How Do Their Initial Goals Impact Students' Chances to Graduate? An Exploration of Three Types of Commitment

Abstract

Opinions are mixed regarding whether uncertainty about an academic major is detrimental to students beginning their college careers. Early research on this topic painted a rather bleak picture. For instance, Abel (1966) found that students who were rated as having low academic or career certainty had a significantly higher rate of attrition than students who were rated as having a high degree of academic or vocational certainty. Titley and Titley (1980) reported that students who had low certainty regarding their major were significantly more likely to have withdrawn after 2 years than were students who possessed high certainty. Similarly, Foote (1980) found that students who did not change their major over their first 2 years of enrollment were more likely to maintain enrollment after 2 years, have a higher mean grade-point average (GPA), and complete more credit hours than students who had not declared a major.More recent research, however, has created a slightly different picture. For example, Anderson, Creamer, and Cross (1989) found that students who changed their major were more likely to persist at the institution and graduate than were students who remained in one major as well as students who had entered the institution undecided. In addition, Lewallen's (1995) findings suggest that students who were undecided regarding a career choice were more likely to persist in the institution and achieve higher grades than students who were decided.It may appear from the differences in the literature that undecided students have somehow changed over the years. However, a recently published 25-year longitudinal study of undecided entering freshmen revealed that advising issues and demographic variables have remained relatively consistent (Gordon & Steele, 2003). Gordon and Steele also found that the levels of uncertainty about an academic major had not significantly changed over 25 years. Therefore, the differing perspectives presented in the empirical literature may not reflect a change in the student population but instead suggest an area that needs further exploration.A number of authors have addressed, from a theoretical perspective, the issue of committing to a major or career. Chickering and Reisser (1993) discussed the importance of adopting career goals in college. In their model of college student development, "developing purpose" was the sixth of seven vectors. This vector, which encompasses vocational and lifestyle development, involves students' "growing ability to make conscious choices based on clear purpose, and their persistence toward goals, despite barriers" (Reisser, 1995, p. 510).Tinto's (1993) model of student attrition includes goal and institutional commitment as factors that may affect students' decisions to stay or leave an institution. Tinto wrote that "movements from varying degrees of certainty to uncertainty and back again may in fact be quite characteristic of the longitudinal process of goal clarification which occurs during the college years" (p. 41).

Strengthen the Bond: Relationships Between Academic Advising Quality and Undergraduate Student Loyalty

“…Empirical research in academic advising has not focused on this relationship despite scholars' assertions that academic advisors play a role in connecting or binding students to institutions (Drake, 2013;Kuh et al, 2005). The results of our study provide empirical underpinnings for the claims (Bean, 2005;Graunke et al, 2006) that academic advising offers a relationship-building strategy for encouraging college students to develop loyalty to their institutions. Students who receive good academic advising may value the personal investment provided them and consider ways to reciprocate to the institution.…”

“…In the academic advising literature, specifical ly the NACADA Journal, terms such as loyalty or commitment in relation to advising practice appear infrequently. In fact, we found one article, by Graunke, Woosley, and Helms (2006), that examined the effects of student commitment to their institution, educational goals, and an academic major to graduation. Graunke et al suggested that institutional and goal commitment positively affects the likelihood of students graduating in six years and recommended that advisors work to enhance the students' bond with their institutions.…”

“…The existing correlations between the quality of academic advising and the SULI items suggest that improving the advising relationship poten tially improves student perceptions of several categories represented by the SULI subscales. Because the sample was representative of more than 26,000 college students during the time of data collection, we propose that academic advis ing has the potential to increase student commit ment to (Graunke et al, 2006) and satisfaction with their institution (Anderson et al, 2014;Roberts & Styron, 2010;Sutton & Sankar, 2011;Teasley & Buchanan, 2013) and to provide a sense of fit or belonging (Bean, 2005;Soria & Stebleton, 2013).…”

“It's What I Have Always Wanted to Do.” Advising the Foreclosure Student

“…While systematic studies of identity status and persistence have not been reported, some studies allow for tentative inferences to be drawn. On the basis of available evidence, one can conclude that persistence seems to be higher for students in the two identity statuses that involve commitment (identity achievement and foreclosure) than the two statuses that do not (moratorium and diffusion); foreclosures do not withdraw at the same rates as moratorium or diffusion students in these studies (Waterman et al, 1974), and Graunke, Woosley, and Helms (2006) reported that students' commitment to a particular major is negatively associated with the probability of completing the requirements for a baccalaureate degree.…”

Cumulative Subject Index to Volumes 16–30 of the NACADA Journal

“…Fiscal accountability (accountability) Glennen, Farren, & Vowell, 1996 Focus groups (*) Barrows & Murray, 1997;Dillon & Fisher, 2000;Smith, 2002;Donnelly, 2004;Ryser & Alden, 2005;Simmons, 2005;Kem & Navan, 2006;Baruch-Runyon, Van Zandt, & Elliott, 2009 Follower behavior (student behavior) Lerstrom, 2008 Freshmen Danis & Wall, 1987, 1988Arbuckle & Gale, 1996;Tinto, 1999;Glennen, Martin, & Walden, 2000;McBeth, Richardson, Cregler, & Meyer, 2000;Paul, Manetas, Grady, & Vivona, 2001;DesJardins & Jie, 2002;Maddi, Khoshaba, Jensen, Carter, Lu, & Harvey, 2002;Smith, 2002;Szafran, 2002;Layton & Lock, 2003;McDonald, 2003;Sams, Brown, Hussey, & Leonard, 2003;Yarbrough & Brown, 2003;Gordon, 2004;Abelman & Molina, 2006;Graunke, Woosley, & Helms, 2006;Smith, Dai, & Szelest, 2006;Schwebel, Walburn, Jacobsen, Jerrolds, & Klyce, 2008;Baruch-Runyon, Van Zandt, & Elliott, 2009;Bitz, 2010;Oliver, Ricard, Witt, Alvarado, & Hill, 2010 course/seminar (freshman seminar) Danis & Wall, 1987, 1988…”