Astin's student involvement theory and Tinto's student retention model

1 Astin Student Development Theory and Tinto’s Model of Student Retention Astin’s (1984) theory of student development identified a relationship among student involvement in extracurricular activities and higher academic achievement. Astin (1984) defined student involvement as “the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” (p. 518). In other words, the more engaged a student was with his or her own academic experience, the more likely the student was to be successful in academic pursuits. The main takeaway from Astin’s theory was that engagement is of critical importance in the academic life of the student and if the student shows that he or she is fully engaged with the academic process and is taking ownership of the learning process through involvement in learning both inside and outside the classroom the student will develop into a highly efficient and successful student. Sinatra, Heddy and Lombardi (2015) define engagement as the “holy grail” of the learning process—meaning that engagement is really what the whole point of education is and if students engage themselves with the material and the learning process they will succeed at acquiring the knowledge and skills they seek to obtain. Engagement facilitates active learning and Astin’s theory of student development asserted precisely this. Tinto’s (1975) model of student retention holds that student dropout likelihood can be predicted by the extent to which students are socially and academically integrated. Integration is measured by grades, development, self-actualization, confidence levels, conformity to and embracing of academic and social norms and values, and identifying as a student. The more that a student views oneself as a student, one’s role as that of a learner, and takes seriously the task of learning so as to achieve something special with one’s time while at school, the more likely that student is to be one who graduates instead of one who drops out. Tinto’s (2006) revision of the model indicated that in spite of the understanding provided by it, universities were still not making strides in promoting student retention: “most institutions have not yet been able to translate what we know about student retention into forms of action that have led to substantial gains in student persistence and graduation” (p. 5). This is problematic because knowledge and evidence should lead to better practice. Astin’s theory and Tinto’s model relate to having a peer mentor program in college because they are both focused on students achieving their potential in education and obtaining academic success. Astin’s theory emphasizes involvement while Tinto’s model emphasizes integration—but really they are both emphasizing the same things. The peer mentor program is the embodiment of what Astin’s theory and Tinto’s model present—a support for students looking to be more involved in the learning process and more integrated in the academic world. Students who want to be good students and who want to benefit from their time in higher learning will find a peer mentor program to be exactly the kind of support that can assist them in taking ownership of their education process, personalizing their academic journey, integrating study with their social life, and involving themselves in extracurricular activities that reinforce their drive for academic success.