Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Social Media as an Implement for Student Retention
Blake Miller
Missouri State University
2
Abstract
Previous research emphasizes the importance of social integration, affective commitment,
institutional commitment and overall satisfaction with a university on student retention and
attrition. This research examines the role of social media as an implement for improving student
retention. This paper explores the relationship between social media and student retention
intentions and student attrition intentions. The paper argues that social media can be used as a
tool for student retention and creates an environment that contributes to overall satisfaction with
the university. Findings have implications for student retention and retention programs at
universities.
3
Social Media as a Tool for Student Retention
Many schools in higher education spend money on researching student retention and
attrition. Student attrition occurs when a student leaves the university after attending and student
retention occurs when a student continues attending the university. Student retention is also
known as persistence (Cabrera, Nora, & Castaneda, 1993). Student retention rates look at
graduation rates and decreasing the amount of students who want to transfer to a different
university or dropout. The National Center for Education Statistics (2014) states that about 59%
of first time, full time students who began seeking a bachelor’s degree at a four-year university
in the fall of 2006 completed that degree within a six-year period. This is over half of the
students and indicates that approximately 40% of students do not graduate with a degree from
their first university. The challenge to universities is finding effective ways to lower the rate of
attrition.
There are many programs in place that help universities keep students on campus and
attending the college. These programs (e.g. freshman orientation, learning communities) address
a variety of retention issues, such as institutional commitment, social integration, organizational
commitment, academic integration and financial attitudes. Issues of retention can be addressed in
various ways, but the emergence of social media and social media use at universities may
provide a unique approach to retention efforts.
Social media plays a major role in the lives of individuals today. Many people have
different accounts on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, Instagram and many more. There is
a multitude of uses for the social media sites, including connecting with family and friends, or
connecting with a particular business or organization. Businesses have real success with using
4
social media as a tool to create a sense of community; therefore, universities can utilize social
media as well.
As an organization, a university could potentially utilize social media for the same
purpose and have potential effects on student retention. The purpose of the research is to
examine the relationship between university-related social media usage and student retention
outcomes. Examining the relationship between social media use and student retention outcomes
can demonstrate the role social media plays in student retention and help universities (re)focus
retention energies and efforts.
The paper will begin by looking at organizational socialization, which explains the
process of social media and student retention. Then the paper will look at the three main
concepts of student retention: institutional commitment, social integration and affective
commitment. After each concept described, then there will be an examination of the university
including retention data, social media analysis, and statistics. Finally, the paper will describe the
actual study that took place with the results analyzed and major findings.
Student Retention:
Organizational Socialization
Organizational socialization is the process in which new employees move from being
outsiders at the organization to becoming insiders at the particular organization (Bauer &
Erdogan, 2011). In other words, this is the process when someone comes into an organization
and goes from being the “new guy” to being “part of the team.” Louis (1980) says that it is more
of a process in which a newcomer comes to understand the values, abilities, expected behaviors
and social knowledge for a particular organization. This process goes into more detail and
breaks down the fundamental components.
5
Organizational socialization focuses on actual socialization (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011).
This means that it is important for new employees to be socially integrated into the company and
feel part of the team. It is also crucial for the employee to feel attached in some form to the
organization (Louis, 1980). If an employee feels emotionally attached to their employer, it can
affect the employee’s attitudes, perceptions and outlook of the organization as a whole.
Organizational socialization can help with this process. Bauer & Erdogan (2011) argue there is a
three-phase process for organizational socialization.
Phase one. Phase one deals with new employee characteristics, new employee behaviors
and organizational efforts; phase two, the adjustment phase; and finally phase three, the
outcomes for the employee. New employee characteristics simply mean the personality of the
employee, the openness to new ideas and the role the employee played in other companies. This
gives an overall understand of how the employee is characterized. The next item is the new
employee behaviors. This is how the employee seeks new information, what feedback they give
and get when seeking information and how the employee goes about creating relationships. This
will show how the employee behaves normally and in this new situation. The next part of phase
one looks at the organization’s efforts to get the employee feeling comfortable. This will be the
company’s socialization tactics to integrate new employees, the orientations for new employees,
the recruitment process and the organizational insiders (mentors). That is, all of the previous
information is how the employee integrates the employee into the new organization.
Phase two. This phase begins with the adjustment of the employee into the new
organization (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011). The first part of this is role clarity within the
organization. It is important that the new employee knows his or her role within the
organization. The company needs to put clear guidelines for their new employees. The next step
6
is self-efficacy, or the employee’s confidence level with their job and/or work. It is essential that
the employee feels confident when doing the new job. The next part of the phase analyzes the
acceptance by organizational insiders. This looks at how the mentors and other employees look
at the new employee and how they fit into the organization. It is important for the old employees
to accept the new employee. The final part of this stage looks at the knowledge of the
organizational culture. Knowledge of the organizational culture moves beyond understanding
the job and job function, to understanding how other employees interact with each other, their
boss and their clients. This is a major point of becoming part of the new organization. An
employee must know how they should interact with people in the organization. This allows the
employee to feel more comfortable with the job and the job function, which helps keep the
employee long-term.
The final phase of organizational socialization according to Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan,
Truxillo, & Tucker (2007) is outcomes. Outcomes are concerned with overall satisfaction of the
organization from the standpoint of the new employee (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011). To feel
integrated into a new job and organization it is important that he or she is satisfied with the job,
the workload, the organization and the other employees. Outcomes are also concerned with the
overall commitment to the new organization. It is important to understand how the employee
feels committed with the new organization. The next step is the turnover rate for the
organization (Bauer, et al., 2007). If a company has a high turnover rate it can lead to the new
employee feeling unsettled and unsure about the new job. The last outcome of phase three is
performance (Bauer & Erdogan, 2011). A new employee must perform his or her job well in
order to succeed at a new organization. Organizational socialization has primarily been used to
7
research the integration of new employees in the workforce at a specific business (Hart, 2012;
Bauer & Erdogan, 2011; Taormina, 2009; Allen, 2006).
Student Retention. However, organizational socialization can also be used to look at
universities. The research can be applied to how the students are integrated into the university as
a whole while also connecting key components to student retention and attrition. This process
for organizational socialization is very similar to student retention outcomes and the processes
that occur for each student. Student retention outcomes are vast in their complexity and
programs. Some retention outcomes include, social integration (Tinto, 1995; Tinto, 1975),
institutional commitment (Tinto, 1974) and affective commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Meyer
& Allen, 1990). Student retention can be defined in various ways according to different
researchers, but ultimately, it is the process of a student continuing their education at their
university. Ultimately, this means that the student must feel integrated into the university,
emotionally attached to the university, must have commitment to the university and must be
satisfied with the university. All of these items are the components to organizational
socialization.
Tinto (1993) states that retention is the study that focuses over a wide time. That is,
retention is not a study that can be understood after a few weeks or even a few months.
Retention occurs over multiple semesters for each student. Many scholars put forth areas of
focus, but as mentioned before, there are three items of importance: social integration,
institutional commitment and affective commitment. Tinto’s idea of student retention is very
similar to organizational socialization, which can help when creating retention programs.
Social integration is the process of accepting a member among a group of people (Tinto,
1975). That is, social integration is the process to induct a member into a group of people. This
8
relates directly to what universities must do with students to get them feeling like “part of the
community.” Social integration analyzes the level of congruency between a student and the
social environment of the university (Jones, 2010). The analysis of social integration is looking
at the student’s social life on campus and how similar the student is to other students. Social
integration is important because it gives the student social rewards and support from peers and
faculty members (Tinto, 1975). This comes into play later in the study when talking about social
media.
Institutional commitment is the end result of the successful match between an
individual’s motivation and academic ability and the institutions’ academic and social
characteristics (Tinto, 1975). Institutional commitment will gauge how committed a student is to
a university, program or organization. Woosley and Miller (2009) state that institutional
commitment is important to students, but especially in their first year of college. A student
feeling committed to a university is essential in order for that student to continue attending the
university the next semester/year.
Affective commitment is the component that gauges the person’s emotional attachment
with an organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). That means that the affective commitment is how
emotionally attached someone is to a particular organization. This particular scale of study was
used primarily with organizational commitment. This is extremely similar to institutional
commitment. Meyer & Allen (1991) defined commitment as three things: an affective
attachment to an organization, a perceived cost in the organization, and finally as an obligation to
the organization. The first looks at the actual attachment to the organization as a whole. It looks
at the individual and measures how emotionally attached they are to the organization. The
second part looks at the perceived costs to the organization. This is looking at how the person
9
perceives the organization and their role within. For example, if someone attends a university
that has a relatively low cost to them financially, offers a lot of extracurricular activities, and
offers the exact degree a person wants, then it could be seen as not very costly to attend overall.
The individual would feel affectively committed if these were the three main things they were
looking at. Another example could be a person who works for a very demanding job, they must
work a lot of overtime hours, they do not get paid overly well, and they are not fond of their job
functions, they could see this as very costly to them. The third and final area of commitment is
an obligation to stay at the organization. This means that the individual feels they cannot leave
the organization for any reason. It could be because they cannot afford to leave or it could deal
with family issues. This relates directly when thinking about universities.
After looking at student retention and the key components, there is another aspect of
retention that must be looked at: attrition (Whannell, 2013). Student attrition occurs when a
student no longer attends the university for a consecutive semester. This can be referred as
“dropping out.” Tladi (2013) understands the importance of student attrition and believes there
is a need to do more research. Not only does research need to be conducted, but analyzed and
applied to help universities lower the attrition rates more efficiently and effectively.
Previous research has explored retention strategies (affective commitment, institutional
commitment, and social integration) to organizations and universities. They look specifically to
efforts on a campus, but this research explores the idea of social media. Social media plays a
major role in the lives of students. Each student will spend time on their mobile devices
checking various social media sites and talking with their friends. Student retention strategies
can profit from social media if done correctly.
10
As stated before, businesses use social media to cultivate a community in the digital
world. Businesses want to provide the most relevant information in the most effective outlet
possible and social media allows for this to occur. Erragcha & Romdhane (2014) state that there
are five basic pillars of social media: participation, openness, conversation, community and
interconnectedness. Participation is the interaction of the user with the organization, university
or business profile. Openness is the open-mindedness of the user to what the organization has on
the public profile. Conversation is the actual dialogue that takes place between the user(s) on the
social media site and the profile page. Community is simply the users and the page as a whole.
Finally, interconnection simply means establishing links and likeness between users. This will
help create the sense of community that the organization, business or university is wanting.
Various businesses and organizations track the success of social media in different ways.
Blowers (2012) recommends measuring Facebook impact and Twitter chatter. Facebook has a
built-in analytical tool that measures the number of users or ‘like’ the page, what time the users
on active, what post(s) received the most views and other useful information. This will help the
Facebook profile administrator to track the data and post according to the needs of their users.
Twitter does not have a built-in analytical tool; however, there are many outside resources to use
in order to get the most useful data. The different resources are very similar to the Facebook
tracking system.
Universities use social media across the world; however, they are not connecting it with
their student retention outcomes. Using social media, first, to predict the retention outcomes
would be extremely helpful to the retention campaigns and programs that take place on campus.
Social media is directly connected to the idea of social integration. Using social media can help
integrate new and old students at the university. It would help start a conversation and allow
11
students to feel part of the university in a social matter. Many schools are doing this, but they
are not intentionally making these connections. Social media can also help schools build
institutional commitment. If universities have a strong social media campaign for sports, clubs
and other programs on campus it helps to include the students in this process. If the students
‘like’ or ‘follow’ the different university-related social media profiles and interact with the
students then they will feel part of the university. Finally, if the university-related social media
profiles interact with the various students it can help build an affective commitment between the
university and the students.
Social media is a great tool that is not utilized to its fullest capabilities by universities
across the world. This paper helps explore the possibilities that await if a social media campaign
is clear and if retention outcomes are prevalent in the social media profiles. By the end of this
paper, one will be able to see how social media can predict different retention outcomes.
H: Students who attend the university and interact with university social media accounts
(Twitter, Facebook and Instagram specifically) will be: 1) socially integrated; 2) affectively
committed; 3) committed to the university; and 4) will be satisfied with the university.
RQ1: Is there a difference in university social media usage among different age groups?
RQ2: Is there a difference among the different colleges and how much university media
they use (Facebook, Twitter and Instagram)?
RQ3: Is there a difference among the colleges and the social integration, affective
commitment and institutional commitment for the university?
RQ4: Is there a difference in social integration, affective commitment and institutional
commitment in students who live on-campus and off-campus?
12
RQ5: Is there a difference in university social media usage among transfer and non-
transfer students.
13
Method
Sample
Participants all had to be at the same university. Participants were recruited through
email and social media (i.e., Facebook and Twitter) from a large Midwestern university. A link
to the survey was posted on social media, and others were asked to share the link on their own
social media. Professors from the various colleges at the university were contacted and asked to
distribute the link to the students who had a major in the college. In total, 146 participants
responded to the survey, but one was removed due to a survey issue leaving 145 participants who
were analyzed; 27.6% (n = 40) were male and 72.4% (n = 105) identified as female. The ages of
the participants range from 18 to 59 years old (N = 145, M = 23.97, SD = 7.97). Twenty-two
percent of the participants (n = 31) lived on campus and 78.6% of the participants (n = 114) lived
off campus. Transfer and non-transfer students were also a topic of importance to this particular
study; 24.8% of the participants (n = 36) were transfer students and 75.2% of the participants (n
= 109) were non-transfer students. Participants included 22 freshman (15.2%), 18 sophomores
(12.4%), 21 juniors (14.5%), 49 seniors (33.8%) and 35 graduate students (24.1%). Finally,
35.9% of the participants identified as first generation student (n = 52), 57.2% of the participants
identified as not a first generation student (n = 83) and 6.9% of the participants did not know if
they were a first generation student or not (n = 10).
Measures
An online survey was used to collect the data. There were two overarching sections of
the survey: social media and student retention. Social media usage, social media activity and
social media connection strategies were measured for Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
14
Social media usage. Social media usage was assessed using Ellison, Steinfield, &
Lampe’s (2007) six-item scale measuring frequency and duration. Participants responded based
on a Likert scale-from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample questions for
Facebook included “Facebook is part of my everyday activity” and “I feel I am part of the
Facebook community.” Cronbach’s alpha for Facebook usage was .88. Sample questions for
Twitter included “I am proud to tell people I am on Twitter” and “I feel out of touch when I
haven’t logged onto Twitter for a while.” Cronbach’s alpha for Twitter usage was .93. Sample
questions for Instagram included “Instagram has become part of my daily routine” and “I would
be sorry if Instagram shut down.” Cronbach’s alpha for Instagram usage was .89.
Social media activity. Social media activity was assessed using Ellison, Steinfield, &
Lampe’s (2007) five-item scale measuring the activity engaged on social media. Participants
responded based on a Likert scale-from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample
questions for Facebook included “I am friends with teachers at the university” and “I ‘like’
university Facebook profiles.” Cronbach’s alpha for Facebook activity was .68. Sample
questions for Twitter included “I follow my teachers at on Twitter” and “My teachers from the
university follow me on Twitter.” Cronbach’s alpha for Twitter activity was .68. Sample
questions for Instagram included “I follow university Instagram accounts” and “I interact with
university Instagram accounts.” Cronbach’s alpha for Instagram activity was .78.
Social media connection strategies. Social media connection strategies were assessed
using Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe’s (2007) eight-item scale measuring the emotional
connectedness to the site and its integration into the individual’s activities. Participants
responded based on a Likert scale-from 1 (strongly disagree) and 5 (strongly agree). Sample
questions for Facebook included “I use Facebook to meet new people at the university” and “If I
15
met someone at the university, I will contact them by using Facebook, or by using information
from Facebook.” Cronbach’s alpha for Facebook connection strategies was .83. Sample
questions for Twitter included “If I meet someone at the university, I will browse their profile on
Twitter” and “I use Twitter to learn more about people in my classes.” Cronbach’s alpha for
Twitter connection strategies was .92. Sample questions for Instagram included “I use Instagram
to learn more about people living near me” and “I use Instagram to meet new people at the
university.” Cronbach’s alpha for Instagram connection strategies was .90.
Social integration. Social integration was assessed using Davidson, Beck, and
Milligan’s (2009) eight-item scale measuring integration in social settings. Participants
responded based on a Likert scale-from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample
items included “I feel connected with other students, faculty, and staff on this campus” and “I
have things in common with other students here at the university.” Cronbach’s alpha for social
integration was .87.
Institutional commitment. Institutional commitment was assessed using Davidson,
Beck, and Milligan’s (2009) four-item scale measuring commitment to the university.
Participants responded based on a Likert scale-from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Sample items included “I will earn my degree from the university” and “I will re-enroll for the
next semester.” Cronbach’s alpha for institutional commitment was .70.
Affective commitment. Affective commitment was assessed using Meyer and Allen’s
(1990) six-item scale measuring emotional commitment to the university. Participants responded
based on a Likert scale-from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample items included
“I feel like ‘part’ of the university family” and “I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to the
university.” Cronbach’s alpha for affective commitment was .93.
16
Intentions to quit. Intentions to quit was assessed by Kane’s (2009) 5-point Likert scale.
Participants were asked to rate several questions from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Sample questions included “I am certain that I would like to stay at the university” and “Quitting
the university within the next two semesters is a possibility for me.” The cronebach’s alpha for
intentions to quit (IQ) was .83 with four items.
Perceived alternatives. Perceived alternatives were assessed using Kane’s (2009) three
item scale measuring alternatives that students believe they have. Participants responded based
on a Likert scale-from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Sample questions included “I
could realistically transfer to another university if I wanted to” and “I often think of other
universities that would be better for me than here.” One question removed because it was
affecting the reliability of this measure. After reviewing the question it did not fit logically in
this section. Cronbach’s alpha for perceived alternatives was .62.
Search behaviors. Search behaviors were assessed using Kane’s (2009) three-item scale
measuring the students’ search behaviors. Participants responded based on a Likert scale-form 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Some sample questions included “I have begun to look
for other universities to attend.” Cronbach’s alpha for search behaviors was .81.
Intentions to search. Intentions to search was assessed using Kane’s (2009) three-item
scale measuring the students’ intentions to search for another university. Participants responded
based on a Likert scale-from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Some sample questions
included “I will likely Google other universities to see what kind of programs they offer” and “I
may leave this campus because of circumstances outside of my control.” One question was
removed due to the validity of the reliability. Cronbach’s alpha for intentions to search was .80.
17
Satisfaction. Satisfaction was assessed using Kane’s (2009) eleven-item scale measuring
overall satisfaction with the university. Participants responded based on a Likert scale-from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Some sample questions include “I like being a college
student” and “I am satisfied being a student at this campus.” Cronbach’s alpha for satisfaction
was .85.
Procedures
IRB approval was gained before sending out the survey. The sample was recruited by
posting the survey to Facebook, Twitter, and sent via email. The survey asked students of the
university to each participant was required to read and virtually sign a consent form to participate
in study. Then they had to complete the survey, which took approximately 10 to 15 minutes,
which depended on their questions. Then the data was sent to a separate spreadsheet and put into
ISPSS to be analyzed.
Results
Social media usage and retention outcomes. The hypothesis predicted that interacting
with university social media on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram would predict if students feel
socially integrated. A multiple regression produced a significant model, F (3, 50) = 5.71, p <
.05, R2 = .26. Facebook (β = .31, t (50) = 2.39, p < .05) and Twitter (β = .33, t (50) = 2.10, p <
.05) served as positive predictors of social integration. This shows that university Facebook and
Twitter accounts are positive indicators of social integration, but Instagram is not. Participants
used Facebook and Twitter significantly more than Instagram for interacting with university
accounts.
A follow-up correlation was run to see the relationship of connection strategies and social
integration. There is a significant relationship among Facebook connection strategies and social
18
integration, r (126) = .57, p < .05. There was also a significant relationship between Instagram
connection strategies and social integration, r (71) = .24, p < .05. This shows that Facebook is a
good indicator at the university for social integration.
The hypothesis also predicted that interacting with University social media on Facebook,
Twitter and Instagram would predict if students feel commitment to the institution or university.
A multiple regression produced an insignificant model, F (3, 50) = 1.32, p > .05, R2 = .07. This
shows that university Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts are not indicators of
institutional commitment.
A follow-up correlation was run to see the relationship of connection strategies and
institutional commitment. There is a significant relationship among Facebook connection
strategies and institutional commitment, r (126) = .19, p < .05. There was no significant
relationship between Instagram and Twitter connection strategies and institutional commitment.
This shows, again, that Facebook is being used as a way to commit students to the university.
The hypothesis also predicted that interacting with university social media on Facebook,
Twitter and Instagram would predict if students would feel affectively committed to the
university. A multiple regression produced a significant model, F (3, 51) = 4.71, p < .05, R2 =
.22. The combination of Facebook, Twitter and Instagram is predicting affective commitment,
but there is no one media outlet that is predicting. This shows that media usage is predicting
affective commitment with students who use social media.
A follow-up correlation was run to see the relationship of connection strategies and
affective commitment. There is a significant relationship among Facebook connection strategies
and affective commitment, r (128) = .41, p < .05. There is no significant correlation between
19
Twitter and Instagram connection strategies and affective commitment. This shows that
Facebook is used primarily in affectively committing students to the university.
The hypothesis also predicted that interacting with university social media on Facebook,
Twitter and Instagram would predict if students feel satisfaction with the university. A multiple
regression produced a significant model, F (3, 50) = 6.47, p < .05, R2 = .28. The combination of
Facebook, Twitter and Instagram is predicting overall satisfaction of the university, but no one
media outlet is predicting alone. This shows that the social media at the university is predicting
the satisfaction with the university.
A follow-up correlation was run to see the relationship of connection strategies and
satisfaction with the university. There is a significant relationship among Facebook connection
strategies and satisfaction, r (127) = .38, p < .05. There was no significant correlation between
Twitter and Instagram and satisfaction with the university. This shows that Facebook is being
used as a predictor to University satisfaction.
Social media and retention outcome relationships. The first research question was
looking at the correlation between social media usage and age groups. There is a significant
correlation between age of the students and the university Facebook media usage, r (135) = -.25,
p < .05. This means that the older a student is the less likely they will engage in university
Facebook social media. Instagram and Twitter did not show a significant relationship.
The second research question was look at the relationship of the different colleges at the
university and how much university social media they use. There is not a significant difference
between the amount of social media being used and the various colleges on campus. This shows
that there is not a college or department specific social media profile that is doing a better job
than others.
20
The third research question was looking at the relationship among the colleges at the
university and the social integration, affective commitment and institutional commitment. There
was no significant correlation among colleges and the social integration, affective commitment
and institutional commitment. Students across the colleges feel socially integrated, affectively
committed and institutionally committed equally.
The fourth research question was looking at the relationship among social integration,
affective commitment and institutional commitment in students who live on-campus and off-
campus. There was no significant correlation between the two. This shows that living off-
campus does not affect the students’ social integration, affective commitment and institutional
commitment.
The fifth and final research question was looking at the relationship between social
integration, affective commitment and institutional commitment and transfer and non-transfer
students. There was a significant correlation between transfer and non-transfer students and
social integration. Non-transfer students (N = 100, M = 3.91, SD = .65) feel significantly more
socially integrated than transfer students (N = 35, M = 3.60, SD = .73), t (133) = -2.41, p < .05,
there is no significant relationship between transfer and non-transfer students and institutional
commitment, affective commitment and satisfaction with the university.
There is no significant relationship among university social media activity and social
integration. There is a significant relationship between Facebook and social integration, r (95) =
.54, p < .05. There is also a significant relationship between Twitter and social integration r (50)
= .40, p < .05. There is not a significant relationship between Instagram and social integration.
This means that Facebook and Twitter are used more among non-transfer students than
Instagram.
21
Because of this correlation, it brought about the question of transfer and non-transfer
university social media usage. Non-transfer students use university Twitter accounts
significantly more than transfer students, t (72) = -2.04, p < .05. This means that students who
attend the university since the beginning (non-transfer) use more university related social media
accounts than the students who transferred from another university.
Discussion
The hypothesis generally stated that students who attend the university and interact with
university social media accounts (Twitter, Facebook and Instagram) will be: 1) socially
integrated; 2) affectively commitment; 3) committed to the university; and 4) will be satisfied
with the university as a whole. There are four major parts to this question: social integration,
affective commitment, institutional commitment, and satisfaction. The first portion of the results
looks at social integration. Facebook and Twitter served as positive predictors of social
integration; however, Instagram is not a positive indicator. If one were to look individually at the
three different social media sites and their respective university accounts (frequency, strength,
quality and quantity) Facebook is much more prevalent than Instagram and even Twitter. There
are not many university accounts on Instagram that deal specifically with students. This is a
direct correlation with the data that showed up in the survey. One can also argue the relative
purposes behind each social media outlet: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. What are the
purposes behind using the different accounts? This would show some different data and may
explain this part a little better. The correlation showed that students are using Facebook
primarily in connection strategies. These include meeting new people, looking up students from
campus and finding information about a classmate. This is exactly what social integration is all
about, making connections with students and faculty members at the university.
22
The next part of the hypothesis analyzes the idea of institutional commitment. The
results on this identifier were not at all exactly as planned. There was not a significant predictor
for institutional commitment. The first question looked at earning a degree from the university
the second question looked at the confidence that the university was the right school for the
participant, the third question look at re-enrolling for the next semester and the final question
looked about transferring to another university, work, or leaving for a different reason. The
questions definitely fit with institutional commitment, but they may not fit as well with the idea
behind social media. This, again, did not show the results that were expected. The correlation
showed a relationship with Facebook connection strategies and institutional commitment, which
fits in with the first part of the hypothesis well.
The third part of the hypothesis looked at affective commitment among students at the
university. There was a significant model with affective commitment and social media at the
university. This definitely is something that was expected when conducting the research and
after analyzing social integration. The questions are very similar and ask some of the same
ideas; therefore, it would seem that this is true. This shows that a university with a social media
campaign can use Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to predict affective commitment among their
students. The correlation between the connection strategies and affective commitment is
definitely similar to that of the other two parts of student retention. Facebook is again being used
primarily as an indicator to what students feel.
The fourth part of the hypothesis looked at the students’ overall satisfaction with the
university. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram were significant predictors of satisfaction with
university students. There were not any independent predictors with satisfaction, which relates
with affective commitment nicely. Therefore, no one social media outlet is working better than
23
others to predict satisfaction, but all three together. The correlation with connection strategies
and satisfaction is very similar to what was expected after the other three counterparts of student
retention. Again, this goes back to the idea of what is being used on Facebook versus other
social media sites.
The first research question was looking at the relationship between age groups and
university-related social media sites. There was a significant correlation between the two; the
older a student is the less likely they will engage with university Facebook accounts. Instagram
and Twitter did not show a significant relationship. This question made perfect sense upon
analyzing the results. First, if one were to look who is primarily using social media it is the
younger generations. Older adults use social media primarily to connect with family members
and friends. Students are constantly engaging in social media strategies and activities. Twitter
and Instagram are also used mostly by younger generations; although, older adults do use the two
social media platforms.
The second research question was looking at the relationship between the colleges at the
university and how much social media is being used. There was no signification relationship
between the two in this survey. This just concludes that each college does not have a better
social media campaign or that students follow university-specific accounts rather than college-
specific accounts. Students may identify with the university more than a specific college; further
research could be done to test out this idea.
The third research question was looking at the relationship between colleges at the
university and student retention factors: social integration, institutional commitment and
affective commitment. There was no significant relationship between the two different variables.
This can be a few different things overall. First, it could be similar to RQ2 where students
24
identify with the university over a specific college. Second, it could be that each college on
campus is doing an effective job with student retention strategies. There could be another
explanation as well.
The fourth research question was looking at the relationship among the retention
strategies and students who live on-campus and off-campus. There was no significant
relationship between students who lived on-campus versus those who lived off-campus. This
shows that the living off-campus or on-campus does not affect retention strategies in a significant
amount.
The fifth research question was looking at the relationship between transfer and non-
transfer students and university social media usage. There was significant relationship between
university social media activity and transfer and non-transfer students. Non-transfer students
feel significantly more socially integrated than transfer students. There was no significant
relationship between transfer and non-transfer students and affective commitment, institutional
commitment and satisfaction. This can mean a variety of things for the university. The transfer
students may have been relatively new to the university and have not had time to feel acclimated
to the university. It could also mean that the university is doing a poor job with retention
strategies among transfer students.
The next area of study was looking at the relationship between university-related social
media activity and social integration. There is a significant relationship between Facebook and
Twitter and social integration than transfer students. This means that non-transfer students use
Facebook and Twitter more to interact with university social media accounts. After looking at
the relationship between transfer and non-transfer students and social integration, university
social media usage was analyzed next. There was a signification relationship between transfer
25
and non-transfer students and university social media accounts. Non-transfer students engage in
more university Twitter activity than transfer students. This implies that the university should
push Facebook and Twitter more with transfer students. This would allow transfer students to
feel more socially integrated with the university and could have major implications in the future.
If social media is a good indicator and predictor for student retention strategies, then
universities can start using a more proactive approach with their social media. This would allow
the university to raise their retention rates and use less money funding other areas of retention
studies. Social media can greatly influence the world at large; therefore, using it as an
implement for student retention is a good idea.
Limitations
There were a few limitations within this study that would warrant future changes. The
first limitation is the number of participants. There was a wide representation from the student
body as a whole; however, the participants were not evenly distributed across the colleges. The
survey was sent to each college, but not every department within the college would send the
form out. This does not allow for the greatest amount of diversity within the results. The next
limitation within the study was the survey length. Many students commented on the length of
the survey. Although every item within the survey was essential to conducting a study on
retention intentions, there could have been a few changes that would have helped the length. The
first change would be the questions in general. There were some questions that were very similar
and could have been combined into one question rather than using two separate questions.
Future Research
There are a few different areas that could be looked at for future research. Future
research in this area of study needs to analyze attrition intentions more directly. The researcher
26
could survey students who have left the university to gauge the attrition intentions. Not only
could the researcher look at the student retention/attrition intentions, but the social media usage
of each student who left the university. This would allow a better understanding of university-
related social media and the social media platform overall. It could also help the university
understand and improve the social media campaign to help retain future students. It would also
allow for a social media campaign to be launched more effectively and efficiently. This would
allow the researcher to look at data from students who did transfer from the university. It would
have given valuable data to the attrition intentions.
Future research also needs to look directly at the university-related social media accounts
and their activity. For example, there should be a system that could measure the media richness
of the particular social media profile. This would include the frequency of the posts, the quality
of the posts, the quantity of the post, and the overall effectiveness of the post. This would also
allow each social media profile to gauge their overall influence on each retention strategies.
There are many studies that look at the effectiveness of a social media campaign at an
organizational level and it could be easily transferable for universities.
Overall, the results from this study are substantial when looking at student retention. If a
university can begin using some of the strategies for retention in their social media, then they
will be able to retain students in another manner. There is evidence that social media can predict
the various retention strategies that universities put into place; therefore, a university could focus
more time and effort into their social media campaigns. This would allow the university to get
results and gauge how effective they are.
27
References
Allen, D. G. (2006). Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness
and turnover? Journal of Management, 32(2), 237-256. doi: 10.1177/0149206305280103
Allen, N. J., & John P., M. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization. Journal Of Occupational
Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2011). Organizational socialization: The effective onboarding of
new employees. In S. Zedeck (Ed.) , APA handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology, Vol 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 51-
64). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12171-002
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer
adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents,
outcomes, and methods. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707-721.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.707
Blowers, H. (2012). Measuring social media and the greater digital landscape. The Digital
Strategist.
Davidson, W. B., Beck, H. P., & Milligan, M. (2009). The college persistence questionnaire:
Development and validation of an instrument that predicts student attrition. Journal Of
College Student Development, 50(4), 373-390.
Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2011). Connection strategies: Social capital
implications of Facebook-enabled communication practices. New Media & Society. doi:
10.1177/146144810385389
28
Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends.” Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.
Erragcha, N., & Romdhane, R. (2014). Social Networks as Marketing Tools. Journal Of Internet
Banking & Commerce, 19(1), 1-12.
Hart, Z. P. (2012). Message content and sources during organizational socialization. Journal of
Business Communication, 49(3), 191-209. doi: 10.1177/0021943612446731
Jones, W. A. (2010). The Impact of social integration on subsequent institutional commitment
conditional on gender. Research In Higher Education, 51(7), 687-700.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering
unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(2), 226-251.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61.
Taormina, R. J. (2009). Organizational socialization: The missing link between employee needs
and organizational culture. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 24(7), 650-676. doi:
10.1108/02683940910989039
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the cause and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
Chicago: Chicago University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretic synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1170024
Tladi, L. S. (2013). Factors affecting examination attrition: Does academic support help? Open
Learning, 28(1), 67-82. doi: 10.1080/02680513.2013.782812
29
Whannell, R. (2013). Predictors of Attrition and Achievement in a Tertiary Bridging
Program. Australian Journal Of Adult Learning, 53(2), 280-301.
Woosley, S.A., & Miller, A.L. (2009). Integration and institutional commitment as predictors of
college student transition: Are third week indicators significant? College Student
Journal, 43(4), 1260-1271.
