The Tension between Student Persistence and 

Institutional Retention: An Examination of the 
Relationship between First­Semester GPA and Student 
Progression Rates of First­Time Students 
Braden J. Hosch, Ph.D.
Director of Institutional Research and Assessment
Central Connecticut State University, New Britain, CT

***********************************************************************
An examination of data from the Consortium for the Study of Retention Data Exchange indicates that the
proportion of full-time first-time students earning a first-semester grade point average below 2.0 is
predictive of institutional retention and graduation rates. A case study in which institution-level data was
disaggregated by first-semester grade point averages (GPA) of first-time, full-time students at a medium-
sized public comprehensive university reveals stark intra-institutional differences in graduation and
retention rates as a function of GPA. Findings suggest that the national discussion about accountability
could benefit by reframing the debate to balance notions of the institutional responsibility for retention with
student responsibility for persistence.
***********************************************************************

Overview 
Calls for increasing accountability in higher education have disproportionately focused
on the six-year graduation rates and one-year retention rates of full-time, first-time
students. Such indicators are taken as a proxy for institutional effectiveness and feature
prominently in state and national accountability measures, national rankings, and
institutional strategic plans. This narrow focus excludes students who pursue their degree
over periods longer than six years and those who transfer to other institutions to complete
their studies; indeed, a student who transfers to complete a degree elsewhere counts
against his or her original institution as a non-completer (Adelman, 2006).

Even a shift to a more comprehensive and reasonable way to track students as they move
through the interconnected system of higher education, however, will not alleviate the
conceptual shortcoming inherent in measuring institutional effectiveness through
graduation and retention rates because these statistics do not account for differences in
student effort or motivation to succeed. While institutions have an obligation to provide
an environment in which students can achieve their educational goals, students must still
put forth the effort and perform the work required to master the appropriate learning
outcomes for their chosen academic programs. In this respect, a tension exists between
student persistence, in which students are the responsible agents for progress, and student
retention, in which institutions are responsible for student progress.

To the extent that higher education may be considered through an Input-Environment-

Output model (Astin A. W., 1993), the notion of an institutional graduation rate or
retention rate as used for accountability purposes can overemphasize institutional
environment and deemphasize the responsibility of students to engage fully in their
educational experience. Effects of inputs on institutional graduation rates have been well

Presented at Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum May 26, 2008
documented. Various studies of graduation rates indicated unsurprisingly that factors
such as high school performance, admission scores, gender, and race are related to
institutional graduation rates (Astin & Oseguera, 2005; American College Testing, Inc.,
2005; Grayson, 1995). This formulation of input, however, suggests that what students
bring to the educational experience ends at the moment of matriculation and become
objects upon which the environment acts. In other words, input occurs throughout the
educational process.

A proxy for the amount of effort that students apply to their educational program, or this
ongoing level of input, is their grade point average; in some respects it represents the
level with which they engage their curricular studies. To be sure, grade point averages
encompass a wide range of factors such as preparation, effort, commitment, emotional
adjustment and integration, financial stability, and the list goes on and on. Nevertheless,
GPA is one measure of student performance that valuably illuminates inter- and intra-
institutional differences in retention and graduation rates.

As institutions devote more attention to analyzing their own graduation rates, some
attention has been paid to disaggregating these rates by student grade point averages
(Chen, Williams, & Drechsel, 2006; Baylor University, 2006; Ohio University, 2006), yet
these studies have in general remained localized and have not influenced the national
conversation about student success and institutional accountability. Nevertheless, these
local findings appear to be consistent with national data.

An examination of data from the Consortium for the Study of Retention Data Exchange
(CSRDE) indicates that the first semester collegiate grade point averages of incoming
full-time first-time students are predictive of subsequent retention and graduation from
the institution. These findings appear to obtain across institutional control and Carnegie
Classification. Disaggregation of institution-level data by first-semester GPA of first-
time, full-time students at a medium-sized public comprehensive university appears to
confirm these results and reveals stark intra-institutional differences. Findings suggest
that the national discussion about accountability could benefit by reframing the debate to
balance notions of the institutional responsibility for retention with student responsibility
for persistence.

The National Picture 
A total of 465 institutions reported data to the CSRDE about full-time first-time students
who entered their institutions in Fall 2000. Of these, 337 institutions reported the
proportion of the cohort of entering students who earned a first-semester GPA below 2.0
as well their graduation and retention rates. However, 22 of these institutions reported
this proportion was zero or below 3%; these institutions were excluded from the study
population, leaving 315 institutions in the study population, on the grounds that their data
were either missing or not-representative of a typical university in the United States.

As a caveat, while these institutions represent a broad cross-section of American colleges

and universities, it is worth noting that the institutional decision to participate in the
exchange of data about graduation and retention rates suggests some level of institutional

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention Page |2

commitment to improving these rates and to benchmarking against peers. By virtue of
this institutional commitment, these institutions may not truly be representative of all
American post-secondary institutions. Nevertheless, the study population is broad enough
to generate at least some initial findings.

Table 1 CSRDE Institutions Included in Study Population

Control
Institutional Type Private (N) Public (N) Total (N) Percent of Total
Baccalaureate 15 20 35 11%
Master's 45 105 150 48%
Doctoral 11 112 123 39%
Other 4 3 7 2%
Total 75 240 315
Percent of Total 24% 76%

On the national level, data from the CSRDE indicate a significant and inverse correlation
between the proportion of students who earn below a 2.0 GPA at an institution and an
institution’s reported one-year retention and six-year graduation rate. Institutions with the
lowest proportion of students earning below 2.0 had the highest one-year retention rates
and six-year graduation rates. Among the 56 institutions reporting that 10% or less of
their full-time first-time students earned a first-semester GPA below 2.0, the mean one-
year retention rate was 82%, and the mean six-year graduation rate was 65%. Conversely,
institutions at which significant proportions of students earned low grades in their first
semester exhibited much lower retention and graduation rates. Of the 22 institutions that
reported 31% or more of their full-time first-time students earned below 2.0 in their first
semester, the mean one-year retention rate was 65% and the mean six-year graduation
rate was just 33%, practically half that of institutions where few students earned below a
2.0 GPA in their first semester.

Table 2 One-Year Retention Rates and Six-Year Graduation Rates by Proportion of Entering
Cohort Earning a First Semester GPA Below 2.0
Proportion of Cohort Earning GPA Institutions One-Year Retention Rate Six-Year Graduation Rate
Below 2.0 in First Semester (N) (Mean) (Std Dev) (Mean) (Std Dev)
3% to 10% 56 82% 9% 65% 16%
11% to 20% 155 76% 7% 53% 13%
21% to 30% 82 72% 7% 45% 12%
31% and higher 22 65% 7% 33% 8%
All Institutions in Study 315 76% 9% 52% 15%

The inverse relationship between student success and graduation and retention rates is
statistically significant (p<0.001), and accounts for a sizeable proportion of variation in
graduation and retention rates. A linear regression indicates that the grades earned by
students in their first semester can account for just over a quarter of the variation in
institutional one-year retention rates (R2= 0.255) and almost a third of variation in
institutional graduation rates (R2=0.315) (see Table 3).

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention Page |3

Table 3 Univariate Regression Models for Retention and Graduation Rates
Institutional One-Year Retention Rate (Adj. R2=0.255) β S.E. t Sig.
Constant 0.858 0.011 80.04
Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 -0.576 0.055 -10.41 ***

Institutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R2=0.315)

Constant 0.719 0.018 39.22
Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 -1.141 0.095 -12.045 ***
*** Significant at p<0.001

Indeed, the regression models indicate that for every one percent of the entering freshman
class that earns below a 2.0 first-semester GPA, the institutional one-year retention rate
declines by over half of a percentage point. In terms of six-year graduation rates, the
relationship between first-semester GPA and subsequent graduation from the institution
can be even larger. For every one percent of the entering freshman class that earns below
a 2.0 first-semester GPA, the institutional six-year graduation rate declines by just over
one percentage point. The bottom line in this analysis is that institutions with more
students who earn low grades have lower graduation rates than institutions with students
where fewer students earn low grades.

Figure 1 Relationship between One-Year Retention Rate and Proportion of Full-Time, First-
Time Cohort Earning a First Semester GPA below 2.0 at Institutions Participating in the
CSRDE
RetnRate

N = 315 institutions, DF= 2, SSE = 1.76, R-Squared = 0.255, SE = 0.075, p < 0.001; RetnRate = -0.575*Below2.0 + 0.858
Excludes institutions reporting less than 3% of the full-time, first-time cohort earned a first semester GPA below 2.0, on the basis that these
institutions are not representative of most post-secondary institutions. Data source (Hayes, 2007)

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention Page |4

Figure 2 Relationship between Six-Year Graduation Rate and Proportion of Full-Time, First-
Time Cohort Earning a First Semester GPA below 2.0 at Institutions Participating in the
CSRDE
GradRate

N = 315 institutions, DF= 2, SSE = 5.16, R-Squared = 0.315, SE = 0.128763, p < 0.001; GradRate = -1.14*Below2.0 + 0.72
Excludes institutions reporting less than 3% of the full-time, first-time cohort earned a first semester GPA below 2.0, on the basis that these
institutions are not representative of most post-secondary institutions. Data source (Hayes, 2007)

Table 4 Multivariate Regression Models

Institutional One-Year Retention Rate (Adj. R2=0.367) β S.E. t Sig.
Constant 0.872 0.012 73.29
Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 -0.576 0.055 -10.41 ***
Baccalaureate institution -0.073 0.014 -5.36 ***
Master’s institution -0.044 0.009 -5.10 ***
Public control 0.022 0.010 2.17 *

Institutional Six-Year Graduation Rate (Adj. R2=0.380) β S.E. t Sig.

Constant 0.758 0.019 40.65
Percent of cohort with first semester GPA < 2.0 -1.085 0.091 -11.97 ***
Master’s institution -0.079 0.015 -5.54 ***
Baccalaureate institution -0.097 0.023 -4.18 ***
[institutional control was not significant for graduation rates in a stepwise regression]
* Significant at p<0.05; *** Significant at p<0.001

What is perhaps most significant about these findings is that they obtain across
institutional type and control (see Table 3). While these factors do have some relationship
to retention and graduation rates among the institutions in the study population, with
master’s and baccalaureate institutions exhibiting slightly lower retention and graduation
rates – factors perhaps more related to size and selectivity than to institutional
effectiveness – they are significantly less important than student performance within the
institution. Indeed, as the case study will demonstrate, intra-institutional variation is
much more prominent than inter-institutional variation. Findings also suggest the critical
importance of the first semester at an institution in forming students’ patterns of behavior.

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention Page |5

Institutional Case Study 
To investigate further the relationship between student performance as registered by first-
semester GPA and institutional retention and graduation rates, a case study was
undertaken at a medium-sized public comprehensive university in the northeast (Carnegie
2005 Master’s-Larger Programs; approximate Fall 2007 headcount enrollment = 12,000;
undergraduate FTE enrollment = 7,300; graduate FTE enrollment = 1,110). As typically
portrayed, institutional retention rates of entering full-time, first-time students (headcount
1,200-1,500) have increased from the low 70% range in the mid-1990s to 76-80% for
those entering Fall 2004-2006; six-year graduation rates have ranged between 40-45% for
most of the past decade.

As is the case with many similar universities, retention rates for men have been five to
ten percentage points lower than those for women, with smaller gaps in recent years.
Graduation rates have exhibited a wider gap of 11 to 17 percentage points, with women
outperforming men; the institution’s higher proportion of men (50% compared to about
60% at peer institutions) accounts for 1.5 to 2 percentage points of the gap in overall
graduation rates.

Figure 3 Institution's One-Year Retention Rate and Six-Year Graduation Rate of Full-Time
First-Time Students Compared to Rates at Peer Institutions
90%
80%
77% 79% National Peer
80%
72% Group Median 1-
79% Year Retention
70% 75% Rate
69% National Peer
60% Group Median 6-
49% Year Graduation
Rate
50% 46%
Institutional 1-
40% 44% Year Retention
40% Rate
40%
30%
Institutional 6-
Year Graduation
Rate
Fall of Entry
Peer institutions represent a group of ten similar public universities across the country (Carnegie 2005 Master’s-larger programs)
Data Sources: IPEDS Peer Analysis System and CSRDE Data (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007; Hayes, 2007)

One-year retention rates for students who reported a race or ethnicity from a traditionally
underrepresented minority group (American Indian/Native Alaskan, Asian/Pacific
Islander, Black Not Hispanic, and Hispanic) averaged 2-3 percentage points lower than
those for students who did not report one of these ethnicities. Six-year graduation rates
for students in these minority groups, however, were 11-16 percentage points lower than
those of other students.

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention Page |6

To examine graduation and retention rates of full-time first-time students in greater
detail, a longitudinal data set of students entering the institution in Fall 1999, Fall 2000,
and Fall 2001 as full-time first-time students (those in the IPEDS Graduation Rate Survey
cohort) was compiled to include demographic characteristics, academic inputs (HS rank,
SAT scores), semester grade point average, and credits attempted. This group included
3,876 students. Just over a half (53%) of these were men, and just under a sixth (15%)
were from a minority group. The mean combined SAT score for these three years was
973 (S.D. = 131, the mean SAT score has since risen significantly to 1,011 in Fall 2007).
About a sixth (16%) was in the top quartile of their graduating high school class, and
another third (32%) were in the second quartile. In terms of first semester grade point
averages, over a quarter (28%) of these students earned a first-semester GPA below 2.00
or withdrew before finishing the semester, while about the same proportion (also 28%)
earned a first semester GPA of 3.00-4.00. The remaining 43% of the students in the study
earned a first semester GPA between 2.00 and 2.99, inclusive.

Table 5 Retention and Graduation Rates of Full-Time, First-Time Students Entering Fall
1999, 2000, and 2001
Retained at Same Institution Graduated at Same Institution Chi-sq tests
Initial Cohort Fa (sig. at
’99, ’00, ‘01 To 2nd Year To 3rd Year To 4th Year In 4 Years In 5 Years In 6 Years p<0.001)

N Pct N Pct N Pct N Pct N Pct N Pct N Pct η

Gender 0.136

Female 1,828 47% 1,387 76% 1,203 66% 1,094 60% 292 16% 730 40% 881 48%
Male 2,048 53% 1,416 69% 1,162 57% 1,039 51% 161 8% 543 27% 713 35%

Race/Ethnicity 0.085

Not Minority 3,284 85% 2,387 73% 2,020 62% 1,833 56% 401 12% 1,130 34% 1,409 43%
Minority 592 15% 416 70% 345 58% 300 51% 52 9% 143 24% 185 31%

1st Sem. GPA 0.412

Below 2.0/WD 1,104 28% 445 40% 283 26% 231 21% 11 1% 59 5% 104 9%
2.00-2.99 1,679 43% 1,431 85% 1,248 74% 1,111 66% 179 11% 614 37% 799 48%
3.00-4.00 1,093 28% 927 85% 834 76% 791 72% 263 24% 600 55% 691 63%

Grand Total 3,876 100% 2,803 72% 2,365 61% 2,133 55% 453 12% 1,273 33% 1,594 41%

“Minority” includes students who reported a race/ethnicity of American Indian/Native Alaskan, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black (Not Hispanic), and
Hispanic; “Not Minority” includes all other students, including White (Not Hispanic), race/ethnicity unknown, and non-resident aliens.

The most important finding from this case study is that first-semester GPA is the student
characteristic that is most related to graduation within six years of entry for full-time first
time students. Its effects are more pronounced and significant than factors such as gender
and race or ethnicity, although relationships among these variables were observed.
Indeed, the differences in graduation rates among students by their first-semester GPA
are quite stark. For those earning a first semester GPA of 3.0 or higher, the average six-
year graduation rate was 63%, more than 20 percentage points over the institutional
average. Conversely, for those who earned a first-semester GPA below 2.0 or withdrew,
the six-year graduation rate was just 9%, or 22 percentage points below the institutional
average (see Table 5 and Figure 4). Chi square tests conducted on six-year graduation

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention Page |7

rates by first semester GPA, gender, and race/ethnicity were all significant (p<0.001), but
the effect size for first semester GPA (η=0.412) was substantially larger than the effect
size for gender (η=0.136) or race/ethnicity (η=0.085)

Figure 4 Average Six-Year Institutional Graduation Rates of Full-Time, First-Time Students

Entering Fall 1999, 2000, and 2001
70% 63%
Six-year Graduation Rate

60%
48% 48% Institutional Avg.,
50% 43% 41%
40% 35%
31%
30%
20%
9%
10%
0%
Female Male Not Minority Minority 3.00-4.00 2.00-2.99 Below 2.0 or
WD

Gender Race/Ethnicity First Semester GPA

Logistic regression models that use only first semester GPA to predict the probability that
a student will persist or graduate also yield significant results (p<0.001). First semester
GPA used to predict retention to a second year increased forecasting accuracy from 72%
to about 81%, and when used to predict graduation in six years, it improved forecasting
accuracy from 58% to 67%. In general, for each 1.1 grade points of a student’s first
semester GPA, the odds of persisting to the second year increased by odds just over 2.9 to
1. Similarly, for each 1.2 grade points of a student’s first semester GPA, the odds of
graduating in six years increased by odds of about 3.3 to 1 (see

Table 6 Univariate Logistic Regression of First Semester GPA onto One-Year Retention and
Six Year Graduation
Institutional One-Year Retention Rate Odds
(Cox & Snell R2=0.178, Nagelkerke R2=0.260) β S.E. Ratio Sig.
Constant -1.360 0.102
First semester GPA 1.082 0.044 2.952 ***

Institution’s Six-Year Graduation Rate Odds

(Cox & Snell R2=0.187, Nagelkerke R2=0.252) β S.E. Ratio Sig.
Constant -3.309 0.140
First semester GPA 1.194 0.051 3.301 ***
*** Significant at p<0.001

Students’ high school rank as well as dummy variables for gender and a minority
race/ethnicity were also placed into the logistic regression models using forward
conditional entry, but the resulting models either failed to identify these variables as

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention Page |8

significant (p<0.05) or failed to improve model prediction accuracy by more than 1%.
Such results may suggest that a large portion of the differences in graduation and
retention rates observed by gender and by race/ethnicity may in fact be attributable to
differences in first semester grade point averages.

Discussion and Implications 
Student Success
The overarching message these findings communicate is that successful students tend to
stay and graduate, unsuccessful students do not. In this respect, graduation and retention
rates are as much a measure of how well students are doing in their curricular and co-
curricular work and the extent to which they are engaging in their educational experience
as much as they are measures of institutional effectiveness. In many ways, this finding
confirms the old saw that students get out of their education what they put into it, and it
may reinforce the importance of articulating a graduation or retention rate as an indicator
of the larger outcome: student success (Tinto, 1993).

Such findings should not be taken to excuse institutions from blame in instances where
institutional policies and procedures are convoluted, campus environments are
unwelcoming, and instructional methods are ineffective. Institutions have a responsibility
to ensure the services and programs they provide are delivered effectively and efficiently
to maximize student success, but the role and responsibility of the student in participating
in his or her own educational experience should not be neglected either.

Focus on the first semester

Institutions trying to improve their one-year retention rates and subsequent graduation
rates should continue to focus on student success in the first-semester. This may include
increased academic support, early warnings and interventions based on early graded
work, or any other strategy that may improve the level of student learning. Even
institutions that may deem their first-year programs and one-year retention rates to be at
acceptable levels may find it beneficial to reexamine how first-semester performance
relates to subsequent performance. Importantly, findings from this study appear to
indicate that student grade point averages for groups of students do not change markedly
over the course of four years (see table 7).

Table 7 Fall Semester GPA (2001-2004) of Fall 2001 First-Time, Full-Time Cohort by First
Semester GPA
Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004
Sem. Sem. Sem. Sem.
First Semester GPA N GPA N GPA N GPA N GPA
No GPA 33 -- 5 2.14 2 2.63 4 3.04
Below 2.0 258 1.12 103 1.82 58 2.11 41 2.53
2.00-2.49 255 2.26 213 2.33 178 2.45 155 2.67
2.50-2.99 345 2.73 284 2.59 256 2.65 236 2.82
3.00-3.49 240 3.21 204 2.89 184 2.99 177 3.11
3.50-4.00 141 3.71 114 3.33 101 3.34 95 3.45
Cohort Total 1272 2.50 923 2.60 779 2.74 708 2.93

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention Page |9

For instance, of the 345 students in the institutions Fall 2001 cohort who earned a first
semester GPA between 2.50 and 2.99, as a group earned a mean semester GPA between
2.59 and 2.82 for the subsequent three fall semesters. Such findings may suggest that
students develop behavior for negotiating the college environment during their first
semester, perhaps early in their first semester, and then they continue to follow these
behavioral patterns throughout the rest of their academic careers.

Student Effort and Time Spent on Academic Work

The concept of student engagement – the extent to which students actively participate in
their educational experience – would suggest that students continue to insert effort,
attention, time, and energy into their studies and co-curricular activities (Kuh, 2003). A
prime instance of students’ lack of engagement in the educational experience is exhibited
in findings from the National Survey of Student Engagement. Almost half (45%) of first-
year students nationwide responding to the survey in Spring 2007 indicated that they
spent 10 hours or less in a seven day week preparing for class (studying, reading, writing,
doing homework or lab work, analyzing data, rehearsing, and other academic activities),
and just 20% reported spending 21 hours per week on more on these same activities.

By contrast, faculty members generally expect two hours of class preparation outside of
class for every hour spent in class, or about 30 hours per week for a full-time student.
This disparity between faculty expectations for time spent on academic work outside the
classroom and actual student behavior has been described as a “mutual non-aggression
pact” between students and faculty, and the level of disengagement of such students in
many ways is higher education’s “dirty little secret” (Merrow, 2006).

Grade Inflation
Retention and graduation rates as accountability measures can promote a system that is
open to “gaming.” Given the relationship between student grades and retention,
institutions may have incentives to inflate grades. The revenue streams of various
institutional types would suggest this may already be the case. The most recent National
Post-Secondary Student Aid Study indicates that at for-profit institutions, where revenue
depends almost solely on tuition dollars, 28% of students earn mostly grades of “A.” By
comparison, 17% of students at private not-for-profit institutions and just 10% of students
at public four-year institutions earn similarly high grades (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2007). This correlation suggests that where organization mission
requires a predictable, if not increasing, stream of students, higher grades may be
awarded to retain these students. After all, a business may find it difficult to give a
customer an “F.”

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention P a g e | 10

Figure 5 Undergraduate Grade Point Averages by Institution Type
50%
45%
40%
35% 17.5%
30%
25% 15.5%
20%
11.2% A's and B's
15% 27.8%
10% Mostly A's
16.7%
5% 10.9%
0%
Public 4-year Private nonprofit 4- All private for-profit
year
Institution Type

Source: (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2007)

It is important when discussing findings such as this with faculty, that emphasis is placed
on the importance of maintaining high and consistent standards. Faculty should not be
asked to grade differently to improve graduation and retention rates, but rather the
collective mission of the institution ought to be to develop and implement methods that
prompt students to learn more effectively. Further, as with all regression models, these
data show only association between first semester GPA and six-year graduation rates, not
causality. Simply inflating grades might obscure one of the more valuable indicators
available for identifying students with low probabilities of completing their degree
programs and delivering appropriate services and programs to them in an effort to
improve their learning, not simply to promote or credential them.

The National Debate

Focus on retention rates absent the context of student performance can overemphasize
institutional responsibility for student success. To what extent do institutions retain
students and to what extent do students persist with their studies? The very notion of a
retention rate appears to place more emphasis on institutions than students, and the idea
of a persistence rate would seem to gesture toward a philosophy of academic Darwinism
in which students who may need extra help do not survive.

In fact, what is called for is a partnership between students, institutions, and policymakers
to prompt higher levels of student success. It is clear that a sea-change in the
contemporary approach to higher education is likely required to improve success rates.
Policymakers should recognize that promoting student success in post-secondary
education is markedly different from elementary and secondary settings; as adults,
college students make decisions that have impacts on their ultimate success or failure.
Indeed, students must be responsible to apply sufficient effort outside of class on
academic work to develop the cognitive, behavioral, and affective outcomes expected of
bachelor’s degree recipients. Likewise, institutions and faculty have to develop engaging
educational experiences that motivate students to complete the self-directed learning
outside of class that allows for higher level learning occurring in the classroom.

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention P a g e | 11

Works Cited 
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school
through college. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
American College Testing, Inc. (2005). ACT college readiness benchmarks, retention and
first-year college GPA: What's the connection? Retrieved May 15, 2008, from
https://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/2005-2.pdf
Astin, A. W. (1993). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of
assessment and evaluation in higher education. Phoenix: Oryx.
Astin, A. W., & Oseguera, L. (2005). Degree attainment rates at American colleges and
universities: Effects of race, gender, and institutional type. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute.
Baylor University. (2006). Analysis of undergraduate first year GPA. Retrieved October
12, 2007, from Office of Institutional Research and Testing Series Vol. 06-07,
No. 7: http://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/32635.pdf
Chen, J. C., Williams, C., & Drechsel, C. (2006). Beyond first year retention: Bridging
the student success and campus strategic retention initiatives. Retrieved October
12, 2007, from http://www.und.edu/dept/datacol/presentations/2006AIRPoster.pdf
Grayson, J. P. (1995). Race and first year retention on a Canadian campus. Ontario,
Canada.
Hayes, R. (2007). 2006-07 CSRDE retention report: the retention and graduation rates
of 1999-2005 entering baccalaureate degree-seeking freshmen cohorts in 438
colleges and universities. Norman, OK: Consortium for the Study of Retention
Data Exchange.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptula framework and
overview of psychometric properties. Retrieved September 10, 2007, from
National Survey of Student Engagement:
http://nsse.iub.ude/pdf/conceptual_framework_2003.pdf
Merrow, J. (2006). My college education: Looking at the whole elephant. Change , 38
(3), 8-15.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). IPEDS Peer Analysis System.
Retrieved October 12, 2007, from http://nces.ed.gov/ipedspas/
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2007). Undergraduate Grade-Point
Averages, 2003-4. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study: http://nces.ed.gov/dasol/index.asp
Ohio University. (2006). Factors associated with first-year student attrition and retention
at Ohio University regional campuses. Retrieved October 12, 2007, from Office
of Institutional Research: http://www.ohiou.edu/instres/retention/RetenReg.pdf
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

The Tension between Student Persistence and Institutional Retention P a g e | 12