University-wide retention work needs more than one metric

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Retention programmes need an evaluation that makes clear what was measured and what remains uncertain. Sara de Freitas, Guy J. Curtis and Stephen M. Ritchie’s study provides an example, combining several forms of evidence around first-year interventions.

What the accessible sources report

The abstract describes a quasi-experimental evaluation involving 2,990 students across 36 units and 24 disciplines, reaching 65% of the university’s first-year students. The authors report the strongest retention benefit for supplemental instruction, alongside improved satisfaction of psychological needs used as an engagement proxy. Their cost modelling also indicates revenue benefits.

Selected publisher method passages identify an Australian university and distinguish peer-assisted study sessions from a wider programme of teaching interventions. These are local findings, not an independently established return on investment for another university.

The UWA repository confirms the citation and 18 September 2025 online publication date.

Planning a local evaluation

Student Voice’s practical interpretation is to state the intended outcome before choosing an intervention. Define reach, participation and progression separately, and record how each measure will be collected.

Choose a credible comparison and document other changes occurring at the same time. For example, a change in re-enrolment may deserve investigation without proving that a new support activity caused it. Keep financial estimates explicit about assumptions and distinguish modelled benefits from observed income.

Ask participants what helped, what remained difficult and why they did or did not use the offer. Consider whose experience is missing. A documented open-text analysis methodology can help organise responses for human review. Those accounts can suggest explanations to test, but should not be presented as independent causal proof.

Evidence limits

The complete abstract and selected indexed method passages were accessible; the full publisher page and PDF were unavailable during this audit. Detailed survey counts, response rates, progression estimates, financial calculations and the original quotation have therefore been removed. This is a limited-source summary, not verification of the full analysis or underlying data.

Reference

De Freitas, S., Curtis, G. J. and Ritchie, S. M. (2025). A multi-layered evaluation of university-wide education interventions to improve student engagement and retention. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 49(10), 1348–1362. DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2025.2560999.