An Analysis of the Use of Continuous Quality Improvement in the Retention of African American Males at Historically Black Colleges and Universities A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Tennessee State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Education Graduate Research Series No.___________ Howard G. Wright December 2008
186
Embed
An Analysis of the Use of Continuous Quality Improvement in the Retention of African American Males at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
An Analysis of the Use of Continuous Quality Improvement in the Retention of
African American Males at Historically Black Colleges
and Universities
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate School
of
Tennessee State University
in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the degree of
Doctorate of Education
Graduate Research Series No.___________
Howard G. Wright
December 2008
ii
An Analysis of the Use of Continuous Quality Improvement in the Retention of
African American Males at Historically Black Colleges
We are submitting a dissertation by Howard G. Wright entitled “An Analysis of
the Use of Continuous Quality Improvement in the Retention of African American Males
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities”. We recommend that it be accepted in
partial fulfillment of the degree, Doctorate of Education in Education Administration and
Supervision.
Denise Dunbar .
Chairperson
Christon Arthur . Committee Member
Janet Finch .
Committee Member
Mark Hunter . Committee Member
Accepted for the Graduate School: Alex Skewat . Dean of the Graduate School
v
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to the individuals who have assisted me in making
this dream possible. I am most grateful to my grandmother Vashti James for her
unwavering love throughout my early life and her commitment to ensuring that I value
the importance of education during my developmental years.
vi
ACKNOWLEGEMENTS
I sincerely thank my committee members Dr. Denise Dunbar Chairman, Dr
Christon Arthur, Dr. Janet Finch, and Dr. Mark Hunter for their guidance throughout the
dissertation process. I thank Dr. Phillip Redrick, my former academic advisor at Alabama
A & M University, for directing my passion for higher education research to focus on the
plight of African American males in higher education. I am grateful to Dr. Leatha
Bennett, Mrs. Janet Jones, and my colleagues at The Office of Retention and Academic
Support at Alabama A & M University for their support and encouragement. I thank Dr.
Kathrynn Seidler Engberg for her commitment to edit the manuscript. I also thank my life
long friends of the Class of 88 (The Ratoons) of The College of Agriculture in Port
Antonio Jamaica for their continued encouragement. I am grateful to the friends I met as
an international student at Florida A & M University, who encouraged and supported me
even when I came very close to becoming a college dropout.
I thank my wife, Andrea, for her understanding, love, support, and encouragement
throughout the dissertation process. Without her, I would have not started this journey.
To my children, Andre, Rojae, and Georgiana, I thank you all for your patience and
support, and for the time you gave me to work undisturbed. Finally, I am eternally
grateful to God for taking me from a humble beginning and providing the resources and
drive to complete this journey.
vii
ABSTRACT HOWARD WRIGHT. An Analysis of the Use of Continuous Quality Improvement in the Retention of African American Male Students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (under the direction of DR. DENISE DUNBAR.)
This study explores the use of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) in the
retention of African American male students, at historically black colleges and
universities (HBCUs). Based on current literature, African American male students at
HBCUs are faced with academic and non-academic factors which affect their retention
and subsequent graduation. CQI is a management system available to Academic Support
Directors which promotes engaging leadership, establishing and defining the modes of
operation, and making data driven decisions.
The purpose of the study was to focus on the application of Continuous Quality
Improvement by Academic Support Directors when integrating retention strategies for
African American male students at two-year, four-year public, and four-year private
HBCUs. To complete this study, a quantitative web-based instrument was sent to 99
Academic Support directors at 99 HBCUs that serve male undergraduate populations.
The instrument consisted of 78 Likert-like scale and two open-ended questions. The
return rate was 55.4% (57).
The responses were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and
T-test. The null hypothesis tested at a 0.05 level of significance. The results from the
hypotheses revealed no statistically significant differences between the various colleges
viii
and (a) retention policies and practices, (b) the years practicing CQI, (c) the benefits
achieved, (d) the obstacles faced, (e) the use of data in decision making, (f) the extent of
senior leadership support, and (g) the provision of leadership support for CQI. There
were also no statistically significant differences between the practice of CQI and the use
of data in decision making, as well as the perception of senior leadership support for CQI
and the time practicing CQI.
A summary of the open ended questions revealed that CQI was discussed and
implemented at the various HBCUs, but required a lot of time and departmental
cooperation. The findings indicate that CQI is practiced by Academic Support Directors
at HBCUs, and the issues faced in applying CQI to the retention management of African
American male students are similar among two-year, four-year public, and four- year
private HBCUs. It is recommended that further research be conducted (a) on the use of
CQI in African American male student retention at predominately white institutions, (b)
examine which CQI model has the most impact on African American male retention, (c)
the financial impact of CQI in retention management, (d) the success of non-
implementers of CQI, and (e) leadership support of CQI in African American male
student retention.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Page
I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………… 1
Statement of the Problem…………………………………………....7
Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………9
The Significance of the Study………………………………………10
Research Questions…………………………………………………10
Limitations of the Study…………………………………………….12
Assumptions of the Study………………………………………….. 12
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………13
II LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………...17
The Continuous Quality Management Philosophy………………….17
The Continuous Quality Organization………………………………19
The African American Male Student ……………………………….22
Drivers of Continuous Improvement in Higher Education..........…..27
Strategies for Student Retention………………………..…………..30
Data and Assessment………………………………………………..44
The Role of Institutional Management……………………………..46
Continuous Quality Improvement in Higher Education…………….48
Leadership in Continuous Quality Improvement……………………51
x
CHAPTER Page
Quality Improvement Methods Used in Higher Education………....54
Summary of the Literature…………………………………………. 62
III METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………65
Research Design…………………………………………………….65
Participants………………………………………………………….66
Research Instrument…………………………………………….......67
Data Collection Procedures…………………………………………70
Data Analysis……………………………………………………….71
Hypotheses………………………………………………………….72
IV ANALYSIS OF DATA…………………………………………………..74 Results of Research Questions…………………………………………...76 Results of Hypotheses Testing…………………………………………...85 V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS……….…..101 Summary of the Findings………………………………………………..102 Discussion of the Findings………………………………………………106 Conclusion………………………………………………………………111 Recommendations for Further Research…….………………………….113 REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………115
xi
APPENDICES A. First Letter of Solicitation…………………………………………..141 B. Second Letter of Solicitation………………………………………..144 C. Final Letter of Solicitation…………………………………………..146
. D. Permission to Use Survey ……………………………………….....148
E. Survey Instrument…………………………………………………..150
F. Panel of Experts…………………...………………………………...163
G. Institutional Review Board Application……………………………166
H. Open Ended Responses…………………………………………….168
I. Four Year Class Average 1999-2000 Cohort………………………...171
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Pages
1. Results of Cronbach’s Analysis………………………………………..69
2. Results of Response by College Size………………………………….75
3. Results of Colleges by Classification…………………………………75
4. The Effectiveness of Retention Program Meeting the needs of African American Male Students……………………….77 5. Results of CQI Methods Practiced by Retention Directors…..………79
6. Factors Driving the Support for CQI in Retention Management for African American Males……………………………80
7. Obstacles Faced in Implementing CQI in Retention Management………………………………………..82 8. Factors Driving Non Implementers from Supporting
CQI in Retention Management for African American Male Students…83
9. Benefits Derived from Implementing CQI in Retention Management for African American Male Students……….84
10. ANOVA Results of Significant Differences Between Program Policies and Practices for African American Male Students and the Various Colleges.…………………………. …...….85
11. ANOVA Results for Significant Differences Between Years
of Practice and the Various Colleges ………………………………... 87
12. ANOVA Results of Benefits Achieved from Implementing CQI in Retention of African American Males Among the Various Colleges …..……………………………………………………………88
xiii
Table Pages 13. ANOVA Results of the Differences in Obstacles Faced Implementing CQI and the Various College..……………….....90 14. T-test Comparing Practitioners and Non Practitioners
in the use of Data in Decision Making for African American Male Student Retention………………………………………………92
15. ANOVA Results for Differences in the Use of Data for Decision Making and the Various Colleges……………………….93
16. ANOVA Results for the Differences between the Extent of Senior Administrative Support and the Various Colleges….94
17. ANOVA Results for the Differences in the Perception
of Senior Leadership Support for CQI and the Time Practicing CQI…………………………………………………...96
18. ANOVA Results Comparing the Differences Between The Provision of Leadership in Campus Retention and The Various Colleges ………………………………………….……...98
19. ANOVA Results Comparing the Differences Between the Provision of Leadership in Campus Retention Initiatives and the Years Practicing CQI…………………………….99
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION There is a great demand for institutions to monitor students’ progress through
their college experience and apply strategies to improve their successful matriculation
(Dey & Hurtado, 2005). A student's decision to leave an institution is very complex and
involves several factors that must be managed effectively during the student's academic
career (Bean, 1980; Tinto, 1993; Nora & Cabrera, 1996). For African American males at
historically black colleges, the stakes are much higher, because more than two thirds
leave without obtaining a degree from the same institution (NCES, 2003). The African
American male student’s plight is a serious concern that requires evaluation of the
strategies used by the institutions and solutions found that will enable the majority of
African American male students to graduate within five to six years (Pascarella, 1985).
In a report on first time bachelor degree seeking students enrolled in 1996, who
graduated from the same HBCU institution by August 2002, the graduation rates for
black females by year four was 23%, in comparison to 14% for black males. In year five,
the graduation rates for black females was 38% in comparison to 28% for black males. In
year six the graduation rate was 44% compared to 34% respectively. Comparatively, the
six-year graduation rate for white males was 56% (NCES, 2003).
2
The retention rate for any group of students is a performance indicator that allows
institutions to demonstrate quality, satisfy the stakeholders’ need for improvement and
accountability, and enhances the institutional capability in making informed decisions on
policies, programs and personnel (Bogue, 1998). A low retention rate for any institution
is damaging. A low rate is an indication of the ineffectiveness of an institution in
managing the progress of its students to graduate within the time indicated. It has
negative implications for the students who drop out. The institution's reputation is
compromised, and revenues that could be generated for academic and student services are
lost (Leveille, 2006; Tinto, 1993). According to Swail et. al (2004), when an institution
loses a student it reduces its income over the years. The institution also loses revenue
from bookstores, residential halls, financial aid, campus restaurants, and potentially lost
alumni contributions (Swail et. al, 2004).
Mustiful (1995) found that for improvements to occur in retention, all areas of
the campus community including financial aid, faculty and peer support, campus activity
and mentors at the institution must work together to improve the student experience,
because individually they impact all students' persistence. Students who departed from
historically black colleges, however, spoke about the disorganization on the campuses,
financial aid issues, problems with bureaucratic red tape and poor customer service which
impacted their departure (Hurd, 2000).
Over the years many HBCU administrators failed to look at the financial and
social implications that retention has on their institutions (Hurd, 2000).This has created a
general public consensus that black males on campuses have difficulty becoming socially
3
integrated, but very little is done to better manage their academic careers to improve their
participation and degree completion (Davis, 1999; Cuyjet, 2006).
A report from the Consortium for Student Data Exchange (2004) found that
institutions lose 20 % of its students in the first year, 11 % in the second year and 9 % in
the third year. A similar study by the ACT (2005) on retention transitioning from
freshman to sophomore from 1983 to 2005 showed that the national rate for two-year
private colleges was 62%, in comparison to 52% for two-year public institutions. The
retention rate was 66.4% for public baccalaureate institutions, in comparison to 70% for
private baccalaureate institutions. For public doctoral institutions, the retention rate was
77%, compared to 82.1% for private doctoral institutions. Nationally for all institutions,
the retention rate was 68.2% (ACT, 2005).
Retention projects have been established at most historically black colleges and
universities by making retention a major part of their institutional mission. Many
HBCUs, with the support of federal and state agencies, have established institutional
strategies such as academic support services, remediation, counseling and retention
centers, career services, emergency loans and merit based scholarships, private and
corporate donations, along with Title IV initiatives such as Summer Bridge and Trio
programs. Each program plays a significant role in improving retention (Chenoweth,
1999; Jones-Giles, 2004). The programs are aimed at developing academic skills through
remediation, social skills development, and providing financial assistance (Chenoweth,
1999). The student reported benefits from these programs are improved grades, enhanced
sense of self-worth, as well as the ability to persevere in school (Marshall, 2005).
4
Efforts to address the general needs of black students do not specifically address
the needs of African American men within the campus structure. Academic support and
retention services should be designed to address the socio-economic problems faced by
black male students as they maneuver the obstacles they encounter on campuses (Cuyjet,
1997). According to Fortson (1997), many programs have not increased the retention
rates significantly, because they do not demonstrate their effectiveness in addressing the
factors that will increase the retention of African American male students. According to
Nittie et al. (1994), the fade out effect has trapped many institutions into a cycle in which
students participate in programs, but as they improve and move out of the programs, the
gains are lost.
The National Association of Land Grant Colleges and Universities’ (NASULGC)
report (2001) on the future of state land grant universities found that the public was
growing frustrated with institutional unresponsiveness. Despite the resources available,
public institutions are perceived as unorganized, unable to improve their internal
problems efficiently and effectively. Boyd (2002) and Muraskin & Lee (2004) argued
that negative perceptions are fueled by increases in tuition, increases in student
indebtedness, demands for more financial aid, reductions of educational opportunity for
low income students, financial crises at the state and local government, allegations of
financial and academic wrong doing at institutions, students’ performance, reductions of
state appropriations to higher education, and finally poor management of tax dollars.
The demand for resources has created an ongoing national and regional discussion
by legislators, the public, higher education policy makers, and members of the African
5
American community, all of which call for accountability and a planned approach to
improve the retention of African American males in higher education. In support of these
discussions, The NASULAGC, (2001) report recommended that land grant institutions
become engaged in improving student experiences, change the campus culture and
organize themselves to respond to the needs of the current and future students.
According to Tinto (2000), institutions should consider more than the overall
graduation rates, but instead examine improvements in retention of the different student
populations (low income, traditional, first generation, non traditional) to see if their
persistence rates have increased with time. Davis (1999) concurred that improvements in
the current retention rates on campuses require a collective effort to nurture the African
American male from his junior year in high school to his senior year in college.
Monitoring a student from the time he/she is accepted by the institution provides the
institution with information to offer the necessary services to accommodate the student’s
needs. The solution also requires the contribution of individuals involved with students to
continuously improve the processes that will sustain the student throughout their
academic career (Cuyjet, 2006).
Prudent retention management requires leaders to become part of the solution.
Successful retention planning involves setting the stage for student retention, establishing
priorities, integrating retention goals with existing programs and services, evaluating
retention outcomes, preparing realistic timelines, along with recognizing and celebrating
student successes (Law, 1999).
6
Seymour (1993) argued that for an institution to solve any of its problems there
must be an understanding of the issues, then it must work continuously to improve the
processes that caused the problem. Regular assessment of the efficiency of institutional
activities creates a foundation that allows groups to respond to changing demands of the
students’ needs with a planned approach (Kaye & Anderson, 1999; Chamblis, 2003).
Regular assessment creates a culture of evidence that allows the institution to constantly
gain information about itself, use the information to continually improve its management
processes that will satisfy students’ needs (Leveille, 2006).
According to Dew (2006), continuous quality improvement models assist
institutions in examining their work systems and performance indicators. The models
engage leadership, define strategic and operational planning, create measures and
assessment, and evaluate work processes. Several CQI models have been used in higher
education to create operational improvements to non-academic departments. The most
notable are Baldrige Criteria for Education Excellence and Balance Scorecard (Rice &
Taylor, 2003), Benchmarking (Thalner, 2005), Quality Planning (Zhiming, 1999) and
Strategic Planning (Low, 1999).
Continuous Quality Improvement does not have to be an institutional initiative,
but non-academic departments such as retention can use it as an effective tool to make
small improvements (Chambliss, 2003). Institutions can also create receptive employees
to quality models (Fritz, 1999), and can use CQI as a launching pad for campus wide
quality initiatives (Dew & Nering, 2003).
7
Deming (1986) suggests that it is the responsibility of the manager in the quality
environment to eliminate obstacles that will prevent optimal performance, because
problems that occur are due to system failure rather than unmotivated employees. The
CQI process allows managers to focus on improving the college experience by
strengthening integration, student involvement and commitment, and utilizing a planned
approach to problem solving (Chamblis, 2003). Continuous Quality Improvement allows
departments to respond to the changing demands of student needs and services creating a
foundation to respond to the challenges faced in the educational environment (Chamblis,
2003).
Improvement in student services can only occur if there is an examination of all
the different processes involved in CQI and by bringing together all the various
stakeholders together. CQI creates cross-functional teams that manage key processes,
maximize operational effectiveness, and enhance customer satisfaction (Lewis & Smith,
There is no indication from the literature of widespread use of Continuous Quality
Improvement models at historically black colleges and universities, but research did
indicate that they are becoming the foundation for developing quality programs at
64
departmental and institutional levels at several majority white institutions. Quality
improvement models that are developed, validated, adopted in higher education are the
Malcolm Baldrige Quality Award for Educational Excellence (Clarke 1999; Barthe et al.,
2000; Winn, 2003), Benchmarking (Mosier and Schwarmueller, 2002 and Dew &
Nehring, 2005), Balance Scorecard (Ewell, 1994) and Strategic Planning ( Rose & Kirk
2001; Brown & Allen, 2002; Aloi, 2005). These models are not without problems, but are
successful if they are backed by management commitment and prudent leadership
(Birnbaum, 1999; Benson, 2000; Seanor, 2004).
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent of the use of
Continuous Quality Improvement among Academic Support Directors in integrating
retention strategies for African American male students at two-year HBCUs, four-year
public, and four-year private HBCUs. This chapter will describe the research design,
participants, data collection procedures, hypotheses, and data analysis.
The study was quantitative in nature utilizing a descriptive research design.
According to Gay & Airasian (2003), quantitative research is descriptive and outcome
orientated. In addition, it can be duplicated. This study focuses on established theories
and hypotheses, is specific, explains cause and effect relationships among variables, is
unbiased, and objective. Survey research was used to gather information from academic
support directors at HBCUs. Gay & Airasian (2003) emphasized that understanding a
population’s perspective requires the use of a data collection method that is ideal. It
should involve a large population, and provide statistical data that can be analyzed and
interpreted.
66
Participants
The participants of the study were 99 academic support directors from 104
HBCUs representing the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S Virgin
Islands for the 2007-2008 academic year. Six HBCUs were not selected to participate in
the study, because they were professional graduate schools or had all female student
populations. The participating institutions represent 49 private HBCUs 38 public four-
year and 11 public two-year HBCUs.
Purposive sampling method was used to select the participants in the study. The
participants were directors who had responsibilities for retention at the respective
HBCUs. According to Gay and Airasian (2003), purposive sampling is ideal, because it
allows the researcher to select the sample based on his knowledge of the population. It
also allows the researcher to personally choose and use all members of the available
population.
The email addresses and phone numbers of the academic support directors were
obtained through their respective institutions’ web page. Whenever the information could
not be ascertained from the institutions’ web page, calls were made to the institutions to
determine the name and title of the appropriate individual. After the name of the
respective Academic Support Directors was ascertained, the researcher called the
respective Vice President for Academic Affairs office to confirm the employment status
and position of the individuals.
67
Instrumentation
The research instrument was a survey developed by the researcher. A section of
Thalner’s (2005) study on the application of Continuous Quality Improvement in higher
education in Michigan was modified and utilized to address the continuous quality
improvement process. Permission was requested and granted by Thalner (2005) to use
her survey instrument (please see Appendix D).
The Survey Monkey software was used to develop the style and format of the
instrument. Email for each director was input into the Survey Monkey software. A cover
letter with the link to the instrument was mailed to each director. Each return instrument
was marked completed or not completed by the software, but was checked by the
researcher to ensure that completed surveys had accepted the terms and conditions.
A web-based format was used for the instrument. According to Schonlau, Fricker,
& Elliott (2002), web-based surveys have the benefit of reducing completion time, and
the overall survey costs. Web based surveys also correct names, addresses problems, and
can resubmit the survey to its intended recipients. According to Schuh, Upcraft and
Associates (2001), the advantages of web-based surveys are the data can be collected in a
user friendly manner, the return rate may be greater and timelier, data collection time is
reduced, anonymity can be managed, the response pool can be expanded, costs can be
reduced, and the instrument can be piloted more easily.
The Survey Monkey software was used to develop the style and format of the
instrument. The first page of the instrument was designed to include the statement of
confidentiality, the terms and conditions of the study, contact information and an option
68
to accept electronically the terms and conditions of the study. The rest of the instruments
were divided into four areas, namely demographic information, retention practices and
policies, the use of Continuous Quality Improvement and administrative support, along
with departmental leadership (see Appendix E). Within the demographic information,
there were two questions on institution classification (i.e. public four-year, private-four
year, and two-year) and the size of the institution. The second section provided
information relating to retention polices and practices. The third section adopted
questions from Thalner’s (2005) survey instrument. The questions investigated the use of
Continuous Quality Improvement in retention departments. The fourth section addressed
administrative support and departmental leadership.
Participants responded to a series of statements requiring Likert-like scales
responses. To score the Likert-like scale each item was associated with a value point with
individual scores ranging from 5 the highest, to 1 for the lowest. The respondents were
asked to respond to question three, seven and eight using strongly disagree to strongly
agree. The respondents were also asked to respond to very important to not very
important for question six and no improvement to significant improvement for question
nine respectively. In addition to the Likert-like scale responses, participants were asked to
answer closed ended questions, and two open ended questions. The responses from the
open ended questions were grouped for analysis. A total of 75 items completed the
instrument.
Four individuals with expertise in higher education and Continuous Quality
Improvement were asked to review the survey for content validity. These individuals
69
were asked to examine the survey and determine if it addressed the research questions,
and if all the sections of the survey met the intended objectives (see Appendix F).
Comments were examined and revisions made as necessary
The survey was reviewed and piloted by 32 randomly selected retention directors,
assistant directors, and senior personnel from retention departments at several HBCUs
and predominately white institutions. The pilot group was asked to complete the survey
and provide feedback on the time and ease of having it completed. The returned surveys
were collected through Survey Monkey and the results tested in the SPSS software.
Likert-scale items were tested for internal consistency using Cronbach’s alpha. The mean
of the Cronbach’s Alpha test was 0.77 with a high of 0.86 and a low of 0.071 (see Table
1). Barker, Pistrang & Elloitt (2002) suggested that reliability standards for alpha should
consider .50 as poor, .60 marginally reliable, .70 acceptable, .80 good, .90 and higher
unacceptable. As evidenced in table 1 the items tested were within the reliability
guidelines recommended by Barker, Pistrang & Elloitt (2002).
Table 1
Results of Cronbach’s Analysis
Question Number of items Cronbach’s Alpha
Q5 10 0.75
Q11 12 0.71
Q12 7 0.75 Q13 9 0.86 Q14 6 0.80
70
Table 1 (cont’t)
Results of Cronbach’s Analysis
Question Number of items Cronbach’s Alpha
Q15 6 0.86 Q16 7 0.73 Q17 8 0.73
Data Collection Procedures
Before the survey was distributed, a research protocol was submitted to the
Tennessee State University Institutional Review Board Human Subject Committee for
review and approval. The research protocol was approved on November 11, 2007 (see
Appendix G). A file was then created to include all academic support directors along with
their email addresses and contact phone numbers. The file was imported into Survey
Monkey and added to a distribution list.
An email was sent to each Academic Support Director soliciting their
participation in the study. The letter outlined the purpose and objectives of the study as
well as instructions on how to find and complete the instrument. Embedded in each letter
was a survey monkey web linked to the instrument (see Appendix A).
The web surveys were linked to a tracking system that was directed to the data
collection program. To maintain anonymity the participants’ names were not required on
the instruments. However, each instrument was tracked by a survey tracking system
which provided information on responders and non-responders. The return rate was not
71
acceptable after three weeks and a follow up call was made to each non responder. This
was followed by an email reminder (see Appendix B). The process was repeated in week
six. A fourth and final email reminder was sent to those individuals who did not respond
by week eight (see Appendix C)
Data Analysis
The responses from the survey were compiled in the Survey Monkey and
exported into Excel. The data was reviewed to ensure that the data sets were imported
correctly. The data was coded, imported from Excel, and transferred into Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), 16.0. The open-ended questions were grouped in the
Survey Monkey software. The responses were added to a file and exported to Microsoft
word. Responses with common themes were grouped and compared with the rest of the
data.
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the mean and standard deviation.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test hypothesis one through four and six
through 10. A t-test was performed to test the hypothesis five. The level of significance
was tested at an alpha of .05. According to Gay & Airasian (2003), the means in ANOVA
are less likely to be identical, so it is easier to decide whether the difference was due to
sampling error or the difference was significant.
72
Null Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were developed from the questions and the review of
the literature.
Hypothesis 1
There is no statistically significant difference between the retention programs,
policies, and practices for African American male students at the various HBCUs.
Hypothesis 2
There is no statistically significant difference between the number of years
practicing CQI by academic support directors among two year HBCUs, four-year
public, and four-year private HBCUs.
Hypothesis 3
There is no statistically significant difference between the benefits achieved from
CQI implementation in retention management for African American male
students among the various HBCUs.
Hypothesis 4
There is no statistically significant difference between the obstacles faced by
academic directors in implementing CQI at the various HBCUs.
Hypothesis 5
There is no statistically significant difference between practitioners and non
practitioners of CQI when using data for making decisions on African American
male student retention.
73
Hypothesis 6
There is no statistically significant difference between the use of data by
Academic Support Directors in making decisions for African American male
student retention and the various colleges.
Hypothesis 7
There is no statistically significant difference between the extent of senior
administrative support for African American male student retention and various
HBCUs.
Hypothesis 8
There is no statistically significant difference between the perception of senior
leadership support for CQI and the time practicing CQI at the various HBCUs.
Hypothesis 9
There is no statistically significant difference between the provision of leadership
in campus retention initiatives for African American male students and the
various HBCUs.
Hypothesis 10
There is no significant difference between the provision of leadership in campus
retention initiatives and the years practicing CQI.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent of the use of
Continuous Quality Improvement among Academic Support Directors in integrating
retention strategies for African American male students at two-year HBCUs, four-year
public, and four-year private HBCUs. An objective of the study was to identify the
impact of institutional policies and practices on retention practices for African American
male students and evaluate the level of awareness and practice of quality improvement
practices among academic support directors at different HBCUs. Another objective of the
study was to also examine the perception of the impact of Continuous Quality
Improvement strategies on retention management of African American males and
examine the role of leadership in the practice of CQI in retention management.
In analyzing the data collected, it was found that two or 3.6% of the institutions
had an enrollment of over 15,000 students; eight (14.4%) had an enrollment range of
10,000-15,000; and eight or (14.4%) had an enrollment of 5,000-10,000. Twenty six
(46.4%) of the institutions had an enrollment between 1,000-5,000 students, and 12 or
(21.4%) had an enrollment under 1,000 (see table 2).
75
Table 2
Responses by College Size
Institution Enrollment Responses Response %
Over 15,000 2 3.6
10,000-15000 8 14.3
5,000-10,000 8 14.3
1,000-5,000 26 46.4
Under 1,000 12 21.4 Total 56 100%
Of the 99 surveys sent, 57 (55.44%) were returned. One survey was rejected
because the respondent did not accept the terms and conditions. All 56 usable surveys
were used in the analysis, but only 47 (82.5%) of the respondents completed the survey in
its entirety. There were 22 (39.3%) responses from private four-year colleges and
universities, 24 (42.9%) were from public four-year colleges and universities and 10
(17.9%) were from two- year colleges (see Table 3).
Table 3
Table of Colleges by Classification
School classification Number of returned surveys Percentage of returned surveys
Private four-year 22 39.2%
Public four- year 24 42.9%
Two-year 10 17.9% Total 56 100
76
Findings on the Research Questions
Question 1
What percentage of HBCUs have a center designated for student retention?
Of the respondents surveyed 33 (60.0%) indicated that they had a designated retention
department compared to 22 (38.9%) who did not.
Question 2
What percentage of HBCUs have support services designed to target traditional and non-
traditional African American male populations?
Fourteen (25.9%) of the respondents have programs that target traditional African
American males, 31 (57.4%) have programs for both non-traditional and traditional
African American males, and 10 (18.5%) had programs for neither non- traditional nor
traditional African American male students.
Question 3
How effective are the current retention programs and policies in meeting the needs of
African American male students at historically black colleges and universities (i.e.
student preparedness, faculty, mentors and role models, academic advising, financial aid,
campus environment and services and socialization and integration)?
The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed to
statements relating to campus programs, policies and practices at their respective
institutions. The rankings of the mean scores are shown in table four. In order of rank,
the respondents agreed that information on campus services is communicated to African
American male students throughout the year (M = 3.91). The respondents also agreed that
77
African American male students are provided with adequate information about the
financial aid process (M = 3.9). The respondents ranked two variables the lowest: at risk
African American male students frequently participate in mentorship programs (M=2.63),
and academic advisors are trained on issues impacting African American male students
(M=2.62) (see Table 4). Overall, the mean score was 3.33 which indicated that Academic
Support Directors where undecided on whether their current retention programs were
effective at meeting the needs of African American male students.
Table 4
The Effectiveness of Retention Programs at Meeting the Needs of African American Male Students Factors Mean SD
Information on campus services are 3.91 .996 communicated to African American males throughout the school year. African American males are provided 3.90 1.053 with adequate information on the financial aid process. African American men’s academic 3.78 .945 needs are met by services provided by the institution. There are programs that integrate African 3.57 1.08 American male students into the institution. African American men’s social needs are 3.41 1.09 met by the services provide by the institution. Retention programs at your institution 3.26 1.05 positively impact African American male student retention. 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 =Agree, 3 = Undecided, 2 = Disagree, 1= Strongly Disagree
78
Table 4 (continued) The Effectiveness of Retention Programs in Meeting the Needs of African American Male Students Factors Mean SD
Academic advisement focuses on early 3.25 1.12 proactive engagement of African American men. There are avenues for contact outside 3.11 1.14 of the classroom between at risk African American male students and faculty. At risk African American males 2.63 1.14 frequently participate in mentorship programs. Academic advisors of African American 2.62 1.08 males are trained on issues impacting African American male students. 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 =Agree, 3 = Undecided, 2 = Disagree, 1= Strongly Disagree
Question 4
To what extent are academic support directors aware of and adopting quality
improvement models to their department?
Participants were asked the following questions;
(a) Are you aware of quality improvement practices in higher education?
(b) Is your department currently practicing continuous quality improvement? and
(c) How many years have you being practicing CQI?
The results revealed that 35 (66%) of the respondents were aware of CQI practices in
higher education compared to 18 (35%) who were not aware. In addition, 35 (67.3%)
79
indicated that they are currently practicing CQI compared to 17 (32.7%) who are not. The
respondents indicated that 13 (46.4%) have practiced CQI for over five years, four
(14.3%) for three to five years, and 11 (39.3%) for 1-3 years.
Question 5
What Continuous Quality Improvement models are used if any to manage retention
outcomes?
The findings showed that 25 (58.1%) of the respondents used only one method of
CQI, while 21 (41.9%) used multiple methods. As indicated in table five, the CQI method
used by retention directors was strategic management 30 (69.8%), followed by
Benchmarking 17 (39.5%), Process Management 15 (34.9%), Balance Scorecard (14)
32.6%, Baldrige Criteria 6 (14%) and other methods 4 (9.3%) respectively (see Table 5).
Table 5
CQI Method Practiced by Retention Directors
Method Response Count Response %
Strategic Planning 30 69.8
Benchmarking 17 39.5
Process Management 15 34.9 Balance Scorecard 14 32.6 Baldridge Criteria for 6 14.0 Education Excellence Others 4 9.3
80
Question 6
What factors are driving Academic Support Directors to continuously improve the
retention of African American male students?
The study asked the respondents to indicate the extent of the importance placed
on the reasons driving the institution to improve African American male retention. As
shown in Table six, the factors were ranked from highest to lowest. The results showed
that the socio-economic implications of the African American community (M=4.49) and
the management strategy of the institution (M=4.15) were the two most important factors
driving HBCUs to improve African American male retention. In contrast, pressure from
alumni (M=2.88) and online for profit institutions (M=2.62) were the least important
factors driving the HBCUs, to improve African American male retention.
Table 6
Factors Driving the Support for CQI in the Retention of African American Male Student
Factors Mean SD The socio-economic implications of the 4.49 0.771 African American community Management strategy of the institution’s president 4.15 0.963 African American male performance in comparison to other ethnic groups 4.10 1.091 The need to improve the quality of the system that caters to underperforming male students 4.15 0.91 Student’s complaints and expectations 4.07 0.383 Accreditation Expectations 3.93 0.959 ________________________________________________________________________
81
Table 6 (continued) Factors Driving the Support for CQI in the Retention of African American Males
Factors Mean SD
The need to improve campus services catering to African American males. 3.85 0.823 The need for revenue improvement 3.83 0.946 The damage to the institution reputation 3.56 1.074 Response to budgetary reductions 3.55 1.176 Pressure from Alumni 2.88 1.14 Pressure from online and for profit institutions 2.62 1.102 5 = Very Important, 4 = Important, 3 = Undecided, 2 = Not Important, 1 = Not Very Important
Question 7 What obstacles were encountered by implementers in the application of CQI to retention
practices?
Respondents were asked to indicate their perception of the obstacles encountered
in their department while implementing Continuous Quality Improvement methods.
Table seven displays the rankings of the responses. The respondents rated the statements:
the lack of financial resources (M=3.95), turf protection (M=3.71) and lack of
accountability (M=3.61) the highest. Lack of feedback and support (M=3.24), faculty
resistance (M=3.16) and lack of leadership support were ranked the lowest (see Table 7).
82
Table 7 Obstacles Faced by Retention Directors Implementing CQI in Retention Management Factors Mean SD Lack of financial resources 3.95 1.23 Turf Protection 3.71 0.956 Lack of accountability 3.61 1.05 Poor communication of initiatives 3.53 1.059 among departments Institution culture 3.50 1.109 Lack of support between departments 3.44 1.25 Lack of openness 3.24 1.125 Lack of feedback and support 3.24 1.10 Faculty Resistance 3.16 1.285 Lack of leadership support 2.68 1.27 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 =Agree, 3 = Undecided, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree
To strengthen question seven the respondents were asked open ended questions to
comment on applying CQI models to retention management at their institution. The
comments can be seen in Appendix H.
Question 8
What factors contributed to non implementers not pursuing CQI in retention practices
for African American males?
83
The respondents were asked to determine the extent they perceived the following
factors listed in table eight contributed to the department not pursing Continuous Quality
Improvement methods for retention management. As indicated in table eight, the
participants rated lack of training for administrators, staff, and faculty (M=4.57), lack of
knowledge and understanding of continuous improvement by administrators (M=4.29)
the highest. Factors such as: there was no financial resources for CQI (M=3.86) and it is
not required by the department (M=3.71) were ranked lowest by the respondents.
Table 8
Factors Driving Non Implementers from Supporting CQI in Retention Management for African American Male Students
Factors Mean SD
Lack of training for administrators 4.57 0 .535 staff and faculty Lack of knowledge and understanding of 4.29 0.756 continuous improvement by administrators. Lack of staff support for CQI improvement 4.0 1.00 Resistance to continuous quality 4.0 0.816 improvement by administrators There was no financial resources for CQI 3.86 1.345 It is not required by the department 3.71 0.756 _______________________________________________________________________ 5 = Strongly Agree, 4 =Agree, 3 = Undecided, 2 = Disagree, 1 = Strongly Disagree
Question 9
What are the benefits gained from the application of CQ I methods?
84
The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which the following benefits
were achieved from CQI implementation at their institution. Table 9 displays the ranking
of the benefits gained from the implementation of CQI from highest to lowest. The
respondents rated collaboration with other departments (M=3.77), communication
between university partners and other departments (M=3.53) and intrusive advising
(M=3.49) as the top benefits gained. The participants rated academic performance
(M=3.21) and cohort graduation rates for African American males (M=2.95) as the least
benefits gained. .
Table 9
Benefits Derived from Implementing CQI in Retention Management for African American Male Students
Factors Mean SD
Collaboration with other departments 3.77 1.16 Communication between university partners and other departments 3.53 1.109 Intrusive advising 3.49 1.14 Response to academic complaints 3.38 0.990 The use of retention services by African 3.28 1.169 American males Academic performance 3.21 0.923 Cohort graduation rates for African 2.95 0.972 African American males 5 = Significant Improvement, 4 = Moderate Improvement, 3 = Neutral, 2 = Marginal Improvement, 5 = No Improvement
85
Results of Hypotheses Testing Hypothesis 1
There is no statistically significant difference between the retention programs,
policies, and practices for African American male students at the various HBCUs.
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was conducted to determine if there were
statistical differences between the institution retention programs, policies and practices
for African Americans male students and the type of college they attend. The hypothesis
was tested at 0.05 level of significance. Table 10 illustrates that the variables associated
with academic and social support had an overall p value greater than 0.05 level of
significance. The null hypothesis was retained. The results indicate that the retention
programs, policies and practices, for African American males do not differ based on
whether the college is a two year, four year private or four year public HBCU.
Table 10
ANOVA Results of Significant Differences Between Program Policies and Practices for African American Male Students and the Various Colleges Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Academic needs are Between Groups 1.10 2 0.550 0.607 0.549 met by services Within Groups 46.23 51 0.907 provided Total 47.33 53 Social needs are Between Groups 0 .53 2 0.264 0.216 0.807 met by services Within Groups 62.51 51 1.23 provided Total 63.03 53 ________________________________________________________________________
86
Table 10 (continued)
ANOVA Results for Program, Policies and Practices
Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Retention programs Between Groups 1.98 2 0.990 0.838 0.438 integrate African within Groups 59.03 50 1.18 male Total 61.02 Information on Between Groups 1.60 2 0.80 0.803 0.454 campus services Within Groups 50.93 51 0.99 are communicated Total 52.54 53 Advisement focuses Between Groups 0.80 2 0.401 0.615 0.736 on proactive Within Groups 65.0 50 1.30 engagement Total 65.8 52 Advisors are trained Between Groups 1.45 2 0.725 0.615 0.545 on issues impacting Within Groups 59.0 50 1.18 African American Total 60.45 52 men There are avenues Between Groups 0 .69 2 0.347 0.261 0.772 for out of class Within Groups 66.6 50 1.18 contact Total 67.32 52 Males are provided Between Groups 3.68 2 1.84 1.71 0.192 with adequate Within Groups 52.8 49 1.07 financial aid Total 56.51 51 information At risk males Between Groups 0.74 2 0.371 0.352 0.705 participate in Within Groups 53.8 51 1.06 mentorship Total 54.59 53 _______________________________________________________________________
87
Hypothesis 2
There is no statistically significant difference between the number of years practicing
CQI by academic support directors among two year HBCUs, four-year public, and four-
year private HBCUs.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether there was a
statistically significant difference between the years practicing CQI by academic directors
and the types of HBCUs. The data was tested at 0.05 level of significance. The results
shown in Table 11 reveal no significant differences F (2, 25) = .772, p > .05. Since p >.05
the null hypothesis is retained. The results indicated that the numbers of years practicing
CQI by retention directors is not impacted by the various college types.
Table 11 ANOVA Results for Significant Differences Between Years of Practice and the Various Colleges ______________________________________________________________________ Years with CQI Sum of Squares df Means of Squares F p Between Groups 1.39 2 0.694 0.77 0.47 Within Groups 22.5 25 0.899 Total 23.6 27 ______________________________________________________________________ Hypothesis 3
There is no significant statistical difference between the benefits achieved from CQI
implementation in retention management for African American males among the various
HBCUs.
An Analysis of Variance was generated to determine whether there is statistically
significant difference between the benefits achieved from CQI implementation in
88
retention management for African American males among the various of HBCUs. The
hypothesis was tested at 0.05 level of significance. As observed in Table 12, the overall
finding revealed p > 0.05 for all the variables tested. The results revealed no significant
difference between the benefits achieved from CQI implementation in retention
management for African American males among the different types of HBCU. The null
hypothesis was retained. The results indicate that the benefits derived from implementing
CQI in retention management is not based on whether the institution is a two-year, four-
year public, and two-year private HBCU.
Table 12
Differences Between Benefits Achieved from Implementing CQI in the Retention of African American Male students Among the Various Colleges Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Increase cohort Between Groups 2.32 2 1.19 1.28 0.30 graduation rates Within Groups 33.52 36 0.93 Total 35.90 38 The use of retention Between Groups 3.0 2 1.50 1.10 0.34 services by African Within Groups 48.90 36 1.36 American males Totals 51.90 Academic performance Between Groups 4.07 2 2.04 2.59 0.09 Within Groups 28.28 36 0.79 Totals 32.26 38 Response to student Between Groups 5.05 2 2.52 2.82 0.73 complaints Within Groups 32.18 36 0.90 Total 37.23 38 Intrusive advising Between Groups 2.35 2 1.17 0.90 0.42 Within Groups 32.18 36 1.32 Total 37.23 _______________________________________________________________________
89
Table 12 (continued)
Differences Between Benefits Achieved from Implementing CQI in the Retention of African American Males Among the Various Colleges
Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Collaboration with Between Groups 2.89 2 1.44 1.08 0.35 other departments Within Groups 48.04 36 1.33 Total 50.9 38 Communication Between Groups 5.54 2 2.78 2.43 0.10 between university Within Groups 39.92 35 1.14 partners Total 45.74 37 Hypothesis 4 There is no statistically significant difference between the obstacles faced by retention
directors implementing CQI at the various HBCUs.
An ANOVA was generated to determine whether there is statistically
significance difference between the obstacles faced by academic directors implementing
CQI at the various HBCUs. The hypothesis was tested at 0.05 level of significance.
Investigation of the data shows an overall result of p > 0.05 (see table 13). The factors
tested are not statistically significant. The hypothesis was retained. The findings suggest
that the obstacles faced by Academic Support Directors are similar among two year
colleges, four year public and four year private colleges.
90
Table 13 ANOVA Results of the Differences in Obstacles Faced Implementing CQI and the Various Colleges
Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Lack of leadership Between Groups 3.85 2 1.92 1.20 0.315 support Within Groups 56.36 35 1.61 Total 60.21 37 Lack of support between Between Groups 0.04 2 0.020 0.012 0.99 departments Within Groups 59.55 36 1.65 Total 59.6 38 Poor communication Between Groups 1.28 2 0.64 0.56 0.58 of initiatives Within Groups 40.20 35 1.15 Total 41.47 Faculty and Staff Between Groups 6.14 2 3.07 1.96 0.16 resistance Within Groups 54.9 35 1.57 Total 61.1 37 Lack of openness in the Between Groups 0.48 2 0.241 0.182 0.84 System Within Groups 46.40 37 1.32 Total 46.70 37 Communication Between Groups 5.54 2 2.78 2.43 0.10 between university Within Groups 39.92 35 1.10 partners Total 45.74 37 Turf protection Between Groups 0.215 2 0.107 0.112 0.89 Within Group 33.60 35 0.96 Total 33.81 37 Rigid institution Between Groups 2.47 2 1.23 1.00 0.38 culture Within Groups 43.03 35 1.23 Total 45.50 37 Lack of financial Between Groups 7.91 2 3.94 2.84 0.07 Resources Within Groups 47.98 35 1.37 Total 44.89 37 ________________________________________________________________________
91
Table 13 (continued) ANOVA Results of the Differences in Obstacles Face Implementing CQI and the Various College Type Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Lack of continuous Between Groups 2.81 2 1.41 1.17 0.32 support & feedback Within Groups 42.05 35 1.20 Total 44.86 37 Lack of accountability Between Groups 3.06 2 1.53 1.41 0.26 in other parts of the Within Groups 38.02 35 1.07 system Total 41.08 37
Hypothesis 5
There is no statistically significant difference between practitioners and non practitioners
of CQI when using data for decision making on African American male student retention.
An independent sample t -test was conducted to determine whether there was a
significant statistical difference between the practitioners and non-practitioners of CQI
when using data to make decisions relating to African American male students’ retention.
The hypothesis was tested at a .05 level of significance. Generally speaking the result of
the t-test showed p > 0.05 for all the factors studied (see table 14). The null hypothesis
was retained. The data can be interrupted to mean that there was no statistically
significant difference between practitioners and non- practitioners of CQI in using data in
decision relating to African American male student retention.
92
Table 14
T-test Comparing Practitioners and Non-Practitioners when using of Data for Decision Making when Managing African American Male Student Retention Factors T df p
Data are collected on effectiveness -1.21 37 0.236 on institutional effectiveness Data are compared to leading -1.81 36 0.857 departments at other institution Retention data are communicated 1.92 37 0.06 to institution constituents Data are used for early intervention 1.20 36 0.238 and monitoring of student at risk Plan for African American 1.81 36 0.245 male student improvement Are made base on data analysis Data files are created for 0.87 36 0.91 At risk African American males after admission _______________________________________________________________________
Hypothesis 6
There is no statistically significant difference between the use of data by Academic
Support Directors in making decisions for African American male student retention and
the various colleges.
An ANOVA was conducted to test the level of significance between data used to
decision making with regards to African male retention and the college types. The
hypothesis was tested at a 0.05 level of significance. As shown in Table 15, the overall
93
result is p> 0.05. Therefore, the hypothesis was retained. This can be interpreted to mean
that there is no statistically significant difference between the use of data in decision
making by retention directors for African American male student’s retention among two-
year, four-year private, and four-year HBCU’s.
Table15
ANOVA Results for Differences in the Use of Data for Decision Making and the Various Colleges Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Data are collected on Between Groups 2.86 2 1.43 1.45 0.25 effectiveness Within Groups 35.50 36 0.99 on institutional Total 38.36 38 effectiveness Data are compared to Between Groups 1.82 2 0.91 0.55 0.58 leading departments at Within Groups 57.55 35 1.64 other institution Total 59.37 37 Retention data are Between Groups 1.95 2 0.98 0.79 0.46 communicated to institution Within Groups 44.7 36 1.24 constituents Total 46.7 38 Data are used for early Between Groups 3.57 2 1.78 1.32 0.28 intervention and monitoring Within Groups 47.19 35 1.34 of student at risk Total 50.76 37 Plan for African American Between Groups 3.91 2 1.96 1.37 0.27 male student improvement Within Groups 49.80 35 1.43 are made base on data Total 53.7 37 1.78 analysis Data files are created for Between Groups 2.44 2 1.22 0.68 0.51 at risk African American Within Groups 62.4 35 1.78 males after admission Total 64.84 37 ________________________________________________________________________
94
Hypothesis 7
There is no statistically significant difference between the extent of senior administrative
support for African American male student retention and the various college types.
An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if there is
statistically significant difference between the extent of senior administrative support for
African American male retention and the college type. The hypothesis was tested at 0.05
level of significance. As demonstrated in Table 16, the results indicate that p > 0.05. The
null hypothesis was retained. This indicates that there is no statistically significant
difference between the extent of senior administrative support for African American male
student retention and the various colleges.
Table 16
ANOVA Results of the Differences between the Extent of Senior Administrative Support and the Various Colleges Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Facilities and financial Between Groups 2.76 2 2.64 1.18 0.32 resources are allocated to Within Groups 36.21 30 1.09 CQI effort for African Total 38.97 33 American males Support to integrate CQI Between Groups 3.44 2 1.72 1.79 0.84 initiatives as of institutional Within Groups 28.79 30 0.96 strategy Total 32.42 32 There is visible presidential Between Groups 4.25 2 2.12 1.92 0.16 support for African Within Groups 34.36 31 1.11 American male initiatives Total 38.61 33 Resistance Between Groups 0.26 2 1.31 0.32 0.51 at the president and vice Within Groups 12.8 30 0.40 presidential level Total 12.54 32
95
Table 16 (continued) ANOVA Results of the Differences between the Extent of Senior Administrative Support and the Various Colleges Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
There is institutional reward Between Groups 2.08 2 1.04 0.71 0.50 and recognition for Within Groups 43.98 30 0.51 improvement in retention Total 46.06 32 Departments are held Between Groups 3.01 2 1.53 1.18 0.32 accountable for retention Within Groups 38.83 30 1.28 performance of African Total 41.88 32 American males. Administrators are Between Groups 2.18 3 1.01 1.17 knowledgeable of CQI Within Groups 28.06 30 0.94 principles in higher Total 30.24 32 education ____________________________________________________________________
Hypothesis 8
There is no statistically significant difference between the perception of senior leadership
support for CQI and the time practicing CQI.
An ANOVA was generated to determine that significant exits difference between
the perception of senior leadership support for CQI and the time practicing CQI. The
ANOVA test was administered at the .05 level of significance. The results of the
ANOVA test showed in general p > 0.05 (see Table 17). The null hypothesis was
retained. The results suggest the perception of senior director’s support for CQI do not
vary based on the length of time practicing CQI.
96
Table 17
ANOVA Results of the Differences in the Perception of Senior Leadership Support for CQI and the Time Practicing CQI Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Facilities and financial Between Groups 5.42 2 2.71 2.90 0.85 Resources are allocated to Within Groups 15 16 0.94 CQI effort for African Total 20.42 18 American males Support to integrate CQI Between Groups 0.56 2 0.28 0.30 0.74 initiatives as of institutional Within Groups 13.88 15 0.93 strategy Total 14.44 17 There is visible presidential Between Groups 0.03 2 1.34 1.0 0.91 Support for African Within Groups 21.41 16 1.34 American male initiatives Total 21.68 18 Resistance to support African Between Groups 0.30 2 0.01 0.04 0.96 at the president and vice Within Groups 5.97 15 0.40 presidential level Total 6.0 17 There is institutional reward Between Groups 0.04 2 0.02 0.02 0.98 and recognition for Within Groups 21.73 15 1.45 improvement in retention Total 21.78 17 Departments are held Between Groups 1.07 2 0.54 0.36 0.71 accountable for retention Within Groups 22.54 15 1.50 performance of African Total 23.61 17 American males. Administrators are Between Groups 0.02 2 0.008 0.1 0.45 knowledgeable of CQI Within Groups 19.59 15 1.31 principles in higher Total 19.61 17 education
97
Hypothesis 9
There is no significant difference between the provision of leadership in campus retention
initiatives for African American males and the various colleges.
An ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there is a significant difference
between the provision of leadership in campus retention initiatives and the college type.
The ANOVA was administered at 0.05 level of significance (see Table 18). The result
revealed that p>.05. The hypothesis was retained. The findings suggest that there is no
statistically significant difference in the provision of leadership by Academic Support
Directors in campus retention initiatives for African American male students at the
various colleges.
Table 18
ANOVA Results Comparing the Differences Between the Provision of Leadership in Campus Retention and the Various Colleges Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Having a major influence Between Groups 5.31 2 2.66 2.44 0.10 on policy decisions relating Within Groups 34.85 32 1.09 to African American males Total 40.17 34 Draw senior administrators Between Groups 6.29 2 0.61 6.78 0.42 to issues relating to African Within Groups 14.85 32 0.67 American male Total 21.14 34 Retention activities and Between Groups 1.22 2 0.61 0.91 0.41 success are communicated Within Groups 21.52 32 0.67 from your department Total 22.74 34 _______________________________________________________________________
98
Table 18 (continued)
ANOVA Results Comparing the Differences Between the Provision of Leadership in Campus Retention and the Various Colleges Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Retention is initiatives Between Groups 5.08 2 2.54 2.50 0.10 articulated across Within Groups 32.46 32 1.01 departmental lines Total 32.34 34 Able to attract grants Between Groups 2.61 2 1.30 0.99 0.38 and external support Within Groups 39.6 30 1.32 Total 42.2 32 There is constant dialogue Between Groups 6.86 2 3.43 2.88 0.07 with administrators relating Within Groups 38.11 32 1.19 to African American male Total 44.97 Staff is motivated to deliver Between Groups 0.36 2 0.18 0.21 0.81 quality services to African Within Groups 27.18 32 0.85 American male Total 27.54 Major proponent of changes Between Groups 4.89 2 2.45 2.16 0.13 for campus services for Within Groups 36.25 32 1.13 African American males Total 41.15
Hypothesis 10
There is no significant difference between the provision of leadership in campus retention
initiatives and the years of practicing CQI.
An ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there was significant difference
between the provision of leadership in campus retention initiatives and the years of
practicing CQI. The hypothesis was tested at the 0.05 level of significance. The overall
results revealed p>0.05 (see Table 19). The null hypothesis was retained. The finding
99
suggests that the provision of campus leadership for African American males students
retention do not differ based on the years practicing CQI.
Table 19
ANOVA Results Comparing the Differences Between the Provision of Leadership in Campus Retention Initiatives and the Years Practicing CQI Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Having a major influence Between Groups 0.73 2 0.36 0.24 0.79 on policy decisions relating Within Groups 26.22 17 1.54 to African American males Total 26.95 19 Draw senior administrators Between Groups 2.44 2 0.12 0.18 0.84 to issues relating to African Within Groups 11.57 17 0.68 American male Total 11.80 19 Retention activities and Between Groups 1.49 2 0.75 0.18 0.84 success are communicated Within Groups 15.06 17 0.89 from your department Total 16.55 19 Retention is initiatives Between Groups 0.07 2 0.04 0.03 0.10 articulated across Within Groups 32.46 17 0.89 departmental lines Total 22.95 19 Able to attract grants Between Groups 4.02 2 2.02 1.50 0.26 and external support Within Groups 20.26 15 1.35 Total 24.28 17 There is constant dialogue Between Groups 1.77 2 0.88 0.64 0.54 with administrators relating Within Groups 23.4 17 1.38 to African American male Total 25.2 19 Staff is motivated to deliver Between Groups 0.94 2 0.47 0.42 0.66 quality services to African Within Groups 19.06 17 1.12 American male Total 20.00 _______________________________________________________________________
100
Table 19 (continued)
ANOVA Results Comparing the Differences Between the Provision of Leadership in Campus Retention Initiatives and the Years Practicing CQI Factors Sources SS df Mean Square F p
Major proponent of changes Between Groups 0.10 2 0.05 0.04 0.96 for campus services for Within Groups 20.1 17 1.18 African American males Total 20 __________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The retention of African American male students at HBCUs have become a
national concern. On an average only 34% of all African American males who enter
HBCUs graduate within six years (NCES, 2003). These low retention rates impact the
reputation of the institutions and have long term financial implications for the African
American males who fail to matriculate from these institutions.
African American male student retention at any institution is shaped by academic
and non-academic factors encountered before and after they enter the institution. The
students’ progress towards graduation is impacted by their satisfaction with interactions
they have with members of the institution (Tinto, 1993). Historically Black Colleges and
Universities leadership have begun to understand the issues affecting African American
male retention. They have become proactive in planning and implementing programs to
engage students, empowering the stakeholders by addressing African American male
students’ academic and social interactions within the institution.
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the extent of the use of
Continuous Quality Improvement among Academic Support Directors in integrating
retention strategies for African American male students at two-year HBCUs, four-year
public, and four-year private. Continuous Quality Improvement is embedded in the
Deming philosophy that focuses on developing a management system that is customer
102
focused, data driven and utilizes performance indicators to assess progress (Deming,
1983).
A quantitative study was done with 99 Academic Support Directors from 99
HBCUs. The study was based on nine research questions and 10 hypotheses. A web
based survey was utilized. Fifty seven (55.44%) of the surveys were returned. The data
were coded and analyzed utilizing the Statistical Program for Social Sciences (SPSS)
version 16.0. The hypotheses were tested using ANOVA and an independent sample t-
test. The hypotheses were tested at .05 level of significance.
Summary of the Findings
The returned sample distribution was as follows: 22 (39.3%) from private four-
year colleges and universities; 24 (42.9%) from public four-year colleges; and university
and 10 (17.9%) were from two-year colleges.
The results from the research questions were:
1. Thirty three (60%) of the HBCU studied had a designated retention department.
2. Thirty one (57.4%) of the HBCUs studied targeted of both traditional and non-
traditional African American male students only, 31 (25.9%) had programs
targeting traditional students and 10 (18.5%) had programs targeting neither
traditional nor non-traditional students.
3. The respondents agree that campus services are communicated to African male
students throughout the year, but where undecided on whether their current retention
programs were effective at meeting the needs of African American male students.
103
4. Thirty five (66%) of the respondents were aware of Continuous Quality
Improvement practices and 35 (67.3%) were currently practicing CQI. Thirteen (46.4%)
of the practitioners practiced CQI for over five years, four (14.3 %) for three to five years
and 11 (39.3%) between 3-5 years respectively. The findings also revealed that the most
practiced method of CQI, in the order of use, were Strategic Planning, Benchmarking,
Process Management, Balance Scorecard, and Baldridge Criteria for Educational
Excellence respectively;
5. Comments concerning the application of CQI models to retention management, the
respondents indicated that it requires a lot of time, the methods were new to the
institution, and the improvement plans were at odds with the institution’s culture. The
topic of implementing CQI was frequently discussed but seldom implemented and it
should be campus wide and be a part of the institution’s plan;
6. The socio-economic implications of the African-American community, the
management strategy of the institution’s President and the performance of African
American males when compared to other ethnic groups are the most important factors
driving Academic Support Directors to apply CQI to retention management of African
American males;
7. The major benefits from CQI implementation are improvements in collaboration with
other departments, communication with other departments, and intrusive advising,
respectively. The participants, however, rated academic performers and cohort graduation
rates as the least rated benefits;
104
8.The obstacles rated highest in implementing Continuous Quality Improvement to
retention practices for African American male students were a lack of financial resources,
turf protection and a lack of accountability while lack of feedback and support, faculty
resistance and lack of leadership support ranked the lowest as obstacle;
9. Lack of training for administrators, staff, and faculty, as well as a general lack of
knowledge and understanding of CQI by administrators, and a lack of staff and faculty
support for CQI improvement, were some of the factors that contributed to non-
implementers not pursuing CQI.
Retention programs, practices and policies that positively impact African American
males are a part of the HBCU retention management landscape. The results from the
hypotheses testing showed no statistically significant difference between the retention
programs polices and practices for African American male student irrespective of the
college type. The result show that retention programs, policies and practices for African
American male students do no differ based on the college type.
The practice of CQI by Academic Support Directors to improve African American
male student retention creates the need to examine, if statistically significant differences
exist between the application of CQI by Academic Support Directors and the obstacles
they encounter practicing CQI. In addition, the study focused on whether the various
colleges derived more benefits from CQI based on the length of time practicing CQI. The
results revealed no statistically significant difference in the use of CQI by Academic
Support Directors’, no statistically significant differences in the obstacles faced by
105
implementing CQI, and no statistically significant difference in the time practicing CQI
and the benefits derived among the different college types.
Continuous Quality Improvement is a system which promotes data driven
performance management decisions (Baldrige Criteria, 2006). The hypothesis was tested
to determine whether statistically significant differences exist between the use of data in
decision making at the various colleges types. Also tested was whether differences exist
between practitioners and non-practitioners of CQI when using data for decision making
in managing African American male students’ retention. The results indicated that the use
of data in decision making does not differ significantly among the various colleges and
did not differ among practitioners and non-practitioners of CQI.
The role of leadership support in CQI is important when making data driven
decisions, by integrating the business processes and communicating the decisions to the
stakeholders (Kay & Anderson, 1999). The results from the hypotheses testing indicate
no statistically significant difference between the extent of senior administrative support
for retention initiatives for African American males and the college type. The perception
of senior leadership support for CQI also did not vary based on the years of practicing
CQI in the retention management of African American male students.
Academic Support Directors are expected to show leadership in initiatives for
African American male student retention on the respective campuses. There was also no
statistically significant difference between the provision of leadership in campus retention
initiatives and the number of years practicing CQI. There were also no statistically
significant differences between the provision of leadership for retention initiatives and
106
the years practicing CQI. The results from the hypotheses testing suggested that
Academic Support Directors are providing leadership for African American male student
retention initiatives irrespective of the college type and their leadership do not differ
based on the years practicing CQI.
In conclusion, the results from null hypotheses testing revealed no statistically
significant differences in the use of CQI in African American male retention among two
year, four-year public, and four-year private HBCUs. The results also revealed no
significant statistical difference between the factors impacting CQI and the years
practicing CQI in various institutions.
Discussion of the Findings
The study revealed that more than a third of the institutions have retention
departments and have retention programs targeting traditional and non-traditional African
American male students. This finding is consistent with the literature. According to the
literature, students’ experiences contribute to their departure from institutions (Gary,
2004). African American male students have different socialization patterns (Cuyject,
1997; Harper, 2008) and must have programs targeting the issues faced by both the
traditional and nontraditional male student population (Gary, 2004; Widoff, 2000;
Marshal, 2005; Pusser et al., 2007).
The study found that in general, campus services are communicated to the African
American males. This is consistent with Hermanowiz (2004) who report that the decision
to stay at an institution is based on the communication network established between the
student and the institution’s personnel. The literature revealed that services must be
107
communicated to students and the ability to communicate services increases student’s
persistence (Peters, 2005).
The study revealed an awareness and practice of CQI by Academic Support
Directors. This was contrary to the findings by Birnbaum (1998), who found that there
was minimal use of TQM/CQI in higher education after implementation, and in some
cases was no longer practiced on the institutions studied. Other studies refute Birnbaum’s
(1998) findings. Institutions are using CQI mainly in administrative areas (Zhiming,
1998), are practicing CQI with success (Rice 2003), and have attempted and continue to
use CQI (Thalner, 2005) with the highest participation rates at two-year community and
technical colleges and four-year private and public colleges (McMillan, 1999).
The CQI methods practiced by the various HBCUs are consistent with the
findings from the literature. The literature revealed strategic planning (Aloi, 2005; Welsh,
Widoff, J. (2001). Returning male students struggle with balance. ACUI Bulletin (9)4,
31-34.
Wilson, M. (2000). Reversing the plight of African American male college students.
Black Issues in Higher Education, 17(18), 175-176.
140
Winn, R.A. (2003). QA or CQI? The role of the Malcolm Baldrige national quality
award program in higher education planning. Dissertation Abstracts International,
(63)07, 2432A. (UMI No. AAT 3030180) Retrieved August 24, 2006, form
Dissertations and Theses database.
Wyckoff, S.C. (1999). The academic advising process in higher education: History,
research and improvement. Recruitment and Retention in Higher Education,
13(1), 1-3.
Zhiming, X. (1999). Effective practices of continuous improvement in United States
colleges and universities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(07), 2294A.
(UMI No AAT 3010522) Retrieved August 21, 2006, form Dissertations and
Theses database.
141
APPENDIX A
First Letter of Solicitation
142
Dear:[LastName]
I am a doctoral candidate in education administration and supervision at Tennessee State University. I am soliciting your participation in this web-based survey for my dissertation research. There are no known published research on the use of continuous quality improvement by retention departments to improve the factors that impact African American student retention at historically black colleges and universities. The purpose of my research is to assess the extent to which continuous quality management is used by academic support directors to integrate institutional resources and personnel in improving the factors impacting African American male students. Directors with responsibilities for retention at all historically black colleges and universities will be contacted for this study. Your in-depth understanding of African American student retention at your institution puts you in a unique position to assist with this study. The Tennessee State University Human Subjects Review Board has approved the study. Your participation is important, but you may choose not to answer any question and discontinue the survey at anytime. The instrument takes 5 to 15 minutes depending on your institution’s retention practices. The information provided will be treated with the strictest confidence, and the responses will not be traceable to you or your institution during publication. Feel free to contact me by phone at (256)468-6640 or by email at [email protected]. My advisor, Dr. D. Dunbar can be contacted by phone at(615)693-5128 or by email at [email protected]. Please click http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx to access the survey. You may click the DONE button upon completion of the instrument to exit. I look forward to your assistance and will be happy to share the summary of the results with you upon completion of the study. Thank you in advance. Regards,
143
Howard Wright Doctoral Candidate College of Education Tennessee State University Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from the mailing list. http://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx
144
APPENDIX B
Second Letter of Solicitation
Dear , I have solicited your participation in a web-based survey for my dissertation research on the use of continuous quality improvement in African American male retention. If you have completed the
145
instrument, please ignore this message. If you have not completed the instrument, I am again asking for your participation. Your insight into African American issues at your institution is important for the success of this study. Your responses will be treated with the strictest confidence, and will not be traced to you or your individual institution. Feel free to contact me by phone at (256)468-6640 or by email at [email protected]. My advisor, Dr. D. Dunbar can be contacted by phone at(615)693-5128 or by email at [email protected]. Please click http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=VQoM6qYCFGiH44gMipCF4HL57jK1VoPbESVpp0it9Qs_3d to access the survey. You may click the DONE button upon completion of the instrument to exit. I look forward to your assistance and will be happy to share the summary of the results with you upon completion of the study. Thank you in advance. Regards, Howard Wright Doctoral Candidate College of Education Tennessee State University Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from the mailing listhttp://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx.
146
APPENDIX C
Final Appeal Letter
Dear The research project on the application of continuous quality improvement to African American male retention has enjoyed tremendous success. Todate, fifty HBCUs have responded. I do believe that the issue of African American male retention warrants a response from all
147
our campuses. I am at this time making a final appeal for your participation. Feel free to contact me by phone at (256)468-6640 or by email at [email protected]. My advisor, Dr. D. Dunbar can be contacted by phone at(615)693-5128 or by email at [email protected]. Please click http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=D0DBCPj1Aw7ZGt3IdWdy6g_3d_3d to access the survey. You may click the DONE button upon completion of the instrument to exit. I look forward to your assistance and will be happy to share the summary of the results with you upon completion of the study. Thank you in advance. Regards, Howard Wright Doctoral Candidate College of Education Tennessee State University Please note: If you do not wish to receive further emails, please click the link below, and you will be automatically removed from the mailing listhttp://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx?sm=D0DBCPj1Aw7ZGt3IdWdy6g_3d _3d.
148
APPENDIX D
Permission to Use Instrument
149
150
APPENDIX E
Survey Instrument
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
APPENDIX F
Panel of Experts for Content Validity
164
Panel of Experts for Content Validity Wilton Barham, Ph.D.
Responses to Open Ended Question on Applying CQI to Retention Management
169
To strengthen question six the respondents were asked open ended questions to
comment on applying CQI models to retention management at their institution. The
participant’s comments were:
1. It requires a lot of time, attention, and cooperation of staff and faculty across the
curriculum.
2. The quality enhancement plan and the university retention plan are new
initiatives.
3. The idea of improvement and innovation is at odds with the institution culture,
making improvement a difficult exhausting work.
4. Processes were planned but fell short due to loss of accreditation and resources.
5. It is a topic that is frequently discussed, but seldom implemented.
6. Historically, CQI was sporadic throughout the institution, but now the entire
institution is involved and there has been measurable improvement for all
students.
7. We have continuous discussions in our staff meeting regarding ways to improve
our retention rates for all students.
8. There is no specific retention management model or department that has
responsibility for tracking retention
9. I know it will work with the right people in place.
10. The institution should put a major emphasis in African American male retention
but none is done.
170
11. Continuous quality improvement models to retain all students, African American
males in particular will be part of the new transformation plan.
12. There is evidence that there is improvement in the quality of our African
American male students who entered the institution upon graduation from high
school.
13. Continuous quality improvement should be campus wide and be a part of the
institution’s strategic plan.
171
APPENDIX I
Four Year Class Graduation Average for 1999-2000 Cohort
at Historically Black Colleges and Universities
172
SCHOOLS PUBLIC BLACK MALE % BLACK FEMALE% BLACK GRADUATION % Elizabeth State University 46 58 53 University of Maryland- Eastern Shore 40 46 44 South Carolina State University 40 51 46 Alcorn State University 39 50 45 North Carolina Central University 37 56 49 Tennessee State University 37 53 47 North Carolina A & T University 35 49 42 Winston-Salem State University 35 44 41 Virginia State University 35 44 41 Cheney State University 34 38 32 Fayetteville State University 33 46 41 Morgan State University 31 47 40 Jacksonville State University 30 43 38 Mississippi Valley State University 29 44 37 Prairie View A & M University 29 45 37 Florida A & M University 27 40 35 Alabama A & M University 26 44 35 Grambling State University 25 41 34 Norfolk State University 23 32 28 University of Arkansas-Pine Bluff 21 40 31 Delaware State University 21 40 31 Southern University A & M College 20 33 25 Lincoln University 19 37 27 West Virginia State University 19 22 30 Bowie State 18 26 24 Savannah State University 16 31 24
173
Alabama State 15 29 22 Fort Valley State University 14 35 26 Texas Southern University 13 15 16 University of the District of Columbia 9 8 8 Albany State University Kentucky State University Southern University at New Orleans Coppin State University Harris-Stowie State University Central State University Langston College Bluefield State University
Source: 2006 NCAA Division l, ll, lll Federal Graduation Report.
SCHOOLS PRIVATE BLACK MALE % BLACK FEMALE% BLACK GRADUATION % Miles College 60 60 60 Morehouse College 55 55 Fisk University 52 67 63 Tillman College 44 51 48 Hampton University 44 61 55 Lemoyne-Owen College 43 48 47 Tuskegee University 38 53 47 Johnson C. Smith University 33 44 39 Lane College 31 31 31 Clarke Atlanta University 30 32 32 Shaw University 23 32 28 Bethune Cookman College 22 42 32 Paine College 20 30 27 Rust College 20 35 28 Livingston College 17 41 27 Benedict College 17 33 24 Virginia Union University 17 33 27