Community College Withdrawal Decisions: Student Characteristics and Subsequent Reenrollment Patterns

Grimes, Sue K.; Antworth, Theresa

doi:10.1080/1066892960200405

Cited by 22 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several ways to account for one of these classes, transfer students, have been developed including: state tracking systems (DesJardins & Pontiff, 1999;Hoyt, 1999;Ronco, 1996;Russell & Chisholm, 1995); surveys of freshmen, nonreturning, and graduating students (Bers & Smith, 1991;Bonham & Luckie, 1993;Grimes & Antworth, 1996;Grosset, 1993;Kraemer, 1995;Perrine, 2001;Witherspoon, Long, & Chubick, 1999); transcript examination (Kraemer, 1995); admission applications or other preadmission surveys measuring educational intent (Voorhees, 1987); the National Student Loan Clearinghouse (Porter, 2002); and long-term, national cohort tracking studies (Adelman, 1999;Pascarella, Smart, & Ethington, 1986).…”

Section: Accounting For Differing Classes Of Nonreturning Studentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Retention and College Student Bodies: Differences Between Drop-Outs, Stop-Outs, Opt-Outs, and Transfer-Outs

Hoyt¹,

Winn²

2004

NASPA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O Nonreturning students are comprised of several student subpopulations including drop-outs, stop-outs, opt-outs, and transfer-outs. All too often these student groups are not differentiated in retention studies. The current study profiles these student subpopulations, each with varied reasons for discontinuing their studies, and examines the implications of these differences for campus retention strategies.

show abstract

Section: Accounting For Differing Classes Of Nonreturning Studentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Retention and College Student Bodies: Differences Between Drop-Outs, Stop-Outs, Opt-Outs, and Transfer-Outs

Hoyt¹,

Winn²

2004

NASPA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such students may return as Woosley et al (2005) found that 40% of withdrawing students either re-enroll or intend to re-enroll. To facilitate the re-enrollment of such students, institutions should develop policies and practices to permit such returns with few obstacles (Grimes & Antworth, 1996). Although Grimes and Antworth advance this recommendation for community colleges, it applies to all types of colleges and universities.…”

Section: Develop and Foster A Culture Of Enforced Student Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaping Retention from Research to Practice

Braxton

Brier

Steele

2007

Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Pr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents seven guidelines to direct professional practice aimed toward the improvement of institutional student retention rates. For each of the seven guidelines, specific recommendations to provide direction to the enactment of the focal guideline are described. These seven guidelines spring from empirical studies of campus-based interventions and from recommendations for policy and practice advanced in empirical studies of college student retention.In 2006, The American College Testing Program reported that approximately 48% of students enrolled in two-year colleges departed during their first year and that more than one out of every four students departed during the first year from a four-year college or university. Moreover, these rates varied little between 1983 and 2006. Despite the long history of research on student departure that spans over 75 years (Braxton, 2000), these rates of departure continue to persist. Although the body of research on student departure has greatly increased our understanding of the college student departure process, much work remains to be 377 Ó 2007, Baywood Publishing Co., Inc.

show abstract

“…Research on persistence in community college settings, even if limited, has been published for several decades, going back to studies by Bers (1988), Halpin (1990), Pascarella, Smart, and Ethington (1986), Voorhees (1987), and M. W. Webb (1988Webb ( , 1989. Based on these and subsequent articles that established the salience of various student background factors in terms of student persistence and college retention, tempered by data availability and parsimony, we included variables operationalizing students' race/ethnicity (Cabrera, Castañeda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992;Grimes & Antworth, 1996;Strayhorn, 2012;Wood, 2012), gender (Grimes & Antworth, 1996;Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), age (D'Amico, Morgan, & Rutherford, 2011;Nakajima, Dembo, & Mossler, 2012), English proficiency (Nakajima et al, 2012), high school grades (Feldman, 1993;Kuh et al, 2008), and generation status (i.e., education level of parents; Fike & Fike, 2008).…”

Section: Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Advising and the Persistence Intentions of Community College Students in their First Weeks in College

Hatch¹,

Garcia²

2017

The Review of Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Community College Withdrawal Decisions: Student Characteristics and Subsequent Reenrollment Patterns

Cited by 22 publications

References 16 publications

Understanding Retention and College Student Bodies: Differences Between Drop-Outs, Stop-Outs, Opt-Outs, and Transfer-Outs

Understanding Retention and College Student Bodies: Differences Between Drop-Outs, Stop-Outs, Opt-Outs, and Transfer-Outs

Shaping Retention from Research to Practice

Academic Advising and the Persistence Intentions of Community College Students in their First Weeks in College

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About