The Impact of Social Integration on Subsequent Institutional Commitment Conditional on Gender

Abstract

Social Integration has been found by several scholars to have a significant impact on the subsequent institutional commitment and retention of college students. Few of these scholars, however, have attempted to examine whether social integration has a different impact on female students as compared to male students. This paper presents the results of a study which examined whether the impact of social integration on subsequent institutional commitment is conditional on gender. Findings suggest the need to slightly revise how higher education scholars and practitioners think about social integration and its impact of student retention.

Retention of First-Year Community College Students

“…As reported by Jones (2010), females respond to social integration at higher levels than do males. It is probable that the increased social support provided by the community college experience is more valued by females, increasing their probability of retention.…”

A Conceptual Model on the Impact of Mattering, Sense of Belonging, Engagement/Involvement, and Socio-Academic Integrative Experiences on Community College Students’ Intent to Persist

“…This proposition was empirically supported by Braxton et al (2008), who 72 found a strong association on social integration. Similarly, Jones (2010) found a strong positive association between institutional commitment to students and subsequent student commitment to college. Given the few studies assessing the impact of institutional commitment to students, this study seeks to bridge this gap in the literature by examining its impact on factors such as mattering, sense of belonging, engagement/involvement, socio-academic integrative experiences, goal commitment, and ultimately intent to persist.…”

“…Furthermore, Tinto asserted that the institutions' commitment to students reinforces students' commitment to the institution. Despite the fact that institutional commitment has garnered much attention in the literature and has been incorporated into various persistence models as a mediator between student background characteristics, academic and social integration, goal commitments, intent to persist, and persistence (Bean, 1982;Bean & Eaton, 2000;Bean & Metzner, 1985;Braxton, 1999;Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon, 2004;Braxton, Sullivan, & Johnson, 1997;Cabrera et al, 2012;Cabrera et al, 1992a;Cabrera et al, 1993;Spady, 1971;Tinto, 1975Tinto, , 1987Tinto, , 1993, little research has been conducted specifically assessing the impact of institutional commitment to students on intent to persist or persistence (Braxton et al, 2004;Braxton, Jones, Hirschy, & Hartley Iii, 2008;Jones, 2010). Furthermore, Braxton et al (2004), noted that the organizational influence on student departure from institutions is partially manifested in their commitment to student welfare.…”

Strengths-Based Advising Approaches: Benefits for First-Year Undergraduates

“…' We hypothesized that when they can more quickly develop personal relationships with academic advisors and their classmates by viewing situations through a strengths-based lens, students may feel more engaged because they feel validated and supported by critical institutional representatives. When they know their students' strengths, advisors can encourage students to connect with opportunities to perform at their best every day in curricular and cocurricular experiences; this involvement leads to more and greater ways to maintain retention and graduation because students feel more connected to their institutions through the social support they receive from advising (Jones, 2010).…”