DOCUMENT RESUMEHE 001 807ED 044 084AUTHORTITLEMilton, Ohmer, Ed.Proceedings: A Conference on Student Retention inTennessee Colleges and Universities (March 21-22,INSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTETennessee Univ., Knoxville.Mar 66EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORSEDRS Price MF- 0.25 HC- 2.40Administrator Role, *Dropout Prevention, *Dropouts,*Higher Education, *Persistence, *Students, Teacher1966) .IDENTIFIERS46p.Role*TennesseeABSTRACTThe objectives of the conference were: (1) toidentify the factors responsible for large numbers of studentsleaving Tennessee institutions of higher education before graduation;and (2) to prcmote correction of such factors on individual campuses.The proceedings ccnsist of: (1) lists of the individual participantsand the participating institutions; (2) the program; (3) the papersdelivered at the conference, which included: "Faculty Contributionsto Dropouts." by Sam C. Webb, "Administrative Contributions toDropouts," by George L. Marx, "Steps to Reduce Dropouts," by DonaldW. Irvine, and the discussion following the papers; (4) the specialquestionnaire for evaluating the conference and the analysis of thisquestionnaire; and (5) a brief note on plans to arrange forsystematic interinstitutional research in this area. (AF)


TABLE OF CONTENTSPURPOSE AND OBJECTIVESCONFERENCE PARTICIPANTSiiiCOLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES PARTICIPATINGviiDISCUSSION LEADERS AND SPECIAL PARTICIPANTSixPROGRAMxiPROCEEDINGS:Faculty Contributions to Dropouts by Sam C. WebbDiscussion QuestionsData on Changing Grading Standards, Emory College:Table 1 - Changes in the Grading StandardTable 2 - Percent of Students in High PredictedGrade Intervals Who Made Averages ofC or AboveFigure 1 - Percent of Students in Selected Predicted Grade Intervals Who MadeAverages of C or AboveReferencesAdministrative Contributions to Dropouts by GeorgeL. MarxDiscussion QuestionsSteps to Reduce Dropouts by Donald W. Irvine11215151617192629Discussion Questions32Table 1 - Reasons for Leaving College34References35SPECIAL QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EVALUATING THE CONFERENCE37ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL QUESTIONNAIRE39ADDENDUM (Action taken by the Tennessee College AssociationCenter for Higher Education)40

PURPOSETO SHARE KNOWLEDGE AND PROMOTE RESEARCH TOWARD THEEND OF REDUCING THE LARGE NUMBERS OF YOUNG PEOPLEIN TENNESSEE WHO LEAVE HIGHER EDUCATION PRIOR TOGRADUATION.OBJECTIVES1.To identify the factors and forces which seem tobe responsible for or related to the problem.2.To promote alteration in or correction of suchfactors and forces on individual campuses.

RESEARCH CONFERENCE ONSTUDENT RETENTION IN TENNESSEE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIESKnoxville, Tennessee:March 21-221966List of Conference ParticipantsE. Drell AllenDean of Student Life andDirector of AdmissionsTrevecca Nazarene CollegeEdgar D. EavesProfessor of MathematicsThe University of TennesseePaul A. Edwards, DeanMorristown CollegeWilliam 0. Batts, Jr.University RegistrarVanderbilt UniversityJames EschenbrennerDean of StudentsBryan CollegeJerry H. BorupSoutheastern Louisiana CollegeTom FuhrDean of StudentsMaryville CollegeJack BrownDean of StudentsUnion UniversityCyril FutcherSouthern Missionary CollegeJohn L. BurnsFinancial Aid ProgramsThe University of TennesseeHerbert C. Gabhart, PresidentBelmont CollegeJoe A. ChapmanProfessor of BiologyCarson-Newman CollegeLorna J. GassettProfessor of Home Managementand Family EconomicsThe University of TennesseeJames.W. Colmey, DirectorBureau of Educational Researchand ServicesMemphis State UniversityEdell M. Hearn, DeanCollege of EducationTennessee Technological UniversityJames A. CooleyProfessor of MathematicsThe University of TennesseeEstel C. HurleyDean of StudentsTusculum CollegeCarl CrutchfieldTennessee A & I State UniversityDonald W. IrvineDivision of Counselor Educationand Personnel ServicesThe University of GeorgiaE. Jean DeLaneyAssistant Dean of theCollege of Home EconomicsThe University of TennesseeLawrence M. DeRidder, ChairmanDepartment of Educational PsychologyThe University of Tennessee/ViaDonald R. JonesDepartment of PsychologyEast Tennessee State University

C. W. KeenanProfessor of ChemistryThe University of TennesseeJohn Morris,, DeanMemphis State UniversityNeal D. PeacockDean of Resident InstructionCollege of AgricultureThe University of TennesseeHoward KirkseyDean of FacultyMiddle Tennessee State UniversityLouise KnifleyAssistant Professor of MathematicsMartin BranchThe University of TennesseeRobert E. Picirilli, Registrar andProfessor of New Testament TextFree Will Baptist Bible CollegeEarl M. Ramer, ChairmanDepartment of Curriculum & InstructionThe University of TennesseeFrank D. McClellandDean of the CollegeMaryville CollegeHal RamerAssistant Commissioner for HigherEducationState of TennesseeMrs. T. J. McIntoshInstructor in MathematicsUniversity of ChattanoogaSamuel H. McMillan, Jr.Assistant Professor of EnglishThe University of TennesseeD. 0. RichardsonAssistant Professor, Dairying Dept.College of AgricultureThe University of TennesseeWallace MaplesAdmissions CounselorMartin BranchThe University of TennesseeW. H. RodenDean of StudentsCarson-Newman CollegeRalph MartinChairman of the Division ofEducationKnoxville CollegeCharlotte RogersAssistant Professor of EnglishMartin BranchThe University of TennesseeGeorge L. Marx, ChairmanPersonnel ServicesCollege of EducationUniversity of MarylandIda Long RogersAssociate Professor of Higher. EducationGeorge Peabody College for TeachersZelpha RussellDirector of AdmissionsBryan CollegeNebraska MaysTennessee A & I State UniversityJohn C. MickleLeMoyne CollegeFred SchatzAcademic DeanBelmont CollegeOhmer Milton, CoordinatorLearning Resources CenterThe University of TennesseeGloria ScottDean of StudentsKnoxville CollegeJames R. Montgomery, DirectorInstitutional ResearchThe University of TennesseeRandolph Shields, ChairmanBiology DepartmentMaryville Collegeiv

Herschel V. Shirley, Jr.Associate Professor, Poultry Dept.College of AgricultureThe University of TennesseeDouglas J. SimpsonProfessor of Christian EducationFree Will Baptist Bible CollegeAlton SmithDirector of Testing and GuidanceTennessee Wesleyan CollegeH. B. SmithDean of StudentsMartin BranchThe University of TennesseeJohn Henry M. SmithProvost, Academic ServicesDepartment of EducationState of TennesseeRoger SmithLincoln Memorial UniversityMrs. George SnyderDirector of AdmissionsUniversity of ChattanoogaRobert E. StoltzRegional DirectorCollege Entrance Examination BoardRoscoe StricklandProfessor of History andPresident of the FacultySenateMiddle Tennessee State UniversityGeorge L. ThackerDirector of AdmissionsLane CollegeSherwell TollisonTennessee Technological UniversitySam C. WebbOffice of Evaluation StudiesGeorgia Institute of TechnologyJohn E. WeemsDean of AdmissionsMiddle Tennessee State UniversityThomas I. Willard, DeanOwen CollegeNofflet WilliamsCollege of EducationTennessee Technological UniversityTrafton D. Williams, DirectorTesting and Guidance CounselingTrevecca Nazarene CollegeHerman Stone, Jr.Dean of InstructionLane CollegeIn addition, several other members of the faculty from The Universityof Tennessee and neighboring colleges attended sessions from time totime.

RESEARCH CONFERENCE ONSTUDENT RETENTION IN TENNESSEE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIESKnoxville, TennesseeMarch 21-221966List of Colle es and Universities Partici atinBelmont CollegeNashville, TennesseeOwen CollegeMemphis, TennesseeBryan CollegeDayton, TennesselSoutheastern Louisiana CollegeHammond, LouisianaCarson-Newman CollegeJefferson City, TennesseeSouthern Missionary CollegeCollegedale, TennesseeEast Tennessee State UniversityJohnson City, TennesseeTennessee A & I State UniversityNashville, TennesseeFree Will Baptist Bible CollegeNashville, TennesseeTennessee Technological UniversityCookeville, TennesseeGeorge Peabody College for TeachersNashville, TennesseeTennessee Wesleyan CollegeAthens, TennesseeGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlanta, GeorgiaTrevecca Nazarene CollegeNashville, TennesseeKnoxville CollegeKnoxville, TennesseeTusculum CollegeTusculum, TennesseeLane CollegeJackson, TennesseeUnion UniversityJackson, TennesseeLeMoyne CollegeMemphis, TennesseeUniversity of ChattanoogaChattanooga, TennesseeLincoln Memorial UniversityHarrogate, TennesseeThe University of GeorgiaAthens, GeorgiaMaryville CollegeMaryville, TennesseeUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MarylandMemphis State UniversityMemphis, TennesseeThe University of TennesseeKnoxville, TennesseeMiddle Tennessee StateUniversityMurfreesboro, TennesseeThe University of TennesseeMartin BranchMartin, TennesseeMorristown CollegeMorristown, TennesseeVanderbilt UniversityNashville, Tennessee1// vii

DISCUSSION LEADERSJoe ChapmanCarson-Newman CollegeJames ColmeyMemphis State UniversityEdell HearnTennessee Polytechnic InstituteRalph MartinKnoxville CollegeJohn MorrisMemphis State UniversityJohn WeemsMiddle Tennessee State CollegeSPECIAL PARTICIPANTSHal Ramer, Assistant Commissioner forHigher Education, TennesseeJohn Henry M. Smith, Provost, AcademicServices, Department of Education,TennesseeRobert Stoltz, Southern Regional Office,College Entrance Examination BoardJohn Burns, Financial Aid Programs,The University of Tennessee

PROGRAMMonday, March 21, 19668:30 A.M.Registration -- University Center9:00 A.M.WELCOME:Ohmer Milton, Learning ReJourcesCenter, The University of TennesseeFACULTY CONTRIBUTIONS TO DROPOUTSSam C. Webb, Office of Evaluation StudiesGeorgia Institute of TechnologyQuestions from the floorCoffeeSmall Group DiscussionsReports of Small Groups1:30 P.M.Ralph Martin, Director, TechnicalPresiding:Teaching Center, Knoxville CollegeADMINISTRATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO DROPOUTSGeorge L. Marx, Director, Office of Executive Dean for Student Life, University ofMarylandQuestions from the floorCoffeeSmall Group DiscussionsReports of Small GroupsTuesday, March 22, 19668:45 A.M.James L. Montgomery, Director,Presiding:Office of Institutional Research, TheUniversity of TennesseeSTEPS TO REDUCE DROPOUTSDonald W. Irvine, Division of CounselorEducation and Personnel Services, Universityof GeorgiaQuestions from the floorCoffeeSmall Group DiscussionsReports of Small GroupsEvaluation of Conference12:00Adjournment

FACULTY CONTRIBUTIONS TO DROPOUTSSam C. Webb, Director of Evaluation StudiesGeorgia Institute of TechnologyLet us start by noting there is not very much factual material available on the topic assigned me.The "Proceedings of the Research Conferenceon College Dropouts," conducted recently by The University of Tennessee,reports that "conferees repeatedly stressed the fact that the faculty ofa college plays a vital role in whether or not a student remains in collegeor leaves before obtaining an academic degree" (Montgomery, 1964, p. 36),but it is not demonstrated clearly just what this role in a causative senseis.On the other hand Summerskill, writing on dropouts in The AmericanCollege, does not mention the faculty as a cause for dropout, except indirectly to note that "generations of students will testify that collegegrades are an important determinant of college dropouts" (p. 636).A few professors with whom I have talked informally feel that exceptfor "keeping the pressure up," as one put it, their contribution to thistype of student behavior is relatively swell.And, surprisingly enough, students assign relatively little responsibility to faculty for their dropping out.In a study of 84 students who left the University of Georgia in goodstanding, Irvine (1965) classified about a third of all first reasons givenfor dropping out (26 out of 84) as academic, and about half of these (12)pertained to instruction and relations with the faculty.Only one of the26 students giving academic reasons did not attend college elsewhere.In an informal check of the exit interview forms of about 200 studentswho were dropping out of Georgia Tech, there were only 10 that mentionedacademic factors as contributing to their dropping out.Since there are little concrete data, one way to approach our topic is1

to consider the reasons students give for dropping out that might suggestdropout behaviors to which faculty members might contribute.Of course,reasons reflecting academic difficulty in the form of poor grades or outright academic failure are the most frequent.The percent of students reporting academic difficulties as causasvaries from school to school and according to methods of data collecting.In reports I have seen, it ranges from none in the studies of Jex and Merrill(1962) and of Holmes (1959) to 62% in the report of Eckland and Smith (undated).Over-all figures given by Knoell (Montgomery, 1964, p. viii) sug-gest that at least 1/3 of dropouts have had academic difficulties; whileSummerskill estimates that up to 1/3 of dropouts are due to poor gradesand academic failure (1962, p. 637).Other type reasons given that seem relevant include lack of interest(mentioned by Iffert, 1957, 48% for men and 33% for women; Cowhig, 1963,15%; and Koelsche, 1956), dissatisfaction with classes (Jex and Merrill,1962, 4%; and Gekoski and Schwartz, 1961, 16%), and lack of or conflictsin motivation (see Summerskill, p. 638-643).These data suggest ways thatthe faculty may contribute to dropouts; but before looking at these, weshall describe a fairly broad frame of reference within which to considerthem.Let us begin by assuming that within our society, a major function ofthe college or university is to provide for the transmission of learningand for the development of skills for organizing and manipulating learnedmaterials.Let us also assume that the faculty is that segment of thepersonnel of the college that is assigned the responsibility for carryingout this function.Finally, let us assume that the student attends collegefor the major purpose of availing himself of the opportunities for learning.If these assumptions are correct, then it should follow that decisions for2

dropping out would be made primarily on the basis of evaluation of interactional behaviors or lack of interactional behaviors involving studentand faculty, with the "evaluations" being made by either faculty or bythe students independently or in rare cases by both jointly.This state-ment implies a set of expectations on the part of the student of how theprofessor is to perform when in contact with students and a set of expectations on the part of the faculty of how the student is to perform whenin contact with the faculty.Also implied is a sense of responsibility onthe part of student and faculty alike for fulfilling the other's expectations.It is not assumed, however, that each knows which of the other'sexpectations it is legitimate or necessary for him to perform in orderfor effective learning to take place; nor is it assumed that each knowshow to perform the expectations it is legitimate for him to perform.The fact chat we are talking about behaviors and decisions that arebased on interactions, makes the assignment of causation or of responsibility to one group or the other difficult and sometimes impossible.Soin speaking of faculty contributions to dropouts, let us keep in mind weare looking at only one side of a two-sided sysZ,m.However, in consider-ing the ways that the faculty might behave in interacting with students, itis possible to suggest certain families of behaviors or roles performed byfaculty that seem on a logical basis related to student dropout.I suggest 6 such roles:1.The role of curriculum developer.2.The role of instructor.3.The role of evaluator.4.The role of maintainer of standards.5.The role of counselor or advisor.6.The role of stimulator and supporter.3

Let us consider each in turn.1.The role of curriculum developer.In this role the faculty is expected to decide what areas ofknowledge are to be included in the curriculum and what topics are to bediscussed in a particular course and at what level the instruction is tobe pitched.While there is some possible conflict between the properfulfilling of this role and one subsequently to be mentioned (maintainerof standards), it seems fair to assert that to the extent that the facultyincludes material considered irrelevant by the student, or material thatis beyond or below the difficulty level appropriate for the students withwhom they are dealing, to that extent the faculty is contributing to dropA rough estimate of student concern that this role be performedouts.properly by the faculty is given by data from an informal study conductedby the speaker concerning the expectations that mechanical engineeringseniors have of their teachers at Georgia Tech.In this study 87. of 506statements provided by 100 seniors related to the matter of course conThe oft noted idea that y3u must begin with the students where theytent.are seems relevant here.Failure to meet student expectations will mostprobably influence the incidence of student mortality.2.The role of instructor.The educational literature is replete with studies enumerating andevaluating activities and personal characteristics presumably associatedwith teaching or instructional effectiveness.These studies essentiallysay that in respect to instruction, the professor should, regardless ofmethodology involved, provide students with a clear well organized andforceful presentation of materials selected with adequate explanation ofwhat is expected from the student as a response to this instruction, andwith adequate opportunity for students interaction in relation to materialsthat are not clearly understood.4In order to fulfill these functions, it

seems expected that the faculty must have a thorough knowledge of subject,must follow appropriate procedures of presentation, and must possess certain personal characteristics (see Knopp, p. 303).For example, in theTech data 17% of the statements related to manner of presentation, 8%related to the instructors knowledge of the course, and 47 related topersonal characteristics.In short, about 1/3 of the statements wererelated to this function.There thus appear to be certain expectations associated with the instructor role, and to the extent that these are not properly fulfilled,the faculty may contribute to dropouts.Poor or inappropriate presentation of material may well result in afailure on the part of students to grasp the essential facts, and this maylead to the students' falling behind, becoming discouraged, and droppingout.However, in view of the inconclusive nature of studies on the evalu-ation of teaching and the tremendous variability of student response toinstruction, the making of categorical judgments about the relation ofinstruction to dropouts is difficult.Lehmann (1966) presented datashowing no essential difference in the perception of a "good collegeteacher" as provided by enrolled seniors and dropouts.In a study ofdropouts at Temple University, Gekoski and Schwartz (1961) reported thatwhereas 21% of a withdrawal group rated the faculty as poor or very poor,only 4% of an enrolled control group so rated them.Similarly, whereas43% of the withdrawal group rated the faculty good or very good, 64%of a control group so rated them.But since student ratings are ap-parently influenced by satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the collegeexperience, their meaning in respect to our concern is not unambiguous.3.the role of evaluator.In this role the professor is usually expected to pass judgment5

on the progress of the student in learning the substance of the course forwhich he, the professor, is providing instruction.he is expected to grade the student.In more familiar terms,The adequate performance of thisrole would seem to require not only a passing of judgment, but of communi-cating the judgment to the student in ways that would assist the studentin learning what is wrong and why, and of expressing the evaluation, morespecifically, the grade, in ways that are consistent with acceptable grading practices.There are several aspects about this role that may be of interest.(1)This is a role the faculty does not like to perform but which isusually thrust upon them by administrator and student.Have you ever heardof a teacher, who, after grading 100 papers, said, "Well, I really enjoyedthat:"(2)There is evidence to suggest that when this role and the in-structing role are performed by the same person, instruction is less effective than when the two roles are performed by different persons.Fur-ther, at least in terms of learning theory, there is some question as towhether formal grading is that satisfaction from learningFor since there are ample data toperse can provide sufficient moti-vation for learning, there are strong suggestions that formalized gradingmay be harmful to student morale and self-esteem to the extent that itmay cause withdrawal from college.Paul Heist (undated), for Lxample has noted that grading systems tendto reward the conforming plodder and penalize the imaginative student whois likely to make a significant contribution.The discouragement andneglect creative students tf:nld to receive are expressed in grades.Ac-cording to Heist, the expression of dissatisfaction and even displeasurethat grades allow teachers to make is almost certainly a potent factor incausing the flight of potentially creative students from the college.guesses we lose more creative students than we educate.6He

But so long as formalized grading is practiced, students expect itto be properly done (20% of the Tech statements related to tests andgrading); and professors should attempt to grade in accordance with thebest available evaluation practices.For a young sensitive freshmanaccustomed to being graded on a fairly lenient scale, to be evaluatedin terms of a much stiffer scale with little indication of what iswrong and why can be traumatic and discouraging.This role overlaps somewhat with the next role.4.The role of maintainer of standards.In this role the faculty is expected to assist various social,professional, or institutional groups in the setting and maintaining ofcertain standards of excellence in respect to the level and contfmt ofcourses and to the evaluation of student academic progress.This roleis somewhat unique in that it is an expectation required of other groupsto be fulfilled by faculty in their interactions with students.Just howthe evaluative norms the faculty are expected to apply are determined isdifficult to state, particularly in regard to grading practices.But thereis very definitely a relation of the fulfillment of this role and thefaculty's contribution to dropout.The higher the level of instructionand grading standards are set relative to the achievement and abilitylevels of the students, the higher will be the number of dropouts becauseof failure or academic difficulties.While it is difficult to tease out the part played by a number offactors, it is just possible that the fulfillment of this role contributessubstantially to the fact that dropout rates have remained substantiallyunchanged over the past 40 years.There is ample evidence to show thatas academic or grade getting potential of students enrolled in a particularcollege rises, the grading standard rises, so that while the percent of7

dropouts due to academic failure or difficulty may be somewhat reduced,the increase in measured student achievement does not keep pace with thatwhich would be expected.This assumes, of course, the maintenance of thesame grading standard over a period of years.This phenomenon can be seenin the records of any college that has become increasingly selective inits admissions procedures.It is dramatically illustrated in data I havecollected on the liberal arts college of Emory University (1965).Theseare shown in the Tables and Figures of the hand out.The first row of Table 1 shows the average predicted average of enrolled students from 1951 to 1964.creased from C (20) to B (30).average.During this period the average in-Row 2 shows the average earned first yearThis has increased from approximately 20 to 21 in 1951 and 1956to 23 to 24 in 1962 and 1963.Row 3 shows that over the period, the per-cent: of students expecting to make C, using the 1951 formula, increasedfrom 53 to 99.8.71%.But the percent actually making C rose from 53 to onlyTable 2 considers data of students with predicted grades rangingfrom B to A and indicates that while the percent of the enrolled studentsin these categories has been steadily increasing, the percent making Cor better has been dropping.Finally, data in Figure 1 shows the changesover the years of percent of students in various class intervals of predicted grade who have been actually making earned averages of C or better.All these lines are seen to slope downward; those in the 20 to 25 rangeshow the largest slope; those in the 26 to 40 range show some slope; andthose in the 0 to 19 range now are seen to have no chance at all of makingan average of C or better.While the rights of each institution to set and change its gradingstandards are to be fully respected, steps to clarify these standards andto assure a reasonable agreement on standards to be applied within individual8

schools could assist in clarifying how the faculty goes about fulfillingthis role of maintainer of standards.5.The role of counselor or advisor.In this role the faculty is expected to work with groups ofstudents or with individual students in the making of educational andvocational plans and in solving personal problems.It would seem reasonable to say that to the extent the faculty failsto fulfill this role, to that extent they contribuce to dropouts.How-ever, to this writer, a steze of confusion exists as to the degree ofacceptance of and qualification for the performance of this role by thefaculty, and as to student expectations of the faculty in respect to thisrole.For whereas parents would like to know that the fF,culty plays thisrole in respect to sons and daughters and while college deans and administrators may be pleased that faculty play this role, though they do not reward them for it, the role does not seem to be one that is appealing tomany faculty members.On the student side, students may not strongly feel the need of theassistance of the faculty in this role; for example, in the Tech data,statements related to this role are notably absent.found that:And Gekoski and Schwartz(1) whereas 63% of controls had had personal contact with ad-visors, only 45% of withdrawals had had such contacts; (2) while 22% ofhis controls could not name their advisors, 52% of the withdrawals couldnot name theirs; and (3) whereas 41% of controls felt their advisors hadhad a favorable effect on their progress in school, only 5% of the withdrawals so felt toward their advisors.Thus, even assuming faculty in-terest in advising students, special skills seem to be required to effectstudents who are prone to withdraw.9

This statement serves to point up the further difficulty that, withthe exception of some faculty members who are very conscious of and sensitive to the needs of students, many faculty members by reason of temperament, dis-interest, and lack of preparation do not appear well qualifiedto perform this function.As a consequence, many r,,re prone to analyzestudent difficulties in terms of superficial categories, such as, lackof ability or motivation or persistence, and be unable to understand thebasic dynamics underlying the student's problems, so that their attemptsto help may really be no help at all.All these complications make it difficult to determine just how manydropouts could be prevented by an effective and forceful faculty adviserprogram.At this point 1 will only say that there are evidences to sug-gest that when students and their problems are approached in an organizedand personal way by faculty, dropout rates can be reduced.6.The role of stimulator and supporter.In this role the faculty is expected to stimulate students, en-courage them to develop their potentialities, and provide them the recognition as persons and the emotional support required to sustain them whilelearning adequately to cope with the anxieties that may be aroused by ideasthat challenge their values and fundamental orientations toward life.Thisrole is to s.-me extent ambiguous in that the expectations are perhaps poorlydefined, and it is not clear just how acceptable these functions are to thefaculty.To stimulate and challenge students will to many be appealing; but theidea of supporting students emotionally will smack too much of coddling tobe acceptable to many members of the faculty.On the other hand, since 17%of the statements of the Tech students seem relevant to these role demand:,there is some evidence that students expect from faculty behaviors of the10

type subsumed under this role.In view of the numbers of students who, according to data previouslycited, report they drop out because of lack of interest, one can only wonder how many might have remained in school had they been intellectuallystimulated by a well organized and properly sustained educational programconducted by an enthusiastic faculty and had they been provided the emotional support required to sustain them until suitably oriented and organized to pursue a challenging curriculum.In summary, I have considered the contributions of faculty to theproblem of dropouts within a framework in which decisions for droppingout are viewed as being made on the basis of evaluation of interactionalbehaviors involving stude

Free Will Baptist Bible College Nashville, Tennessee. George Peabody College for Teachers Nashville, Tennessee. Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia. Knoxville College Knoxville, Tennessee. Lane College Jackson, Tennessee. LeMoyne College Memphis, Tennessee. Lincoln Memorial University Har