INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

Running Head: INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

An Intervention to Improve Fall to Spring Attrition of First-Year Residential Students

Beth Ann Simpson
University of Memphis

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

Section A: Fall to Spring Attrition of First-Year Residential Students
Overview of the Issue
The University of Memphis Lambuth Campus Residence Life program is only in
its third year of operations; therefore, it lacks history, data, and trends to predict future
growth or attrition. In the past two years operating our newly renovated traditional
residence hall, Carney-Johnston, we have experienced a pattern of significant attrition
rates from the Fall to Spring semester. As shown in Table 1, the number of cancellations
of first-year residential students has decreased from 2013 to 2014; however, the attrition
rates remain high and a concern for the future growth and development of residential
students at the University of Memphis Lambuth Campus.
Table 1
Fall 2013 and 2014 Attrition Rates in Carney-Johnston Hall

Total
Residents
First-Year
Students

Fall
2013
72

Fall-Spring
Cancellations
18

%
Attrition
25%

Fall
2014
89

Fall-Spring
%
Cancellations Attrition
15
17%

44

12

27.5%

50

16%

The issue of high attrition rates of first-year residential students in CarneyJohnston indicates concerns about reasons for cancelling housing from Fall to Spring.
Based on conversations with each first-year resident, the reasons for leaving include
financial burdens, desire to live at home with parents, and uncertainty of educational or
career path (T. Taylor, personal communication, November 5, 2014). Past literature
demonstrates an importance for living on campus and student involvement on creating a
sense of belonging and persistence through college (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

issue of attrition rates in Carney-Johnston may be improved by addressing the

developmental deficiencies and lack of investment demonstrated by first-year residents.
The Setting
In order to improve the issue of Fall to Spring attrition in Carney-Johnston on the
Lambuth Campus, it is important to understand the campus environment and its students.
The Lambuth Campus is an extension of the University of Memphis, a large metropolitan
research institution serving around 21,000 students; however, the Lambuth Campus is a
quaint, historic, liberal arts type campus situated in the middle of Jacksons midtown
neighborhood serving only around 800 students (University of Memphis, 2014). The
campus is in its infancy stages of student life, dining operations, student organizations,
student government, campus activities, leadership programs, and fraternity and sorority
affairs. The faculty to student ratio is 1/12, and the campus and online programs serve
mostly West Tennessee rural counties within a 50-mile radius (University of Memphis,
2014). Our residential students often come from small towns and high schools, wish to
remain close to family, and travel home on the weekends. Currently, our residential
student population is roughly 70% female and 30% male and first-year students make up
56% of total residents.
Review of Literature
Decades of research strongly support a relationship between student engagement and
retention, specifically on-campus living and persistence through the first year (Moeck,
Hardy, & Katsinas, 2007). Astins (1993) Input-Environment-Outcomes (I-E-O) model
has been the foundation of many studies examining the relationship of student
performance and persistence. According to Astin (1993), student outcomes are

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

determined by input characteristics and environmental experience. When looking at why

students are not persisting in the residence hall in their first-year, its important to
consider what these students bring with them and what they may be experiencing during
their stay (Purdie & Rosser, 2011).
Tintos (1993) theory of voluntary student attrition also provides support in
understanding why students decide to leave the residence hall or the institution. Tinto
(1993) claims a variety of factors contribute to a students decision to persist or leave,
and it is a on-going process dependent on feelings of engagement and investment in the
institution. Among the possible factors for why students do not persist to degree
competition are financial burdens, lack of goals and support, difficulty adjusting to
transition, and failure to get involved on campus (Morrow & Ackermann, 2012).
According to Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, Kinzie, and Gonyea (2008), students that leave
prematurely were not as engaged on campus as those persisting to graduation.
Specifically, student engagement in educationally purposeful activities during the first
year of college had a positive, statistically significant effect on persistence (Kuh et al.,
2008, p. 551). Kuh et al. (2008) described educational purposeful activities as livinglearning communities, theme-based housing, and other residential programs. While
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) concluded that on-campus living was the single most
consistent determinant of impact on college performance and persistence, it is important
to understand what the residential experience provides for students compared to those
commuting to campus.
One of the most important influences is creating a sense of belonging (Schudde,
2011). If students are connected to their peers and their campus community, they develop

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

a sense of ownership and investment that leads to commitment and persistence (Schudde,
2011; OHara, 2001). Morrow and Ackermanns (2012) research on sense of belonging
and retention demonstrated a connection between faculty and peer support on intent to
persist to second year. With convenient access to campus resources, faculty, and peers,
students have shown more academic and social success (Morrow & Ackermann, 2012).
Increased support from advisors and mentors may alleviate stressors and feelings of
isolation that first-year students often experience and are among the primary reasons
students leave prematurely (Schudde, 2011; Tinto, 1993).
A number of residential living-learning communities and first-year experience
programs have been studied to determine what model is most effective for student
development and success (Purdie & Rosser, 2011). Upon studying three types of
programs at a large, public institution, Purdie and Rosser (2011) determined Freshmen
Interest Groups (FIG), a community of 15-25 students living on the same residence hall
floor and enrolled in a cohort of four courses, produced higher GPAs and higher rates of
persisting to sophomore year over the other two types of first-year programs. Purdie and
Rosser (2011) suggested that students participating in FIGs were successful as a result of
the combination of living and learning together as a cohort. GOOD REVIEW OF
LITERATURE
Theoretical Analysis
I suspect a number of factors contribute to our high attrition rate from Fall to Spring
in first-year students on the Lambuth Campus. However, I think a large part is due to
difficulty adjusting to a new environment, being away from home and family, lacking
development of identity and purpose, and needing an immediate connection to create a

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

sense of belonging (T. Taylor, personal communication, November 5, 2014). In order to

strengthen these developmental and transitional issues faced by first-year students, the
proposed intervention is centered on and supported by Chickerings theory of identity
development, Kolbs theory of experiential learning, and Schlossbergs transition theory
(Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2010).
Chickering studied the psychosocial development of college students, and along with
Reisser proposed seven vectors of development that lead to student identity formation
(Evans et al., 2010). These vectors include developing competence, managing emotions,
moving through autonomy toward interdependence, developing mature interpersonal
relationships, establishing identity, developing purpose, and developing integrity (Evans
et al., 2010). Residence life programs vary by institution, but most are intended to
provide on-campus living, a sense of community, and developmental programs to help
students learn and grow outside the classroom. Based on first-year resident responses to
why they cancelled housing for the Spring semester, a lack of development in several of
Chickerings vectors may contribute to students decisions to leave residence living or the
institution all together (Evans et al., 2010). Specifically, developing autonomy,
interpersonal relationships, and purpose will be emphasized in the proposed intervention
in hopes of retaining a larger percent of first-year residents to the Spring semester (Evans
et al., 2010). In order to be sufficient in developing students, Chickering and Reisser also
suggested we consider the influences of environmental factors like institutional mission,
size, services, and curriculum (Evans et al., 2010).
Another foundational development theory utilized in establishing effective residence
life programs is Kolbs theory of experiential learning (Evans et al., 2010). Kolb defined

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

learning as a process of creating knowledge by transformational experience (Evans et al.,

2010). He demonstrated this process through a four-stage cycle of learning involving
concrete experience, reflective observations, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation (Evans et al., 2010). Kolbs learning cycle further supports the
importance of students learning outside of the classroom by living on campus in a
diverse community, experiencing situations to reflect on, forming ideas and opinions, and
incorporating them into real-life circumstances (Evans et al., 2010).
Lastly, the intervention to improve Fall to Spring attrition in first-year residential
students must examine the impact of transition on a first-year students experience and
decisions. Schlossbergs theory of transition defines the forms, processes, and factors of
transitions as well as how to effectively support students through this period of change
(Evans et al., 2010). First-year students moving on campus are presented with a number
of changes that may influence their ability to cope with the transition (Evans et al., 2010).
Schlossberg defined these factors as situation, self, support, and strategies (Evans et al.,
2010). A first-year student is experiencing a new environment, a role change, engaging in
new relationships, presented with a new support system, all of which students have
unique ways of managing (Evans et al., 2010).
Section B: Implementation of Family Clusters
Developmental Context
The campus size and developing culture means there are only a few opportunities
to create a sense of belonging, with the exception of the residential community and
twelve student organizations. Residential students are transitioning from home to living
independently, and the Lambuth campus is in close proximity to most students home

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

making it difficult to detach from what is comfortable and familiar. The on-campus living
environment brings about new interactions with a more diverse population and challenges
of establishing interpersonal relationships (Evans et al., 2010). While residents are
developing competence and individual identity, college often presents difficulty for some
students to develop autonomy and clarify purpose (Evans et al., 2010). It is also
important to note that students enter college with unique needs and may be at varying
points in their development (Evans et al., 2010). The Lambuth Campus does not currently
have the resources to implement TRIO programs or first-year or first-generation
assistance programs. In addition, other than educational support services, no mentorship
program exists on campus at this time.
Description of the Targeted Audience
The majority of first-year residential students on the Lambuth Campus originates
from surrounding rural towns and seeks more one-on-one attention from a small campus
environment. While our residents often claim to be seeking a home away from home,
this generation of students has protective, heavily involved parents of which they are still
attached. From my observations and feedback from those first-year students cancelling
housing for the Spring semester, it appears they are experiencing what Zeller and Mosier
(1993) describe as the W-Curve, a predictable pattern of students adapting to a new
culture. Residents move in and begin class in the honeymoon phase, but when the
newness wears off they experience culture shock, which may lead to homesickness or
difficulty establishing relationships (Zeller & Mosier, 1993). Then first-year students
experience an upswing as initial adjustments and routines are formed; yet when students
return home for breaks or become overwhelmed at the end of the semester they may

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

relapse into mental isolation (Zeller & Mosier, 1993). If first-year students can recover
from this period of mental isolation they often become fully engaged on campus and
move towards acceptance, integration, and connectedness (Zeller & Mosier, 1993). The
residents cancelling housing for the Spring semester before the first of November
deadline may be experiencing mental isolation (Zeller & Mosier, 1993). This premature
decision to move back home or leave the institution prevents them from potentially
moving to a deeper level of engagement in the campus and interrupts persistence through
college.
Intervention Goals
The overarching goals of residential family clusters in Carney-Johnston would be to
increase the number of students living on campus, decrease attrition rates from Fall to
Spring semesters in the residence hall, and increase retention rates from Freshmen to
Sophomore year in the residence hall. In addition, the goal of establishing family clusters
within Carney-Johnston would be to create a sense of belonging and define a support
system for first-year students. Family clusters would provide peer mentoring through
upperclassmen facilitators and assist in connecting first-year students to the campus
community and resources by involving faculty and staff advisors in the program
structure.
Intervention
To improve the issue of Fall to Spring attrition of first-year residential students, I
propose the intervention of a revised residence life program to include the formation of
family clusters. ITS BEEN DONE BEFORE I IMAGINE In order to boost the number
of first-year students living on campus to an estimated 150, the University of Memphis

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

10

Lambuth Campus must first change residence life policy to require housing for first-year
students residing outside a 35-mile radius of campus. From student observations and
feedback, those commuting over 35 miles to campus each day are presented with
additional hardships that may have a negative impact on academic and social success.
Next, our campus would conduct a separate housing assignment process in order to
randomly assign residents to one of six family clusters consisting of 20-25 students.
Family clusters will live in close proximity to one another in mixed gender wings of
Carney-Johnston.
Each family cluster will be comprised of 20-25 residents, two upperclassmen
facilitators, and a faculty or staff advisor, representing a diverse group of degree
programs, ethnicity, age, gender, and classification. Upon recruiting upperclassmen to
serve as mentors and facilitators of the families, Mom & Dad will assist in building a
family-like environment on their wing. The faculty or staff advisor will serve as a
supervisor and mentor to assist family clusters in better connecting to the campus
community. All staff, facilitators, and advisors will be trained on expectations and goals
of the family cluster program. Both upperclassmen facilitators and advisors will work
with residence life staff to enhance student development through the programming model
and enforce standards of living to promote a safe sense of community (see Appendix).
Incorporating programs that align with Chickering and Reissers seven vectors of
identity development will enhance the current residence life program model (see
Appendix). While there is already a presence of programming to assist students in areas
of personal, academic, and community development, family clusters will be participating
in additional programs emphasizing vectors of establishing autonomy, developing mature

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

11

relationships, and clarifying purpose and career aspirations (Evans et al., 2010). In order
to encourage participation, family clusters will compete year round for attendance at
residence life sponsored programs, outside experience programs, service learning hours,
academic support hours, cumulative GPA, institutional traditions events, and retention of
residents to the Spring semester.
To cultivate a family-like experience, family clusters will be required to conduct
weekly family cluster huddles to provide support and accountable to one another. Each
resident will have to meet biweekly to check in with parents to stay in good
communication, assess residents needs, and be proactive in intervening to improve
conditions or experiences. Family clusters will be required to attend a number of
academic support services (i.e. tutoring sessions, study groups), resident advisor
programs (i.e. seven vector programs), and additional activities and competitions (see
Appendix).
Rationale
The implementation of family clusters in Carney-Johnston is intended to enhance the
sense of community and comradery already present in the residence hall by creating an
instant sense of belonging within a family. Family clusters are designed to provide
support and resources for the first-year transition by building relationships with
upperclassmen facilitators and faculty and staff advisors. Family clusters will build
stronger connections to the campus and the community in order to cultivate feelings of
investment in the institution. The revised program model emphasizing identity
development, experiential learning, and transitional support will provide students with the
tools to succeed and desire to remain living on campus. Overall the enhancement of

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

12

connectivity and holistic student development will hopefully increase persistence to the
Spring semester and on to sophomore year.
Evaluation Plan
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the family cluster program in CarneyJohnston, we will track first-year residential students GPA and involvement in residence
life programs and campus activities. We will measure first-year resident persistence from
Fall 2015 to Spring 2016 by observing the number retained. We will measure first-year
resident persistence to sophomore year and beyond to degree competition to gage
improvement of the residence life program. We will also survey students regarding the
satisfaction of their housing experience with family clusters to compare with previous
data without residents involved in family clusters.

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

13

References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Evans, N., Forney, D., Guido, F., Patton, L., & Renn, K. (2010). Student development in
college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd edition). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Kuh, G.D., Cruce, T.M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R.M. (2008). Unmasking the
effects of student engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. The
Journal of Higher Education, 79(5), 540-563.
Moeck, P.G., Hardy, D.E., & Katsinas, S.G. (2007). Residential living at rural
community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, (137), 77-86.
Morrow, J., & Ackermann, M. (2012). Intention to persist and retention of first-year
students: the importance of motivation and sense of belonging. College Student
Journal, 46(3), 483-491.
OHara, R. J. (2001). How to build a residential college. Planning For Higher Education,
30(2), 52-57.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade
of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Purdie II, J. R., & Rosser, V. v. (2011). Examining the academic performance and
retention of first-year students in living-learning communities and first-year
experience courses. College Student Affairs Journal, 29(2), 95-112.

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

14

Schudde, L.T. (2011). The casual effect of campus residency on college student retention.
The Review of Higher Education, 34(4), 581-610.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
University of Memphis (2014, November 3). Retrieved from
www.memphis.edu/umhistory.php
Zeller, W. J., & Mosier, R. (1993). Culture shock and the first-year experience. Journal
of College and University Student Housing, 23(2).

INTERVENTION OF FIRST-YEAR RESIDENTIAL STUDENTS

Appendix

15