ERIC ED528166: Differing Gender Characteristics and Associated Needs and College Student Retention

0.17 MB·English

by  ERIC

Gender Characteristics & Needs 1

DIFFERING GENDER CHARACTERISTICS AND ASSOCIATED NEEDS
AND COLLEGE STUDENT RETENTION

By:
Rex M. Butterfield, Ed.D.
Professor/Religious Education
Taylor 274
525 S. Center Street
Brigham Young University--Idaho
Rexburg, ID 83460
208-496-3933
[email protected]

&

Cynthia Lee A. Pemberton, Ed.D.
Associate Dean of the Graduate School
Professor/Educational Leadership
921 So. 8th Ave., Stop 8075
Idaho State University
Pocatello, ID 83209-8075
208-282-3140
[email protected]

January 2, 2012
Gender Characteristics & Needs 2

DIFFERING GENDER CHARACTERISTICS AND ASSOCIATED NEEDS,
AND COLLEGE STUDENT RETENTION

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between religiosity and
undergraduate student retention at Idaho State University (ISU). With only 50% of college
students consistently persisting to graduation, attrition is a problem that plagues colleges and
universities. Research shows that students who are more integrated in education (both in and out
of class) are more likely to remain enrolled. For this study, religious involvement was examined
as an avenue of educational integration. Data for this study were obtained from 103 respondents
to mail surveys. Factor analysis revealed three useable factors regarding religious attitudes and
behaviors. These factors were analyzed along with demographic variables to explore the
relationship between religiosity and retention. The demographic analysis showed that the sample
was representative of the ISU undergraduate student population. Although statistically
significant differences based on demographics in terms of enrollment were not found, significant
differences were noted between males and females across some enrollment related demographic
variables. These differences were largely associated with heavier familial responsibilities borne
by the female respondents, and are the focus of this paper, providing important evidence-based
insights regarding gender-specific student characteristics and associated needs.
Gender Characteristics & Needs 3

Introduction
Because of the importance of retention in higher education and the difficulty shown in
retaining college students there is a rich body of literature studying the retention/attrition
phenomenon and attempting to identify why some students persist and others do not (Astin,
1975, Porter, 1990; Tinto, 1987). Despite efforts to study and understand retention/attrition and
thereby increase the number of students who persist in college, the U.S. postsecondary
undergraduate retention rate has consistently held at around 50 percent (Seidman, 2005). Further,
since 2002 the postsecondary enrollment rate for students who have just graduated from high
school has fluctuated between 64% and 69% (NCES, 2009). This is up from a 2004 report that
noted fewer than half of high school graduates pursued post-secondary education (Stoops, 2004).
This combination of a low percentage of high school students attending college and half of
college students dropping out, means that a high percentage of the population lacks the benefits
derived from a college education; and correspondingly society is denied the benefits of the
contributions that persons with a college education can make; not to mention the negative
economic impact on colleges/universities in terms of enrollment and associated revenue
(Tierney, 1992).
In order to address and thereby ameliorate problems associated with retention/attrition,
Swail, Redd, and Perna (2003) wrote, “Given the resources and effort that must go into a
campus-wide retention program, the final plan must be based on solid, proven evidence of
success” (para. 2). In other words, in order to retain students it is vital to know why some
students persist and others do not. Vincent Tinto, in his 1987 book Leaving College developed a
theory of retention and attrition that has informed numerous other models (Berger & Braxton,
Gender Characteristics & Needs 4

1998; Hartley, 2004; Liu & Liu, 1999; Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2008; Sichivitsa,
2003). Tinto’s model, as well as those influenced by it, examined students’ academic and social
integration into the institution as predictors of retention, and argued that students who were more
socially and academically integrated into the life of the institution were more likely to persist. As
a corollary to this claim, Tinto hypothesized that students who felt isolated, particularly from
professors, or incongruent (i.e., students who felt that their school choice was not right for them)
were more likely to not persist.
While there has been considerable research regarding the retention/attrition phenomenon
(Astin, 1975, 1993; Berger & Braxton, 1998; Mallincrodt & Sedlacek, 1987; Seidman, 2005;
Tinto, 1987) there are some important aspects of students’ college life and its relation to
retention and integration that still need to be fleshed-out. Two such aspects are the differentiated
student characteristics and associated needs of males and females in relation to retention.
According to Sax (2008):
Too often the focus is on the relative numbers of women and men on campus—with
women constituting nearly 60 percent of student bodies nationwide—and not on how
college-enrolled women and men differ from each other in potentially important ways.
Though they are enrolled in classes together, use the same campus services, and often
live in the same residence halls, the backgrounds and needs of college women and men
are not the same. Information about these student characteristics is valuable to the
campus because it enables planning and programming that addresses incoming students’
needs and interests. (p. 13)
These differences could have a powerful impact on retention. It was therefore deemed useful to
disaggregate and examine the data from this study based on gender.
Gender Characteristics & Needs 5

The broader study from which these data were derived explored enrolled and non-
enrolled student perceptions about the relationship between religiosity and retention at Idaho
State University (ISU), a state-run institution in the Intermountain West. Religious involvement
was specified and examined as an avenue of educational integration (Berger & Braxton, 1998;
Hartley, 2004; Liu & Liu, 1999; Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2008; Sichivitsa, 2003).
The analysis showed that the sample was representative of the ISU undergraduate student
population; and that although statistically significant differences based on demographics in terms
of enrollment were not found, significant differences were noted between males and females
across some enrollment related demographic variables. This paper focuses on the demographic
data disaggregated by gender (i.e., Research Questions 1 and 2 of the broader study), in terms of
gender, age, race/ethnicity, marital/family status, school/student status, and education-related
financial support; and then explores the influence, if any, on student retention. Research
Questions 1 and 2 were stated as follows:
1. What are the demographics of the sample as far as ethnicity, gender, number of semesters
completed, age, and high school grade point average?
2. What influence, if any, do student demographics have on retention/attrition as ISU?
Methodology
This study was designed to yield quantitative data, with some short qualitative queries
included to allow respondents to elaborate and/or clarify quantitative responses. Using the ISU
telephone directory, participants were randomly selected from the 2006 undergraduate student
population. ISU was a good choice for this study because, historically, it has had relatively low
retention and degree completion rates. ISU reported that 23% of the 1998 cohort had graduated
by 2004 (ISU, 2005). In comparison, according to the National Center for Education Statistics
Gender Characteristics & Needs 6

(NCES) Fast Facts, “[a]pproximately 57 percent of first-time students seeking a bachelor’s
degree or its equivalent and attending a 4-year institution full time in 2001-02 completed a
bachelor’s degree or its equivalent at that institution in 6 years or less” (2010, Response para. 1).
Because of this it was anticipated that some of the students listed in the ISU campus directory
had dropped out at the time of the study. As a result, the random selection process sampled both
enrolled students and individuals who had been, but were not currently enrolled.
Because freshman and sophomore students quit school at higher rates than others (Tinto,
1993) precautions needed to be taken to prevent over sampling of persistent students. A post-
stratified random sampling strategy which “involves weighting a sample to match the known
population profile. . .” (Lynn, 2002, p. 193) was employed. At the time of this study, ISU
reported its student demographics by academic class as: 53% freshman, 25% sophomores, and
22% juniors. The post-stratified sampling was designed to match these percentages, resulting in
265 freshmen, 125 sophomore, and 110 junior students being included in the sample. No senior
students were sampled since by the time a student is a senior he/she has already demonstrated
persistence. When surveys were returned as undeliverable, another student of the same class was
randomly sampled.
The basis for survey development was a 2004 study by Hartley, with adaptations based
on the literature review. The draft instrument consisted of 17 demographic items and 30 Likert
scale items organized around the following three themes: campus-based religious involvement
(12 items), personal religiosity (8 items), and campus religious environment (10 items). Once
drafted, the instrument underwent expert and researcher review to ensure content validity
(Patten, 2005). Following the reviews the instrument was pilot tested during the fall 2006
semester. Cronbach’s alpha, a measure of homogeneity used to assess inter-item reliability
Gender Characteristics & Needs 7

(Patten, 2005), was employed. According to Leedy (1997) alpha values over .70 are considered
acceptable in terms of demonstrating inter-item reliability. This analysis revealed acceptable
inter-item reliability for both the pilot and actual survey data, and was further validated when
Likert scale survey data were analyzed using a factor analysis with varimax rotation and
principal components analysis. The surveys were disseminated to the post-stratified random
sample by mail, along with a postage paid return envelope. A cover letter, which included
instructions and Informed Consent was also included.
For purposes of this paper demographic quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and
by using t tests and Chi Square analyses. Qualitative data were analyzed using a General
Inductive method, whereby emergent themes were identified (Thomas, 2006).
Findings
The findings reported in this paper are delimited to the first two research questions,
disaggregated by gender. Research Question 1 described the response rate, personal and student-
related demographics, and enrollment status. Research Question 2 explored the disaggregated
demographics relative to retention.
Research Question 1 – Descriptive Data
Response rate. A total of 547 surveys were mailed out, with 103 returned, resulting in an
overall response rate of 18.83%. While lower than desired, the response rate was close to what
Patten (1998) identified as acceptable for this type of survey: 20-60%.
Personal demographics. Personal demographics (i.e., gender, age, race/ethnicity,
gender, and marital/family status) are displayed in Tables 1 and 2.
Gender Characteristics & Needs 8

Table 1: Personal Demographics
Demographic Item Participants Frequency percent Number(%) Number(%)
(N=103) male female

Gender
Female 65 63.11%
Male 38 36.89%

Age*
18-24 51 51.00% 19(51.35%) 32(50.79%)
25-31 22 22.00% 11(29.73%) 11(17.46%)
32-44 17 17.00% 6(16.22%) 11(17.46%)
45 and above 10 10.00% 1(02.70%) 9(14.29%)

Race/Ethnicity
African American/Black 1 1.00% 0 1(01.54%)
American Indian/Alaska Native 1 1.00% 0 1(01.54%)
Caucasian/White 96 93.20% 37(97.36%) 59(90.77%)
Mexican American/Chicano 2 1.90% 1 (02.63%) 1(01.54%)
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2 1.90% 0 2(03.08%)
Other Latino 1 1.00% 0 1(01.54%)

*N not equal to 103 because some respondents elected to omit these questions. Percentage calculations are based on
the response N per question.

Just over 63% (n=65) of the respondents were female, while 36.89% (n=38) were male.
Among those who supplied age-data the overall mean age was computed as 27.66 years. Among
males a majority of respondents (51.35%) were between 18 and 24 years of age, 29.73% (n=11)
were 25-31 years of age, six indicated they were within the 32-44 year age-range, and only one
respondent indicated he was over 45. In contrast, among female respondents, while similarly just
over 50% were between 18 and 24 years of age, females were more evenly dispersed across the
age-ranges with just over 17% between 25-31 (n=11) and 32-44 (n=11) years of age, and 14.29%
(n=9) indicating they were over 45 years of age. In terms of race/ethnicity, respondents of both
sexes were overwhelmingly Caucasian/White.
Overall, these data revealed that almost twice as many females as males responded, with
a slight overall majority (51.00%) between 18 and 24 years of age (i.e., traditional college-age
students [Senter & Senter, 1998]). It was noteworthy that for the upper age-ranges (above 32
Gender Characteristics & Needs 9

years old), females outnumbered males 20 to 7. Only 18.91% of male respondents were over 32,
compared to 31.75% of females. With regard to gender, these findings were reflective of national
trends that increasingly reveal not only that female undergraduates constitute a greater
percentage of enrolled undergraduate students, but that a sizable majority of undergraduates are
over 25 years of age (King, 2006; NCES, 2010a).
Table 2: Marital/Family Status
Demographic Item Participants Frequency Number(%) Number (%)
(N=103) percent male female

Marital status*
Married 37 43.02% 18(54.54%) 19(35.84%)
Not married 49 56.98% 15(45.45%) 34(64.15%)

Number of children
0 53 62.35% 23(71.87%) 30(56.60%)
1 10 11.76% 5(15.62%) 5(09.43%)
2 10 11.76% 2(06.25%) 8(15.09%)
3 or more 12 14.12% 2(06.25%) 10(18.87%)

Children’s age-range
Younger than 5 14 43.75% 7(77.78%) 7(30.43%)
Between 5 and 18 10 31.25% 1(11.11%) 9(39.13%)
Adult 8 25.00% 1(11.11%) 7(30.43%)

*N not equal to 103 because some respondents elected to omit these questions.
Percentage calculations are based on the response N per question.

Relative to marital/family status, of those who responded to this question (33 males and
53 females) 54.54% of the males indicated they were married, while just over a third (35.84%) of
the females noted that they were married. In terms of children, overall over 60% indicated they
did not have children. Among males over 70% indicated they did not have children, with only
four indicating they had two or more children. In contrast, among the females, 43.39% indicated
they had children and over a third indicated they had two or more, most of which (almost 70%)
were school-age or younger. According to NCES 2007-08 data these percentages were slightly
higher than national norms. NCES data indicated that 24% of male undergraduates were married
Gender Characteristics & Needs 10

and 18.4% had children. In contrast 36.9% of females were married and 30.7% had children
(NCES, 2010a).
Overall, school-age children between 5 and 18 years old, comprised almost a third (male
n=1, female n=9) of respondents’ children (and almost 40% of the female respondents’ children).
Also of note was that as both the number and ages of children progressed from low to high the
numbers associated with the female respondents increased. Consistent with broader national
data, these data demonstrate heavier familial responsibilities characterizing the female
respondents in this study (King, 2006; NCES, 2010a).
Student demographics. Student demographics are reported in terms of high school
GPA, enrollment status, semesters completed, and options for financing education. Tables 3, 4, 5
and 8 display these data.
Table 3: Student Demographics
Demographic Item Participants Frequency percent Number(%) Number(%)
(N=103) male female

Number of semesters
completed*
0-2 (Freshman) 11 11.00% 2(02.00%) 9(09.00%)
3-4 (Sophomore) 36 36.00% 9(09.00%) 27(27.00%)
5-6 (Junior) 24 24.00% 12(12.00%) 12(12.00%)
7 and above (Junior+) 29 29.00% 14(14.00%) 15(15.00%)

Enrollment status
Enrolled Overall 77 74.76% 28(73.68%) 49(75.39%)
Enrolled Part-time 14 18.18% 2(2.60%) 12(15.58%)
Enrolled Full-time 63 81.82% 26(33.77%) 37(48.05%)
Not-enrolled 26 25.24% 10(26.33%) 16(24.61%)

Enrollment plans
Transfer to another institution 9 36.00% 3(30.00%) 6(42.86%)
Enroll for a few classes 4 16.00% 2(20.00%) 2(14.29%)
Not plan to return to ISU 3 12.00% 2(20.00%) 1(07.14%)
Plan to return to ISU 9 36.00% 4(40.00%) 5(35.71%)

*N not equal to 103 because some respondents elected to omit these questions.
Percentage calculations are based on the response N per question.