FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH TIMELY COMPLETION OF CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
Colleen E. Clark
B.A., California State University, San Diego, 1997
PROJECT
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2010
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH TIMELY COMPLETION OF CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
A Project
by
Colleen E. Clark
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Susan Talamantes Eggman, Ph.D., MSW
Date
ii
Student: Colleen E. Clark
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the project.
, Graduate Coordinator
Teiahsha Bankhead, Ph.D., LCSW
Date
Division of Social Work
iii
Abstract
of
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH TIMELY COMPLETION OF CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
by
Colleen E. Clark
Studies (Choate, 1987; Gieck, 2005) have shown there is a reoccurring problem of
California State University (CSUS) master’s social work students not completing their
thesis/project timely. This problem exists nationwide. Graduate student attrition and
time-to-degree has continued to be a national issue that remains consistently high for over
40 years. This study sought to identify and examine forty CSUS master’s social work
students perceived factors associated with timely completion of their master’s
thesis/project within the deadline of their last year of study. The findings reveal a
completion rate of approximately 81% and suggest completion rates have remained
relatively consistent with those found in previous studies. Factors reported largely as
positive influences in completing the thesis/project were personal characteristics and a
good relationship with the thesis/project adviser.
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Susan Talamantes Eggman, Ph.D., MSW
____________________________
Date
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express sincere gratitude to the participants of this research. I have often
heard from past students that the thesis/project was one of the more challenging aspects
of their Master’s Social Work journey. Your willingness to share your experiences in
this study is appreciated. Without your thoughtful participation, this project would not
have been possible.
To Shelley, thank you with all of my heart for your endless support given to me. My
educational journey would have been dramatically different had I not been able to count
on your willingness to sacrifice and assume the many roles such as primary parent,
household manager, and personal cheerleader. Thank you for believing in my ability to
successfully complete this program, especially during the times I did not believe in
myself.
To Jaden and Ann, I love you both very much. I am forever changed by you. Your
beautiful spirits motivate me to be the best I can be. Witnessing life through your lenses
has provided me immense love, laughter, sadness, and joy. Your reverence for life has
given me renewed perspectives and strength. Thank you for being the amazing
individuals you are.
To my thesis advisor, Dr. Susan Talamantes Eggman, thank you for your patience,
knowledge, and support. You empowered me by allowing me to be responsible for my
success at my own pace. This generous act provided me the opportunity to face myself
v
and locate my inner strength, courage, and confidence necessary to complete this
program.
To many of the Social Work Department faculty and staff, thank you for your willingness
to assist me in my pursuit to complete this program, despite the additional work that my
unique circumstances may have caused you. Many individuals were felt by me to have
gone out of their way to assist in my successful completion in the program.
To my mother, father and sister, thank you for your unconditional support and belief in
me. I am eternally grateful for your love and commitment to support me always.
Knowing that you are behind me is such a privilege and has afforded me opportunities to
reach for the moon.
To my friends, you know who you are, thank you for patient listening ears and shoulders
to lean on.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments................................................................................................................v
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................x
Chapter
1. THE PROBLEM .............................................................................................................1
Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .....................................................................................2
Statement of Research Problem ...............................................................................4
Purpose of Study ......................................................................................................5
Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................6
Definition of Terms..................................................................................................7
Assumptions.............................................................................................................9
Justification ..............................................................................................................9
Limitations .............................................................................................................10
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...............................................................................11
Introduction ............................................................................................................11
The Role of Graduate Education in the United States ...........................................12
Attrition, Time-to-Degree, and Graduate School ..................................................14
The Role of the University and Faculty in This Process .......................................18
Internal and External Factors .................................................................................20
vii
Summary ................................................................................................................24
3. METHODS ....................................................................................................................26
Introduction ............................................................................................................26
Research Question .................................................................................................26
Research Design.....................................................................................................26
Variables ................................................................................................................27
Study Population ....................................................................................................27
Sample Population .................................................................................................27
Instrumentation ......................................................................................................28
Data Gathering Procedures ....................................................................................29
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................30
Protection of Human Subjects ...............................................................................30
Summary ................................................................................................................31
4. FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................32
Introduction ............................................................................................................32
Overall Findings/Demographics ............................................................................32
Participant Responses ............................................................................................41
5. CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................59
Introduction ............................................................................................................59
Summary ................................................................................................................59
Discussion ..............................................................................................................60
viii
External Factors .....................................................................................................63
Internal Factors ......................................................................................................65
Limitations .............................................................................................................66
Recommendations ..................................................................................................67
Appendix A. Survey...........................................................................................................69
Appendix B. Consent Form ...............................................................................................84
References ..........................................................................................................................85
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.
Table 1 Age of Study Participants (N=40) ............................................................33
2.
Table 2 Gender of Study Participants (N=40) .......................................................33
3.
Table 3 Racial/Ethnic Background for Study Participants (N=40) .......................34
4.
Table 4 English as a Second Language for Study Participants (N=40) .................35
5.
Table 5 Number within family to attend Graduate School for Study
Participants (N=40) ................................................................................................35
6.
Table 6 Group Thesis/Project for Study Participants (N=39)................................36
7.
Table 7 Completion Status for Study Participants (N=39) ....................................36
8.
Table 8 Completion Semester/Year for Study Participants (N=32) ......................37
9.
Table 9 Year Study Participants Began MSW Program at CSUS (N=39) ............38
10.
Table 10 Student Status for Study Population (N=40) ..........................................39
11.
Table 11 Living Arrangement for Study Population (N=40).................................40
12.
Table 12 Employment Status for Study Participants (N=40) ................................41
13.
Table 13 Comparison of Current Study Results with Those of
Gieck’s (2005) .......................................................................................................61
x
1
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
As a graduate student in the social work master’s program at California State
University Sacramento (CSUS), I failed in meeting my program goal of completing my
program in the three-year time-to-completion. As an older female, family commitments
that included parenting, full-time employment, and various situations I call “life,” seemed
to contribute to my delayed time-to-completion. Early in my graduate studies experience,
I began to wonder if I were alone in my struggle to complete graduate school as I had
initially hoped.
As I witnessed my colleagues ready themselves for graduation, I became aware of
several individuals who were not able to meet the thesis/project deadline date. At this
same time, I began to explore my own thesis/project topic ideas. While in the formative
stages of my thesis/project topic, a faculty member inquired as to whether or not I could
think of other colleagues in my program who did not finish the program “on time.” To
my surprise, I could think of almost 10 students in my most recent class who had not
completed their theses/projects on time. That is when I decided to research time-tocompletion in graduate school.
As I began researching, I discovered the same topic had been studied before in the
CSUS social work master’s program. The previous study was conducted in 2005, at
which time the author noted, “Ten out of a total of ninety-four social work master’s
2
students at California State University Sacramento in the 2003-2004 school year
completed their coursework but did not finish their master’s thesis/project within the May
thesis/project deadline” (Gieck, 2005, p. 7). This statistic prompted me to research the
current status of MSW students’ time-to-completion at California State University
Sacramento (CSUS).
Background of the Problem
The Role of Graduate Education in the United States
Graduate education is vital to the United States’ system of education. Graduate
education serves as advanced mobility to individuals and to the United States on a much
broader level. Individuals who hold a graduate degree typically prosper through
advanced earning and employment opportunities. On a larger social level, the United
States is able to sustain a highly trained workforce and economy through the creation of
advanced ideas, creativity, and knowledge from those who complete graduate education
and conduct innovative research (Andreiu, 1991; Lovitts, 2008; Strayhorn, 2005).
Graduate education is a process that prepares students for independent research, generally
marking completion through contribution to the field through the culminating experience
(Lovitts, 2008; Gieck, 2005; California State University, Sacramento [CSUS], Division
of Social Work, 2008).
The Attrition Rate of Graduate Schools
Despite increased enrollment in graduate school programs, graduate student
attrition and time-to-degree have remained consistent at approximately 50% across
3
disciplines for the past 40 years (Choate, 1987; Gardner, 2008; Gieck, 2005; Katz, 1997;
Strayhorn, 2005). Attrition is important to students, institutions, and faculty. Students
who complete graduate school, on average, receive higher employment and earning
opportunities. Institutions receive negative reputations based on high attrition rates,
which ultimately affects financial standings and increases costs associated with high
attrition rates. Faculty is subjected to increased time spent on students and wasted
resources due to high attrition (Gardner, 2008; Gieck, 2005; Katz, 1997; Lovitts, 2008;
Strayhorn, 2005; Stolzenberg, 2006; Wao, 2008).
In the fall of 2003, the CSUS master’s of social work program had an ei81%
completion rate, which had declined from 91% in the fall of 2000 (Gieck, 2005). The
mean number of years to master’s degree for the social work program, based on a fiveyear mean, from students enrolled between 2005 and 2010 was 1.8 years (Office of
Institutional Research [OIR], 2010).
Role of the University and Faculty in Graduate School
As the role of graduate education is to prepare the student for intellectual inquiry,
independent research, and socialization towards a professional environment, the role of
the university and faculty play a critical role in affecting student attrition. The advising
relationship is thought to be the most critical component for the graduate experience and
has a direct effect on the student attitude toward research and productivity in the research
project (Gieck, 2005; Schlosser & Gelso, 2001). Based on a study conducted by
Schlosser and Gelso (2001), early formation of student-adviser relationships is
4
encouraged, and Gieck (2005) suggests students with an adviser are seven times more
likely to complete than those without an adviser.
University and faculty are also suggested to be more successful with a diversely
represented faculty to match those of the student population. Paying attention and
meeting the needs of minority groups, such as specific ethnic groups and women, aids in
the socialization and integration process for the whole student population (Gardner,
2008).
Internal and External Factors
Internal and external factors are recognized as contributors to student attrition
rates and timely completion; however, they are difficult to measure and not tracked
consistently by universities. Scholars have found that attrition rates are higher among
students who are (a) in the humanities and social sciences, (b) women, (c) students of
color, (d) have less funding, and (e) are less integrated with their peers and faculty
members (Gardner, 2008).
Statement of Research Problem
The decision to pursue graduate education is generally one that is made with the
intention that a significant amount of personal sacrifice and commitment will be made.
Delayed time-to-completion adversely affects students financially, emotionally, and
increases the risk of attrition (Gieck, 2005; Strayhorn, 2005). Additionally, the
University is adversely affected when students do not complete on time. Most graduate
students receive financial assistance through student aid or university stipends
5
(Strayhorn, 2005). When a student has delayed time-to-completion, it is likely the
student will be in greater need for financial assistance to complete so as to avoid
unnecessary attrition.
Student enrollment and completion rates also impact the university’s reputation
and financial standing (Gardner, 2008; Katz, 1997; Stolzenberg, 2006). Universities have
a responsibility to identify areas of need to support student completion. The University
would benefit from being aware of the time-to-completion rates for their programs,
allowing greater ability to identify areas of strength and/or need. By not maintaining data
on time-to-completion, the university is potentially unaware of resources and finances
that could be better served by providing increased support towards timely completion
rates.
In the fall of 2003, CSUS social work master’s program had a completion rate of
81%, which had declined from 91% in the fall of 2000 (Gieck, 2005). Data was not
available from the CSUS social work master’s program to compare and contrast the
current status of student completion rates. Of the 40 students who participated in this
study attended CSUS master’s social work program between 1986 and 2009, four
(10.8%) reported they completed their coursework prior to completing their
thesis/project.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to identify social work master’s students perceived
factors associated with timely completion of their master’s thesis/project within the
6
deadline of their last year of study. Secondarily, this study provides recommendations to
the CSUS Division of Social Work and students with the intent of enhancing timely
completion rates for CSUS students pursuing a master’s degree in social work.
Theoretical Framework
The framework used for this study is Feminist Theory, which examines the
oppression of women through sexism, heterosexism, and racism. Feminist theory was
first developed beginning around the 1830s, at which time the abolitionist movement
joined women together for the purpose of fighting against the injustices to women. Since
this time, the theory has greatly evolved from the broad concentration of solely focusing
on gender equality sustained from a patriarchal society to examining all marginalized
groups affected by power differentials on a social, political, and cultural level. As a
result, many schools of feminist thought have been established; however, the
concentration remains in examining power differences that exist in a patriarchal society
and the importance of redistributing power for all social oppression and injustices (Taylor
& Kennedy, 2003).
By applying feminist theory to this study, it is intended to examine social
inequalities that may be contributors to graduate attrition and timely completion rates. As
most organizations are operated within a predominately hierarchical structure, it is
assumed the California State University, Sacramento master’s of social work division is
no different. Within patriarchal systems, a dominant-subordinate social order exists, thus
applying a feminist perspective is intended to analyze oppressive practices that could be
7
redistributed to offer more empowerment to students (Lazzari, Colarossi, & Collins,
2009).
Definition of Terms
Adviser/Advisor: An educator who advises students in academic and personal matters. a
person responsible for advising students on academic matters, career guidance,
etc.
Complete/Completion: “The Division of Social Work defines completion as the student
submitting the thesis/project to his or her adviser who reviews and approves
(signs) the thesis/project when it satisfies their standards. After the adviser
signs off on the thesis/project, the student submits the thesis/project for a format
compliance review by the Graduate Program Director. If the thesis/project is
formatted correctly the thesis/project is then complete (Gieck, 2005, p. 9).
Coursework: Each student is required to earn a “B” or better in the total 60 units of
studies required for a master in Social Work (CSUS Office of Graduate Studies
[CSUS], 2009).
Dissertation: The dissertation is defined by the California State University Sacramento
(CSUS, 2009) as
the major research project normally required as part of the work for a doctoral
degree. Dissertations are expected to make a new and creative contribution to the
field of study, or to demonstrate one’s excellence in the field... The dissertation
shall be the written product of systematic, rigorous research on a significant
8
professional issue. The dissertation is expected to contribute to an improvement
in professional practices or policy. It shall evidence originality, critical and
independent thinking, appropriate form and organization, and a rationale. (p. 2)
Project: “A research project is a significant undertaking of a pursuit appropriate to the
fine and applied arts or to professional fields. It must evidence originality and
independent thinking, appropriate form and organization, and a rationale. It
must be formally described and summarized in a written report that includes the
project’s importance, objectives, methodology, and a conclusion and
recommendations as well as a bibliography…3. A research project contributes
to the physical sciences, natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, or the
professions by adding to technical/professional knowledge in the social work
field. Examples include designing an experiment, a field study, a case study, a
documentary report, a professional article of publishable quality.” (pp. 60-61)
Thesis: The thesis is defined by the California State University Sacramento (CSUS,
2009) as “the written product of a systematic study of a significant problem. It
identifies the problem, states the major assumptions, explains the significance of
the undertaking, sets forth the sources for and methods of gathering information,
analyzes the data, and offers a conclusion or recommendation. The finished
project [product] evidences originality, critical and independent thinking,
appropriate organization and format, and thorough documentation.”
9
Assumptions
There are at least three assumptions associated with this project. The first is
students are capable of completing their program on time. The second is that students
desire to complete their program on time. Third, it is the responsibility of the university
to support students’ successful graduation as best as possible, albeit through offering
financial assistance, writing support, and committed advisers.
Justification
Graduate education is important on many levels. A significant amount of time,
resources, and money is spent by both the graduate student and the university. While for
many individuals, the pursuit is towards economic and/or financial mobility, the costs
involved are enormous in terms of financial and personal commitment. Equally
important, the United States, as a society, relies upon the benefits of a knowledgeable and
highly skilled workforce that furthers social ideas through research and creative thinking
to pursue economic advancement and leadership.
Personal costs to the graduate student are high. Graduate students “pay” for their
education in many ways – financially, emotionally, and socially. Universities invest
millions of dollars in graduate education in addition to the faculty and staff’s time and
energy spent towards supporting the program and student success. Society at large is
affected by student attrition and lengthy time-to-degree with the loss of research intended
to advance knowledge, ideas, and perspectives. Therefore, the cost associated with
10
graduate student attrition and extended time-to-degree for both the student and the
university is too high to ignore.
Limitations
The initial intent for this study was to replicate the study completed in 2005
(Gieck, 2005); however, data from the Social Work Department was not available.
Without the information to replicate the previous study, it is difficult to conduct a
comprehensive comparison to determine if the problem has changed. A further limitation
to this study is that this project focuses on student perceptions and does not include
faculty perspectives. Additionally, this project does not examine student attrition and the
factors associated with attrition rates.
11
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Graduate student attrition and timely degree completion are goals of both students
and universities. Student attrition has remained consistently at approximately 50%
nationwide for the past four decades (Gardner, 2008; Gieck, 2005; Stolzenberg, 2006;
Strayhorn, 2005). Despite these alarming numbers, research specific to graduate attrition
has been relatively limited, and universities/departments are not required to maintain
data. The high attrition rates have long been acknowledged, but because universities or
departments are not required to maintain data, the problem is under-investigated. Masters
program attrition is less researched than doctoral programs, despite the assumption that
the issue is likely to exist. Perhaps the shift to evidence-based practice will change this.
While graduate attrition refers to those students who fail to complete their
graduate program, time-to-completion refers to those students who complete the program
and the length of time it takes to do so. Time-to-completion is often measured
inconsistently, as many times there are multiple cohort groups in a program.
Additionally, some institutions track data for timely completion using time-to-degree
from a bachelor’s degree through the doctoral program rather than per degree of study
(Bowen & Rudenstein, 1992; Stolzenberg, 2006).
In 2005, Gieck completed research on the time-to-completion for CSUS master’s
of social work students based on students who did not finish their theses/projects by the
12
May deadline of their final year. In the fall of 2003, the social work master’s program
had an 81% completion rate, which was a decline from 91% in the fall of 2000 (Gieck,
2005). Current data is not available from the CSUS social work division to identify the
current completion rates.
The Role of Graduate Education in the United States
Graduate education is vital to the United States’ system of education. There
continues to be a steady growth rate in the number of graduate programs in the U.S.
According to the 1990 U.S. Census, the U.S. population was 248,709,873 on April 1,
1990. In the early 1990s, it was estimated nearly 2 million people were pursuing
graduate education, which is approximately 1.2% of the population (Stolzenberg, 2006;
U.S. Census, 1990). Between fall 1998 and fall 2008, graduate applications grew at an
average annual rate of 3.8%. During fall 2007 and fall 2008, the graduate application rate
increased 4.8%. Approximately 56,000 doctoral degrees, 488,000 master’s degrees and
17,000 graduate certificates were awarded in 2007-2008 (Council of Graduate Schools,
2009). The number of master’s programs in social work increased 70% from 1986
through 2001. As of November 1, 2006, a total of 24,910 full-time students and 14,656
part-time students were enrolled in master’s social work programs across the country
(CSWE, 2006).
Benefits of graduate education are gained both on individual and societal levels.
On average, employment and earning opportunities are better for individuals who obtain
graduate degrees (Andreiu, 1991; Strayhorn, 2005). Socially, the value of education is in
13
the production of individuals who contribute to the success of all major institutions by
furthering social advancement through knowledge, creativity, and development of ideas
(Lovitts, 2008).
This socially supported value of education in the United States can be traced
through history, as multiple government programs were created to provide growing
opportunities to improve individual’s access to higher education. This increased access
to higher education was perceived to support the value of higher education and increase
upward mobility of social classes for those who may not have otherwise been identified
as the elite in society (McCall, 2007). Government programs such as the Morrill Act of
1890, Northwest Ordinance, Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944 (otherwise known
as the GI Bill), Higher Education Act of 1965 (HE Act), Basic Education Opportunity
Grants (now known as Pell Grants), and State Student Incentive Grants are affording a
greater increase in higher education and has resulted in a broader student demographic
and greater diversity.
In addition to individual advancement, graduate education serves as an integral
source of vitality for the United States economic growth. The United States has the
largest economy in the world, and maintaining a highly trained workforce is imperative to
keeping up with competing countries. Graduate students conduct groundbreaking
research in universities, national laboratories, and private industry (Council of Graduate
Schools, 2007). As such, the role of graduate education is an integral part of societal
advancement.
14
The role of graduate education is to prepare students for intellectual inquiry,
independent research, and socialization towards a professional environment. Graduate
programs are typically developed with a higher amount of structure at the beginning by
way of coursework and concluded by successful completion of a dissertation, marking a
successful transition from student to independent scholar (Gieck, 2005; Lovitts, 2008).
This structure is considered a mechanism on which to lay a solid foundation for
independent research. The culminating project/dissertation is thought to be a
demonstration of specialized skills, knowledge, values and a contribution of original
knowledge in the interest of the profession and society (Gieck, 2005; Katz, 1997; Lovitts,
2008).
Attrition, Time-to-Degree, and Graduate School
Graduate student attrition and time-to-degree (TTD) has continued to be an issue
that remains consistent at approximately 50% across disciplines for over 40 years.
Despite increased enrollment in doctoral programs at an average of 2% per year between
1987 and 2002, doctoral student attrition rates in the United States are reported to be 50%
across disciplines, ranging between 40% and 70% (Choate, 1987; Gardner, 2008; Gieck,
2005; Katz, 1997; Strayhorn, 2005).
Graduate education persistence is important to students, institutions, and faculty.
On average, employment and earning opportunities are increased for those who have
completed graduate school. High attrition negatively affects the reputation of university
education and financial standing, in addition to being expensive for the institution
15
(Gardner, 2008; Gieck, 2005; Katz, 1997; Strayhorn, 2005; Stolzenberg, 2006; Wao,
2008). Faculty is negatively impacted by high attrition through wasted resources and
increased time spent on students who do not complete the program or those who have
delayed completion time. From 15-25% of graduate students who advance to candidacy
never complete their Ph.D.
Longer time-to-degree leads to lower graduation rates and less than one half of all
students admitted into doctoral programs complete between 6 and 12 years (Lovitts,
2008; Wao, 2008). The attainment of master’s degrees in social work in the United
States has steadily grown from approximately 9,254 master’s degrees awarded in 19761977 to approximately 17,209 in the 2005-06 academic school years. According to the
same report, approximately 293 doctoral degrees in social work were awarded from 59
programs in the academic year 2005-06. Approximately 14% of master’s students took
10 or more years to complete degree requirements (CSWE, 2006). It is reasonable to
assume student attrition at the master’s level is comparable to that at the doctoral level.
Due to limited information addressing the attrition rate of master’s students, this
researcher utilized literature on the doctoral attrition and time-to-degree, as a master’s
thesis is deemed to be smaller in scope than a doctoral dissertation and the same
problems of non-completers occur in both programs would be expected (Gieck, 2005).
In 2005, Gieck completed research exploring factors that contributed to the
completion of courses and fieldwork, but not the thesis/project. Factors assessed in
relation to non-completion included procrastination, strong positive support of the
16
student, communication between the student and faculty advisers, financial support, firstgeneration graduate student needs, gender role conflicts, internal motivation,
perfectionism, feelings of being overwhelmed, transitioning from course taking to writing
a thesis/project, time management, personal crisis, need for mentors, employment status,
school interventions/support, and structure for the thesis/project completion process.
Gieck (2005) personally interviewed five faculty thesis/project advisers in the Division of
Social Work at CSUS. Ninety-four surveys were mailed to CSUS MSW students who
were expected to complete their fieldwork, courses, and thesis/project by the May
deadline of 2004. Thirty-one surveys were returned and used for Gieck’s study. The
majority of respondents were students who had completed their thesis/project on time
(completers), thus the study was limited to the faculty perspective and those of
completers. In addition, the study did not directly address the effect gender had on
completing a thesis/project, nor did it directly inquire as to the issues facing firstgeneration graduate students.
Findings revealed 31 of the 94 students targeted for this study responded. It
should be noted that for all 13 areas (financial situation, employment status, family,
spouse/significant other, friends, fellow classmates, relationship with general faculty,
structure provided by thesis/project adviser, availability of thesis/project adviser, interest
and support by thesis/project adviser, personal motivation, personal organizational skills,
and personal tenacity and perseverance), participants who completed Gieck’s study
responded that they were more supports in the progress of their theses/projects than
17
barriers. The top five areas found to be supportive to the progress of their thesis/project
were interest and support of thesis/project adviser (80.7%), personal motivation (80.7%),
personal tenacity and perseverance (80.7%), availability of thesis/project adviser
(77.4%), and fellow classmates (77.4%).
The top five areas identified as barriers to their progress of the thesis/project were
financial situation, employment status, spouse/significant other, family, and equal in
percentages were relationships with general faculty, personal motivation, and personal
organization. Although the above areas were rated as the top five percentages, it does not
infer the number of participants associating them as barriers. Nineteen point four percent
(19.4%) of participants reported their financial situation, employment status, and
spouse/significant other were barriers to their thesis/project. Sixteen point 1 percent
(16.1%) reported family was a barrier to their thesis, and 9.7% reported relationships with
general faculty, personal motivation, and personal organization were barriers to their
thesis.
In the fall of 2003, the CSUS master’s of social work program had an 81%
completion rate, which was a decline from 91% in the fall of 2000 (Gieck, 2005).
According to the Fall 2010 Social Work Fact Book for CSUS, the five-year mean number
of graduate social work students enrolled from 2005-2009 was 326, with a five-year
mean of 103 master’s degrees awarded. The median years to master’s degree for the
social work program was a five-year mean of 1.8 years (OIR, 2010). As more studies
show the implications of high student attrition and prolonged time-to-degree, it is
18
recommended all graduate schools maintain data collection on attrition and time-todegree to better understand and mitigate the reasons in an effort to make better utilization
of departmental resources, financial resources, and student success.
The Role of the University and Faculty in This Process
The role of the university and faculty are key components of student attrition,
although attrition is regarded as a multifaceted issue. The university and faculty
members set the standards for academic study and, therefore, model professionalism,
knowledge, and values encompassed in the field. The advising relationship is thought to
be one of the most critical components for the graduate experience and has a direct effect
on the student’s attitude toward research and productivity in the research project (Gieck,
2005; Schlosser & Gelso, 2001).
Vincent Tinto (1993) studied and theorized undergraduate persistence as a single
developmental model for which the point of reference for integration is the broader
institution or campus community. He furthered his theory to apply to doctoral students,
differentiating this from the undergraduate model of student persistence as having an
equally important relationship with the social and academic integration but with a closer
relationship with the academic department/program and with three distinct phases. The
three phases include first-year transition and adjustment, the second phase is advancing to
candidacy, and the third phase is completion of the dissertation (Stolzenberg, 2006).
Lovitts continued to draw on the work of Tinto, suggesting a model of factors that
influence degree completion and creative performance. This model is shown to include
19
the culture of graduate education as the macro-environment which leads to the microenvironment (location, department, peers and other faculty, and adviser) and ultimately is
sustained by a student’s individual resources such as intelligence, knowledge, thinking
style, personality, and motivation (Lovitts, 2008).
The advising relationship is theorized as an important component of the graduate
experience. The relationships found between the adviser-student and research related
outcomes suggest the possibility of influence by an adviser to the advisee’s progress
through the graduate program. Early formations and maintenance of a positive
relationship with an adviser appears to enhance students’ research outcomes and positive
attitudes towards research (Schlosser & Gelso, 2001).
As research continues to surface on graduate student attrition, it is determined that
doctoral student attrition is extremely expensive for institutions. Student enrollment and
completion rates directly affect the institution’s reputation and financial standing
(Gardner, 2008; Katz, 1997; Stolzenberg, 2006). Costs of attrition are accrued to the
student, institution, and the larger society when the doctorate is not attained in a timely
manner. Most graduate students receive a considerable amount of financial assistance by
way of student aid or university stipends (Strayhorn, 2005). Of 45% of master’s
programs reported, 81% of graduates had loan debt with a median debt of $25,000. This
is a $6,729 increase compared to the median debt held by graduates at the BA level
(CSWE, 2006).
20
Internal and External Factors
Research indicates graduate student attrition is multifaceted. Variables identified
in prior research fall into categories with themes such as funding, adviser relationship,
gender, race, particular disciplines, quantitative measures such as test scores and GPA, as
well as the socialization experiences (Gardner, 2008; Golde, 2005; Lovitts, 2001).
Taken together, these scholars have found that attrition rates are higher among
students who (a) are in the humanities and social sciences versus the natural and
physical sciences, (b) are women, (c) are students of color, (d) have less funding,
and (e) are less integrated with their peers and faculty members. (Gardner, 2008,
p. 99)
Internal Factors
Although limited research examines the relationship between various factors
influencing student persistence, race, gender, and age were identified as a function of
persistence (Strayhorn, 2005). Gieck (2005) also identified student employment, firstgeneration graduate students, level of support (internally and externally), and
communication as factors impacting student completion.
Graduate school is oftentimes seen as a high stress period for students and a
strong need for support is crucial. Students’ own personal characteristics for coping with
stress is one area to research, along with the program’s resources and culture, which
supplements the students with a supportive environment. Many studies have been
completed examining factors associated with graduate student attrition; however, due to
21
the lack of comprehensive national data and the lack of consistency for maintaining
standardized data on this subject there exists a broad set of attributions (Phelps, 1996).
Literature suggests students do not fail to complete graduate school or delay their
completion solely based on academic performance or financial problems. Characteristics
that are often difficult to measure are perseverance, commitment, and coping skills
(Bowen & Rudenstein, 1992; Stolzenberg, 2006). Other studies report factors
contributing to attrition or timely completion to personal problems (marriage, children, or
family responsibilities), departmental issues (bad advising, lack of financial support,
faculty attrition, and departmental policies), and the “wrong fit” (lack of motivation to
continue or not a good fit with the program).
External Factors
Funding. Economic barriers are identified as main contributing factors in
affecting a student’s attrition and timely completion (Strayhorn, 2005). Students affected
financially may be required to maintain outside employment in addition to the
responsibilities of their graduate education. Unfortunately, economic constraints are not
improving and are in fact getting worse, thus financial burdens exist for both the student
and the university. As the university is faced with budget constraints, class reductions,
and decreased resources available to support the students pose additional barriers for
timely completion rates. Students who work more outside of school greatly reduce the
completion rate and may even lead to attrition (Gieck, 2005).
22
The cost of graduate school is high, and those who receive funding through loans
accumulate additional debt. In 2003-2004, the average total price (tuition, fees, books
and materials, and living expenses) for one year of full-time graduate education ranged
from $21,900 for a master’s degree program at a public institution to $41,900 for a firstprofessional degree at a private not-for-profit institution. Full-time doctoral programs
averaged net access of $6,800 for public institution to $13,900 at a private not-for-profit
institution (NCES, 2007). Students’ must be able to financially handle these costs,
oftentimes supplemented with employment outside of school or through grants,
apprenticeships, or fellowships that take time and energy away from the focus of
learning.
Adviser relationship. Advisers play a critical role in graduate education, providing
students with modeling, mentoring, and serving as the conduit of the learning experience
(Bowen & Rudenstein, 1992; Lovitts, 2001; Stolzenberg, 2006). Student performance is
noted to improve for those with an academic mentor. Graduate students with mentors as
compared to those without demonstrate a higher number of publications, conference
presentations, and overall research productivity (Humble, Solomon, Allen, Blaisure, &
Johnson, 2006). Lovitts (2001) found that students with advisers were seven times more
likely to complete the program than those without an adviser. Those students who did
not complete graduate school (non-completers) with an adviser were also noted to stay in
graduate school longer than those who did not have an adviser. Common themes
attached to students with an adviser include feeling their adviser took an interest in their
23
situation and/or ideas, thus leaving the student to feel less associated with the department.
Just as with any relationship, the amount of time given to establish the relationship is
important. Departments that provide early formation time for the relationship (during
coursework stage) show more success in student attrition rates (Stolzenberg, 2006; Tinto,
1993).
Gender. Although women as a group are increasingly enrolling in doctoral
programs, they hold lower graduation rates with the likelihood of increased time-todegree (Grenier & Burk, 2008). During 1994-95, the number of women awarded
master’s degrees was 55.1% and 39.4% were awarded doctoral degrees (Weist, 1999). In
2006-07, the number for master’s degrees increased to 61% and 50% for doctoral degrees
(U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Due to the rising numbers of women in graduate
school, it is even more important to acknowledge distinct needs that may increase support
to this population. For example, women are more likely than men to have competing
family responsibilities, including childbearing and childrearing. As a result, increased
stress, financial obligations, and limited temporal flexibility are all additional barriers for
this group.
Minority groups such as women and students of color are more likely to require
greater financial support and tend to take longer than students from other groups to
complete doctoral programs. Throughout history, minority groups have been
marginalized and oppressed; therefore, it is not surprising they continue to face the same
issues in graduate education programs. Disproportionately, minority groups’ education
24
attendance declines as the level of schooling advances (Strayhorn, 2005; Weist, 1999).
Literature suggests minority students face the same barriers as students in the dominant
groups, but at much higher levels and require additional support and encouragement
(Baird, 1997; Burk & Grenier, 2008; Gardner, 2008; Strayhorn, 2005; Weist, 1999).
Race. Graduate students of color are disproportionately underrepresented in the
higher education system. Significant research has been conducted to increase graduate
student recruitment for minority populations. Graduate students of color oftentimes
experience race, gender, and class oppression simultaneously. In addition to the
“standard” barriers present in graduate education, minority groups face additional
isolation, lack appropriate role models/mentors, and come with attitudes and behavioral
patterns different from the dominant cultural capital (Daniel, 2007).
Summary
Graduate-level student attrition and timely completion has been acknowledged as
a problem for the past 40 years; however, limited research has been conducted examining
the specific factors attributing to the problem. Attrition and delayed time-to-completion
hold a cost to the student, university, and faculty. Students are affected by virtue of
added financial expenditures, increased time commitment to the educational journey, and
delayed advancement in employment and income. Universities are affected by negative
reputations and financial standings, which pose a risk to funding opportunities, and
faculty are affected by wasted resources and added workloads.
25
The university and faculty have a responsibility for identifying areas in which
they are better able to support students with regard to meeting a timely completion. The
university is best able to support the timely completion process by providing students
with adequate financial resources. Departments are best able to support the process by
insuring the diversity within the faculty reflects the diversity of the student population,
providing flexible schedules to support the needs of the students, as oftentimes women
and others are required to maintain employment and/or have caregiving responsibilities in
addition to their student commitments. Faculty are best able to support the process by
being aware and sensitive to the needs of the students, advocating for earlier formation of
advising relationships and providing the modeling necessary to facilitate the socialization
into the professional/academic environment. Lastly, but most importantly, advisers must
take an interest in the student’s success.
26
Chapter 3
METHODS
Introduction
This chapter provides a description of the methods used to conduct this study.
Included is the research question, design of the study, variables, the population chosen to
study, the instrument used, the procedures for gathering the data, and analysis of the
study. Furthermore, this chapter looks at how human subjects were protected.
Research Question
This study was designed to identify social work master’s students’ perceived
factors associated with timely completion of their master’s thesis/project within the May
deadline of their last year of study.
Research Design
The design used for this quantitative study was a cross-sectional survey
(questionnaire) (see Appendix A). The research sought to understand factors that
affected a student’s completion of the master’s in social work program in a timely
manner. Although there are known inherent problems with internal validity when using
cross-sectional studies, this method has value in building a scientific knowledge base by
showing a relationship between two variables. The problems result from attempting to
“understand causal processes that occur over time, yet their conclusions are based on
observations made only at one time” (Rubin & Babbie, 2008, p. 327). This study was
quantitative because the questionnaire instrument assigned numerical values to the
27
answers, thereby subjecting it to statistical analysis (Rubin & Babbie, 2008, p. 479). The
research solely focused on the student’s perspective unlike a prior study that focused on
both student and faculty views.
Variables
In this study, the dependent variable, or outcome variable, was the student’s timeto-completion for hisher thesis/project. The independent variables, or predictor variables,
consisted of language; whether they were first-, second-, third-generation, etc. going to
graduate school (?wording?); living arrangements; employment status; course load in
graduate school; relationship with thesis/project adviser; and levels of support provided
by family, friends, faculty, and staff with regard to areas such as emotional support, child
care/child rearing, domestic responsibilities, transportation, financial support, research
writing/editing/help with thesis/project, employment, and field study.
Study Population
The study population consisted of master’s in social work students or graduates
from California State University, Sacramento. This selected group was based on a cluster
sampling design. Cluster sampling is used “when it’s either impossible or impractical to
compile an exhaustive list of the elements that compose the target population” (Rubin &
Babbie, 2008, p. 357).
Sample Population
The sample population included 58 social work graduate students or graduates
from California State University, Sacramento. Although 58 individuals began the survey,
28
only 40 completed the full survey. The population surveyed ranged in age from 18-50
years old. Both males and females were surveyed and were from a variety of ethnic
backgrounds. The participants were first-generation graduate students in addition to
those who had come from many generations of graduate students. The participants
included both students for whom English was their second language, as well as those
whose native language was English. Individuals surveyed were both those who
completed their thesis/project individually and those who worked in a group. The
participants included those who were full-time students, part-time three-year students,
part-time weekend students, and those who were in the one-year accelerated program.
The participants included both those who were employed and those who were not
employed during their work on their theses/projects.
Instrumentation
The survey used for the research contained a total of 39 questions and was
modified from Gieck (2005). The questionnaire included both open- and closed-ended
questions and asked participants to answer questions according to a multiple-choice
format or a Likert-scale format (see Appendix A). Although open-ended responses are
oftentimes more difficult to analyze and run the risk of being misunderstood or
presenting researcher bias, the researcher felt it was important for this study to provide
answers the researcher did not include (Rubin & Babbie, 2008, p. 202).
The first 12 questions were multiple-choice and were intended to gather
demographic information about the participants. Nine of the twelve questions allowed
29
the participants to comment or specify information for the purposes of providing them an
opportunity to personalize and/or describe their perceptions more specifically. The
remaining 27 questions involved the participants’ perceptions to various factors and their
relationship with their graduate school experience. Twenty-six of those questions
requested and/or allowed for the participant to comment.
Data Gathering Procedures
The researcher set up an account on an internet survey site, Survey Monkey, and
entered the modified questions from Gieck (2005) to design the survey instrument.
Participants were then invited through social networking sites and personal emails with
the qualification that they attended and/or completed the master’s of social work program
at California State University, Sacramento.
The researcher insured voluntary participation and informed confidentiality to the
participant at the beginning of the survey. Participants were only able to proceed with the
survey if they agreed to participate from the informed consent page. The consent form
explained the purpose of the study, the procedures, risks, benefits, compensation, and
their right to not complete the questionnaire and/or discontinue the questionnaire at any
time (see Appendix B). The consent form also expressed their confidentiality would be
strictly adhered to within the degree permitted by the technology used. This researcher’s
contact information was provided for the participant on the informed consent. This was
intended to provide the potential participant the opportunity to ask further questions if
necessary.
30
Data Analysis
Upon receipt of the participants’ completed surveys, the data was analyzed by the
internet survey site, Survey Monkey. The survey site program analyzed the data into
percentages and counts, identifying the differences and similarities between the
participants’ responses. This researcher subsequently organized the data into common
themes to analyze frequencies of both dependent and independent variables. Cross
tabulations and chi square statistical tests were also conducted to compare the variables.
“The chi-square is used when we are treating both our independent and dependent
variables as nominal level” (Rubin & Babbie, 2008, p. 531).
Protection of Human Subjects
The Protection of Human Subjects Protocol was completed and approved by the
Division of Social Work Human Subjects Review Committee at California State
University Sacramento prior to administering the questionnaire. The approval number
provided for this study is #09-11-116. The survey was approved as “minimal risk.” The
minimal risk to the human subject was no more than average daily activities. Although
the risk level was minimal, resources for psychological support were provided to the
participants in the event they experienced any discomfort from the methods of the
research study.
Each participant of this study was given a consent form. This consent form
provided an explanation of the purpose of the survey, the procedures, risks, benefits, and
their right to not complete the survey. The consent form also stated that the
31
confidentiality of the participants would be strictly upheld for protection of privacy to the
degree permitted by the technology used. Participants consented to participation by
selecting to either agree to participate or not at the very beginning of the survey. The
participant was unable to proceed with the survey unless they selected one of the two
options to participate.
Confidentiality was upheld by not collecting names or identifying information.
The researcher and the researcher’s project adviser were the only individuals to have
access to the completed surveys during the completion of the project. The online survey
will be deleted approximately one month after the project is filed with Graduate Studies
at California State University, Sacramento.
Summary
This chapter addressed the methods used in this research study. The study
population and recruitment methods were described. This chapter also examined the
variables of the study, the data collection methods, data analysis methods, and the
protection of human subjects. The data analysis is presented and discussed in the next
chapter.
32
Chapter 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter examines the results of the survey, which sought to identify factors
that social work master’s students perceived to be associated with the timely completion
of their master’s theses/projects within the deadline of their last year of study.
Demographic characteristics of the study participants will be discussed. Responses of the
survey questions will also be examined as to various factors associated with their
thesis/project experiences. A summary of the data is included.
Overall Findings/Demographics
A total of 58 surveys were initiated in this study. However, 18 were not
completed, thus only 40 were used for this study. All 40 participants in this study
completed their theses/projects. The majority of the participants in this study were White
females, aged 26-40 years and having had attended the MSW program on a full-time
basis. Thirty percent of the participants reported that English was their second language
and the vast majority were the first family member to attend graduate school. The
majority of the participants lived either alone or with other adults (no children) and were
employed on average 31 hours per week.
33
Table 1
Age of Study Participants (N=40)
AGE
Response Count
Response Percent
18-25
3
7.5%
26-30
11
27.5%
31-40
14
35.0%
41-50
8
20.0%
51-60
4
10.0%
Above 61
0
0.0%
Prefer Not to Answer
0
0.0%
Out of the 40 participants, the largest number of participants (14) fell within the
age range of 31-40 years of age (35.0%). However, the second largest number of
participants (11) was in the age range of 26-30 years old (27.5%).
Table 2
Gender of Study Participants (N=40)
Gender
Response Count
Response Percent
Female
38
95.0%
Male
2
5.0%
Transgender
0
0.0%
Prefer Not to Answer
0
0.0%
34
The vast majority of the participants (38) were female (95.0%). Two males
represented this study (5.0%).
Table 3
Racial/Ethnic Background for Study Participants (N=40)
Racial/Ethnic Background
Response Count
Response Percent
White, not Hispanic
25
62.5%
African American or Black,
3
7.5%
Hispanic/Latino (Specify)
7
17.5%
Asian (Specify)
4
10.0%
Native American
1
2.5%
Other (Specify)
2
5.0%
not Hispanic
Although the largest ethnic group to participate in this study identified as “White,
not Hispanic” (62.5%), the second largest ethnic group was comprised of those identified
as “Hispanic/Latino” (17.5%). Two participants responded as having an “Other”
racial/ethnic background; however, neither specified what group they identified as. A
total of 17 participants (37.5%) claimed to be of a minority ethnicity.
35
Table 4
English as a Second Language for Study Participants (N=40)
English as second language
Response County
Response Percent
English is Second Language
12
30.0%
English is Not Second
28
70.0%
Language
Of the 40 participants, 28 (70.0%) answered, “English is not a second language.”
Twelve participants (30.0%) reported English was a second language to them.
Table 5
Number within family to attend Graduate School for Study Participants (N=40)
Number within family to attend
Response Count
Response Percent
First
29
72.5%
Second
6
15.0%
Third
3
7.5%
Other
2
5.0%
Graduate School
A vast majority of the participants reported they were the first people in their
family to attend graduate school (72.5%). Six participants reported being the second
36
person in their family to attend graduate school (15.0%); three reported being third
(7.5%), and two did not specify (5.0%).
Table 6
Group Thesis/Project for Study Participants (N=39)
Group thesis/project
Response Count
Response Percent
Yes
15
38.5%
No
24
61.5%
Of the 40 participants, 39 responded to this question. Twenty-four participants
(61.5%) did not complete their theses/projects in a group. One participant skipped this
question.
Table 7
Completion Status for Study Participants (N=39)
Completion Status
Response Count
Response Percent
Yes- Completed
39
100.0%
No
0
0.0%
Of the 40 participants, 39 responded to this question. Thirty-nine (100.0%)
completed their theses/projects. Thirty-two of the thirty-nine who responded (82.0%)
specified when they completed their theses/projects (see Table 8).
37
Table 8
Completion Semester/Year for Study Participants (N=32)
Completion semester/year
Response Count
Response Percent
2010
1
3.1%
May/Spring 2010
11
34.4%
June 2009
1
3.1%
Spring 2008
1
3.1%
May/Spring 2009
4
12.5%
Spring 2004
3
9.4%
2003
1
3.1%
Spring 2003
2
6.3%
Spring 2002
2
6.3%
May/Spring 2000
2
6.3%
Spring 1998
1
3.1%
Spring 1995
1
3.1%
Spring 1994
1
3.1%
1989
1
3.1%
Of the 32 participants who specified their completion semester/year, the largest
group (11 participants) completed in May/Spring 2010 (34.4%). The range in completion
dates were from 1989 up through spring 2010.
38
Table 9
Year Study Participants Began MSW Program at CSUS (N=39)
Semester/Year Began
Response Count
Response Percent
Fall 2007
8
20.0%.
Fall 2008
9
23.0%
Fall 2009
3
8.0%
Other
19
49.0%
Response Count
Response Percent
Fall 1986
1
5.3%
1991
1
5.3%
Fall 1993
1
5.3%
Fall 1996
1
5.3%
Fall 1998
2
10.5%
2000
1
5.3%
Fall 2000
3
15.8%
2001
1
5.3%
Fall 2001
1
5.3%
Fall 2002
1
5.3%
Spring 2002
1
5.3%
**Breakdown for “Other”
39
Table 9 continued
**Breakdown for “Other”
Response Count
Response Percent
Fall 2003
1
5.3%
2005
1
5.3%
Fall 2005
2
10.5%
Fall 2006
1
5.3%
Of the 39 participants who answered this question, the largest group was from
those who reported a start date for the MSW program at CSUS from Fall 2006 to Fall
1986. This group was comprised of 19 participants (49.0%)
Table 10
Student Status for Study Population (N=40)
Student Status
Response Count
Response Percent
Full-Time
24
60.0%
Part-Time (3 year)
10
25.0%
Part-Time (Weekend)
4
10.0%
Accelerated (1 year)
2
5.0%
Of the 40 participants, the largest group (24) attended the MSW program on a
full-time basis (60.0%). Fourteen participants (35.0%) attended on a part-time basis, four
40
(10%) of whom were in the weekend intensive part-time program. Two (5%) participants
completed the MSW program through the one-year accelerated program.
Table 11
Living Arrangement for Study Population (N=40)
Living Arrangement
Response Count
Response Percent
Living Alone
11
27.5%
Living with other
12
30.0%
6
15.0%
11
27.5%
adults/no children
Living with children (no
adults)
Living with adults and
children
Of the 40 participants, the largest group of participants (12) reported living with
other adults/no children during their last year of graduate school. However, it should be
noted, an equal number of participants (11) lived alone as lived with adults and children
(27.5% for each response). The smallest number of participants who responded (six)
reported living with children/no adults (15.0%).
41
Table 12
Employment Status for Study Participants (N=40)
Employment Status
Response Count
Response Percent
Employed
30
75.0%
Not Employed
10
25.0%
Of the 40 participants, the vast majority (30) was employed during the time they
were working on the thesis/project (75.0%). Ten participants (25.0%) were not
employed. Of the 30 who were employed, two did not specify the number of hours
worked per week. Of the 28 participants who responded, the median number of hours
worked was 31.
Participant Responses
Levels of Support
Participants were asked a series of eight questions pertaining to levels of support
in various areas. Each of the eight questions contained sub-categories for the participant
to rate, such as the type of category for whom the support was being rated.
Spouse/significant other sub-category. Although 40 participants completed this
study, the median number of participants who answered the questions pertaining to
support by spouse/significant other was 38. Participants reporting receiving some
support or that their spouse/significant other was extremely supportive, reported it in the
areas of child care/child rearing (16.2%), domestic responsibilities (46.2%),
42
transportation (33.3%), financial support (43.2%), research writing, editing, help with
thesis/project (20.5%), employment (28.9%), and field study (35.1%). Participants
reporting receiving no support or minimal support by their spouse/significant other,
reported it in the areas of support for domestic responsibilities (7.7%), employment
(10.5%), and field study (13.5%).
For all seven questions pertaining to levels of support, the largest number of
participants responded that spouse/significant other was not applicable to them. For
those participants to whom the category was applicable, the second largest number of
participants reported feeling extremely supported by their spouse/significant other in five
of the seven areas asked. In the area of research writing, editing, help with thesis/project
and field study, participants reported receiving some support from their
spouse/significant other.
Extended family sub-category. The median number of participants who answered
the questions pertaining to support from extended family was 38.4. Participants reporting
receiving some support or that their extended family was extremely supportive, reported
it in the areas of child care/child rearing (27.0%), domestic responsibilities (23.7%),
transportation (18.0%), financial support (46.1%), research writing, editing, help with
thesis/project (33.3%), employment (21.1%), and field study (30.8%). Participants
reporting receiving no support or minimal support from their extended family, reported it
in the areas of child care/child rearing (10.8%), transportation (38.5%), research writing,
editing, help with thesis/project (53.8%), and employment (39.5%).
43
Overall, participants reported feeling no support by their extended family. In the
areas of child care/child rearing and employment, the largest number of participants
reported feeling this was not applicable to them. In the area of financial support, the
largest number of participants (13) reported their extended family was extremely
supportive (33.3%).
Children. The median number of participants who answered the questions
pertaining to support from their children was 37.4. For all seven questions pertaining to
levels of support, the largest number of participants responded children were not
applicable to them. Participants reporting receiving some support or extreme support
reported it in the areas of child care/child rearing (15.8%), domestic responsibilities
(13.2%), transportation (5.4%), financial support (2.7%), research writing, editing, help
with thesis/project (10.8%), employment (5.2%), field study (10.8%). Participants
reporting receiving no support or minimal support from their children, reported it in the
areas of child care/child rearing (10.5%), domestic responsibilities (21.1%),
transportation (24.3%), employment (39.5%), and field study (21.6%).
For those participants to whom this category was applicable, the largest number
of participants reported feeling no support from their children in all but one area. In the
area of child care/child rearing, the largest number of participants (five) reported their
children were extremely supportive (13.5%).
Friends sub-category. The median number of participants who answered the
questions pertaining to support from friends was 38. Participants reporting receiving
44
some support or extreme support reported it in the areas of child care/child rearing
(19.5%), domestic responsibilities (13.2%), transportation (29.7%), financial support
(12.8%), research writing, editing, help with thesis/project (52.7%), employment
(23.7%), field study (40.0%). Participants reporting receiving no support or minimal
support from their friends reported it in the areas of child care/child rearing (11.1%),
domestic responsibilities (50.0%), transportation (37.8%), financial support (69.2%),
research writing, editing, help with thesis/project (34.2%), employment (39.5%), and
field study (32.5%).
In the areas of child care/child rearing and employment, the largest number of
participants reported this question did not apply. In the area of research writing, editing,
help with thesis/project, the largest number of participants (12) reported some support
(31.6%). The remaining areas in which the largest number of participants responded
identified no support from friends in the remaining four of the seven areas (domestic
responsibilities, transportation, financial support, and field study).
Thesis/Project Adviser Sub-Category. The median number of participants who
answered the questions pertaining to support from the thesis/project adviser was 38.
Participants reporting receiving some support or extreme support reported it in the areas
of child care/child rearing (2.7%), domestic responsibilities (2.6%), financial support
(2.6%), research writing, editing, help with thesis/project (79.5%), employment (15.8%),
and field study (57.5%). Participants reporting receiving no support or minimal support
from their thesis/project adviser reported it in the areas of child care/child rearing
45
(24.3%), domestic responsibilities (57.9%), transportation (56.8%), financial support
(71.1%), research writing, editing, help with thesis/project (15.4%), employment
(42.1%), and field study (30.0%).
The largest number of participants reported no support for five of the seven areas.
In the area of child care/child rearing, the largest number of participants (26) reported this
did not apply (70.3%). In the area of research writing, editing, help with thesis/project
the largest number of participants (22) reported extreme support (56.4%), and in the area
of field study, the largest number of participants (12) reported some support (30.0%).
General faculty sub-category. The median number of participants who answered
the questions pertaining to support from general faculty was 37.7. Participants reporting
receiving some support or extreme support reported it in the areas of research writing,
editing, help with thesis/project (31.6%), employment (18.9%), and field study (55.0%).
Participants reporting receiving no support or minimal support reported it in the areas of
child care/child rearing (24.3%), domestic responsibilities (65.8%), transportation
(59.5%), financial support (70.3%), research writing, editing, help with thesis/project
(39.4%), employment (48.6%), and field study (35.0%).
The largest number of participants reported no support in five of the seven areas.
The area of child care/child rearing received the largest number of participants (27)
responding this was not applicable (73.0%). In the area of field study, the largest number
of participants (16) reported receiving some support (40.0%) from general faculty.
46
University sub-category. The median number of participants who answered the
questions pertaining to support from the university was 37.6. Participants reporting
receiving some support or extreme support reported it in the areas of transportation
(5.4%), financial support (24.3%), research writing, editing, help with thesis/project
(18.4%), employment (15.8%), and field study (30.7%). Participants reporting receiving
no support or minimal support reported it in the areas of child care/child rearing (27.0%),
domestic responsibilities (64.9%), transportation (59.5%), financial support (54.1%),
research writing (57.9%), employment (44.7%), and field study (46.2%). With the
exception of the area of child care/child rearing, the largest number of participants
reported no support from the university. In the area of child care/child rearing, the largest
number of participants (27) reported this question was not applicable (73.0%).
Other students sub-category. The median number of participants who answered
the questions pertaining to support from other students was 38. Participants reporting
receiving some support or extreme support was in the areas of child care/child rearing
(8.1%), domestic responsibilities (2.7%), transportation (26.3%), research writing,
editing, help with thesis/project (61.6%), employment (13.2%), and field study (52.5%).
Participants reporting receiving no support or minimal support did so in the areas of child
care/child rearing (21.6%), domestic responsibilities (62.2%), transportation (36.8%),
financial support (70.3%), research writing, editing, help with thesis/project (35.9%),
employment (47.4%), and field study (32.5%).
47
The majority of areas were answered by the largest number of participants as no
support pertaining to support by other students. The exceptions were in the areas of child
care/child rearing, to which the largest number of participants (26) reported this question
was not applicable (43.6%). The area of research writing, editing, help with
thesis/project resulted in the largest number of participants (18) reporting some support
(46.2%), and in the area of field study the largest number of participants (12) had equal
numbers of responses with no support and some support (30.0%).
Finances
Two questions specific to finances were asked of the participants. The first
question inquired as to the amount of effort put forth to secure the necessary finances to
continue with graduate studies during the participant’s final year. The second question
inquired as to whether the participant felt financially secure during the final year in
graduate school.
Question: How much effort did you have to put forth to secure the necessary
finances to continue your graduate studies during your final year? Forty participants
answered this question. Fourteen (35.0%) reported a significant amount of effort, 13
(32.5%) reported extreme effort, 11 (27.5%) reported a minimal amount, one (2.5%)
reported no amount, and one (2.5%) reported this was not applicable. Overall, the
majority of the participants (67.5%) reported significant to extreme amounts of effort put
forth to secure the necessary finances to continue graduate studies during the final year.
48
Question: How financially secure did you feel during your final year in graduate
school? Forty participants answered this question. Seventeen (42.5%) reported feeling
secure, nine (22.5%) reported feeling insecure, seven (17.5%) reported feeling extremely
insecure, five (12.5%) reported feeling neutral, and two (5.0%) reported feeling
extremely secure. Overall, more participants reported feeling a sense of financial security
(47.5%) in their last year of graduate school than those who did not (40%).
Faculty Member Support
Two questions specific to faculty member support were asked of the participants.
The first question related to the participant’s perception of the number of faculty
members believed to be interested in their success at graduate studies. The second
question inquired as to how many faculty members with whom they felt comfortable
discussing their problems, frustrations, and crises.
Question: During your final year, how many faculty members did you think were
interested in your success at graduate studies? Forty participants answered this question.
The median response was 4.4 faculty members and individual responses ranged from one
(15.0%) to 45 (2.5%). The largest number of participants (12) reported two faculty
members (30.0%). Overall, all participants reported feeling at least one faculty member
was interested in their success at graduate studies.
Question: How many faculty members did you feel comfortable with discussing
your problems, frustrations, and crises? This question had sub-categories to differentiate
academic problems versus personal problems.
49
Academic problems. Forty participants answered the question related to academic
problems, although one response was not counted as it did not specify a number of
faculty members. The median response was 2.3 faculty members and individual
responses ranged from zero (2.6%) to five (12.8%) faculty members. The largest number
of participants (17) reported two faculty members (43.6%).
Personal problems. Thirty-nine participants answered the question related to
personal problems. The median response was 1.4 faculty members and individual
responses ranged from zero (25.6%) to five (2.6%). The largest number of participants
(13) reported two faculty members (33.3%).
Thesis/project adviser. Participants were asked six questions specific to their
thesis/project adviser.
Question: Please rate your experience of your thesis/project adviser on each of
the following activities: (1) Provided information on thesis/project process and
requirements, (2) Required regular meetings, (3) Gave specific timelines for tasks, (4)
provided direction to appropriate literature/resources, (5) Helped outline chapters and
structure work, (6) Provided helpful comments on drafts of chapters, (7) Kept regular
office hours, (8) Kept appointments, (9) Responded to messages and emails in a timely
manner, (10) Available for occasional drop-in visits, and (11) Initiated contact with you
if too much time had passed and/or a meeting was needed.
Forty participants answered this question, each rating all activities. Overall, the
largest number of participants reported excellent in every activity, with an equal number
50
of participants (17) being the largest number to report the activity “Required regular
meetings.” Participants reported Satisfactory or Excellent to (1) Provided information on
thesis/project process and requirements (92.5%), (2) Required regular meetings (85.0%),
(3) Gave specific timelines for tasks (77.5%), (4) provided direction to appropriate
literature/resources (75.0%), (5) Helped outline chapters and structure work (77.5%), (6)
Provided helpful comments on drafts of chapters (82.5%), (7) Kept regular office hours
(77.5%), (8) Kept appointments (80.0%), (9) Responded to messages and emails in a
timely manner (67.5%), (10) Available for occasional drop-in visits (70.0%), and (11)
Initiated contact with you if too much time had passed and/or a meeting was needed
(55.0%). Participants reported Poor or Unsatisfactory to (1) Provided information on
thesis/project process and requirements (7.5%), (2) Required regular meetings (15.0%),
(3) Gave specific timelines for tasks (17.5%), (4) provided direction to appropriate
literature/resources (20.0%), (5) Helped outline chapters and structure work (17.5%), (6)
Provided helpful comments on drafts of chapters (15.0%), (7) Kept regular office hours
(17.5%), (8) Kept appointments (7.5%), (9) Responded to messages and emails in a
timely manner (20.0%), (10) Available for occasional drop-in visits (15.0%), and (11)
Initiated contact with you if too much time had passed and/or a meeting was needed
(22.5%). Overall, the majority of the participants felt the activities from their adviser
were satisfactory or excellent.
Question: While you were working on your thesis/project, how often did you meet
with your thesis/project adviser? Thirty-seven participants answered this question. The
51
largest number of participants (13) reported meeting monthly. Six (16.2%) reported
meeting weekly, five (13.5%) reported meeting as needed, three (8.1%) reported meeting
twice monthly, three (8.1%) reported meeting four to six times, two (5.4%) reported
meeting three times, two (5.4%) reported meeting eight times, one (2.7%) reported
meeting weekly and one (2.7%) reported meeting ten times.
Question: Which best describes your feeling concerning each of the following
statements:
(1) My thesis/project adviser was genuinely interested in my work and progress.
Forty participants answered this question. The largest number of participants (20)
reported Strongly Agree (50.0%). The number of participants who reported Agree or
Strongly Agree was 31 (77.5%). The number of participants who reported Strongly
Disagree or Disagree was five (12.5%). Four participants reported feeling neutral about
this question.
(2) My thesis/project adviser was emotionally supportive of me during the trials
and frustration of working on my thesis/project. Forty participants answered this
question. The largest number of participants (15) reported Strongly Agree (37.5%). The
number of participants who reported Agree or Strongly Agree was 27 (67.5%). The
number of participants who reported Strongly Disagree or Disagree was seven (17.5%).
Six (15.0%) participants reported feeling neutral about this question. Overall, the
majority of the participants felt their adviser was genuinely interested in their work and
progress and was emotionally supportive during the work of the thesis/project.
52
Question: Please choose the answer that best describes your adviser/advisee
relationship. Forty participants answered this question. The largest number of
participants (19) reported Extremely Positive (47.5%). The number of participants who
reported Positive or Extremely Positive was 30 (75.0%). The number of participants who
reported Extremely Negative or Negative was four (10.0%). Six (15.0%) reported a
neutral relationship. Overall, the majority of the participants had positive relationships
with their adviser.
Question: All things considered, how well did you get along with your
thesis/project adviser? Forty participants answered this question. The largest number of
participants (26) reported Very Well (65.0%). The number of participants who reported
well or Very Well was 35 (87.5%). The number of participants who reported Very
poorly or poorly was three (7.5%). Two participants (5.0%) reported Neutral. Overall,
the vast majority of the participants reported getting along well/very well with their
thesis/project adviser.
Coursework
Two questions specific to coursework in relation to the completion of the
thesis/project was asked of participants.
Question: How many graduate units did you carry during your final year
while completing your thesis/project? This question was broken down into three subcategories, Fall, Spring, and Other, in an effort to distinguish the course load.
53
Fall. Thirty-three participants answered this question; however, two did not
provide the number of units taken so only 31 participant responses were counted. The
median number of units reported was 13. The responses ranged from 3-21 units. The
largest number of participants (12) reported 12 units (38.7%). The second largest number
of participants (10) reported 15 units (32.3%).
Spring. Thirty-three participants answered this question; however, one participant
did not provide the number of units taken so only 32 responses were counted. The
median number of units reported was 13. The largest number of participants (11)
reported 12 units (34.4%). The second largest number of participants (nine) reported 15
units (28.1%).
Other. One participant answered this question. The participant reported six units
(100.0%). Overall, the average number of units carried during the final year was 13 per
semester.
Question: Did you complete your coursework before your thesis/project? Thirtynine participants answered this question. The vast majority (35) reported they did not
complete their coursework before their thesis/project (89.7%). Five participants (12.8%)
reported completing their coursework before their thesis/project. Overall, the majority of
the participants (89.7%) completed their thesis/project timely; however, the conclusion
from these responses is that 12.8% participants did not complete their thesis/project in a
timely manner.
54
Thesis Project Completion/Submission
Three questions specific to thesis/project completion and/or submission are
reported here.
Question: When did you complete (or plan to complete) the bulk of your work on
your thesis/project? Forty participants answered this question. The largest number of
participants (16) reported during the last year of school (40.0%) and the second largest
number of participants (15) reported during the last semester of school (37.5%). Nine
(22.5%) reported during the summer and/or intersession breaks and three (7.5%) reported
after coursework and placement requirements were finished. Overall, the majority of the
participants reported completing the bulk of the work on their thesis/project during the
last year or the last semester of school (77.5%).
Question¨ When did you finish your thesis/project? Thirty-nine participants
answered this question. All 39 (100.0%) reported they had finished their thesis/project.
The largest number of participants (17) reported finishing in the month of April (43.6%),
15 (38.5%) reported finishing in the month of May, four (10.3%) reported finishing in the
Spring, two (5.1%) reported finishing in the month of December, and one (2.6%)
reported finishing in the month of March. Overall, the majority of the participants
reported finishing their thesis/project in the months of April and May (82.1%).
Question: When was your thesis/project accepted by the University? Thirty-nine
participants answered this question; however, two responses were not completed so only
37 participant responses will be counted. The largest number of participants (18)
55
reported acceptance by the university in the month of May (48.6%). Twelve (32.4%)
reported the month of April, two (5.4%) reported Spring, two (5.4%) reported the month
of December, two (5.4%) reported the month of March, and one (2.7%) reported the
month of June. Overall, the majority of the participants reported their thesis/project was
accepted by the university in April and May (81.0%).
Participants’ Perceptions of Factors and Their Influence on the Thesis/Project
One question was asked of the participants to best describe their perceptions of 14
various factors and their influence over their thesis/project. Each factor will be discussed
separately
Question: Which best describes your perception of how the following factors
influenced your thesis/project.
Financial Situation. Forty participants responded. The largest number of
participants (13) reported some hindrance (32.5%). Fifteen (37.5%) reported their
financial situation was an extreme hindrance or some hindrance. Fifteen (37.5%)
reported their financial situation was some help or extreme help. Ten (25.0%) reported
neutral.
Employment Status. Thirty-nine participants responded. The largest number of
participants (12) reported some hindrance (30.8%). Eighteen (38.5%) reported their
employment status was an extreme hindrance or some hindrance. Sixteen (41.0%)
reported some help or extreme help. Eight (20.5%) reported neutral.
56
Family. Forty participants responded. The largest number of participants (14)
reported their family was a neutral influence (35.0%). Seven (17.5%) reported extreme
hindrance or some hindrance. Nineteen (47.5%) reported some help or extreme help.
Spouse or significant other. Thirty-four participants responded. The largest
number of participants (12) reported neutral (35.3%). Seven (20.6%) reported extreme
hindrance or some hindrance. Fifteen (44.2%) reported some help or extreme help.
Friend(s). Forty participants responded. The largest number of participants (15)
reported neutral (37.5%). Three (7.5%) reported extreme hindrance or some hindrance.
Twenty-two (55.0%) reported some help or extreme help. Fifteen (37.5%) reported
neutral.
Fellow classmates. Forty participants responded. The largest number of
participants (15) reported some help (37.5%). Two (5.0%) reported extreme hindrance or
some hindrance. Twenty-seven (67.5%) reported some help or extreme help. Eleven
(27.5%) reported neutral.
Field placement colleagues and/or supervisor. Forty participants responded. The
largest group of participants (15) reported some help (37.5%). Two (5.0%) reported
extreme hindrance or some hindrance. Twenty-five (62.5%) reported some help or
extreme help. Thirteen (32.5%) reported neutral.
Relationships with general faculty. Thirty-nine participants responded. The
largest group of participants (18) reported neutral (46.2%). Three (7.7%) reported
57
extreme hindrance or some hindrance. Eighteen (46.2%) reported some help or extreme
help.
Structure provided by thesis/project adviser. Thirty-nine participants responded.
The largest number of participants (18) reported extreme help (46.2%). Five (12.9%)
reported extreme hindrance or some hindrance. Thirty (77.0%) reported some help or
extreme help. Four (10.3%) reported neutral.
Availability of thesis/project adviser. Forty participants responded. The largest
number of participants (24) reported extreme help (60.0%). Seven (17.5%) reported
extreme hindrance or some hindrance. Thirty (75.0%) reported some help or extreme
help. Three (7.5%) reported neutral.
Interest and support of thesis/project adviser. Thirty-nine participants responded.
The largest number of participants (21) reported extreme help (53.8%). Seven (17.9%)
reported extreme hindrance or some hindrance. Thirty (76.9%) reported some help or
extreme help. Two (5.1%) reported neutral.
Personal motivation. Forty participants responded. The largest number of
participants (30) reported extreme help (75.0%). Three (7.5%) reported extreme
hindrance or some hindrance. Thirty-six (90.0%) reported some help or extreme help.
One (2.5%) reported neutral.
Personal organizational skills. Forty participants responded. The largest number
of participants (24) reported extreme help (60.0%). Three (7.5%) reported extreme
58
hindrance or some hindrance. Thirty-six (90.0%) reported some help or extreme help.
One (2.5%) reported neutral.
Personal tenacity and perseverance. Thirty-nine participants responded. The
largest number of participants (30) reported extreme help (76.9%). One (2.6%) reported
extreme hindrance or some hindrance. Thirty-six (92.3%) reported some help or extreme
help. Two (5.1%) reported neutral.
Overall, not one of the factors was rated as more of a hindered influence than
helpful influence on participant’s thesis/project. The top five factors reported as
negatively influencing the thesis/project are as follows: Employment Status, Financial
Situation, Spouse/Significant Other, Interest and Support of Thesis/Project Advisor,
Family, and Availability of Thesis/Project Adviser (equal number of responses to
Hindrance of Family).
The top five factors rated as positively influencing the thesis/project are as
follows: Personal Tenacity and Perseverance, Personal Organizational Skills, Personal
Motivation, Structure Provided by Thesis/Project Advisor, Interest and Support of
Thesis/Project Advisor, and Availability of Thesis/Project Advisor.
59
Chapter 5
CONCLUSIONS, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
This chapter presents the major findings that describe significant relevance of
factors associated with timely completion within the deadline of the last year of graduate
study for CSUS master’s social work students. Also discussed are contrasts and
comparisons of a previous study by Gieck (2005), The Time-To-Degree for MSW
Students: Completing Course and Fieldwork on Time but Not the Thesis. His study
explored factors that contributed to the completion of courses and fieldwork, but not the
thesis/project. Recommendations are also provided with the intention of enhancing
timely completion rates for CSUS students pursuing a master’s degree in social work.
Summary
Graduate student attrition and time-to-degree has continued to be an issue that
remains consistently high for over 40 years. In a study completed in 1987 specific to the
CSUS master’s social work program, approximately 35-50% did not complete their
thesis/project by the program deadline (Choate, 1987). In a study completed in 2005,
completion rates were 91% in the fall of 2000 and 81% in the fall of 2003 (Gieck, 2005).
The results of this study reveal an 89% completion rate from the participants who
attended the program between 1986 and 2009. These findings suggest a reoccurring
problem of approximately 10% of the students not completing their thesis/project on
time.
60
Discussion
It was this researcher’s intention to conduct an updated replicate study from
Gieck’s 2005 study to compare and contrast the current state of a graduating class’ timeto-completion rate. The data lacking from the CSUS Master’s Social Work Division
included a comprehensive list of students expected, by program terms, to graduate and
whether or not they had completed their coursework and graduated. Although this
researcher was able to replicate most of the questions asked of the participants, this
current study is differentiated from that of the 2005 study conducted by Gieck in that its
survey was not specific to those of a certain graduating class. Despite the differences,
this researcher will compare and contrast the factors identified in 2005 as supportive to
the thesis/project to those identified in this current study.
61
Table 13
Comparison of Current Study Results with Those of Gieck’s (2005)
Supportive to thesis/project
Factor
Barrier to thesis/project
Financial Situation
Current
Study
37.5%
Gieck 2005
Study
51.8%
Current
Study
37.5%
Gieck 2005
Study
19.4%
Employment Status
41.0%
45.1%
38.5%
19.4%
Family
47.5%
58.2%
17.5%
16.1%
Spouse/Significant Other
44.2%
58.2%
20.6%
19.4%
Friends
55.0%
70.9%
7.5%
6.5%
Fellow Classmates
67.5%
77.4%
5.0%
0.0%
Field Placement
62.5%
N/A
5.0%
N/A
46.2%
45.2%
7.7%
9.7%
77.0%
67.7%
12.9%
9.7%
75.0%
77.4%
17.5%
6.5%
Colleagues and/or
Supervisor
Relationships with
General Faculty
Structure Provided by
Thesis/Project Adviser
Availability of
Thesis/Project Adviser
62
Table 13 continued
Supportive to thesis/project
Factor
Barrier to thesis/project
Current
Study
76.9%
Gieck 2005
Study
80.7%
Current
Study
17.9%
Gieck 2005
Study
6.5%
Personal Motivation
90.0%
80.7%
7.5%
9.7%
Personal Organizational
90.0%
74.2%
7.5%
9.7%
92.3%
80.7%
2.6%
6.4%
Interest and Support of
Thesis/Project Adviser
Skills
Personal Tenacity and
Perseverance
The top five factors identified as supportive to the thesis/project in the current
study are personal tenacity, personal organizational skills, personal motivation, structure
provided by thesis/project adviser, and interest and support of thesis/project adviser. The
top five factors from the 2005 study conducted by Gieck are personal tenacity, personal
motivation, interest and support of thesis/project adviser, availability of thesis/project
adviser, and fellow classmates. The common factors identified in both studies as the top
five as supportive to the thesis/project include personal tenacity and perseverance,
personal motivation, and interest and support of thesis/project adviser.
The top five factors identified as barriers to the thesis/project in the current study
are employment status, financial situation, spouse/significant other, interest and support
63
of thesis/project adviser, and availability of thesis/project adviser. The top five factors
from the 2005 study conducted by Gieck are employment status, financial situation,
spouse/significant other, family, relationships with general faculty, structure provided by
thesis/project adviser, personal motivation, and personal organizational skills (total of
seven due to equal percentages). The common factors identified in both studies as the top
five as barriers to the thesis/project include financial situation, employment status,
family, and significant other/spouse.
External Factors
Funding
According to the literature, economic barriers are identified as main contributing
factors in affecting a student’s attrition and timely completion (Strayhorn, 2005). As
economic constraints have risen for California and the United States, in general, more
individuals have likely faced increased demands and stress on financial or employment
situations. As such, despite only 10.8% of participants who did not complete their
thesis/project timely, an over represented 37.5% reported their financial situation was a
barrier to completing. The majority of the participants (67.5%) reported putting forth
extreme to significant effort towards securing the necessary finances to continue graduate
studies during the final year.
Although over one quarter of the participants report economic barriers to their
thesis/project, this study did not find this to be a main contributing factor to the
thesis/project. The majority (75.0%) of current participants reported being employed
64
during their final year of graduate school, working and average of 31 hours per week.
Although more participants (41.0%) reported their employment status as supportive to
their thesis/project, 38.5% reported this as a barrier.
Adviser Relationship
According to the literature, the advising relationship is thought to be the most critical
components for the graduate experience and has a direct effect on the student’s attitude
toward research and productivity in the research project (Gieck, 2005; Schlosser & Gelso,
2001). The relationships found between the adviser-student and research related
outcomes suggest the possibility of influence by an adviser to the advisee’s progress
through the graduate program (Schlosser & Gelso, 2001).
Overall, this study supports this to be true. The majority of participants in this
current study reported being supported by their thesis/project adviser. However, greater
numbers than the 10.8% that did not complete timely reported their thesis/project
adviser’s structure and availability was a barrier to their thesis/project. Additionally,
17.9% of participants reported the interest and support of their thesis/project adviser was
a barrier to thesis/project. These numbers are disproportionate to those who do not
complete timely.
Minority Groups
Literature suggests minority groups such as women and students of color are more
likely to require greater financial support and tend to take longer than students from other
groups to complete. Disproportionately, minority groups’ education attendance declines
65
as the level of schooling advances (Strayhorn, 2005; Weist, 1999). Women are more
likely than men to face increased stress, financial obligations, and limited flexibility in
time due to competing family responsibilities, including childbearing and childrearing.
Graduate students of color often times face increased barriers, such as isolation, lack of
appropriate role model/mentors, and attitudes and behavioral patterns that differ from the
dominant cultural capital (Daniel, 2007).
The majority (95.0%) of participants in this study are female. More than one
quarter of the participants comprised ethnic minority groups (37.5%), and more than one
quarter of the participants reported English as a second language (30.0%). Almost half
(42.5%) reported living with children, fifteen percent of whom were single parents.
The largest number of participants for whom the area requiring support was
applicable responded receiving no support or minimal support by their thesis/project
adviser, general faculty, and the university in the areas of child care/child rearing,
domestic responsibilities, and transportation. Data was not collected as to whether or not
family responsibilities were barriers to completing the thesis/project.
Internal Factors
Literature suggests graduate school is often times seen as a high stress period for
students and a strong need for support is crucial (Phelps, 1996). Personal characteristics
are often difficult to measure, such as perseverance, commitment, and coping skills
(Bowen & Rudenstein, 1992; Stolzenberg, 2006).
66
Although the areas of personal motivation, personal organizational skills, and
personal tenacity and perseverance were not measured in this study, all three were
reported by participants as their top three supports to the thesis/project. Personal
motivation and personal tenacity and perseverance were both listed as leading supports in
Gieck’s previous study from 2005.
This study did not collect data as to the levels of stress participants endured
during graduate school, or more specifically while completing their thesis/project.
However, it should be noted the largest number of participants reported receiving
extreme support by at least one “personal” resource (spouse/significant other, extended
family, children, friends) in the areas of childcare/childrearing, domestic responsibilities,
transportation, and financial support. In the areas of research writing, editing, and help
with thesis/project; employment, and field study, the largest number of participants
reported receiving at least some support by at least one resource (“personal resources”
previously noted or thesis/project adviser, general faculty, or other students). Of interest
is that the largest number in all areas inquiring as to the level of support by the university
was either as not applicable or no support provided.
Limitations
Significant limitations exist for this study, to include the small number of
participants in the survey (N=40), the method in which participants were obtained, the
method of data collection, the participants themselves, and not assessing various personal
characteristics and/or situations which could greatly affect students reason for timely
67
completion or lack thereof. Future studies would benefit from having the support of a
graduate studies department providing a mechanism to track more comprehensive data as
to timely completion in addition to student perceptions as to the reasons they completed
or did not.
Recommendations
1. The CSUS master’s social work department is strongly recommended to
maintain statistics as to student attrition and time-to-completion. As
literature suggests, student attrition and prolonged time-to-completion is a
financial burden on the university, department resources and risks student
success. In light of the current economic crisis nationwide and within the
CSUS system, resources will likely continue to be limited and students
that do not complete on time limits space for incoming students.
2. Re-evaluation as to how adviser-advisee relationships are formed. Given
the importance literature suggests as to the adviser-advisee relationship
and its suggested correlation with student success, it is recommended all
students and advisers are given equal opportunities to assess the “fit”.
Despite the social work department’s presentation as to the importance of
interviewing advisers following the mandatory meeting that discusses the
formation of adviser-advisee relationships, it is not uncommon for
student’s to find advisers are already signed up with students immediately
following the meeting.
68
APPENDICES
69
APPENDIX A
Survey
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
APPENDIX B
Consent Form
85
REFERENCES
Andrieu, S. C. (1991). The influence of background, graduate experience, aspirations,
expected earnings, and financial commitment on within-year persistence of
students enrolled in graduate programs. Dissertation, University of New Orleans,
Louisiana. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI
No. 9136889)
Baird, L. L. (1997). Completing the dissertation: Theory, research, and practice. New
Directions for Higher Education, 99, 99-105. doi: 10.1002/he.9909
Bowen, W. G., & Rudenstine, N. L. (1992). In pursuit of the Ph.D. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
California State University, Sacramento, Division of Social Work Graduate Students.
(2008). Social work graduate handbook. Retrieved from
http://www.hhs.csus.edu/sw/swforms.htm
California State University, Sacramento, Division of Social Work. (2008). Graduate
student handbook. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.csus.edu/sw/swforms.htm
California State University, Sacramento, Office of Graduate Studies. (2009). Glossary of
terms. Retrieved from http://www.csus.edu/gradstudies/glossary.htm
Choate, L. S. (1987). A study of attrition in response to the masters thesis/project
requirement. Unpublished Master’s thesis. California State University,
Sacramento, CA.
86
Council of Graduate Schools. (2007). Graduate education: The backbone of American
competitiveness and innovation. Retrieved from
http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/GR_GradEdAmComp_0407_EMB.pdf
Council of Graduate Schools. (2009). Graduate enrollment and degrees: 1998-2008.
Retrieved from http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/R_ED2008.pdf
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). (2005). Doctoral programs enrollment and
degrees awarded. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=25683
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). (2006). 2006 annual survey of social work
placements. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). (2006). 2006 annual survey of social work
programs. Retrieved from http://www.cswe.org/File.aspx?id=25668
Daniel, C. (2007). Outsiders within: Critical race theory, graduate education and barriers
to professionalization. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 34, 25-42.
Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/OutsidersWithin%3A+critical+race+theory,+graduate+education+and...-a0160228606
Gardner, S. K. (2009). Student and faculty attributions of attrition in high and lowcompeting doctoral programs in the United States. Higher Education, 58, 97-112.
doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9184-7
Gieck, B. A. (2005). The time-to-degree for MSW students completing course and
fieldwork on time but not the thesis/project. Unpublished Master’s thesis.
California State University, Sacramento, CA.
87
Golde, C. M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student
attrition: Lessons from four departments. The Journal of Higher Education,
76(6). doi: 10.1353/jhe.2005.0039
Grenier, R. S., & Burke, M. C. (2008). No margin for error: A study of two women
balancing motherhood and Ph.D. studies. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 581-604.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/grenier.pdf
Grenier, R. S., & Burke, M. C. (2008). No margin for error: A study of two women
balancing motherhood and Ph.D. studies. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 581-604.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR13-4/grenier.pdf
Humble, A. M., Solomon, C. R., Allen, K. R., Blaisure, K. R., Johnson, M. P. (2006).
Feminism and mentoring of graduate students. Family Relations, 55(1), 2-15.
Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ732886)
Katz, E. (1997). Key players in the dissertation process. New Directions for Higher
Education, 99, 5-16. doi: 10.1002/he.9901
Lazzari, M. M., Colarossi, L., & Collins, K. S. (2009). Feminists in social work: Where
have all the leaders gone? Afflilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, 24(4),
348-359. doi: 10.1177/0886109909343552
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of
departure from doctoral study. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Lovitts, B. E. (2008). The transition to independent research: Who makes it, who doesn’t,
and why. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(3), 295-325.
88
McCall, R. W. (2007). Beyond the Undergraduate: Factors influencing first-generation
student enrollment in and completion of graduate education. Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3272924)
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). 2003–04 national postsecondary student
aid study (NPSAS:04). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Nevill, S. C., & Chen, X. (2007). The path through graduate school: A longitudinal
examination 10 years after bachelor’s degree (NCES 2007-162). Washington,
DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Office of Institutional Research. (2010). Fact book fall 2010 social work. Retrieved from
http://www.csus.edu/oir/Data%20Center/Department%20Fact%20Book/SocialW
ork2010.pdf
Phelps, M. K. (1996). Social integration and career integration: Factors associated with
degree completion and time-to-degree in doctoral programs. Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 9623635)
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. R. (2008). Research methods for social work (6th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Schlosser, L. Z, & Gelso, C. J. (2001). Measuring the working alliance in advisor-advisee
relationships in graduate school. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(2), 157167. doi: 10.1037//0022-0167.48.2.157
89
Stolzenberg, E. B. (2006). The dynamics of the doctoral student-faculty advising
relationship: A study across academic fields. Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3240946)
Strayhorn, T. (2005). More than money matters: An integrated model of graduate student
persistence. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI
No. 3164181)
Taylor, S., & Kennedy, R. (2003). Feminist framework. In J. Anderson, & R. Wiggins
Carter (Eds.), Diversity perspectives for social work practice (pp. 171-197).
Boston: Perarson Education.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
U.S. Census. (1990). Net undercount and undercount rate for U.S. and states (1990).
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/understate.pdf
Wao, H. O. (2008). A mixed methods approach to examining factors related to time to
attainment of the doctorate in education. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Database. (UMI No. 3347379)
Wiest, L. (1999). Addressing the needs of graduate women. Contemporary Education,
70(2), 30-34.