The Role and Influence of Faculty

Abstract

While previous research has established that faculty and their interactions with students have had the greatest impact on student retention and satisfaction for centuries, limited studies have been done to understand how faculty are influencing Generation Z, our newest generation of students in higher education. This study examined how the quantity of faculty interactions is impacting student retention and satisfaction among 342 Generation Z first-year college students at a public land-grant institution in the Midwest using the National Survey of Student Engagement instrument. In a Mann-Whitney U test, significant difference was found between students’ overall satisfaction and student retention during their first year. Results of a multiple linear regression found that student-faculty interactions significantly predicted students’ overall satisfaction. Recommendations for fostering evolving student-faculty relationships are discussed.

Keywords: Generation Z, student-faculty interactions, relationships, student satisfaction, retention, higher education

Introduction

Generation Z students continue to rapidly fill college campuses and are on track to be the most educated compared to any previous generation (Parker & Igielnik, 2020). Born from 1995-2010, children of Generation Z have been shaped by technological advances, public violence and terrorism, and social justice movements (Seemiller & Grace, 2017). Generation Z is the most diverse group the United States has seen in history and, with the help of technology, is more connected socially, politically, and culturally (McCarthy, 2017). According to the latest American Psychological Association Stress in America Survey, Generation Z is 27% more likely to report their mental health as poor than other generations, compared to 15% of millennials and 13% of Gen Xers (American Psychological Association, 2023). Generation Z also values work-life balance, flexible hours, as well as efforts to be good global citizens and a commitment towards a broader set of social challenges such as sustainability, climate change, and hunger (Gomez et al., 2022). These factors are influencing the way Generation Z individuals learn, grow, and develop.

During the past two decades, attending college has shifted from an option for a few individuals to a necessary requirement for a majority of individuals pursuing advanced training and education. As the nation’s work force has changed, the need for degree attainment remains strong. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2024) annually reports the sharply divergent unemployment rates and median weekly earnings between individuals who hold a bachelor’s degree compared to those who hold a high school diploma. Although the benefits of obtaining a degree remain, institutions across the United States continue to struggle with student retention. A shift in the political environment is demanding greater student retention in higher education, expanding the expectations of faculty to be involved with student satisfaction and retention efforts (Rasmussen et al., 2022). While previous research has established that faculty and their interactions with students have had the greatest impact on student retention and satisfaction for centuries (Rasmussen et al., 2022), limited studies have addressed the role and influence of faculty for retention and satisfaction amongst Generation Z, our newest generation of students in higher education.

Review of Literature

Student satisfaction and retention efforts at the university level have become a primary focus due to changing demographics, graduation timelines (Berzenski, 2019), and funding pressures (Dougherty et al., 2016). Many historical studies underscore the importance of faculty interactions in relationship to student persistence (Tinto, 1987, 1993; Astin, 1984; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1980). More recent studies have also found student-faculty interactions influence student persistence (Southwell et al., 2018; Romsa et al., 2017) as well as academic GPA, motivation, interpersonal skills, and intellectual growth (Halawah, 2006; Kim & Lundberg, 2016).

Faculty interactions with students are often organized in the literature as formal or informal interactions (Endo & Harpel, 1982). Formal interactions describe a professional approach with students where discussions are often limited to traditional academic and vocational advising topics. Informal interactions describe interactions where faculty members have friendly relationships with students and exhibit a personal and broader concern with students emotional and cognitive growth.

Several studies have demonstrated the importance of formal faculty interactions with students. When faculty take an interest in students’ academic progress this often leads to significant contributions in students’ holistic development (Anaya & Cole, 2001; Chickering, 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Cokley, 2000; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1980). There is also evidence that when a student knows even one faculty member closely, they are likely to feel more satisfied with their college life and aspire to go further in their academic and career success (Rosenthal et al., 2000).

Kim and Lundberg (2016) analyzed formal student–faculty interactions to learn how students’ level of engagement impacted the development of their cognitive skills in the classroom. The study found that student–faculty interactions led to greater levels of classroom engagement, which in turn facilitated students’ cognitive skills development, academic self-challenge, and sense of belonging. Komarraju et al. (2010) similarly analyzed the role of formal student–faculty interactions in developing college students’ academic self-concept, motivation, and achievement. They found formal student–faculty interactions to be crucial in developing students’ academic self-concept and enhancing their motivation and achievement.

Although most interactions with faculty tend to occur within the formal classroom setting, students who experience informal interactions tend to be more motivated, engaged, and actively involved in the learning process (Thompson, 2001; Woodside et al., 1999). Informal interactions between students and faculty have an important influence on the attitudes, interests, and values of college students (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Lambert, et al., 2007; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Pascarella & Terenzini 2005; Thompson, 2001). Many studies have found that students’ informal interactions with faculty members have had a positive relationship to their personal growth, academic achievement, satisfaction with college, and intellectual and personal development (Haffman, 2014; Halawah, 2006). Trolian et al. (2002) found that informal student–faculty interactions were positively associated with well-being, and that the frequency and perceived quality of those interactions were most salient over four years of college or university. Similarly, Cotton et al. (2006) conducted a qualitative study of student–faculty interactions and found that students who had minimal contact with faculty outside the classroom were not aware of the importance of interacting with faculty and described key factors that deter and facilitate student–faculty interactions.

There are many reasons why students leave an institution. Some students leave college because of financial barriers or poor academic progress while other students leave for reasons that are not as explicit such as low motivation, lack of social integration, or low self-esteem (Braxton, 2014; Hoffman, 2014; Sass et al., 2018). Most often, scholars focus on the role of student characteristics and behaviors, consequently minimizing the role and influence of faculty, institutional policies, and institutional practices (Kanji et al., 2020). While existing research has given scholars an understanding of the important role student-faculty interactions play in student retention and student success, current research is needed as higher education professionals are faced with a new generation of students with different characteristics, perspectives, and worldviews (Seemiller & Grace, 2017). As this new group continues to fill college campuses, it is crucial for higher education professionals to better understand their evolving needs and learning preferences (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2022b). Responsibility for student attrition lies not only with the student, but also with faculty and the institution at large (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2022a).

Theoretical Framework

During the 1960s and early 1970s, student satisfaction was the primary domain of student services personnel (Astin et al., 1987). More recently, student involvement has been analyzed to measure student success and satisfaction in campus activities (Webber, 2013). Tinto’s Theory of Student Departure (Tinto, 1975; Tinto, 1987), has been an impactful lens to understand and explain the process of dropout and perseverance. Tinto (1993) identified three major sources of student departure: academic difficulties, the inability of individuals to settle their educational and occupational goals, and their failure to become or remain integrated in the intellectual and social life of the institution. Tinto’s model states that for students to persist they, need to integrate into formal academic systems (e.g., academic performance), informal academic systems (e.g., faculty interactions), formal social systems (extracurricular activities), and informal social systems (e.g., peer-group interactions). Student involvement in co-curricular activities such as student organizations, leadership opportunities, and residence hall campus activities has had a positive correlation with retention and academics (Kuh & Pike, 2005). This theory was applied to a study investigating the retention and satisfaction of millennial college students (Romsa et al., 2017). While some new studies have investigated Tinto’s theory with Generation Z, limited studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals. In this study, Tinto’s informal academic systems (e.g., faculty interactions) was applied to analyze how faculty are impacting Generation Z, our newest generation of college students.

Context and Rationale for Study

Researchers have established that faculty play a significant role in the overall experience students have in college. Initial studies revealed that faculty interactions with students positively impacted student persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980). More recently, scholars have found that faculty interactions impact a range of different aspects including academic achievement as well as student growth and development (Halawah, 2006; Kim & Lundberg, 2016; Lillis, 2011; Thiele, 2016).

A dense history of student retention research has given higher education professionals many factors that relate to student success. Despite the attention student retention has received over the past four decades, retention rates in the United States have decreased only minimally (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). While these rates alone are sufficient evidence for improvement in our higher education systems, the generational change in the student population increases the demand for a better understanding of the areas that bolster student success.

To address this gap, this study utilized the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) to analyze the influence of faculty interactions among Generation Z college students at a public land-grant institution in the Midwest. This study provides institutions with suggestions to foster evolving student-faculty interactions through two research questions:

1. Did the quantity of Generation Z college students’ course-related interactions with faculty, out of class interactions with faculty, and overall satisfaction during their first year of college differ between those who decided to stay at the institution and those who decided to depart?
2. Did the quantity of Generation Z college students’ course-related interactions and out-of-class interactions with faculty during their first year of college significantly predict their overall satisfaction of the institution?

Method

The current study employed quantitative methods to explore the student-faculty interactions of first-year Generation Z college students at a comprehensive public land grant institution in the Midwest.

Participants and Instrument

The population of the institution under study for graduate and undergraduate programs combined is approximately 12,000 students, 650 teaching faculty, and 2,000 employees. A random sample of 342 first-year students completed the NSSE survey that was emailed to all first-year students during their spring semester of 2018.

The NSSE is a student survey used at over 500 colleges and universities across the United States annually to better understand how students spend their time and what benefits they are getting from college (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2022a). The NSSE is designed for first- and senior-year students to collect information on how well different programs and activities the university offers are improving students’ learning and personal development. The instrument was first created and funded by the Pew Charitable Trust. The purpose of the survey was to find a better way to understand the quality of higher education institutions using empirical data rather than speculation and reputation. The numbers for participating colleges and universities have continued to grow. NSSE’s strong reliability and validity properties have proved useful for supplemental analyses by institutions and higher education researchers (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2022b).

The total number of students who were emailed the survey was 1,951, making the response rate for this study 17.5%. The students could access the survey through their email. Students could start and stop the survey at any point in the process, and some students failed to complete the entire survey. The sample used in this survey was concluded after a process of cleaning and removing data of incomplete surveys. NSSE uses a unique number ID to ensure anonymity in student responses. The survey asks a series of questions to obtain demographic information. The unique ID did allow for the institutional-reported data to be matched to the self-reported data by the students. This allowed for the university to still obtain this information despite a student not completing the demographic questions. Institution-reported data were used in this study to ensure the most accurate report.

The sample of students was categorized into seven different racial/ethnic categories. Many of the participants in the sample identified as White (n = 313). Foreign or international students were the second largest group (n = 8), followed by two or more races (n = 7), Asian or Pacific Islander (n = 5), Black or African American (n = 4), Hispanic or Latino (n = 4), and unknown (n = 1). Although the sample does not represent a diverse group, the demographics do accurately portray the student population of the university. The students in this sample included almost all full-time first-year students (n = 341) and one part-time student (n = 1). A full-time student is defined by being enrolled in six or more credits, whereas a part-time student is someone enrolled in less than 6 credits, which could include in-person or online classes. This study specifically analyzed Generation Z students—students who were 18 or 19 years old. The gender of the students in the sample was 66% female (n = 227) and 34% male (n = 115).

Statistical Analyses

First, a proposal was submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) before obtaining the data. Upon IRB approval, the NSSE and student retention data were collected from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze the data. Along with the statistical tests, descriptive statistics were run through SPSS. Prior to the analysis, steps were taken to clean and prepare the data. The data was filtered to obtain only students with a birth year of 1995 or later to represent Generation Z students. Retention information was filtered to ensure there were no missing data.

Results

Descriptive statistics were obtained for each of the variables (see Tables 1 & 2). The sample included 342 participants. Student retention was evaluated by whether the students returned to the institution the following year. Of the 342 students, 307 (89.8%) returned, and 35 (10.2%) did not return. Four questions on the NSSE survey were related to course-related interactions on a 4-point frequency-based scale (never, sometimes, often, very often). With anchors using the extreme points of the data ranging from 4-16 (a high score being the best), students’ average course-related interactions with faculty were 9.10 with a standard deviation of 2.33. Three questions on the NSSE survey were related to out-of-class interactions with a 4-point frequency-based scale (never, sometimes, often, very often). With anchors ranging from 4-12, students’ average out-of-class interactions with faculty was 6.53 with a standard deviation of 1.89. Two questions on the NSSE survey were related to overall satisfaction of the institution with a 4-point satisfaction scale (very dissatisfied, dissatisfied, satisfied, very satisfied). With anchors ranging from 4-8, students’ overall satisfaction of the institution was 6.32 with a standard deviation of 1.42.

To answer the first research question, a Mann-Whitney U Test, a nonparametric test, was used. In this study, the independent samples were students who returned and students who did not return to the university the following year. The dependent variables in this research question were (a) students’ course-related interactions with faculty, (b) students’ out-of-class interactions with faculty, and (c) students’ overall satisfaction during their freshman year of college. Therefore, three separate Mann-Whitney U tests were calculated to examine each variable independently.

Note: This table indicates the minimum, maximum, mean, and standard deviation for the variables in this study.

Note: ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Students’ Course-Related Interactions with Faculty

A Mann Whitney U analysis was conducted to evaluate if difference exists in students’ course-related interactions with faculty between first-year students who returned the following year and first-year students who did not return. The mean rank for student who did not return (144.09) was lower than the mean rank for students who did return (171.89; see Table 3) but it was not statistically significant (U = 4413.000, p >.05; see Table 4).

Out-of-class Interactions with Faculty

A Mann Whitney U analysis was conducted to evaluate if difference exists in students’ out-of-class interactions with faculty between first-year students who returned the following year and first-year students who did not return. The mean rank for student who did not return (149.27; see Table 3) was lower than the mean rank for students who did return (171.84), but it was not statistically significant, (U = 4594.500, p > .05; (see Table 4).

Overall satisfaction

The Mann-Whitney U analysis evaluated if difference exists in students’ overall satisfaction during their first year between students who returned the following year and students who did not return. The mean rank for student who did not return (112.57) was lower than the mean rank for students who did return (178.22; see Table 3). Difference was found between students who did return and students who did not return was statistically significant (U = 4594.000, p < .05; see Table 4).

Note: This table provides the raw numbers and the mean rank for each of the variables divided by students who did not return and student who did return.

Note: * Indicates significance at a .05 level.

To answer the second research question, a multiple linear regression to determine if the frequency of students’ course-related interactions and out-of-class interactions with faculty during their first year significantly predicted their overall satisfaction of the institution. The independent variables included students’ (a) course-related interactions with faculty and (b) out-of-class interactions with faculty. The dependent variable in this research question is the overall student satisfaction.

A multiple linear regression was carried out to investigate if students’ course-related and out-of-class interactions with faculty significantly predict overall satisfaction. The results of the regression indicated that 5.5% of the variance of overall satisfaction can be explained by the students’ course-related and out-of-class interactions with faculty. The model showed that there was a significant linear relationship between students’ course-related and out-of-class interactions with faculty and overall satisfaction (F = 9.548, df = 2, p = 0.000; see Table 5).

Note: * Indicates significance at a .05 level.

Discussion

The first research question was analyzed to determine whether a difference existed between students’ course-related interactions with faculty, out of class interactions with faculty, and overall satisfaction during their first year of college, based on whether they decided to stay at the institution or whether they decided to depart the institution. Course-related and out-of-class interactions were anticipated to be a significant predictor of retention. Therefore, the findings were unexpected. This study specifically looked only at first-year students, so an assumption could be made that these students are taking larger general education classes. Larger classes could make it more difficult to interact with the professor. Students may also interact and become more involved with professors specific to their major, which typically happens after freshman year. Another explanation could be the complexity of a student’s decision to stay or leave.

The Mann-Whitney U test result did show significant difference between student overall satisfaction and retention. This finding aligns with additional studies that declared the difference between overall satisfaction and retention to be statistically significant (Romsa et al., 2017; Schreiner, 2009). Romsa et al. (2017) analyzed overall satisfaction and found it to be a statistically significant predictor of student retention. Schreiner (2009) conducted a study of 27,816 students at 65 four-year institutions to determine the extent to which student satisfaction predicted subsequent student retention. Using logistic and multiple regression, the satisfaction indicators significantly predicted retention. This significant finding in our first research question underscores the importance of student retention efforts and the positive impact overall student satisfaction has toward student retention. Knowing this positive correlation helps higher education professionals understand the necessary areas to focus on when providing retention efforts for their institutions.

The second research question examined whether the quantity of students’ course-related interactions and out-of-class interactions with faculty during their first year significantly predicted their overall satisfaction of the institution. The findings indicated that together, course-related and out-of-class interactions significantly predicted overall satisfaction. Although out-of-class interactions alone did not significantly predict overall satisfaction, it was still hypothesized to have a positive relationship with overall satisfaction. An assumption for why out-of-class interactions were not statistically significant could relate to what was discussed with the first research question. Examples of out-of-class interactions include working on research with a faculty member, discussing career goals, visiting a faculty during office hours, or participating in a service-learning project together (Hoffman, 2014). It may be that the first-year students in this study had not yet had the opportunity to engage in these types of interactions at this point in their college experience.

The finding that together, course-related and out-of-class interactions were determined statistically significant in predicting overall student satisfaction builds on existing evidence that student-faculty interactions significantly impact satisfaction. The significance of the relationship between student-faculty interactions and student satisfaction is a novel finding in the understanding of Generation Z college students. While Generation Z students are characterized as independent learners (Iftode, 2019), this study provides evidence that their interactions with faculty matter to them and increase their satisfaction in their college experience.

Faculty members can foster this by engaging in conversations focused on the student’s fears, goals, evolving needs, and personal life. Students in this generation are using technology as a means of learning independently (Seemiller & Grace, 2017; Schwieger & Ladwig, 2018). Students can research on their own or turn to the internet and artificial intelligence to help understand concepts by using videos or blogs to find answers (Hernandez-de-Menendez et al., 2020). They may not seek faculty’s help for assignments or understanding material, but they may want to know how their studies apply to their career aspirations and goals. It is likely that student-faculty interactions focused on career goals, community engagement, and encouragement would be most impactful for Generation Z students. Generation Z students want validation and to know that working towards something challenging is meaningful.

Along with the content of interactions, faculty should be willing to adapt to the modes of communication Generation Z students have grown up with. Since they have grown up with the most advanced technology, they often use technology as their first source of communication. This does not mean that they do not value interactions any less. Rather, they may prefer to communicate through technology, such as collaborative tech platforms, videos, and social media (Hoffman, 2014, Stancampiano, 2022). As Generation Z students continue to fill higher education institutions, faculty members should understand the common characteristics of the generation to help guide how they interact with students.

Implications for Practice and Future Research

This study provides evidence that faculty interactions have a significant role in student satisfaction and retention. This study is one of the only empirical studies that links student satisfaction and retention, offering many recommendations for reflective teacher-scholars. A limitation of this study is that only one institution was analyzed from a public institution in the Midwest. Experiences could vary depending on the student demographics and characteristics of varying institution. For example, student experiences from a large public land-grant institution may be significantly different from small private institutions or commuter colleges. Another limitation is that this study collected data from one first-year cohort. It should be considered that experiences could have been different for previous or later classes. The lack of demographic diversity is a limitation of the results, which restricts the generalizability of findings to a wider population.

We recommend that reflective higher education scholars conduct additional quantitative and qualitative analyses to better understand evolving student-faculty interactions. While our multiple regression analyses demonstrate that in-class and out-of-class faculty interactions impact students’ satisfaction, follow-up analyses should be made to test whether each individual interaction type (in-class vs. out-of-class) impacts student satisfaction. Braxton (2014) emphasized the quality of student-faculty interactions over quantity. It would be beneficial to learn student perceptions and opinions of their interactions with faculty through qualitative interviews and focus groups to gain a deeper understanding of this topic by engaging students and faculty in open-ended conversations to express their thoughts and feelings freely, providing rich qualitative data that cannot be captured through quantitative methods like surveys. For example, asking students questions such as: When and where and how often should interactions with faculty occur? What are your preferred communication styles and expectations for interactions and relationships with your faculty? As new students continue to fill universities, student-faculty interactions will continue to evolve, and it will be important to continue readdressing this topic.

Responsibility for student satisfaction and retention lies not only with the student, but also with the institution to provide opportunities for student learning and engagement with faculty in curricular and non-curricular programs (National Survey of Student Engagement, 2022a). When establishing and creating policies, higher education administrators and professionals should consider ways to foster intentional student-faculty programming initiatives (online and in-person) to meet the evolving needs of students.

We recommend updating the institutional mission, vision, and policies for fostering student-faculty relationships, and to allocate the appropriate technologies to achieve this goal. College-wide conversations can be carried out through climate surveys, town halls, and working groups. These updates should be communicated and visible in multiple ways (e.g., website, manuals, developing document). Institutional administrators should expect and support high quality student-faculty interactions knowing its importance for student satisfaction and retention. These expected practices should be articulated in policies as well as in detailed in faculty handbooks. Practices for faculty development should be supported through professional development funds, compensation, incentives, and time to engage in student-faculty interactions. At the institution under study, an Academic Advising Certificate credential is offered that includes four graduate level courses to train and equip teacher-scholars with best practices in academic advising that matches the external environment. Future empirical work evaluating Certificate Programs like this and similar initiatives would be valuable in fostering high impact faculty advising interactions.

As technology continues to evolve very quickly in our world and methods to establish global connections with one another are being used for student-faculty interactions, institutions must bridge faculty and student affairs professionals to address contemporary issues. When faculty and student affairs professionals work together, they can determine ways to introduce, reinforce, and help students master their learning and holistic development. An example of this is faculty and library services working together to support teaching, learning, and access to resources in online spaces. Expertise from both faculty and support services will create a more fully connected digital campus and a true sense of camaraderie, both online and on-site (Greenstein & Gross, 2022; Mohr, 2017). Offering virtual writing and career development services are other examples of shifting services to meet the evolving needs of students. Finding ways to work together can help strengthen visibility, publicity, understanding, and pathways for students to access institutional resources.

Spotlighting faculty who are successfully partnering with student affairs professionals to integrate technologies to support the student experience is recommended. This type of collaboration can be encouraged through institutionally sponsored research groups, innovation grants, and academic showcases for innovative practices. Investing in these partnerships will lead to more equitable environments as well as greater ideas for teaching and learning.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that Generation Z students value interactions with their faculty. Significant difference was found between students’ overall satisfaction and student retention during their first year. Results of a multiple linear regression found that students’ course-related and out-of-class interactions with faculty significantly predicted their overall satisfaction. Together, these findings illustrate the importance of faculty interactions and their connection to student satisfaction and retention. The recommendations can be used as guide to multiply and empower faculty interactions to retain and satisfy Generation Z college students as well as care for the entire university system.

References

American Psychological Association. (2023). A nation recovering from collective trauma. Stress in America survey.

Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latino/a student achievement: Exploring the influence of student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of College Student Development, 42(1), 3–14.

Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.

Astin, A. W., Korn, W., & Green, K. (1987). Retaining and Satisfying Students. Educational Record, 68(1987): 36-42.

Berzenski, S. R. (2021). The when and who of graduation and dropout predictors: A moderated hazard analysis. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 23(3), 768-792.

Braxton, J. M. (2014). Rethinking college student retention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Chickering, A. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cokley, K. (2000). Perceived faculty encouragement and its influence on college students. Journal of College Student Development, 41(3), 348–352.

Dougherty, K. J., Jones, S. M., Lahr, H., Natow, R. S., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2014). Performance funding for higher education: Forms, origins, impacts, and futures. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,655(1), 163-184.

Endo, J. J., & Harpel, R. L. (1982). The effect of student-faculty interaction on students’ educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education,16, 115-138.

Halawah, I. (2006). The impact of student-faculty informal interpersonal relationships on intellectual and personal development. College Student Journal, 40(3), 670-678.

Hernandez-de-Menendez, M., Escobar Díaz, C. A., & Morales-Menendez, R. (2020). Educational experiences with Generation Z. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 14(3), 847-859.

Hoffman, E. M. (2014). Faculty and student relationships: Context matters. College Teaching, 62(1), 13-19.

Greenstein, A., & Gross, S. (2022, May 10). Using digital technology to get student affairs and faculty working together for better results. Times Higher Education. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/campus/using-digital-technology-get-student-affairs-and-faculty-working-together-better-results

Gomez, K., Mawhinney, T., & Betts, K. (2022, July 30). Understanding Generation Z in the workplace: New employee engagement tactics for changing demographics. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/consumer-business/articles/understanding-generation-z-in-the-workplace.html

Iftode, D. (2019). Generation Z and learning styles. SEA–Practical Application of Science, 7(21), 255-262.

Kanji, Z., Pidgeon, M., Nilson, M. (2020). Enhancing post-secondary student retention. Lessons learned from stories of former first-year students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice. doi: 10.1080/19496591.2020.1835670

Kim, Y. K., & Lundberg, C. A. (2016). A structural model of the relationship between student-faculty interaction and cognitive skills development among college students. Research in Higher Education, 57(3), 288-309.

Komarraju, M., Musulkin, S., & Bhattacharya, G. (2010). Role of student–faculty interactions in developing college students’ academic self-concept, motivation, and achievement. Journal of College Student Development, 51(3), 332-342.

Kuh, G.D., & Pike, G. R. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 185-209.

Lillis, M. P. (2011). Faculty emotional intelligence and student-faculty interactions: Implications for student retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 13(2), 155-178.

McCarthy, C. (2017). Prepare for changes on campus by gaining insight into new generation of students. Disability Compliance for Higher Education, 23(2), 8-8.

Mohr, K. A. (2017). Understanding Generation Z students to promote a contemporary learning environment. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 1(1), 84-94.

National Association of Colleges and Employers (2021). First destinations for the college class of 2020: Findings and analysis. NACE. https://www.naceweb.org/uploadedfiles/files/2021/publication/free-report/first-destinations-for-the-class-of-2020.pdf

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2022a.). About NSSE. https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/about-nsse/index.html

National Survey of Student Engagement. (2022b). Conceptual Framework. https://nsse.indiana.edu/nsse/about-nsse/conceptual-framework/index.html

Parker, K., & Igielnik, R.(2020).On the cusp of adulthood and facing an uncertain future: What we know about Gen Z so far. Pew Research Center.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 60-75.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991).How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research. Jossey-Bass Inc.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005).How college affects students: A third decade of research. Volume 2. Jossey-Bass, An Imprint of Wiley.

Rasmussen, C. L., Dawson, S., Stewart, P. W., & Alexander, M. (2022). Expanding expectations: Faculty perceptions on student retention. Journal of the International Society for Teacher Education, 26(2), 69-83.

Romsa, K., Bremer, K., Lewis, J., & Romsa, B. (2017). The evolution of student-faculty interactions: What matters to millennial college students.College Student Affairs Journal, 35(2), 85-99.

Rosenthal, G., Folse, E. J., Allerman, N. W., Boudreaux, D., Soper, B., & Von Bergen, C. (2000). The one-to-one survey: Traditional versus non-traditional student satisfaction with professors during one-to-one contacts. College Student Journal, 34(6), 315–321.

Sass, D. A., Castro-Villarreal, F., Wilkerson, S., Guerra, N., & Sullivan, J. (2018). A structural model for predicting student retention. Review of Higher Education, 42(1), 103-135.

Schwieger, D., & Ladwig, C. (2018). Reaching and retaining the next generation: Adapting to the expectations of Gen Z in the classroom. Information Systems Education Journal, 16(3), 45.

Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2017). Generation Z: Educating and engaging the next generation of students. About Campus, 22(3), 21-26.

Southwell, K. H., Whiteman, S. D., MacDermid Wadsworth, S. M., & Barry, A. E. (2018). The use of university services and student retention: Differential links for student service members or veterans and civilian students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19(4), 394-412.

Stancampiano, J. (2022, May 31). Why Gen Z cares less about getting a 4-year college degree. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/90755962/why-gen-z-cares-less-about-getting-a-4-year-college-degree

Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Toward the validation of Tinto’s model of college student attrition: A review of recent studies. Research in Higher Education, 12(3), 271-282.

Thiele, M. (2016). Resource or obstacle: Classed reports of student–faculty relations.The Sociological Quarterly, 57(2), 333-355.

Thompson, M. D. (2001). Informal student-faculty inter- action: Its relationship to educational gains in science and mathematics among community college students. Community College Review, 29(1), 35–58.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Education Research, 45, 89-125.

Tinto, V. (1987).Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1993).Leaving college: rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Trolian, T. L., Archibald, G. C., & Jach, E. A. (2022). Well-being and student–faculty interactions in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 562-576.

U.S. Department of Education. (2022). About ED: Overview and Mission Statement. https://www2.ed.gov/about/landing.jhtml

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024, September 18). Employment situation summary. Retrieved February 18.

Webber, K. L., Krylow, R. B., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of college student success and satisfaction.Journal of College Student Development,54(6), 591-611.

Woodside, B. M., Wong, E. H., & Weist, D. J. (1999). The effect of faculty-student interaction on college students’ academic achievement and self-concept. Education, 119, 730–733.