1992

מחקריו של Vincent Tinto על נשירת סטודנטים- מחקרו מ- 1982

מאמריו  של  (Tinto (Vincent עוסקים בסוגיית הנשירה ממוסדות להשכלה גבוהה בארה"ב. החוקר פיתח מודל לתיאור והסבר תופעת הנשירה. חוקרים רבים מתייחסים למודל שלו ומתדיינים עימו. כאן תוכלו לראות הפניות לחלק ממאמריו ולקרוא את המבואות והמסקנות שלהם.

Tinto, V. (1982). Limits of theory and practice in student attrition. The journal of higher education, 687-700.

The field of student attrition has grown tremen dously over the past two decades. The demographic characteristics of the population have induced us to consider how our institutions can more effectively serve their students and hopefully retain more of them until degree completion. As a result, studies of dropout and policy-oriented workshops concerned with prevention of attrition have become commonplace. But as researchers and planners rush into the fray armed with in- creasingly more sophisticated tools for the study and treatment of student attrition, we should pause to consider the limits on our ability to under- stand and treat it. We should give thought to just how far and in what directions we should stretch our existing models of dropout. Despite recent progress, there remain a number of important areas of inquiry that have yet to be adequately explored in our attempts to understand the complex character of student disengagement. So too in the realm of action, it would be wise for us to examine the forces that constrain the development and implementation of policies designed to improve reten- tion. We must ask how far we should go in seeking to reduce attrition. The question must be posed as to the types of policies that should be implemented to reduce dropout among given types of students in the general student population. There are a variety of dropout behaviors in higher education, not all of which equally merit our attention.

Concluding Comments:

There is much we have yet to do in the study of attrition in higher education. In both theory and research we are just beginning to map out the domain of student persistence and withdrawal from institutions of higher education. As a result we should not be discouraged when our Student Attrition existing models prove insufficient to the task of accounting for the variety of dropout behaviors which take place in the great diversity of settings that characterize higher education in the United States. As we do more, we will learn more. And as we learn more, our models will become increasingly more effective in pinpointing the multiple roots of student disengagement from higher education. In the meantime, we have sufficient evidence to suggest that certain policy initiatives can be effective, within reason, in dealing with particu- lar forms of dropout among specific subpopulations within higher educa- tion. But in saying this, we need to also recognize that there are deep- rooted limits to what we can do to reduce dropout both at the national and institutional levels of practice. The unavoidable fact is that dropout is as much a reflection of the merits (and weaknesses) of the educational system as is persistence. As a result, we need ask not whether we should eliminate dropout (since that is not possible) but for which types of students in which types of settings we should act to reduce it. At the same time, since much of dropout is student transfer among institutions, we need to also consider to what degree we should encourage those move- ments as a means of more finely tuning the higher educational system to better meet student needs. However constructed or designed, no program to reduce attrition is better than its implementation and management within the institution. It is one thing to conceive of, even design, an institutional retention effort; it is another to implement and manage one within the often rigid maze of institutional structures. Here several concluding observations are called for. First, successful retention programs are most frequently longitudinal in character. Second, they are almost always integrally tied into the admission process. Third, their implementation generally involves a wide range of institutional actors. Not infrequently, successful retention pro- grams become opportunities for institutional self-renewal, an outcome which, in the long-run, may be more beneficial to the institution's well- being than the simple reduction of dropout rates.

.המאמר אינו מוצג בשל זכויות יוצרים. ניתן להשתמש במנועי החיפוש של אתרי האוניברסיטאות.

כתוב\י תגובה

لن يتم نشر البريد الإلكتروني . الحقول المطلوبة مشار لها بـ *

*