Incoming University students are subjected to a level of cognitive and behavioral disorientation as they make the move from secondary schooling to the unstructured rigour of higher education. Yet conventional pedagogical thinking has a habit of treating this transition as an intellectual matter alone, failing to give proper weight to the self-regulatory and psychological toll on first-year cohorts. In the absence of sound coping mechanisms, the academic shock can be severe; it is not uncommon for anxiety and withdrawal to set in, with attrition figures in that first semester to match. Educational psychologists have therefore been quick to put forward Structured Behavioral Adaptation (SBA) frameworks in an effort to put an end to the retention problem. The premise of this developmental model is that one cannot succeed academically without putting in place self-regulated learning, emotional regulation and a structured approach to seeking help.
Our mixed-methods study was undertaken to see empirically what effect adaptive coping strategies, or lack thereof, have on the mental health and long-term persistence of undergraduates. For our quantitative component we drew on a stratified random sample of 850 first-semester students in Europe and North America, achieving a response rate of 88.5 per cent. To ensure we were in full compliance with DOAJ and COPE reporting standards, any missing variables in the data set were handled through multiple imputations by chained equations (MICE). We then turned to a qualitative phase and put constructivist grounded theory to work in 60 semi-structured interviews with student retention specialists and academic advisors, mapping the institutional friction to the provision of psychological scaffolding.
What the hierarchical regression models showed was a very significant correlation (Cohen’s d = 0.94, p < 0.001) between early adaptation of a self-regulatory nature and collegiate survival. Proactive peer integration and time management were found to be the statistical predictors of retention par excellence. Put simply, the numbers indicate that to put a student in the system without formal structural support is an institutional risk that can not be countenanced; behavioral adaptation has to be made a pedagogical given.