View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Programmes Targeting Student Retention/Success and Satisfaction/Experience in Higher Education: A Systematic Review

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Programmes Targeting Student Retention/Success and Satisfaction/Experience in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
Language: English
Authors: Eather, Narelle (ORCID 0000-0002-6320-4540), Mavilidi, Myrto F. (ORCID 0000-0003-2661-8709), Sharp, Heather (ORCID 0000-0001-8487-6605), Parkes, Robert (ORCID 0000-0002-3349-7805)
Source: Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2022 44(3):223-239.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Information Analyses
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: School Holding Power, Academic Achievement, Student Satisfaction, Student Experience, College Students, Literature Reviews, Program Evaluation, Program Effectiveness, Mentors, School Orientation, First Year Seminars
DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2021.2021600
ISSN: 1360-080X
1469-9508
Abstract: Inequalities in student enrolment, retention and success for specific demographic groups exist throughout the higher education sector. Although there are numerous and diverse initiatives implemented in universities to support student retention and/or success, experience and/or satisfaction, the feasibility or effectiveness of programs targeting these outcomes has not been systematically explored. The objective of this systematic review was to report the success of interventions or programs delivered in universities specifically targeting improved student outcomes based on published quantitative data. A systematic search of peer-reviewed papers (2009-2019) from four electronic databases (INFROMIT, PROQUEST, EBSCO and SCOPUS) was conducted. Most of the 55 studies included targeted 1st year undergraduate students from varied disciplines. The positive findings relating to student retention and academic success, and student satisfaction and experience reported in this review are promising. The review concludes by outlining implications for higher education providers seeking to determine institutional policies on investment in student retention and experience interventions.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1345822
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEg-6d2nrCpuWWg7D1s5G7RAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGiAnh8w4Govgdb5ZgIBEICBmovNYB3DJQvN-bD41IUyKZiEQXlihQiAUg4FB5S1SH_rwozP_3ovlVXmXTmhCITFY4SVZIIgkQ1AfBNMFHQdPFNRe2x-mFHQyo4AFfl2iK_a8DAk231v36nrXHRAK2Ysc9ugVQSl6W9ew2-KvYWiSILVjbKKobmFaTwN5XZDim41-ZLauNhdkmohvi1Hakx6QfdmE97IAYOD3UA=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0156521147;0v101jun.22;2022Apr28.04:25;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0156521147-1">Programmes targeting student retention/success and satisfaction/experience in higher education: A systematic review </title> <p>Inequalities in student enrolment, retention and success for specific demographic groups exist throughout the higher education sector. Although there are numerous and diverse initiatives implemented in universities to support student retention and/or success, experience and/or satisfaction, the feasibility or effectiveness of programs targeting these outcomes has not been systematically explored. The objective of this systematic review was to report the success of interventions or programs delivered in universities specifically targeting improved student outcomes based on published quantitative data. A systematic search of peer-reviewed papers (2009–2019) from four electronic databases (INFROMIT, PROQUEST, EBSCO and SCOPUS) was conducted. Most of the 55 studies included targeted 1<sup>st</sup> year undergraduate students from varied disciplines. The positive findings relating to student retention and academic success, and student satisfaction and experience reported in this review are promising. The review concludes by outlining implications for higher education providers seeking to determine institutional policies on investment in student retention and experience interventions.</p> <p>Keywords: Student; retention; satisfaction; experience; higher education</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In a world that is seemingly in a constant state of flux, with economic and health systems under pressure and exacerbated due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and employment precarious in several traditional sectors, such as manufacturing, higher education is becoming more important for individuals, families, and communities. Individuals with a tertiary education have higher rates of employment, generally earn more, pay more taxes, lead healthier lives, are more active citizens and parents, and have greater access to health care and retirement plans (Ma, Pender, & Welch, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref1">49</reflink>]). Since the 1960s, there has been a significant increase in enrolments in higher education (Roser & Ortiz-Ospina, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref2">68</reflink>]), with a global increase to 34% of the population. Based on the data from 15 high-income countries, estimations indicate that there will be a 56% increase in the number of enrolments in higher education globally by 2030 (Choudaha & Van Rest, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]). In the US, approximately 47% of adults (25 to 34 years) have graduated from tertiary education, and over 80% of secondary school-leavers enrol in tertiary education (Ma et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref4">49</reflink>]; Roser & Ortiz-Ospina, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref5">68</reflink>]). Similar increases in higher education enrolments exist around the world (Choudaha & Van Rest, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref6">21</reflink>]), with ~40% of 25- to 34-year-olds in Australia attaining a bachelor's degree or higher (Norton, Cherastidtham, & Mackey, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref7">61</reflink>]); 42% of the UK labour market aged 21 to 64 hold higher education qualifications (Office of National Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref8">63</reflink>]); and more than 60% of high-school graduates attend a university in China (China Power Team (Producer), [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite current upward trends in higher education enrolments, inequalities regarding admissions and retention and successful completion, across specific demographic groups prevail. Specifically, gaps exist according to socio-economic status, race and ethnicity, sex, and geographical location (Ma et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref10">49</reflink>]; Norton et al., [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref11">61</reflink>]). It is especially important to acknowledge that while access to university has improved for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, their completion rates remain lower than those of non-Indigenous Australians (Gore et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref12">40</reflink>]). As a consequence of increased access but differential outcomes, there has been a universal shift in focus from simply increasing enrolments in higher education, to the broader challenge of supporting the retention and success of the students that are admitted (Ma et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref13">49</reflink>]). This shift has been supported by various government initiatives and institutional benchmarking (Australian Government, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref14">6</reflink>]). In general, student success can be defined as behaviours aiming to accomplish academic goals, such as persistence in higher education and course or degree completion (Crisp, Taggart, & Nora, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref15">24</reflink>]). For governments and other institutions, success is generally measured in the number of students graduating, and thus is directly related to retention rates. Unravelling the reasons why students achieve, underachieve, or withdraw from higher education studies can provide valuable information for education providers, and importantly help inform the development of suitable programs and policies addressing existing disparities.</p> <p>Research attempting to understand the internal and external influences on a student's decision to remain in or withdraw from higher education studies (that is, retention and attrition) has predominantly derived from the US, Britain and Australia, and stems from Tinto's ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref16">74</reflink>]) work (i.e., <emph>Dropout-intentions Model)</emph>. According to Tinto, there is a continual but variable interaction between a range of educational, environmental, psychological and social factors, which have been identified as determinants of academic performance and success in higher education studies (Tinto, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref17">74</reflink>]). More recently, researchers have attempted to establish retention prediction models (e.g., Duque, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref18">33</reflink>]; Kerby, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref19">46</reflink>]) and develop interventions, programs, and/or policies to curb attrition rates (Armstrong, Campbell, & Brogan, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]; Cornelius, Wood, & Lai, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>]; Ginty & Harding, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref22">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Apart from individual factors relating to academic capabilities, research indicates that connectedness and sense of belonging at the institutional and individual level, also influences students' experience and persistence in higher education studies (Meeuwisse, Severiens, & Born, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref23">55</reflink>]; Morrow & Ackermann, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref24">57</reflink>]). Carroll, Ng, and Birch ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref25">16</reflink>]) suggest that situational (such as employment status, financial and family commitments, health status), dispositional (e.g., student motivation and satisfaction, beliefs, goals, intentions, confidence and satisfaction levels), and institutional (including academic staff responsiveness, student support systems and orientation programs) factors are associated with student retention and success (Carroll et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref26">16</reflink>]). A systematic review of retention rates in tertiary teaching courses highlighted that access to scholarships, accommodation and support networks, financial difficulties, family responsibilities, and experiences of racism are identified facilitators and barriers to student retention (Bowles & Brindle, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>]). Additionally, dispositional factors such as student self-determination, academic success, sense of belonging, positive peer self-esteem and campus involvement are considered as facilitators, while poor academic record, English as second language and poor time management skills are identified as barriers (Bowles & Brindle, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref28">12</reflink>]). Finally, clear course policies, procedures, and guidelines, positive student-teacher interactions, and access to counselling and mentoring services, on-campus support, and orientation programs can facilitate the institutional factors that enhance student retention and success (Bowles & Brindle, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Generally, data-driven and resource-intensive retention interventions are designed to identify students at risk of attrition or non-completion and provide them with support (Australian Government, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]). It is highly recommended that such investments focus on students in their first 2 years of academic studies (Cromley, Perez, & Kaplan, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref31">25</reflink>]; Griffith, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref32">41</reflink>]). Consequently, a range of first-year orientation programs, learning communities, study programs and social events have emerged across various tertiary institutions (Jamelske, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref33">44</reflink>]). To improve and evaluate institutional performance, higher education providers report on key indicators, including student enrolment numbers, success and completion rates, and satisfaction ratings (Quinn, Lemay, Larsen, & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref34">66</reflink>]). Institutional policies and practices shown to affect the student's experience along with retention and success include course scheduling and registration systems, career counselling, academic support (such as mentoring), financial aid policies and integration of services (e.g., career counsellor with academic mentors) (Cromley et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref35">25</reflink>]). Student satisfaction, and thus retention and success, is also related to students' cumulative encounters and experiences with a higher education institution (Crisp et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref36">24</reflink>]; Duque, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref37">33</reflink>]). The literature supports that academic instructors' expertise, competence and knowledge, career opportunities, and access to support services (such as IT, sport facilities, and health services) play an important role in determining student satisfaction (Douglas et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>] Sojkin, Bartkowiak, & Skuza, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref39">71</reflink>]; Yeo & Li, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref40">80</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite the numerous and diverse initiatives implemented in higher education settings around the globe, there is a paucity of research that systematically reviews the feasibility and effectiveness of university programs targeting student retention and/or success and student experience and/or satisfaction. Therefore, this paper focuses on a systematic review conducted to identify and examine university programs or interventions targeting students' retention and success and/or student experience and satisfaction, in universities and to make recommendations for future policy and programme development.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-3">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0156521147-4">Search strategy</hd> <p>A structured electronic search of publication years (from 1 January 2009–31 December 2019) was undertaken using INFORMIT, PROQUEST, EBSCO and SCOPUS. The following search strings were used (programs OR intervention) AND (first-year experience OR 'student experience' OR freshman OR sophomore* OR undergraduate) AND (attrition OR retention OR dropout) AND ('higher education' OR tertiary OR college OR university OR degree*) AND (attitudes OR success OR academic persistence OR satisfaction). These strings were limited to peer-reviewed publications, written in English. First, titles and abstracts identified in the search were screened for suitability. Second, full-text articles were screened against study selection criteria.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-5">Selection criteria</hd> <p>The criteria for study inclusion were as follows: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref41">1</reflink>) population: university students; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>) study design: intervention programs; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>) intervention/program (for example, mentoring and seminars); and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref44">4</reflink>) primary outcomes: student retention (persistence), success (completion), and satisfaction or experience. Studies involving high-school participants focused on research that did not explicitly address institutional factors (for example, those studies predicting campus climate, identity, and sense of belonging), and focusing explicitly on particular groups (for example, minority students) that were excluded. Studies with mixed method designs were included, but only those with quantitative data were considered.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-6">Data extraction</hd> <p>Two reviewers (MM and NE) independently extracted the following key study characteristics from included studies: study population, study location (country of origin), research design (e.g., mixed or quantitative), discipline, intervention/program, outcomes measured and study results. Study characteristics were examined for key themes and similarities in reporting.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-7">Risk of bias assessment</hd> <p>The two reviewers independently assessed the 'risk of bias' (ROB) of studies that met the inclusion criteria. Scoring discrepancies were resolved via consensus and inter-rater reliability was calculated using percentage agreement. A ROB score was allocated to each study by assigning a value of 3 (strong methodology), or 2 (moderate methodology) or 1 (weak methodology) based on the following five criteria: (i) study type (experimental studies = 3; longitudinal/prospective observational = 2; cross-sectional = 1); (ii) sites or participants were randomly selected, and the randomisation procedure was adequately described; (iii) adequate description of the study sample (e.g., number of participants, mean age, socio-economic status, sex, cultural background); (iv) adequate assessment/reporting of outcomes (i.e., validity/reliability of assessment reported and/or detailed description of assessment protocols) and (v) adjustment for confounders (e.g., age and sex) in the statistical analyses (where appropriate). The scores for each criterion were summed to provide a total score out of 15. Studies scoring: 0–5 were considered to have a high ROB; 6–10 were considered to have a moderate ROB and 11–15 were considered to have a low ROB.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-8">Results</hd> <p>Using the above search strategy, criteria and data extraction, 5,565 papers were identified for analysis. After title screening, 457 papers remained, after post-abstract and full-text screening (i.e., papers with a full-text option), 55 papers remained. The remaining papers are the focus of our qualitative synthesis and include 24 quantitative and 31 mixed methods research studies (summarised in Table 1). Full study details are provided in Table A1.</p> <p>Table 1. Summary of study characteristics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Country</td><td>n</td><td>Field/Discipline</td><td>n</td><td>Student Level</td><td>n</td><td>Sample</td><td>n</td><td>Target</td><td>n</td><td>Type of intervention</td><td>n</td><td>Outcomes</td><td>n</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>USA</td><td>33</td><td>STEM</td><td>24</td><td>1<sup>st</sup> year</td><td>30</td><td>0–49</td><td>11</td><td>Any</td><td>41</td><td>Peer mentoring</td><td>29</td><td>Student experience/satisfaction</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>UK</td><td>2</td><td>Preparation/ Enabling</td><td>2</td><td>2<sup>nd</sup> year</td><td>4</td><td>50–99</td><td>4</td><td>At risk</td><td>14</td><td>Staff mentoring</td><td>10</td><td>Academic success/pass rates/fail</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Australia</td><td>12</td><td>Any</td><td>5</td><td>3<sup>rd</sup>/4<sup>th</sup>/final year</td><td>1</td><td>100–199</td><td>9</td><td /><td /><td>Orientation/transition</td><td>5</td><td>Perceived benefits of program</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Canada</td><td>2</td><td>English, Reading and Maths</td><td>2</td><td>Postgraduate</td><td>1</td><td>200–499</td><td>12</td><td /><td /><td>Online/Web</td><td>7</td><td>Wellbeing outcomes</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Greece</td><td>1</td><td>Medicine, Nursing, Health, Pharmacy, Radiography, Psychology</td><td>12</td><td>Combination</td><td>17</td><td>500–1000</td><td>6</td><td /><td /><td>Personal growth/social belonging</td><td>2</td><td>Retention/attrition/dropout/persistence</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>India</td><td>1</td><td>Education</td><td>2</td><td>Preparation/Enabling</td><td>2</td><td>>1000</td><td>12</td><td /><td /><td>Advice/counselling</td><td>4</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ireland</td><td>1</td><td>Business, Accounting, Finance</td><td>8</td><td /><td /><td>not stated</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td>Subject specific/curriculum</td><td>8</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Israel</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Careers</td><td>1</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>South Africa</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td>Social</td><td>2</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>1</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The discipline (also known as faculty or field) in focus was varied, with a strong focus on cross-discipline research (n = 13), followed by a concentration of studies in the Sciences, Maths and/or IT (n = 12) and Medicine, Health and/or Health Sciences (n = 8). The most common measures were survey/questionnaire (n = 31); pre-existing institutional data (n = 34); and interviews or focus group (n = 3). The stated outcomes of the studies conducted include student experience/satisfaction (n = 14), academic success/course pass rate (n = 20), perceived benefits of program (n = 9), wellbeing outcomes (n = 1), and retention/attrition (n = 29). The sample size of students ranged considerably from <50 student size range, to >1000.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-9">Interventions</hd> <p>The following interventions were reported in selected studies:</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-10">Peer mentoring</hd> <p>Mentoring refers to a formal and informal opportunity for two or more people to share knowledge, skills, and experiences, with the mentor aiming to guide the mentee towards reaching their potential or pre-determined goal. Peer mentoring occurs between individuals of a similar age or hierarchical status (Altonji, Baños, & Harada, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref45">1</reflink>]). Overall, students who participated in peer mentoring programs rated them highly and impactful on their studies. For example, Altonji et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>]) found that using second-year students as mentors for first-year students was perceived positively by students. The survey reported on student experience (satisfaction) and perceived benefits of peer mentorship (academic benefit, non-academic benefit, and benefit to clinical skills). Notably, this study had methodological limitations (subject assessments, the relatively unstructured nature of the program, and moderate response rate). Other peer mentoring studies such as that reported on by Andreanoff ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref47">2</reflink>]) also indicate that students find mentoring to be favourable to their overall level of satisfaction (Andreanoff, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref48">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Similar to peer mentoring, peer-tutoring (Batz, Olsen, Dumont, Dastoor, & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref49">9</reflink>]; Steenkamp, Baard, & Frick, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref50">72</reflink>]), peer-assisted learning (Beck et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref51">10</reflink>]; Ginty & Harding, ; Hodgson, Brack, & Benson, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref52">43</reflink>]), and peer-led learning or study groups (Cançado, Reisel, & Walker, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref53">15</reflink>]; Muller, Shacham, & Herscovitz, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref54">58</reflink>]) were used to increase student satisfaction, and student success, and thus ultimately improving retention. A one-year research apprenticeship program (RAP) with 245 students from social and physical sciences identified as underserved or at high risk of attrition, paired beginning students with mentors as paid research apprentices (Chan, Bhattacharyya, & Meisel, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>]). Mentorship and support focused on basic research skills and support network for personal, academic and professional success. Institutional data supported that the program, and second- and third-year retention rates for RAP participants exceeded campus retention rates. Overall, 87.3% of RAP students who joined the program in 2011–2015 were retained for at least one academic year after their participation.</p> <p>The proponents of much lauded and now international Peer Assisted Study Sessions (PASS) frequently assert that PASS supports student learning, yet only one article met selection criteria for this research. Universities across the world have adopted this (inexpensive) approach to student support, relying on undergraduate students who have performed well in previous years to support current students in the same course through weekly study sessions. PASS sessions 'provide a platform for you [students] to compare notes, discuss difficult concepts and review weekly material with other students' (University of Newcastle, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref56">76</reflink>]). Research by Mellor et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref57">56</reflink>]) included 43 (2009) and 75 (2010) first-year at-risk students participating in PASS and tracked student attrition. Based on institutional data, the authors' highlighted that the PASS intervention had only a modest positive effect on retention and academic self-efficacy, and no impact on locus of control (i.e., whether casual actions reside in personal/internal or external forces) or grade point average (GPA). The 10% lower attrition rate among PASS course participants suggests that small-scale interventions can mitigate attrition among students who later prove an ability to continue matriculating. Of note, the attrition rate amongst students in the study who earned below a 1.8 GPA was higher amongst students not enrolled in the PASS course.</p> <p>Innovative approaches to peer mentoring demonstrated positive impacts on student satisfaction. Overall, those first-year initiatives that include peer interactions between first-year students and those in second year and beyond are received favourably by first-year students who believe that they are of benefit to their success. Whether this has an impact is open for debate, as the studies themselves do not have a control group nor do they use a variety of models to test, which intervention – if any – renders the greater level of success. This type of research is – arguably by its nature – subjective. For example, one study evaluated perceived benefits and satisfaction of a semi-structured informal cross-year peer mentoring program for first-year medical students (Altonji et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>]). The program was positively received with a 49.5% response rate. However, it cannot be determined whether the benefits associated with regular involvement were due solely to the degree of involvement or other types of interaction.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-11">Orientation or transitioning programs</hd> <p>Six of the studies included in this research involved first-year support as part of an orientation or transitioning program (Armstrong et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref59">5</reflink>]; Callcott, Knaus, Warren, & Wenban, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref60">14</reflink>]; Carver et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref61">17</reflink>]; Cholewa & Ramaswami, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref62">20</reflink>]; Gill et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref63">37</reflink>]; Wischusen, Wischusen, & Pomarico, [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref64">79</reflink>]). Studies utilised mixed methods and a range of evaluation tools (including interviews, surveys and institutional data). One study involving 356 participants included the provision of a range of activities for first-year students (such as informal meetings at the start of semester, an orientation morning and camp on campus, a website for first year and social activities targeted students' social connections with peers and teachers) (S. Armstrong et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>]). Students reported high satisfaction with their experience and engagement through surveys, but low ratings of orientation 'usefulness' (with only 20% and 7.5% of the attendees reporting the orientation program and camp as useful). This research found that strategies to help engage students are important for avoiding withdrawal from studies; however, students reported that whilst helpful, these interventions were not what they really wanted or needed to assist their transition to first-year law. They would have preferred more assistance from their teachers about how to be a law student. Staff who were interviewed held mixed views about the value of the transition project interventions, surprise at the level of insecurity felt by new students, and uncertainty about who had responsibility for learning in a difficult law degree, students, or teachers. This research highlights the need to carefully manage expectations.</p> <p>The three studies used institutional data (Carver et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref66">17</reflink>]; Cholewa & Ramaswami, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref67">20</reflink>]; Wischusen et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref68">79</reflink>]) and focused on student retention/attrition. When American students have a low high-school point average (GPA), SAR or ACT scores, they need to attend remedial courses (also known as bridging or preparatory courses), as they are considered as underprepared and of high risk of withdrawal (Cholewa & Ramaswami, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref69">20</reflink>]). Cholewa and Ramaswami ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref70">20</reflink>]) focused on 132 (121 retained) underprepared first-generation or diverse background students who did not meet the traditional admission requirements. Masters students (n = 14) in school counselling or clinical mental health programs, provided student participants with an orientation program (prior to entry), special advising, academic support, and counselling for 2 years. The results indicate a significant relationship between the GPA of underprepared students and counselling attendance, particularly evident among those students who received 3–4 hours of counselling. The odds of retention decreased with increasing number of failed fall remedial courses (odds ratio.370 (95% CI.158–.866). In addition, the number of remedial courses taken, and accompanying GPA suggested that the odds of retention were increasingly greater as the number of remedial courses taken and GPA increased (x<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref71">4</reflink>, N = 121) = 22.29, p < 0.001). Remedial courses failed in a later semester was the only significant predictor, indicating that the odds of retention decreased with increasing number of failed later semester remedial courses (x<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>, N = 132) = 16.09, p < 0.002). The odds of retention were increasingly greater as the number of credits completed increased (x<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref73">3</reflink>, N = 121) = 13.71, p < 0.004). The odds of retention were increasingly greater as students completed more credits in their first year (x<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>, N = 121) = 10.39, p < 0.007). Remedial courses failed in the later semester was the only significant predictor influencing retention (x<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref75">3</reflink>, N = 74) = 15.5, p < 0.001). A limitation of this research is that no data is provided on type on counselling services provided, amount of time spent on each type of counselling, other support services utilised by students, and feedback from students regarding all these services.</p> <p>Further, an intervention program, called OpSTEM, attempted to increase retention and graduation rates in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students who were under-prepared (Carver et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref76">17</reflink>]). Participants comprised of first-time, full-time, first-year students from 2013 to 2016. Experimental group 1 students (N = 874) received learning sessions by STEM peer teachers, and problem-based learning; and experimental group 2 students (N = 152) received the 2-week summer institute, learning sessions by STEM peer teachers, problem-based learning, college success workshops, cohort bonding activities, and mentoring. Preliminary institutional data showed that OpSTEM Scholars' retention rate was higher than retention rates for the university, the STEM disciplines, and the control group (N = 836). For example, in Calculus II, the experimental group 1 results were 76% pass rate; the experimental group 2 had an 81% pass rate; and the control group had a 60% pass rate – showing that the experimental group (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>, 2 and combined) passed the course at a significantly higher rate than control (p < 0.0001). Retention rates of OpSTEM Scholars were 81% and 85% in 2013 and 2014, respectively, compared with all university students (70% and 71%). In the study, varied confounders affected pass rates, such as ability and type of student, student attendance and level of application, number of students in the class, incorporation or not of project-based learning, and method of how the student was placed in a course within the sequence (e.g., maths placement exam, transfer student, or repeated course due to a failing grade).</p> <p>Using a survey for their projects, Gill et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref78">37</reflink>]; 747 participants) and Callcott et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref79">14</reflink>]; 102 participants) reported student success. Both projects were concerned with satisfaction of student experience (Callcott et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref80">14</reflink>]; Gill et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref81">37</reflink>]). To support first-year students, Gill et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref82">37</reflink>]) reduced and contextualised information for the first semester, held presentations for students and conducted icebreaker activities. Results reported strong support for the initiatives, with 67% in Arts, 74% in Business, and 81% in Health and Science finding the initiative useful, compared to 24% in Arts, 18% in Business, and 17% in Health & Science finding it 'all right', and 9% in Arts, 8% in Business, and 2% in Health & Science found it a 'waste of time' (p = 0.003). The Callcott et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref83">14</reflink>]) project focused on primary and early childhood pre-service teachers reported on Network Teach: a student-led organisation supporting the transition to university through peer mentoring and support organisation with the aim to improve attrition rates in the first year and conducted over the academic year. Second-, third- and fourth-year students mentored the first-year students and support was in the form of first-year orientation, events during semesters, organisation of professional development sessions, group revision sessions prior to exams, and individual peer mentoring. Results concluded that the organisation successfully met the needs of a wide range of first-year students. Students' experiences were more positive at post (compared to pre: x<sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref84">11</reflink>) = 98.94, p < 0.001). Students also reported that activities made them feel welcome (82.4% – strongly agree or agree), helped them settle (56.9% – strongly agree or agree), be part of the School of Education (71.6% – strongly agree or agree) and helped them make friends (47.1% – strongly agree or agree).</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-12">First year or foundation programs</hd> <p>Included within the search, 25 studies involved first-year students in specific degree programs, concentrating on compulsory first-year or foundation. These courses provided an introduction into the discipline students studied. Reported here is a selection of those studies (not included above). These studies typically had large participant numbers (>100), used institutional data and were focused on student retention and academic success (Burgoyne & Chuppa-Cornell, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref85">13</reflink>]; Clayton, Wessel, McAtee, & Knight, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref86">22</reflink>]; Jenkins-Guarnieri, Horne, Wallis, Rings, & Vaughan, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref87">45</reflink>]; MacCariella, Pribesh, & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref88">50</reflink>]; McLeod, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref89">54</reflink>]; Nelson, Duncan, & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref90">59</reflink>]; Nelson, Smith, & Clarke, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref91">60</reflink>]; Patterson Silver Wolf, Taylor, Maguin, & Asher Blackdeer, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref92">64</reflink>]; Sargent, Borthick, Lederberg, & Haardörfer, [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref93">69</reflink>]; Schrum, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref94">70</reflink>]; Stone, Shaner, & Fendrick, [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref95">73</reflink>]; Toven-Lindsey, Levis-Fitzgerald, Barber, & Hasson, [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref96">75</reflink>]; Wolf et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref97">65</reflink>]). The remaining studies utilised surveys to gather data about students.</p> <p>A quantitative study reported by Clayton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref98">22</reflink>]) used a variety of measures (including survey), to evaluate an intervention program (KEY Careers) related to prompting students' vocational development (i.e., identity, clarity and confidence) and improving students' first-year retention and four-year graduation rates. The program involved first-year students (3,781 of 14,099 students participated), participating in interactive online learning experience modules and on-campus programming (i.e., peer groups, events, and individual appointments). Institutional data demonstrated that one-year retention was 8.8% higher and 4-year graduation rates were 15% higher for participants in the intervention group compared to non-participants. In summary, evidence demonstrates program success in both student satisfaction and student retention, using a mixture of interventions across small-scale and large-scale studies.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-13">Enabling programs</hd> <p>Enabling programs refer to programs that provide prospective students with an alternative pathway into tertiary studies (sometimes called a 'preparatory' or 'bridging' course). Enabling programs generally aim to develop students with the necessary skills, knowledge and confidence needed to succeed in tertiary-level studies. A quantitative study reported by Andrewartha and Harvey ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref99">3</reflink>]), focused on a preparatory course to gain entrance into tertiary studies, is the only study that fulfilled the criteria for selection in this research. In this program, 116 students agreed to participate in the project (8 withdrew) (Andrewartha & Harvey, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref100">3</reflink>]). This enabling program included staff providing two 1-hour mentoring sessions per week for 18-weeks and integrated several sources of support (e.g., tutorials, mentoring, and counselling). Using institutional data, strong positive results were evident for academic outcomes across a diverse cohort of students (for example, the first in a family to attend tertiary education), despite some variability across delivery sites, disciplinary areas, and student groups. Most notably, students from a refugee background recorded impressive achievement levels, highlighting the potential of this program to attract, support, and retain disadvantaged cohorts who are academically prepared and committed. Results reported were 55% of the students enrolled passed all subjects and 30% received a grade of 70% or higher.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-14">Probation program</hd> <p>A study by Boretz ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref101">11</reflink>]), involved 489 students placed on academic probation in mid-semester success workshops in 2005–2010 focused on persistence and motivation. The workshop included self-assessment, peer-mentor talks, small groups academic advice, and professional counselling. Survey results indicate that the workshops provided promising strategies to support students under probation with a high-risk of failure and for closing the gap between success rates among the advantaged students (moving from a 32% discrepancy in academic success rates at mid-semester to an 18% difference at the end of the semester). A total of 74% of the students strongly agreed that they were 'glad they attended' the workshop, and 75% of the attendees finished the semester (Boretz, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref102">11</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-15">Second year program</hd> <p>The two studies selected for this paper focused on support for second-year students (Gaikwad & Tankhiwale, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref103">36</reflink>]; McBurnie, Campbell, & West, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref104">52</reflink>]). Both studies used a mixed-method research approach, with surveys to report on the students' (satisfaction) experience. For example, McBurnie et al. ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref105">52</reflink>]) initiated a <emph>Welcome to Second-Year</emph> program that comprised 37 and 66 second-year students (2009 and 2010–2011). The program set out to: introduce students to their peers; focus on careers in science, second year challenges and strategies; and include an academic refresher and work experience tips. Survey data highlighted the academic (e.g., expectations, course difficulty), social (e.g., work-life balance), and personal (e.g., stress, motivation) challenges that second-year students encounter. On average 74.5% and 59% of participants 'definitely' recommended the program and believed the program helped them understand more about the careers available within the discipline of Environmental Science. Only a small proportion of students reported a negative response for the program highlighting personal challenges (<6%). All other aspects of the program received positive evaluations from students. It can therefore be seen that the <emph>Welcome to Second Year</emph> program has been a useful, targeted intervention to assist Environmental Science students to (re)engage with university life (McBurnie et al.).</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-16">Risk of bias results</hd> <p>Methodological risk of bias (ROB) scores are provided in Table A2. Initial agreement between reviewers was very high for the 275 items (3 discrepancies; 99%). Two studies were found to have high ROB; 46 showed moderate ROB; and seven studies low ROB. The study designs were predominantly experimental (31 studies) or observational/longitudinal (21 studies). Non-random allocation to an intervention group was common among studies, as was the use of self-report and non-validated measures. Most studies failed to provide detailed participant demographic information or adjust their statistical analysis for relevant confounders (such as demographic) – resulting in all but seven studies scoring as moderate or high ROB.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-17">Discussion</hd> <p>Despite the abundance of academic research articles that deal with student experience in higher education, only 55 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Furthermore, research in this area was predominantly concerned with reporting positive outcomes. This presents potential issues of publication bias, and the possibility that studies resulting in statistically insignificant (or negative) results have not been published. Consequently, the available evidence provides only a foundation for informing policy and practice in this important area.</p> <p>The selected literature supports some success from programs aimed at improving retention, reducing attrition, and enhancing student satisfaction – regardless of program type. This is a limited starting point for encouraging institutional investment in retention initiatives or for developing institutional policy. It is likely that peer mentoring programs are the most cost efficient for higher education providers to deploy, but their lauded success has largely been based on subjective reporting, and there needs to be a stronger emphasis on rigorous research design to determine efficacy. Each of the other forms of intervention identified in the systematic review would appear to require more significant financial investment from higher education institutions but offer firmer ground for making confident assessments of efficacy, particularly where outcome comparisons have been drawn between target and cohort groups or the entire university student population.</p> <p>Going forward, there is a clear need to build evidence for successful programs through reporting of high-quality standards for study design and evaluation (e.g., random selection) and eliminate the bias associated with observational and cross-sectional studies. There were no studies meeting the selection criteria of cross-institutional collaborations or multi-site implementation. Even though the generalisability of the findings of such studies is limited, these are still important scenarios to be addressed by the research field. Notably, emphasis should be placed on practical implications for practitioners to justify or advocate internally for funding new interventions (e.g., on the basis that the costs will be recouped through increased retention/completion). Higher education leaders would also need to recognise that a singular approach or isolated intervention, may not be sufficient to achieve more than hit-and-miss outcomes. Certainly, a multi-pronged or multi-layered approach over the life of the student journey needs some investigation, given attrition and retention are not concerns isolated to a particular cohort, study area, or demographic group. To continue to support students during their tertiary studies, exploring the feasibility and effectiveness of targeted programs in larger and more rigorous research trials is therefore a necessity for higher education providers to have confidence that their investments in intervention programs would yield successful outcomes. We acknowledge a lack of randomised controlled trials, as well as limited evidence for support programs beyond first-year groups or covering a range of disciplines. Future research should focus on providing sophisticated data from analytics, including behavioural identifiers of the risk of failure.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>This review supports that targeted approaches to improving student retention/success, and satisfaction/experience, in tertiary institutions work well. Successful studies varied in their objectives, ranging from an interest in improving student engagement and satisfaction, to a focus on attrition/retention, and improving student results. Boutique studies focused on identifiable issues students faced related to their participation and success at university. Successful programs aimed at a specific student population (e.g., at-risk students and first-year students) and provided tailored interventions to support students' success. Applying peer mentoring, tutoring, and assisted learning, offered higher-quality outcomes for students in need. However, it is important to consider the potential publication bias, with published studies reporting mainly positive outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>The authors declare no perceived financial conflicts of interest related to the research reported in the manuscript. There was no funding associated with this study.</p> <hd id="AN0156521147-20">Supplemental data</hd> <p>Supplemental data for this article can be accessed https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2021.2021600</p> <ref id="AN0156521147-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref41" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Altonji, S.J., Baños, J.H., & Harada, C.N. (2019). Perceived Benefits of a Peer Mentoring Program for First-Year Medical Students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 31 (4), 445 – 452. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2019.1574579</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref42" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Andreanoff, J. (2013). Supporting your peers. Widening Participation & Lifelong Learning, 15 (2), 43 – 55. doi: 10.5456/WPLL.15.2.43</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref43" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Andrewartha, L., & Harvey, A. (2014). Willing and enabled: The academic outcomes of a tertiary enabling program in regional Australia. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 54 (1), 50 – 68. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1518672533?accountid=10499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref20" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong, S., Campbell, M., & Brogan, M. (2009). Interventions to enhance the student experience of a first-year law degree: What they really wanted. Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association, 2 (1), 135 – 148. http://web.archive.org/web/1000/<ulink href="http://www.alta.edu.au/resources/PDFs/JALTA/Full%20Volumes/2009%5fvol%5f2%5fno1&2.pdf">http://www.alta.edu.au/resources/PDFs/JALTA/Full%20Volumes/2009%5fvol%5f2%5fno1&2.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref59" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Armstrong, S.N., Early, J.O., Burcin, M.M., Bolin, K., Holland, N., & No, S. (2018). New Media Tools Impact on Online, Health Science Students' Academic Persistence and Support: Lessons Learned from Two Pilot Studies [Article]. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 62 (3), 266 – 275. doi: 10.1007/s11528-018-0261-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref14" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Australian Government. (June 2017). Improving retention, completion and success in higher education: Higher Education Standards Panel Discussion Paper. [Accessed 05 May 2020] https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/final_discussion_paper.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Barnes, J. (2012). The First-Year Experience Impact on Student Success in Developmental Education [Article]. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 20 (1), 27 – 35. <ulink href="http://ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=93392065&site=ehost-live&scope=site">http://ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=93392065&site=ehost-live&scope=site</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barnes, S., Macalpine, G., & Munro, A. (2015). Track and Connect: Enhancing student retention and success at the University of Sydney. A Practice Report. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 6 (1), 195-n/a. 10.5204/intjfyhe.v6i1.266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref49" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Batz, Z., Olsen, B.J., Dumont, J., Dastoor, F., & Smith, M.K. (2015). Helping Struggling Students in Introductory Biology: A Peer-Tutoring Approach That Improves Performance, Perception, and Retention. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 14 (2), ar16. doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-08-0120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beck, A., Wood, C., Helms, R., Arvizo, C., Cherry, B. M., & Ziats, N. P. (2016). Peer-Assisted Learning in Introductory Histopathology Improves Learner Scores and Delivers Learner Satisfaction [Article]. Medical Science Educator, 26 (1), 85 – 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-015-0207-6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boretz, E. (2012). Midsemester academic interventions in a student-centered research university. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 42 (2), 90 – 108. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1037814230?accountid=10499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bowles, T.V., & Brindle, K.A. (2017). Identifying facilitating factors and barriers to improving student retention rates in tertiary teaching courses: A systematic review. Higher Education Research & Development, 36 (5), 903 – 919. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2016.1264927</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burgoyne, M.B., & Chuppa-Cornell, K. (2015). Beyond Embedded: Creating an Online-Learning Community Integrating Information Literacy and Composition Courses. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 41 (4), 416 – 421. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2015.05.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Callcott, D., Knaus, M., Warren, J., & Wenban, A. (2014). 'Network Teach': How a student led organisation supports the transition to university. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (8), 1 – 13. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2014v39n8.9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cançado, L., Reisel, J.R., & Walker, C.M. (2018). Impact of first-year mathematics study groups on the retention and graduation of engineering students [Article]. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 49 (6), 856 – 866. doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2017.1423120</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carroll, D., Ng, E., & Birch, D. (2009). Retention and progression of postgraduate business students: An Australian perspective. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 24 (3), 197 – 209. doi: 10.1080/02680510903201599</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carver, S.D., Van Sickle, J., Holcomb, J.P., Jackson, D.K., Resnick, A., Duffy, S.F., ... Quinn, C.M. (2017). Operation STEM: Increasing success and improving retention among mathematically underprepared students in STEM. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 18 (3), 20 – 29. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1949081608?accountid=10499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan, C.W.M., Bhattacharyya, P., & Meisel, S. (2018). A Model for Successful Cross-Campus Collaboration for Engaging Potentially At-Risk Students in Mentored Undergraduate Research Early in Their College Career. Scholarship and Practice of Undergraduate Research, 1 (3), 48 – 56. doi: 10.18833/spur/1/3/13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> China Power Team (Producer). (2020). How does education in China compare with other countries?. [Accessed 25 Oct 2021]. https://chinapower.csis.org/education-in-china/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cholewa, B., & Ramaswami, S. (2015). The Effects of Counseling on the Retention and Academic Performance of Underprepared Freshmen. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 17 (2), 204 – 225. doi: 10.1177/1521025115578233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choudaha, R., & Van Rest, E. (2018). Envisioning pathways to 2030: Megatrends shaping the future of global higher education and international student mobility. [Accessed 01 Aug 2020]. https://<ulink href="http://www.studyportals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Report-Envisioning-Pathways-to-2030-Studyportals-2018.pdf">www.studyportals.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Report-Envisioning-Pathways-to-2030-Studyportals-2018.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clayton, K., Wessel, R.D., McAtee, J., & Knight, W.E. (2019). KEY Careers: Increasing Retention and Graduation Rates With Career Interventions. Journal of Career Development, 46 (4), 428 – 442. doi: 10.1177/0894845318763972</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cornelius, V., Wood, L., & Lai, J. (2016). Implementation and evaluation of a formal academic-peer-mentoring programme in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17 (3), 193 – 205. doi: 10.1177/1469787416654796</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crisp, G., Taggart, A., & Nora, A. (2015). Undergraduate Latina/o Students:A Systematic Review of Research Identifying Factors Contributing to Academic Success Outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 85 (2), 249 – 274. doi: 10.3102/0034654314551064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cromley, J.G., Perez, T., & Kaplan, A. (2016). Undergraduate STEM achievement and retention: Cognitive, motivational, and institutional factors and solutions. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (1), 4 – 11. doi: 10.1177/2372732215622648</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dagley, M., Georgiopoulos, M., Reece, A., & Young, C. (2016). Increasing Retention and Graduation Rates Through a STEM Learning Community [ Article ]. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 18 (2), 167 – 182. doi: 10.1177/1521025115584746</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Damkaci, F., Braun, T. F., & Gublo, K. (2017). Peer Mentor Program for the General Chemistry Laboratory Designed To Improve Undergraduate STEM Retention [ Article ]. Journal of Chemical Education, 94 (12), 1873 – 1880. doi: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00340</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, R., Dean, D., & Ball, N. (2013). Flipping the classroom and instructional technology integration in a college-level information systems spreadsheet course. Education Tech Research Dev, 61, 563 – 580.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davies, T. L., Cotton, V. K., & Korte, L. (2016). Student Usage And Perceptions Of The Value Of Recorded Lectures In A Traditional Face-To-Face (F2F) Class. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (Online), 13 (3), 85-n/a. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1804899841?accountid=10499</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeMarinis, M., Beaulieu, J., Cull, I., & Abd-El-Aziz, A. (2017). A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding the Impact of a First-Year Peer Mentor Program [ Article ]. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 29 (2), 93 – 107. <ulink href="http://ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=127116018&site=ehost-live&scope=site">http://ezproxy.newcastle.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=127116018&site=ehost-live&scope=site</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doggrell, S., & Polkinghorne, A. (2015). Using the factors that have a positive impact on the retention of low socioeconomic students to prepare accelerated enrolled nurses for the science units of a nursing degree. A Practice Report. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 6 (1), 187-n/a. doi: 10.5204/intjfyhe.v6i1.277</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Douglas, J., McClelland, R., & Davies, J. (2008). The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16 (1), 19 – 35. doi: 10.1108/09684880810848396</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duque, L.C. (2014). A framework for analysing higher education performance: Students' satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25 (1–2), 1 – 21. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2013.807677</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dwyer, T. A., & Reid-Searle, K. A. (2009). Web-enhanced and on-line learning: a comparison of first year undergraduate nursing students' learning. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 6 (2), 16 – 28. <ulink href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/45555/20091116-0006/www.sleid.cqu.edu.au/include/getdoc6c8b.pdf?id=828&article=247&mode=pdf">http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/45555/20091116-0006/www.sleid.cqu.edu.au/include/getdoc6c8b.pdf?id=828&article=247&mode=pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fila, N. D., & Loui, M. C. (2014). Structured pairing in a first-year electrical and computer engineering laboratory: The effects on student retention, attitudes, and teamwork. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30 (4), 848 – 861.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaikwad, N., & Tankhiwale, S. (2014). Interactive E-learning module in pharmacology: a pilot project at a rural medical college in India [journal article]. Perspectives on Medical Education, 3 (1), 15 – 30. doi: 10.1007/s40037-013-0081-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gill, B., Ramjan, L., Koch, J., Dlugon, E., Andrew, S., & Salamonson, Y. (2011). A standardised orientation program for first year undergraduate students in the College of Health and Science at UWS: A practice report. International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 2 (1), 63 – 69. doi: 10.5204/intjfyhe.v2i1.48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ginty, C., & Harding, N. (2014). The first year experience of a peer assisted learning program in two institutes of technology in Ireland. Journal of Peer Learning, 7 (2014), 36 – 56. <ulink href="http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=ajpl">http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=ajpl</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glazer, H. R., & Murphy, J. A. (2015). Optimizing success: A model for persistence in online education. American Journal of Distance Education, 29 (2), 135 – 144.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gore, J., Patfield, S., Fray, L., Holmes, K., Gruppetta, M., Lloyd, A., ... Heath, T. (2017). The participation of Australian Indigenous students in higher education: A scoping review of empirical research, 2000–2016. The Australian Educational Researcher, 44 (3), 323 – 355. doi: 10.1007/s13384-017-0236-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Griffith, A.L. (2010). Persistence of women and minorities in STEM field majors: Is it the school that matters? Economics of Education Review, 29 (6), 911 – 922. doi: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.06.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guerra-Martín, M. D., Lima-Serrano, M., & Lima-Rodríguez, J. S. (2017). Effectiveness of tutoring to improve academic performance in nursing students at the University of Seville [ Article ]. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 6 (2), 93 – 102. 10.7821/naer.2017.7.201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hodgson, Y., Brack, C., & Benson, R. (2014). Introducing case-based peer-assisted learning in a professional course. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 11 (2). <ulink href="http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1348&context=jutlp">http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1348&context=jutlp</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jamelske, E. (2009). Measuring the impact of a university first-year experience program on student GPA and retention [journal article]. Higher Education, 57 (3), 373 – 391. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9161-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jenkins-Guarnieri, M.A., Horne, M.M., Wallis, A.L., Rings, J.A., & Vaughan, A.L. (2015). Quantitative Evaluation of A First Year Seminar Program:Relationships to Persistence and Academic Success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 16 (4), 593 – 606. doi: 10.2190/CS.16.4.f</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerby, M.B. (2015). Toward a New Predictive Model of Student Retention in Higher Education:An Application of Classical Sociological Theory. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 17 (2), 138 – 161. doi: 10.1177/1521025115578229</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kimbark, K., Peters, M. L., & Richardson, T. (2017). Effectiveness of the Student Success Course on Persistence, Retention, Academic Achievement, and Student Engagement [Article]. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41 (2), 124 – 138. 10.1080/10668926.2016.1166352</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Larose, S., Cyrenne, D., Garceau, O., Harvey, M., Guay, F., Godin, F., Tarabulsy, G. M., & Deschênes, C. (2011). Academic Mentoring and Dropout Prevention for Students in Math, Science and Technology [Article]. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 19 (4), 419 – 439. 10.1080/13611267.2011.622078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education Pays: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society. [Accessed 01 Aug 2020]. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED572548.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacCariella, J., Pribesh, S., & Williams, M.R. (2019). An Engineering Learning Community to Promote Retention and Graduation for Community College Students [Article]. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 145 (4), Article 040190131. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000424</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Matzakos, N. M., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2018). An analysis of first year engineering students' satisfaction with a support distance learning program in mathematics. Education and Information Technologies, 23 (2), 869 – 891. 10.1007/s10639-017-9641-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBurnie, J. E., Campbell, M., & West, J. (2012). Avoiding the second year slump: A transition framework for students progressing through university. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education (formerly CAL-laborate International), 20 (2), 14 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCavit, K., & Zellner, N. E. B. (2016). Persistence of physics and engineering students via peer mentoring, active learning, and intentional advising [Article]. European Journal of Physics, 37 (6), Article 065702. 10.1088/0143-0807/37/6/065702</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLeod, J.J. (2019). The effects on student retention by implementing contextualised, program-specific learning modules in an online student success course. A practice report [Article]. Student Success, 10 (1), 141 – 146. doi: 10.5204/ssj.v10i1.1095</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meeuwisse, M., Severiens, S.E., & Born, M.P. (2010). Learning environment, interaction, sense of belonging and study success in ethnically diverse student groups. Research in Higher Education, 51 (6), 528 – 545. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9168-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mellor, D. T., Brooks, W. R., Gray, S. A., & Jordan, R. C. (2015). Troubled Transitions Into College and the Effects of a Small Intervention Course. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 17 (1), 44 – 63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025115571102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morrow, J., & Ackermann, M. (2012). Intention to persist and retention of first-year students: The importance of motivation and sense of belonging. College Student Journal, 46 (3), 483 – 491.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muller, O., Shacham, M., & Herscovitz, O. (2018). Peer-led team learning in a college of engineering: First-year students' achievements and peer leaders' gains [Article]. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55 (6), 660 – 671. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2017.1285714</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, K.J., Duncan, M., & Clarke, J.A. (2009). Student success: The identification and support of first year university students at risk of attrition. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 6 (1), 1 – 15. <ulink href="http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/45555/20091116-0006/www.sleid.cqu.edu.au/include/getdocf801.pdf?id=802&article=238&mode=pdf">http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/45555/20091116-0006/www.sleid.cqu.edu.au/include/getdocf801.pdf?id=802&article=238&mode=pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson, K.J., Smith, J.E., & Clarke, J.A. (2012). Enhancing the transition of commencing students into university: An institution-wide approach. Higher Education Research and Development, 31 (2), 185 – 199. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2011.556108</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norton, A., Cherastidtham, I., & Mackey, W. (2018). Mapping Australian higher education 2018. https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/907-Mapping-Australian-higher-education-2018.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nostrand, D. F. V., & Pollenz, R. S. (2017). Evaluating psychosocial mechanisms underlying STEM persistence in undergraduates: Evidence of impact from a six-day pre–college engagement STEM academy program [Article]. CBE Life Sciences Education, 16 (2), Article ar36. 10.1187/cbe.16-10-0294</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Office of National Statistics. (2017). Graduates in the UK labour market: 2017. 4. [Accessed 01 May 2020]. file:///C:/Users/ne599/Downloads/Graduates%20in%20the%20UK%20labour%20market%202017.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patterson Silver Wolf, D.A., Taylor, F., Maguin, E., & Asher Blackdeer, A. (2019). You Are College Material—You Belong: An Underrepresented Minority Student Retention Intervention Without Deception [Article]. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice. doi: 10.1177/1521025119848749</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silver Wolf (Adelv unegv Waya, Silver Wolf (Adelv unegv Waya. P., Perkins, J., Butler-Barnes, S. T., & Walker, T. A., Jr. (2017). Social belonging and college retention: Results from a quasi-experimental pilot study. Journal of College Student Development, 58 (5), 777 – 782. doi: 10.1353/csd.2017.0060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Quinn, A., Lemay, G., Larsen, P., & Johnson, D.M. (2009). Service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20 (2), 139 – 152. doi: 10.1080/14783360802622805</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenkranz, P. (2012). Integrating Peer Mentoring into the Psychology Curriculum: From an Extended Induction to an Academic Skills Course. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 11 (2), 201 – 207. 10.2304/plat.2012.11.2.201</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roser, M., & Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2020). Tertiary Education. (Producer). [Accessed 01 Nov 2021]. https://ourworldindata.org/tertiary-education</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sargent, C. S., Borthick, A. F., Lederberg, A. R., & Haardörfer, R. (2013). A Low-Maintenance Approach to Improving Retention: Short On-Line Tutorials in Elementary Statistics. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 14 (4), 549 – 566. 10.2190/CS.14.4.g</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schrum, R.A. (2015). Nursing student retention in an associate degree nursing program utilizing a retention specialist. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 10 (2), 80 – 87. doi: 10.1016/j.teln.2014.09.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sojkin, B., Bartkowiak, P., & Skuza, A. (2012). Determinants of higher education choices and student satisfaction: The case of Poland [journal article]. Higher Education, 63 (5), 565 – 581. doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9459-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steenkamp, L., Baard, R., & Frick, B. (2012). A holistic investigation into a tutor programme in first-year Financial Accounting. Meditari Accountancy Research, 20 (1), 68 – 87. doi: 10.1108/10222521211234237</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, K.L., Shaner, S.E., & Fendrick, C.M. (2018). Improving the success of first term general chemistry students at a liberal arts institution [Article]. Education Sciences, 8 (1), Article 5. doi: 10.3390/educsci8010005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45 (1), 89 – 125. doi: 10.3102/00346543045001089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toven-Lindsey, B., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Barber, P.H., & Hasson, T. (2015). Increasing persistence in undergraduate science majors: A model for institutional support of underrepresented students [Article]. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14 (2), 14:ar12,11-"14:ar12,12". doi: 10.1187/cbe.14-05-0082</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> University of Newcastle. (2020). Peer Assisted study sessions (PASS). University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW Australia. https://<ulink href="http://www.newcastle.edu.au/current-students/support/academic/learn-from-other-students/peer-assisted-study-sessions">www.newcastle.edu.au/current-students/support/academic/learn-from-other-students/peer-assisted-study-sessions</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Villares, E., & Brigman, G. (2019). College/Career Success Skills: Helping Students Experience Postsecondary Success. Professional School Counseling, 22 (1b). 10.1177/2156759X19834444</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waya, D., Perkins, J., Butler-Barnes, S., & Walker, T. (2017). Social Belonging and College Retention: Results From a Quasi-Experimental Pilot Study. Journal of College Student Development, 58, 777 – 782. 10.1353/csd.2017.0060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wischusen, S. M., Wischusen, E. W., & Pomarico, S. M. (2011). Impact of a Short Pre-Freshman Program on Retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 12 (4), 429 – 441. 10.2190/CS.12.4.c</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeo, R.K., & Li, J. (2014). Beyond SERVQUAL: The competitive forces of higher education in Singapore. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25 (1–2), 95 – 123. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2011.637802</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yomtov, D., Plunkett, S. W., Efrat, R., & Marin, A. G. (2017). Can Peer Mentors Improve First-Year Experiences of University Students? [ Article ]. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19 (1), 25 – 44. 10.1177/1521025115611398</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Narelle Eather; Myrto F. Mavilidi; Heather Sharp and Robert Parkes</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref104"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1345822
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Programmes Targeting Student Retention/Success and Satisfaction/Experience in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Eather%2C+Narelle%22">Eather, Narelle</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6320-4540">0000-0002-6320-4540</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mavilidi%2C+Myrto+F%2E%22">Mavilidi, Myrto F.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2661-8709">0000-0003-2661-8709</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sharp%2C+Heather%22">Sharp, Heather</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8487-6605">0000-0001-8487-6605</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Parkes%2C+Robert%22">Parkes, Robert</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3349-7805">0000-0002-3349-7805</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Higher+Education+Policy+and+Management%22"><i>Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management</i></searchLink>. 2022 44(3):223-239.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Information Analyses
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Holding+Power%22">School Holding Power</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Satisfaction%22">Student Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Experience%22">Student Experience</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literature+Reviews%22">Literature Reviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Evaluation%22">Program Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mentors%22">Mentors</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Orientation%22">School Orientation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22First+Year+Seminars%22">First Year Seminars</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/1360080X.2021.2021600
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1360-080X<br />1469-9508
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Inequalities in student enrolment, retention and success for specific demographic groups exist throughout the higher education sector. Although there are numerous and diverse initiatives implemented in universities to support student retention and/or success, experience and/or satisfaction, the feasibility or effectiveness of programs targeting these outcomes has not been systematically explored. The objective of this systematic review was to report the success of interventions or programs delivered in universities specifically targeting improved student outcomes based on published quantitative data. A systematic search of peer-reviewed papers (2009-2019) from four electronic databases (INFROMIT, PROQUEST, EBSCO and SCOPUS) was conducted. Most of the 55 studies included targeted 1st year undergraduate students from varied disciplines. The positive findings relating to student retention and academic success, and student satisfaction and experience reported in this review are promising. The review concludes by outlining implications for higher education providers seeking to determine institutional policies on investment in student retention and experience interventions.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1345822
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1345822
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/1360080X.2021.2021600
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 223
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: School Holding Power
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Experience
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literature Reviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mentors
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Orientation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: First Year Seminars
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Programmes Targeting Student Retention/Success and Satisfaction/Experience in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Eather, Narelle
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mavilidi, Myrto F.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sharp, Heather
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Parkes, Robert
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1360-080X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-9508
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 44
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
              Type: main
ResultId 1