The student departure puzzle: do some faculties and programs have answers?
Patrick Alan Danaher, Don Bowser, Jay Somasundaram
Abstract
Patrick Alan Danaher, Don Bowser, Jay Somasundaram
Abstract
University attrition prevention strategies are typically generic, centrally managed, whole of university strategies that have emerged from an examination of whole of university attrition data. This paper takes an intra‐organisational comparative approach, through the examination of faculty and program attrition rates of students who joined an Australian university in the first term of 2004. The faculty with the highest attrition had a rate two‐and‐a‐half times that of the faculty with the lowest rate, and in programs with 40 or more students enrolled the program with the highest attrition had a rate over five times that of the program with the lowest rate. The paper identifies five practical implications of these findings and concludes that investigating the causes of these differences will help in understanding student attrition. It also suggests that universities wishing to reduce student attrition may benefit from adopting integrated and situated strategies that take into account faculty and program differences.
OpenAlex reports 35 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
University attrition prevention strategies are typically generic, centrally managed, whole of university strategies that have emerged from an examination of whole of university attrition data. This paper takes an intra‐organisational comparative approach, through the examination of faculty and program attrition rates of students who joined an Australian university in the first term of 2004. The faculty with the highest attrition had a rate two‐and‐a‐half times that of the faculty with the lowest rate, and in programs with 40 or more students enrolled the program with the highest attrition had a rate over five times that of the program with the lowest rate. The paper identifies five practical implications of these findings and concludes that investigating the causes of these differences will help in understanding student attrition. It also suggests that universities wishing to reduce student attrition may benefit from adopting integrated and situated strategies that take into account faculty and program differences.
Key concepts: Attrition, Situated, Medical education, Mathematics education, Psychology, Pedagogy, Computer science, Medicine