Student Retention:
Examining the Attitudes and Knowledge of Elementary Teachers
Jaden Ganser, M.S.Ed, Robert J. Dixon, PhD, NCSP
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Abstract
Student retention is commonly used regardless of minimal
support for effectiveness found in the literature. Despite this
fact, many educators consider retention to be an effective
practice. Few studies have addressed the gap between
knowledge of retention literature and teacher attitudes and
practice of retention. This study examined teacher attitudes
based on grade level taught and knowledge of retention
literature. Implications for educators and school
psychologists involved in making student decisions are
discussed.
Introduction
• Thirty to fifty percent of students in the United States have
been retained at least once by ninth grade (NASP, 2003).
• Research indicates that most teachers consider retention
an effective practice to prevent future academic failure
(Tomchin & Impara, 1992; Witmer, Hoffman, & Nottis,
2004).
• Retention is one of the most powerful predictors of dropout (Jimerson, 2002). A meta-analysis revealed favorable
outcomes for retained students only 5% of the time
compared to matched comparison groups for both
academic and socio-emotional outcomes (Jimerson,
2001).
• There are several possible factors involved in the use of
retention despite lacking evidence for its effectiveness.
• Differences in beliefs and attitudes may explain
inconsistencies in retention practice (Tomchin &
Impara, 1992).
• Common reasons endorsed by teachers of all grade
levels include preventing future failure, motivating
students to work harder, and maintaining grade level
standards (Tomchin & Impara, 1992; Witmer et. al,
2004).
• Self-report and multiple choice testing has indicated
that teachers have limited knowledge of retention
literature (Witmer et. al, 2004).
Measures
• Part 3 of the Teacher Retention Beliefs and Knowledge
Questionnaire included 12 questions used as a multiple
choice knowledge assessment. The measure was
adapted from Witmer, Hoffman, and Nottis (2004).
• Chronbach’s Alpha was calculated for the knowledge
scale, yielding a reliability coefficient of .39. This
suggests a great variety in the ability to answer different
questions within the scale correctly.
• School Psychologists’ Involvement in Grade Retention
Decisions, modified for use with teachers instead of
school psychologists, was used to gather information
regarding retention practices and attitudes of elementary
teachers. The measure was adapted from Schnurr,
Kundert, and Nickerson (2009).
• Three items were combined to create an attitude score
• Chronbach’s Alpha was calculated for the attitude scale,
yielding a reliability coefficient of .77.
Procedure
• Due to participation rate, grade level taught was
eliminated as an independent variable .
• A median split divided knowledge scores in to a “high”
and “low” group. Univariate Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was used to determine whether grade level and
knowledge of retention literature produce differences in
attitudes toward retention.
• Pearson Correlation was calculated to determine the
relation between retention knowledge and attitude toward
retention.
Figure 1. Perceived Competence and Application
of Research
Q: I have competent knowledge of the research on the
effects and outcomes of grade retention.
Q: Retention research findings are very applicable to my
setting and/or day to day practice.
18
16
Competent Knowledge
14
12
Research Applicable
10
8
6
4
2
0
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Neither
Agree nor
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Figure 2. Number 1 Ranked Benefits
Q: Please rank the following based on which you believe
to be potentially the most beneficial to the least
potentially beneficial outcome of retention.
N = 23
Results
• Retention knowledge produced significant differences in
attitude toward retention, F(1, 20) = 9.51, p <.01, η = .32.
• Retention knowledge correlated significantly with attitude
toward retention, r(20) = -.502, p < .05.
Conclusions
General Findings
• Teacher attitudes toward retention differed based on
whether their scores were placed in “high knowledge”
versus the “low knowledge” group. Teacher attitude
decreased as knowledge increased.
• Teacher perception of their own knowledge level varied. In
total, only 28.3% either agreed or strongly agreed that
they have competent knowledge on the matter.
• Only 28.3% of participants agreed that the research is
applicable to daily practice; the rest indicated either
neutral beliefs or disagreement with the statement.
• The average score on the knowledge measure was less
than 50%.
• Combined, this information suggests that the outcomes of
retention literature are not widely known.
• The most common perceived benefits of retention are that
it strengthens the academic knowledge of struggling
students and that it gives immature students a chance to
grow. The most common perceived limitation of retention
is the social cost to the student.
Application to Practice
• Understanding common perspectives of school
professionals can facilitate more meaningful collaboration.
• Identifying gaps in knowledge can help foster more
informed decisions in the future.
• Attitudes and practice of retention may change if research
findings are more widely disseminated and incorporated
in to practice.
Limitations
• There was a relatively low response rate, with even fewer
participants answering all the questions necessary to
calculate an attitude and knowledge score.
• Those who did not complete the survey may have
demonstrated a perspective that is not represented in the
final data.
References
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Measures
Method
Participants
• 340 regular education elementary teachers (K-5) currently
working in Wisconsin were sent an online survey via email.
• 64 started the survey.
• 38 reached the end of the survey, resulting in a
response rate of 11.2%.
• Respondents with missing answers were not counted in
the analyses.
• Of those who indicated their gender, 27 were female and 5
were male.
• Experience teaching ranged from 1-38 years, with a mean
of 15.64 and standard deviation of 9.33.
N
Figure 3. Number 1 Ranked Limitations
Range Min.
Max.
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Knowledge 22
8.00
1.00
9.00
5.72
1.98
Attitude
43
11.00
3.00
14.00
8.79
2.38
N
22
Q: Please rank the following based on which you believe
the biggest limitation to the least significant limitation
of retention.
Jimerson, S. R., Anderson, G. E., & Whipple, A.D. (2002). Winning the
battle and losing the war: Examining the relation between grade
retention and dropping out of high school. Psychology in the Schools,
29(4), 441-457.
Jimerson, S. R. (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research:
Implications for practice in the 21st Century. School Psychology
Review, 30(3), 420-437.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2003). Position statement on
student grade retention and social promotion. Bethesda, MD.
Retrieved June 5, 2011 from
http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_graderetent.aspx
Schnurr, B. L., Kundert, D. Kl, & Nickerson, A. B. (2009). Grade retention:
Current decision-making practices and involvement of school
psychologists working in public schools. Psychology in the Schools,
46(5), 410-419.
Tomchin, E.M. & Impara, J.C. (1992). Unraveling teachers’ beliefs about
grade retention. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1)199223.
Witmer, S.M., Hoffman, L.M., & Nottis, K. (2004). Elementary teachers’
beliefs and knowledge about grade retention: How do we know what
they know? Education,125(2), 173-193