Tinto’s Interactionalist Theory (1975), state that student departure has been the standard among

theoretical view on college student attrition and retention. Tinto (1975) study used Durkheim’s Theory
of Suicide that if individuals are not integrated into society they are more likely to commit suicide and
that explain the college student departure. And also explained that if student have insufficient
interactions with others in the college and their goals and values are not aligned with those of the
college, the result will be leaving the institution instead. This shows that the theory of Tinto explained
that there is a very significant role between the interactions of students and the institution, both
academic and social, as to students departing decision. Tinto’s first theory considers the student’s
individual attributes, pre-college educational experiences, and family backgrounds upon they enter
college. These factors influence the next elements of Tinto’s theory – the student’s initial commitment
to the goal (purpose for attending) and commitment to the particular institution. Then split into two
system of interaction, student interaction with academics (grades, intellectual development) and social
interaction (peer interactions, interactions with faculty and staff) contexts during college experience.
And results to students become integrated to both academic and social, however, if lack of these two or
one increases the possibility of students to depart from the institution.

However, Braxton, Milem, and Sullivan (2000), believed that Tinto’s study lack some aspects and to fill
the gap they conducted a study which elaborates and further the discussion of Tinto’s theory. Their
study focuses mostly on academic integration, but also explained that when students are actively
integrated in their learning they are also more likely to have time to become socially integrated. The
research shows the impact of active learning on the academic integration of the students. The results
from the research added to Tinto’s work that even though the degree of commitment that a student
brings to college can influence his/her social integration, the other member of this relationship, the
school and its faculty, can also play a role in fostering academic integration which leads to higher rates
of student persistence. The study pertains that if students have good social relationship to the people
around the school and its faculty, therefore, the higher possibility of retention because of student
persistence in terms academically and well encouraged. Also, students who are active in learning could
possibly interact with others since they want to explore more.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1108&context=cehsedaddiss
Burgess (2008) identified that external factors that relates to student outside lives can be used as
predictors of student dropout rates. Some of these factors are: financial issues, jobs, family problems,
physical or emotional challenges, and motivational characteristics. This study is more on psychological
aspect since it focuses on the individuals’ reason to depart from the institution. According to Nakajima,
Dembo and Mossler (2012) and Vieira (2012) that college fees are a very important factor impacting
both attrition and retention rates. Their research found that some students end up dropping their
studies to seek employment that earns them money, and then if they can sustain to continue possibly
will re-enrol to the institution to pursue what they have left. However, in some cases they do not go
back to college to continue their studies. This finding is supported by other researchers such as Bynum
(2010), who noted that those students who receive financial support are more likely to stay in college to
complete their degree. Similarly, Clark et al. (2012) and Bharath (2009) found that being forced to pay
for college was the number one factor that leads college students to dropout.

According to Nakajima, Dembo and Mossler (2012) added that engaging in full time employment while
attending college full time has a significant influence on college student dropout rates. Being a full time
employees college/university students are unlikely to succeed in finishing college/ university than
students who do not have a job (King and Bannon, 2002; Salisbury et al. 2012). Furthermore, Cuccaro-
Alamin (1997) and Riggert et al. (2006) stated that students employed full time are less likely to attain a
college or university degree than other students; this because the job takes most of the time for these
students.

According to Ge (2011) who notes that marriage, de factor and committed relationships also play a
major role in females’ decisions to attend college. Marital status is a factor impacting student’s attrition,
especially for female students (Millar, 2010). According to Millar (2010), college students (two-year)
tend to have extra family and marriage responsibilities, compared to four-year college (i.e. university
type) students. This can lead to their withdrawal from college. This argument is supported by Tinto,
(1993), Stratton, O’Toole and Wetzel (2008) and Urwin et al. (2010). Other scholars also noted that the
marriage factor is positively associated with attrition (Bean and Metzner, 1985). This suggests that
female’s students are more concern about family responsibilities than male’s students which may
impact their decision to drop out from college.

BEA-V9N1-2017-8.pdf
Spady (1970, 1971) presented and revised his model of the undergraduate dropout process that has
since became the foundation for recent developments in the student retention field. This model was the
first student retention model to link the process of student attrition to Durkheim’s Suicide Theory
concept of social integration. This idea has gone on to be widely adopted in student retention studies
and models, including the most cited and tested model of Tinto (Berger et al., 2012; Durkheim, 1951;
Tinto, 1975, 1993).

After reviewing the literature of what he called “college dropout”, Spady (1970) claimed that with
regards with the relationship between attrition and family background, ability, or academic
performance, it lacks theoretical and empirical coherence, conceptual clarity, methodological rigor,
complexity of design, breadth, and analytic sophistication and definite theoretical basis. He further
asserted that the absence of what he called an analytical-explanatory category is “unfortunate and
glaring”. To fill the gap in the student retention literature, Spady started to explain the dropout process
by investigating the quality of the interaction between the students and the environment of their
academic institutions. This interaction is the result of the exposure of individual students’ attributes
such as dispositions, interests, attitudes and skills to the influences, expectations and demands of the
different components of their institutions including courses, faculty members, administrators and peers.

Spady’s main assumption was that the outcome of this interaction determines the level of students’
integration within the academic and social systems of their institutions and subsequently their
persistence. According to Spady, a student’s decision to stay or depart from his or her academic
institution is influenced by two main factors in each of two systems: grades and intellectual
development in the academic system, and normative congruence and friendship support in the social
system. In his later work, Spady (1971) tested these assumptions in a longitudinal study on a sample of
683 new students who entered the University of Chicago in 1965. The statistical analysis of the study
variables resulted in a modification on the initial theoretical model.