Why do HE Students Drop Out? A test of Tinto's model

Brunsden, V; Davies, Mark N. O.; Shevlin, Mark; Bracken, Maeve

doi:10.1080/030987700750022244

Cited by 66 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…individual factors are of more concern as compared to the institutional factors contributing to student attrition (Brunsden, Davies, Shevlin, & Bracken, 2000). Moreover, Tinto has mainly focused on the students voluntarily giving up their studies in a particular institution.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Student Dropouts: A Case Study of Business Students

Zaheer¹,

Gul²,

Wazir³

et al. 2016

BER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study attempts to explore the reasons behind students' dropouts from higher education business schools. For this purpose, data about 1200 students over a period of one year is collected and analyzed from a leading business school in Peshawar. Determinants of dropouts are extracted from the literature and are tested for their association with the dropout decision by the students. Findings of the study are partially aligned with the literature and prove a significant relationship between gender, the type of school attended, students' performance at the SSC and HSSC levels, and major subjects studied at the HSSC level with the incidence of students' dropout from the business school; whereas age, father income, and hometown has shown no relationship with the students' dropout from the business school.

show abstract

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Determinants of Student Dropouts: A Case Study of Business Students

Zaheer¹,

Gul²,

Wazir³

et al. 2016

BER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Tinto's (1975) model has been said to focus heavily on traditional, white, young American first-year students in private residential institutions. Consequently, this has led to his model being criticised for being; too homogeneous (Brunsden et al 2000); its inability to explain racial minority student retention (Stage and Anaya 1996;Rendón et al 2000); studying attrition of only older students (Bean and Metzner 1985) and neglecting the 'widened community' of students that resulted from increased access (Rhodes and Neville 2004, 179).…”

Section: Tinto's Integration Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

A conceptual framework for understanding pre-entry factors influencing first-year university experience

Pather

Chetty

2016

SAJIE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student cohorts entering universities in South Africa have become more diverse; making the first-year experience more complex to understand. In order to address these challenges, a conceptual framework that accounts for the situated circumstances of the diverse students entering higher education is explored. The conceptual framework integrates key concepts from Bourdieu's (1984; 1990) conceptual tools andTinto's (1975;1993) student integration model.The framework facilitates in-depth understanding of pre-entry factors influencing first-year experience. To test the efficacy of the conceptual model, an analysis of one student's negotiations through her first-year university experience is reported. This article highlights the utility of this framework, identifying the manner in which pre-entry factors from the participant's situated context assisted in explaining how habitus shaped her first-year experience and academic performance. The themes identified: determination, motivation and self-resilience, helped understand why this participant made decisions that influenced her social and academic integration at university. Study outcomes suggest some initial insights and a starting point to influence actions that might improve university transition and integration of students from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds.

show abstract

“…Students dismissed by a university are classified as "involuntary withdrawals" (Brunsden, Davies, Shevlin, & Bracken, 2000), while those who were not required by the university to leave the institution are classified as voluntary withdrawal. Retention studies with SWDs who withdrew from college rarely distinguish those who left voluntarily from those who were academically dismissed.Sometimes the line between voluntary withdrawal and involuntary withdrawal is unclear.…”

Section: Voluntary Versus Involuntary Withdrawal Of Swdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voluntary Withdrawal of College Juniors and Seniors with Non-apparent Disabilities: Family, Peers, and Institutional Factors

Thompson-Ebanks

2014

JSSW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Framed within Bronfenbrenner's ecological perspective, this article reports on a study that explored mezzo factors that Juniors and Seniors with nonapparent disabilities associated with their college withdrawal. The five former students in this exploratory qualitative research reported family's expectations and the institution's requirements and expectations as the major factors they associate with their college withdrawal. Conclusions and suggestions are made about the role families and universities can play in fostering a learning environment in which college students with nonapparent disabilities can be successful.

show abstract

Why do HE Students Drop Out? A test of Tinto's model

Cited by 66 publications

References 31 publications

Determinants of Student Dropouts: A Case Study of Business Students

Determinants of Student Dropouts: A Case Study of Business Students

A conceptual framework for understanding pre-entry factors influencing first-year university experience

Voluntary Withdrawal of College Juniors and Seniors with Non-apparent Disabilities: Family, Peers, and Institutional Factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About