiences of participants in this study suggest that even when things do not go according to plan, students may persist—if they can find a reason to stay. And those reasons may not be the reasons we expect.

The first years of downward expansion at CoastalU were challenging. There were several “gotchas”: Residence halls were not ready for move-in; there was limited course availability; and there was virtually no student life programming. The semester started late, so students like Michael who would have considered transferring right away were unable to do so. Student support services were insufficiently resourced and under-developed, and those services often operated without permanent office space. There were bedbugs in the hotels, car accidents and other transportation issues in getting to class, and many missed communication opportunities. Parents had every right to be concerned—and many were. Students had every reason to leave—and many did. Retention rates in the first cohorts of lower division students were abysmal. Attrition among faculty hired specifically for downward expansion was also high. Participants in this study frequently referred to friends, classmates, and even faculty members they interacted with the first year or two who had left the institution.

These participants found ways to get involved around campus, even without highly developed events programming or community-building efforts. There was little in the way of new student orientation that first year, and the first-year seminar program was hastily conceived and disorganized. As Kristin commented, it felt “like the school was experimenting with us.” And yet, these students-who-stayed uncovered opportunities to “set a foundation” and “make a difference,” as Michael stated, that would make the institution better for those who would follow in their footsteps. They found ways to “matter” (Flett et al., 2019), which fueled their motivation (Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981) to persist. Michelle looked back and took pride in “[helping to] get this university growing.” Adam recognized that he was helping to shape the emerging culture of the institution. He felt his voice was heard by those in leadership, and because he had participated in the marketing photoshoot, he became part of the public face of CoastalU. Several participants also talked about how the experience of being “in this together” with the other first-year students fostered a sense of community and feelings of belonging at the university.

Earlier research indicates that students’ leadership experiences (Soria et al., 2019) and experiences in residence halls (Balfour Simpson & Burnett, 2019; Brown et al., 2019) can have a deep impact on social development. Likewise, those experiences can foster persistence, as demonstrated in this study. At first, Kylee was “just going through the motions” and had a “horrible” experience as a CoastalU student; her turning point was meeting people, making friends (Bronkema & Bowman, 2019), and deciding that she wanted to stay. She went on to work for the student activities office, planning events and becoming part of the efforts to encourage other students to get engaged in the life of the university.

Helping Students Feel That They Matter

What does this mean for practice? The specifics of this situation are unique: Very few institutions will find themselves in the throes of admitting lower-division students for the first time. However, organizational upheaval is not beyond imagination, as the events of early 2020 and the significant shifts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated. Institutional equilibrium can also be threatened by natural disasters (“As Hurricane Harvey,” 2017) or other scandals (“Here’s What Michigan State University”, 2018). This study demonstrates the importance of building relationships (Bowden, 2011) and continuously building commitment (Tinto, 1998), and it is incumbent upon the institution to initiate these efforts. This may come in large gestures—CoastalU later captured the spirit of “mattering” in their marketing tag line, for example. Fostering a sense of mattering and relational commitment may also happen in smaller ways, such as paying attention when a student representative tells the committee that all students are dissatisfied with the dining hall (Michael) or creating venues in which upper-division students can guide new arrivals to campus (Kylee and Michelle).

The findings from this study are consistent with the growing body of literature on students’ feelings of mattering. For example, the theme of choosing involvement aligns with work by Flett et al. (2019). They emphasized that mattering involves a feeling of being important and recognized as an individual in a way that is in keeping with people’s individuality and a distinct identity; for college students this often occurs by being involved in academic and social activities on and off campus. Furthermore, an investigation of marginality and mattering in community-building supports found that greater degrees of involvement with the programs and activities of the campus influence student satisfaction with college, academic achievement, and persistence toward graduation (Schlossberg, 1989).

Reminding Students It May Take Time

It is also important to help students understand that this sense of connection and engagement might not be instantaneous. Kylee’s story, in particular, demonstrates this. She described her first semester as horrible and a time of depression, moodiness, and homesickness. She stayed a second semester because her mother challenged her to, and it was during that second term that “it clicked”; her involvement increased, and her experience improved. She persisted. Upon hearing this, the first author wrote in her fieldnotes, “So many students are quitting after the first semester and missing this kind of epiphany.” How many students choose to leave an institution because no one has coupled the messages of “getting involved is important” with “give it enough time”?

Again, this requires a combination of large and small initiatives. One institution used to send a letter to all parents of first-year students after first semester grades were released. The letter sought to reassure parents that if their student’s grades were lower than anticipated, many students rebounded academically the second semester, because they had gained valuable skills during that first semester that they would apply to their studies in the second semester. The letter also cautioned, however, that some students who sailed through the first semester struggled the second semester because coursework would get more challenging and they had not yet learned the necessary study skills; even then, the message was “give it time; they’ll figure it out.” Times have changed since those letters were sent, and a letter to parents may no longer make sense when so many students are considered non-traditional (National Center for Education Statistics, 2019). However, this message is still important and can be embedded in smaller settings—welcome week, family orientation, first-year seminar, student organization fairs—and more informal venues and conversations over the course of the first year, to help students develop the patience and perseverance they need to be successful.

Limitations and Future Research

This is a qualitative case study; neither the sample size—although sufficient for qualitative analysis (Thomas & Pollio, 2002)—nor the unique context of CoastalU allow for generalizability to a larger population. In addition, participants in this study were deeply engaged on campus. While a broader range of students were recruited for the study, based on their enrollment date, the participants who volunteered for the study were, largely, campus leaders, which may have shaped the data provided. Furthermore, this study focused on the experiences of those who stayed; the experiences of students who chose to leave are not represented here.

As acknowledged earlier, while few institutions will find themselves in the situation of admitting first-year students for the first time, organizational upheaval—and the impact of that upheaval on student retention—is important to research further. Likewise, further research exploring the experiences of students who are retained in extreme situations can inform practices that promote retention for all students. These avenues of research hold promise for informing institutional responses to the current COVID-19 pandemic and future extreme events. Furthermore, exploring the voice of college students regarding feelings of mattering in less extreme settings than described here would add understanding regarding the impact of students’ sense of mattering on their persistence. Future research should also seek to understand the experiences of higher education faculty related to how they affect students’ feelings of mattering. This would permit researchers to understand the environmental and supportive factors that have an impact on college students’ feelings of mattering throughout the college experience. Faculty may offer researchers unique insight into the factors that help or hinder college students' feelings of mattering, leading to a more complete understanding of the lived experiences of college students who feel that they matter in college settings.

Conclusion

Participants in this study endured a less-than-ideal start because they recognized they could have an impact at their institution. These students were making a way, where none had previously existed. For those who chose to embrace that spirit of trailblazing, their time at CoastalU provided ample opportunities to shape the institution as it redefined itself. When they could see that their presence and their efforts mattered to the institution, they persisted.

Footnotes

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

Joann S. Olson

Author Biographies

Joann S. Olson, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor and Advisor in the Adult and Higher Education program at the University of Houston-Victoria. She has been involved in various aspects of adult education throughout her career, including computer training and leadership development. She earned a master’s degree in religious education from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in adult education from Penn State-University Park. Her research interests focus on the intersection of higher education and adult learning, including workplace learning of recent college graduates and the experiences of first-generation students (of all ages) in college and following graduation.

Karyna Strickland, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Counselor Education at the University of Houston-Victoria. She has worked as an educator in a variety of settings including K-12 and higher education. She is also a Certified School Counselor and a Licensed Professional Counselor Associate in Texas. She earned a M.S. in Counseling and a Ph.D. in Counselor Education from Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. She research interests focus on comprehensive school counseling programs, adult and adolescent LGBTQ+ issues, and graduate student matriculation in higher education settings.

References

American College Testing Educational Services. (2018). National collegiate retention and persistence to degree rates. ACT Institutional Data File. http://www.act.org

Arriaga

X. B.

Agnew

C. R.

(2001). Being committed: Affective, cognitive, and conative components of relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1190–1203.

As Hurricane Harvey inundated the Texas Gulf Coast last week, many colleges shut down, including San Jacinto College’s north campus, in Houston. (2017, September 8). The Chronicle of Higher Education, 64(2), A2.

Balfour Simpson

Burnett

(2019). Commuters versus residents: The effects of living arrangement and student engagement on academic performance. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 21(3), 286–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025117707516

Berker

Horn

(2003). Work first, study second: Adult undergraduates who combine employment and postsecondary enrollment (NCES 2003–167). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003167.pdf

Bowden

(2011). Engaging the student as a customer: A relationship marketing approach. Marketing Education Review, 21(3), 211–228.

Bowman

N. A.

Denson

(2014). A missing piece of the departure puzzle: Student-institution fit and intent to persist. Research in Higher Education, 55(2), 123–142.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Bronkema

R. H.

Bowman

N. A.

(2019). Close campus friendships and college student success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 21(3), 270–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025117704200

10.

Brown

Volk

Spratto

E. M.

(2019). The hidden structure: The influence of residence hall design on academic outcomes. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 56(3), 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2019.1611590

11.

Burke

(2019). Student retention models in higher education: A literature review. College and University, 94(2), 12–21.

12.

Chaves

(2006). Involvement, development, and retention: Theoretical foundations and potential extensions for adult community college students. Community College Review, 34(2), 139–152.

13.

Chen

(2013). STEM attrition: College students’ paths into and out of STEM fields (NCES 2014-001). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

14.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). SAGE.

15.

Flett

Khan

(2019). Mattering and psychological well-being in college and university students: Review and recommendations for campus-based initiatives. International Journal of Mental Health & Addiction, 17(3), 667–680.

16.

Flyvbjerg

(2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (pp. 301–316). SAGE.

17.

Here’s what Michigan State University has done since Larry Nassar’s trial. (2018, February 15). CNN Wire. https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/14/us/michigan-state-nassar-changes/index.html

18.

(2011). Reconsidering the relationship between student engagement and persistence in college. Innovative Higher Education, 36(2), 97–106.

19.

Ishitani

(2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first-generation college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 861–885.

20.

Kuh

G. D.

(2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities.

21.

Monaghan

Attewell

(2015). The community college route to the bachelor’s degree. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 70–91.

22.

Moran

(2010). Interdisciplinarity (2nd ed.). Routledge.

23.

National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2019). Postsecondary outcomes for nontraditional undergraduate students. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_tta.asp

24.

Pascarella

E. T.

Terenzini

P. T.

(2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research ( Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass.

25.

Patton

M. Q.

(2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE.

26.

Rosenberg

McCullough

B. C.

(1981). Mattering: Inferred significance and mental health among adolescents. Research in Community & Mental Health, 2, 163–182.

27.

Savage

Strom

Ebesu Hubbard

Aune

(2019). Commitment in college student persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 21(2), 242–264.

28.

Schlossberg

N. K.

(1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. New Directions for Student Services, 1989(48), 5–15.

29.

Schuh

J. H.

Jones

S. R.

Torres

(2017). Student services: A handbook for the profession (6th ed.). Jossey-Bass.

30.

Soria

K. M.

Stebleton

M. J.

(2012). First generation students’ academic engagement and retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(6), 673–685.

31.

Soria

K. M.

Werner

Nath

(2019). Leadership experiences and perspective taking among college students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 56(2), 138–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2018.1490309

32.

Stake

R. E.

(1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.

33.

Supiano

(25 June, (2014). The solution to the student-loan ‘crisis’? Depends on how you define it. The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Solution-to-the/147345

34.

The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS). (2019). Student debt and the class of 2019. https://ticas.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/classof2018.pdf

35.

Thomas

S. P.

Pollio

H. R.

(2002). Listening to patients: A phenomenological approach to nursing research and practice. Springer Publishing.

36.

Tinto

(1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 167–177.

37.

Wardley

Bélanger

Leonard

(2013). Institutional commitment of traditional and non-traditional-aged students: A potential Brand measurement? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 23(1), 90–112.

38.

Wilson

S. D.

(2016). Lack of persistence in college and the high-achieving, low-income student: A review of the literature. Community College Enterprise, 22(2), 42.