African-American Students' Perceptions of the Impact Of

Home , American Juniors, Gone Too Soon

AFRICAN-AMERICAN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACT OF

RETENTION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES AT PREDOMINANTLY WHITE

INSTITUTIONS

DaNine J. Fleming

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

in the

Educational Leadership Program

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

YOUNGTOWN STATE UNIVERSITY

November 2007

RETENTION PROGRAMS AND SERVICES AT PREDOMINANTLY WHITE

INSTITUTIONS

DaNine J. Fleming

I hereby release this dissertation to the public. I understand that this dissertation will be made available from the OhioLINK ETD Center and the Maag Library Circulation Desk for public access. I also authorize the University or other individuals to make copies of this dissertation as needed for scholarly research.

Signature:

______DaNine J. Fleming, Student Date

Approvals:

______Robert J. Beebe, Ed.D., Thesis Advisor Date

______Richard C. Baringer, Ed.D., Committee Member Date

______Zara C. Rowlands, Ph.D., Committee Member Date

______Renay Scales, Ph.D., Committee Member Date

______Peter J. Kavinsky, Dean of Graduate Studies Date

DEDICATION

In memory of my great grandmother, Mrs. Sarah Geddis, and extended family Mr. and Mrs. Walker Fleming, who were trailblazers from old.

Mrs. Oletha Jones Jenkins, my grandmother and one of my first teachers. I am so glad that God saw fit for me to be your granddaughter. You taught me that it was ok to excel as well as to “never rest until my good was better and my better was best”. When I defended my proposal on February 6, 2007, the 2 year anniversary of your death I knew that you were with me. I know God makes no mistakes. I miss you dearly, but I know that you are smiling down from Heaven.

Mr. JB White, Sr. my grandfather who knew how to always make me laugh and my sister, Tonya Denise Jenkins Reid….gone too soon but I know that God makes no mistakes. I love you.

Mrs. Henrietta Jones, Mr. Christopher Burnham, Sr., Soror Ruth T. Sharp, and to one of Charleston County’s finest Firefighters, the leader of the “Brave Nine” Cpt. Louis Mulkey, gone but not forgotten.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people who have played a part in this long but rewarding

journey. First and foremost, I would like to thank God for blessing me with this

opportunity. I will never take for granted that He saved me so that I could be a vessel

used for His purpose ALONE. I would also like to acknowledge my soul-mate, Travis,

who has supported me from beginning to end. You gave me endless love, and the

genuine support that I needed to catapult me through the rough spots. God placed you in

my life and I love you more than words can say. To my angel on earth, Sydnei LaShon

who spent the summer of 2007 on self plan “visiting” trips so mommy could finish her

“big paper and homework” I love you very much. All of this is for the two of you.

Nothing can stop us now! I would also like to thank my grandfather, Mr. Lawrence

Jenkins who turned 90 years old on February 4, 2007. You are the wind beneath my

wings.

To my major professor, Dr. Robert Beebe, the words “thank you” just does not seem to adequately express my gratitude to you. From our first encounter until this point you have inspired, motivated, and challenged me. I could always count on you to provoke me in thinking deeper, searching further, and looking beyond the surface. I have been fortunate to have you as a major part of my academic career. You have been generous with your time and commitment to my graduate work. You are truly an educational scholar, teacher, mentor, and leader.

To my doctoral committee members, Dr. Richard Baringer, Dr. Renay Scales (my sister in Christ and beloved friend), and Dr. Zara Shah-Rowlands, I want to express my gratitude for your time and effort toward challenging my work and me. You allowed me

to comprehend the importance of my educational contributions and I will forever be grateful.

To my family and friends, I would like to thank you for your love, support, and interest in my work. Specifically, I want to acknowledge my mother and father, Doretha and Marion Jenkins, grandfather, Mr. Lawrence Jenkins, grandmother, Mrs. Luvenia

White, great grandmother, Mrs. Jeanette White, my mother and father in law (second parents), Bettye Jean and Lawrence Fleming, my godmother who showed me that it could be done, Dr. Anna Aikens, my Soror and friend, Mrs. Willette S. Burnham “Are we done yet?” who always had an encouraging word, and my nieces and nephews Donald (Chip),

DeAngelo (Buzz), Corteland, Donovan, JaTavia, Lauren, Bettany, Donte, Khelis, and

LaQuintis. The pathway has been paved.

To my Office of Intercultural Programs family at Slippery Rock University, you continuously pushed me toward my goals. You served as my springboard when I was searching for a dissertation topic and Mr. Robert E. Clay in particular; YOU helped me put things into perspective. You were the ROCK when everything else appeared to be sinking sand. There are no words to express my gratitude. So, when will you join me? To my student, protégée, Soror and friend, Ms. Emelda K. N. Jones, you never refused me the opportunity to use your “new” laptop. You always read information with me; listening to my ranting and even saw the tears of frustration and had an encouraging word…you are the epitome of a finer woman. May you forever be richly blessed. I want to extend my sincerest gratitude to my friends, Dr. Jacquelyn Respress (for all the early morning calls) and Rev. Torrence Respress (thank you for lending her to me), Tamika L.

Felder, Paige M. Roper, and Yolanda Crittenden. You have all played some part in my

success. Your friendship, endless support, and friendly ribbing asking, “You’re not done,

yet?” has helped me to realize my goal. Dr. Mounira Morris, what can I say? You not only served as the reader, editor, motivator, counselor, and the list is endless, but you are a true friend. No matter how early or late you provided your HONEST feedback to make sure I excelled. You never allowed me to settle and for that I am eternally grateful. This is a true labor of love that should have both of our names on it. You finished first so that I could walk in the footsteps of a giant. Thank you just does not seem like enough. Dr. and

Mrs. Frank Hale, Jr. and Dr. Lee Jones thank you for being obedient to God and helping me when I was a complete stranger. You have shown me the olive branch so that I now am able to lead by example. To my minister, sister in Christ, spiritual support, intercessor and rock, Rev. Berta L. Newsome, God placed you in my life at just the right moment. I can never repay you for all that you have done. Last but not least, my two church families

United Faith Fellowship Church of God and Canaan United Methodist Church; I thank

God for your love each day.

Dr. Elaine Whitlock, the finest editor in the WORLD, thank you for going the extra mile. You are truly a blessing. To my village of supporters, everyone that may seem to go nameless: Thank you and I love you.

Last but not least, I thank all of the participants for this study. Without your voices, this project would have never come to fruition. Never let anyone’s dictation determine your destination. May the work that I do always speak for me.

vii

ABSTRACT

There is an expanding body of literature on the retention of students in higher education through programmatic efforts, but there is limited research on African-

American students’ perceptions of the impact of retention programs and services at predominantly White institutions. Programs and services are created by administrators, faculty and staff on college and university campuses for the purpose of increasing the retention of African-American students and a diverse student body, but many are based on the professionals’ perceptions of students’ needs. Rarely are programs and services created through dialogue from the student population that will be served or by what I call

“listening to the voices” of the students.

The premise of this qualitative study is to ascertain if African-American students find retention programs and services beneficial to their persistence on their respective campuses. This study explores the experiences of African-American junior and senior, traditional-aged, full-time, undergraduate students with a grade point average of 3.0 or below exclusively at four predominantly White institutions in Pennsylvania. The experiences of African-American students are different from other groups, including

White males, white females and other minority groups. The use of focus groups permits dialogue that enables a researcher to be able to hear first-hand from African-American students giving voice to their personal feelings of the impact of retention programs and services at predominantly White institutions.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... v

ABSTRACT ...... viii

LIST OF TABLES ...... xii

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Statement of the Problem ...... 3 Purpose of the Study ...... 6 Research Questions ...... 8 Significance of the Study ...... 8 Definitions of Terms ...... 10

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 12

The Historical Context of the Evolution of African-American Students in Higher Education ...... 13

Black Cultural Centers ...... 18 Multicultural Affairs Offices ...... 21

Models and Theories of Student Persistence ...... 23

Critiques of Models and Theories of Student Persistence ...... 25 Modifications to Tinto’s Model ...... 29

Approaches to Student Retention ...... 30

The Role of Integration (Involvement or Engagement) ...... 37 Validation ...... 45 Validation vs. Involvement ...... 48 Institutional Commitment ...... 49

3. METHODOLOGY ...... 52

Introduction ...... 52

Why Qualitative Research?...... 52

Research Design...... 53

Research Sites ...... 56 Participants ...... 56

The Focus Group Approach ...... 58 Data Analysis Method...... 62 Limitations ...... 64

4. DATA ANALYSIS ...... 66

Introduction ...... 66

Emergent Themes ...... 69

Relationships with Peers ...... 72

Student Organizations ...... 74 Campus Programs and Services ...... 78 Barriers to Programs and Services ...... 83 Faculty Support ...... 84 Student Motivators ...... 86 Spirituality...... 89 Multicultural Affairs Offices ...... 91 Institutional Integrity ...... 93

Summary ...... 94

Relationship with Peers ...... 95 Student Organizations ...... 95 Campus Programs and Services ...... 96 Barriers to Programs and Services ...... 96 Faculty Support ...... 97 Student Motivators ...... 97 Spirituality...... 98 Multicultural Affairs Offices ...... 98 Institutional Integrity ...... 99

Conclusion ...... 99

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...... 101

Summary ...... 10 Discussion ...... 103

Research Question 1: “What factors are important to African- American students in making use of current retention programs and services?” ...... 105

Research Question 2: “What support systems should be in place African-American student retention at predominantly White Institutions?” ...... 106

Implications and Recommendations ...... 109

Listen to the Voices of African-American Students ...... 110 Carefully Analyze the Goals and Objectives of Current Programs and Services ...... 111 Work to Create a More Welcoming, Inclusive Campus Climate ...... 112 Consistently Provide Staff and Financial Support to Enhance Current Programs and Services ...... 113

Further Research ...... 113 Conclusion ...... 114

REFERENCES ...... 117

APPENDICES

A. LETTER TO PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS ...... 141

B. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FORM ...... 142

C. INFORMED CONSENT FORM ...... 143

D. FOCUS GROUP LETTER OF CONFIRMATION ...... 145

E. AUDIOTAPE RELEASE FORM ...... 146

F. SCRIPT FOR MODERATOR ...... 147

G. FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS ...... 149

H. HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL ...... 150

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1. Campus Information ...... 57

2. Participants’ Identification Information ...... 67

3. Participants’ Extracurricular Activities ...... 67

4. Participants’ Majors ...... 68

xii

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Many university officials implement programs to improve the retention of

African-American students. However little is known about the efficacy of such programs.

The primary purpose of this study is to examine African-American students’ perceptions

of the impact of minority retention programs and services at predominantly White

institutions.

Despite the fact that old practices are engrained in the academic system, Rendόn

(1994) declares that “College and university personnel can be trained to validate students

and can be oriented to the needs and strengths of culturally diverse student populations”

(p. 46). In order for African-American students to feel a sense of belonging at

predominantly White institutions the environment must “Value, cultivate and sustain the strengths and the contributions of people of color” (O’Donnell & Green-Merritt, 1997, p.

15). According to Harvey-Smith (2002) the extent to which a student feels a bond and connection with the environment and established support relationships with friends determine the basis for social success.

Seidman (2005) reports that in 1990 African-American students comprised 9% of college enrollment and that in 2002 the number increased to 11.9%. Comparatively, the

National Center for Education Statistics states that in 1990 Caucasian students comprised

77.6% of college enrollment and that number decreased to 66.1% in 2004. Although the number for Caucasian students decreased, the percentage is still remarkably higher for

Caucasian students than for African-American students. There is a need to discover the

reasons why African-American students are not retained at the same rate as their White

peers.

According to Rendón, Jaloma, and Nora (2000), research on college student

retention is voluminous but lacks adequate data on students of color. Much of this

research is based on testing and validating Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) highly acclaimed

model of student departure. Tinto’s model of academic integration and social integration

is the foundation for much of the current research in retention.

Durkheim’s (1961) work was groundbreaking as it pertained to support systems

for students. Durkheim’s research led the way to applications which informed the

attrition research of William Spady. Spady (1970), who was the first to attempt to provide

an explanation for dropping-out behavior, based his model on Emile Durkheim’s concept

that establishing social support systems could reduce college student suicide. In Spady’s

model, the interaction between the student and the institution allows the student the

chance to assimilate successfully into the academic and social system of the college. The

degree to which the rewards within either system are perceived as insufficient is the

degree to which the student is likely to drop out. In a historical perspective, Durkheim’s

work was attributed in assisting in the formation of the attrition research of many

researchers such as Spady (1970), Tinto (1975), and Ernest Pascarella (1980).

Sedlacek and Brooks (1976) hypothesize that there are seven noncognitive

variables that are critical in the retention of students of color at predominantly White

institutions. The noncognitive variables are interaction with faculty, institutional leadership, finances, social interaction, student services, race and student characteristics.

According to Sedlacek (1987), how students adjust to these variables and how faculty and

staff encourage this adjustment will determine the success or failure of students of color.

Allen (1992) states, “There is a particular need to understand the effects of individual and

institutional characteristics on student outcomes and, at the same time, to explore the

relative importance of more proximate factors (such as campus race relations) versus

more distant factors (such as parent educational attainment) as explanations for

differential achievement by African-American college students” (p. 32).

According to Tinto (1999), while it is true that retention programs abound on

campuses, most institutions have done “Little to change the essential character of college,

little to alter the prevailing character of the student educational experience, and therefore

little to address the deeper roots of student attrition” (p. 1). While many predominantly

White institutions have made moderate changes, there is room for improvement. Tinto

(1999) further asserts “Most institutions do not take student retention seriously. They

treat student retention, like so many other issues, as one more item to add to the list of

issues to be addressed by the institution” (p. 5).

Rendόn (1982) states it is only within the past 15 years that researchers, many of

them non-White, began to study minority students. This relatively new research not only

lifts the knowledge base of student retention and development theories, it advances policy

and practice. It also calls to question the predominant ways of structuring student

development services employing research that included few, if any, minority students.

Statement of the Problem

Nieto (1996) advises educators to listen carefully to students because their

"Voices sometimes reveal the great challenges and even the deep pain young people feel

when schools are unresponsive, cold places" (p. 106). Nieto further asserts that too often,

this advice is unheeded, and the student as a cultural resource is overlooked in the search

for answers about how to improve educational effectiveness.

According to Laden (1999), retaining students of color in predominantly White

colleges and universities has been an enduring problem since the late 1960s and early

1970s, when college student demographics changed. The era of the civil rights movement opened up the college doors to students not previously found in significant numbers in higher education. These new students were soon labeled nontraditional because they did not fit the traditional picture of college students (Laden, 1999).

During the period of establishing institutional strategic goals and setting governance parameters, minority perspectives were not represented, nor was much thought given to how the presence of minority populations would impact on the learning environment. As a result, minority students find themselves not only having to adapt to the rigors of academic work, but also having to penetrate aspects of societal and institutional culture, which, in most instances, are foreign to people of color (O’Donnell

& Green-Merritt, 1997).

The American college campus, like the society as a whole, is experiencing an

expansion of racial and ethnic diversity. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, ethnic

minorities represented 31.1% of the U.S. population in 2005. By 2050, minorities are

projected to account for 47% of the population. These demographic trends are also

apparent in the enrollment patterns of American colleges and universities; ethnic

minorities accounted for more than half of the 30% expansion in student enrollment

between 1976 and 1994 (Szelenyi, 2001). Considering that African-American student

enrollment has increased in American colleges and universities, the focus should now be

on programs and services that are implemented to retain those students until graduation.

As educational reform and more minority college students are pursued, educators

must be prepared to meet the needs of the influx of students who will enroll in their

respective institutions. Much of the earlier research on retention has been assessed

through the lens of majority students. This possibly accounts for “The ineffective methodologies and particularly questionable applications for predicting the performance of African-American students” (Sherman, Giles, & Williams-Green, 1994, p. 164).

Students should not feel pressured to become absorbed into the mainstream of a campus climate, losing their cultural identities. They should be accepted for who they are and respected for the individual differences that they contribute to the campus community. Rendón (1994) found that validation, as opposed to involvement, had transformed nontraditional students into powerful learners. Rendón explains: “It appears that students do not perceive involvement as them taking the initiative. They perceive it when someone takes an active role in assisting them” (p. 44). Dr. Frank Hale states that some African-American juniors and seniors have little experience in collaboration so they are reluctant to let people know “what they don’t know” (personal phone conversation,

February 24, 2007). According to Rendón, Jalomo, and Nora (2000), validating agents make use of interpersonal and academic validation. Validating agents take an active interest in students. They provide encouragement for students, affirm them as being capable of doing academic work, and support them in their academic endeavors and social adjustment. Validation may be the missing link to involvement, and may be a prerequisite for involvement to occur (Rendόn, 1994). According to Harvey-Smith (2002)

5 readjusting the lens with which we view and assess African-American students and finding new ways to assist them in achieving on American campuses are essential.

Harvey-Smith (2002) further asserts that this type of readjustment and assistance is particularly needed on majority campuses where the retention rates are being described as dismal and the academic achievement of many African-American students is seen as inadequate.

Purpose of the Study

Because most proactive retention efforts are based on what others perceive as needs of African-American students, the primary purpose of this study was to determine junior and senior, traditional, full-time, undergraduate African-American students’ with a

3.0 or below grade point average perceptions of the impact of retention programs and services at predominantly White institutions. According to Kinzie (2005), the need for continued research on minority retention and diversity in higher education is great.

Efforts to identify successful programs that may serve as models for other institutions are very important. Although various programs have been implemented in the quest to retain

African-American students, there was a need to discover how many of the services provided by these programs were being utilized by the students and to determine African-

American students’ perceptions of the efficacy of the programs.

Because institutions vary in their mission, size, complexity, and makeup, the need continues for institutional research on topics that allow individual institutions to assess their own success in educating students from widely diverse backgrounds as well as the climate of the institution for these students, for faculty and staff, and for traditional

students. The research model for this study operated under the assumption that students

bring with them diverse attitudes and experiences that contribute to the fabric of a

campus community. These perceptions represent the total experiences the student has

had, both positive and negative, and are the basis for the students’ expectations for future

experiences, both positive and negative (Rowser, 1990).

Some African-American students utilize campus resources while others utilize

internal, fundamental forces (i.e., family, spirituality) to persist on predominantly White

campuses. Self-determination theory (SDT) is one of the most referenced, researched,

and validated theories for understanding how socio-cultural conditions interact with

people’s inherent psychological needs to shape their behaviors (Reeve, 2002). According

to SDT people are motivated to behave, or in the case of educational motivation, to learn, by one of two motivational orientations: a) intrinsic motivation, or learning because one finds the content interesting; or b) extrinsic motivation, which is learning as a means to an end (Deci & Ryan, 1991). Under SDT, successful students are likely to have motivational orientations that are intrinsic, meaning these students a) are autonomous learners who seek knowledge for its own sake, b) have demonstrated competence and seek to challenge themselves in order to grow, and c) feel socially related or connected with significant others. According to the same principles of motivation, students at risk

for attrition or low academic achievement at college have either amotivational

orientations towards learning or non-self-determined forms of extrinsic motivation

(Guiffrida, 2005a).

The existing literature supports that comfort within the university environment plays a significant role in the academic and social diligence and retention of ethnic

7 minority students (Gloria, Kurpius, Hamilton, & Wilson, 1999). Findings by Ancis,

Sedlacek, and Mohr (2000) suggest that ethnic minority students often contend with culture-specific stressors not typically experienced by White students.

Research Questions

The study was designed to pose pertinent questions to African-American students on their perceptions of the impact of retention programs and services at predominantly

White institutions that they attend. The researcher utilized focus groups for the study. The research questions were derived from the researcher’s personal perceptions and were influenced by questions from the review of literature and colleagues in higher education.

The research questions were as follows:

1. What factors are important to African-American students in making use of current

retention programs and services?

2. What support systems should be in place for African-American student retention

at predominantly White institutions?

Significance of the Study

The significance of the study was to listen to the voices of African-American students in determining what factors impact their retention at a predominantly White institution. Relatively few empirical studies have been conducted examining the satisfaction, the retention and program completion of African-American students at the post-secondary level (Opp, 2002). Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993) argued that both social and academic integration into a university are necessary for students to be retained in college

until completion of their degrees. Tinto and those who tested his model empirically (Fox,

1986; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983; Pascarella, Duby, & Iverson, 1983; Stoecker,

Pascarella, & Wolfle, 1988) used the concepts of social integration and academic integration to explain retention (Mayo, Murguia, & Padilla, 1995).

Researchers and theorists have proposed several different models to explain student persistence and attrition. Among the more prominent models are Astin’s (1979)

Involvement Model, Tinto’s (1975, 1993) Student Integration Model, and Bean’s (1980)

Student Attrition Model. According to Thayer (2000):

There are common themes among the models. In one way or another, each

recognizes that students bring a number of characteristics, experiences, and

commitments to their college entry, including academic preparedness levels,

parent educational attainment and aspirations for their children, socioeconomic

levels and aspirations for learning and degree attainment. (p. 3)

This study provided information utilizing the voices of African-American students to determine their perceptions of the impact of retention programs and services

on the campuses of predominantly White institutions. Because the greatest proportions of

students who leave the institution are likely to do so within the first four semesters,

retention strategies must be particularly influential early in students’ life (Berkner et al.,

1996; Porter, 1990).

Definition of Terms

Academic Integration: Utilizing Tinto’s research, academic integration is based on a student’s need to navigate through the higher education system and eventually acclimate to a specific environmental setting.

African-American students: The term that received sudden prominence in the

1980s when several Black leaders championed it as an alternative ethnonym for

Americans of African descent. The term does not allude to skin color but to an ethnicity constructed of geography, history, and culture (American Heritage Dictionaries of the

English Language, 2007).

Student Persistence: The desire and action of a student to stay within the system of higher education from beginning through degree completion (Berger & Lyons, 2005).

Predominantly White institution: Term used in different agencies to refer to

American schools that have at least 75% European-American students (Mitchell, 1995).

Retention Programs: For the purpose of this study, retention programs are defined as programs instituted by a college or university to assist in the engagement and retention of a diverse student body to help students to meet their needs so they will persist in their education. Programs are defined as actual events that students attend.

Retention Services: For the purpose of this study, retention services are defined as services instituted by a college or university to assist in the engagement and retention of a diverse student body to help students to meet their needs so they will persist in their education. Services are defined as resources put in place to specifically assist students.

Students of color: Defined for the purpose of this study as students of Native

American, Latino, and African-American heritage.

Student Retention: The process of helping students to meet their needs so that they will persist in their education. (Moxley, Najor-Durack, & Dumbrigue, 2001).

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Predominantly White institutions are beginning to understand how African-

American students adapt to their environments and are beginning to create positive educational climates for African-American students on their campuses. They are learning from those students who encountered negativity and hostility in the past, and the research and literature on African-American student retention. Predominantly White colleges and universities are learning that campus climate is critical, as well as support systems, the opportunity for networking, and access to faculty role models and mentors (Stovall,

2005). African-American students worry about isolation, alienation, and access to financial assistance (L. D. Patton, 2005). Therefore the major rationale for this study was to ascertain African-American students’ perceptions of the impact of retention programs and services on the campuses of predominantly White institutions. It was also imperative to determine the factors that influence African-American students to persist to graduation.

Many theories exist, but this study utilized the voices of African-American students to determine their perceptions.

Given the increase of African-American students at predominantly White institutions, the findings of this review may be useful for educators and scholars interested in the perceptions and experiences of African-American students. This chapter highlights previous retention models, and provides several shortcomings and limitations, which are overlooked and excluded in the experiences of African-American students.

This review also provides a better understanding of the individual and institutional

characteristics; and experiences that may affect the retention of African-American

students at predominantly White institutions.

The Historical Context of the Evolution of African-American Students

in Higher Education

Equity in higher education has been a long struggle for African-Americans. It is

important to review what occurred in the past to fully understand what is presently

happening. During enslavement, it was illegal to educate Africans at any level (Hill-

Traynham, 2000). The Quakers organized the Institute for Colored Youth in 1830 in

Cheyney, Pennsylvania, which later became Cheyney State University. In 1854

Presbyterians opened Ashmum Institute in Pennsylvania. The Ashmun Institute was

named after Jehudi Ashmun, a religious leader and social reformer. He was an agent of

the American Colonization Society which promoted the settlement of Blacks at

Monrovia, Liberia. Jehudi Ashmun was the United States Representative to Liberia in

1822. In 1866, Ashmum Institute was renamed Lincoln University to honor President

Abraham Lincoln (Wikipedia, 2007).

Wilberforce University located in Wilberforce, Ohio was founded by the

Methodist Episcopal Church in 1856. It was soon purchased by the African Methodist

Episcopal Church, making it the first Black college owned by Blacks. As a result of the

Second Morrill Act, Black public colleges were established in 17 southern and border states (Hill-Traynham, 2000). The Plessey vs. Ferguson decision set the precedent that separate public facilities for Blacks and Whites were constitutional as long as they were equal. The separate but equal doctrine was quickly extended to cover many public places;

13 such as restaurants, theaters, restrooms, and public schools. Not until 1954, in the important Brown v. Board of Education decision, would the separate but equal doctrine be overruled (Cozzens, 1999). Members of the local National Association of the

Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) chapter in Topeka, Kansas, initiated the

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas case. In the summer of 1950, 13

African-American parents had taken their children to schools in their neighborhoods and attempted to enroll them for the upcoming school year. All were refused admission. The children were forced to attend one of the four schools in the city for African-Americans.

For most families this involved traveling some distance from their homes. The parents filed suit against the Topeka Board of Education in 1951on behalf of their twenty children. Oliver Brown, a local minister, was the first parent listed in the suit, so the case came to be named after him (Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 1955,

294). The lower courts agreed with the school system that if the facilities were equal and if the child was treated equally with Whites as prescribed by the Plessy case, separate but equal was appropriate.

The case was filed in February 28, 1951. The Supreme Court first heard the case on December 9, 1952, but failed to reach a decision. In the reargument, heard December

7-8, 1953, the Court requested that both sides discuss "The circumstances surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868” (p. 489). The reargument shed very little additional light on the issue. The Court had to make its decision based not on whether or not the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment had desegregated schools in mind when they wrote the amendment in 1868, but based on whether or not desegregated schools deprived Black children of equal protection of the law. The Browns and families

from other school systems appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that even

facilities that were physically equal did not take into account intangible factors and that

segregation itself had a deleterious effect on the education of Black children. Their case was represented by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., and was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court by Thurgood Marshall, who would later become the first Black Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. District Court had ruled against the plaintiffs, but placed in the record its acceptance of the psychological evidence that African-American children were adversely affected by segregation. These findings were later quoted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1954 opinion. On May 17,

1954, Chief Justice Earl Warren read the decision of the unanimous Court:

We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does...We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy for public education, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and required the desegregation of schools across America. (pp. 488- 489).

The Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of Education decision did not abolish segregation in other public areas, such as restaurants and restrooms, nor did it require desegregation of public schools by a specific time. It did, however, declare the permissive or mandatory school segregation that existed in 21 states unconstitutional.

Once the Brown decision was handed down, the African-American community, along with forward-thinking White Americans, placed sufficient pressure on the legal and political system. The main purpose was to end state-supported segregation in all public

facilities within 20 years through the Civil Rights Movement, led by Rev. Dr. Martin

Luther King, Jr., and others. The nation paid a high price for its moral conversion in the form of riots, assassinations and government action to enforce the Court's decision. Some

of the education-related changes that took place included court-ordered busing, equal

salaries for Black teachers who were as qualified as their White colleagues, equal quality

of facilities and equal quality in school curricula.

Americans found that Congress and the courts were unable to change the attitudes

of Americans with respect to race relations. Certainly, America moved toward the ideals

of equality and justice in the public arena, but as seen in the race riots of the 1960s and

the civil disturbances in Los Angeles in 1992, the inner life of the nation was still

resistant to change (Cozzens, 1998).

According to Fleming (1981) the Civil Rights Movement, as well as student

unrest in the 1960s, generated greater efforts to enroll Blacks in White institutions. Some

examples of the court cases addressing the struggles faced by African-Americans include

Berea College vs. Kentucky (1908), Sipuel vs. Board of Regents University of Oklahoma

(1947), and McLaurin vs. Oklahoma State Regents (1950). Berea College vs. Kentucky

(1908) represents discrimination due to race. Berea College vs. Kentucky (1908) upheld

the rights of states to prohibit private educational institutions chartered as corporations

admitting both Black and White students. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State.

Sipuel vs. Board of Regents University of Oklahoma (1947) states in 1946 Ada Lois

Sipuel was denied admission to the University of Oklahoma School of Law because

she was Black. The Oklahoma courts ruled that the University exercised its legal right to

maintain segregation. Sipuel continued to fight and brought the case to the U.S. Supreme

Court. The courts ruled in her favor, a unanimous decision McLaurin vs. Oklahoma State

Regents,1948. McLaurin vs. Oklahoma State Regents (1975) reversed a lower court

decision upholding the efforts of the state-supported University of Oklahoma to adhere to

the state law requiring African-Americans to be provided instruction on a segregated

basis. McLaurin was first denied admissions to the school because he was Black; he was

later accepted but placed so he could not interact with the White students. He went to the

Supreme Court and they ruled in favor of the school. McLaurin appealed the decision and

the decision was reversed.

It is important to note that researchers began studying student retention prior to

the time that minorities had come to critical mass on college campuses (Rendón, Jalomo,

& Nora, 2000). Consequently, much of the leading research guiding theories of students’ transitions to college, departure, involvement, and learning were often based on White male students (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Tierney, 1992). According to O’Donnell and Green-Merritt (1997), “The people in America have lived with attitudes of separatism and super-ego since the founding of this country” (p. 16).

These attitudes, over time, have had to change and grow. America came to its current level of development through the contributions of the Native Americans, Africans, Whites, Asians and Hispanics. From the beginning, diversity was a part of this society. To act as though this diversity does not exist is to deny racial and ethnic groups their identity. (O’Donnell & Green-Merritt, 1997, p. 16)

With the inherent need to feel a sense of belonging, African-American students developed the concept of Black Culture Centers to assist in their acclimation to PWIs.

Black Cultural Centers

Since the mid to late 1960s, the demand for Black Culture Centers (BCCs) and support offices came from Black students as quickly as the demands for Black Studies (L.

D. Patton, 2005). Student involvement, particularly in the Black Student Union, was primary directed to getting these centers on campus (Miller, 2001).

Any attempt to address the problems faced by African-American college students without considering the broader context of issues confronting African-Americans as a discriminated against minority in America is doomed to fail, for the experiences of

African-American students in higher education are products of larger systemic problems

(W. R. Allen, 1992). One of the benefits of being in a pluralistic society is that people have the opportunity to “Eradicate unwholesome prejudices and reduce damaging biases.

Academia provides an excellent setting for engendering and nurturing the attitudes, skills, and behaviors needed for multicultural living” (O’Donnell & Green-Merritt, 1997, p. 17).

Moreover, the authors assert that without the acquisition of these attitudes, skills, and behaviors, citizens will not be prepared to work in today’s global society.

For the most part, PWIs were not created with minority students in mind

(Brubacher & Rudy, 1976). During the 1960s PWI institutions began to see a large influx of African-American students on campus (L. D. Patton, 2005). During the late 1960s and

1970s, retention programs for minority students were created in response to demands by

Black students and professors that universities improve the graduation rates of minority students on traditionally White campuses (Tollison, 1999).

Between 1960 and 1970, African-American student enrollment in southern PWIs had increased from 3,000 to 98,000 students. In the North, with the large migration of

African-Americans and the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and the GI Bill, the

enrollment of African-American students increased significantly (Mingle, 1981).

According to Hine, Hine, and Harrod (2004), between 1960 and 1977 the college

attendance of African-American students increased from 227,000 to 1.1 million.

Once African-American students entered PWIs, their reception was less than

warm. African-American students and other minority groups were expected to “mask”

their cultural differences and assimilate or acculturate into the mainstream culture

(Anderson, 1988; Y. Jones, 1993; Pound, 1987). Although aggregate numbers of African-

American students increased, small clusters of these students were the reality on most

White campuses (L. D. Patton, 2005). Most of the students felt alone and alienated.

“Blacks, like other students, needed individuals, groups, and institutions to turn to for

solace and support” (Willie & McCord, 1972). Their experiences on campus were

marked with an increasingly prominent feeling of isolation and marginalization (L. D.

Patton, 2005).

During the mid to late 1960s, the demands for BCCs came from Black students

out of a need to see more Black students and faculty on campus and to establish a social

gathering place (L. D. Patton, 2005). Although BCCs were created for a number of

reasons, their role and functions have been evolving (Princes, 2005). Many African-

American students, who gained admissions under the colleges’ open door admission policies, found that they lacked the basic skills necessary to be successful with the

college curriculum. Consequently, many students left or were dismissed from the

institutions almost as fast as they were admitted (White & Bigham, 1982). White

colleges, reacting to the demands of African-American students, have had to devise

strategies to cope with and/or co-opt the ever-increasing number of African-American

students who matriculate (Stovall, 2005). The answer to the need for solace in isolation

was the erection of Black Culture Centers.

According to Hefner (2002), BCCs help retain students of color, ensure diversity

of ideas and sustain the integrity of the academic experience. Hefner further asserts that

BCCs are often viewed as the mechanism by which support is given to Black students to

help them succeed at PWIs. While anecdotal information exists to support this claim,

empirical data are virtually nonexistent.

Stewart (2005) asserts, “Some student organizations have attempted to transform

cultural centers into subsidiaries of their own capital accumulation efforts” (p. 77).

Stewart continues to state that some students believe the Cultural Center is primarily a

place to hold fund-raising social events. Although many people have derived their own

rationale for the use of Cultural Centers, most will agree that a Cultural Center is a home

away from home for all students.

The overarching goal of the Black Culture Center should be to produce an environment that promotes the empowerment of the African-American student, both personally and intellectually. The Center must provide the network of supportive interpersonal relationships and an atmosphere where everyone loves, respects and accepts one another. (Stovall, 2005, p. 107)

After the emergence of Black Culture Centers, African-American students in

conjunction with African-American faculty and staff members wanted to further assist in

the recruitment and retention of students of color. Along with the development of

Multicultural Affairs Offices came the desire to formalize the retention process under the auspices of a defined office. According to Sandeen (1996) the purpose of such an office

is generally to help African-American students become successful and to assist faculty,

students, and staff in becoming more knowledgeable about their needs.

Multicultural Affairs Offices

According to Bankole (2005) one of the oldest offices in support of African-

American students was founded in 1976 at the University of Virginia by the Planning

Committee for the Establishment of the Office of Afro-American Affairs. This committee recommended that an Office of African-American Affairs be established to address

African-American students’ feelings of alienation and isolation and to assist in student

retention (Laden, 1999). Depending on geographic location and student demographics, university programs vary as to how they welcome these students to the institution.

Among the most successful programs are those that take into account the socioeconomic

and cultural backgrounds and life experiences the students of color bring with them to the

academic environment (Laden, 1999).

The growing diversity in the United States mandates that policymakers and

researchers examine the climate on university campuses in terms of cross-cultural

interactions, attitudes, and knowledge about diversity and multiculturalism (Echols,

Hwang, & Nobles, 2002).

A multicultural organization is one that is genuinely committed to diverse representation of its membership; is sensitive to maintaining an open, supportive and responsive environment; is working toward and purposefully including elements of diverse cultures in its ongoing operations and is authentic in its response to issues confronted it. (Strong cited in Barr & Strong, 1988, p. 85)

According to Chang and Astin (1997), most educators view a diverse student

body as an important educational resource that enhances the environment for learning.

Public opinion, however, regarding the educational benefits of diversity has been divided.

Grutter vs. Bollinger et al. (2003) affirms

Racial and ethnic diversity with special reference to the inclusion of students from groups which have been historically discriminated against, like African- Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, who without this commitment might not be represented in our student body in meaningful numbers, assists an institution in their ability to make unique contributions to the character of the institution. (p. 1)

Sandeen (1996) states that many campuses have offices to address the special needs of women and minority students. In some cases this office is called the multicultural student services office and it may include responsibility for ethnic and cultural centers and events.

Trow (1973) points out:

Greater student diversity is accompanied by a second trend, an evolving social and political consciousness in which groups that have distinctive needs and experiences increase in number and then gain a collective identity that enables them to articulate their concerns and call for appropriate response. Colleges and universities have taken action to develop special programs appropriate for these students. (p. 65)

Stovall (2005) declares “Because the White college approaches education from whiteness, and Western civilization paradigm, the African-American student is viewed from a deficit model” (p. 104). Stovall maintains:

[This approach features] [g]enetic inferiority, social disadvantages, pathological behavior, cultural deprivation, academic ineptness, and genetic lack of motivation as its salient characteristics. This deficit-model approach by college administrators, faculty and students both maligns and isolates African-American students. (p. 104)

According to McNairy (1996),

The challenge in retaining students of color is to refrain from “fixing the student” and to focus on institutional change reflecting a commitment to examine and, when appropriate, revise policies, power relationships, curriculum, support services, campus climate, and environment. (p. 4)

Stewart (2005) maintains, “There is a different problem posed by second and third

generation college students who have grown up in integrated environments” (p. 77).

Stewart further asserts that their socialization, at the advice of their parents, lead students

to seek other resources rather than form close relationships with the Black Cultural

Center or the Black Studies Department.

It is important to acknowledge that the models and theories of student persistence

should be a key determinant of the support systems that are instituted on the campuses of

PWIs. The section below will provide information on the models and theories of student

persistence at PWIs.

Models and Theories of Student Persistence

“There is a great divide between the models used to meet student retention needs

and actually meetings students’ needs” (Rendόn, 1994). Although general research on

college student persistence is voluminous, much of this research is based on testing and

validating Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) highly acclaimed model of student departure,

which does not pertain to any particular population (Rendón, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000). The

authors further assert that the theory needs to be taken to “An even higher level of

theoretical development” (p. 149) in order to be more thoroughly descriptive of African-

American students.

McCubbin (2003) asserts Tinto’s Student Integration Model (SIM) (1975)

remains the most influential model of student departure. Tinto’s Student Integration

Model of attrition was designed to explain all of the aspects and processes that influenced

an individual’s decision to leave college or a university, and how these processes interact

23 to ultimately produce attrition (McCubbin, 2003). In this model, Tinto (1975) asserted that students bring characteristics to college, for example, ethnicity, secondary school achievements, family support and encouragement, and socioeconomic status--that influence initial levels of commitment to the institution and promote attendance and graduation.

Bean’s 1980 Model of Student Departure and Tinto’s (1993) theory of student departure continue to be the most widely cited theories for explaining the student departure process and has reached “near paradigmic status” in the field of higher education (Braxton, Milem, & Sullivan, 2000, p. 107).

Bean’s (1980) causal model posits:

[T]he background characteristics of students must be taken into account in order to understand their interactions within the environment of the IHE [institutions of higher education] …The student interacts with the institution, perceiving objective measures, such as grade point average or belonging to campus organizations, as well as subjective measures, such as the practical value of the education and the quality of the institution. These variables are in turn expected to influence the degree to which the student is satisfied with the IHE. The level of satisfaction is expected to increase the level of institutional commitment. Institutional commitment is seen as leading to a degree in the likelihood that a student will drop out of school. (pp. 158-160)

Findings from an empirical test of the Bean’s (1980) Model of Student Departure indicated that, “Institutional quality and opportunity for men and, excluding satisfaction, for women were the two most important variables influencing commitment. Whereas,

“men left the university even though they were satisfied, … women who were satisfied were more committed to the institution and were less likely to leave (p. 178).” He proposed further research to determine intervening variables not identified in the model.

In a subsequent study, Bean (1985) proposed a revised model and found, in the empirical study of the model, that:

1. a student’s peers are more important agents of socialization than is informal faculty contact; 2. students may play a more active role in their socialization than previously thought; and 3. college grades seem more the product of selection than socialization. (p. 35)

Given the models and theories of student persistence, various researchers have found discrepancies in models that fail to address the needs of students of color, namely

African-American students.

Critiques of Models and Theories of Student Persistence

Bourne-Bowie (2000) notes that student retention theories gained prominence between 1950 and 1970 and formed the basis of student development practices in the

1980s and 1990s. However, the traditional student development models are mostly based on Eurocentric worldviews and have repeatedly failed to adequately address the needs of nontraditional students, including those of African heritage and other students of color

(Bourne-Bowie, 2000). An analysis of the literature revealed that most retention strategies are aimed at correcting or changing the African-American student, while failing to address environmental or campus issues involved (Love, 1993). Similar to Rendόn et al. (2000), Tierney (1992) hypothesized that Tinto (1987, 1993) excluded the experiences of “non-traditional” or marginalized students within his research.

Researchers such as Attinasi (1989, 1994), Tierney (1992) and Braxton, Sullivan,

& Johnson, (1997) believe that Tinto’s theory does not adequately explain the departure of students from minority cultures (Gonzalez, 2000). Critics argue that failure of the theory to recognize cultural variables makes the theory particularly problematic when applied to minority students (Guiffrida, 2005b; A. Hurtado, 1997; Kuh & Love, 2000;

Rendόn et al., 2000; Moore & Upcraft, 1990; Tierney, 1999). Kuh and Love (2000) state,

“Vincent Tinto’s theory is the paradigm of choice when examining student departure” (p.

196). One of the major problems of Tinto’s theory is the exclusion of the consideration

about how a student’s cultural background may affect the levels of social and academic integration at predominantly White institutions. In summary, Tinto hypothesized that a student is successful, if he or she integrates or acclimates to the culture of the university.

African-American students “should adapt to their institutions’ dominant systems of

values and norms” (Kuh & Love, 2000, p. 197). According to Gonzalez (2000), Tinto has

created a theoretical construct, in this case “social integration,” with implications that

hold potentially harmful consequences for racial and ethnic minorities. One such harmful

consequence of applying Tinto’s model is that for racial and ethnic minority students to

persist in college, they must first go through a “cultural suicide” of their own culture in

order to become socially integrated (or assimilated) into the dominant, Anglo, culture of

their college or university (p. 70).

Kuh and Love (2000) created eight cultural propositions to address the attrition of

nontraditional students. These propositions may serve as a cultural framework for the

study of retention of diverse students. Proposition 1 emphasizes the role of the individual

in understanding and engaging with an institution’s culture…. Propositions 2 and 3

acknowledge that students have different cultural backgrounds (cultures of origin) and

that colleges and universities are made up of multiple, overlapping cultures. Propositions

4, 5, and 6 articulate the concept of cultural distance, which accounts for many of the

challenges students face when they go to college. Finally, Propositions 7 and 8 address

26 the process of cultural connections that are necessary to succeed in college (Kuh & Love,

2000, p. 201).

Similarly, Braxton et al., (1997) state that continued elaboration of Tinto’s theory and integration of additional psychological and cross-cultural perspectives are needed to enhance the theory, especially for application to African-American students. Research has consistently highlighted the critical role that strong, supportive campus interpersonal relationships play in African-American students’ functioning and persistence (D’Augelli

& Hershberger, 1993; Fleming, 1984; Hershberger & D’Augelli, 1992; Jay & D’Augelli,

1991). Zea, Jarama, and Bianchi (1995) found that African-American students’ satisfaction with social support is also positively associated with their college adjustment.

While the need for minority students to connect with students with shared cultural heritages to succeed at college has been strongly supported by research (DeSousa & Kuh,

1996; Guiffrida, 2003, 2004; Murgia, Padilla & Pavel, 1991; Sedlacek, 1987; Sutton &

Kimbrough, 2001), Tinto’s (1993) interpretation omits the well-documented benefits of connecting with people with shared cultural heritages who are outside the university system.

Stage (1989) states that while commitment is central to Tinto’s theory, the theory fails to provide an understanding of students’ motivational orientations to such a commitment. Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora and Hengstler (1992) explored the merging of the two theories Tinto’s (1975) Student Integration Model and Bean’s (1980) Model of

Student Departure and found difficulties with each theory. With Tinto’s theoretical model, the researchers discovered that results were mixed due to a lack of control on environmental variables and how these variables shaped perceptions, commitments, and

preferences. Bean (1980) developed the Model of Student Departure, psychological

processes model, to explain the factors contributing to student attrition. The model was

an adaptation of an organizational turnover model, which was developed to explain employee turnover in work organizations (McClanahan, 2004). The researchers discovered that this theory may not be applicable to all populations because it was not developed to address the varying factors that differ in departure patterns of African-

American students compared to the majority student population.

In a personal criticism of his original SIM theory, Tinto stated that the model was

developed to explain certain, not all, modes of dropping out behavior that may occur in

particular types of higher educational settings. Tinto did not claim that his model was

applicable to all types of students in all forms of tertiary education. He believes that any fault is not with the SIM model itself, but rather with those researchers who attempted to overextend it (Tinto, 1982). According to Tinto, if one wishes to develop a theoretical model that seeks to explain the longitudinal process of student persistence or dropping out behavior, one must build into the model sets of individual characteristics and dispositions relevant to educational persistence (Tinto 1975, 1993).

The researchers concluded that Tinto’s model fails to highlight important differences in the educational career that mark the experiences of students representing different background. Therefore, modifications need to be made for diverse student populations.

Modifications to Tinto’s Model

Many researchers have modified and improved Tinto’s model to study diverse student populations at different higher education institutions (Cabrera et al., 1992;

Cabrera & Nora, 1994; Cabrera, Nora, & Castañeda, 1992; Nora, Attinasi, & Matonak,

1990; Nora & Cabrera, 1993, 1996; Nora & Rendόn, 1990; Pascarella, 1980; Pascarella

& Terenzini, 1991; Pavel, 1992; Rendόn, 1982), yet they agree that more remains to be done. Guiffrida (2005a) asserts this limitation may be particularly significant when using the theory to describe African-American students’ academic achievement and persistence. Research suggests minority students’ motivation for attending and succeeding in college may differ from their White counterparts (D. Allen, 1999; Arnold,

1993; S. Hurtado, 1994; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Stage, 1989).

According to McCubbin (2003), attrition is perhaps the greatest problem facing institutions of higher education. McCubbin further asserts that attendance in higher education is voluntary and there is a plethora of reasons why people may choose, or be forced, to withdraw. Key elements impacting minority retention include but are not limited to faculty/student interaction, racism, campus environment, critical mass, finances and financial aid, and the use of student services (Harvey-Smith, 2002). According to

Brown (2000), census-based projections of the U.S. population indicate that, in the very near future, African-Americans (combined with other minorities) will outnumber Whites.

These facts suggest that if the colleges’ retention rate remains high for minority students, the majority of U.S. citizens will be undereducated and systematically relegated to the lowest social strata, a fact that has major implications for the U.S. both nationally and internationally.

Approaches to Student Retention

Over the past 20 years, we have seen a marked increase in both the high school

graduation rate of Black children, as well as an increase in the college participation rates.

The American Council on Education (ACE, 2002) reported that in the year 2000, 77% of

Black children graduated from high school. In 1999, the college participation rate of

Blacks 18-24 years old was 39.4% (ACE, 2002). Wilds (2000) reports that 40% of Black college students graduate within six years of entering their respective institutions. Many colleges and universities have rationalized their use of race as a criterion for admission based on the benefit of diversity for all students and for society (Melendez, 2004).

Melendez further asserts, “Recent court cases have used the argument as well. Supreme

Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s majority opinion in the University of Michigan case cited the need for diversity in society” (p. 8).

In addition to the usual school pressures, a Black student must typically handle cultural biases and learn how to link his or her Black culture with the prevailing one at the White university (Sedlacek, 1987). A critical mass of diverse people creates greater opportunities for social support, role models, and mentoring. In addition, structural diversity suggests that the institution is committed to diversity--something that proves important in creating an inclusive climate (Smith & Schonfeld, 2000, p. 18).

Numerous studies (Chang & Astin, 1997; Laden, 1999; Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, &

Gurin, 2002) show that a diverse student population promotes learning outcomes, prepares students for an increasingly diverse workforce and society, and prepares them as professionals. Grutter v. Bollinger further supports this notion stating that admitting

30 diverse students “May help achieve that diversity which has the potential to enrich everyone’s education” (Grutter v. Bollinger 539, 2003).

According to O’Donnell and Green-Merritt (1997), active minority recruitment and retention have been practiced in United States White institutions of higher education since 1980. The focus of such efforts has been to enroll minority students with the expectation that individual students will penetrate an already established institutional culture. “The result has yielded few students enrolled and fewer of these students retained. Recruitment and retention of minority students will be successful only when the existing paradigm shifts to focus on a systemic change in the culture of the institution”

(O’Donnell & Green-Merritt, 1997, p. 13). M. Barnett (2004) states, “It is widely known that for Black families, education is viewed as the path to liberation and success in the

American society” (p. 1). African-American college students differ from their White peers in important ways: their parents are more often urban, have fewer years of education, work at lower status jobs, earn less, and are more often divorced or separated than White students’ parents (Blackwell, 1975; Nettles, 1988). According to Jackson and

Swan (1991), “More Black males in White schools relied on family and institutional support systems to handle their personal problems than do those in Black schools. Most students on Black campuses seem to handle their problems alone” (p.133). At predominantly White institutions, many African-American students may not have the opportunity to receive direct support from Black faculty or peers, because of the limited number of African-Americans in the academy. As a result, Black students are likely to seek social support outside of the department, for example, at churches, social clubs and other organizations (Bonner & Evans, 2004; Cheatham & Phelps, 1995).

In a study conducted by King and Chepyator-Thomson (1996), some African-

Americans mentioned a sense of loneliness because of the lack of African-American

professors and peers at their institution of higher education. Townsend (1994), author of

“How Universities Successfully Retain and Graduate Black Students,” states universities

must create a “positive atmosphere, which is achieved through support networks.

Institutions of higher education should have a sufficient number of Black students to

enable them to establish a meaningful social interaction and support network amongst themselves” (p. 85).

The need for African-American students to develop a sense of community with other African-American students on campus is a contributing factor to increase retention.

(Clewell, 1986). According to Laden (1999), for many first-generation college students from diverse backgrounds, the transition from their known world to a predominantly

White institution is difficult. Essentially, as newcomers, the students must go through a socialization process where they are expected to “learn the ropes” of the new organization by acquiring the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume their organizational roles as successful college students (Laden, 1999). A key piece of the puzzle to improving the college adjustment of African-American students, and thereby improving their retention, is better understanding of the heterogeneity that exists among

African-American students (Brown, 2000). Kuh and Love (2000) state “From a cultural perspective, when an individual joins a group, interactions between people influence the larger institutional environment and its subenvironments” (p. 198).

According to Tinto (1993), research points to six conditions within institutions that are supportive of student success: commitment, expectations, support, feedback,

involvement, and learning. First, students are more likely to persist and graduate in

settings that expect them to succeed and are committed to their success. Students,

especially those who have been historically excluded from higher education, “Are

affected by the campus expectational climate and by their perceptions of the expectations of faculty and staff hold for their individual performance” (Tinto, 1999, p. 2).

Next, Tinto (1999) states students are more likely to persist and graduate in

settings that provide clear and consistent information about institutional requirements and

effective advising about the choices students have to make regarding their programs of

study and future career goals. Tinto continues that students are more likely to persist and

graduate in settings that provide academic, social, and personal support. Most students

require some form of support (Tinto, 1999). Some may require academic assistance,

while others may need social or personal support. The fact that students are more likely to

persist and graduate in supportive academic settings is also shared by Pascarella’s 1980

model. This model examines how a student and institutional characteristics affect

persistence. These factors are said to have the power to influence the amount of informal

contact that students have with faculty. Pascarella’s model purports that additional

exposure in college, both socially (involvement with peers) and academically, also

impacts informal contact with faculty.

Tinto (1999) states students are more likely to persist and graduate in settings that

values them as members of the institution. Lastly, and according to Tinto most

importantly, students are more likely to persist and graduate in settings that foster

learning.

The need for positive student and faculty interaction, the availability of a critical mass of African-American students, the importance of social and academic engagement, and the availability of financial assistance are important concerns directly impacting student retention and success in post-secondary education. Additional inquiry will allow us to make better and more informed decisions concerning overall retention practices as transformational changes in these environments are sought in support of student learning

(Harvey-Smith, 2002). Thus the rationale for Cabrera et al. (1992), Nora et al.(1990) and

Nora (1987) focus on the central construct of academic integration and how it impacts institutional commitment and student persistence.

According to Harvey-Smith (2002), “The research on African-American students has provided few solutions to the problems of retention and the doors of higher education continue to revolve for this population” (p. 5). Green (1989) argues that one of the major reasons for the lack of success of minority retention efforts is that such efforts are piecemeal and random. In order to succeed, efforts to promote minority retention should be comprehensive, institution-wide and program-wide rather than rely on the actions of a few individuals. Green further asserts they should be built into the institutional mainstream, rather than consigned to the periphery of institutional affairs.

Research by Suen (1983) and Loo and Rolison (1986) has focused on the lack of congruency between Black students’ cultural background and the social milieu of predominantly White institutions that tends to marginalize their experiences and alienate them socially. This idea of racial congruency originated in student institutional fit models

(Bean, 1982b, Tinto, 1987). Stovall (2005) maintains, “While most campuses will not openly display racism as blatantly, a review of the literature indicates that racial

discrimination is alive and well on the predominantly White campuses” (p. 103). Studies

focusing on African-American students attending PWIs have reported racial discrimination as a major cause for the high attrition rate of Black students matriculating

at these colleges (Stovall, 2005).

Qualitative studies investigating the experiences of diverse student populations

(Delgado Bernal, 2002; González, 2002; Guiffrida, 2005b; Rosas & Hamrick, 2002) have

found that students perceived their families and members of their home communities as

providing essential cultural connections and nourishment that assisted them in

overcoming racism, cultural isolation, and other adversity they experienced at college.

According to Guiffrida (2005a), these findings suggest that cultural connections play a

much larger role in minority college student persistence than simply facilitating social

integration into the university.

Rendόn (1989) believes the relationships between higher education institutions

and students are oftentimes not as collegial as is necessary for students to navigate an

unfamiliar setting and system. She believes this relationship originates from the

university’s perception of itself and its students and she questions whether the

educational system has engaged in a lie. Rendόn asserts that educational institutions view

themselves as pillars of perfection. As a result, when something goes awry in the system,

the students are easily blamed and focus is placed on their needs and deficiencies.

Research has consistently highlighted the important role that strong, supportive

interpersonal relationships play in African-American students’ experiences on campus

(D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Fleming, 1984; Hershberger & D’Augelli, 1992; Jay &

D’Augelli, 1991). Further, Zea, Jarama, and Bianchi (1995) found that African-American

students’ satisfaction with social support is positively associated with their college

adjustment. According to Brown (2000), “In sum, social support is arguably the most

important determinant of college success and satisfaction, particularly for African-

American students attending predominantly White institutions” (p. 480).

Some studies have identified use of the gymnasium (Mallinckrodt & Sedlacek,

1987), involvement in the student union, and campus employment (Churchill & Iwai,

1981) as playing vital roles in the persistence and eventual graduation of African-

American students. Furthermore, Mallinckrodt and Sedlacek pointed out that participation in activities and services of this nature fostered a greater identification with the college and thus enhanced the probability that students would remain. According to

Burr, Burr and Novak (1999), “When viewed from the perspective of a ‘seamless retention theory,’ however, the concept of retention assumes a complexity that invites serious and sustained attention to the student’s movement through the entire education system” (p. 240).

In an interview with Dr. Frank Hale, he states “The first year of matriculation is the screening and adjustment year. After that point, worrying about adjustment issues is no longer the problem for most African-American juniors and seniors. Factors that tend to disrupt retention tend to include participation in extracurricular activities, work, the change of an academic major, and difficulty with coursework”. Hale states that as upper class students progress academically coursework becomes more complicated and for students who have changed their majors, they do not have the basic foundation within a new major to always succeed. Hale further states that “This occurs in many cases because students do not want to prove the perceptions and stereotypes conveyed about African-

American students not being academically prepared to persist at a predominantly White institution so they do not take advantage of programs and services that exist to assist them. Some of them simply do not know how to negotiate the system. Unfortunately for many, when they realize what has occurred it is too late to recover” (personal phone conversation, February 24, 2007).

Burr et al. (1999) assert, “The seamless student retention theory implies multidimensional institutional involvement, first by anticipating and identifying future students in a systematic manner and, subsequently, constructing an environment that addresses the needs of the anticipated student population” (p. 240). The authors further state, “based on an assumed consistent intervention to interrupt dropping out, this theory implies a systematic approach to education that focuses on the student as she/he moves through the educational process, through commencement and entry into the job market”

(p. 241).

The information provided on the approaches to student retention supports the notion that integration, involvement and engagement are vital to African-American student persistence and eventual graduation.

The Role of Integration (Involvement or Engagement)

A high proportion of the research on this topic has concluded that the most important influence on student retention is integration, also described as involvement or engagement, into the college environment (E. Barnett, 2003). Tinto (1987) and Astin

(1984) are the early leaders in student retention research, and many studies build upon

their frameworks emphasizing integration and involvement as highly influential,

respectively (Bean & Metzner, 1996; Nora et al, 1990 Terenzini et al., 1996).

Terenzini et al. (1996) summarize Astin’s beliefs, from his book Achieving

Educational Excellence: A Critical Assessment of Priorities and Practices in Higher

Education (1985) in which they claim that the “Educational effectiveness of any policy or practice is related to its capacity to encourage student’s involvement” (p. 54). Astin

(1984) further asserts that “[the] amount of learning or development that occurs is directly proportional to the quality and quantity of involvement” (p. 54).

Tinto (1993) summarizes his work and that of other researchers on this topic, stating:

One thing we know about persistence is that involvement matters. The more academically and socially involved individuals are—that is, the more they interact with other students and faculty—the more likely they are to persist…. And the more they see those interactions as positive and themselves as integrated into the institution and as valued members of it (i.e., validated), the more likely it is that they will persist. (cited in Rendόn, 1994, p. 1)

Various references by these authors and others utilize the three terms-- integration, involvement, and engagement interchangeably. In some contexts, it is implied that it is something that a student does or becomes; in others the institution is described as taking the initiative. Some are more inclusive of academic and social dimensions, while others appear to emphasize one over the other (E. Barnett, 2003).

The Student Adjustment Model, by Nora and Cabrera (1993, 1996) was

developed based on both Tinto’s (1975) Student Integration Model and Bean’s (1980)

Model of Student Departure. This model addresses several crucial assertions related to

the factors involved in the persistence omit nontraditional students. Cabrera and Nora

(1994) argue that current quantitative models must include factors that are able to

38 differentiate among racial and ethnic groups or must include measurement approaches

(and techniques) that provide indicators of constructs that reflect racial, ethnic, and cultural differences.

A significant cultural limitation of the theory relates to Tinto’s (1993) assertion that students need to break away from past associations and traditions in order to become integrated into the social and academic realms of the college (Guiffrida, 2005a). Tierney

(1992) argued that Van Gennep’s (1960) transitional model, for which Tinto based his theory of student departure, is not applicable to African-American college students because the model was intended to describe developmental progression within a culture rather than assimilation from one culture to another. Guiffrida (2005b) maintains that minority students’ cultural backgrounds often differ from the Eurocentric frameworks upon which the norms and values at predominantly White institutions are based. Tierney argued that this mistaken use of Van Gennep’s theory was potentially harmful to African-

American students because it encouraged separation from cultural traditions and supportive relationships. Critics have contended that this aspect of Tinto’s theory, which is rooted in the Western, assimilation/enculturation paradigm, ignores bicultural integration, or the ability of African-American students to be a part of both the majority and minority cultures to succeed at college (Kuh & Love, 2000; Rendόn et al., 2000).

Stovall (2005) states:

The problems Black students face on campuses are not centered in such inconsequential things as food, music, artwork, etc. or the lack of African-related items in the bookstore. The problems are the feelings of not belonging, of alienation, of isolation, and of the impenetrability of the college’s White subculture (p. 108).

This directly correlates to the identity of African-American students on predominantly White campuses. There are several models of Black identity development

(Jackson’s Black Identity Development Model and Phinney’s Stages of Ethnic Identity

Development in Minority Group Adolescents), but William Cross’ Nigrescence Model has received the most research attention ( Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005).

According to Cross (1991), “Blacks were said to experience a Negro-to-Black identity transformation, the psychology of nigresence, or the psychology of becoming Black” (p.

41). The Model of Psychological Nigrescence includes five sequential stages of an individual’s Black identity from “non-Afrocentrism to Afrocentrism to multiculturalism”

(Evans, Forney, & Guido-DiBrito, 1998, p. 74). Cross’ Nigrescence Model is widely referenced in undergraduate student development (Evans et al., 1998) and persistence

(Pascarella &Terenzini, 2005; Sedlacek, 1987) literature.

According to Cross (1991) African-American students can experience the five stages of Black identity development throughout their adulthood. These five stages are

Pre-encounter, Encounter, Immersion-Emersion, Internalization, and Internalization-

Commitment.

During the Pre-encounter stage, Cross states being Black is not important to

African-Americans, because their attitudes toward race range from low salience to anti-

Black. Therefore, many Blacks view whiteness as their preferred racial status. This preference may be the result of Blacks not being educated on their Black history and culture. Blacks who are considered “low salient” do not reject their race, but their other identities such as religion or sexual orientation, have a higher significance. African-

Americans, who hold anti-Black views, share similar values as Whites toward Blacks.

They believe in the racial stereotypes for Blacks. During this stage, Cross (1991) states,

“The average Negro American was ‘self-hating and deracinated’, and thus very much in

need of identity change” (p. 158).

After the Pre-encounter stage, African-Americans enter the Encounter stage.

During this stage s/he is affected by a positive or negative encounter experience. Positive

encounters may include learning the cultural or historical information on African-

Americans, while in contrast negative encounters may include experiencing such racism as stereotypical remarks. During this stage African-Americans may become angry at

Whites, experience a sense of guilt and become motivated to learn information on Black

identity.

As Blacks transition from the Pre-encounter stage into the Immersion-Emersion

stage, African-Americans are absorbed into Blackness and withdrawn from Whites.

Blacks may begin to realize that anything associated with Whiteness is considered evil and inhuman (Cross, 1991). Many African-Americans experience a sense of anger

towards Whites and develop a sense of pride in the Black culture. This includes but is not

limited to Blacks seeking and enrolling in classes taught by African-American professors.

During the Emersion phase, African-Americans experience a “progression out of a

dualistic, reactionary mode into a more critical analysis of the new Black identity” (cited

in Evans et al., 1998, p. 75). As Blacks establish a healthy identity development, they

become less emotional. They become less romanticized with their race and more serious

about Black issues.

As African-Americans move into the Internalization stage, they become more

secure of their Blackness and begin to have a more pluralistic view of life. Cross (1991)

states, “The internalized identity seems to perform three dynamic functions in a person’s

everyday life: 1) to defend and protect the person from psychological insults that stem

from having to live in a racist society; 2) to provide a sense of belonging and social anchorage and; 3) to provide a foundation or point of departure for carrying out transactions with people, cultures, and situations beyond the world of

Blackness” (p. 210). Although their Black identity is salient, African-Americans begin to recognize their other social identities. Lastly, during the final stage, Internalization-

Commitment, African-Americans begin to “address concerns and problems shared by

African-Americans and other oppressed peoples” (Evans et al., 1998, p. 77). Cross states,

“The person is described as having shifted from the insecure and anxious moments of

early conversion to confidence in personal standards of Blackness.” (p. 159) Cross’

model illustrates the transformation of an individual’s racial frame of reference or

identity. African-Americans may not experience all five stages or may experience

recycling among the phases (Cross, 1991).

According to Bean and Metzner (1985), social integration refers to the extent and

quality of students’ interaction with the social system of the college environment. The

models of Spady (1970) and Tinto (1975) assume that students who have extensive, high

quality interaction with persons in this social system (i.e., greater social integration) are

more likely to continue enrollment at their college.

Bean and Metzner (1985) state measures of social integration typically include the

following:

1. The degree of students’ participation in extracurricular activities; 2. Peer friendships on campus; 3. Relationships with instructors outside of class; 4. Students’ evaluation of the quality of these experiences with instructors, such as the amount of satisfaction with the relationship; and 5. Students’ global assessment of their satisfaction with their social life or with the social opportunities at their college. (p. 507)

Social integration has a more influential role in predicting student persistence than does academic integration. Thus, social support appears to be a major determinant of both students’ satisfaction with college and their persistence decisions (Milem & Berger,

1997).

Although researchers have concluded that involvement and belongingness have a positive effect on students’ persistence and experiences, an increase level of engagement may increase students’ outcomes and learning, as well (Kezar, 2006; Pascarella &

Terenzini, 1991). According to Kezar, engagement occurs when there is a “Level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student interaction with faculty members, enriching educational experiences, and supportive campus environment” (p.

94). Therefore, faculty and staff need to provide outreach and opportunities for involvement and engagement to all students, but especially to African-American students.

Rendόn et al. (2000) employed the model of social engagement in studying the retention of minority students, because it “Takes into account gender as well as other, significant social identities like ethnicity/race, class, and sexuality to study how groups change as

they come into contact with each other” (A. Hurtado, 1997, p. 299). Engagement may

include diversity/multicultural programs, cultural activities, and external relationships

with church, community members, friends, and family. As a result, faculty, student

affairs professionals, and others, must take into account that student background, for

example, family, serves as an important variable in any retention model (Bonner &

Evans, 2004). Davis (1991) found that increased interaction with peers and faculty, along

with increased involvement in organized activities, leads to a lower attrition rate for

African-American students. Taylor and Howard-Hamilton (1995) found that African-

American students on predominantly White campuses who were more involved with

clubs and organizations, academic experiences, sports, faculty, and staff interactions,

campus employment, and community service were more likely to develop a positive

racial identity. Involvement has also been shown to have specific benefits for various

subgroups of students on campus, particularly for students from underrepresented

populations (Berger & Milem, 1999). Berger and Milem further assert there is a positive

correlation between racial/ethnic identity development and student persistence

Student involvement has been defined to refer to the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience (Astin, 1999).

Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) state that the more time and energy students devote to learning and the more intensely they engage in their own education, the greater the achievement, satisfaction with educational experiences, and persistence in college.

Kuh et al. (1991) contend that students are more likely to be satisfied with their education and feel a sense of loyalty to their institution if the institution promotes active involvement on their part in campus life and learning. Involvement has also been shown

to have specific benefits for various subgroups of students on campus, particularly for students from underrepresented populations (Berger & Milem, 1999).

Harvey-Smith (2002) states, “Research finds that increased involvement and integration into the entire campus community correlate with greater commitment and

increased retention” (p. 8). According to research conducted by Tinto (1982), it becomes

difficult for many African-American students to feel integrated into the mainstream of

academic life under unfavorable conditions, which contribute directly to a sense of

alienation and decreased persistence. According to Clewell and Ficklen (1986) studies

have identified integration of all segments of the institution and commitment from senior- level leadership to creating environments where all students feel comfortable as the most important noncognitive variables related to retention. Because institutions vary in their mission, size, and complexity, the need continues for institutional research on a number of topics that will allow individual institutions to assess their own success in educating students from widely diverse backgrounds as well as the climate of the institution for these students, for faculty and staff, and for more traditional students (Smith & Wolf-

Wendel, 2005).

Validation

Rendón et al. (2002) have raised questions about whether integration or

involvement in college is the most important influence on retention for non-traditional

and minority students. Tinto (1993) considers validation to be virtually identical to

integration, but Rendón et al. believe that there are significant differences that are worthy

of further exploration. Rendón first began exploring the idea of validation by examining

how students’ learning was affected by student involvement under the auspices of the

Transition to College Project (Rendón, 1994). This qualitative study found that there

were important differences between traditional and non-traditional students. While

traditional students were generally confident about being able to succeed in college,

45 many of the non-traditional students did not. Involvement in college did not come easily to them, and depended on “Active intervention from significant others to help them negotiate institutional life” (p. 37).

Rendón (1994) argues that for traditionally underserved students, validation may be a more important influence on student success than involvement. She suggests that first generation students may benefit from active efforts to validate them on the part of the institution. Rendón suggests that large numbers of traditionally underserved students are not as likely to find themselves in settings where this type of involvement occurs naturally.

Rendόn (1994) states that students may not become involved or engaged in the educational experience unless the college or university makes a point of reaching out to them. A large qualitative study conducted by a team of researchers (Terenzini et al.,

1996) resulted in the identification of a number of themes related to validation that students found important to their success in college. A total of 132 students from a range of postsecondary institutions participated in focus-group interviews that delved into their experiences with the processes involved in the transition from high school to college and the kinds of mechanisms that contributed to an easier or more difficult passage. They concluded that validation by various stakeholders in the college community made an important difference to student success and persistence and suggested further exploration of this issue. They particularly pointed to the importance of these ideas to the success of traditionally underserved students in higher education.

Terenzini et al (1996) defined validation as:

Validation is empowering, confirming and supportive. It is a series of in- and out- of class experiences with family peers, faculty members, and staff through which

students come to feel accepted in their new community, receive confirming signals that they can be successful in college and are worthy of a place there, have their previous work and life experiences recognized as valuable and so on. Validation can be something that is done for and in conjunction with the student, but for some students it may also be a self affirming process as the student discovers new competencies or reaches levels of achievement previously thought unattainable (p. 60).

Rendón (1994) states, under the right conditions, “Even the most vulnerable nontraditional students [could] be transformed into powerful learners through in- and out- of-class academic and/or interpersonal validation” (p. 37). The role of faculty was highlighted as particularly important, while peers and family members were also central.

The key was 1) having someone take an active interest in the student as an individual or

2) structuring activities that would elicit (or require) their full participation in learning.

Further, validating experiences were most likely to have an impact when provided by people with a deep understanding of the students’ cultural/social background. Providing opportunities and expecting students to take advantage of them were simply not enough.

Rendón et al. (2002) state:

The assumption that minority students must separate from their cultural realities and take the responsibility to become incorporated into colleges’ academic and social fabric in order to succeed (with little or no concern to address systemic problems within institutions or to the notion that minority students are often able to operate in multiple context) becomes central to the critique. (p. 585)

This view contrasts with acculturation/assimilation perspectives, in which minority students are expected to progressively integrate themselves into the dominant culture, leaving behind their roots in order to avoid academic failure and social isolation.

Rather, they posit that students can more helpfully be seen as moving toward biculturation or dual socialization, in which they are able to successfully navigate both cultures, with the culture of home providing support and nurturance that strengthens the

47 student who ventures out into less familiar cultural territory. Additionally, they note that many minority students are not given a real choice about joining the majority culture.

College environments, like the rest of society, do not always provide a welcoming environment to minority students, making it important that there be other sources of support and encouragement.

The next section will provide information so the reader can further understand the correlation between validation and involvement as it relates to African-American students on the campuses of PWIs.

Validation vs. Involvement

Validation is viewed as the responsibility of the institution. In contrast, involvement is seen to be the responsibility of the student. “Validation may be seen as a prerequisite to student involvement” (Rendόn & Jalomo, 1995, p. 15). Pascarella et al.

(1996) discuss validation as one of a number of mechanisms by which non-traditional students may become involved, thus leading to the positive outcomes associated with this status. In fact, they appear to see both involvement and validation as part of a “Web-like series of family, interpersonal, academic, and organizational pulls and pushes that shape student learning… and persistence” (p. 57).

With the information provided, the next section provides information on the level of institutional commitment necessary for African-American students to feel validated and supported on the campuses of PWIs.

Institutional Commitment

According to Kuh and Love (2000), over time all groups and organizations,

including colleges and universities, develop cultures, more or less coherent, widely accepted ways of doing things which shape how people think and behave. In higher education, culture can be thought of as “The collective, mutually shaping patterns of norms, values, practices, beliefs, and assumptions that guide the behavior of individuals and groups...and provide a frame of reference within which to interpret the meaning of events and actions on and off campus” (Kuh & Whitt, 1988, pp. 12-13).

Student development professionals who work with African-American students must make efforts to understand cultural and social environmental variables related to

Black students. Certain issues that African-American students face regularly are unlikely to affect White students, and practitioners need to be aware that these issues and other factors have a direct impact on the retention and development of Black students (Hill-

Traynham, 2000).

Stovall (2005) asserts, “Many of the problems of African-Americans on White college campuses are results of forces that are deeply rooted in the racism of American society” (p. 104). Stovall further asserts that in many cases campus personnel, such as counselors and administrators of special programs designed for “minorities,” are not culturally prepared or trained to help African-American students. Black students come from different backgrounds, historically and culturally, than their White peers, and often will fall short when evaluated through Eurocentric development theories (Hill-Traynham,

2000). Trained student development professionals are frequently guided by the application of Eurocentric theories and models, often using them to develop a variety of

programs and services. Few understand that mainstream theories are limited with regard

to promoting the overall growth and development of non-Europeans (Hill-Traynham,

2000).

According to Astin (1993), a direct association exists between student satisfaction and retention in college. Gaither (2005) states, “Even with the best of intentions, minority retention will not increase as a result of random actions by a few individuals” (p. 65).

Institutional factors that contribute to the high attrition rate of students of color are related to organizational policies and the campus environment (McNairy, 1996). McNairy states:

They include insufficient financial aid; institutions’ traditions of not welcoming students of color because of an indifferent and, periodically, hostile atmosphere; few or no social activities where students of color feel welcome; limited number of professional role models; and the academic community’s ignorance of the cultures and contributions of people of color (p. 8).

Richardson and Skinner (1991) argue that any approach to improving minority retention must be comprehensive and reflected in institutional or program policies and practices. A proliferation of factors has been found to have direct links to attrition, persistence, and retention, but there is much concern regarding the transferability of many of these factors from one population to another. Although factors have been identified as having an effect on persistence in general, there is no clear consensus on a single group of factors that affect minority students particularly and African-American students specifically (Harvey-Smith, 2002).

Harvey-Smith (2002) asserts, “It is clear that institutional leaders must, at a minimum, acknowledge the problems of students of color and attempt to understand its effects on the overall retention of students, the institution’s mission, goals, and ability to create inclusive environments” (p. 6). In order to have an active role in preparing students

for effective citizenship, institutions of higher education must first resolve the long-

standing problem of successfully integrating or engaging African-American and other minority students into all facets of the academic environment (Holmes, Ebbers, Robinson

& Mugenda, 2000). With regard to African-American students attending predominantly

White institutions, because the ethos of the White majority are ingrained in the

institutional culture, administrators must prepare the majority group to appreciate the

differences that will be inherent with the minority newcomer. If administrators fail to

prepare the dominant culture for increases in minorities, especially African-American

students, discord will arise and minority students will be at risk of leaving before

completing their degrees; or worse, the campus environment could become volatile and

explosive (Vogt, 1997). Existing studies that focus specifically on retention suggest that

how students perceive the organizational functioning on a campus has direct and indirect

effects on persistence (Bean, 1980, 1982a) Berger & Braxton, 1998); Braxton & Brier,

1989).

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Introduction

Why Qualitative Research?

Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding the meanings that people

have constructed, how they make sense of their world and the experiences they have

in the world (Guba, 1990; Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Merriam, 1998). Focus groups

are designed to allow the researcher to listen and gather information in a comfortable,

safe environment that encourages participants to share perceptions and points of view.

A focus group is a group of six to eight people who have something in common

facilitated by a skilled moderator who works from a predetermined set of discussion

topics (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Madriz, 2000; Morgan, 1993). From the qualitative

perspective, the “data” are people’s interpretations of what happened to them in a

given situation, such as within an organization or institution. The purpose of such

studies is discovery or understanding, not generalization across groups or settings

(Creswell, 1994). Attinasi (1989) supports the importance of personal contact through

focus groups and interviews, because surveys and other quantitative methods do not

reflect the actual experiences of participants. According to Miles and Huberman

(1994) quantitative data are in the form of numbers and statistics and in utilizing

qualitative data the researcher remains objectively separated from the subject matter.

Therefore one can conclude that quantitative research does not fully examine the

stories and experiences of students.

In studying African-American students’ perceptions of the impact of retention

programs and services at predominantly White institutions, methods of qualitative

research are needed “to probe the meanings differing individuals attach to their

experience as they take place within an observable sphere of personal interactions”

(Tinto, 1993, p. 243).

Research Design

The researcher used focus groups as a tool to learn first-hand from African-

American students’ their perceptions of the impact of retention programs and services at

predominantly White institutions. Krueger & Casey (2000) state:

The purpose of a focus group is to listen and gather information. It is a way to better understand how people feel or think about an issue, product, or service. Participants are selected because they have certain characteristics in common that relate to the topic of the focus group. A focus group study is a carefully planned series of discussions designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, nonthreatening environment. (pp. 4-5)

The researcher trained one moderator to conduct four focus groups. The

moderator was a male, African-American professional in higher education who was

chosen due to prior knowledge of focus groups, the ability to be trained in conducting

these particular sessions, prior experience working with African-American students, his

understanding of the topic of study, and willingness to have meaningful dialogue with

African-American students to gather information pertinent to this study. The moderator

was cognizant of the factors affecting the retention of underrepresented students due to

active engagement at predominantly White institutions. A female African-American

professional of higher education was trained as an alternate moderator but did not need to

be utilized. The moderator was instructed to follow a script for each focus group session

so the sessions would be consistent. He was given the freedom to follow-up with

questions if participants had questions or did not fully answer questions. Since the focus

groups were not videotaped, two trained African-American female note takers were

present to capture participants’ expressions, pertinent statements, facial expressions,

gestures and information that the audio tape could not capture. All focus group sessions

were audio taped and the tapes were transcribed immediately following each focus group

session. Transcribers utilized the audiotapes and the notes from the note takers to record

the focus group data. The researcher listened to each tape and consulted the tapes as

needed for analysis. The tapes will be maintained for ten years prior to being destroyed

by the researcher.

Each focus group session was conducted on the participants’ respective campus.

The moderator and note taker arrived first to set up the room to make it conducive for the session. This included arranging chairs and tables so that the recorder would be able to pick up the voices of all participants. The moderator also tested the recorder from different areas within the room to make sure voices were audible. Once participants arrived, they were asked to complete the demographic form (see Appendix B) and audio release form (see Appendix E). The moderator read from a script (see Appendix F) welcoming the participants and provided them with information concerning what the session would entail. Instruction included speaking loudly and clearly into the recorder, speaking one at a time once they were acknowledged, and following the leadership of the moderator.

The researcher hired three transcribers to transcribe the taped focus group sessions. Transcribers were specifically trained by the researcher. One transcriber (who

also served as a note taker) transcribed two of the focus group sessions. Each of the three

transcribers was instructed to type verbatim what each participant and the moderator said

on the tape from beginning to end. They were told that everything was important. Each

transcriber was provided with a mini-tape recorder/player, the labeled tape of the focus

group, headphones, as well as a jump drive to save all of the data. After each session the

researcher listened to each tape. Then the transcribers listened to the tapes with the researcher to see if there were any questions prior to proceeding. Questions that came

from these meetings included what the transcriber should do if during the process they

were unable to decipher a word or statement from the moderator and participants as well

as the format that should be utilized for the transcriptions. Each transcriber met with the

researcher after completing their transcriptions to proofread and discuss the data. The researcher then gave focus group participants the opportunity to review the transcript of their session to suggest any necessary changes. Final revisions were made by the researcher.

This study was specific to four institutions in Pennsylvania and may with caution, be used to better understand African-American students’ perceptions of the impact of retention programs and services on the campuses of predominantly White institutions.

The institutions were chosen due to their proximity to the researcher and their willingness to give permission to utilize student participants for the focus groups.

Research Sites

The colleges and universities utilized for this study can be described as:

a. University One- A public, four-year university in with approximately 6,000-8,000

undergraduate students and 300 undergraduate African-American students.

b. University Two- A public, four-year university with approximately 4,000-6,000

undergraduate students and 500 undergraduate African-American students.

c. College Three- A private, four-year college with approximately 1,500-2,000

undergraduate students and 30 African-American students.

d. College Four- A private, four-year college with approximately 900-1,500

undergraduate students and 30 African-American students.

Participants

The researcher utilized junior and senior, traditional-aged, full-time, United

States, undergraduate African-American students with a grade point average of 3.0 or

below exclusively. One of the major reasons for utilizing this group was because these

students had matriculated to this point and had the experience of progressing from a freshman to their current classification. The researcher contacted the respective institutions and requested a list of students meeting the criteria listed above. Students

were randomly selected from this list and mailed and/or emailed a letter requesting their

participation in the focus group (see Appendix A). The snowball sample technique was

also utilized to ensure student participation. “In a snowball sample, you ask those who

have already passed through the selection screen for nominations” (Krueger & Casey,

2000, p. 77). The first few individuals contacted were asked to identify others who meet

the criteria of the research. According to Krueger and Casey (2000) “the logic is that

people know people like themselves” (p. 77). The researcher cross checked each student

who was referred to the list provided by the institution prior to contact. Students were asked to confirm attendance (see Appendix D) to ensure sufficient attendance. According to Rossman and Rallis (2003), “Focus groups are generally composed of 7 to 10 people

(although they can be as small as 4 and as large as 12)” (p. 192-193). Meeting dates and times were confirmed by the researcher (see Appendix D). Each participant was asked to complete an informed consent form (see Appendix C) prior to participation. All participants completed a demographic information form. Each focus group met for an hour to two hours. Each session contained the desired number of participants.

For this study traditional-aged juniors and seniors can be described as students who are 20-25 years of age. There were a total of 29 study participants within the four

focus groups. There were a total of 14 (48.3%) males and 15 (51.7%) females in the

study. First generation participants accounted for 19 (67.8%), 2nd generation participants

accounted for 8 (28.6%) and 3rd generation participants accounted for 2 (3.6%). Of the 29

participants 14 (48.3%) were juniors and 15 (51.7%) were seniors.

Table 1. Campus Information

Campus Pseudonyms Gender Classification College Matriculation M / F JR SR (generation) 1st 2nd 3rd University A,B,C,D,E,F 3 3 2 4 0 5 1 One University G,H,I,J,K,L 4 2 4 2 6 0 0 Two College M,N,O,P,Q 3 2 4 1 2 2 0 Three College R,S,T,U,V,W,X,Y,Z, 4 8 4 8 11 1 0 Four AA,BB,CC

One student at college three did not answer the college matriculation (generation)

question.

The Focus Group Approach

The focus group approach in this study examined dialogue among African-

American students on the campuses of predominantly White institutions. All participants must feel a sense of connectedness to the institution and have a feeling of identity with the values, beliefs, attitudes, rules and regulations, which they are expected to embrace

(O’Donnell & Green-Merritt, 1997).

Rudestam and Newton (2001) state:

Phenomenological inquiry attempts to describe and elucidate the meanings of human experience. More than other forms of inquiry, phenomenology attempts to get beneath how people describe their experience to the structures that underlie consciousness, that is, to the essential nature of ideas. (p. 38)

According to Merriam and Associates (2002), “A phenomenological study seeks understanding about the essence and the underlying structure of the phenomenon” (p. 38).

Phenomenological approaches focus on exploring how human beings make sense of experience and transform experience into consciousness, both individually and as shared meaning (M. Q. Patton, 2002). Merriam and Associates state, “All qualitative research is

interested in how meaning is constructed, how people make sense of their lives and their

worlds. The primary goal of the basic qualitative study is to uncover and interpret these meanings” (p. 39).

Although various forms of research from the professional and institutional

perspective have been utilized, there is limited research that utilizes the students’

perspective. Focus groups are defined as “A way to better understand how people feel or

58 think about an issue, product, or service. Focus groups are utilized to listen and gather information” (Krueger & Casey, 2000, p. 4).

Using the focus group as a method for collecting data in this study contributes to the literature in several ways. It values the voice of African-American students on predominantly White campuses, gathers information that may not be obtained in a personal interview, and gives insight on student perspectives of current retention programs and services.

The intent of focus group research is to promote participant self-disclosure, which comes naturally to some and requires a level of trust, effort, and courage for others. The intent is not to encourage participants to reach consensus or come to a group decision

(Krueger & Casey, 2000). Empowerment comes when persons who are affected by an issue have the opportunity to impact that issue. In this instance, African-American students were in a group with the purpose of identifying retention programs and services and discussed their impact, on African-American student retention.

According to Holmes et al. (2000), “The low retention rate of African-American students attending predominantly White institutions is a result or function of inadequate institutional planning when combining people of different cultures, values, and learning styles” (p. 46). When members of the dominant cultural (including administrators, faculty, staff, and students) have not been prepared to interact with people who are different than they are, the community becomes divisive and intolerance, hostility, frustration, and apathy begin to thrive on the campus (Holmes et al., 2000).

M. Q. Patton (2002) states:

Blumer was one of the first to use group discussion and interview methods with key informants. He considered a carefully selected group of naturally acute

observers and well-informed people to be a real panel of experts about a setting or situation, experts who would take the researcher inside the phenomenon of interest. (p. 112)

M. Q. Patton (2002) suggests that a series of focus groups be conducted to obtain

a variety of perspectives and increase confidence in whatever patterns emerge. Patton

continues to say that the focus group is, first and foremost, an interview. “

The twist is that, unlike a series of one-on-one interviews, in a focus group participants get to hear each other’s responses and to make additional comments beyond their own original responses as they hear what other people have to say. (p. 386)

Krueger (1994) explains that a focus group should be “Carefully planned to obtain

perceptions on a defined area of interest in a permissive, nonthreatening environment. It

is conducted by a skilled moderator.” Krueger states, “Group members influence each

other by responding to ideas and comments in the discussion” (p. 6). M. Q. Patton (2002)

asserts, “The power of focus groups resides in their being focused” (p. 388).

Krueger prefers the term moderator to interviewer because:

This term highlights a specific function of the interviewer--that of moderating or guiding the discussion. The term interviewer tends to convey a more limited impression of two-way communication between an interviewer and an interviewee. By contrast, the focus group affords the opportunity for multiple interactions not only between the interviewer and respondent but among all participants in the group. The focus group is not a collection of simultaneous individual interviews, but rather a group discussion where the conversation flows because of the nurturing of the moderator. (p. 100)

For this study, the questions were sequenced to provide an introductory period

then increasingly moved forward to key questions and follow up questions when

necessary. The use of electronic recording equipment and a trained note taker ensured

that the participants’ words were captured without misinterpretation or bias as well as key elements that the audio equipment could not witness. In preparation for the focus groups,

60 each participant completed a demographic information form. The demographic information was utilized to garner background information on the focus group participants.

The following questions were explored to determine African-American student’s perceptions of the impact of retention programs and services on predominantly White campuses.

1. How do you define the term retention?

2. How did you learn about retention programs and services offered by your

institution?

3. What retention programs and services, if any, have assisted you in getting to

where you are now?

4. In your opinion, what factors are important to African-American students in

making use of current retention programs and services? Why?

5. How do you feel these programs and services impact or influence the retention of

African-American students?

6. Did these retention programs and services influence you to stay at your

institution? If so how?

7. Do you find the retention programs and services useful otherwise? If so how do

the programs and services assist you?

8. What support systems should be in place for African-American student retention

at predominantly White institutions?

Data Analysis Method

In order to glean meaning from the transcripts of the focus group interviews, the

data were analyzed by examining, categorizing, tabulating, or otherwise recombining the

evidence, to address the initial propositions of a study (Rossman & Rallis, 2003; Yin,

1984).

The data were transcribed, and the transcripts of the focus group sessions served

as the data. To reduce the text, the researcher reviewed the focus group transcriptions,

marked interesting passages, and utilized professional and academic judgment to select

meaningful chunks of information from the transcripts. In reducing the material, the

researcher learned to analyze, interpret, and gain meaning from the data. The researcher

coded the data by organizing the information according to themes. The researcher viewed

each of the four transcripts by institution and analyzed each sentence and paragraph to

determine code words. A code word is “a word or short phrase that captures and signals

what is going on in a piece of data in a way that links it to some more general analysis

issue” (Emerson, Fretz, & Shaw, 1995, p. 146). To further reduce the text, the researcher

grouped the codes into categories. The categories and themes were color coded by

utilizing highlighters throughout the transcripts. Once this was done for each institution

and placed in different locations in a room, the researcher began to look at the themes derived from each institution and combine similar themes utilizing the long table approach. It is suggested that beginning analysts use the long-table approach. This method is a time-tested method and breaks down the process into manageable chunks

(Krueger & Casey, 2000). It allows the analyst to identify themes and categorize results.

The core elements of the long-table approach are basically cutting, sorting, and arranging

through comparing and contrasting (Krueger & Casey, 2000, p. 137). To fulfill the long-

table approach the researcher made numerous copies of each of the four transcripts on

different colored paper. A hard copy was maintained to utilize as the working copy. After

coding the individual participants’ statements, the transcripts were cut into individual

quotes. Flip chart paper was placed in four different sections of the researchers’ basement

that contained the focus group questions. The researcher constantly compared the

information provided by the participants. Only information pertaining to the actual

questions was utilized. Quotes had to be rearranged numerous times prior to the analysis

of specific questions. A descriptive summary was written on what the participants said in

response to the questions. The themes that came up repeatedly were utilized to construct the data. At this juncture the researcher left the information alone for a few days and then viewed the information again to ensure the focus remained on the actual topic of the study. The ongoing analysis method, which included a continuous reflection and management of the data throughout the study, was also utilized (Rossman & Rallis,

2003). This method gave the researcher the opportunity to systematically reflect on all of the data in its entirety as well as in chunks to ensure accuracy.

By organizing the data in this way, the researcher was allowed to understand the experiences of each participant at each institution. The researcher was also allowed the opportunity to see similar and contrasting information by institution, and then by themes.

The themes were coupled with the individual’s quotes and are reported in Chapter 4.

Descriptive statistics were performed for demographic variables from the demographic information form utilizing the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software for quantitative data analysis.

Limitations

The results of this study can be applied with caution to other retention studies of

African-American undergraduate students at predominantly White institutions within the limitations listed below.

1. The study was conducted in the geographical area of Western Pennsylvania. As

the sample was taken from a small, rural area, the researcher was careful not to

make broad generalizations based upon the findings of this study. The institutions

consisted of two colleges and two universities. Although each was a

predominantly White institution, policymakers and researchers should be cautious

in applying these findings to institutions of higher education located in different

geographical areas.

2. The sample does not represent all classifications of African-American students at

predominantly White institutions. The researcher focused on the perceptions of

juniors and seniors primarily because they were once freshmen and sophomores

and they have the memories of those experiences also.

3. The sample may not represent the perceptions of all African-American students.

Diversity exists among all students, and African-American students are not

excluded. When drawing conclusions the following must be considered:

geographical origin, socio economic status, religion, sexual orientation, gender,

first generation vs. second or third generation college educated, disability vs.

ability, and parental/family support. For example a student from an inner city may

have different perceptions of their institution than a student from a rural area.

These personal characteristics may have an impact on how African-American

students perceive the retention programs and services at their predominantly

White institutions.

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS

Introduction

This study addressed two questions concerning junior and senior, traditional-aged,

full-time, United States, undergraduate African-American students with a 3.0 or below

grade point average:

1. What factors are important to African-American students in making use of

current retention programs and services?

2. What support systems should be in place for African-American student retention

at predominantly White institutions?

Participants were quite candid with the moderator during each of the focus group sessions, although at times the moderator had to probe for answers and repeat the questions to provide all participants the opportunity to respond. Most participants expressed the need to have an office for multicultural affairs on college campuses. All, in their own way, related to the questions from their personal experiences on their respective campuses.

The study sample consisted of 29 individuals from two colleges and two universities. The demographic information sheet provided the following participant information.

Table 2. Participants’ Identification Information University Participant Pseudonym Gender Classification 1 - A public, four-year university in Participant A Female Senior Western Pennsylvania with Participant B Female Senior approximately 8,200 undergraduate Participant C Male Senior students and 370 undergraduate African-American students. Participant D Female Senior Participant E Male Junior Participant F Male Junior

2 - A public, four-year university in Participant G Male Senior Western Pennsylvania with Participant H Male Junior approximately 6,400 undergraduate Participant I Male Junior students and 560 undergraduate African-American students. Participant J Male Junior Participant K Female Junior Participant L Female Senior

3 - A private, four-year college in Participant M Male Junior Western Pennsylvania with Participant N Male Senior approximately 2,100 undergraduate Participant O Female Junior students and 30 African-American students. Participant P Female Junior Participant Q Male Junior

4 - A private, four-year college in Participant R Female Junior Western Pennsylvania with Participant S Female Junior approximately 1,300 undergraduate Participant T Female Junior students and 30 African-American students. Participant U Male Senior Participant V Female Senior Participant W Female Senior Participant X Female Senior Participant Y Male Senior Participant Z Female Senior Participant AA Female Junior Participant BB Male Senior Participant CC Male Senior

Table 3. Participants’ Extracurricular Activities

How participants spend their free time Number Percent Working 17 60.7% Studying 24 85.7% With Friends 22 78.6% Participating in campus organizations 26 92.9% At home 1 3.6% Resting 11 39.3%

The data collection technique yielded the following description for academic majors:

Table 4. Participants Majors

Major Number Percent Male Female Architectural Design 1 3.4 1 0 Art 1 3.4 1 0 Athletic Training 2 6.9 0 2 Biology 2 6.9 0 2 Business Administration 1 3.4 1 0

Business Marketing 1 3.4 0 1 Chemistry 2 6.9 2 0 Communication/Public 1 3.4 1 0 Relations Criminology/Criminal 1 3.4 1 0 Justice Education 1 3.4 1 0 Elementary Education 1 3.4 1 0 English 2 6.9 0 2 Human Resource 1 3.4 0 1 Management International Business 1 3.4 0 1 Journalism 1 3.4 0 1 Math 1 3.4 0 1 Music 1 3.4 1 0 Parks and Recreation 1 3.4 1 0 Political Science 1 3.4 1 0 Psychology 1 3.4 1 0 Social Work 2 6.9 0 2 Sociology 1 3.4 0 1 Theater/Secondary 1 3.4 0 1 Education Education/Spanish 1 3.4 0 1 Total 29 100.0 13 16

The tables above yield the following information: University one’s focus group consisted of three female seniors, no female juniors, one male senior and two male juniors; University two’s consisted of one female senior, one female junior, one male senior and three male juniors; College three’s focus group consisted of no female seniors, two female juniors, one male senior and two male juniors; and lastly College four

consisted of four female seniors, four female juniors, four male seniors and no male

juniors. Focus group participants categorized how they spent their free in six different

areas with participation in campus organizations rating the highest, spending free time

studying rating the second highest and with friends rating the third highest. Table three

also showed that few focus group participants spent their free time at home. The twenty nine focus group participants’ majors were dispersed in a wide range with the top two areas centering on the field of education and the sciences.

Emergent Themes

The researcher systematically reviewed the transcripts, audiotapes and notes to code information and find themes that emerged from the four focus groups. It was helpful to meet with the moderator and note taker following each focus group to discuss the sessions and to gain their insights on recurring themes. Following each transcription, the researcher highlighted and compared common, salient themes or language that emerged from the participants’ responses and reactions. By utilizing the long-table approach, the researcher was able to pay close attention to the details of each focus group session.

Although time consuming, this process proved to be effective for the researcher.

An objective third party trained by the researcher moderated all four focus group sessions. Having a note taker was also important to the researcher, because she was able to capture the participants’ facial expressions, gestures and body language during the focus group sessions. It was critical for participants to be given the opportunity to review

their transcripts if they so desired to ensure the accuracy of the transcribed information.

All personal references that would reveal the identity of participants and or institutions

were deleted.

According Patton (2005) “Focus group interviews are based typically on

homogeneous groups. The participants typically share similar backgrounds and experiences and participate in a group interview about major issues that affect them” (p.

236). Four focus groups were conducted at four different institutions to obtain a variety of perspectives as well as to increase the confidence in the patterns that emerged.

Participants communicated their answers in their own unique ways, sometimes utilizing their own “vernacular” to express their individuality. According to L. D. Patton

(2005) “Unlike in a series of interviews, in a focus group participants get to hear each other’s responses and to make additional comments beyond their own original responses as they hear what other people have to say” (p. 386). Patton further asserted that the object is not to reach participant consensus, but rather to obtain “high-quality data in a social context where people can consider their own views in the context of the views of others.” (p. 386)

It was clear that from the participants’ perspective that some campuses had a plethora of support programs and services while others lacked programs and services.

Through the various focus group questions participants identified the themes listed below. These themes gave insight into the participants perceptions of the definition of the term retention, how they learned about campus retention programs and services, the programs and services that aided them in getting to where they are currently, the factors that they deemed important in making use of current retention programs and services, and what support services and programs should be in place for African-American student

retention at predominantly White institutions. From the analysis of the data through the

long-table approach, the following themes were identified:

1. Relationships with peers

2. Student organizations

3. Campus programs and services

4. Barriers to programs and services

5. Faculty support

6. Student motivators

7. Spirituality

8. Multicultural Affairs Offices

9. Institutional integrity, and

10. Insight from the students’ perspective.

The use of participants’ excerpts brings visibility to these African-American students’ experiences. In many cases, the experiences and perceptions of African-

American students go unnoticed within the academy. Sanders and Burton (1996) revealed

that African-American students were not satisfied with the perceptions of equal

opportunities for all students at predominantly White institutions. Due to the fact that

many African-American students perceive a lack of equal opportunities for them on

predominantly White campuses, they sometimes become despondent. This can adversely

affect their persistence. Therefore, my goal was to create a space where these students’

experiences and perceptions were brought to the forefront so they were no longer

“voiceless.”

Relationships with Peers

The majority of the participants agreed that relationships with their peers were one of the major factors that assisted in the retention of African-American students on their predominantly White campus. Participants agreed that supportive relationships were established with peers through campus wide programs. The literature on African-

American student experiences suggested that students perform better academically and cope better emotionally if they can “feel comfortable with the sense of connection and unity among Black peers on campus” (Fries-Britt & Turner, 2001, p. 420). Participant C stated, “It just helps you build relationships between each other and it helps to create a better environment when you know one another and build relationships.” This was vital in making them want to remain at their respective institution. Participant L stated,

I think most people cling to the group that they have something in common with, which is why there are different programs here and why we sit together in the cafeteria and why we go to basketball games together. So I think having that group where you can go, it kind of provides a home-base like these are the people I can go to for this. I think it does impact students because you have somebody that you feel comfortable with.

In a qualitative study by Guiffrida (2003), African-African students stated that although they were familiar with navigating the environment at predominantly White institutions, they were welcomed more by other African-American students and they emphasized how exhausting it was being “the only one” and the necessity of having an all-Black environment which they could feel more comfortable.

Some of the participants agreed that having upper-class students assist them was an asset. According to Participant O, “The upper class, well upper-class students are always willing to bring you into a event even if you don’t know about it and it’s for diversity on campus they will definitely let you know, because they’re usually in

72 classrooms.” A collegiality existed among the participants and their friends, and they knew they could rely on each other. Participant M stated, “We’re in pretty much really good positions because we have each other and we all know each other. We know we can go to each other for help in these programs.” This statement was also supported by

Participant P,

Having different leadership opportunities makes me want to stay just because I have a chance to have different leadership opportunities and my peers helping me as far as not knowing what classes I needed to take in order to continue with my major and deciding a major. Also talking to other people to let them know what you’re doing so when they come to support you and see what you’re doing it makes you want to continue on and stay around. It makes me more willing to help someone else. So it makes me want to stay for the relationships.

Lastly, African-American students attributed personal bonds and friendships to their persistence. Participant X stated,

As African-American students come together, like back to freshmen and sophomore year, we used to eat dinner together like all the time and just do a lot of things together. We came together like one small family away from our own family… Um, yeah when we came together as a family and we're our only support group.

Participant Y stated,

I’ve heard around from some people that some people would have been able to continue their education if they were just pushed a little bit more or persevered more just if they got that support from others in another way specifically. I think it would be a lot more helpful and some of them would probably still be here today, right now. I think we definitely push each other a lot more as a group, a support group.

The participants agreed that relationships with African-American peers played an integral role in their persistence. Participant U stated, “I feel like I’ve kind of had like a good network of support socially from friends.”

African-American students stated that relationships with their peers were a positive asset when attending a predominantly White institution. These relationships

assisted students in formulating bonds with their peers that ultimately assisted them with navigating the campus environment by providing a network of support systems to aid in their persistence.

Student Organizations

Participation in student organizations was a positive influence on many of the participants’ decisions to continue enrollment at their respective institution. Unlike White students, whose social integration occurs primarily through informal associations with peers, Tinto (1993) stated that social integration among students of color at

Predominantly White institutions was influenced more by formal means of association, such as involvement in student organizations. Guiffrida (2003) states, “The importance of student organizations, especially cultural student organizations, to minority student retention at Predominantly White institutions has been supported in the literature” (p.

304).

Some participants credited their organization participation with enhancing their leadership abilities as well as their community service interaction. Participant P stated,

[Name of African-American student organization], is a good organization that can advance you in leadership positions and it can also help you even if you’re a person who is maybe not a leader, you can become one and get a position and work in the community as well as just working on the college campus.

Other participants agreed that student organization participation assisted them in becoming acquainted with other students of color as well as with their academic pursuits.

Participant N stated, “[Name of African-American student organizations], are both groups for the different minorities on campus to come and talk with each other. Peers help us as far as classes go and give us information on social activities.”

Although some participants perceived that several non-minority student

organizations excluded African-Americans on their predominantly White campus, other

participants felt that campus organizations were open to everyone and that it was each

individual’s responsibility to become actively engaged. Participant U stated,

Um, groups like [Name of African-American student organization], are open to everyone... All the groups on campus are open to everyone and as far as I know there are no groups on campus or no organizations on campus that are discriminatory… So I would say that the fact that all of them are willing to accept members of any kind is great because then you can feel like you belong to something and everybody’s reasons for being here, everybody’s personal retention to stay at the school until they graduate is different then if you find something you want to be involved… you have the opportunity to do so on this campus.

In a qualitative study of 88 African-American undergraduate students to understand the relationship between African-American student organizations and social integration at a predominantly White institution, Guiffrida (2003) found the following to be true:

1. Involvement in organizations provided students an environment in which they

could comfortably associate with other African-Americans;

2. Students perceived other African-Americans as friendlier and more accepting

of them. They believed that White students were likely to negatively prejudge

them and that only another African-American could truly understand and

relate to their experiences.

3. African-American organizations allowed students to feel safe enough to let

their guards down and to be themselves without the fear of offending others or

of perpetuating prejudicial stereotypes.

4. The groups provided them opportunities to socialize in ways that were

familiar. (p. 9)

Participants’ responses supported the above stated factors. Participant J stated, “My

involvement with [Name of African-American student organization] has assisted me with

getting to know other students who are like me.” Participant O stated. “I need to feel like

I can relax…chill, without constantly being under a microscope. I am able to do this

when I am with [Name of African-American student organization] and [Name of African-

American student organization].

Three participants candidly spoke of student apathy. According to Loeb (2001),

We have to address the perceptual barriers, such as student apathy, which dissuade student involvement even more than do the material ones. Too often, our students know serious injustices exist but decide they are simply the way of the world, and there's no way to change it. Their withdrawal helps make this judgment a reality. (p. 45)

Participant J stated,

I think this university…very little is going to get done when it comes to being Black. I just believe that certain things have happened. One day, like say something happened to a Black student, everybody’s all riled up, but three or four months later, you never hear about it. Everybody gets riled up and it’s like they just run out of steam. And then that’s outside of your class time and then you’re not focused on what you’re really here for. Because you’re trying to fight for your people and you’re supposed to be working for yourself.

Apathy levels between freshman/sophomore level and junior/senior level students could contribute to attrition among African-American college students (Vodanovich, 1997). In addition, student apathy may mirror the behavior of peers and college employees.

Participant H further supported this in stating,

We even have a [Black senior administrator] and we never see him walking around campus or trying to get to know nobody or pushing for more diverse things to do on this campus. I think that’s a problem. I was here a few years back, and he would just walk around, and did not really get involved with the students.

Finally, Participant D stated,

To be honest, I think that there are programs here, but students aren’t going to take advantage of them. I mean, there are just some students who aren’t going to take advantage of them, period just because they choose not to. They choose not to be leaders, and they choose not to do anything, and they choose to be the complainers on campus…stating that there’s nothing to do but yet they’re not active on trying to get things to do on-campus. …I feel even if you did bring more programs to the campus, still students aren’t going to take advantage of them. There’s only going to be that particular amount of students on campus like there are now that take advantage of what they can.

Lastly, participants attributed their persistence to various programs and services by giving credit to several resources at their institution. Participant AA asserted

“Something that has helped me on this campus, I’ll have to say definitely the administration has been there and the [Name of African-American student organization].

I think the combination of the two.”

Student organization participation was critical to the persistence of African-

American students. Engagement with individuals who students’ perceived had similar

interests was important to African-American students’ validation. Students credited their

enhanced leadership abilities and meeting other students of color to participation in

campus organizations. Some participants stated that it was equally important for African-

American students to learn to integrate themselves within “majority” organizations to become actively engaged within the campus community. Lastly, participants stated that student apathy can threaten the livelihood of any programs and services instituted by the institution. Overall participants stated that it is each individual student’s responsibility to take advantage of the available programs and services.

Campus Programs and Services

Campus programs and services are often created to assist in the retention of

African- American students at predominantly White institutions. For the purpose of this study, retention was defined as the process of assisting students to meet their needs so that they would persist within their institution of higher education (Moxley et al., 2001).

Additionally, Moxley, Najor-Durack and Dumbrigue define retention programs as programs instituted by a college or university to assist in the engagement and persistence of undergraduate students. According to Thile and Matt (1995),

The importance of retention programs has been recognized as a significant contributor to student success. A number of programs have been designed to increase the retention of African-American students because a disproportionately large number of ethnic students drop out of college. (p. 117)

Participation in a support program has been shown to have a significant impact on the retention of African-American students when compared to a group of African-

American non-participants (Dale & Zych, 1996). In the present study, Participant B stated,

Campus programs help African-American students realize that they can excel through life because for me personally, you can’t do anything by yourself. You’re always going to need that support. It helps to have support among students who are reaching toward school and staying together.

According to Participant C

One of the most useful programs was the [Name of campus diversity program], because it actually gave you the chance to come up here and…get used to the campus, meet faculty and staff, and connect with the other minority students. It just gave you an early start on starting college life.

Participant N stated,

I feel that the multicultural weekend is very helpful. They do that for prospective students. They get to come and spend some time with students of

color and different nationalities and they get to notice that the campus isn’t just White. So I thought that was helpful.

Students utilized the terms programs, services and student organizations interchangeably. In response to a follow-up question, participants stated that some campuses did not have formally defined retention programs and services. When this was the case students used campus organizations to fill the void. Participant P stated,

“These programs help African-American students on campus because you build a relationship with someone on campus and that makes it easier for you to adjust in your college process which makes you more comfortable and more willing to succeed.”

Participant O further supported this by stating,

As a member of [Name of African-American student organization], I feel this organization is one of the main programs on campus if any. I mean they host programs but they’re not geared directly towards African-American students and [Name of African-American student organization] is very helpful for African American women on campus having an outlet…away from the predominantly White campus.

Participant P stated,

I feel that most of the programs especially like [Name of African-American student organization] help you get through the college experience when you’re having struggles at least like being home sick and like not being able to get the grades you want. I think the programs definitely keep you motivated and give you support to just finish your career in college.

Participant M stated,

The [Name of African-American student organization] helps a lot. It gives the brothers on campus a chance to get together, maybe clear their heads, and get help with homework and tests and anything like that. So it’s a program that has really helped me adjust to campus and I’m pretty sure it’ll stay so it will help a lot of future brothers on campus.

Some participants stated programs and services sponsored by Residence Life and Housing had an impact on student retention. Participant N stated,

We have [Name of Residence Life Program]. They can help you learn how to write papers or if you have other questions. They help you out if you need any type of assistance as far as papers and homework goes.

Participant H stated “Actually living/learning floors have assisted me. My major is

biology and I came here and I was on a living/learning floor. And I now live on a

living/learning floor primarily for African American students.”

Participant K asserted,

One example of a retention program on my campus would be the [Name of diversity living/learning themed commons program] that is primarily for African American/Hispanic students. That program has been here I think for three years now…The students that are still here are excellent students, as far as I know.”

Participant Q asserted, “[Name of Residence Life Program] has also been a big help.”

According to most of the students interviewed, retention programs and services had an

impact on their persistence. Some participants were keenly aware of programs and services fulfilling their proposed goals and objectives. Participant J stated,

As a transfer student the different thing is at my old school we had more programs. One was the [Name of African-American recruiting program] where they would take high school students and spend a week at a university and get to know different students and programs and what they offered. There were also more programs for African-Americans, such as the [Name of African-American student organization]. I was forced to come up here because my old university didn’t offer my major. But my old school was better as far as the retention programs.

One student was conscious of what others thought of African-American

students’ academic ability. Participant F stated,

When you come to a predominantly White institution, as African-Americans, you feel subconsciously like you are below and you’ve been taught that you’re not able to make it. These retention programs help people to realize their full potential and the power that they hold within and that they are just as good if not better than a lot of those people around them.

Participant A asserted, “I feel the retention programs provide the opportunity for

students to network and just open the doors to some other things.” A final perception

was given by Participant E.

I think that retention programs have basically created a system or some type of structure for African-Americans or minority students to gradually gain characteristics or the ability to become a better student or better person to understand what is around us. More importantly, the structure…It is basically the make-up of the program that you have a structure for students to be a part of.

Participant N summarized this by stating,

It is important to me to have retention programs that actually help you. Sometimes you can go to a meeting or a different program and it really doesn’t do anything for you, so just making sure that they actually do what they are supposed to do Other students did not believe programs and services impacted their persistence.

Participant G stated,

Programs here really don’t influence me to stay at this institution because of the fact that I never took part in them. So it’s like, I’ve been here without the help of the retention programs. I do believe the retention programs are good even though I can’t think of a time when they helped me, just besides there being Black professors and faculty.

Some participants stated that the impact of retention programs and services

assist in shaping students into productive members of the campus community and

inspired them to persist until graduation. Participant E stated,

“I think that the retention programs on this campus allows students to gain certain

characteristics and certain attributes that enable them to become better students and

teach them how to carry themselves as a college student. I see a lot of…African-

American students that don’t know how to carry out the regular day to day activities as

far as time-management, going to class and doing extra-curricular activities because

they choose not to get involved.”

Participant B stated, “For me personally, the programs have influenced me to stay here because you end up being so connected with it and seeing the sides through the program that you want to make sure that you see it through until the end, its best potential”

Participant W further supported this by stating,

As far as the retention programs specifically for African-American students I find that there are none specifically for only African-American students. They’re for all students. In order for me to meet or reach the certain requirements or goals that I need in order to achieve any type of career and graduate school, I would need an education the same just as everyone else.

Participant M stated, “The programs definitely have an impact on my social and

academic life on campus. Without the programs I know a lot of us wouldn’t be in the

positions that we are right now.” Participant E stated,

I would have to say definitely as far as me staying here from a personal perspective, I think that retention programs help you build self-esteem and make you believe you can become active or be a leader. On-campus they enable you to network even if you’re part of another organization or you’re a part of an athletic group, there’s always some other hidden potential that you may have, and I believe retention programs help as far as being a leader… a good college student.

Various students from one of the four institutions were able to name programs and services that were in place to retain students. They considered these programs and services synonymous with the term “retention,” while other students stated few if any programs and services existed to support African-American students in college persistence. Some participants stated there were diversity programs but they were unsure of the primary goals and objectives of the actual programs. Approximately half of the participants did not know of any specific programs or services that were in place to retain African-American students on their respective campus. Half of the participants

were not able to readily identify campus programs and services that were on campus to

retain the African-American student population.

Barriers to Programs and Services

Programs and services that are designed to enhance the retention of African-

American students are only effective if they are utilized by students. Student perceptions play a vital role in the utilization of these programs and services. First, students must be aware of the programs and services. “They don’t tell you anything about programs and services prior to arrival. All they tell you is what day you’re coming and maybe about a basketball season coming up. So there wasn’t any information about ethnic groups at all,” Participant J stated.

Next, participants stated that they needed a peer support network because they perceived that someone who was not African-American would not be able to relate to their collegiate experiences. Participant T stated,

I think there needs to be retention programs period. I know being the only Black female on our volleyball team; you just can’t feel me on some things. I just need to come to a group and be like “Guess what? I can’t believe they do this”. Like you just know there’s no program on campus that really cares and that’s geared specifically towards Blacks. It’s not even like discriminatory in like, “Ok we are coming together. We are in a beautiful relationship because we see our support”. It’s more like purpose. It’s more like us being together. There’s no definite program on campus that’s just for Blacks that supports you or that’s got your back academically, money wise, financial, everything… but there is just no program like that, everything’s open but some stuff needs to be for “us.”

Lastly, Participant C stated that student organizations and peers were instrumental in the implementation of new retention programs.

I think that it is more or less the organization’s responsibility and our peers to implement more interesting and more diverse types of programs in order to spark the interest of different types of people to come out and do things.

Faculty Support

Another important aspect of African-American students’ perceptions of the

impact of retention programs and services at predominantly White institutions was the support that they received from faculty and staff. According to Kezar (2006), engagement occurs when there is a “level of academic challenge, active and collaborative learning, student interaction with faculty members, enriching educational

experiences, and a supportive campus environment” (p. 94). Therefore, it is important

for faculty and staff to provide outreach opportunities for involvement and engagement

to all students.

Participants felt strongly about the presence and support of African-American

professors. Since many African-American students feel alienated in predominantly

White places, they are looking for people who share a racial or cultural identity

(Conway-Jones, 2006). Participant G stated, “The only thing that has retained me is one

Black professor in my department. That’s the only thing I can think of; Black

professors… period.” Participant L also stated, “I feel comfortable around Black

professors.” Participants agreed that professors assisted them in numerous ways.

Participant N stated,

It helped me a lot as far as finding classes for psychology because the person who actually leads it… the psychology professor… I have him now so he helps me personally just because I have that connection with one of my professors. And I know that with [Name of African-American student organization], the advisor is also a professor.

One participant stated he was motivated to persevere by knowing the story of his professor. Participant G stated,

Like I said before, just like Black professors and things of that nature, that’s basically what keeps me motivated to stay in school…when I see Dr. [Name of

African-American faculty member], who got [gender stated] doctorate before the age of 30, I look up to [gender stated], like a role model. I’m like, this is a Black [gender stated] who is no better than me, and [gender stated] basically grew up like me. And that’s a role model to me. Like wow, if [gender stated] can do it, I can do it and I just want to keep going and going. If I didn’t see that, I probably wouldn’t even be here. If all the people were White, I probably would have dropped out because I would be like “what’s the point?”

Some participants considered their program of study to be a retention program.

Participant U stated,

I would say that one of the biggest programs that is keeping me at this school and motivating me to graduate is the education department in general. One of my minors is Secondary Education and it has been one of my life goals to be a teacher. They not only helped me as far as moving towards a teaching career, but they helped me towards my coaching career as well by initially placing me with the local high school district that I coach at now. I think that’s been one of the biggest opportunities I’ve had at this campus thus far. So I would say just the fact that they’re always willing to put in more than a hundred percent effort to help you out is really keeping me here and really making me look forward to graduating and moving on to bigger and better things.

Although participants thought faculty support was instrumental to their persistence, they offered some suggestions to further enhance African-American students’ retention on predominantly White campuses. Participant G stated,

Up there, we have nothing. That’s what fooled me when I came to this university. I see a Black [gender stated] on the front cover (referring to a brochure sent prior to committing to attend) and I thought, “Oh this is the right school to go to. I’m going to be safe here.” Man I come up here and thought, “Wow, I would have been better off with a White [senior level administrator] probably.

Participant F stated,

I think that there needs to be more support from faculty…if there is an issue of concern for the campus, which there probably is, I think that it has to start from the head down. Of course, just allocating money is one form of it. However, I think as far as actually showing support and when there is a valid issue, making that an issue of concern for everyone on campus. I think if the administration would have that responsibility just as much as students would have as well, to have their actual jobs and occupations on campus affected if they do not support the African-American students…there would be a change.

Participant X stated,

I think we need more minority faculty. I don’t even know if we have any. I heard we have one minority teacher, but the faculty and staff can help so we can see somebody that looks like us; a minority. We need to see someone that may be able to relate to us on a different level. It’s not that we don’t feel like we can relate to our White professors, but there is a difference when we have African- American professors…I’m not trying to be racist or anything but there is a difference. Sometimes we like to approach somebody who we think understands that difference and knows what it’s like to be the only minority student in the classroom full of White students. You stand out and you know that you have to be on top of your game all the time because they’re watching you even if they say they’re not, they’re watching you. You don’t want to be labeled as the lazy Black student that nobody wants to be in the room with; you know what I’m saying? You have to definitely be on top of your game all the time, and we know that. Every single morning that I wake-up I know that I’m a Black female on campus. I’m reminded of that all the time and it gets tiring sometimes.” Students perceptions of what others think of them is a salient factor in their persistence.

Student Motivators

Several researchers have concluded that family support is a strong predictor of persistence for students of color who attended Predominantly White institutions

(Cabrera, Nora, Terenzini, Pascarella, & Hagedorn, 1999; Gloria et al., 1999;

Hendricks, Smith, Caplow, & Donaldson, 1996; Hurtado, Carter, & Spuler, 1996; Nora

& Cabrera, 1996). The researchers concluded that although the students in the study did not specify the types of support that was important, there is evidence suggesting that close relationships to home can hinder minority student’s academic progress at college

(Guiffrida, 2005b). According to Terenzini and Associates (1994), African-American students’ family life and community affect their participation and persistence in college.

In a qualitative study with 132 culturally diverse students at five different types of universities, Terenzini and Associates (1994) found that minority students perceived their parents as having a difficult time letting go of them as they transitioned to college,

which created additional anxiety about their transitions that was “probably unimagined by most middle class White students, faculty members, and administrators” (p. 66).

Student participants were genuinely concerned about their home communities and how

their academic success will impact future students. Participant G stated,

I have a passion for this work and this program and my neighborhood. Somebody will look up to me if I go home with a college diploma. And that actually happened this winter. I went home and some high school student is actually thinking about going to college because I went so that’s some of the things that keep you motivated.

Therefore, many African-American families are cognizant that high academic

performance and achievement serve as a vehicle to upward mobility and economic

status (Kane, 2000). As a result, many students such as Participants B and X realize the

only way to excel is through an education and perseverance.

I am motivated to stay in college because I view myself as a role model. As I mentioned earlier, I come from a predominantly White community and there’s not that many African-Americans here. I view myself as a role model to the younger African-American males and females in my community and show them that I go to school and do everything that I have to do to make sure that I have a positive and successful life so that hopefully they’ll follow in my footsteps.. (Participant B).

My parents are usually open to education. I see a lot of children who are subject to poverty of the worst time, and when they see me they have hope. I feel like I owe it to them to continue to fight and to continue to make it out of our situation because we all kind of came from the same community… I also owe it to them to show them that there is a way out and if they teach somebody else in there, then maybe they will have an opportunity to attend college too. And hopefully the fact that they continue will help out their education. (Participant X)

Participant AA stated,

Coming to college hasn’t been necessary for me, but I know it gives me the opportunity to be an example for those going through difficulties and struggles and things that I’ve faced coming up to get to where I am now. If I can take what I can learn and go back and prevent some of the people who are coming from behind me from falling; making it a little bit easier or make the whole

system of the program better for them, I think that can do a number of different things to help my community.

Other participants were concerned with how their persistence or the lack thereof

would affect their younger siblings.

One, I love my major and I love just everything about it and I got a little brother and I don’t want him to go through anything that I went through. I’m like his father; he’s like a son to me. I been there since day one and I’m gonna continue to be there until I’m gone. So when everything I do affects him, by me finishing school, it’s starting his life off and letting him know that there’s a world out here and he never has to see that other side. He doesn’t have to go that way; he just has to see it. He could follow in my footsteps or he could do whatever he wants, but just to know that there’s other opportunities out there than working 9- 5 or staying at home. (Participant J)

Participant L stated,

I personally believe that I’m going to be the first one to graduate college in my family so I want to set an example for my younger siblings. There are more things out here than just what they see on television and it is definitely important to be educated especially as a Black person, especially since we’re getting a lot of flack these days, so it’s better than just… just educate yourself.

Participants also stated that they rely on retention programs and their impact

because they do not have family members who are knowledgeable on the African-

American undergraduate experience at predominantly White institutions. Participant G

stated, “But I do still feel the need to work on retention efforts because there are a lot of

students out there that need to stay positive.” Participant D stated, “There are a lot of

first-generation college students that know nothing about college and they can’t go to

their parents like, ‘What’s this all about?’ and they be like, ‘I don’t know. I’ve never

been to college.’”

Participant D stated,

My family actually motivates me and that’s a negative but I make it a positive because I just don’t want to be stuck there forever. Like there’s just too much going on there that I know to better myself and to get away, I need to go to

college, I need to not only get a first degree but a second degree to do the things that I want to do in life to succeed. So that’s what actually motivates me to remain in college..

Guiffrida (2005b) states that other research has challenged the assumption that close family and friend relationships may hinder students’ college matriculation, and concludes that family support is a strong predictor of African-American student success at college. Participant F stated,

My family is in a position where I don’t want to remain at, so I have to do what I can to get out of that situation. Not to do better than them, but just to help my family that you don’t have to stay in the same position, that you can do better than that and also hopefully knowing that I’ve made it this far and it would be a shame that I’ve made it this far without completing..

Although that is the case for many participants, students and most of their families understood the importance of a college education. Participant V stated, “My personal reason to remain in college is just to better myself. I come from a family where simply education is like the key. So just to follow in their footsteps and to do something like that, that’s all.”

Spirituality

Spirituality was also important to many of the participants. According to Wiggins

(2005) “The high regard for the Black Church has been predicated on its institutional centrality to the cultural, social, familial, and economic well-being of African-

Americans” (p. 15). While many of the participants attended some type of church service or activity, others found a sense of spirituality outside of a church. Regardless of religion and spirituality, the students found that their faith and belief system provided support during their academic experiences. Participant B stated,

I have two motivations. My first motivation comes from my grandparents. They have learned where they came from and they progressed and I see where they are now and that’s where I want to be because I look at them as great role models. I see that because the fruit that they invested in my family. The second motivation is that I come from such a hard life that even just to be in college is just unimaginable to me and I just want to make sure that…I know God has something set for me in my future and I want to make sure that I do it to the best of my ability.

Religious institutions have provided many African-Americans emotional assistance and academic encouragement (Blake & Darling, 2000). Participants stated that the lack of programs and services that addressed spirituality was a problem. Participant U stated,

I think there has been a lack in spirituality. Spiritually is like the biggest thing lacking for African-American students on campus. It’s hard to find groups that relate to specifically in that aspect but there is some that kind of help you cope and maybe make it a little bit easier to stay here.

Participant Z further stated,

We need more spiritual groups. I’m Pentecostal so I would want more room for churches around here for me to continue my spirituality because a lot of us don’t go home for the weekend so like when Sunday comes around we don’t have anywhere to go. It’s like I wish there were more places for us to continue our spiritual aspect of our lives.

Spirituality was instrumental for some of the students. The African-American culture is rooted in spirituality and some participants expressed the interest in attending some type of service although for most campuses there were no such services available.

To assist in filling this void, some participants stated that Multicultural Affairs Offices served as a major resource to African-American students. They explained that this office assisted in validating them as members of the campus community. Some of the students attributed their persistence and knowledge of support services to such entities. Participant

E stated, “If it were not for the [Name of Multicultural Affairs Office] I would not stay

grounded. The staff has a way of reminding me of my roots and who I really am.”

Multicultural Affairs Offices

Multicultural Affairs Offices were important resources to the participants.

Program successes require that institutions integrate programs within the mainstream of the institution’s academic, social, and administrative life (Clewell & Ficklen, 1986). Too

often programs for diverse students are marginalized. Either by the assignment of part-

time or lower level staff and/or by administrative and physical placement in remote

locations on campus, programs are often segregated from the institutional mainstream.

Segregation of that sort serves to stigmatize both programs and students and tends to

undermine the likelihood of their success (Research Triangle Institute in Tinto, 1993, p.

185). Most participants wanted to feel supported and validated. Participant C stated, “I

think as far as this campus, we have the [Name of Multicultural Affairs Office] and any

type of office that really helps students of minorities or color. It is important to feel

supported.” Participant Z asserted, “I believe the [Name of Multicultural Affairs Office]

is a very influential program on campus that has helped me throughout the last four years

that I have been on campus with different issues that have come up on campus.”

Participant N stated,

Our [Name of Multicultural Affairs Office] pretty much sends us all the emails of things that we should go through to try to help us out. Everything else that we need to know and find out basically we just go to the office and we can find out what we want to know. This office was not just utilized as a gathering place, but also a key office for students to visit, receive advice and assistance and it also served as a place for students to become aware of campus and community events to support them...

Participant P stated,

Being involved with the diversity programs sponsored by [Name of Multicultural Affairs Office] has definitely made me want to stay there a little bit more. If I wasn’t involved with them I probably might not want to stay because I have had some difficulties. But being involved with the programs has made me look at this experience as a good one and something I can continue to grow in as a student and with leadership positions as well. So I definitely think these programs influenced my stay at my institution.

Participant O stated,

I find the programs within the [Name of Multicultural Affairs Office]very useful because initially I was ready to transfer like as soon as I stepped on this campus and realized there was nothing but about five Black people and I was ready to leave. And then I was brought into the [Name of Multicultural Affairs Office] and met the director of [Name of Multicultural Affairs Office] and [gender stated] was very helpful and convincing actually, obviously. Forcing me to stay, giving me reinforcers, like helping me with my classes, proofreading my papers, stuff like that; giving us information for parties off campus so we can actually feel a little bit at home out here in the middle of nowhere.

Participant Q stated,

I find our [Name of Multicultural Affairs Office]definitely has given me a lot of different things to look for as well as given me information about certain services I can work on such as community service and faculty I could go to for help. Last semester, which was a struggle for me, I could get help and advice from [Name of Multicultural Affairs Office] as well as from and faculty members… They also assisted me in receiving the grades I wanted...and to be apart of the campus socially and helped out in a lot of different ways.

Participant M stated,

In the beginning the relationship I built and the lessons I learned from the people who run the [Name of Multicultural Affairs Office] really all together made me a better student. They made me progress from the high school level to the college level. It was a tough ride but they really did it. I can go to like for example brother to brother meetings and talk about my academic problems and social problems.

According to Phillips (2005), “If institutions are committed to programs that provide access, then they need to provide the tools necessary to help these programs run

effectively.” One downfall to having a Multicultural Affairs Office, according to

Participant G, was

I mean it’s supposed to be the multicultural office but then again you see it but you don’t see it. The [multicultural executive] is a very busy person and it seems like the university got them tied up doing this, that, and the other. But then the actual principal initiatives, it seems like they have their own personal agendas. Like keep the Black [gender stated] busy in other stuff but tell [gender stated] you’re going to do this for [gender stated]. Keep [gender stated] busy doing a whole bunch of other crap, that way the job doesn’t get done but at least it’ll look good because [gender stated] a very busy [gender stated]..

Participant G was also aware of the fact that

One [gender stated] can’t do it [gender stated]. We’re supposed to be talking about coming together and all this family stuff, but everyone must realize that students have schedules too and students can participate but it is not their job to lead themselves, so you can’t do this by yourself. [Gender stated] actually needs a whole team with somebody beside [gender stated] for support to help [gender stated] out because [gender stated] is running around doing this, that, and the other thing. Although I’ve seen changes and little things here and there but it’s like [gender stated] trying to play catch up in a race [gender stated] never started.

According to Tinto (1993), “Retention of students of color is everyone’s responsibility,

not just that of the few administrative and support staff assigned to those programs” (p.

185).

Institutional Integrity

Some participants perceived their institution as less than honest about

demographics, programs, services, and the campus community in their recruitment

process. This can definitely lead to the attrition of African-American students regardless

of the programs and services that are established by the institution. Participant O stated,

I feel that students should be notified before hand what they are getting into to. When I came out to my school I was not expecting it to be as predominantly White as it was. When I went there for an overnight visit and I asked my host (who was White) if there were Black people here, she was like, “Yeah lots of

them.” And I’m like, “Great this is wonderful.” And then I moved in, I saw no Black people and I’m like, “Are you serious?” Going to class I am the only Black person in my class. I feel they should have some way to let the students know that predominantly White campus means ‘predominantly White campuses. I experienced a whole other environment coming from New York City where there are predominantly White people, and then we have Black people, Spanish people and everything else. I was just confused when I got here. I think they should introduce what a predominantly White campus stands for in this setting prior to students attending.

Participant G stated,

At orientation, they touched on some of the retention programs. Like,“We have some this here for you if you need it,” but when you get here, they act like it doesn’t exist. Or they’ll send you a piece of crap mailing that you’re really not going to look at to let you know that it’s here for you, but it’s like they don’t seem to really advertise it well.

The campus community is also a factor for students’ perceptions. Participant F

stated,

Just the town that this university is based around is not really a university town or area. The area is not really embracing the university so it keeps the university from doing the kinds of programs and keeps it from growing in acceptance of different races and different ethnic backgrounds. The area also definitely plays a big part in the perception and retention of students. Inside the university, there is already discrimination.

According to Tinto (1993),

We must avoid the tendency to assume that all members of a particular group have the same interests or needs. Though it is sometimes necessary for institutions to develop programs targeted to the needs of distinct groups of students, it is always the case that program action must be guided by the assessment of individual needs. (p. 181)

Summary

In summary, the environment at predominantly White institutions and the manner in which African-American students interact with this environment have an immense impact on their perceptions and experiences (L. D. Patton, 2006). Students’ perceptions

94 are their reality. As the participants’ statements reveal, their perceptions of the impact of programs and services are critical to their persistence on the campus of predominantly

White institutions.

Relationship with Peers

The majority of the participants agreed that relationships with their African-

American peers were one of the major factors that assisted in the retention of African-

American students on their predominantly White campus. These relationships assisted students in formulating bonds with their peers that ultimately assisted them with navigating the campus environment by providing a network of support systems to aid in their persistence.

Student Organizations

Participation in student organizations was a positive influence on many of the participants’ decisions to continue enrollment at their respective institution. Some participants credited their organization participation with enhancing their leadership abilities as well as their community service interaction. Other participants agreed that student organization participation assisted them in becoming acquainted with other students of color as well as with their academic pursuits. Lastly, participants stated that student apathy can threaten the livelihood of any programs and services instituted by the institution. Overall participants stated that it is each individual student’s responsibility to take advantage of the available programs and services.

Campus Programs and Services

Students utilized the terms programs, services and student organizations

interchangeably. This was of particular interest to the researcher because it showed that

although an institution may have formulized programs and services for students to assist

with their retention, many students seem to group the programs and services together

with student organizations. Some of the students did not see a particular distinction.

Other students stated that they utilized campus organizations to fill the void

because their campus did not have formally defined retention services and programs to

their knowledge. Still some students were keenly aware of the programs and services that

were on campus and which ones fulfilled their goals and objectives. Some participants

stated that the impact of retention programs and services assist in shaping students into

productive members of the campus community and inspired them to persist until

graduation.

Barriers to Programs and Services

Some barriers to retention programs and services stated by students included

African-American students’ perceptions of the existing programs and services, their

perception that someone who was not African-American would not be able to relate to

their collegiate experiences, and lastly they stated that more diverse programs needed to

be implemented including the opinions and “voices” of African-American students.

These barriers can be helpful in assisting stakeholders in increasing the retention of

African-American students.

Faculty Support

Participants felt strongly about the presence and support of African-American professors. Participants were motivated to persist for such reasons as knowing the plight of their African-American professors, feeling comfortable in the classes of African-

American professors, and professors who they stated served as role models. Participants also stated that African-American student retention should not solely be the responsibility of faculty/staff of color. They stated the administration should be actively involved in the retention, not just in the allocation of funding. Overall the participants stated that more

African-American faculty is needed on the campus of predominantly White institutions.

Student Motivators

Student participants were genuinely concerned about their home communities and how their academic success will impact future students. Students wanted to do well in college not only for themselves, but also so they could serve as positive role models for siblings and the African-American community. Some participants stated that although the college journey for some has been a struggle, they continue to persevere because the only way that they can better themselves and their communities is by receiving a college education. The majority of the focus group participants were first generation college students. Several students stated that the impetus for advocating for strong retention programs and services is because they do not have family members who are knowledgeable on the African-American undergraduate experience at predominantly

White institutions, and without these programs and services in place to guide them they would be lost. A few of the students were motivated because their families are currently

in positions that they do not want to remain. Lastly, the majority of the participants stated the importance of education to them and their families as a major motivator to persist.

Spirituality

Spirituality was important to many of the participants. While many of the participants attended some type of church service or activity, others found a sense of spirituality outside of a church “building.” Regardless of religion and spirituality, the students found that their faith and belief system provided support during their academic experiences. Participants stated that the lack of programs and services that addressed spirituality was a problem at a predominantly White institution. The African-American culture is rooted in spirituality and some participants expressed the interest in attending some type of service although for most campuses there were no such services available in the community for African-American students.

Multicultural Affairs Offices

Multicultural Affairs Offices served as important resources to the participants.

Students attributed their ability to navigate the campus as well as their ability to be informed of campus services and events through communication from Multicultural

Affairs Offices. Participants also stated that these offices assisted in keeping them grounded, training them to be campus leaders, as well as taking them from the high school level to the collegiate level of thinking and behavior. Lastly, students stated that some of the Multicultural Affairs Offices are understaffed so they are unable to utilize the personnel as resources as often as they would like.

Institutional Integrity

Some participants perceived their institution as less than honest about demographics, programs, services, and the campus community in their recruitment process. If students are to feel like they are a part of the fabric of a campus community, they must be made to feel like they are valued members of the community. Students expressed the need for the information that is distributed prior to their arrival as well as during campus orientation programs to accurately depict the actual campus and campus community. They do not want to feel like the place that they have chosen to spend four to six years is less than honest.

Conclusion

The overall purpose of the study was to explore the factors that influence the perceptions of African-American students as they relate to the impact of retention programs and services at predominantly White institutions. The study focused on individual and institutional cultural beliefs and values of African-American students, respectively. This research provided an explanation of why students persist or, conversely, leave before attaining their undergraduate degrees. This qualitative study may assist policymakers and educators in creating new programs and services to increase retention by focusing on the individual and institutional factors that promote the retention of junior and senior, traditional-aged, full-time, undergraduate, United States, African-

American students’ with a 3.0 or below grade point average, on the campuses of predominantly White institutions of higher education.

Predominantly White institutions must re-evaluate and assess the effectiveness of current programs and services in relation to the impact they have on African-American students’ retention taking into account the factors provided by the participants. Each of these factors is directly tied to a student’s ability to persist. While this is part of the solution, students may still be unable to persist, due to external factors such as family support and financial support. Therefore, the implications for practice, policy, and future research on the experiences and retention of African-American undergraduate students at predominantly White institutions will be discussed further in Chapter 5.

100

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This exploratory study provided an opportunity for African-American undergraduate students to give their perception of the impact of retention programs and

services based on their personal experiences.

Key sources of influence on retention identified in this study included

relationships with peers, participation in student organizations, the identification of campus programs and services that aid in the retention of African-American students,

African-American students’ perceptions of barriers to campus programs and services, support from faculty of color, familial influence and support, spirituality, Multicultural

Affairs Offices, and lastly the honesty and integrity of institutions during the recruitment process. Jones (2004) states, “Scholars substantiate the claim that college holds an importance for students that transcends the curriculum” (p. 130) and although each institution had its own unique culture, many of the overarching themes from the students were similar. The students’ dialogue gave information to support that learning occurs

within the classroom, but students perceptions as well as what occurs outside of the

classroom is equally as important for the persistence of African-American students.

Clewell and Ficklin (1986) found that institutions demonstrating good retention results had three factors in place: 1) environments conducive to retention, 2) a clear policy on minority enrollments, and 3) a high level of institutional commitment. When asked about the campus programs and services utilized to assist in the retention of

101

students, Participant C stated, “I think it does not matter, it’s not specifically African-

American students but all students. As long as you keep programs involved with the aspect of keeping the sense of having everyone come back to the same program and have a close knit little community and that program shows that everyone is a family and working through this family we can definitely get things done by being together in a

specific program.” Participant U supported this further by stating, “I feel the programs

that are geared specifically for African-Americans, the two… if you count [Name of

Multicultural Affairs Office] as a program and the [Name of African-American student

organization]… meet the social and environmental needs of the students here.” In relation

to institutional commitment, Participant U stated, “As programs in general not

necessarily geared to African-American students but are open to African-American

students, I have found them to be very useful since coming here in every aspect of my

life. Academically I feel like I’ve had support from the department, dean and

administration.”

Bean’s (1980) model suggested that dropping out from college is analogous to

employee turnover in the workplace and that students leave college for reasons similar to those why employees leave their jobs. Educators, policy makers and administrators must take a proactive approach to dropping out. African-American students are altering the nature of higher education in many ways (Rendón et al., 2000). This study revealed that

African-American students want to be engaged not only in the African-American campus

environment, but they want to feel validated for who they are and for their contributions

to their respective institutions. They want their campuses to be places that are interested

in all students. Unfortunately, some of the African-American students within this study

102 did not feel like this was the case on their campus. Retention programs and services are largely dependent upon infrastructures that the facilitators of such programs have no control. The best-intended program decisions cannot be effectively implemented without the support system within which they must work (Burr et al., 1999). Based on the information the researcher gathered from these undergraduate African-American juniors and seniors, the researcher was in a position to articulate implications and make recommendations for the administrators, student affairs professionals, faculty, staff, and education policymakers which may enhance the experiences and increase the retention of

African-American undergraduate students at predominantly White institutions.

Discussion

African-American students who have been successful on predominantly White campuses have developed important coping skills that have aided their persistence.

Several studies have identified coping skills that correlate positively with retention

(Merritt, Sedlacek, & Brooks, 1977; Sedlacek, 1986, 1987). Such skills include:

1. dealing effectively with racism; as summarized by Participant F, some

Predominantly White institutions as well as the community where they reside

need to be better prepared to effectively deal with discrimination.

2. ability to positively identify with the institution; participants found various

ways to positively work within their campus community. Some of those ways

included building relationship with peers and faculty of color as well as

membership within various student organizations.

103

3. ability to bridge gaps from student culture to institutional culture; Participant

B stated, “Campus programs help African-American students realize that they

can excel through life because for me personally, you can’t do anything by

yourself. You’re always going to need that support. It helps to have support

among students who are reaching toward school and staying together.”

Support is critical when seeking to bridge gaps between student culture and

institutional culture.

4. involvement in community service or having strong support systems; in

general participants agreed that active engagement as well as having strong

support systems aided in their college persistence.

5. demonstrated leadership skills and culturally related ways of knowing;

participants were motivated to participate in leadership positions within their

respective campuses. They each in one way or another drew from their past

experiences to enrich their current campus experiences.

Understanding the relevant theories that support and inform policy is essential;

however, translating them from theory to practice is paramount if we are to create

substantive and meaningful change in support of the retention of a diverse student

population. This knowledge provides us with an opportunity to articulate changes where appropriate. Therefore, the following discussion addresses how the participants responded to each research question. Their answers were supported by the limited research on the perceptions and factors affecting the retention and persistence of undergraduate, African-American students at predominantly White institutions.

104

Research Question 1: “What factors are important to African-American students in making use of current retention programs and services?”

Overall, participants cited many factors that were of importance to African-

American students in making use of current retention programs and services. Some of those factors included:

1. They must be aware of the available programs and services that are offered by

the campus. It does not benefit students if programs are in place to assist them

but they are not aware of them.

2. Students want to feel a personal sense of belonging and validation within their

campus community as well as the classroom. They do not want to have

feelings of isolation.

3. They would have benefited from early outreach prior to attending their

respective predominantly White institution. Most of the participants

appreciated personal relationships and communication and articulated that

early outreach programs and personal contact would have been helpful.

4. Programs and services must utilize African-American students as resources to

create retention programs and services that they feel are beneficial to them.

Participants stated that this can be accomplished by open communication.

5. The programs and services that are implemented must benefit the African-

American student population.

If predominantly White institutions want to effectively create programs and services to retain African-American students they must be willing to not only ask for important

105

factors to African-American student retention, but must adapt existing programs to meet the needs of a changing, diverse student population.

Research Question 2: “What support systems should be in place for African-American student retention at predominantly White institutions?”

According to the participants in this study, quite a few changes in support systems can be implemented to increase African-American student retention on the campuses of predominantly White institutions. These support systems include:

1. Active Recruitment. Participant P stated, “I feel that predominantly White

institutions should go into the inner city more because I feel they mainly stay

around certain areas and go to the same schools that they get most of there

students from. I feel that by them doing that they are just bringing the same kinds

of students to the campus. They are not really going out to other places where

there are African-American students to bring them in.”

Participant Z stated, “We need more Black faculty and students because it is tough being the only Black person in class.”

2. Begin to Institute Transition/Pre-college preparatory programs. Participant G

stated, “I feel that there should be some sort of class offered for retention

methods, or a lesson during common hour. During this time you can go over study

skills or something of that nature. Or they can have a pre-program before school

starts so freshman will come a week early and take classes or seminars, visit

actual buildings where you can get help from that way so they actually know first-

hand where to come to and actually have a little networking for the people who

106

are in these buildings. Students will then feel more comfortable going to these

people because usually, when it comes down to it, if you don’t feel comfortable

being around those professors or those faculty members, you may not want to go

to them for help.”

3. Initiate Community Outreach. Participant J stated, “I think retention programs

should reach outside into the community. If they do that, you get a true sense of

who people are. I know if someone took the time to come to my high school that

would be a tactic that would improve the rate of Black students coming to and

staying in college. I also believe universities must be honest with their student

populations. They should not have brochures that show diversity when the

campus is not diverse.”

4. Persistently promote campus programs and services. Participant L stated, “I

think that they need to voice it, like make sure everybody knows what’s going on

on-campus. That way people can use the programs and services that they say they

are offering.”

5. Begin to Offer Financial Aid Workshops. Participant G stated, “One thing that

I’ve never seen any institution do is actually truly have financial aid workshops

that will focus on filling out the FAFSA forms and all the financial aid

opportunities. Honestly, I had to go to the financial aid office and beg like, ‘Hey, I

just heard about this, that, and the other’, to consolidate my loans. I just found out

you can actually consolidate your loans so they won’t raise them anymore, they

will stay the same. It’s just so messed up that we just don’t know. I just found out

last year from my boss at a summer camp that they have a federal grant they can

107

give you for work study in the summer. That’s federal money that you don’t have

to pay back that can help you with college. And this university hadn’t said that so

I had to get that from the outside. And I do feel that financial aid is a big part of

retention because a lot of students don’t know there is money available besides

your regular financial aid packet and what you can do once you get your financial

aid package.”

6. Hire more African-Americans in key campus positions of influence.

Participant F stated, “Sometimes people put themselves in positions of power so

that they can have influence you and change the climate of the campus,

specifically Black men on this campus. It seems like there are a lot of Black men

on this campus, but they are not in positions of power. This goes for Black people

in general in positions of power to change things for the better not just for Black

people, but for everyone.”

7. Create more Diversity Programs. Participant F stated, “A support system

should be in place to deal with racism and ignorance. Ignorance is the lack of

knowledge. As an African-American you encounter racism from a lot of students

and faculty because a lot of times you find yourself in a situation where you need

to educate someone about different races, cultures, and things. You need to know

how to handle those different situations the right way so you’re not labeled as the

‘bad guy’. Unfortunately a lot of times on predominantly White campuses when

the issue of race comes up, the minority student is looked at as the bad person.”

8. Provide adequate Funding for Diversity Programs. Participant G stated, “This

University needs more money for diversity programming. I don’t know if you

108

have heard, but a couple months ago there was a blackface incident. But you don’t

see any money being filtered in for diversity programming. This university talks a

good game, but when it’s time to walk that fine red line, it’s all talk.”

9. Provide ample Support Services. Participant X stated, “A lot of the minority

students here are students from [Named a major city within a 60 mile radius] and

I am a graduate of [Named a high school within the major city within a 60 mile

radius]. When we graduated I think we were in an academic emergency. To come

to a college like this was almost like I felt like I was playing catch up the whole

time with a lot of my curricular counter-partners. I think that we need tutoring

sessions/programs or a group where we can just go there and do work…a group

where we do work or talk about different issues that you may not want to go to

your Professor with… because it makes you feel like you’re not as intelligent. I

never had that problem with asking questions, but I know a lot of people who do,

and so I think that maybe we can get some programs that are willing to help.”

Implications and Recommendations

Although this study revealed some answers, some questions still exist when

evaluating the literature. Such questions as how is a “high level of institutional

commitment” defined? What policies are currently in place at predominantly White

institutions concerning minority enrollment? How are the policies on minority enrollment

articulated by predominantly White institutions? Can the findings of this study propel

colleagues into action to answer these questions? Further research is needed to answer these important questions.

109

The students’ voices resonated within this study and guided the data analysis and

results. It is imperative that a greater understanding of the experiences of African-

American students at predominantly White institutions, and in response universities must

re-evaluate and create programs and services that will enhance African-American

students’ retention. The participants described specific individual and institutional factors

that affect the experiences and persistence of African-American undergraduate students at

predominantly White institutions. As a result of this study, the participants created new

knowledge for administrators and policymakers who are interested and invested in the

persistence and retention of African-American students at predominantly White

institutions. Therefore, as institutions implement strategies to retain these students,

administrators and policymakers should incorporate knowledge gained through testimonies of African-American undergraduate students within their respective retention

plans. Based on participants’ assessments about retention of African-American students at predominantly White institutions, this researcher recommends meeting the needs of the general student population. In general, these implications and recommendations reflect the common needs of all students. Since each institution is different, stakeholders must determine the applicability of these suggestions to their respective programs and services.

Listen to the Voices of African-American Students

Although participants thought each campus should be responsible for programs and services to support and increase the retention of African-American students, they also

believed in self-assessment and self-identification. As some participants stated, it is

110

equally important for students to know who they are and where they come from. They

believe that retention programs can further enhance African-American students’ self-identity and development. Participant E stated “I think that identity and self-identity is an issue as well as far as students knowing who they are. This is a major factor. Before

we start checking other people, or the area, and everything else, I think the students have

a huge issue with themselves or knowing who they are or where they came from or even

knowing their backgrounds because that is the reason why I guess you could say retention

programs perhaps are needed to give them a sense of ability to learn about themselves

and find out who they really are because there are a lot of students on this campus, and

this goes for Black or White, who have no clue about who they really are.” This

participant’s statement directly correlates to William Cross’ (1978) Nigrescence Model.

As explained in Chapter 2, in Cross’ (1978) Nigrescence Model, African-

American students can experience the five stages of Black identity development throughout their adulthood. These five stages are Pre-encounter, Encounter, Immersion-

Emersion, Internalization, and Internalization-Commitment. Since diversity exists within the African-American community, one should be cautious when applying this model or others to every African-American student. Cross’s model and the various social identity theories were not developed to serve as a “one size fits all,” but to provide information on the experiences of multicultural students (Morris, 2007).

Carefully Analyze the Goals and Objectives of Current Programs and Services

It is crucial for predominantly White institutions to carefully analyze the goals and objectives of current retention programs and services. They must be willing to adjust

111 and modify programs and services as necessary, but they cannot do this in isolation. Each of the four institutions utilized for this study had a Multicultural Affairs Office.

Administrators need to have serious conversations with their colleagues in these positions; those whom I call experts within their respective areas, to strategize and figure out what programs and services are beneficial opposed to those following traditional programs that may not be effective. Minority assessment tools and clear institutional policies on minority enrollment, recruitment and retention can also be beneficial when reviewing existing programs and services. Institutions must ensure all programs and services are meeting their goals, which ultimately should be to assist in the campus wide retention of African-American students. Some innovative avenues to achieving this may include reviewing the strategies of program implementation, reviewing the needs of the staff of the offices that are charged with supporting cultural student populations, and outreach within the community to connect with nearby churches so students will be able to continue their spirituality if they so desire. The majority of the participants stated that spirituality played a major role in their lives and their campus community lacked any churches that support this critical area of their lives.

Work to Create a More Welcoming, Inclusive Campus Climate

To retain African-American students’ institutions must work to create a welcoming campus environment that is accepting of all populations. African-American students must feel like they are wanted and validated on their campus. They will spend four or more years on campus so they need to feel welcome.

112

African-American students also stated that institutions must operate with integrity. This would include being honest and forthright concerning the campus

community, the surrounding community, the diversity, or lack thereof, within the student

body, accuracy in reporting the diversity within the faculty and staff as well as accurate depictions of campus diversity within institutional publications. Students do not want to

feel like they were lied to by campus constituents to boost the enrollment of African-

American students on campus.

Consistently Provide Staff and Financial Support to Enhance Current Programs and

Services

Lastly, African-American students want institutions to provide the necessary human and financial resources to allow retention programs and services the opportunity to flourish. There must be adequate staff available to provide quality programs and services to meet the growing demands of a diverse student population. As some students stated, “A one man or woman office will no longer suffice.” Sufficient finances must also be available to provide programs and services that students feel are important to assist in their persistence.

Further Research

Despite the importance of the retention of junior and senior, traditional-age, full- time, United States, undergraduate African-American students at predominantly White institutions, there is limited research on this topic. Therefore, researchers and education policymakers should continue to explore the relationship between institutional and

113

personal factors and the persistence of this particular group of students. The findings of this study mirror the limited literature on the perceptions, experiences and persistence of

African-American undergraduate students at predominantly White campuses. However, there are a few areas that warrant further investigation on this topic. These areas include, but are not limited to:

1. Soliciting the perceptions of all African-American students on retention programs

and services.

2. Soliciting the perceptions of recent African-American graduates of predominantly

White institutions to see if the retention programs and services were beneficial to

their college persistence.

3. Identifying personal and institutional factors that continue to influence African-

American students to persist at predominantly White institutions.

4. Identifying or questioning why African-American students continue to choose

predominantly White institutions if they perceive a “gap” in programs and

services.

5. Identifying or questioning why African-American students continue to choose

Predominantly White institutions as an option for matriculation if they do not feel

“welcome” on campus.

Conclusion

Clearly, the higher education community cannot solve all the problems that hinder the retention of African-American undergraduate students. But it can do a better job of

calling attention to these problems (Melendez, 2004). As education policymakers

114 continue to address the retention of undergraduate African-American students and the misuse of traditional retention models in describing the experiences of these students at predominantly White institutions, administrators, faculty, staff and student affairs professionals are strongly encouraged to develop strategies in addressing the programs and services that have been implemented for the retention of African-American undergraduate students on their respective campuses. Drawing from the current study, stakeholders should consider the recommendations provided when creating an environment where African-American, undergraduate students are empowered to persist and persevere to graduation.

The overarching goal of this study was to investigate African-American students’ perceptions of the impact of retention programs and services at predominantly White institutions. Although theoretical frameworks served as the foundation of this research project, the findings of my dissertation are derived from the actual voices of African-

American, undergraduate students. Therefore, this study provided the participants an opportunity to voice, testify, and reflect on their personal experiences. More importantly, the participants’ created new knowledge on the factors that affect the retention of

African-American undergraduate students at predominantly White institutions. To gain a better understanding of their experiences and how to address the retention of African-

American students, institutions should include the voices and perceptions of these participants. African-American students at predominantly White institutions want support, not the feeling of being fixed, as if they are somehow broken. What was once a whisper in the darkness is now audible. We have heard the voices of 29 students at four different institutions articulate what is important as it pertains to retention programs and

115 services on the campuses of predominantly White institutions. Now, it is at the discretion of administrators, faculty and staff to ensure all students are able to accomplish a measure of success, whatever that may mean for each student, so that retention programs and services are revamped as needed to maximize their impact on the retention of a diverse student population.

116

REFERENCES

Allen, W. R. (1992). The color of success: African-American college student outcomes at

predominantly White and historically Black public colleges and universities.

Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 26-44.

Allen, D. (1999). Desire to finish college: An empirical link between motivation and

persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 461-485.

American Heritage Dictionaries of the English Language. (2007). Retrieved August 1,

2007, from http://www.answers.com/topic/black

American Council on Education. (2002). Minorities in higher education 2001-2001:

Nineteenth annual status report (Rep. No. #309560). Washington, DC: ACE

Division of Government & Public Affairs.

Anderson, J. A. (1988). Cognitive styles and multicultural populations. Journal of

Teacher Education, 39, 2-9.

Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus cultural

climate by race. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 180-185.

Arnold, K. D. (1993). The fulfillment of promise: Minority valedictorians and

salutatorians. The Review of Higher Education, 16(3), 257-283.

Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.

Journal of College Student Development, 40, 518-529.

117

Attinasi, L. C. (1989).Getting in: Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university

attendance and the implications for freshman year persistence. The Journal of

Higher Education, 60(3), 247-277.

Attinasi, J. (1994). Racism, language variety, and urban U.S. minorities: Issues in

bilingualism and bidialectalism. In S. Gregory & R. Sanjek (Eds.), Race

(pp. 319-347). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Bankole, K. (2005). An overview of Black culture centers in higher education. In F.

Hord (Ed.), Black culture centers, politics of survival and identity (pp. 164-

182). Chicago: Third World Press and the Association for Black Culture Centers.

Barnett, E. (2003). Validation experiences in high school and college among current

community college students. Unpublished Research Paper, University of Illinois

at Urbana-Champaign.

Barnett, M. (2004). A qualitative analysis of family support and interaction among

African American college students at an ivy league university. Journal of Negro

Education, 73(1), 53-68.

Barr, D. J., & Strong, L. J. (1988). Embracing multiculturalism: The existing

contradictions. NASPA Journal, 26, 85-90.

Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal

model of student attrition, Research in Higher Education,. 12, 155-187.

Bean, J. P. (1982a). Conceptual models of student attrition: How they can help the

institutional researcher. In E. Pascarella (Ed.), New directions for institutional

research: Studying student attrition No. 36 (pp. 17-33). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

118

Bean, J. P. (1982b). Student attrition, intention, and confidence. Interaction effects in a

path model. Research in Higher Education, 17, 291-320.

Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an exploratory model of

college student dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22,

35-64.

Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B. S. (1985). A conceptual model of nontraditional undergraduate

student attrition. Review of Educational Research, 55(4), 485-540.

Bean, J. P., & Metzner, B.S. (1996). Retention-attrition in the 90s: Washington, DC:

Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ERIC Document

Reproduction Service No. ED 393-510).

Belenky, M., Clinchy, B., Goldberger, N., & Tarule, J. (1986). Women’s ways of

knowing. New York: Basic Books.

Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 US 45, 29 Sup. Ct. S3 (1908).

Berger, J. B., & Lyons, S. (2005). Past to present: A historical look at retention. In A.

Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success. Westport,

CT: ACE/Praeger Press,.

Berger, J. B., & Braxton, J.M. (1998). Revising Tinto's interactionalist theory of student

departure through theory elaboration: Examining the role of organizational

attributes in the persistence process. Research in Higher Education, 39(2), 103-

119.

Berger, J. B., & Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of

integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher

Education, 40(6), 641-664.

119

Berkner, L., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., McCormick, & Associates (1996). Descriptive

summary of 1989-90 beginning postsecondary students five years later with an

essay onpostsecondary persistence and attainment. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education. Office of Educational Research and Improvement,

National Center for Education Statistics.

Blackwell, J. E. (1975). The Black community: Diversity and unity. New York: Harper &

Row.

Blake, W. M., & Darling, C. A. (2000). Quality of life: Perceptions of African

Americans. Journal of Black Studies, 30, 411-427.

Bonner, F. A., & Evans, M. (2004). Can you hear me?: Voices and experiences of

African American students in higher education. In D. Cleveland (Ed.), A long way

to go: Conversations about race by African American faculty and graduate

students (pp. 3-18). New York: Lang.

Bourne-Bowie, K. (2000). Retention depends on new models of student development.

Black Issues in Higher Education Reston, 17(3), 96 99.

Braxton, J., & Brier, E. (1989). Melding organizational and interactional theories of

student attrition: A path analytic study. The Review of Higher Education, 13, 47-

61.

Braxton, J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan, A. S. (2000). The influence of active learning on

the college student departure process: Toward a revision of Tinto’s theory.

Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 569-590.

120

Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. S., & Johnson, R. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of

college student departure. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of

theory and research, Vol. 12 (pp. 107-164). New York: Agathon Press.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)

Brown, T. L. (2000). Gender differences in African-American students’ satisfaction with

college. Journal of College Student Development, 41(5), 479-487.

Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1976). Higher education in transition (3rd ed.). New York:

Harper & Row.

Burr, P. L., Burr, R. M. & Novak, L. F. (1999). Student retention is more complicated

than merely keeping the students you have today: Toward a seamless retention

theory. Journal of College Student Retention, 1(3), 239-253.

Cabrera, A. F., & Nora, A. (1994). College students’ perceptions of prejudice and

discrimination and their feelings of alienation. Review of Education, Pedagogy,

and Cultural Studies, 16, 387-409.

Cabrera, A. F, Nora, A., & Castañeda, M. B. (1992). The role of finances in the student

persistence process: A structural model. Research in Higher Education 33(5),

571-594.

Cabrera, A., Castaneda, M., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between

two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 143-

164.

121

Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A. Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E., & Hagedorn, L. S. (1999).

Campus Racial Climate and the Adjustment of Students to College: A

Comparison between White Students and African-American Students. Journal of

Higher Education, 70, 134-160.

Chang, M .J., & Astin, A. W. (1997). Who benefits from racial diversity in higher

education? Diversity Digest. Retrieved April 8, 2004, from

http://www.diversityweb.org

Cheatham, H. E., & Phelps, C. E. (1995). Promoting the development of graduate

students of color. In A. S. Pruitt-Logan & P. D. Isaac (Eds.), Student services for

the changing graduate student population. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Churchill, W. A., & Iwai, S. F. (1981). College attrition, student use of facilitates, and a

consideration of self reported personal problems. Research in Higher Education,

14, 353-365.

Clewell, B. C. (1986). Identification of institutions with good minority retention

practices: A feasibility study (final report). Princeton, N. J: Educational Testing

Services.

Clewell, B. C., & Ficklen, M. S. (1986). Improving minority retention in higher

education: A search for effective institutional practices. Princeton, NJ:

Educational Testing Service.

Conway-Jones, D. (2006). Being all things to all people: Expectations of and demands on

women of color in the legal academy. In T. R. Berry, & N. D. Mizelle (Eds),

From oppression to grace: Women of color and their dilemmas within the

academy (pp. 121-130). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

122

Cozzens, L. (1999). After the Civil War: Plessy v. Ferguson. Retrieved April 8,

2004, from http//:www.Watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/post-civilwar/plessy.html

Cozzens, L. (1998) Brown v. Board of Education. African American history. Retrieved

August 1, 2006, from http://fledge.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/early-

civilrights/brown.html

Creswell, J. R. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Newbury Park: CA: Sage.

Cross, W. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological Nigrescence: A

literature review. Journal of Black Psychology, 4, 13-31.

Cross, W. E., Jr., (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American identity.

Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Dale, P., & Zych, T. (1996). A successful college retention program. The College Student

Journal, 30, 354-360.

Davis, R. (1991). Social support networks and undergraduate student academic success

related outcomes: A comparison of Black students on Black and White campuses.

In W. R. Allen, E. G. Epps, & N. Z. Hannif (Eds.), College in Black and White:

African-American students in predominantly White and historically Black public

Universities (pp. 143-157). Albany: State University of New York Press.

D’Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). African-American undergraduates on a

predominantly White campus: Academic factors, social networks, and campus

climate. Journal of Negro Education, 62, 67-81.

123

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, M. R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in

personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 38,

pp. 237-288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Delgado Bernal, D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical

raced-gendered epistemologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and

creators of knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 105-126.

DeSousa, D. J., & Kuh, G. D. (1996). Does institutional racial composition make a

difference in what Black students gain from college? Journal of College Student

Development, 37, 257-267.

Durkheim, E. (1961). Suicide: A study in sociology. (J. Spaulding & G. Simpson,

Trans.) Glencoe, NY: The Free Press.

Echols, C. V., Hwang, Y. S., & Nobles, C. (2002). Campus Diversity: Implementing the

town hall approach for racial and cultural understanding at a predominantly

White university. NASPA Journal, 40(1), 169-186.

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, I. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Fleming, J. (1981). Blacks in higher education to 1954: A historical overview. In G. E.

Thomas (Ed.), Black students in higher education: Conditions and experiences in

the 70’s (pp. 11-17). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college: A comparative study of students’ success in Black

and White institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

124

Fox, R.N. (1986). Application of a conceptual model of college withdrawal to

disadvantaged students. American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 414-

424.

Fries-Britt, S., & Turner, B. (2001). Facing stereotypes: A case study of Black students

on a White campus. Journal of College Student Development, 42(5), 420-429.

Gaither, G. H. (Ed). (2005). Minority retention: What works? San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Gloria, A., Kurpius, S., Hamilton, K., & Wilson, M. (1999). African-American students’

persistence at predominantly White university: influences of social support,

university comfort, and self beliefs. Journal of College Student Development,

40(3), 257-268.

González, K. P. (2000). Toward a theory of minority student participation in

predominantly White colleges and universities. Journal College Student

Retention, 2(1), 69-91.

Green, M. F. (1989). Minorities on campus: A handbook for enhancing diversity.

Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 982 (2003).

Guba, E. G. (Ed.). (1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Guiffrida, D. A. (2003). African-American student organizations as agents of social

integration. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 304-320.

Guiffrida, D. A. (2004). Friends from home: Asset and liability to African-American

students attending a predominantly White institution. NASPA Journal, 24(3) 693-

708.

125

Guiffrida, D. A. (2005a). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto’s theory. Paper

accepted for publication in The Review of Higher Education.

Guiffrida, D. A. (2005b).To break away or strengthen ties to home: A complex question

for African-American students attending a predominantly White institution.

Equity and Excellence in Education. 38(1), 49-60.

Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado, S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education:

Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review.

Harvey-Smith, A. (2002). An examination of the retention literature and application in

student success (2). Retrieved March 30, 2006, from

http://www.ccsse.org/publications/harvey-smith.pdf

Hefner, D. (2002). Black cultural centers: Standing on shaky ground? Black

Issues in Higher Education, 18, 22-29.

Hendricks, A. D., Smith, K, Caplow, J. H. & Donaldson, J. F. (1996). A grounded theory

approach to determining the factors related to the persistence of minority students

in professional programs. Innovative Higher Education 21, 113-126.

Hershberger, S. L., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1992). The relationship between academic

performance and social support to graduation among African-American and

White university students: A path-analytic model. Journal of Community

Psychology, 20, 188-199.

Hill-Traynham, P. K. (2000). An Afrocentric perspective towards black student

development: From theory to practice. Unpublished manuscript.

Hine, D. C., Hine, W. C. & Harrod, S. (2004). African Americans: A concise history.

Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.

126

Holmes, S. L., Ebbers, L. H., Robinson, D. C., & Mugenda, A. G. (2000). Validating

African-American students at predominantly White institutions. Journal of

College Student Retention, 2(1), 41-58.

Hurtado, A. (1997). Understanding multiple group identities: Inserting women into

cultural transformations. Journal of Social Issues, 53, 299-328.

Hurtado, S. (1994). Latino consciousness and academic success. In A. Hurtado, E. E.

Garcia, & R. Buriel (Eds.), The educational achievement of Latinos: Barriers and

successes. Santa Cruz: Regents of the University of California.

Hurtado, S., Carter, D. F., & Spuler, A. (1996). Latino student transition to college:

Assessing difficulties and factors in successful college adjustment. Research in

Higher Education 37, 135-157.

Jackson, K. W., & Swan, L. A. (1991). Institutional and Individual Factors

Affecting Black Undergraduate students performance: Campus race and student

gender. In W. R. Allen, E. G. Epps, & N. Z. Haniff (Eds.), College in Black and

White: African American students in predominantly White and in historically

Black public universities (pp. 127-141). Albany: State University of New York

Press.

Jay, G. M., & D’Augelli, A. R. (1991). Social support and adjustment to university life:

A comparison of African-American and White freshmen. Journal of Community

Psychology, 19, 95-108.

Jones, L. (2004). The development of a multicultural student services office and retention

strategy for minority students: Still miles to go! In F. Hale (Ed.), What makes

racial diversity work in higher education (pp. 125-145). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

127

Jones, Y. (1993). A study of factors that contribute to the academic achievement of

African-American freshman at Iowa State University. Doctoral dissertation, Iowa

State University, Ames, IA.

Kane, C. (2000). African-American family dynamics as perceived by family

members. Journal of Black Studies, 30, 691-702.

Kezar, A. J. (2006). The impact of institutional size on student engagement. NASPA

Journal, 43, 87-114.

King, S. E., & Chepyator-Thomson, J. R. (1996). Factors affecting the enrollment and

persistence of African-American doctoral students. The Physical Educator, 53,

170-180.

Kinzie, J.L. Understanding and reducing college student departure (2005) (review)

Journal of College Student Development, 46(2), 213-215.

Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus group interviews: A practical guide for applied research

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.

Kuh, G. D., & Love, P. G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In J. M.

Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 196-212). Nashville,

TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. D., Whitt, E. J., Andreas, R. E., Lyons, W., Strange, C. C.,

Krehbiel, L. E., & MacKay, K. A. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful

approaches to student learning and development outside the classroom. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

128

Kuh, G. D., & Whitt, E. J. (1988). The invisible tapestry: Culture in American colleges

and universities. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No.1. Washington, DC:

Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Laden, B. V. (1999) Socializing and mentoring college students of color: The Puente

Project as an exemplary celebratory socializing model. Peabody Journal of

Education. 74(2) 55-74. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED3349429).

Loeb, P. R. (2001). Against apathy: Role models for engagement. Academe, 87(4), 42-

47.

Loo, C. M., & Rolison, G. (1986). Alienation of ethnic minority students at a

predominantly White university. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 58-77.

Love, B. J. (1993). Issues and problems in the retention of Black students in

predominantly White institutions of higher education. Equity and Excellence in

Education, 26, 27-33.

Madriz, E. (2000). Focus groups in feminist research. In N. K. Denizon & Y. S. Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mallinckrodt, B., & Sedlacek, W.E. (1987). Student retention and the use of campus

facilitates by race. NASPA Journal, 24(3), 28-32.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Mayo, J. R., Murguia, E. J., & Padilla, R. V. (1995). Social integration & academic

performance among minority university students. Journal of College Student

Development, 36, 542-552.

129

McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention? Retrieved June 19, 2007,from

http://www.act.org/path/postsec/droptables/pdf/Appendix1.pdf

McCubbin, I. (2003). An examination of criticisms made of Tinto’s 1975 Student

integration model of attrition. Unpublished paper.

McLauren v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 US 637 (1950).

McNairy, F.G. (1996). The challenge for higher education: retaining students of color.

New Directions for Student Services, No. 74 (pp. 3-14). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Melendez, S. (2004). From humble beginnings comes great achievement. Reflections on

20 years of minorities in higher education and the ACE annual status report.

American Council on Education, (p. 5-9). Washington, DC.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B., & Associates (2002) Qualitative research in practice. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Merritt, M. S., Sedlacek, W. E., & Brooks, G. C., Jr. (1977). Quality of interracial

interaction among university students. Integrateducation, 15(3), 37-38.

Milen, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence:

Exploring the relationship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s

theory of student departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 387-

400.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded

sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

130

Miller, K. K. (2001). Negros no more: The emergence of Black student activism. In. A.

Bloom (Ed.), Long time gone: Sixties America then and now. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Mingle, J. (1981). The opening of White colleges and universities to Black students. In

G. Thomas (Ed.), Black students in higher education (pp.18-29). Westport, CT:

Greenwood Press.

Mitchell, B. (1995). The dynamic classroom (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Moore, L. V., & Upcraft, M. L. (1990). Theory in student affairs: Evolving perspectives.

In L. V. Moore (Ed.), New directions for student services No 51 (pp. 3-24). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Morgan, D. L. (Ed.). (1993). Successful focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morris, M. (2007). Sisters in the struggle: Individual and institutional factors affecting

the persistence of Black, female, doctoral students at U.S. predominantly White

institutions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

Moxley, D, Najor-Durack, A, & Dumbrigue, C (2001). Keeping Students in Higher

Education: Successful practices and strategies for retention. London: Kogan

Page.

Murgia, E., Padilla, R. V., & Pavel, D. M. (1991). Ethnicity and the concept of social

integration in Tinto’s model of institutional departure. Journal of College

Student Development. 32(5), 433-439.

Nettles, M. (Ed.). (1988). Toward black undergraduate student equality in American

higher education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

131

Nieto, S. (1996). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural

education (2nd ed.) White Plains, NY: Longman.

Nora, A. (1987). Determinants of retention among Chicano college students: A structural

model. Research in Higher Education, 26(1), 31-59.

Nora, A., Attinasi, L., & Matonak, A. (1990.) Testing qualitative indicators of

precollege factors in Tinto’s attrition model: A community college student

population. Review of Higher Education. 13(3), 337-356.

Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1993). The construct validity of institutional commitment: A

confirmatory factor analysis. Research in Higher Education, 34 (2), 243-262.

Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and

discrimination on the adjustment of minority students to college. Journal of

Higher Education 67(2), 119-148.

Nora, A., & Rendón, L. I. (1990). Determinants of predisposition to transfer among

community college students: A structural model. Research in Higher Education,

31, 235-255.

O’Donnell, L. M., & Green-Merritt, E. S. (1997). Empowering minorities to impact the

established culture in Eurocentric institutions of higher learning. 22p. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service ED412823).

Opp, R. D. (2002) Enhancing program completion rates among two year college students

of color. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 147-163.

Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review

of Educational Research, 50, 545-595.

132

Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D. W. (1983). A multi-institutional, path analytic

validation of Tinto's model of college withdrawal. American Educational

Research Journal, 20(1), 87-102.

Pascarella, E. T., Duby, P B., & Iverson, B. K., (1983). A test and reconceptualization of

a theoretical model of college withdrawal in a commuter institution setting.

Sociology of Education, 56, 88-100.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and

insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade

of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T., Hagedorn, L. S., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A. (1996). Influences on

students' openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. Journal

of Higher Education, 67(2), 174-195.

Patton, L. D. (2006). The voice of reason: A qualitative examination of Black student

perceptions of Black culture centers. Journal of College Student Development,

47(6), 628-646.

Patton, L.D. (2005). Power to the people! Black student protest and the emergence of

Black culture centers. In F.L. Hord (Ed.), Black culture centers. politics of

survival and identity (pp. 151-163). Chicago: Third World Press and the

Association for Black Culture Centers.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

133

Pavel, M. (1992, November). The application of Tinto’s model to a Native American

student population. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for

the Study of Higher Education.

Phillips, C. D. (2005, June). A comparison between African-American and White

students enrolled in an equal opportunity program on predominantly White

college campuses: perceptions of the campus environment. College Student

Journal. [On-line]. Retrieved July 5, 2007, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCR/is_2_39/ai_n15338066/pg_1

Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the

college classroom. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory

and research, Vol. 17, (pp. 55-128). New York: Agathon Press.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 637, 16 Sup. Ct. 1138 (1896).

Porter, O. (1990). Undergraduate completion and persistence at four-year colleges and

universities detailed findings. Washington: National Institute of Independent

Colleges and Universities.

Pound, A. W. (1987). Black student’s needs on predominantly White campuses. In D. J.

Wright (Ed.), Responding to the needs of today’s minority students (pp. 23-28).

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Princes, C. (2005). The precarious question of Black cultural centers versus

multicultural centers. In F. Hord (Ed.), Black culture centers, politics of

survival and identity (pp. 135-146). Chicago: Third World Press and the

Association for Black Culture Centers.

134

Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In

E.. Deci & M. R. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination theory

and research (pp. 183-204). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Rendón, L. I. (1982). Chicano students in south Texas community colleges: A study of

student-and institution-related determinants of educational outcomes. Doctoral

dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Rendόn, L. (1989). The lie and the hope. Making higher education a reality for at-risk

students. AAHE Bulletin, 41(9), 4-7.

Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of

learning and student development. Innovative Higher Education 19(1), 23-32.

Rendόn, L., & Jaloma, R. (1995, February). Validating student experience and promoting

progress, performance, and persistence through assessment. University Park, PA:

National Center on Post Secondary Teaching, Learning and Assessment.

Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study

of minority student retention in higher education. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.),

Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 127-156). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt

University Press.

Richardson, R. C., & Skinner, E. F. (1991). Achieving quality and diversity: Universities

in a multicultural society. New York: Macmillan.

Rosas, M., & Hamrick, F.A. (2002). Postsecondary enrollment and academic decision

making: Family influences on women college students of Mexican descent.

Equity and Excellence in Education, 35(1), 59-69.

135

Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2003). Learning in the field: An introduction to

qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rowser, J. (1990). A retention model for African American students. Western Journal of

Black Studies, 14, 166-170.

Rudestam, K. E., & Newton, R. R. (2001). Surviving your dissertation. Thousand Oaks:

CA: Sage.

Sandeen, A. (1996). Organization, functions and standards of practice. In S. Komives, D.

Woodard, Jr., and Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the

profession (pp. 435-457). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sanders, L., & Burton, J. D. (1996). From retention to satisfaction: New outcomes for

assessing the freshman experience. Research in Higher Education, 37(5), 555-

567.

Sedlacek, W. E., & Brooks, G. C., Jr. (1976). Racism in American education: A model for

change. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Sedlacek, W.E. (1986). Sources of method bias in test bias research. In College Entrance

Examination Board (Ed.), Measures in the college admissions process (pp.86-92).

New York: College Entrance Examination Board.

Sedlacek, W. E. (1987). Black students on White campuses: 20 years of research. Journal

of College Student Personnel, 28, 484-491.

Seidman, A. (Ed.). (2005). College student retention: Formula for student success.

Westport, CT: ACE/Praeger.

Sherman, T. M., Giles, M. B., & Williams-Green, J. (1994). Assessment and retention of

Black students in higher education. Journal of Negro Education, 63, 164-180.

136

Sipuel v Board of Regents 332 US 631 (1948).

Smith, D. G., & Schonfeld, N. B. (2000). The benefits of diversity. About Campus. 5(5),

16-23.

Smith, D. G., & Wolf-Wendel, L. E. (2005). Assessment and implications. ASHE Higher

Education Report, 31(1), 63-68.

Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropping outs from higher education: An interdisciplinary review

and synthesis. Interchange, 1, 64-85.

Stage. F. K. (1989). Motivation, academic and social integration, and the early dropping

out. American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 385-402.

Stewart, J. B. (2005). Bridging time, space, and technology: Challenges confronting

Black cultural centers in the 21st century. In F. Hord (Ed.), Black culture

centers, politics of survival and identity (pp. 75-87). Chicago: Third World Press

and the Association for Black Culture Centers.

Stoecker, J., Pascarella, E. T., & Wolfle, L. M., (1988). Persistence in higher education:

A 9-year test of a theoretical model. Journal of College Student Development, 29,

196-209.

Stovall, A. J. (2005). Why Black culture centers? The philosophical bases for Black

culture centers. In F. Hord (Ed.), Black culture centers, politics of survival and

identity, (pp. 102-112). Chicago: Third World Press and the Association for Black

Culture Centers.

Suen, H. (1983). Alienation and attrition of Black college students on a predominantly

White campus. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 117-121.

137

Sutton, E. M., & Kimbrough, W. M. (2001). Trends in Black student involvement.

NASPA Journal, 39, 30-41.

Szelenyi, K. (2001). Minority student retention and academic achievement in community

colleges. ERIC Digests. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED20010201).

Taylor, C. M., & Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (1995) Student involvement and racial identity

attitudes among African-American males. Journal of College Student

Development, 36(4), 330-336.

Terenzini, P. T. et al. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories.

Research in Higher Education, 35(1), 57-73.

Terenzini, P. T., Rendón, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L.,

& Jaloma, R. (1996). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories.

Research in Higher Education, 35(1), 57-73.

Thayer, P. B. (2000). Retention of students from first generation and low income

backgrounds. (ERIC ED446633). Opportunity Outlook (May), 2-8.

Thile, E., & Matt, G. (1995). The ethnic mentor program: A brief description and

preliminary findings. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 23,

116-126.

Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college.

Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 603-618.

Tierney, W. G. (1999). Models of minority college-going and retention: Cultural

integrity versus cultural suicide. Journal of Negro Education, 68(1), 80-91.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropping out from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent

research. Journal of Educational Research, 45, 89-125

138

Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. Journal of Higher

Education, 53, 687-700.

Tinto, V. (1987.) Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student departure.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1999). Taking student retention seriously. National Academic Advising

Association (NACADA) Journal, 10(2), 5-10.

Tollison, M. (1999). The new complexion of retention services. Black Issues in Higher

Education, 15(26), 34.

Townsend, L. (1994). How universities successfully retain and graduate Black students.

Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 4, 85-89.

Trow, M. (1973). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. San

Francisco: Carnegie Commission.

Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage (M. Vizedon & G. Caffee, Trans.).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Vodanovich, S. J. (1997). Boredom proneness in African-American college students: A

factor analytic perspective. Project Innovation, Retrieved July 2, 2007, from

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articfles/mi_qa3673/is_199701/ai_n8755160.

Vogt, W. P. (1997). Tolerance & education: Learning to live with diversity and

difference. London: Sage.

139

White, W. F., & Bigham, W. D. (1982). Information systems approach to admissions’

instruction and retention of college students with a developmental lag. Journal of

Educational Research and Development in Education, 15, 16.

Wiggins, D. C. (2005). Righteous content: Black women’s perspective of church and

faith. New York: New York University Press.

Wikipedia. (2007). Lincoln University (Pennsylvania). Retrieved August 1, 2007, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_University_(Pennsylvania)

Wilds, D. (2000). Minorities in higher education 1999-2000: Seventeenth annual status

report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Willie, C. V., & McCord, A. S. (1972). Black students at White colleges. New York:

Praeger.

Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Zea, M. C., Jarama, S. L., & Bianchi, F. T. (1995). Social support and psychosocial

competence: Explaining the adaptation to college of ethically diverse students.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 509-553.

140

APPENDIX A

LETTER FOR PROSPECTIVE PARTICIPANTS

DaNine J. Fleming

Dear Student,

Thank you for accepting my invitation to participate in my research project entitled “African-American Students’ Perceptions of the Impact of Retention Programs and Services at Predominantly White Institutions.”

As stated in my letter of invitation, the premise of this study is that programs are created by administrators, faculty and staff on college/university campuses for the purpose of increasing the retention of African American students, but many are based on the perceptions of students’ needs. Rarely are programs created through dialogue from the student population that will be served or what I will call “listening to the voices” of the students.

I am attaching a copy of the interview questions for your review. Your focus group will occur:

Date: Time: Location:

I sincerely appreciate your time and participation in this endeavor. I know that your involvement will be a rewarding experience, and your participation and experiences will be of value to this research. Without you, there would be no research.

If you need to contact me, please feel free to call me at 724-967-4956 or via email [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,

DaNine J. Fleming Doctoral Candidate Youngstown State University

141

APPENDIX B

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SHEET

African-American Students’ Perceptions of the Impact of Retention Programs and Services at Predominantly White Institutions

The primary purpose of this study is to determine African-American undergraduate students’ perceptions of the impact of retention programs at predominantly White institutions. Please complete the following information by filling in the space provided.

1. What is your classification in college? Junior ( ) or Senior ( )

2. What is your gender? Male ( ) or Female ( )

3. Are you a:

1st generation college student? ( )

2nd generation college student? ( )

3rd generation college student? ( )

4. How do you spend your free time? (Please check all that apply).

Working ( ) Studying ( )

With friends ( ) Participating in campus organizations ( )

At home ( ) Resting ( )

Other ______

5. What is your major?

142

APPENDIX C

INFORMED CONSENT FORM

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN INTERVIEWS Youngstown State University

Prospective Participants in the Interview Process:

Please read this consent form carefully. Should you have any questions, please ask before you sign.

Title of the Study African-American Students’ Perceptions of the Impact of Retention Programs and Services at Predominantly White Institutions.

Purpose of the Study: The primary purpose of this study is to determine African-American undergraduate students’ perceptions of the impact of retention programs at predominantly White institutions.

Information: The Principal Investigator/Faculty Advisor is Dr. Robert Beebe. DaNine J. Fleming is serving as the Co-Investigator/Student Investigator. The research has been submitted for approval to the Youngstown State University Human Subjects Research Committee.

The primary data collection source is focus groups using semi-structured questions. Experienced facilitators will serve as facilitators for the focus groups. The participants will be asked a series of questions over an approximately two hour period. The time will be adjusted to best serve the needs of the group. The focus groups will be audio taped.

Benefits: Significant and relevant information will be garnered as a result of this study to assist administrators on predominantly White college campuses view the retention programs that are currently in existence on their respective campuses. Participants will have the opportunity to tell their perceptions on the impact of retention programs on the campus of predominantly White institutions. Their voices will be heard and documented per this research to assist with the possible implementation of change in retention strategies where necessary.

Confidentiality: The names of the participants will not be published. They will be coded and referred to by Participant A, B, C, D and so on. The Principal Investigator/Faculty Advisor and Co- Investigator/Student Investigator will have access to the interview transcripts. Notes and audiotapes will be destroyed at the conclusion of the research. The transcribed materials

143 will be held in a secure location by the researcher for a period of five years. The transcribed materials may be used for future publication by the researcher.

Participation: Participation is voluntary, and you may discontinue your participation at any time. If you have any questions concerning this research process or wish to be excluded, please contact the Principal Investigator/Faculty Advisor or the Co-Investigator/Student Investigator at any time.

Co-Investigator/Student Investigator Principal Investigator/Faculty Advisor DaNine J. Fleming Dr. Robert Beebe (724) 458-5459 (330)941-1437

Youngstown State University Office of Grants and Sponsored Programs, Dr. Edward Orona, Director Tod Hall – Room 357 One University Plaza Youngstown, OH 44555 (330) 914-2377

Consent: I have read and understand the consent form and voluntarily agree to participate in this study. I further understand that this consent form is not intended to replace any applicable Federal, State, or local laws. By signing this consent I attest that I am 18 years of age or older. I have had all of my questions answered to my satisfaction, and I understand the requirements of the study.

______Participant Date

______Interviewer Date

144

APPENDIX D

FOCUS GROUP LETTER OF CONFIRMATION

DaNine J. Fleming

Dear Student,

As stated in my letter of invitation, the premise of this study is that programs are created by administrators, faculty and staff on college/university campuses for the purpose of increasing the retention of African-American students, but many are based on the perceptions of students’ needs. Rarely are programs created through dialogue from the student population that will be served or what I will call “listening to the voices” of the students.

I am attaching a copy of the interview questions for your review. Your focus group will occur:

Date: Time: Location:

If you need to contact me, please feel free to call me at 724-967-4956 or via email [email protected]. Thank you.

Sincerely,

DaNine J. Fleming Doctoral Candidate Youngstown State University

145

APPENDIX E

AUDIOTAPE RELEASE FORM

Title of Study: African-American Students’ Perceptions of the Impact of Retention Programs and Services at Predominantly White Institutions.

Protocol #

Study Investigators: Robert Beebe, Ed.D. , DaNine J. Fleming, Ed.S.

Audiotape Release Form

We request the use of audiotape material of you as a part of our study. We specifically ask your consent to use this material as we deem proper, specifically, for news releases, professional publications, websites, and exhibits related to our study. Regarding the use of your likeness in audiotape, please check one of the following boxes below:

I do…

I do not…

give unconditional permission for the investigators to utilize audiotapes of me.

______Signature Date

146

APPENDIX F

SCRIPT FOR MODERATOR

African-American Students’ Perceptions of the Impact of Retention Programs at Predominantly White Institutions.

Hello, and welcome to our session. We want to thank you for taking the time to join us today. My name is ______, and I will be moderating the session and this is ______and she/he will be taking notes. We are here today to conduct a focus group, or a discussion on a specific topic.

Our focus group today will be an open dialogue answering questions on the impact of retention programs that exist on your campus. We want to hear your ideas and opinions about retention programs on campus and the impact they have on African-

American student retention. There are no right or wrong answers. Please feel free to share what YOU think, even if it might be different from what others are saying.

For this study, retention programs are defined as programs used to help African-

American students meet their needs so that they will persist in their education until graduation.

Before we begin, I’d like to suggest some things that will help our discussion go smoothly. First, would you please turn off all cell phones, pagers and two ways? If you’re not able to do so, could you please make the ring as quiet as possible? If you must answer, we ask that you do so as quietly as possible and rejoin us as quickly as you can.

Next, when you speak, please speak loudly and clearly. We are tape recording this session, and we don’t want to miss any of your comments. Third, please speak one at a time, and please clearly state your name of “pseudonym” before each time that you speak. Finally, we all need to agree on this one, and it is extremely important. Anything

147

we say here is private. We will use only first names. Our discussion should not leave this room, so please don’t share what you hear while here with anyone outside of this room.

Can we all agree to that? (Wait for affirmative response from each member). This

session will last approximately 2 hours.

My job as group moderator is to ask questions and listen to your responses. I will not share my opinions or suggestions, but I want you to feel free to converse openly with each other. I will be asking you several questions, and moving the discussion along from one question to the next. Sometimes, in groups like this, certain people may talk a lot while others say little. It is important that we hear from everyone because each of you brings your own perspective and experience to the table. So, if one of you shares a lot, I may ask you to let others talk; and, if you aren’t saying much, I may ask you directly for your opinion. Before I start asking the questions, let’s find out a little about each other. For openers, let’s go around the group and each of us share our first name and something about you that may assist us in getting to know you better. Thank you for your introductions. (Proceed with questions)

148

APPENDIX G

FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS

African-American Students’ Perceptions of the Impact of Retention Programs and Services at Predominantly White Institutions

For the purpose of this study, retention is defined as the process of helping students to meet their needs so that they will persist in their education (Moxley, Najor-Dorak, & Dumbrigue, 2001) and retention programs are defined as programs instituted by a college or university to assist in the engagement and retention of a diverse student body to help students to meet their needs so they will persist in their education.

1. How do you define the term retention?

2. How did you learn about retention programs and services offered by your

institution?

3. What retention programs and services, if any, have assisted you in getting to

where you are now?

4. In your opinion, what factors are important to African-American students in

making use of current retention programs and services? Why?

5. How do you feel these programs and services impact or influence the retention of

African-American students?

6. Did these retention programs and services influence you to stay at your

institution? If so how?

7. Do you find the retention programs and services useful otherwise? If so how do

the programs and services assist you?

8. What support systems should be in place for African-American student retention

at predominantly White institutions?

149

APPENDIX H

HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL

150