This article was downloaded by: [Mount St Vincent University]On: 05 October 2014, At: 05:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

Being learner centred: one way toimprove student retention?Nick Zepke a , Linda Leach a & Tom Prebble aa Massey University , New ZealandPublished online: 24 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Nick Zepke , Linda Leach & Tom Prebble (2006) Being learner centred:one way to improve student retention?, Studies in Higher Education, 31:5, 587-600, DOI:10.1080/03075070600923418

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070600923418

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Studies in Higher EducationVol. 31, No. 5, October 2006, pp. 587–600

ISSN 0307-5079 (print)/ISSN 1470-174X (online)/06/050587–14© 2006 Society for Research into Higher EducationDOI: 10.1080/03075070600923418

Being learner centred: one way to improve student retention?Nick Zepke*, Linda Leach and Tom PrebbleMassey University, New ZealandTaylor and Francis LtdCSHE_A_192258.sgm10.1080/03075070600923418Studies in Higher Education0307-5079 (print)/1470-174X (online)Original Article2006Society for Research into Higher Education315000000October 2006NickZepkeN.Zepke@massey.ac.nz

The research literature on how to retain students until they graduate in post-compulsory educationis voluminous and long-standing. However, a unified theory of retention remains elusive. Instead avariety of explanations and approaches has been developed. This article uses one theoreticalconstruct to make sense of the findings of a survey of students enrolling for a second time in sevenpost-compulsory institutions in New Zealand. The theoretical construct is based on an adaptationdiscourse that puts the interests of diverse students at the centre of teaching and institutionalprocesses. The results of the survey suggest that in New Zealand retention rates are similar to thosereported in other studies, that there is support for the learner focus promoted in the adaptationdiscourse, and that being learner centred could assist retention.

Introduction

Reasons for early student withdrawal have been well researched, in the United Statesover many years, and more recently in Australia and the United Kingdom. In NewZealand, the Government is taking great interest in how well institutions retainstudents. Recent policy documents (Ministry of Education, 2002) signal increasingaccountability for ensuring that students who enrol in programmes are retained untilcompletion. A financial penalty for not retaining a pre-specified percentage ofenrolled students is envisaged. This has stimulated a flurry of research activitydesigned to find solutions to the early departure puzzle. In general, studies suggestinstitutional policies need to create environments that help integrate and assimilatestudents into the existing culture of the institution by being welcoming and offeringsupport in a variety of ways (Leys, 1999; Grote, 2000; Wilson, 2002; Kozel, 2002;Dewart, 2003; Fraser, 2004).

While appealing, an integration discourse seems one-dimensional. It overempha-sises institutions’ ability to optimise student retention and success. As McInnis

*Corresponding author. College of Education, Massey University, Wellington Campus, PrivateBox 756, Wellington New Zealand. Email: n.zepke@massey.ac.nz

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

588 N. Zepke et al.

(2001) points out, many students only have intermittent contact with their institu-tion, as work and other aspects of their lives take precedence. They want institutionsto provide them a service, not to define their lives. For many, non-institutionalfactors, like employment requirements, poor health and family commitments, are themain reasons for early departure (Zepke et al., 2004). Others, those from lower socio-economic backgrounds or holders of different cultural capital, for example, find itdifficult to integrate into the prevailing institutional culture (Walker, 2000; Bennett& Flett, 2001). Others again, achieve their objectives, a job for example, before theygraduate. For them early departure signals success, not failure. Factors such as thesesuggest that institutional integration is not the only way to explain early studentwithdrawal.

This article explores another perspective on how institutions may address earlystudent departure. It draws on what Zepke and Leach (2005) call an adaptationdiscourse, in which institutions accept and recognize diverse learners’ goals andcultural capital, and adapt their mores and practices to accommodate these in alearner-centred way. The article first summarizes the literature on retention generallyand this adaptation discourse more specifically. It then describes a survey of 681students who, having enrolled for a first time in 2003, returned to study for a secondyear in seven tertiary institutions in New Zealand during 2004. The article thenanalyses and discusses survey results that suggest that learner-centred cultures mayassist in addressing early student departure.

Integration and adaptation—two complementary discourses

The student outcomes literature is large. Major syntheses have been published overseveral decades, primarily in the USA (Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1993; Pascarella & Teren-zini, 1991, 2004; Astin, 1993, 1997), but also in Australia (McInnis et al., 2000a).Yet, as Yorke and Longden (2004) observe, no unified grand theory has emerged.Instead they perceive the emergence of a complex set of theoretical constructs. Theirshape depends on researchers’ predisposition to disciplines such as sociology,psychology and economics.

Our own reading of the literature supports the view that theoretical approaches toearly departure are diverse and eclectic. To make some sense of a confusing picture,we have identified two distinct, yet overlapping and complementary, explanatorydiscourses. In one, institutions seek to integrate learners into existing institutional andpedagogic norms, values and practices. In the other, they attempt to recognize, valueand accept learners’ diverse cultural capital by adapting their processes to meetdiverse learner needs.

Tinto’s longitudinal interactionist model of student departure is probably the pre-eminent example of the integrationist discourse. It has achieved dominance inretention theorizing, called almost hegemonic by Braxton (2000). Tinto (1993)suggests that students who enrol in tertiary study leave their culture of origin andenter a different, an academic, culture. Students who leave early may not havesucceeded in integrating into this new culture. Institutions, therefore, must act to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Being learner centred 589

facilitate the transition by helping students to integrate and thereby optimize theirretention and success. Tinto’s 1993 model of student departure has six progressivephases. Two focus on students’ social and academic integration into their institution.Much student retention research is based on these phases. Studies informing oursurvey tested various Tinto constructs (Cabrera et al., 1992; Braxton et al., 1995;Padilla et al., 1997; Braxton & Lien, 2000). Although many aspects have been vali-dated by empirical research, results have been uneven. Braxton and Lien (2000), forexample, tested Tinto’s academic integration construct and found quite differentlevels of support for it in multi-institutional and single institution studies.

Tinto’s theory and models are not without critics. These fall into two broadgroups—those who wish to revise and improve Tinto’s theories (Cabrera et al., 1992;Braxton & Hirschy, 2004) and those who propose new theoretical directions (Berger,2001-2002; Kuh & Love, 2000; Rendon et al., 2000; Tierney, 2000). Those revisingTinto’s model retain his integrative intent, resulting in an assimilation process, fittingthe student into the institution. Those developing new theoretical directions modifythis to include adaptation, where institutions change to accommodate diversestudents. In this emerging discourse, student departure is influenced by their percep-tions of how well their cultural attributes are valued and accommodated, and howdifferences between their cultures of origin and immersion are bridged (Cabrera et al.,1999; Walker, 2000; Berger, 2001–2002; Thomas, 2002).

The adaptation discourse owes much to Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction(Bourdieu, 1973). Bourdieu used the idea of ‘cultural capital’ to help explain socialinequalities. Cultural capital, comprising the norms, values and practices of a society,is like economic capital, a resource that can be used. Those having ready access to thevarious sources of capital, including cultural capital, comprise the dominant class ina society. This class has the power to determine norms and practices, including theknowledge to be valued and taught. The collection of accepted norms and practicesis habitus, which is reproduced in educational institutions. Students, who by virtue oftheir ethnicity, age, gender and/or socio-economic status, for example, do not sharein the prevailing habitus, find themselves in unfamiliar and possibly alienating situa-tions. From this Berger (2000) theorizes that such students may not succeed in insti-tutions where their cultural capital is neither recognized nor valued, and leave early.Yorke and Longden (2004, p. 81) agree that ‘the level of cultural capital is associatedwith retention and success.’ We agree also, but with Berger (2000), believe that thereis, as yet, less empirical evidence supporting this discourse than supports the assimi-lative view.

In a research synthesis of 146 studies, Zepke and Leach (2005) reported 13 prop-ositions to summarize their findings. Each proposition took the form of an actionstatement designed to assist teachers and administrators in institutions to improveretention. Ten of these propositions reflect the integration discourse. Three haveaffinities with the adaptation discourse. These are:

● 11 There is an absence of discrimination on campus, so students feel valued, fairlytreated and safe. Seventeen of the synthesized studies directly or indirectly linked

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

590 N. Zepke et al.

discrimination to student retention. Discrimination is often disguised. It canresult in ‘social isolation’, ‘alienation’, ‘difficulty making friends’ and ‘feelinghomesick’. In short, it produced a feeling in students that they do not belong.

● 12 Institutional processes cater for a diversity of learning preferences. Fifteen studiessupported this proposition. Students expect institutions to fit their lives, to be flex-ible in course requirements and administration. They expect quality teaching thataccommodates multifaceted learning preferences and institutional staff to besupportive of diverse learners.

● 13 The institutional culture, social and academic, welcomes diverse cultural capital andadapts to diverse students’ needs. Nineteen of the 146 research studies found thatstudents’ decision to stay or leave early was influenced by the way they experiencedinstitutional culture. Institutional culture is experienced at several levels—social,academic and organizational. It assists or impedes feelings of belonging and producesfriendly or alienating learning and administrative environments. Institutional culturecan make learners feel like fish in water or fish out of water (Thomas, 2002).

This article now describes how these propositions informed a Teaching and LearningResearch Initiative (TLRI) funded study. The TLRI aims to advance learning, teach-ing and research capacity in New Zealand. The proposal was named ImprovingTertiary Student Outcomes in their First Year of Study. Its research question asked ‘Whatcan New Zealand Tertiary Education Institutions and their teachers do to adapt theircurrent processes and practices to improve retention, persistence and completion ofdiverse students in their first year?’

Profiling the TLRI project

A 360-degree view of retention

The TLRI project used a 360-degree research design, investigating multiple perspec-tives of key institutional stakeholders on the retention question. The perspectivesresearched were those of administrators, teachers and students using questionnaires,interviews and focus groups. This article discusses the perspectives of students asreported in a questionnaire.

Deciding on a sampling design

Two considerations influenced our choice of sampling design. The first was raised inthe literature. Braxton and Lien (2000) showed that empirical support for academicintegration as a major factor in retention varied in strength for multi-institutional andsingle-institutional studies. The importance of academic integration was wellsupported in multi-institution studies, but less well in single-institution studies. Thisraised the question of whether we wanted to draw a national sample comprisingmultiple institutions, or work with a number of single institution case studies. McInniset al. (2000b), although reporting results from multi-institutional studies themselves,recommended that researchers also undertake single-institution case studies. Such

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Being learner centred 591

investigations would bring out single-institutional factors that multi-institutionalstudies might not identify.

The second consideration persuaded us in favour of a multiple case studyapproach. A requirement of TLRI is that funded projects improve learning, teachingand help build research capacity. We felt that generalized results across manyinstitutions had less impact on individual institutions and would enable ‘avoidance’behaviours. Case study data that spoke directly to teaching and learning in specificinstitutions would, on the other hand, have more impact on practice. Moreover,TLRI protocols require that project holders collaborate with teachers who are bothpractitioners and researchers. Case study data for individual institutions wouldprovide the opportunity for such researcher-practitioners to write papers based ontheir own case studies. However, the decision to go with multiple case studies is notcost-free. It means we cannot generalize our findings.

The decision to use a multiple institution case study approach led to a number ofconsequential decisions. We wanted institutions that had already conducted someinstitutional retention research and, therefore, had researchers available with anunderstanding of the subject. We also sought a good geographic spread, a variety ofprogramme levels, different sized institutions, at least one offering some distancedelivery, at least one with a rural hinterland, at least one with a significant Maori(indigenous people of New Zealand) and Pasifika (People of Pacific Island descent)presence. We selected seven that together matched our inclusion criteria. Admittedly,final selection also depended on a willing partner being available. Table 1 shows howour selection criteria were distributed across the institutions.

Administering the student survey

The survey instrument was distributed in 2004 by partner researcher-practitionerswithin their institutions to groups of students returning to study after one enrolment

Table 1. Profiles of the seven participating institutions

Institution

Profile A B C D E F G

Degree programme • • • •Sub-degree programme • • • •Large institution • • •Medium institution • •Small institution • •Mixed delivery • •Face-to-face delivery • • • • •Rural hinterland • •Maori presence • •Pasifika presence •

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

592 N. Zepke et al.

period in 2003 and according to a specific profile. For example, in Institution D,questionnaires were distributed to sub-degree classes from a rural background withstrong Maori representation learning in a face-to-face mode. We wanted the views ofstudents who considered withdrawal, withdrew and never thought of withdrawing fromall or some of their study in 2003. Depending on their answer they were asked tocomplete one of two different subscales, one containing 22 Likert-type items, the other11. Students rated each statement on a scale of 1 (not a factor) to 4 (a major factor)in their thinking and decisions about withdrawal. Students who had thought about with-drawing from all or part of their studies, and actually did withdraw from at least partof their studies, filled in the first subscale, as did students who had thought of with-drawing but did not. Students who never thought of withdrawing filled in the second.Students were invited to expand on their Likert-scale responses with comments.

A total of 681 students completed the questionnaire—40 were from Institution A,84 from Institution B, 135 from Institution C, 57 from Institution D, 103 fromInstitution E, 106 from Institution F and 156 from Institution G. The response rateswere highly variable: 24% from Institution A; 28% from Institution B; 27% from Insti-tution C; 100% from Institution D; 42% from Institution E; 77% from Institution Fand 22% from Institution G. Even though the number of surveys received from someinstitutions was smaller than expected, we decided that a return rate in the 20-30%range was acceptable and we did not send out a second survey in these institutions.

What the students told us

We now provide an overview of withdrawal rates in each case study institution. Thisis to indicate the extent of attrition in our New Zealand sample and how thiscompares with data from, in particular, Australian studies. We then present data thatilluminate Zepke and Leach’s (2005) propositions 11, 12 and 13.

The data in Table 2 confirm that many students think about withdrawing fromtheir studies and that quite a high proportion actually withdrew in some institutions.

Table 2. Withdrawal in each institution

Institution

A B C D E F G Total

Number who considered full withdrawal

1128%

1417%

1713%

1119%

3433%

1716%

2415%

12819%

Number who considered partial withdrawal

1128%

1619%

4735%

1425%

3938%

6158%

3623%

22433%

Number who actually withdrew 00%

67%

2116%

00%

99%

3129%

1610%

8312%

Total number of participants 40 84 135 57 103 106 156 681

Note: numbers will not add to the totals in each institution because some students considered both full and partial withdrawal and the number of students who did not consider withdrawal is not included here.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Being learner centred 593

Across the seven case studies 12% of students actually withdrew, 19% considered fullwithdrawal and 33% considered withdrawal from some but not all of their courses—partial withdrawal. Individual institutional data show that as many as 29% of studentsactually withdrew in Institution F while none withdrew in Institutions A and D,although 28% and 25% considered partial withdrawal. Partial withdrawal wasconsidered by only 19% of students in Institution B and by 58% in Institution F. Thisconfirms international studies and concerns about ‘wastage’ of human and govern-ment resources (Yorke, 1999; McInnis et al., 2000a). While the large variations ininstitutional results must be viewed cautiously and require their separate analysis, thefact that there were such marked differences goes some way to validate our multiplecase study approach.

We now examine student responses to key ideas in propositions 11–13: there isan absence of discrimination on campus, so students feel valued, fairly treated and safe;institutional processes cater for diversity of learning preferences; and the institutionalculture, social and academic, welcomes diverse cultural capital and adapts to diversestudents’ needs. It should be noted that questionnaire items did not directly corre-spond to these propositions and that this limits the strength of our conclusions.However, we were reluctant to restrict our questionnaire items to the propositions,did not want to shoehorn students into a preconceived framework, or to put poten-tial respondents off by overwhelming them with too many questions. Instead weclustered items to act as surrogates for the three propositions.

The statement ‘I felt like I didn’t belong’ potentially captures many aspects of beinga ‘fish out of water’ (Thomas, 2002, p. 431) in an alien institution. ‘Teaching quality’is an umbrella term to capture the many ways teachers influence student retention.Among the characteristics identified in research are ones mapping directly onto prop-ositions 11–13. For example, good teachers recognize the importance of context, andcan adapt their teaching to the requirements of different groups of students and differ-ent teaching situations (Ramsden et al., 1995), respect diverse talents and ways oflearning (Chickering & Gamson, 1987), and show explicit concern and support forlearners’ development (University of Melbourne, 2002). In short, they are learnercentred by, for example, being inclusive, ensuring students feel valued, fairly treatedand safe, and welcoming their diverse cultural capital. Among Ellington’s (2000)seven golden rules is find out how your students learn. This maps onto our survey item‘Course did not suit the way I learn’, which may indicate the degree to which somelearning preferences, for example, cultural ways of knowing and flexible pedagogy,have been catered for. ‘Problems with institution’s admin systems’ was intended tocapture data on how well organizational processes worked for students.

The following tables present the data on the cluster of surrogate questions address-ing the three adaptation propositions. Table 3 presents data from students who hadconsidered withdrawing fully from their studies, Table 4 from those who consideredpartial withdrawal, and Table 5 from those who had actually withdrawn from all orpart of their studies in 2003. Each table shows the percentages of students in eachinstitution who rated the surrogate statements as an important or a major reason forconsidering withdrawal—that is they rated it as 3 or 4 on the questionnaire scale.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

594 N. Zepke et al.

Analysis of the data in the three tables reveals that many responses are consistentacross the three groups of students. ‘Course did not suit the way I learn’ drew thehighest ratings from all three groups, with about a quarter of participants rating it akey reason for considering withdrawal or actually withdrawing. Similarly, about a fifthof all the students rated both ‘teaching quality’ and ‘I felt like I didn’t belong’ asimportant factors. Only a small proportion experienced problems with their adminis-tration systems.

However the totals conceal some noteworthy differences between institutionalresponses and, in some instances, between the different groups of students within aninstitution. For this reason the data bear further analysis. No respondents from Insti-tution A had any problems with their courses or with institutional administration.Fewer than 10% felt they didn’t belong. ‘Teaching quality’ was a factor for 18% ofthose considering full withdrawal. Overall, Institution A seems to be adapting to itsstudents or, conversely, selects students that fit well into its institutional culture andfor whom little adaptation is needed. Institution B also seems to be adapting well.While ‘teaching quality’ and ‘belonging’ were factors for about a fifth of studentsconsidering withdrawal, most other factors were not a retention issue for respondents.

Institution F presents a very different picture. Here about a third of the studentsconsistently rated ‘I felt like I didn’t belong’, ‘teaching quality’ and ‘course did notsuit the way I learn’ as major factors. Institution G shows some variation betweenstudent groups. There are issues with ‘courses’ for almost half of those who considered

Table 3. Students who considered full withdrawal

Institution

A B C D E F G Total

Teaching quality 18% 22% 0% 9% 15% 35% 29% 18%Course did not suit the way I learn 0% 7% 24% 0% 21% 29% 46% 24%I felt like I didn’t belong 9% 22% 24% 9% 12% 41% 25% 20%Problems with institution’s admin systems

0% 0% 6% 18% 9% 0% 8% 7%

Total number of students 11 14 17 11 34 17 24 126

Table 4. Students who considered partial withdrawal

Institution

A B C D E F G Total

Teaching quality 9% 19% 9% 21% 18% 33% 17% 20%Course did not suit the way I learn 0% 0% 19% 7% 21% 31% 36% 24%I felt like I didn’t belong 9% 19% 11% 7% 10% 30% 19% 17%Problems with institution’s admin systems 0% 0% 2% 14% 5% 5% 11% 6%Total number of students 11 16 47 14 39 61 36 208

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Being learner centred 595

full withdrawal or actually withdrew and for a third of those considering partialwithdrawal. ‘Belonging’ is an issue for a fifth of them, but responses vary between thegroups on ‘teaching quality’. While 29% of those considering full withdrawal rated‘teaching quality’ a major issue, this falls to 17% for those considering partial with-drawal, and was a factor for only 6% of those who actually withdrew. Institution Dhas a unique issue to address. It was the only institution where students consideringfull or partial withdrawal rated ‘problems with institution’s administration systems’ amajor factor, while none of the students who actually withdrew said administrationsystems were a factor for them.

As a way of checking on these results, we looked at the responses of students whohad never considered withdrawal. To do so we clustered five questionnaire items toact as surrogates for the three adaptation propositions. Table 6 summarizesresponses.

More than half of the sample felt they belonged and thought everyone in the insti-tution was helpful, and over one-third knew how the system worked. Half felt animportant or major reason for never thinking of withdrawing was that teacherssupported them when needed, but less than a third thought that people were flexibleenough to accommodate them.

At first sight, the data in Table 6 suggest relative satisfaction with these aspects ofthe students’ experience. When considered alongside the responses to all 11 statements

Table 5. Students who withdrew from all or part of their course

Institution

A B C D E F G Total

Teaching quality 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 35% 6% 17%Course did not suit the way I learn 0% 0% 10% 0% 33% 29% 44% 27%I felt like I didn’t belong 0% 5% 5% 0% 11% 29% 19% 18%Problems with institution’s admin systems 0% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 6% 3%Total number of students 0 6 21 0 9 31 16 77

Table 6. Students who kept studying without ever considering withdrawal or withdrawing

Institution

A B C D E F G Total

My teachers supported me when I needed help with my learning

65% 76% 30% 51% 68% 28% 61% 50%

People were flexible about course requirements 42% 59% 15% 27% 41% 13% 35% 28%I felt I belonged 69% 79% 42% 49% 59% 43% 65% 55%I knew how the system worked 46% 63% 28% 46% 41% 30% 35% 36%Everyone at the institution was really helpful 65% 73% 42% 46% 63% 33% 57% 51%Total number of students 26 48 86 41 56 40 112 409

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

596 N. Zepke et al.

in the questionnaire these five items were ranked in the bottom half of the reasons fornot considering withdrawal. ‘I felt I belonged’ ranked sixth, ‘everyone was helpful’seventh, ‘my teachers supported me’ eighth, ‘knowledge of the system’ ninth, and‘people were flexible’ tenth. Clearly, for students who had never consideredwithdrawal, adaptation issues were less important.

Again, though, the aggregated data conceal institutional differences. More respon-dents in Institution B reported positive responses to all these five statements than inany of the other institutions. Three-quarters felt their teachers supported them whenthey needed it, and almost three-fifths felt their learning was treated flexibly. Nearlyfour-fifths felt they belonged, almost two-thirds felt they knew the system, and nearlythree-quarters thought everyone was really helpful. Institution B’s students werenoticeably more enthusiastic about how they were regarded than respondents at theother institutions. Although the percentage of responses is lower, Institution A’sstudents show a similar pattern, rating the factors in the same order as Institution B—belonging, everyone being really helpful, teacher support, knowing the system andflexibility. It is interesting to note that students who considered withdrawal also ratedInstitutions A and B most positively.

On the other hand, students in Institution F produced the lowest percentages onfour of the statements, although, to be fair, the responses from Institution C were verysimilar, varying only on ‘everyone at the institution was really helpful’. Studentsconsidering withdrawal at Institution F also indicated there was scope for theirinstitution to adapt more to their needs, so there are clear messages for this institutionin the data. A sense of belonging and teacher support were key factors in InstitutionsG and D; teacher support and everyone being helpful at Institution E.

Making sense of the data

To be meaningful data have to be interpreted. In this section we outline three findingswe think are important when answering the question ‘What can New ZealandTertiary Education Institutions and their teachers do to adapt their current processesand practices to improve retention, persistence and completion of diverse students intheir first year?’ It should be noted that these are not the only possible findings andthat others, for example, the institutional differences, will be reported in otherarticles.

Survey findings confirm international data

Survey results support international findings that early withdrawal is an importantissue in tertiary education (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Yorke, 1999; Braxton,2000; McInnis et al., 2000a). A considerable proportion of students in each casestudy considered full or partial withdrawal. Full withdrawal ranged from 13% inInstitution C to 33% in Institution E; partial withdrawal from 23% in Institution Gto 58% in Institution F. Overall, 12% of the students surveyed had withdrawn fromat least part of their studies and 33% had considered at least partial withdrawal. These

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Being learner centred 597

findings mirror those of McInnis et al. (2000b) in Australia, who found that 18% oftheir first year sample withdrew from at least one module and about one-third consid-ered deferring their studies. Given that the students in our survey had actually contin-ued to study, it is likely that the real attrition rates are even higher.

The data suggest that institutions can still do much more to meet the needs ofdiverse students. Of those who considered full withdrawal from their studies, aroundone-fifth gave inadequate teaching, a lack of recognition of their learning needs andan absence of a sense of belonging as important or major reasons for thinking ofwithdrawal. When responses to all 11 statements on the questionnaire’s subscaleswere ranked in order of importance these reasons all featured in the top half of thosefactors giving rise to thoughts of withdrawal. Of those who did withdraw, two factors,‘did not suit the way I learn’ and ‘felt I did not belong’ also ranked in the top half. Afinding that institutions did not really value diversity was enhanced by the datafrom students who had never considered withdrawal. These students placed allitems that described institutional norms and practices as supportive of their diversityin the bottom half of the items they thought were important or major in helping themto stay.

Some institutions are clearly better than others at adapting to the needs of diversestudents. With the exception of ‘teaching quality’ and ‘belonging’, Institution B wasranked positively. This is noteworthy, given a significant presence of Maori andPasifika students, two groups whose cultural capital is often not valued. At InstitutionG students were dissatisfied primarily on one indicator. Almost half of studentsthinking of full withdrawal or who withdrew felt that their ‘course did not suit theirlearning’, although teaching quality was also an issue for a third of the students whoconsidered full withdrawal. Institution F, on the other hand, tended to have greaterretention challenges than others, particularly on teaching quality, recognition oflearning preferences and belonging indicators.

In their study of UK institutions bettering government-set retention benchmarksfor students from lower socio-economic groups, Yorke and Thomas (2003) foundthat a learner-focused approach was probably a reason for exceeding the benchmarks.This involved an emphasis on teaching quality and staff development, flexibleapproaches to learner differences, and processes and systems that enabled students tofeel at home. The data reported in our article support these findings. They suggestteaching quality and support, flexibility in accommodating different learningapproaches and needs, and institutions’ ability to create a climate in which studentsfelt comfortable are factors in retention.

No students in Institutions A and D had actually withdrawn from their studies. Forthose who considered full withdrawal in Institution A, only teaching quality was afactor of any importance. In Institution D, students considering withdrawal had prob-lems with administration systems, and those considering partial withdrawal wereconcerned about teaching quality, but there were few issues on other indicators.Respondents in Institution A who had never considered withdrawal rated all items inTable 6 as important factors in their retention. These students felt teachers weresupportive when students needed help, people were flexible, they had a sense of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

598 N. Zepke et al.

belonging and awareness of how the system worked and there was also a generalfeeling that people were helpful.

Institution F also stood out on in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6.Responses by its students also support a finding in favour of learner-centredapproaches. Twenty-nine per cent of students in the sample from this institutionwithdrew, far more than from any other institution. Although students who consid-ered full withdrawal reported no problems with administrative systems, 35% hadproblems with teaching quality, 29% felt that the course did not suit the way theylearned and 41% felt they did not belong. Similar results were reported by studentswho considered partial withdrawal and those who had actually withdrawn, althoughthey did indicate a greater sense of belonging than those who considered full with-drawal. Respondents who never considered leaving also gave less support to itemsabout teacher support, flexibility, feelings of belonging, and understanding of thesystem than students in other institutions. However, they did report satisfaction withgeneral helpfulness. Together, the data support the view that adapting to diversestudents and being learner centred may well increase retention and completion ratesin these institutions.

Conclusion

This article reports results from a survey of students in seven institutions whoreturned to study after one enrolment period. The survey is one part of a TLRIproject that attempts to capture a 360-degree perspective on retention issues, basedon qualitative and quantitative data gathered from students, teachers and administra-tors. As the survey comprises multiple case studies and not a national sample, itsfindings cannot be generalized. Institutional differences were a major feature of theresults, providing support for our case study approach. They remain largely unex-plained and untheorized here, but they will be subject to analysis in another article.Another caveat is that the items in the questionnaire are surrogates for and do notdirectly map to the propositions. Nevertheless, some useful findings resulted. Theseinclude: the rate of early departure in New Zealand is similar to rates found inAustralia and elsewhere; there is some support for the three propositions linked to theadaptation discourse; and retention could be improved with a learner-centredapproach. In short, our data suggest that learner-centredness improves retentionwhere students feel they belong in an institutional culture, where they experiencegood quality teaching and support for their learning and where their diverse learningpreferences are catered for. Like Yorke and Thomas (2003), we found that beinglearner centred is one way to improve student retention.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the TLRI for the funding provided for this project and,most importantly, our research partners for their contribution to the research andtheir ongoing support.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

Being learner centred 599

References

Astin, A. (1993) What matters in college? Four critical years revisited (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).Astin, A. (1997) The changing American college student: thirty year trends, 1966–1996, Review of

Higher Education, 21(2), 115–135.Bennett, S. & Flett, R. (2001) Te Hua o te Ao Maori, He Pukenga Korero, A Journal of Maori

Studies, 6(2), 29–34.Berger, J. (2000) Optimizing capital, social reproduction, and undergraduate persistence, in: J.

Braxton (Ed.) Reworking the student departure puzzle (Nashville, TN, Vanderbilt UniversityPress), 95–126.

Berger, J. (2001–2002) Understanding the organizational nature of student persistence: empiri-cally-based recommendations for practice, Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1), 3–21.

Bourdieu, P. (1973) Cultural reproduction and social reproduction, in: R. Brown (Ed.) Knowledge,education and cultural change (London, Tavistock), 487–510.

Braxton, J. (Ed.) (2000) Reworking the student departure puzzle (Nashville, TN, VanderbiltUniversity Press).

Braxton, J. & Hirschy, A. (2004) Reconceptualizing antecedents of social integration in studentdeparture, in: M. Yorke & B. Longden (Eds) Retention and student success in higher education(Maidenhead, Open University Press), 89–102.

Braxton, J. & Lien, L. (2000) The viability of academic integration as a central construct in Tinto’sinteractionalist theory of college student departure, in: J. Braxton (Ed.) Reworking the studentdeparture puzzle (Nashville, TN, Vanderbilt University Press).

Braxton, J. M., Vesper, N. &. Hossler, D. (1995) Expectations for college and student persistence,Research in Higher Education, 36(5), 595–612.

Cabrera, A., Castaneda, M., Nora, A. & Hengstler, D. (1992) The convergence between twotheories of college persistence, Journal of Higher Education, 2, 143–164.

Cabrera. A., Nora, A., Terenzini, P., Pascarella, E. & Hagedorn, L. (1999) Campus racial climateand the adjustment of students to college: a comparison between white students and African-American students, Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 134–160.

Chickering, A. & Gamson, Z. (1987) Seven principles for good practice in undergraduateeducation, American Association for Higher Education, 39(7), 3–7.

Dewart, B. (2003) Towards a model for student retention. Unpublished paper, Universal Collegeof Learning, Palmerston North.

Ellington, H. (2000) How to become an excellent tertiary-level teacher: seven golden rules foruniversity and college lecturers, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 24(3), 311–321.

Fraser, C. (2004) Setting and assessing entry criteria: to do or not to do? Building bridges:diversity in practice. Proceedings of the Association for Learning Advisors Aoteroa New ZealandConference, New Plymouth.

Grote, B. (2000) Student retention and support in open and distance learning (Lower Hutt, The OpenPolytechnic of New Zealand).

Kozel, K. (2002) Establishing a learning community: focus on students through mentoring.Unpublished paper, Northland Polytechnic, Whangarei.

Kuh, G. & Love, P. (2000) A cultural perspective on student departure, in: J. Braxton (Ed.) Reworkingthe student departure puzzle (Nashville, TN, Vanderbilt University Press), 196–212.

Leys, J. (1999) Student retention: everybody’s business, paper presented at the AustralianAssociation of Institutional Research Conference.

McInnis, C. (2001) Signs of disengagement? The changing undergraduate experience in Australianuniversities. Inaugural Professorial Lecture, August 2001. Available online at: http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/InaugLec23-8-01.pdf (accessed 18 November 2004).

McInnis, C., Hartley, R., Polesel, J. & Teese, R. (2000a) Non-completion in vocational education andtraining and higher education: a literature review (Canberra, Department of Employment,Education, Training and Youth Affairs).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4

600 N. Zepke et al.

McInnis, C., James, R. & Hartley, R. (2000b) Trends in the first year experience in Australianuniversities, 2000. Melbourne, Department of Employment, Education, Training and YouthAffairs.

Ministry of Education (2002) Interim Funding Policy 2002. Available online at: http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.sfm?layout=document&documentid=6502&data=1 (accessed 20January 2005).

Padilla, R., Trevino, J., Gonzalez, K. & Trevino, J. (1997) Developing local models of minoritystudent success in college, Journal of College Student Development, 38(2), 125–135.

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (1991) How college affects students: findings and insights from twentyyears of research (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P. (2004) How college affects students: a third decade of research (vol 2)(San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).

Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E., & Clarke, S. (1995) Recognizing and rewarding good teach-ing (Canberra, Australian Government Publishing Service).

Rendon, L., Jalomo, R. & Nora, A. (2000) Theoretical considerations in the study of minoritystudent retention in higher education, in: J. Braxton (Ed.) Reworking the student departurepuzzle (Nashville, TN, Vanderbilt University Press), 127–156.

Thomas, L. (2002) Student retention in higher education: the role of institutional habitus, Journalof Educational Policy, 17(4), 423–442.

Tierney, W. (2000) Power, identity and the dilemma of college student departure, in: J. Braxton.(Ed.) Reworking the student departure puzzle (Nashville, TB, Vanderbilt University Press),213–234.

Tinto, V. (1975) Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent research, Reviewof Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.

Tinto, V. (1988) Stages of student departure: reflections on the longitudinal character of studentleaving, Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438–455.

Tinto, V. (1993) Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd edn)(Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press).

University of Melbourne (2002) Nine principles guiding teaching and learning in the University ofMelbourne (Melbourne, University of Melbourne).

Walker, R. (2000) Indigenous performance in Western Australia universities: reframing retention andsuccess (Canberra, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs).

Wilson, S. (2002) Retention and success: a practical approach, paper presented at the AdultLearning Conference, Wellington.

Yorke, M. (1999) Leaving early: undergraduate non-completion in higher education (London,Falmer Press).

Yorke, M. & Longden, B. (2004) Retention and student success in higher education (Maidenhead,Open University Press).

Yorke, M. & Thomas, L. (2003) Improving the retention of students from lower socio-economicgroups, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 25(1), 64–74

Zepke, N. & Leach, L. (2005) Integration and adaptation: approaches to the student retention andachievement puzzle, Active Learning in Higher Education, 6(1), 46–59.

Zepke, N., Leach, L. & Prebble, T. (2004) Now you have got them how do you keep them?Factors that enable students to persist with their studies, paper presented at the New ZealandAssociation for Research in Education Conference, Wellington, November.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mou

nt S

t Vin

cent

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

5:21

05

Oct

ober

201

4