Exploring the Evidence:
Reporting Research on First-Year Seminars
Volume IV
Angela M. Griffin and Jonathan Romm
Editors
National Resource Center
for The First-Year Experience®
& Students in Transition
University of South Carolina, 2008
Cite as:
Griffin, A. M., & Romm, J. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring the evidence, vol. IV: Reporting research on
first-year seminars. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource
Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Retrieved [date] from,
http://www.sc.edu/fye/resources/fyr/index.html
Sample chapter citation:
Friedman, D., & Marsh. B. (2008). Appalachian State University. In A. M. Griffin & J. Romm
(Eds.), Exploring the evidence, vol. IV: Reporting research on first-year seminars (pp. 7-10).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The FirstYear Experience and Students in Transition. Retrieved [date] from, http://www.sc.edu/
fye/resources/fyr/index.html
Copyright © 2008 University of South Carolina. All rights reserved. No part of this work may
be reproduced or copied in any form, by any means, without written permission of the University
of South Carolina.
The First-Year Experience® is a service mark of the University of South Carolina. A license may
be granted upon written request to use the term “The First-Year Experience.” This license is not
transferable without written approval of the University of South Carolina.
Volume Credits:
Copyediting and proofing
Tracy L. Skipper, Editorial Projects Coordinator
Toni Vakos, Editor
Emily Mullins, Graduate Assistant
Dottie Weigel, Graduate Assistant
Layout and design Erin M. Morris
Contents
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Barbara F. Tobolowsky
Antioch College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Janice Rye Kinghorn, Christine Smith, and Eli Nettles
Appalachian State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Dan Friedman and Beth Marsh
Babson College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Rob Major and Michele Brown
Brigham Young University Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Maureen Snow Andrade
Indiana University Southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Donna Dahlgren
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Michele Hansen, Gayle Williams, and Lauren Chism
Lourdes College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Deborah Schwartz and Kimberly Grieve
Metropolitan State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Mary Kirk and Megumi Yamasaki
Miami Dade College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Valerie De Angelis and Joanne Bashford
iii
iv
Contents
Northern Illinois University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
J. Daniel House, Denise Rode, and Beiling Xiao
Northern Kentucky University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Peg Adams, James H. Thomas, and Cyndi R. McDaniel
Portland State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Christopher Carey and Kerensa Loucks
Sam Houston State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Keri L. Rogers, Richard F. Eglsaer, Mitchell J. Muehsam, Beth Caillouet, and Lisa Kan
University of California, Los Angeles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Marc Levis-Fitzgerald and Nida Denson
University of Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Kathleen Peterson and Robin Stubblefield
University of Texas at El Paso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Maggy Smith, Dorothy Ward, Ann Darnell, and Francisco Martinez
University of Washington Bothell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Gray Kochhar-Lindgren, J. Droege, S. Leadley, R. M. Price,
B. R. Rosenberg, and B. Tippens
University of Wisconsin - Green Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Denise Bartell, Deborah Furlong, Scott Furlong, Regan A. R. Gurong,
Andrew Kersten, and Georjeanna Wilson-Doenges
University of Wisconsin - Whitewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Chunju Chen, Jeff C. Janz, and John W. Miller
University of Wisconsin - Whitewater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Edward J. Furlong and Linda Long
Wells College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Cindy J. Speaker
West Texas A&M University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Mo Cuevas, Amy Andersen, Jessica Mallard, and Russell Lowery-Hart
Foreword
I
n 1993, the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition published its first volume of Exploring the Evidence: Reporting Outcomes of
First-Year Seminars. It was critical at that time to provide evidence of the value of the
course and support its continued development. Fifteen years later, we are presenting the
fourth volume of the series, and the needs have not changed. Although the course is institutionalized at many higher education institutions, evidence from our seminar survey
and anecdotally from phone call and e-mail requests suggests that the seminar’s existence
continues to be threatened on many of our campuses.
The seminar has changed a great deal from the early 1990s. Today, the seminar tends
to be part of an overall approach to the first year rather than an isolated effort to help
students through their transition. This change is reflected in the great range of courses
now offered. Seminars may be academic, extended orientations, basic study skills, or a
bit of all the above. The courses may be required or elective, one or three credits, and
embedded in learning communities or stand-alone courses. This diversity is apparent in
the 22 case studies included here.
What is also evident in these examples is that the objectives of the assessments are
equally varied. While some institutions focus on increased persistence and GPAs, others
explore questions of engagement, self-confidence, service-learning, intellectual development, peer support, campus supportiveness, career exploration and decision-making, and
faculty-student interactions in and out of the classroom. These questions require qualitative
and quantitative approaches, and you will find both methodologies in these pages. Some
institutions have created instruments while others use established ones. Some employ
individual interviews, focus groups, or writing prompts to better understand the student
experience. Assessment is key to program development and improvement, and many of
the institutions discuss how the assessment led to course changes. It is important to note
that all institutional types are included in this collection as well, representing the fact that
the seminar is an important element of the first year at liberal arts colleges, community
colleges, and research institutions.
v
vi
Foreword
Our primary hope is that the variety of the case studies makes this collection a unique and
valuable resource as you develop new, reinvigorate old, and/or institutionalize the first-year seminar
on your campuses.
Barbara F. Tobolowsky
September 16, 2008
Antioch College
The Institution
Antioch College, located in Yellow Springs, Ohio, is a small, private, residential liberal
arts college enrolling 459 undergraduates. The majority of our students (53%) describe
themselves as Caucasian, 8.3% identified themselves as African American, Asian, Hispanic, or Native American, and 58% are female. Students over 25 years of age comprise
5% of our student population. Data from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program
Freshman Survey indicate that around 20% of our student body have parents who did
not complete a college degree. Antioch has a strong cooperative education program. Every
student alternates terms spent working and taking classes, completing three to four co-op
work experiences prior to graduation.
The Seminar
Antioch’s first-year students enter the college through our Core Program, which
was piloted in the 2005-2006 academic year as a way to improve retention and increase
student preparation for the upper-level curriculum, particularly with respect to integrated
learning. The Core Program consists of a 15-credit learning community. Students learn
in a fully integrated, common cohort of approximately 30 students with three classroom
faculty members and one co-op faculty member. Although the students’ credits represent/
are divided into four distinct areas (four credits in three disciplines reflecting the faculty’s
area of expertise plus three credits for “core”), the experiences are truly integrated with all
faculty present for the majority of the class time. Students may take an additional three
credits of electives, but the Core Program makes up the bulk of their academic credit for
their first term on campus.
Each Core Program revolves around a common theme or problem. One learning
community focused on Citizenship and was led by a professor of art, a historian, and
a political scientist. Another, called Cool, was led by professors of music, physics, and
psychology who described the course in the following way:
1
2
Antioch College
That’s Cool! It’s a word we use all the time, with many different meanings. Cool can mean
a temperature, an emotional state, a particular psychological and behavioral stance towards
the world, the quality of various colors, various styles of music, an exclamation of approval,
an expression of amazement, a judgment of suitability to be included in a specialized social
group, and more. This Core Community will explore the many meanings and associations of
the word, including the topics of absolute temperature, the theory of relativity, electronics and
digital computers, electricity and magnetism, the physics of sound and recording, jazz from
the 1940s and 50s, various genres of popular music from a variety of historical periods, avant
garde music, new computerized methods of composition, the Beat generation, various African and European cultural equivalents to American Cool, issues of socialization, alienation,
targeted advertising, group dynamics, racial socialization, peer pressure, and ways of dealing
with stress and discrimination. Be cool, learn about cool, understand cool!
Each Core program is designed to support students in acquisition and improvement of basic
skills such as writing, quantitative methods, and critical thinking. The Core supports acquisition
of college-level skills of inquiry and civic engagement. The Core program prepares students for
experiential learning in their first co-op placement, which occurs at the beginning of their second
year.
Research Design
First-year students are expected to enroll in a minimum of 15 credits (one Core Community)
and may take up to three additional credits for a maximum load of 18 credits each of their first
two terms. In order to stay on track to graduate, students must earn an average of 16 credits per
study term. To avoid warning or probationary status and stay above the minimum standards of
progress, students must earn 75% of their registered credits each term.
Surveys were administered to first-year students during the eighth week of their first term on
campus with a response rate of 90% (N = 97). The survey consisted of 60 statements that addressed
satisfaction with campus culture, attitudes toward administration, peer relationships, and attitudes
toward curriculum. Participants rated their agreement on a five-point Likert scale ranging from
1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.
The goal of this study was to address several questions related to retention and student success.
We address two main questions here:
1. Is participation in Core Program associated with student success as measured by the number
of credits earned each term?
2. Is participation in the Core Program associated with student satisfaction as measured by
responses to the first-year survey?
Findings
Based on credit reports from the Registrar’s Office, the average number of credits earned by
first-year students increased from 12 in 2004-2005 to 14 in 2005-2006. Retention rates, however,
did not improve. Based on focus groups, retention issues were shown to be linked to the difficulties of the transition process between programs. Tension resulted from offering two curriculums
simultaneously—upper-class students still on the old curriculum expressed concerns about the new
Antioch College
program; first-year students questioned the validity of a program the upper-class students did not
have to participate in; and faculty felt pressed to meet the needs of both curriculums.
Two survey statements—“I am satisfied with my decision to attend Antioch.” and “I am thinking about leaving Antioch.”—were of particular interest in regards to retention. These items were
significantly correlated with each other (r = -.78, p < .01). A series of correlations were performed
to examine which other survey statements correlated with student satisfaction and intention to
leave. The tables contains the items most strongly correlated, defined as a correlation of +/- .35 or
stronger (see Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1
Significant Correlates With Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Positive about learning in an integrated Core
.40
Comfortable expressing non-normative opinions
.51
Happy with social opportunities on campus
.48
Antioch is too radical.
.42
There are opportunities to make a difference.
.46
Educational needs can be met here.
.80
Experiences have been positive.
.64
Dorm is a good place to study.
.35
Most upper-level students are open-minded.
.36
Table 2
Significant Correlates With Intention to Leave
Leave
Positive about learning in an integrated Core
-.38
Comfortable expressing non-normative opinions
-.41
Happy with social opportunities on campus
-.38
There are opportunities to make a difference.
-.39
Educational needs can be met here.
-.78
Experiences have been positive.
-.63
3
4
Antioch College
Note that all six strong correlates with intent to leave are also strongly correlated with satisfaction. However, satisfaction with decision to attend Antioch also included statements addressing
level of radicalism, dorm experiences, and relationships with upper-level students. These items were
not significantly related with intention to leave.
Next, a linear regression analysis was performed to examine predictors of satisfaction. Each
of the nine items from Table 1 was regressed on satisfaction. The regression was significant
(R 2 = .69, p < .01). Three variables had significant betas, “educational needs can be met here”
(β = .52, p < .01), “experiences have been positive” (β = .21, p < .05) and “Antioch is too radical”
(β = -.16, p = .05).
Because regressing nine variables on satisfaction may compromise power, a third regression
was performed examining the same six variables that were regressed on satisfaction. The regression
was significant (R2 = .69, p < .01). Two variables were significant predictors: “educational needs
can be met here” (β = -.56, p < .01) and “experiences have been positive” (β = -.25, p < .05).
A linear regression analysis was performed to examine predictors of intent to leave. Each
of the six items from Table 2 was regressed on satisfaction. The regression was significant
(R2 = .66, p < .01). Two variables were significant predictors, “educational needs can be met here”
(β = -.78, p < .01) and “experiences have been positive” (β = -.45, p < .01).
Thus, the most significant predictors of satisfaction and intention to stay were whether students believed that they could have their educational needs met at Antioch College and having
positive experiences at the college.
Student perception that they can get educational needs met here may have a different meaning
to students than to faculty. Faculty interpreted this as presence of course offerings/programs in
a student’s area of interest as well as appropriate support/challenge of the academic program. To
examine how students might have interpreted this, we examined survey items that significantly
correlated with the belief that educational needs can be met at Antioch. Table 3 contains the
items most strongly correlated with educational needs met, defined as a correlation of +/-.35 or
stronger.
Table 3
Correlates With Believing Educational Needs Could Be Met at Antioch
Educational Needs Met
Positive about learning in an integrated Core
.46
My courses are challenging.
.40
Staff members are helpful.
.35
Comfortable expressing non-normative opinions
.49
Experiences have been positive.
.60
Happy with social opportunities on campus
.39
Upper-level students are positive role models.
.39
There are opportunities to make a difference.
.45
First-year students are satisfied with campus climate.
.37
Antioch College
Note that only two significant statements are related to classroom experiences. Thus, students
seem to include getting their educational needs met as including interactions with other students
and involvement with the campus community.
Regarding relationships with faculty and course content, first-year students reported overwhelmingly that they felt respected by faculty (90% agreed or strongly agreed). Those who felt
their Core learning community was challenging were also more satisfied (r = .24, p < .05) and
intended to stay (-.27, p < .01).
A t-test was performed for each of the survey items to examine gender differences. Relatively
few differences emerged. Women were significantly more likely to report feeling that they had
opportunities to make a difference and were more satisfied with learning in an integrated Core
community while male participants wanted more recreational opportunities.
Findings about first-year students’ feelings of alienation and disconnect from the larger curriculum have led us to broaden the focus and delivery of our first-year program. Faculty teaching
in the learning communities are now more deliberate about encouraging and facilitating student
involvement with the larger campus community. Antioch’s Orientation Committee has reconceived
their charge to one that extends beyond the first weekend of the fall to throughout the first year.
Additional plans include a common reading for all students that can be integrated into the curriculum, speakers, and a film series to tie in with the academic content of the learning communities.
Scholarly activities that connect the learning communities to the larger Antioch community and
provide opportunities for students at all levels to engage are planned to increase rapport.
Contributors
Janice Rye Kinghorn (primary contact)
Associate Professor of Economics
Antioch College
795 Livermore St.
Yellow Springs, OH
Phone: (937) 769-1330
E-mail: kinghorn@antioch-college.edu
Christine Smith
Associate Professor of Psychology
Eli Nettles
Associate Professor of Mathematics
5
Appalachian State University
The Institution
Appalachian State University (ASU), located in Boone, North Carolina, is a fouryear, public, comprehensive university that enrolls approximately 15,000 students. Ninety
percent of ASU students are full-time undergraduates with 50% of students living on
campus or nearby. Eighty percent of Appalachian students are under the age of 22. Approximately 48% of students are male. Nearly 94% of the students are White with 6.5%
representing minorities, including 3.5% African American, 1.2% Asian American, 1.2%
Hispanic, 0.4% Native American, and 0.2% nonresident alien. Appalachian is a member
institution of the University of North Carolina system.
The Seminar
Freshman Seminar (US 1150) was first offered at Appalachian in 1987. This threecredit, graded extended orientation course is an elective, which enrolls approximately
60% of the first-year class throughout the academic year. Of the 2,522 incoming first-year
students in the fall 2005 cohort, 1,314 were enrolled in Freshman Seminar during the fall
semester (52%). The maximum enrollment is 24 students per class. Freshman Seminar is
taught by faculty members (full-time and adjunct), student development professionals,
and administrative personnel.
This course aims to acquaint students with the opportunities and demands of higher
education; support them in their transition to the university; help foster cognitive and
psychosocial development; and assist in developing relationships with faculty, staff, and
peers. Course components include study strategies, time management, personality type
theory, wellness, academic research, personal safety, academic integrity, diversity, the history of Appalachian State University, career planning, and cultural appreciation.
Freshman Seminar serves as the anchor course for our Freshman Learning Communities, meaning that each seminar class is linked to another core curriculum or majorspecific course (e.g., anthropology, English, geography, mathematics, or psychology). These
learning communities bring faculty and students together to discuss, explore, and learn
7
8
Appalachian State University
about a shared academic interest or common topic. Instructors of these communities meet often
to discuss student successes and concerns, course assignments, and possible connecting points
between the classes. Appalachian State offers a number of learning communities reflecting the
various interests of its students.
Research Design
A great deal of research has explored the impact of first-year seminars on retention and academic performance; however, less attention has been given to exploring these results by students’
incoming abilities. In other words, do lower-ability students benefit more or less from participation
in Freshman Seminar than their high-ability counterparts?
In order to answer this question, we designed a study to analyze the impact of Freshman
Seminar on academic achievement and one-semester retention rates for the 2005 first-year class
based on students’ expected ability levels. Expected ability level is based upon predicted grade
point averages (PGPA), a formula considering class rank, SAT scores, and high school grade point
averages. The five ability levels, and the breakdown by participation in Freshman Seminar, can be
found in Table 1.
We used independent t-tests to analyze differences in grade point averages. We conducted a
chi-square analysis to compare retention rates.
Findings
Students who enrolled in Freshman Seminar had significantly lower PGPAs (M = 2.78)
than students who did not enroll in Freshman Seminar (M = 2.90), p = .002. This difference also
translated into a significantly lower mean ability level for Freshman Seminar students (M = 4.14)
than for non-Freshman Seminar students (M = 3.66), p < .001. The breakdown of enrollment by
ability level can be found in Table 1.
Table 1
Enrollment in Freshman Seminar by Ability Level
Percent by ability level
PGPA range
Freshman seminar
Non-FS
n
%
n
%
Level 1
3.6 - 4.0
11
0.8
49
4.0
Level 2
3.25 - 3.59
95
7.2
229
18.7
Level 3
3.0 - 3.24
219
16.6
234
19.1
Level 4
2.75 - 2.99
363
27.5
262
21.4
Level 5
2.74 and below
626
47.6
434
35.9
Appalachian State University
Academic Achievement
Based on their lower mean PGPA, we did not expect Freshman Seminar students to have a
higher first-semester grade point average (GPA) than their non-Freshman Seminar peers. However,
students who enrolled in Freshman Seminar finished their first semester with a significantly higher
GPA (M = 2.97) than students who did not (M = 2.86), p < .001. When we compared GPAs for
Freshman Seminar versus non-Freshman Seminar students within ability levels, we found significant differences for the lower ability students (levels 3-5). Thus, lower-ability students appear to
benefit more from enrolling in Freshman Seminar than higher-ability students (levels 1-2). The
breakdown of GPAs according to ability level can be found in Table 2.
Table 2
First-Semester Grade Point Averages by Ability Level
First-Semester GPA
Freshman Seminar
Non-FS
p-value
Level 1
3.78
3.67
.406
Level 2
3.50
3.42
.312
Level 3
3.26
3.01
.000*
Level 4
3.04
2.82
.001*
Level 5
2.73
2.41
.000*
All Levels
2.97
2.86
.000*
*Denotes significant difference.
Retention
Students who enrolled in Freshman Seminar were retained to their second semester at a
significantly higher rate than non-Freshman Seminar students (95.3% v. 93.3%, p = .032). The
breakdown and comparisons by ability level are displayed in Table 3.
These data suggest that Freshman Seminar has the greatest impact for our lower-ability students. Because this course is an elective, this information will be helpful in determining which
students to place into this course. This study also demonstrates an interesting way to analyze and
interpret traditional first-year experience data (grades and retention) that helps shed greater light
on the effectiveness of these courses.
9
10
Appalachian State University
Table 3
One-Semester Retention Rates by Ability Level
Retention Rate
Freshman Seminar
Level 1
100%
Non-FS
100%
p-value
-
Level 2
97.9%
96.5%
.398
Level 3
95.9%
91.9%
.056
Level 4
94.5%
91.6%
.105
Level 5
95.0%
92.9%
.087
All Levels
95.3%
93.3%
.032*
*Denotes significant difference.
Contributors
Dan Friedman
Director, University 101
University of South Carolina
Beth Marsh (primary contact)
Assistant Director, Freshman Seminar
Appalachian State University
1114 Old Belk
Boone, NC 28608
Phone: (828) 262-2028
Email: marsheg@appstate.edu
Babson College
The Institution
Babson College, a private, four-year business school, is predominately known for
its emphasis on integrated teaching and learning instructional methods, as well as its
reputation for teaching entrepreneurship. Located 14 miles west of Boston in Wellesley,
Massachusetts, Babson hosts approximately 1,700 co-educational and traditionally aged
(18-24) residential undergraduates.
Of the 443 first-year students enrolled in the fall of 2006, 60% were male. Additionally, according to the data generated from the 2006 Cooperative Institutional Research
Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey, the demographic distribution of Babson first-year
students (class of 2010) was as follows: 66.8% Caucasian/White, 19% Asian American/
Asian, 10.7% Latino, 2.6% African American/Black, 1.3% American Indian/Alaska Native, 0.4% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 8.2% self-identified as “other.”
The Seminar
Babson College’s approach to the first-year seminar has evolved considerably over the
past 10 years. In the mid-1990s, the first iterations of the seminar stemmed from breakout
sessions of a required first-year course that occurred periodically throughout the fall semester. These sessions eventually evolved into a free-standing, non-credit bearing course until
2005. In the fall of 2006, Babson’s seminar advanced to a graded, one-credit course.
The course, titled First Year Seminar (FYS 1300), is required of all Babson students.
The course is a part of the core liberal arts requirements, and students receive a letter grade
and earn academic credit for their mandatory participation in the program. Students must
retake the course if they earn an F or withdraw before the semester ends. Each section is
capped at approximately 20 students.
The primary instructor for the course is typically either a student affairs or academic
affairs administrator; however, there is also a faculty advisor and peer mentor assigned to
each section to form a team approach to conducting the seminar. This triad model helps
to provide students with a variety of campus perspectives, as well as the ability to form
11
12
Babson College
lasting relationships with key community constituents. Likewise, the FYS sections also serve as
the new student orientation groups during the fall orientation program.
The content of the course is organized around three main themes:
1. Becoming part of the academic community (What is college all about?)
2. Developing an understanding of yourself (How do I fit in?)
3. Living in a global community (How do my actions impact others?)
Specific learning outcomes were also developed from each of these themes. As a result of taking
the course, students are expected to better understand
ëë
ëë
ëë
ëë
ëë
ëë
The merits of scholarship and the expectations of joining an academic community
The resources at Babson that provide personal and academic support
Health and wellness issues facing today’s college generation
Their learning styles and how they fit the college environment
The impact of individual actions on the college and global community
The importance of ethics and social responsibility
Research Design
The assessment of the FYS program is multi-faceted and designed to determine whether
students achieve the desired learning outcomes. Internally developed, web-based surveys include
a combination of Likert-scaled (Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree) and
open-ended questions.
All participants (students, instructors, faculty advisors, and peer mentors) complete these
surveys at the conclusion of the program. Students also complete the standard student opinion
surveys that are issued at the end of the semester for all Babson courses. Furthermore, focus groups
are conducted in the spring semester to provide additional insight on whether the learning outcomes are achieved.
First-year students also complete the Your First College Year (YFCY) assessment at the conclusion of the spring semester. Babson has been a participant since the inception of this survey
and believes the YFCY provides a comprehensive understanding of the first year for students at
Babson.
Findings
The results of the college assessment efforts regarding the First Year Seminar are encouraging. The following is a sample of the results from the internally developed, student web-based
survey. Of the 263 student respondents, 76.2% indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed that
FYS helped them to develop the skills necessary to become a participatory member of the college
community (Table 1).
Babson College
Table 1
Student Outcomes of the First Year Seminar (N = 263)
Percentage of students responding
SA
A
N
D
SD
The FYS course developed my understanding of
a scholarly community.
33.7
51.0
9.2
2.3
3.8
The FYS course developed my understanding of
how I fit in to the Babson community.
27.3
47.3
15.0
7.3
3.1
The FYS course developed my understanding of
how my actions can impact others.
28.4
44.4
16.9
6.5
3.8
Overall, the FYS course helped me develop
the skills necessary to become a participatory
member of the Babson community.
24.5
48.3
16.1
6.1
5.0
Students also provided feedback on the effectiveness of the members of their FYS facilitation
team. See Table 2 for a summary of student ratings of their FYS team members.
Table 2
Student Ratings of the Effectiveness of FYS Team (N = 263)
Percentage of students responding
SA
A
N
D
SD
My instructor was instrumental in helping
students in the class achieve the goals of the
program.
52.8
39.9
4.8
2.0
0.4
My instructor was available outside of scheduled
class times.
48.8
35.9
14.1
1.2
0.0
My peer mentor was instrumental in helping
students in the class achieve the goals of the
program.
55.1
32.8
6.9
4.5
0.8
My peer mentor was available outside of
scheduled class times.
52.0
29.0
17.5
1.2
0.4
My faculty advisor was instrumental in helping
students in the class achieve the goals of the
program.
40.2
42.1
13.8
2.8
1.2
My faculty advisor was available outside of class
times.
44.4
28.4
23.7
2.3
1.2
13
14
Babson College
FYS instructors are required to attend two full-day training sessions (late May and midAugust), peer mentors participate in a four-day comprehensive training program prior to the start
of new student orientation, and faculty advisors participate in a half-day training program. Each
of these training programs is tailored to the specific roles of the participants. These data suggest
that Babson’s investment in training and developing all members of the FYS team is a valuable,
although extensive, process.
Lastly, the FYS team has a pre-arranged strategy session to plan their semester. This comprehensive delivery model is an effort to provide a multidimensional approach to the FYS course
content and personal and academic support structure. The student focus groups conducted provided
significant support for the team approach to facilitating FYS.
Babson’s efforts to design and deliver an exemplary first-year experience continue to evolve. The
challenge of maintaining consistency across FYS sections, determining the appropriate workload
for a one-credit course, and designing reasonable and assessable learning outcomes are issues the
college will continue to address as the program matures.
Contributors
Rob Major
Associate Dean, Academic Services
Babson College
Hollister Hall
Babson Park, MA 02457-0310
Phone: (781) 239-5246
E-mail: majorr@babson.edu
Michele Brown
Foundation Program Administrator
Brigham Young University
Hawaii
The Institution
Brigham Young University (BYU) Hawaii, located in Laie, Hawaii, is a private,
religiously affiliated, residential, four-year undergraduate university. Enrollment consists
of 2,500 students of whom 50% are international, primarily from Asia and the Pacific
Islands. Student enrollment comprises U.S. Mainland 33%, Asia 29%, Hawaii 18%, Pacific
Islands 15%, and other international 5%. Race/ethnicity consists of Asian/Oriental 33.9%,
Caucasian/Non-Hispanic 30.7%, Pacific Islander 20.2%, Hawaiian/Part Hawaiian 7.8%,
Hispanic 3.4%, Black/Non-Hispanic 1.0%, other 2.1%, and American Indian/Alaskan
Native 0.8%. Approximately 31% of students are over 25, 42.3% are male, 92.3% are fulltime, and 30.7% are first-generation (neither father nor mother attended any college).
The Seminar
The first-year seminar at BYU-Hawaii, entitled “The International Student in the
University,” has been offered since 1994 as the result of an ESL program self-study. A
finding of the self-study was that although individual ESL instructors introduced students
to campus learning centers, cultural information, educational system expectations, and
university policies, this information was not systematically addressed or included in the
curriculum of a particular course. University-sponsored orientation did not directly focus
on international students’ needs or consider their English proficiency levels. A required
two-credit hour, one-semester seminar for all international students who test into ESL
courses was developed and implemented in response. Approximately 86% of first-year
international students and 67% of all first-year students enroll in the course each semester.
Students receive letter grades, and credit counts toward graduation electives. Each section
averages 15 students. Instructors in the ESL program teach the seminar.
Course objectives focus on improving students’ knowledge and understanding of
(a) policies and procedures of the ESL program; (b) policies and procedures of the university; (c) campus resources, time management, computer, and study skills; (d) American
university classroom culture; (e) American culture and appreciation of diversity; and (f)
15
16
Brigham Young University Hawaii
Hawaiian history and culture. Course activities promote active learning (which may be unfamiliar
to some) and include pair and group work, presentations, guest speakers, support service orientations, computer use, and interview assignments. Students are also asked to complete a weekly
learner journal in which they summarize the content of each class, share what they have learned,
and identify and define new vocabulary. The development of English skills is not a specific objective of the course, although students’ English is expected to improve as they engage with course
materials and obtain practice with the language. Adjustment rather than persistence is the goal
of the course.
Research Design
The ESL program has regularly assessed the seminar through course evaluations, mid-semester,
small-group student discussions led by an outside facilitator, student/faculty open-ended surveys,
and more recently, with an online survey containing Likert-scaled and open-ended questions.
Course evaluations allow a consistent means of determining student views toward seminar objectives, organization, content, texts and materials, assignments and exams, grading, and level of new
knowledge or skills. The small-group discussions permit full disclosure of students’ ideas regarding strengths and weaknesses of the course and suggestions for improvements. This format also
has the advantage of determining representative views rather than only individual responses. The
open-ended student surveys encourage the sharing of personal experiences and opinions about
the value of the course without directing responses through a forced choice design. The faculty
survey produces insights into pedagogical and philosophical approaches. Finally, the online survey
measures long-term effects of the seminar.
Findings
Course evaluations indicate that students are largely satisfied with the seminar. Results for
the past five years show that students “agree” to “strongly agree” that the seminar is well organized
with clear objectives, has produced new knowledge and skills, and contains relevant and useful
content. The facilitated student group discussions initially showed that students felt the course
was too easy. This resulted in the introduction of the learner journal assignment, which helped
students focus on English language development through vocabulary study, writing about what
they learned, and reflecting on its value. This assignment also reinforced attendance and allowed
teachers to identify topics needing review. Initially, seminar instructors rotated among course
sections, addressing two objectives each over six class periods. The discussion groups revealed that
students enjoyed the variety of teachers; however, scheduling was difficult, and teacher responses
indicated that time was too short with each group to enable them to determine student mastery
of material. As a result, we ended this practice.
Surveys revealed that students enjoyed the involvement and participation aspects of the seminar
and wanted more activities that emphasized interaction and group work. They particularly appreciated topics related to university life and culture and found these topics, along with information
on the ESL program, the most valuable. They expected the former two topics to be especially useful
in the future. Instructors reported that they responded to the needs and interests of students but
placed the greatest emphasis on information related to university life and the ESL program. They
also identified successful teaching practices, such as using the first five minutes of each class as a
student question period. The program director compiled and shared these pedagogical ideas with
Brigham Young University Hawaii
the teachers and encouraged them to include more interactive pedagogical practices and develop
the cultural component of the course more fully in accordance with the student survey findings.
Instructors noted that students expressed satisfaction with the seminar through their learner journals.
Both students and instructors observed that English development was not directly emphasized.
Instructors suggested the materials needed updating, particularly those related to registration
procedures, graduation/general education requirements, and services on campus, as information
related to these areas had changed over time. One instructor completed this on a voluntary basis
after obtaining input from the larger group as to what changes were needed. The teacher updated
the readings, handouts, exercises, and assignments to reflect current information.
The student/faculty survey created the desire to know if the seminar had long-lasting effects. In
response, an online survey was administered to students a year after seminar completion. Students
rated their familiarity and comfort with seminar topics and outcomes when they first arrived on
campus, directly after completion of their first semester (and the seminar), and during the semester
in which they took the survey (i.e., in their second year on campus). For example, on a six-point scale
with 1 representing strongly disagree and 6 representing strongly agree, students indicated their
level of knowledge with each of the seminar topics (e.g., university policies, the general education
program, professors’ expectations) and their level of comfort with the active-learning behaviors
targeted in the seminar (e.g., being an active learner, interacting with other cultures, finding help
on campus). Tables 1 and 2 provide a complete listing of the seminar topics and outcomes.
We used paired samples t-tests to compare the mean ratings for each item across the three time
periods. Results showed that students’ levels of familiarity and comfort increased over time for
most of the topics. The largest gains occurred during the first semester. The majority of increases
were statistically significant with a few exceptions. Knowledge of university policies did not show
a significant increase after the first semester, perhaps because students had acquired much of this
information in the first semester. Similarly, behaviors related to active learning, interacting with
other cultures, and effective time use did not increase significantly after the first semester. Students
may have made an initial adjustment in these areas after which they were not motivated to make
further changes or did not see the need to do so.
The various assessment measures serve to triangulate the findings and are generally positive.
They have also resulted in seminar modifications. Still to consider is a stronger focus on English
skill development. This could be easily accomplished by a greater focus on vocabulary development
using the course materials, by teacher response to student weaknesses in speaking and writing as
evident in course assignments, and by providing mini-lessons focusing on areas of need. Providing
students with more information prior to their arrival at the university might also be useful so that
the learning curve in the first semester is not so great.
17
18
Brigham Young University Hawaii
Table 1
Familiarity With Seminar Topics
General topic
Level of
knowledge
First semester
(n = 40)
After first
semester
(n = 40)
Current
(n = 40)
ESL program
3.20*
4.60*
4.95*
University policies
3.58*
4.60
4.80
U.S. university
system
3.50*
4.55*
5.03*
General education
3.55*
4.53*
4.93*
U.S. classroom
culture
3.70*
4.60*
4.95*
Professors’
expectations
3.60*
4.73*
5.03*
Hawaii/
community
3.00*
4.25*
4.50*
Specific topic
areas
Note. Responses regarding impact of seminar on above topics ranged from 4.25 to 4.75.
*p < .05.
Table 2
Involvement and Comfort Levels With Active Learning
General topic
Level of comfort
First semester
(n = 40)
After first
semester
(n = 40)
Current
(n = 40)
Interacting with
professors
3.70*
4.48*
4.75*
Being an active
learner
4.25*
4.63
4.78
Participating in
class
4.03*
4.55
5.68
Participating
social life
3.93*
4.50*
4.83*
Interacting with
other cultures
4.33*
4.70
4.90
Finding way
around
4.20*
4.85*
5.13*
Knowing where/
how to get help
4.03*
4.75*
5.00*
Using time
effectively
4.15*
4.63
4.80
Specific topic
areas
Note. Responses regarding impact of seminar on above topics ranged from 4.58 to 4.80.
*p < .05.
Brigham Young University Hawaii
Contributor
Maureen Snow Andrade
Chair, Department of English Language Teaching and Learning
Brigham Young University Hawaii
55-220 Kulanui Street #1940
Laie, HI 96762
Phone: (808) 293-3606
E-mail: andradem@byuh.edu
19
Indiana University Southeast
The Institution
Indiana University (IU) Southeast is a regional, commuter campus located in New
Albany in the southern area of Indiana. IU Southeast is a four-year public university
offering a few master’s programs. The campus serves 5,300 undergraduate students and
864 graduate students taught by 189 full-time faculty. The majority of the students are
female (63%) and from Indiana (87%). Each year, there are 700-900 first-year students.
Typically, half (52%) of the first-year class are students whose parents did not graduate
from college. In addition, 87% of these students work 20 hours or more a week while
attending IU Southeast full-time. Approximately 80% of the first-year students are aged
17-21 with the majority of the students (96%) being Caucasian, 2% African American,
and 2% other.
The Seminar
The First Year Seminar (FYS) is a one-credit hour course attached to various threecredit hour introductory-level courses. The FYS course has been in place for the past six
years at IU Southeast. Based on the success of previous FYS students, first-year students
are now required to take the FYS course during their first two semesters at college. Each
FYS course has a maximum of 20 students and is taught by either a full-time faculty
member or a recommended adjunct or professional staff member who has worked at IU
Southeast for at least five years. Approximately 70% of first-year students choose to take
the FYS during their first semester of college. Primary objectives of the FYS course are
to increase student awareness of the services and resources that are available at IU Southeast; to help students develop supportive relationships with a faculty member and with
a cohort of other students, to improve students’ skills in reading, test-taking, research,
and critical thinking; to engage the students in college by increasing their involvement
in IU Southeast; and to develop students’ ability to use several computer resources that
are available.
21
22
Indiana University Southeast
The course design strives to achieve enhanced academic and campus integration using the
following strategies. To begin, all FYS instructors adapt a common core text personalized for our
campus. In addition, all FYS instructors use Oncourse, a software application that allows students
computer access to faculty-placed materials (e.g., PowerPoints, readings). To ensure students become familiar with the campus, a passport assignment, which requires students to collect stamps
from primary offices all over campus, is used. The entire campus is involved in the passport, and
each office is encouraged to provide friendly information to first-year students. In addition, the
class visits the library for a guided tour and workshop (1 hour, 40 minutes), the writing help center
(30 minutes), and career services (20 minutes) at some point during the semester. Workshops are
conducted with faculty emphasizing active-learning strategies and different teaching methods that
can be used to integrate FYS topics into the context of the attached course. For example, if the
attached course is Introductory Psychology, the instructor emphasizes how to use the study skills
to prepare for a psychology exam. Finally, each FYS student is required to attend and write a short
paper about three extracurricular activities (cultural, social, and intellectual) that are on campus
during the semester. To enhance social integration, the class size is 20 students. This ensures that
students will become familiar with one another. In addition, the instructors are encouraged to
use active-learning techniques and small-group activities as much as possible during the course
of the semester. Finally, a planned class social with a faculty member occurs at least once during
the course of the semester.
Research Design
A longitudinal pre/post quasi-experimental assessment program is in place to assess the impact
of FYS on first-year students. At the beginning and end of each semester, each FYS student completes
the FYS Survey. The survey is a 10-page questionnaire that asks about a variety of demographic
information, study preferences, time management behaviors, their past education experiences,
how they spend their time, their motivations for college, and their knowledge about IU Southeast.
The ending survey also requires the students to evaluate their FYS experience. The questions tap
identified constructs of interest in the development of first-year college students. The university
ID numbers of each student are also collected to track their persistence in college.
Findings
Aspirations and Expectations
At the end of the fall 2005 semester, the results indicate that 91% of the first-year students
want to get a bachelor’s degree, and most (81%) plan to attend IU Southeast full-time in fall 2006;
7.2% expect to attend part-time. Table 1 illustrates their college attachment at the end of their
first semester.
Indiana University Southeast
Table 1
College Attachment Measure of FYS Students at the End of Fall 2005
I am happy about my decision to attend
Indiana University Southeast.
Not true of me
Percentage of Men
Percentage of Women
7.4
4.8
Neutral
33.0
28.6
True of me
59.5
66.7
Retention
Table 2 describes the comparison between those students who were in a FYS course and those
who were not in a FYS course. As can be seen, students in a FYS course were more likely to stay
enrolled and to return during the spring and fall semester. The beginning students enrolled in a
FYS course were more likely to be retained than beginning students who did not take the FYS
class during the semester (χ² (1, N = 788) = 49.89, p < 0.001). The beginning students enrolled
in a FYS course were also more likely to return the following semester than beginning students
who did not take a FYS class (χ² (1, N = 788) = 24.41, p < 0.001). In addition, beginning students
enrolled in a FYS course were also more likely to return the following fall semester than beginning students who did not take a FYS class (χ² (1, N = 788) = 25.00, p < 0.001). These data clearly
indicate the positive impact that taking the FYS class at IU Southeast has on the persistence of
beginning students.
Table 2
Analysis of Retention, Fall 2005 Cohort
FYS
No FYS
Number
556
280
Men
211
114
Women
345
166
Age
19.57
22.46
Age in 17-20 range
86.9%
68%
End status in fall 2005
Stayed
93.3%
78.1%
Withdrew
2.9%
10.4%
FN
2.5%
11.8%
Returned spring 2006
84.3%
69.3%
Men
78.7%
67.5%
Women
87.6%
70.5%
Returned fall 2006
63.4%
45.0%
Men
58.2%
34.2%
Women
66.1%
32.6%
Note. FN means the students failed by not attending during the semester.
Analysis
t (830) = -7.537, p <.001
χ2 = 49.89, p < .001
χ2 = 24.41, p < .001
χ2= 25.00, p < .001
23
24
Indiana University Southeast
Grade Point Average
An analysis was performed to ensure that the samples of students were similar prior to taking a FYS course. Results indicated no significant differences between students who took a FYS
course versus and who did not. At the end of the semester, the fall 2005 GPAs of the students were
compared. A two factor ANOVA with gender (men, women) and course (FYS versus No FYS)
indicated a significant main effect of FYS and gender as well as an interaction between gender
and FYS status. That is, women who took the course had a significantly higher GPA than women
not enrolled in a FYS course. However, men did not show the same pattern, thus the significant
interaction between gender and FYS status (see Table 3).
Additional analyses were conducted examining student knowledge about the university, which
suggested that students knew more about IU Southeast at the end of the semester. Yet, as can be
seen in Table 4, not all components of the course were highly valued by the students.
Table 3
GPA Data, Fall 2005 Cohort
FYS
No FYS
Fall 2005 GPA
2.76
2.50
Men
2.49
2.45
Women
2.90
2.53
Analysis
FFYS (1, 675) = 7.58, p < .01
FGender (1, 675) = 10.43, p < .001
FFYSxGender (1, 675) = 4.51, p = .03
Table 4
Student Perceptions of FYS Course Components, Fall 2005 (N = 389)
Strongly disagree
or disagree
Neutral
Strongly agree
or agree
The FYS portion of the class offered
helpful information.
22.9%
22.4%
51.2%
I learned a lot about time management
in this course.
28.3%
30.8%
37.0%
I learned about a variety of different
study skills in this course.
23.1%
28.3%
44.5%
I got to know my FYS professor well.
10.0%
19.3%
66.1%
I got to know my FYS classmates well.
9.0%
23.1%
64.8%
A variety of discussion and interactive
techniques were used in my FYS class.
16.0%
22.9%
57.1%
I found the library session to be helpful.
19.7%
22.9%
55.6%
I found the session in the writing center
to be helpful.
17.0%
26.5%
53.5%
I found the session in career services to
be helpful.
13.9%
23.4%
59.4%
Indiana University Southeast
Conclusion
In sum, the data lead us to believe that the current FYS course design has helped retention
at our university. Additionally, academic integration, as defined by increased GPA, did occur for
some students. Specifically, women in FYS courses obtained higher GPAs than men. This pattern
of data has led us to examine why men’s GPA shows no improvement with a FYS class.
One limitation of the current study is a concern that the average age of the students not taking
the FYS courses was significantly higher than the students enrolled in the FYS course. This may
mean that nontraditional students are choosing not to take the FYS course because they believe
that they do not need it. This behavior may actually put them at higher risk since the class provides
information that can help them succeed in college. In addition, given the quasi-experimental nature
of the study design, it is possible that self-selection played a role in both GPA improvement and
retention measures assessed in the study.
All students’ knowledge of the university campus was improved, and the majority of students
felt they got to know their professor and fellow students well. The current data also highlight specific areas for improvement. That is, we are exploring ways to enhance the value of the information
provided in our sessions on time management and study strategies and in our visits to the library,
writing center, and career services.
Contributor
Donna Dahlgren
Director of the First Year Experience Program
Associate Professor of Psychology
Indiana University Southeast
4201 Grant Line Road
New Albany, Indiana 47150
Phone: (812) 941-2682
E-mail: ddahlgre@ius.edu
25
Indiana University-Purdue
University Indianapolis
The Institution
Indiana University Purdue-University Indianapolis (IUPUI) is a four-year, public
institution with an enrollment of approximately 30,000, of whom about 22,000 are
undergraduates. IUPUI was formed in the capital city from a consolidation of Indiana
University and Purdue University programs in 1969 and is the third largest university in
Indiana. The institution offers more than 185 academic programs from associate degrees
to doctoral and professional degrees. Approximately 2,400 first-time, first-year students
enroll each year. Most first-time, first-year students commute to the campus (74%), and
the majority of entering students are first generation (58%). The average age of first-time,
first-year students is 19.68, 60% are female, 10% are African American, 90% are full-time
students, and 33% are admitted conditionally (based on SAT scores, high school grades,
and years between high school and college).
The Seminar
First-year seminars, guided by a campus template that defines common learning outcomes and pedagogies, have been offered at IUPUI since 1995. They are required by most
undergraduate degree-granting units, which have developed their own one- to three-credit
versions of an extended orientation format. U110 is the first-year seminar offered by University College for exploratory students. Each section is taught by an instructional team
composed of a faculty member, academic advisor, librarian, and student mentor. Many
seminars are linked to another first-year course such as elementary composition, college
algebra, or introductory courses in the humanities and social sciences. Approximately
100 sections with a maximum enrollment of 25 students are offered each fall semester.
Common learning outcomes for all IUPUI seminars include:
ëë Developing a comprehensive perspective on higher education, including a respect
for diversity among individuals, communities, and disciplines
ëë Establishing a network of staff, faculty, and other students
27
28
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
ëë Understanding and practicing basic communication skills appropriate to the academic
setting
ëë Beginning the process of understanding critical thinking
ëë Understanding and applying information technology in support of academic work
ëë Developing knowledge of one’s abilities, skills, and life demands in order to more effectively
pursue academic goals
ëë Understanding and making full use of IUPUI resources and services that support learning
and campus connections
Since fall 2002, we have been developing themed learning communities (TLCs) that include
a minimum of three first-year courses. All TLCs also include a first-year seminar course, which
functions as an anchor to integrate learning around a common theme explored in the linked courses.
Of the 2,144 beginning first-year students who were enrolled in first-year seminars, 18% percent
were also part of a TLC. This paper provides an overview of the impact of first-year seminars in
standard learning communities and in TLCs.
Research Design
We used quantitative and qualitative approaches to comprehensively assess the impacts of firstyear seminar courses. Specifically, we conducted logistic regression analyses and analyses of covariance to investigate program-related effects on one-year retention rates and academic performance
(first-semester grade point averages). We also compared seminar participants to nonparticipants
while controlling for student background and academic preparation variables.
As we have improved our capacity to measure a wide array of student outcomes, it has become
increasingly important that we develop ways to assess why there is a positive relationship between
participating in a seminar and academic success. Thus, we have implemented qualitative evaluations and end-of-course questionnaires to assess students’ self-reported learning gains and to
provide information that allows instructional teams to better understand when and how certain
interventions are effective.
Findings
Tables 1-6 display the means (or percentages for dichotomous variables) and standard deviations for each variable included in all analyses conducted to determine seminar effect on academic
performance and one-year retention for the fall 2005 and 2006 cohorts. Tables 1 and 2 display
the descriptive statistics for all 2005 and 2006 first-year students enrolling in at least seven fall
credit hours. Students who are enrolled in at least seven credit hours are required to participate in
a first-year seminar; thus, we omitted students enrolling in fewer than seven credit hours for all
analyses. Tables 3 and 4 provide descriptive statistics for all enrolled in a 2005 or 2006 first-year
seminar at census. Tables 5 and 6 provide descriptive statistics for first-year students enrolled in a
2005 or 2006 TLC at census.
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for All Fall 2005 First-Year Students
N
Mean or percent
SD
High school percentile rank
2,027
62.75
20.72
SAT score
2,119
995.05
152.27
Fall course load
2,382
13.20
1.85
Age
2,382
19.17
3.50
Units of high school math
2,180
7.39
1.87
Percent conditional admit
2,382
34.0%
n/a
Percent African American
2,311
12.0%
n/a
Percent female
2,382
60.0%
n/a
GPA excluding seminar grade
2,297
2.42
1.14
Percent one-year retained
2,382
63.0%
n/a
Note. Missing values are excluded.
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics for All Fall 2006 First-Year Students
N
Mean or percent
SD
High school GPA
2,192
3.13
.49
High school percentile rank
2,032
64.94
20.90
SAT score
2,149
999.80
146.72
Fall course load
2,415
13.41
1.745
Age
2,415
19.54
3.13
Units of high school math
2,198
7.31
21.55
Percent conditional admit
2,415
33.0%
n/a
Percent African American
2,351
10.0%
n/a
Percent female
2,415
61.0%
n/a
GPA excluding seminar grade
2,346
2.49
1.13
Percent one-year retained
2,415
65.0%
n/a
Note. Missing values are excluded.
29
30
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics for 2005 First-Year Students Enrolled in a Fall First-Year Seminar
N
Mean or percent
SD
High school percentile rank
1,665
62.65
20.71
SAT score
1,752
994.48
151.69
Fall course load
1,927
13.30
1.76
Age
1,927
18.94
2.91
Units of high school math
1,794
7.41
1.87
Percent conditional admit
1,927
35.0%
n/a
Percent African American
1,866
12.0%
n/a
Percent female
1,927
59.0%
n/a
GPA excluding seminar grade
1,873
2.42
1.13
Percent one-year retained
1,927
65.0%
n/a
Note. Missing values are excluded.
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics for 2006 First-Year Students Enrolled in a Fall First-Year Seminar
N
Mean or percent
High school GPA
1,978
3.13
.49
High school percentile rank
1,834
65.03
20.79
SAT score
1,942
997.58
146.14
Fall course load
2,144
13.45
1.71
Age
2,144
19.32
2.39
Units of high school math
1,990
7.27
22.64
Percent conditional admit
2,144
34.0%
n/a
Percent African American
2,087
10.0%
n/a
Percent female
2,144
61.0%
n/a
GPA excluding seminar grade
2,084
2.50
1.12
Percent one-year retained
2,144
66.0%
n/a
Note. Missing values are excluded.
SD
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics for 2005 First-Year Students Enrolled in a Themed Learning Community Seminar
N
Mean or percent
SD
High school percentile rank
354
62.31
19.30
SAT score
373
965.52
127.11
Fall course load
391
13.69
1.41
Age
391
18.63
2.54
Units of high school math
378
7.38
1.57
Percent conditional admit
391
35.0%
n/a
Percent African American
383
12.0%
n/a
Percent female
391
74.0%
n/a
GPA excluding seminar grade
378
2.56
.99
Percent one-year retained
391
70.0%
n/a
Note. Missing values are excluded.
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics for 2006 First-Year Students Enrolled in a Themed Learning Community Seminar
N
Mean or percent
SD
High school GPA
358
3.18
.43
High school percentile rank
340
66.65
18.81
SAT score
363
990.41
123.99
Fall course load
377
13.75
1.37
Age
377
18.96
1.14
Units of high school math
365
7.69
1.28
Percent conditional admit
377
26.0%
n/a
Percent African American
368
8.0%
n/a
Percent female
377
74.0%
n/a
GPA excluding seminar grade
368
2.63
1.01
Percent one-year retained
377
69.0%
n/a
Note. Missing values are excluded.
Investigations of Seminar Effects on Academic Performance and Retention
We conducted hierarchical logistic regression analyses to investigate the degree to which
seminar participation predicted one-year retention. High school percentile rank (or high school
grade point average for 2006, due to percentile ranks missing values in 2006), SAT score, course
31
32
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
load, age, ethnicity, and gender were entered into the logistic regression in step 1. The seminar
participation variable was entered into the logistic regression in step 2. Tables 7 and 8 display
the results of the hierarchical logistic regressions and demonstrate a significant positive effect on
one-year retention for first-year seminar participation. Findings suggest that participating in a
2005 seminar significantly and positively predicted retention rates (Nagelkerke R2 = .060, χ2 =
(7, 1870) 82.91, p < .001).
Additionally, results indicate that participating in a 2006 seminar significantly and positively predicted retention rates [Nagelkerke R2 = .121, χ2 = (7, 2016) 184.79, p < .0001]. Students
participating in a 2005 seminar (n = 1,927) had a one-year retention rate of 65% compared to a
nonparticipant (n = 455) rate of 56%. Students participating in a 2006 seminar (n = 2,144) had
a one-year retention rate of 66% compared to a nonparticipant (n = 2,171) rate of 55%. Taken
together, these findings suggest that seminars had a rather dramatic effect on one-year retention
rates for fall 2005 and fall 2006.
Table 7
Hierarchical Logistic Regression Demonstrating Significant 2005 Seminar Positive Effect on One-Year
Retention
β
S.E.
Wald
df
Prob.
High school
percentile
rank
.010
.003
15.042
6,1870
.000
SAT score
.001
.000
8.392
.004
Course load
.112
.032
12.686
.000
Ethnicity
(African
American)
-.260
.155
2.820
.093
Gender
(female)
.073
.106
.480
.489
Age
.035
.051
.469
.494
First-year
seminar
.433
.127
11.614
Step
Step 1
Step 2
Note. Nagelkerke R 2 = .051 for Step 1; ∆R 2 = .009 for Step 2, p < .001.
7,1870
.001
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Table 8
Hierarchical Logistic Regression Demonstrating Significant 2006 Seminar Positive Effect on One-Year
Retention
β
S.E.
Wald
df
Prob.
1.001
.129
60.261
6,2016
.000
SAT score
.001
.000
1.593
.207
Course load
.178
.033
28.885
.000
Ethnicity
(African
American)
.025
.062
.167
.683
Gender
(female)
-.472
.109
18.921
.000
Age
-.046
.055
.700
.403
First-year
seminar
.601
.165
13.330
Step
Step 1
Step 2
High school
GPA
7,2016
.000
Note. Nagelkerke R2 = .113 for Step 1; ∆R 2 = .008 for Step 2, p < .0001.
We also conducted hierarchical logistic regression analyses to investigate the degree to which
seminars serving as a component of a TLC predicted one-year retention. Because of the positive
effect of first-year seminars, this variable was controlled for in the analyses. Thus, the nonparticipant group includes students enrolled in a seminar but not in a TLC seminar. Table 9 displays
the results of the hierarchical logistic regressions demonstrating the significant TLC seminar
positive effect on one-year retention. Findings suggest that participating in a 2005 TLC seminar
significantly and positively predicted retention rates [Nagelkerke R2 = .053, χ2 = ( 7, 1551) 60.21,
p < .017.]. Students participating in a TLC (n = 391) had a one-year retention rate of 70% compared to a nonparticipant (n = 1,558) rate of 63%. 2006 TLC participation did not significantly
predict one-year retention once academic preparation variables and background characteristics
were entered into the model.
33
34
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Table 9
Hierarchical Logistic Regression Demonstrating Significant 2005 Themed Learning Community Positive
Effect on One-Year Retention
β
S.E.
Wald
df
Prob.
High school
percentile
rank
.009
.003
9.084
6, 1551
.003
SAT score
.001
.000
9.422
.002
Course load
.090
.035
6.560
.010
Ethnicity
(African
American)
-.231
.171
1.827
.176
Gender
(female)
-.006
.119
.002
.961
Age
-.011
.058
.036
.849
TLC
.327
.138
5.577
Step
Step 1
Step 2
7, 1551
.018
Note. Nagelkerke R 2 = .048 for Step 1; ∆R 2 = .005 for Step 2, p < .018.
First-Year Seminars
We conducted a series of analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) tests to determine the effect
of seminars on first-semester grade point averages (GPA). Corrected models were employed due
to the unequal sample sizes. The ANCOVAs allowed us to compare the grade point averages of
participants to that of nonparticipants since differences among participants on other variables
might have obscured the effect of seminars. ANCOVA results indicated that the mean GPA
excluding seminar grade (adjusted M = 2.42, SD = 1.13, N = 1,873) for 2005 participants compared to nonparticipants (adjusted M = 2.39, SD = 1.19, N = 424) was not significantly different.
Once the high school percentile rank or high school grade point average, SAT score, course load,
ethnicity, age, and gender were controlled for, ANCOVA revealed a marginally significant difference between the GPAs of conditionally admitted students participating in first-year seminars
compared to nonparticipants [F = 2.75 (1, 605), p <. 09]. The descriptive statistics and adjusted
means for 2005 conditionally admitted students are shown in Table 10.
Thus, there appears to be differential seminar effect on academic performance based on students’
levels of incoming academic preparation. Findings suggest that conditionally admitted students
benefited more from participation in the program than regular admits. There was no significant
difference in academic performance for regularly admitted participants compared to nonparticipants based on separate univariate analysis of covariance results. ANCOVA results suggested that
conditionally admitted students who participated in 2006 seminars also had significantly higher
fall semester GPAs compared to nonparticipating conditionally admitted students [F = 5.67
(1, 560), p < .018]. The descriptive statistics and adjusted means for 2006 conditionally admitted
students are shown are shown in Table 11.
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Table 10
Means and Standard Deviations for 2005 Conditionally Admitted Students Participating in First-Year
Seminars
Seminar
participants
Nonparticipants
n
Mean fall GPA
SD
Adjusted mean
fall GPA
522
2.01
1.04
2.01
91
1.78
1.20
1.81
Table 11
Means and Standard Deviations for 2006 Conditionally Admitted Students Participating in First-Year
Seminars
Seminar
participants
Nonparticipants
n
Mean fall GPA
SD
Adjusted mean
fall GPA
522
2.01
1.08
2.01
46
1.65
1.07
1.61
Themed Learning Communities (TLCs)
Students participating in a 2005 TLC (N = 331) had a fall grade point average of 2.70 (SD
= .932) compared to nonparticipants (M = 2.44, N = 1186, SD = 1.10). Students participating
in a 2006 TLC (N = 320) had a fall GPA of 2.78 (SD = .927) compared to nonparticipants (M
= 2.54, N = 1414, SD = 1.10). Once the high school percentile rank or high school GPA, SAT
score, course load, ethnicity, age, and gender were controlled for, separate ANCOVA results for
fall 2005 and 2006 revealed a significant difference between the GPAs of students participating
in TLCs compared to nonparticipants [F = 18.39 (1, 1509), p <. 0001 and F = 10.99 (1, 1726), p
<. 001, respectively].
Students’ Perceptions: End-of-Course Results
In an effort to enhance understanding of course-related seminar outcomes, we designed an
end-of-course questionnaire. The questionnaire contained 57 items designed to assess students’
perceptions of course benefits, learning gains, satisfaction, and course structure and content. Table
12 displays the Likert-type items rank-ordered by mean ratings of the degree to which the course
benefited the students in various areas over a two-year period. The questionnaire also contained
open-ended items that were content analyzed to determine what major themes emerged. Table
13 and 14 show the findings based on the students’ responses to the open-ended questions. Based
on a content analysis, student comments were coded, summed by category, and five major themes
emerged for 2005 and four for 2006.
35
36
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
The most valued aspects of seminars were opportunities to engage in meeting new people,
learning more about IUPUI and the campus, major and career exploration, and learning and establishing connections with academic advisors. The library tour emerged as a valued aspect of the
seminar in 2005. Based on the Likert-type items and the open-ended comments, the most valuable aspects of the seminar experiences were (a) opportunities for interaction with other students,
(b) regular contacts with advisors and faculty members, (c) learning to meet the demands of college (e.g., major requirements, policies and procedures, and expectations of higher education),
(d) opportunities to explore major and career options, and (e) gaining an understanding of available campus resources (e.g., Math Assistance Center, Writing Center).
Table 12
Most Valued Aspects of Course Rank-Ordered by Mean Ratings for Fall 2005 and 2006 Combined
n
Mean
SD
Positive interactions with
other students
1,075
3.31
.89
Positive interactions with a
student peer mentor
1,079
3.13
1.02
Met new people
1,078
3.12
.99
Positive interactions with a
faculty member
1,072
3.11
1.01
Advisors provided
information about
registration procedures
1,068
3.10
.95
Advisor was knowledgeable
about university policies
1,068
3.09
.95
Positive interactions with
an academic advisor
1,074
3.09
1.07
Advisor was knowledgeable
about major requirements
1,074
3.08
.99
Registration procedures
1,100
3.07
1.00
Advisor was available when
I needed assistance
1,059
3.05
1.02
Advisor encouraged me
to obtain my educational
goals
1,071
3.04
.97
Campus resources available
to help me (e.g., Writing
Center, Math Assistance
Center, Learning Center,
Career Center)
1,065
3.02
1.04
Note. The response scale was 0 to 4, 0 = not at all valued and 4 = a great deal.
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Table 13
Most Valued Aspects of Seminar Course Fall 2005 (N = 437)
Examples of actual student
responses
Most valuable aspect
N
%
Meeting new people
78
18%
“I met new people I now
consider friends.”
“The most valuable thing I
received from this class was
meeting new friends.”
“Meeting new people”
“Create relationships with
fellow class mates”
Learning more about
IUPUI and the campus
56
13%
“Learning campus
information”
“Getting to know IUPUI
better”
“Learning about the resources
that are available at IUPUI”
“Getting to learn about things
on campus”
Major and career
exploration
36
8%
“It exposed all of the majors
and careers that relate to my
values and interests.”
“Learning about different
careers”
“Researching about the major I
am interested in”
“Exploring different careers.”
Academic advisor
28
7%
“Helpful mentor, advisor,
instructor”
“The advisor and mentor”
“I found most valuable having
an advisor to talk to as a
freshman; some scheduling can
be confusing.”
Library tour
24
5%
“Learning information [about]
the library and resources that
could help me in the future”
“The thing I found most
valuable is when we went to the
library and learned about it.”
“Learned library resources”
Note. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole. The remaining responses were so varied that no major
categories emerged.
37
38
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Table 14
Most Valued Aspects of Seminar Course Fall 2006 (N = 488)
Examples of actual student
responses
N
%
101
21%
“I found that getting to know
the people in this class was
valuable.”
“Meeting new people from the
beginning of class”
“Meeting new people”
“Meeting other students with
similar interests as well as
similar intellect”
Learning more about
IUPUI and the campus
93
19%
“Learning more about campus”
“This class helped me get to
know the IUPUI campus.”
“It helped me find my way
around campus”
“Getting to learn about things
on campus”
Major and career
Exploration
48
10%
“Helpful information about
certain majors and their
requirements”
“Helping me choose a major”
“Finding what I wanted to
study as a career”
“Searching for a career”
Library tour
20
4%
“The library tour helped me.”
“Finding out about the library
and resources”
“Helped me learn to use the
library”
Most valuable aspect
Meeting new people
Note. Percentages rounded to the nearest whole. The remaining responses were so varied that no major
categories emerged.
Conclusion
Positive assessment results have demonstrated that first-year seminar and TLC students report
greater engagement with college, have higher GPAs, and are retained to the second year at higher
rates than nonparticipating students. Thus, findings suggest positive impacts on academic success
and retention. Taken together, results suggest that seminars seem to provide opportunities for
student connections: Students establish friendships by participating. Seminars also allow students
to engage in career and major exploration. In addition, TLC seminar students are able to integrate
learning between courses and disciplines, and seminars seem to especially benefit conditionally
admitted students, the most at-risk student group at IUPUI.
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
These results have fueled expansion of the TLC program from seven TLCs in fall 2003 to 26
in fall 2007. Currently, almost 90% of first-year students participant in a first-year seminar. These
outcomes have also encouraged participation from faculty from representing many disciplines.
New TLCs offered in fall 2007 include African American Perspectives, Crime in America, and
Health and Wellness, as well as TLCs for prospective engineering and business majors. Thus,
quantitative and qualitative results have served to prove as well as improve seminars. Survey results
have been distributed to faculty team members to guide future planning. TLC faculty members
have leveraged results to make improvements such as creating more common writing assignments
to enhance theme integration across disciplines, implementing more cocurricular activities to
improve students’ levels of interaction with faculty members and other students, and expanding
the TLC program to reach more students.
It is important to note that students were not randomly assigned to seminars or themed
learning communities and, thus, a self-selection bias may exist. Additionally, true causal inferences
cannot be derived from data collected in the absence of an experimental design. We suggest that
when possible, campus leaders employ rigorous experimental designs in an effort to determine
casual effects of first-year seminars. Additional research is also needed to determine the exact
effects of discrete components of seminars. In other words, future investigations should examine
the intervening variables that impact seminar success (e.g., cocurricular activities, service learning, integration of learning, writing across the curriculum, establishing connections with other
students, civic engagement).
Contributors
Michele Hansen (primary contact)
Director of Assessment
Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
University College
620 Union Drive, UN G003
Indianapolis, IN 46202
Phone: (317) 278-2618
E-mail: mjhansen@iupui.edu
Gayle Williams
Assistant Dean of University College
Lauren Chism
Associate Director, Center on Integrating Learning
Coordinator of Themed Learning Communities
39
Lourdes College
The Institution
Founded 50 years ago as a junior college for the Sylvania Franciscan Sisters, Lourdes
College, a four-year private institution in Sylvania, Ohio, now attracts more than 2,000
commuter students to its 38 degree programs. The undergraduate population (approximately
1,800) is largely female (83%), 78% White, 14% African American, 3% Hispanic, and
5% other. Fifty-five percent of the undergraduates are over the age of 25, and, according
to Financial Aid Office estimates, 60% are first-generation college students. Until 2002,
fewer than 50 first-year students began each year. Last year, however, the College enrolled
108 new first-year students and offered a first-year seminar for the first time.
The Seminar
The Lourdes College Literacy Learning Community, developed for students who
are underprepared for college-level reading and writing, features a redesigned study skills
course as its central, linking seminar experience. The traditional course, focused on college success skills, such as goal setting, time management, critical reading, note-taking,
and oral and written communication, was restructured to promote personal awareness
and self-confidence, team-building, more intentional college literacy development, and
student success. The redesigned course is a one-semester, three-credit hour course serving
approximately 20% of the College’s direct-from-high-school population.
Highlights of the restructured first-semester course are an outdoor team-building
and leadership development experience and a group service-learning experience. The
Challenging Outdoor Personal Experience (C.O.P.E.) program at a local Boy Scout
camp provides opportunities for the students to solve problems through communication, trust, and collaboration. The outdoor activities, including walking on logs, using
4 x 4 beams to create paths, and helping each other climb a wood wall, challenge students
to listen to each others’ ideas, strategize, plan, and work together to achieve success. The
service-learning experience at a local social service agency brings additional dimensions
41
42
Lourdes College
of personal and team development, fostering civic responsibility and deepening personal awareness
through reflection on the experience.
Students’ literacy development is enhanced by collaboration among learning community faculty
and a tutor, who attends learning community classes and helps students during individual tutoring
sessions. The tutor meets with faculty to help plan and review class activities. She usually attends
class and meets individually or in small groups with students out of class to review assignments and
make sure they are progressing in reading and writing skill development. The tutor and seminar
instructor also take the lead in working with other learning community faculty to promote student
success. That is, they check up on students who miss a class, help students resolve problems affecting their ability to be successful (e.g., test anxiety, ineffective study skills, poor computer skills),
communicate with other faculty about students’ progress, and reinforce literacy learning.
Research Design
Since the restructured course and learning community environment were the College’s first
attempt at providing a first-year experience, determining the effectiveness of the program was
especially important. Therefore, we carefully constructed evaluation methods to reflect program
goals. First, we developed the following research questions based on the program goals:
1. How effective is the program in increasing self-confidence?
2. How effective is the program in promoting peer support?
3. How effective is the program in increasing students’ literacy skills?
4. How effective is the program in promoting student success?
Second, to address the four research questions, we used a mixed-methods research design,
collecting data from the 18 student participants and four faculty members. To determine program
efficacy in increasing self-confidence, we compared results of a questionnaire on confidence in
areas related to college success given at the beginning of the first semester with results of the same
questionnaire given at the end of the semester. To supplement findings from this comparison, we
asked students to respond to open-ended questions about their development at the end of their
first semester and during focus group interviews after two semesters. To find out if the program
promoted peer support, we conducted focus group interviews with the students and with faculty.
To measure literacy skills development, we compared scores on reading and writing placement
tests taken before the students’ first semester in college with scores on the same tests taken at the
end of their first semester. Finally, to examine program efficacy in promoting student success,
we operationalized student success as first-semester GPA and persistence to second semester
and compared GPAs and first-to-second semester retention rates of the students in the Literacy
Learning Community program with those of other students admitted to the College in the same
admissions category (low high school GPA and/or low ACT scores) who placed into and took the
same first-semester study skills and English courses.
Findings
The first-year seminar course, in conjunction with other linked first-year courses, had definite
positive effects on students’ development and confidence levels. In personal narratives, at least half of
the students reported that the course helped them “set and achieve goals” and “be more confident.”
Lourdes College
During focus group interviews, several added that their self-confidence had increased specifically
because they had “made it” through a year of college, and the seminar had helped them do so.
These findings are corroborated by results of the questionnaire administered at the beginning
and end of the seminar course asking students to rate their confidence level using a five-point scale
(1 = not confident at all; 5 = highly confident). Students’ confidence in their abilities stayed the
same or increased in all areas examined, and according to results of paired samples t-tests shown
in Table 1, their confidence increased significantly in areas important to persistence in college.
Table 1
Change in Mean Scores on Selected Confidence Items
Beginning of
semester
End of
semester
t
df
Ability to succeed in college
3.24
4.41
-7.628**
16
Making friends
3.53
4.59
-6.628**
16
Getting help from faculty and staff
3.53
4.47
-2.791*
16
Communicating with others
3.53
4.47
-2.885*
16
* p < .05. **p < .01.
The seminar course and learning community environment also had positive effects on building peer support, as suggested by the increase in confidence in making friends with other students
noted above. In focus group interviews conducted during the first semester (n = 16) and after the
first year (n = 10), participants agreed that the seminar course helped them develop friendships
and that those friendships supported them during their first year in college. Individual participants
discussed specific instances when a peer had helped them with a difficult situation or when having
group support helped them figure out how to deal with a difficult instructor. Additionally, faculty
reported that students’ attendance and work in their classes was better than expected, probably due
to the fact that the students worked well together as a group, helped each other with homework
assignments, and put pressure on each other to go to class and complete assignments.
The seminar course and learning community environment were also very effective in improving
students’ literacy skills and promoting student success. Reading and writing test scores increased
significantly, and first semester GPAs and the between semester retention rate also compared favorably to those for students admitted to the College in the same admissions category and placed
into the same study skills and English courses, as shown in Table 2.
43
43
44
Lourdes College
Table 2
First Semester GPA and Between Semester Retention
GPA
Retention
First-year seminar/learning
community group (n = 18)
3.0384
88.89%
Comparable first-year group
(n = 31)
2.6049
74.19%
Students’ overall GPAs decreased during their second semester as they enrolled in rigorous,
college-level courses. However, according to results of focus group interviews, the students are
approaching their second year in college with self-confidence, clear academic goals, a strong peer
support network, and knowledge of how to navigate the college environment. Sixteen of the 18
seminar/learning community students returned for their second year, as Lourdes College began
its second year offering a first-year seminar/learning community for a new group of 20 students.
Given the benefits of our pilot first-year seminar, we expect to see the program grow and develop. Ongoing assessment and evaluation, including interviews with members of both cohorts,
may well reveal opportunities for improvement in the seminar course and learning community
structure, but for now, we have planned the same type of supportive, collaborative learning environment for the new cohort, with the addition of a second-semester experience of linked courses,
success workshops, and tutor support.
Contributors
Deborah Schwartz (primary contact)
Associate Dean of Assessment and Retention
Lourdes College
6832 Convent Blvd.
Sylvania, OH 43560
Phone: (419) 824-3760
E-mail: dschwartz@lourdes.edu
Kimberly Grieve
Assistant Vice President for Student Services
Director, TRiO Student Support Services
Metropolitan State University
The Institution
Metropolitan State University is a comprehensive four-year, public university, with an
emphasis on underserved groups (including adults and communities of color). The university
serves more than 8,900 students in the Twin Cities metropolitan area in Minnesota who
are nontraditional in a variety of ways: 65% attend school part-time, 67% work full-time,
60% are female, 30% are first-generation college students, 73.1% are White, 12.9% are
African American, 9.7% are Asian American, 2.6% are Hispanic, 1.7% are American
Indian, and their average age is 32. First College is the academic unit responsible for
teaching courses to entering first-year and re-entering transfer students.
The Seminar
We offer two courses for new first-year students and re-entering transfer students.
METR 101 Your Academic Journey is a required three-credit course for students with 0-16
credits that typically serves traditional-aged first-year students. PRSP 301 Perspectives:
Educational Philosophy and Planning is a required four-credit course for students entering
our Individualized BA program but open to any student with 30 or more credits; it typically serves nontraditional aged (average age 38) transfer (average 75 credits) students.
Students in both courses must demonstrate the following competencies: (a) assume
primary responsibility for and authority over their educations; (b) be self-directed learners who can self-assess strengths/weaknesses, articulate learning needs, and use resources
wisely; (c) have a love of learning and awareness of the need for lifelong learning; and (d) be
reflective/self-transcending learners who appreciate varied perspectives and feel responsible
to use their talents to contribute to the larger human community. Both courses use multiple
disciplinary perspectives to help students identify their unique answers to the question
“What do you think it means to be an educated person?” in relation to their perceived
strengths, values, and life goals. In METR 101, we use the “educated person” question as
a multidisciplinary lens through which to teach critical thinking, reading, writing, time
management, and other strategies for college success. In PRSP 301, we use the question
45
46
Metropolitan State University
to explore how knowledge is created, the contexts in which it is created, and who has the authority
to define “what is worth knowing,” as well as to lay the foundation for an interdisciplinary plan
for completing the Individualized BA.
Resident and community faculty have been teaching PRSP 301 for more than 25 years and
METR 101 for more than 15 years to a maximum class size of 25. However, a pilot section of
METR 101 was recently redesigned to incorporate the “educated person” question.
Research Design
We used a combination of measures to assess student learning in relation to our core course
competencies as well as to evaluate retention and graduation rates. Our 2004 Program Review
asked 728 enrolled and 157 graduated students to self-assess themselves as learners on a four-point
Likert scale. Respondents included 321 enrolled and 60 graduated students. Some students had
taken METR 101, but all had taken PRSP 301.
In spring 2005, our Institutional Research (IR) Office generated two data sets for a cohort
that was tracked for four years and compared retention rates of students who passed METR 101
with students who did not take the course. The IR office also compared graduation and retention
rates for 255 students in the Individualized BA program (who had completed PRSP 301) with
4,155 students in all other programs aggregated. In spring 2006, 118 students from eight sections
of our courses answered a five-point Likert-scale survey and open-ended questionnaire.
Findings
One primary learning outcome in our courses is for students to better understand the purpose
of their education by determining unique answers to the question, “What does it mean to be an
educated person?” Our research suggests that helping students answer this question supports their
achievement in relation to other core learning outcomes while increasing retention and graduation rates.
Table 1 shows data from our 2004 Program Review where students self-assessed as better
self-directed learners (average rank of 3.37 for enrolled and 3.5 for graduated students) and critical
thinkers (average rank of 3.43 for enrolled and 3.4 for graduated students).
In spring 2005, the first data set generated by Institutional Research showed that students
who successfully completed METR 101 were retained at an average of 11% more than students
who did not take the course. The average retention rate of students who passed METR 101 was
64.6% while the average retention rate of students who did not take the course was only 53.6%. A
second data set showed that students who completed PRSP 301 were 12% more likely to graduate
and be retained than students who did not take the course. The average graduation and retention
rate for students who have completed PRSP 301 was 71% while the average rate for students in all
other programs was only 59%.
Table 2 shows data from our spring 2006 survey that corroborates earlier results; students
view our curriculum as playing a significant role in helping them develop self-directed learning
(with 80.5% agreeing or strongly agreeing) and critical thinking skills (with 78.3% agreeing or
strongly agreeing).
Metropolitan State University
Table 1
Self-Directed Learning and Critical Thinking Assessment, 2004 Program Review
Positive
4
3
2
1
Average
rank
155
120
31
5
3.37
32
25
3
--
3.5
Enrolled
162
125
22
3
3.43
Graduated
30
27
2
1
3.4
I feel my self-directed learning Enrolled
abilities are improving as a
Graduated
result of my experience in First
College.
I feel my critical thinking
abilities are improving as a
result of my First College
experience.
Table 2
Self-Directed Learning and Critical Thinking Assessment, 2006 Survey
Strongly
agree
1
2
3
4
Strongly
disagree
5
I feel my self-directed learning
abilities are improving as a result of
my experience in First College.
39.8%
40.7%
13.2%
35.3%
1.7%
I feel my critical thinking abilities
are improving as a result of my First
College experience.
36.0%
42.3%
11.7%
4.5%
4.5%
Based on these findings, we are standardizing the curriculum from our pilot section of METR
101 (where the question, “What does it mean to be an educated person?” was incorporated for the
first time) for all METR 101 courses, making the learning outcomes more consistent with our
philosophy of granting students primary responsibility for and authority over their educations.
METR 101 instructors will facilitate student learning by helping them to self-assess learning needs
and academic interests; develop a learning contract for the class; explore career interests; develop
college-level writing, reading, and research skills; and enhance critical-thinking skills.
47
48
Metropolitan State University
Contributors
Mary Kirk (primary contact)
Associate Professor of Individualized, Interdisciplinary & Lifelong Learning
Metropolitan State University
700 East 7th Street
St. Paul, MN 55119
Phone: (651) 793-1781
E-mail: mary.kirk@metrostate.edu
Megumi Yamasaki
Assistant Professor of Individualized, Interdisciplinary & Lifelong Learning
Miami Dade College
The Institution
Miami Dade College (MDC) is the nation’s largest institution of higher learning with
eight campuses located throughout Miami-Dade County, Florida. MDC is a public, openaccess college that confers two- and four-year degrees and short-term professional certificates.
With 50,447 FTEs in 2005-2006, MDC students reflect the diverse characteristics of
Miami’s population: 66% Hispanic, 21% African American, 10% White non-Hispanic,
and 3% of other origin. Fifty-one percent are first-generation students whose parents have
had no college education, and 81% begin Miami Dade College needing remediation in
reading, writing, mathematics, or English-as-a-second-language (ESL). MDC students
commute daily, often from their jobs. Eighty-one percent work, 66% attend part-time,
61% are female, and 35% are over age 25.
The Seminar
Students enrolled in remedial coursework are required to take one of two first-year
Student Life Skills (SLS) seminars. MDC’s courses include the three-credit SLS1510
(Preparing for Student Success) for students who score into two or more remedial areas
on the College Placement Test, and the one-credit SLS1505 (College Survival Skills) for
students who score into one remedial area.
SLS was first offered in 1985 when increasing numbers of first-generation and remedial
students were enrolling at MDC. It became evident that a first-year student seminar would
offer these students the needed support in acquiring the information, skills, and attitudes
that would lead to college success, and the SLS courses provided this. SLS courses align
with the Florida Department of Education requirements for college student development,
and course competencies reflect a holistic approach to first-year student success. The course
addresses elements of cognitive, behavioral, emotional, personal, and social development.
Primary course goals aim at supporting the student in transition, shaping success strategies and attitudes, forming lifelong learning skills, and developing personal awareness
and emotional intelligence. SLS also provides career knowledge and professional skills
49
50
Miami Dade College
and information literacy and technology skills. In addition to teaching, faculty serve as mentors
and advisors, providing a critical connection between the students and the College. Full-time SLS
faculty meet regularly to review student trends and needs and identify and develop innovations
in SLS courses. Innovations incorporate topics and tools that promote student success, including
civic and personal responsibility through service-learning, global citizenship and interdependence,
prescriptive online assessments, environmental awareness, and learning communities that link
SLS with other disciplines.
Sixty-three percent of first-year students enroll in SLS courses, and class size averages approximately 27 students. Courses are taught by full- and part-time SLS faculty, as well as student
services personnel known as Intervention Specialists. All faculty hold advanced degrees in specialized disciplines such as counseling or psychology.
Research Design
Institutional Research conducted a study in the late 1990s before the courses were required
and found that SLS enhanced student success. Remedial students who enrolled in one of the SLS
courses had higher pass and retention rates than their peers who did not take SLS. As a result, we
made SLS enrollment mandatory if students tested into remedial courses. These results were supported and augmented by a recent state-level longitudinal study (Windham, 2006). The Division
of Community Colleges and Workforce Development in the Florida Department of Education
studied five-year outcomes for a fall 1999 cohort of first-time-in-college students. Students were
subdivided into groups based on the type and number of remedial courses needed and enrollment
status in SLS courses. Students who took SLS had a higher academic success rate (i.e., graduated,
still enrolled with satisfactory GPA, or transferred to state university) than students who did not
take the SLS course. Fifty-eight percent of the SLS group were academically successful as compared
to 41% of the non-SLS group.
In 2005, it became apparent that many Miami Dade College students were bypassing the
SLS requirement due to an unintended consequence of the new student registration system. This
provided us with a control group of students who did not take SLS, and thus an opportunity to
revalidate the findings.
In this 2005 study, we wanted to determine if SLS improves success in remedial courses and
subsequent re-enrollment. This was not a true experimental design since students self-selected the
SLS option. Institutional Research compared student demographics for the two groups to identify
any potential bias in results due to self-selection. For example, if a higher proportion of students
with a native language of English elected to take SLS, they might be expected to do better in
remedial courses simply because of a language advantage.
Findings
The population for this study was all first-time-in-college (FTIC) students who tested into
remediation in one or more basic skill subject areas in fall 2005 or fall 2006. These students should
have enrolled concurrently in a Student Life Skills (SLS) course.
The study groups analyzed were students who took and passed SLS and those who did not
take SLS. Students who took and failed SLS (about 10% of the population) were omitted from
the study. While their results were similar to students who did not take SLS, they had received a
Miami Dade College
partial “intervention” by taking the class. It was felt that comparing the two extremes of successful
SLS students and those who had bypassed the course would yield more meaningful results.
A comparison of demographics for the two groups was done, and proportional differences
greater than five percentage points were noted. Students who took and passed the SLS course were
more likely to be enrolled full-time than students who did not take SLS (63% vs. 57%). This is
not unexpected since students who enroll part-time may have time constraints that prevent them
from taking extra coursework. No other demographic differences were observed between the
two groups that could be expected to influence study results. Pass rates in the remedial courses
and fall-to-spring re-enrollment rates were compared for the two groups using institutional data
files. The test of the difference between two proportions was applied to test for significance at the
p < .01 level.
Remedial Course Pass Rates
Students who took SLS were much more likely to pass the remedial courses. Pass rates were
significantly higher (p < .01) in all three remedial subject areas for students who took and passed
the SLS course (Table 1). The observed effect of SLS was smallest for remedial mathematics, and
revisions to the SLS course competencies are being proposed to enhance students’ success in
mathematics courses.
Table 1
College Preparatory Course Pass Rates by SLS Status
College preparatory area
Reading
Passed
prep
Took prep
1,560
84.1%*
831
Did not
take
868
69.7%
Took &
passed
296
Did not
take
334
Term
SLS status Took prep
Fall 2006
Took &
passed
Fall 2005
English
Took prep
Passed
prep
83.3%*
1,660
54.0%*
531
62.3%
1,311
47.0%
81.8%*
671
83.5%*
1,072
61.2%*
64.1%
930
60.8%
1,915
47.3%
Note. Passing college preparatory means a grade of “S.”
*p < 0.01, two-tailed test.
Passed
prep
Math
51
52
Miami Dade College
Fall-to-Spring Re-enrollment Rate
This research also revealed that students who took and passed the SLS courses during their
first fall term were significantly more likely to re-enroll for the subsequent spring term (p < .01)
than students who did not take one of the SLS courses. The return rates were more than 15 percentage points higher for the students who took and passed SLS for both of the fall terms examined
(Table 2).
Table 2
Fall-to-Spring Return Rate by SLS Status
SLS status
Fall 2005
Returned spring
Fall 2006
Returned spring
Took & passed
1,773
92.2%*
2,525
87.6%*
Did not take
2,976
75.1%
2,045
72.3%
*p < 0.01, two-tailed test.
Conclusion
Institutional- and state-level studies support the positive impact of the SLS course requirement. In focus groups and surveys, students consistently report that faculty members who care
about their progress and take a personal interest in their success make a real difference. The SLS
courses represent an opportunity to provide that and much more for new students. MDC is
currently piloting and evaluating innovative strategies to enhance the impact of SLS by linking
with content area courses in learning communities and adding a service-learning component. In
addition, SLS competencies are being tailored for additional student groups including ESL and
dual enrollment students.
References
Windham, P. (2006). Taking student life skills course increases academic success. Retrieved October
24, 2007, from http://www.flboe.org/cc
Contributors
Valerie De Angelis (Primary Contact)
Assistant Professor Student Life Skills/Psychology
Miami Dade College, North Campus
Department of Social Sciences
11380 N.W. 27th Avenue
Miami, FL 33167
Phone: (305) 237-1464
Email: vdeangel@mdc.edu
Joanne Bashford
Associate Provost for Institutional Effectiveness
Northern Illinois University
The Institution
Northern Illinois University (NIU) is a public, four-year institution located in DeKalb,
Illinois. It has an undergraduate enrollment of approximately 18,800 and a total enrollment
of approximately 25,300 students. Slightly more than half (52%) of undergraduates are
female students, and it is primarily a residential campus. The undergraduate enrollment
is comprised of 25.9% minority students and most (77.4%) are traditional-aged (18-22
years of age) students. Approximately one half of the students in each entering class are
first-generation students. In this instance, first-generation students are defined as those
students whose parents have not attended college. Further, about 98.8% of new first-year
students at NIU are in-state students.
The Seminar
UNIV 101: University Experience is an elective course taught during the first 12
weeks of the fall semester. This course is a basic skills seminar focusing on the development
of study skills and time management and improvement of students’ academic and social
adjustment to college. The course was expanded to be available to all first-year students after
being originally designed for students in health sciences. UNIV 101 carries one hour of
academic credit and enrolls a maximum of 20 students in each section. There is extensive
coordination to ensure generally uniform content across sections. Approximately 45%
of new first-year students are enrolled in UNIV 101, and student demand is consistently
higher than the number of sections available.
The UNIV 101 course has three primary goals: (a) facilitate students’ learning about
the university and about their interests, abilities, and expectations in relation to their
chosen field of study; (b) promote the establishment of relationships between peers and
between students and the instructor; and (c) provide enriching out-of-class activities and
assignments. To meet these goals, course content is designed to facilitate student understanding of the challenges and expectations of college, develop strategies for academic
success, develop relationships, adjust to the university community and become involved,
53
54
Northern Illinois University
communicate with faculty, manage time and money, learn to use NIU’s resources and technology,
live in a diverse community, and prepare for a career.
Extensive training is provided for UNIV 101 instructors. A two-day workshop is conducted
in May, and department meetings in August are provided for instructors prior to teaching the
UNIV 101 course. Faculty and support staff with a master’s degree and prior teaching experience
are eligible to teach the course. Instructors are given an overview of the course and the role of the
instructor, a description of the first-year class, guidelines for developing a syllabus, required and
suggested course content, grading and feedback procedures, advice from experienced instructors,
and a review of the textbook and instructor manual. During the fall semester, UNIV 101 instructors are provided weekly electronic newsletters containing announcements, course reminders, and
information about campus resources that are important for students in the course.
Research Design
Longitudinal research is conducted annually to assess the grade performance and persistence of
students who enrolled in UNIV 101 and first-year students who did not take the course. Analyses
were conducted to track student persistence for each semester for their first two years at NIU.
Further, student GPA at the end of each semester was examined. Statistical procedures (analysis
of covariance) were used to control for any differences between groups of students on high school
class percentile rank and ACT Composite score to compare the performance of students who took
the course and those who did not. In addition, chi-square analyses were conducted to compare
the retention outcomes of students who took the course and first-year students who did not take
the course. Retention status was examined at the beginning of each of the first four semesters of
college. For this assessment, the persistence and GPA outcomes of 4,045 students who took the
course between fall 2000 and fall 2004 were examined.
Findings
Retention*
Assessment findings indicated that 81.2% of the students who took UNIV 101 subsequently
returned to NIU for the fall semester of their second year, while 77.0% of students who did not
take the course returned for their second year. Consequently, the persistence rate for students who
took the UNIV 100 course was significantly higher than for nonparticipants (χ2 = 28.29, df = 1,
p < .001). Similarly, there was a significant difference noted for retention for four semesters; 75.2%
of students who took the course completed four semesters, while 71.2% of students who did not
take the course completed four semesters (χ2 = 22.08, df = 1, p < .001).
The effects of the UNIV 101 course on retention outcomes were particularly notable for
students in specific academic disciplines. For instance, 76.5% of students majoring in business
who took the course completed four semesters at NIU, while 70.3% of business students who did
not take the course completed four semesters (χ2 = 12.96, df = 1, p < .001). Similarly, a significant
difference was found for students in liberal arts and sciences; 74.9% of the students who took the
course subsequently completed four semesters at NIU as compared to 68.3% of students who did
not take the course (χ2 = 21.28, df = 1, p < .001).
Northern Illinois University
Grade Performance*
Students who took the UNIV 101 course earned significantly higher mean first semester GPAs
(2.60) than students who did not take the course (2.48) [F(1, 11,550) = 67.86, p < .001], even after
controlling for differences between the two groups on high school class percentile rank and ACT
Composite score. In addition, assessment results indicated similar findings for grade performance
after two semesters. After accounting for any high school class percentile rank and ACT score differences, it was found that students who took the UNIV 101 course had a higher mean first-year
GPA (2.65) than students who did not take the course (2.60) [F(1, 10,612) = 21.86, p < .001].
Similar GPA findings were noted for students in several academic disciplines. For instance,
students majoring in business who took the UNIV 101 course earned a significantly higher mean
first-semester GPA (2.64) than students who did not take the course (2.49) [F(1, 2,676) = 24.30,
p < .001]. Further, students enrolled in liberal arts and sciences who took UNIV 101 showed a
significantly higher mean first-semester GPA (2.52) than students who did not take the course
(2.39) [F(1, 4,800) = 23.86, p < .001].
The assessment findings for the UNIV 101 course indicate that students who took the course
subsequently showed significantly higher grade performance and persistence rates. Further, the
higher grades and persistence rates were evident over the first four semesters of college. In addition,
these results were evident for students in several different academic major fields of study. These
results provide evidence for the effectiveness of the course to positively influence student outcomes
during the first two years of college.
*This summarizes findings from the following research report:
House, J. D., Xiao, B., & Rode, D. (2007). Demographics and academic outcomes of UNIV 101 new
freshmen and other new freshmen ( fall 2003-fall 2004 combined freshmen cohort followed through
spring 2007). DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University, Office of Institutional Research.
Contributors
J. Daniel House (primary contact)
Director of Institutional Research
Northern Illinois University
Lowden Hall 103
DeKalb, IL 60115
Phone: (815) 753-6002
E-mail: jhouse@niu.edu
Denise Rode
Director of Orientation
Beiling Xiao
Research Associate
55
Northern Kentucky University
The Institution
Northern Kentucky University (NKU) in Highland Heights, Kentucky, is a fouryear, public, metropolitan institution serving approximately 15,000 students in Northern
Kentucky/greater Cincinnati. Nearly 13,000 students are undergraduates. Though a commuter campus, NKU’s residential population continues to grow; 64% of the residents are
first-year students. The fall 2006 enrollment summary indicates the student population
is 58% female, 87% White, 5% African American, 1.3% international, 1.1% Hispanic,
0.9% Asian, 0.2% American Indian, and 4.5% unknown. Approximately 50% of NKU
undergraduates are first-generation college students, meaning neither their parents nor
grandparents earned a baccalaureate degree, though they may have completed some work
toward a degree.
The Seminar
UNV 101 (Orientation to College and Beyond) is a graded, three-credit academic
elective, course designed for incoming first-year students. Since 1986, the program has
grown from 10 to more than 54 sections, serving 60% of the incoming first-year students.
The course is taught by faculty, administrators, and full-time professional staff at NKU.
Instructors attend a mandatory New Instructors Workshop in addition to monthly faculty
development workshops offered in the summer and fall.
The UNV 101 curriculum at NKU evolved from the University of South Carolina
model developed by John Gardner and associates. As an extended orientation for new
students, the course objectives and curriculum focus on helping students adjust to college life and prepare to succeed. Small class size (no more than 24 enrolled per section)
enables students to acclimate to campus resources, policies, and procedures and to identify
as active learners, owning their education. Topics such as time/self management, campus
resources, information literacy, college success skills, relationship building, and diversity
are addressed in class. The curriculum is recalibrated as needed to meet the changing
needs of NKU students and the NKU community.
57
58
Northern Kentucky University
One recent curricular innovation has been to focus more directly on career development.
Some NKU first-year students have declared a major when they enter the university, while many
others are unclear about major and career objectives. We have established special sections of UNV
101 for these different types of students. While all sections of UNV 101 address major and career
exploration/decision making, sections designed for Declared students provide information specifically related to the student’s major and related careers; whereas, the sections designed for Exploring
students are carefully structured to facilitate self-discovery and the major exploration process.
Research Design
The research described in this paper focused on two special types of UNV 101 classes during fall
2005. We assessed the impact of the Exploring and Declared sections on career development.
Career development includes two basic processes: (a) exploring career options and (b) making a career choice. To study these processes, we used the Career Exploration and Decidedness
Inventory-Revised (CEDI-R; Thomas, McDaniel, Wagner, & Schuchmann, 2005). Another aspect
of career development, individuals’ confidence that they can perform tasks necessary to make a
career decision, was measured using the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale (CDMSES;
Betz, Klein, & Taylor, 1996).
Fifty-five students in Exploring sections (undecided on a major) and 75 students in Declared
sections (majors in business or education) completed the CEDI-R and the CDMSES in their
UNV 101 classes at the beginning and end of the term. Thus, pre and postcourse measures were
available on three variables: (a) career exploration, (b) career decidedness, and (c) career decisionmaking self-efficacy.
Findings
Analysis of variance was used to evaluate the effects of the between-groups factor (Declared
versus Exploring) and the repeated measure (Precourse vs. Postcourse). Results can be seen in
Figures 1, 2, and 3. On the precourse measures, as expected, Declared students scored significantly
higher than Exploring students (p < .01) on career exploration, career decidedness, and career
decision-making self-efficacy.
Concerning precourse versus postcourse comparisons within sections, each measure showed
a different pattern of results. Students’ career decision-making self-efficacy scores increased from
the precourse to postcourse assessment in both groups (p < .01), and the postcourse scores of
Declared students remained significantly higher than those of the exploring students (p < .01)
(see Figure 1).
On career decidedness (Figure 2), Exploring students’ mean score increased (p < .01), while
Declared students’ mean score did not change. However, the increase shown by Exploring students
did not bring them to the level of the Declared students; postcourse means for Declared students
remained higher than those of Exploring students (p < .01).
Finally, career exploration scores increased considerably for Exploring students (p < .01) but
did not change in Declared students (p > .10). Thus, postcourse scores for the two groups were
similar (Figure 3).
Our findings suggest that Exploring sections of UNV 101 were especially beneficial; students
made progress in all three aspects of career development. Several facets of the special UNV 101
sections may have contributed to these effects. First, throughout the course, readings, activities,
Northern Kentucky University
102
100
Precourse
Mean Score
98
Postcourse
96
94
92
90
88
86
Exploring
Declared
Figure 1. Career decision-making self-efficacy changes in Exploring and Declared first-year college students.
38
Mean Score
36
Precourse
34
Postcourse
32
30
28
26
24
Exploring
Declared
Figure 2. Career decidedness changes in Exploring and Declared first-year college students.
24
Precourse
Mean Score
23
Postcourse
22
21
20
19
Exploring
Declared
Figure 3. Career exploration changes in Exploring and Declared first-year college students.
59
60
Northern Kentucky University
discussions, and presentations were orchestrated to help students identify their skills, values, interests, and aptitudes and to consider how they fit with various major and career options. In addition,
students in Exploring sections received academic advising during their first semester from their
UNV 101 instructors. Because the instructors knew the students well, these advising sessions may
have increased the students’ motivation to conscientiously explore a major/career.
While it is not surprising that, even at the end of the semester, the Exploring students were
not as decided as the Declared students, it is clear that they made important strides in the area of
career development. Their level of career exploration increased dramatically, and they completed
the semester with considerably more confidence in their ability to negotiate the career decisionmaking process.
Most students in Declared sections began the semester having already explored various career
options and decided on a major and potential career. The increases they showed in career decisionmaking self-efficacy were likely the result of the UNV 101 course’s emphasis on providing more
specific information to these students about how to complete their chosen major and establish a
career in that field.
In summary, the results of this study provide support for our decision to create these two
types of special UNV 101 sections and suggest that students in both types of sections benefited
from their first-year experience. We continue to develop sections that meet the career development
needs of incoming first-year students, including stand-alone and learning community sections that
focus on specific majors and areas of interest.
References
Betz, N. E., Klein, K. L., & Taylor, K. M. (1996). Evaluation of a short form of the Career DecisionMaking Self-Efficacy Scale. Journal of Career Assessment, 4, 47-57.
Thomas, J., McDaniel, C., Wagner, B., & Schuchmann, L. (2005, May). Measuring vocational identity
status using the Career Exploration and Decidedness Inventory-Revised. Poster presented at the
17th annual convention of the American Psychological Society, Los Angeles.
Contributors
Peg Adams (primary contact)
Assistant Director/Interim Director
Northern Kentucky University
Office of First-Year Programs
Nunn Drive, Founders Hall 231
Highland Heights, KY 41099
Phone: (859) 572-1493
E-mail: adamspe@nku.edu
James H. Thomas, Professor
Department of Psychology
Cyndi R. McDaniel, Professor
Department of Psychology
Portland State University
The Institution
Portland State University (PSU) is Oregon’s largest and most diverse university.
Located in the South Park Blocks, it is an easy walk to the downtown area and Portland’s
business and government district. It is a four-year institution with extensive graduate
programs. Its motto is “Let knowledge serve the city,” and the university is committed to
civic engagement at every level. Portland State University’s award winning undergraduate
programs are a model for interdisciplinary education. The student body consists of 85%
commuter and 15% residential students. PSU is 53.9% female. Ethnic origins of students
are White, non-Hispanic, 65.7%; Asian/Pacific Islander, 9.1%; Black/non-Hispanic,
2.9%; Hispanic, 4.1%; Native American, 1.1%; and multiple ethnicities, 1%. Twenty-one
percent of students are the first generation in their families to attend college (i.e., neither
parent has graduated from college).
The Seminar
In 1994, PSU adopted a general education program, University Studies, which provides students with a coherent and cohesive program of integrated learning experiences.
The ultimate goal of University Studies is to facilitate the acquisition of the knowledge,
abilities, and attitudes that will form a foundation for lifelong learning among its graduates. This foundation includes the capacity to engage in inquiry and critical thinking; to
use various forms of communication for learning and expression; to gain an awareness of
the broader human experience and its environment; and appreciate the responsibilities
of persons to themselves, to each other, and to community.
Freshman Inquiry (FRINQ) forms the foundation for the University Studies program
at PSU. This required year-long sequence of courses introduces students to PSU’s general
education goals and to the opportunities available in university life. FRINQ courses are
interactive and theme-based, with each theme exploring topics and issues using an interdisciplinary approach to show how they can be understood from different perspectives.
The maximum enrollment size is 36 students. The students also meet in smaller mentor
61
62
Portland State University
sessions twice a week to review the class material and develop computer skills including Word,
Excel, PowerPoint, and web site development.
Senior Capstone is the culmination of the University Studies program. Capstone courses
are designed by PSU’s faculty to build cooperative learning communities by taking students out
of the classroom and into the field. In Capstone courses, students bring together the knowledge,
skills, and interests developed to this point through all aspects of their education to work on a
community project. Students from a variety of majors and backgrounds work as a team, pooling
resources, and collaborating with faculty and community leaders to understand and find solutions
for issues that are important to them as literate and engaged citizens.
This paper highlights a collaborative interaction between a FRINQ, On Democracy: The
History of an Idea and a Senior Capstone Course, Democracy, Ethics, and Civic Discourse in the
Gene Age. A pilot study was designed to examine learning outcomes of first-year college students’
interaction with senior Capstone students through a civic engagement project. The FRINQ and
Capstone students collaboratively chose the course materials, guided discussions, and interacted
with the community partner. The project culminated in a public forum about gene research and
the issues that it poses for privacy and democracy. In keeping with the collaborative nature of the
project, the authors of this chapter include both the professor and a first-year student enrolled in
the course.
Research Design
While much research has been done on the value of service-learning, we are just beginning to
understand how service-learning projects contribute to students’ understanding of the concept of
civic engagement in the long term, and, more importantly, how and when to engage undergraduates
in the service-learning experience. The research project reported here addresses these two issues by
“sequencing” the service-learning experience at both the first-year and senior levels of undergraduate
education. This study used a quasi-experimental design and employed a mixed-methods approach.
This paper reports on the outcomes derived from student responses to a prompted writing exercise
and a civic engagement survey.
We collected data from two FRINQ sections and one Senior Capstone course. One FRINQ
section (the experimental group) engaged in a quarter-long civic engagement project with the
Capstone course on issues surrounding public dialogue about science. Their culminating joint
project was a public forum with government, industry, and citizen participation about upcoming
Oregon legislation regarding genetic privacy. The other FRINQ section served as a control group
and covered the same written material, but did not engage in the service experience with the
Capstone course. Both FRINQ sections were taught by the same professor, and both completed
pre and posttests that included a civic engagement survey, Explicating Factors that Foster Civic
Engagement Among Students (Nishishiba, Nelson, & Shinne, 2003) and a prompted writing
exercise. The prompted writing exercise was scored employing the Structure of the Observed
Learning Outcomes (SOLO) rubric (Biggs & Collins, 1982). The SOLO taxonomy rubric is a
well-known assessment tool and helps identify student levels of learning. Specifically, it is a rubric
that examines relationality and complexity of student responses.
Portland State University
Findings
The prompted writing exercise provided the most significant findings. These results were consistent with our hypothesis that students in the experiental group would demonstrate a stronger
understanding of democracy and the role of dialogue in a democracy than students in the control
group. Table 1 reports on two prompted and open-ended questions. This first question asked the
students to respond to, “What is your understanding of democracy?” The second question asked,
“What is the role of dialogue in a democracy?” Pretests were given to establish baseline levels of
understanding of democracy and dialogue for each class.
Table 1
Analysis of Student Responses to Prompted Writing Questions
Group
N
Mean
SD
Control group –
Democracy question
18
2.33*
.594
Experimental group –
Democracy question
19
2.79*
.787
Control group –
Dialogue question
18
2.00*
.485
Experimental group –
Dialogue question
19
2.53*
.513
*p < .05.
A review of the data reveals that the experimental group scored significantly higher on the
prompted writing exercise than the control group. This finding is consistent with our hypothesis
that students who engaged in the service-learning project would have developed a deeper understanding of the course material. This also supports the extensive scholarship on the value of
service-learning (Kesckes, Spring, & Leiberman, 2004).
Our brief qualitative analysis of the prompted responses supports the quantitative findings
in that the students’ responses in the experimental section reflected a deeper understanding of
the course contents. The qualitative analysis employed codes largely drawn from the material that
were used to search for references to the various goals of the University Studies program (i.e., communication, inquiry, and critical thinking; the diversity of the human experience; ethics and social
responsibility). The content analysis pointed to civic responsibility as the concept most central to
the civic engagement exercise. More specifically, the themes in the responses concerned issues of
democracy, dialogue, plurality, and political action.
The students also completed a survey as a self-report measure of civic engagement competence via a modified survey instrument developed at Portland State University (Nishishiba et al.,
2003). Results of the survey demonstrated no significant differences between the control and the
experimental group. Additionally, some students in both groups reported a decrease in community
engagement awareness. Testing with a larger sample size is required to explain this inconsistency
63
64
Portland State University
in the findings. Several factors including sample size, the inability to randomly assign the groups,
and the lack of follow-up interviewing after the survey was administered hindered the ability to
accurately understand the significance of these differences. For example, one class was taught at
8:00 a.m. and another at 2:00 p.m., raising the possibility of any preexisting differences in students
who select an 8:00 a.m. course over a 2:00 p.m. course. Also, the traditional challenges with selfreporting surveys (Schroder, Carey, & Vanable, 2003) may serve to explain the inconsistencies.
Significantly, power was an issue as the control and experimental group consisted of 18 and 19
subjects respectively.
Future studies will improve inter-coder reliability and examine other rubrics as potential
scoring instruments. This pilot study provides support to the notions of scholarship and learning
that Boyer outlines in his landmark work, Scholarship Reconsidered (Boyer, 1990). Specifically, it
supports the notion that methods based on the scholarship of discovery, the same methods that
a service-learning or civic engagement experience provides, can yield significant student learning
and knowledge retention. It is important that the service-learning goals are closely aligned with the
course goals in order to provide a clear pedagogical connection for the students. This pilot study
affirms the value of the service-learning experience throughout the undergraduate curriculum.
References
Biggs, J. B., & Collins, K. F. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy (structure of the observed learning outcome). New York: Academic Press.
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Kesckes, K., Spring, A., & Leiberman, D. (2004). Developing service-learning expertise and other
community campus partnerships. To Improve the Academy, 22, 287-301.
Nishishiba, M., Nelson, T., & Shinne, C. (2005). Explicating factors that foster civic engagement
among students. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(4), 269-285.
Schroder, K., Carey, M., & Vanable, P. (2003). Methodological challenges in research on sexual risk
behavior: II. Accuracy of self-reports. The Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 26(2), 104-123.
Contributors
Christopher Carey (primary contact)
Assistant Professor
University Studies Program
Portland State University
PO Box 751
Portland, OR 97207
Phone: (503) 725-9402
E-mail: ccarey@pdx.edu
Kerensa Loucks
University Studies Program
Sam Houston State University
The Institution
Sam Houston State University (SHSU), the third oldest public university in Texas,
is located in Huntsville, Texas. With approximately 16,000 students, SHSU’s enrollment
has increased for seven consecutive years. SHSU is organized into five colleges offering
79 undergraduate, 52 master’s, and five doctoral degree programs. SHSU is a selective,
primarily residential campus with a beginning first-year population of approximately
2,200 students (Table 1). One-year retention rates have risen to 73% for full-time students. Mean ACT/SAT scores for entering first-year students exceed both the state and
national average.
Table 1
Demographic Data for First-Year Students Enrolled, Fall 2005 (N = 2,217)
n
%
909
59.0
1,308
41.0
1,537
69.3
Hispanic
255
11.5
African American
374
16.9
Asian/Pacific Islander
24
1.1
International
15
0.7
American Indian
12
0.5
Gender
Male
Female
Ethnicity
Caucasian
65
66
Sam Houston State University
The Seminar
SHSU has developed a comprehensive, coordinated approach toward the first-year experience
that includes a first-year seminar, learning communities, orientations for parents and new students,
personalized academic advising, academic support services, and a new student convocation. SHSU
designed these services to enhance success for incoming first-year students.
SAM 136, a three-credit-hour first-year seminar, began in fall 2004 to ease the transition to
college life by introducing students to academic and personal survival tools, available resources
and services, and other students. Approximately 25% of first-year students enroll for the voluntary,
writing-intensive course. With classes capped at 25, students read, write, and speak extensively on
experiences and challenges common among first-year students. Although SHSU offers a majority
of sections to all first-year students, a few thematic sections based on majors and interests allow
students to interact with like-minded peers. For example, SHSU dedicates one section to students
in the honors program.
The learning objectives of SAM 136 address academic, communication, and life skills, as well
as personal growth topics. Academic skills focus on developing basic study, critical-thinking, and
problem-solving skills. Communication skills stress effective oral and written communication,
group dynamics, and leadership. Life skills emphasize health/stress, nutrition, relationships/sex,
alcohol/drugs, and money management. Personal growth topics include exploration of fields of
study and potential career opportunities, sensitivity to different cultures, and respect of diversity.
The course component on civic engagement and service-learning synthesizes aspects of all four
areas of learning objectives.
The director of the first-year experience program screens all faculty with special attention being
given to academic preparation, communication skills, and the ability/desire to relate to first-year
students. Instructors must participate in a one-day off-campus retreat and periodic faculty development meetings. As part of the continuous improvement cycle, the director evaluates faculty at
the end of each semester to determine avenues of improvement and continued participation with
the program.
Research Design
With the exception of at-risk students required to take SAM 136, beginning first-year students
for fall 2005 (N = 2,217) self-selected their level of participation in the First-Year Experience (FYE)
programs. The researchers grouped participants into two levels: first-year seminar only (FYE;
n = 428) and nonparticipation in FYE (non-FYE; n = 1,738). An additional 51 students enrolled
in SAM 136 and a nonresidential learning community. Given the small number of students in
this group, researchers removed these students from the analyses. Subjects differed based on success profiles (i.e., ACT/SAT score and high school rank). Short-term success indicators included
one-year retention rates and GPAs. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) determined the relationship
between level of participation and short-term student success outcome measures. Because the FYE
program was initiated in 2004, long-term measures of success, such as graduation rates and alumni
participation, will be considered at a later date.
Findings
A comparison of the indicators of preparation for success in college suggests that FYE students
were slightly less prepared than non-FYE students (see Table 2 for comparison of success indicators
Sam Houston State University
and short-term outcome measures). FYE students graduated with a lower high school percent rank
and obtained lower average scores on standardized admission exams than non-FYE students. A
major goal of the FYE program is to retain these less-prepared students.
SAM 136 appears to have had a major impact, particularly for beginning at-risk students.
Specifically, at-risk students who were admitted under the condition that they enroll in SAM
136 (an initiative that began in fall 2005) had a one-year retention rate higher than at-risk students not involved in FYE (M = 74.2% and M = 67.4%, respectively). SAM 136 produced higher
retention rates for all students (M = 74.1%), regardless of at-risk status, than non-FYE students
(M = 71.1%).
Table 2
Comparison of Success Indicators for College and Short-Term Outcome Measures
Success indicators
Short-term outcomes
SAT
% Firstyear
retained
F05
GPA
S06
GPA
F06
GPA
19.1*
938*
74.1
2.44
2.45
2.40
50.3
18.2
890
74.2
2.32
2.34
2.30
33.1
20.5
1002
73.8
2.60
2.60
2.52
Non-FYE (n = 1,738)
29.1*
21.2*
1031*
71.1
2.67
2.73
2.72
At-risk (n = 98)
38.3
17.9
877
67.4
2.36
2.40
2.33
Not at-risk (n = 1,640)
28.6
21.5
1040
71.3
2.69
2.75
2.74
HS %
rank
ACT
42.9*
At-risk (n = 241)
Not at-risk (n = 187)
Group
FYE (n = 428)
Note. HS % Rank = high school rank as percentage of graduating class; ACT = ACT Composite
Score; SAT = SAT Total Score; % First-year retained = 1-year retention rate; F05 = semester GPA
earned for fall 2005; S06 = semester GPA earned for spring 2006; F06 = semester GPA earned for fall
2006.
*p < .01
In addition to one-year retention rates, semester GPAs were reviewed. While SAM 136
produced desired increases in retention rates, SAM 136 did not appear to impact GPAs. At-risk
students, whether or not they were involved in FYE, earned similar GPAs (p > 0.5). Results from
an ANOVA from the FYE students indicated no interaction (p > 0.75, see Table 3) between
preparation for college and participation in a first-year seminar with respect to GPAs.
Although at-risk students do not show consistent improvement in terms of their grades, they
are succeeding at college as witnessed by their retention rates. This early intervention is successful
in providing these students with adequate academic skills that remain throughout their academic
programs. To the extent that they are successful in maintaining their grades, they are also making
consistent progress toward graduation. This is analogous to learning to ride a bike, where the support of the training wheels provide a smooth ride and their removal create an initial unsteadiness
before succeeding without help. The data suggest that SAM 136 may provide the initial support and
67
68
Sam Houston State University
confidence building to allow at-risk students to progress to their second year, where they struggle
but still have the confidence and skills to move forward. Researchers identified procedures to track
these students through their entire academic career at SHSU to provide data needed to evaluate
the incremental value of continued assistance to this at-risk population.
Table 3
Comparison of GPAs by FYE Participation and Preparation (N = 2,124)
F
p
0.45
.50
Preparation
25.02
< .01
Interaction
0.05
.80
Factor
FYE participation
Early results indicate the FYE program is having the desired impact on retention. However,
the anticipated impact on GPAs did not develop. Analyses suggest that the FYE cohort was less
prepared for college than the total first-year cohort, and the fact that they performed roughly
at the same level suggests the program is succeeding. As a continuation of this success, SHSU is
planning to expand the programs of the first year to support students throughout their academic
career. Future research will focus on the unique demands of the undergraduate experience and
identification of strategies to meet these needs.
Contributors
Keri L. Rogers (primary contact)
Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences and Director, First-Year Experience
Sam Houston State University
Box 2209
Huntsville, TX 77341-2209
Phone: (936) 294-3422
E-mail: krogers@shsu.edu
Richard F. Eglsaer
Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs
Mitchell J. Muehsam
Associate Vice President, Academic Affairs and Dean, Graduate Studies
Beth Caillouet
Graduate Assistant, First-Year Experience
Lisa Kan
Graduate Assistant, First-Year Experience
University of California,
Los Angeles
The Institution
The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is a four-year institution located
in Westwood Village in Los Angeles, about five miles from the Pacific Ocean. UCLA
is a public research university that enrolled 25,432 undergraduate students in fall 2006.
It is a residential campus that brings together highly motivated students from diverse
backgrounds. Fifty-six percent of undergraduates are female, 34% are White, 38% are
Asian, 15% are Hispanic, 3% are African American, <1% are Native American, 4% are
international, and 5% are other/unknown. Almost 25% of all new students are firstgeneration college attendees.
The Seminar
The first-year seminar program at UCLA was initially created as an immediate
response to the terrible events of September 11, 2001. The university created a series of
one-unit seminars designed to provide an intimate academic setting in which students
and faculty could explore topics related to this crisis. Feedback from faculty and student
participants in that initial group of 50 seminars resulted in the expansion of the program
to include a wide range of topics that could be addressed through one-unit seminars. This
expanded approach to small, interactive classes evolved into the Fiat Lux Freshman Seminar Program. Sample seminar topics include: Palestine/Israel: Roots of Conflict; Africa
in a Global Context; The Hobbit: Tolkien’s View of Good and Evil in the Community;
Crisis in Darfur: The Debate Over Genocide and International Intervention; Fast Food
Nation; Gay Law; Nanotechnology – Small World, Big Future; and Good to the Last
Drop? How Long Will Cheap Oil and Clean Water Last?
The Fiat Lux Freshman Seminar Program is designed with active-learning strategies
in mind, to deepen student learning early in the undergraduate experience by offering
small classes with a maximum of 20 students—that foster dialogue and participation in
learning, increase student interaction with ladder faculty and peers, and expose students
to new areas of scholarship in environments that allow them to feel comfortable exploring
69
70
University of California, Los Angeles
varied areas of the curriculum. These one-unit courses are taken Pass/No Pass and do not require a
final exam or paper. This paper documents the experiences of students and faculty who participated
in the 2003-2006 seminar program at UCLA.
Research Design
The evaluation relied on the voluntary participation of students in nearly 600 Fiat Lux seminars offered during the 2003-2006 academic years. For 2003-2004, all students enrolled in the
seminars received a notice via e-mail during week 8 inviting their participation in the evaluation
and assuring them of response anonymity. In order to increase response rates, the decision was
made to change the web-administered survey to a paper-and-pencil survey for the subsequent
years. As a result, during the 2004-2006 academic years, students were asked to complete the paper surveys during the last scheduled class meeting of each quarter. The student survey contained
a combination of both closed-ended and open-ended questions, which focused on the students’
level of interaction with faculty and fellow students, perceived outcomes of the seminar, and level
of satisfaction with the seminar.
Findings
A total of 5,172 students participated in the almost 600 seminars offered during the 20032006 academic years. Table 1 presents a summary of response rates by academic year. As a result
of the in-class paper survey administration, the survey response rate increased substantially.
Table 1
Summary of Response Rates by Academic Year
Academic year
N
2003-2004
961
41
2004-2005
1,976
72
2005-2006
2,235
71
Percentage
The main goal of this study was to examine whether UCLA’s Fiat Lux seminars facilitated
dialogue and provided a setting that promoted intellectual development and curiosity. The study
was also designed to look at satisfaction with the program. The findings are organized around
these themes.
The seminars were designed to promote interactions and engage students as “listeners” and
“speakers.” Students responded to a variety of items inquiring whether the Fiat Lux Freshman
Seminar Program promoted interactions with faculty as well as their peers. When asked if the
seminar format allowed them to get to know their instructors, the majority reported that the
seminars provided ample opportunity to do so (Table 2). As many students noted, this was less
common in large introductory-level courses. In addition to allowing students to get to know their
University of California, Los Angeles
instructors, the intimate setting also provided students with opportunities to engage in discussion
with their peers. In fact, the majority of students reported feeling comfortable participating in the
class discussions during the seminar, with many also reporting that the seminar helped them feel
more comfortable participating in discussions in other classes as well (Table 2). Students valued
professors who promoted discussion and noted “how their efforts to engage students encouraged
a new sense of connection to each other and to the topic.” The students especially valued the opportunity to interact and learn form each other.
Table 2
Students’ Perceived Interaction in the Fiat Lux Seminars
Percent agreement
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
The seminar format allowed me to
get to know my instructor.
80
86
86
I felt comfortable participating in class
discussion during the seminar.
90
91
92
The seminar helped me feel more
comfortable participating in discussion
in other classes.
67
73
75
One main goal of the Fiat Lux Freshman Seminar Program was to provide an opportunity for
first-year students to engage in small classroom discussions and support intellectual development.
Table 3 presents two items that ask students about their perceived growth over the course of the
seminar program. The data show that many of the students were exposed to new ideas from other
students and that the course prompted them to think critically and analytically. Several students
indicated that they “learned how to think critically about issues” and that “these skills could be
used in other classes.”
Table 3
Students’ Perceived Growth in the Fiat Lux Seminars
Percent agreement
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
I was exposed to new ideas from
other students.
84
89
88
The course prompted me to think
(critically and) analytically.*
90
95
95
*Starting in 2004-2005, this item was reworded as follows: “The course prompted me to think
analytically.”
71
72
University of California, Los Angeles
Students were also asked about their satisfaction with both the seminar instructors as well
as the seminars themselves. The Fiat Lux Freshman Seminar Program was well received by the
undergraduate students. The majority of the students rated their satisfaction level with their instructor as High or Very High, and approximately three quarters rated their seminar as High or
Very High. The high ratings for both the instructors and the seminars reflect student satisfaction
with the Fiat Lux program (Table 4). In fact, when asked if they would recommend the freshman
seminar program to their peers, most students (90-92%) indicated that they would do so.
Table 4
Student Satisfaction With Fiat Lux Instructors and Seminars
Percent agreement (High or Very High)
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
Your overall rating of
instructor(s)
-
85
87
Your overall rating of the
seminar
-
72
76
Note. Item not asked on 2003-04 survey.
UCLA’s Fiat Lux freshman seminar program is meeting its goal of providing students with
opportunities for dialogue with faculty and peers on engaging topics. Students give high ratings
to the instructors and their seminar experience. Our assessment demonstrates that these seminars
engage students to think critically about new ideas and encourages them to be active participants
in other classes.
Contributors
Marc Levis-Fitzgerald (primary contact)
Director, Office of Undergraduate Evaluation and Research
UCLA College
A265 Murphy Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1571
Phone: (310) 206-5409
E-mail: mlevis@college.ucla.edu
Nida Denson
Research Analyst, Office of Undergraduate Evaluation and Research
University of Minnesota
The Institution
The University of Minnesota (UM), founded in 1851, is one of the most comprehensive public universities in the United States. It is both the state land-grant university
and the state’s primary research university. The Twin Cities campus is located in a major
metropolitan area, with facilities in both Minneapolis and St. Paul. UM-Twin Cities
offers more than 370 degree programs to more than 50,000 enrolled students, 32,000
of whom are undergraduates. The undergraduate student population is currently 53%
female, 47% male. Nearly one quarter (23%) of the undergraduates identify themselves
as being non-White (4.6% Black, .9% American Indian, 9.5% Asian, and 2% Hispanic).
Half of the students report that they live on campus or can walk to campus. Each year,
5,400 students begin as new first-year students. Although retention from the first to
sophomore year is 86%, the six-year graduation rate (based on the 2000 cohort) is only
61%. The UM-Twin Cities awards 6,300 bachelor’s degrees each year.
The Seminar
A First-Year Interest Group (FIG) is a learning community of 20 first-semester, firstyear students in the College of Liberal Arts (CLA) who enroll in three courses together
that are centered on a theme or academic interest area. Typically CLA offers nine FIG
options for incoming first-year students as just one of several kinds of first-year programs
designed to help them make a successful transition to college. The Explorations FIG combines CLA 1001, ID 1201, and one liberal arts elective course. CLA 1001 (Introduction
to CLA Student Life), a one-credit pass/fail course, is the common feature of each of the
FIGS. ID 1201 (Major and Career Exploration) is a free-standing, two-credit course that
students may take either A/F or pass/fail.
The Explorations FIG was designed for undecided students. The unique approach
used in teaching the fall 2006 Explorations FIG was an experiment to combine two of
the three component courses (CLA 1001 and ID 1201) into a three-hour course that
was team-taught by a career counselor and an academic advisor. The courses remained
73
74
University of Minnesota
separate in that each had specific course assignments and grading that aligned with the original
areas of focus for each course. However, additional topics and learning activities, including class
visits to three local employers and an opportunity to engage in a community service project with
classmates, were added to maximize the learning experience for students while creating a more
efficient method to address the objectives of both courses. A single syllabus was used for the combined classes. Shared course objectives for CLA 1001 and ID 1201 include:
1. Connect students to the tools and resources that are essential in the development of goals
and strategies for student success and for the encouragement of both on- and off-campus
involvement
2. Enable students to learn about themselves through self-assessment of personality, values,
skills, and interests, and how those characteristics relate to appropriate selection of a major
and career
3. Promote exploration of and active research into majors and careers
4. Prepare students to move toward life management and self-authorship
Research Design
The Explorations FIG was designed with very specific course goals and associated learning
outcomes articulated. Quantitative data were gathered to assess these outcomes through a survey
that was given to students on a pre and posttest basis. The survey was developed by the two instructors and administered on the first and last day of class. Qualitative data were gathered from
students’ writing assignments as well as from written comments from a supplementary course
evaluation that students completed on the final day of class.
Findings
Student evaluations strongly supported continuation of the Explorations FIG. Nineteen students indicated that they were either satisfied or very satisfied with their first semester experience
as a student at the University of Minnesota (n = 19). Of those students responding (n = 18), 17
noted that participation in the Explorations FIG was either an important or very important factor
contributing to their satisfaction. Sixteen students indicated that they were either satisfied or very
satisfied with their academic performance in college thus far (n = 19). Of the students responding (n = 15), 14 noted that participation in the Explorations FIG was either an important or very
important factor contributing to their satisfaction.
Course Objective 1
Five items on the survey assessed students’ performance relative to Course Objective 1. Table 1
presents the change in students’ responses to selected items over the course of the semester. Almost
all students (95%) agreed or strongly agreed that the course increased their confidence in their ability
to graduate within four years and that it increased their awareness of ways to become involved in
activities on campus and in the community. Similarly, a large majority of students (89%) indicated
that they were more likely to participate in such activities as a result of taking the course.
University of Minnesota
Table 1
Pre/Posttest Responses Related to Course Objective 1
Connect students to essential resources
Pretest mean
Posttest mean
Percent change
I understand the value of a liberal arts degree
and could name at least three advantages of a
liberal arts education.
1.45
2.45
65.52%
I believe I have the study skills and time
management skills that I will need to succeed
academically.
2.7
3.2
18.52%
Note. Responses on a four-point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree.
Student Excerpts
ëë “I have become more confident of my performance in school. I feel like for the point I’m
at now, I have a good understanding of how to use available resources.”
ëë “I feel a lot more comfortable on campus, and I am not so intimidated. The class helped
a lot with this.”
ëë “I have matured, and I know my goals. This class taught me to pursue what I love.”
Course Objective 2
Four items on the survey assessed students’ performance relative to Course Objective 2 (Table
2). Students reported the greatest change in understanding their strengths and skills and how
these related to major and career choices. One student noted, the course “forced me to look deep
within myself at the person that I want to become. I now make more strategic decisions and am
a lot more independent….”
Six items assessed students’ performance relative to Course Objective 3. Table 3 reports the
pre and posttest means for selected items. The course appears to be successful in helping students
gather information about majors and careers and in understanding the process involved in selecting a major. Specifically, we noted a
ëë 60% decrease in the number of students who reported they lacked enough knowledge
about specific majors to be able to make an informed decision
ëë 58.44% decrease in the number of students who reported uncertainty about which major(s)
fits best with their career plans
ëë 54.55% decrease in the number of students who reported uncertainty of the process/steps
involved in choosing a major
The course also helped students see the value of exploring majors and careers early during the college
experience, as evidenced by a 60% decrease in the number of students who reported that thinking
about majors seemed like something too far in the future to be concerned with right now.
75
76
University of Minnesota
Table 2
Pre/Posttest Responses Related to Course Objective 2
Enable students to learn about themselves
and major/career through self-assessment
Pretest mean
Posttest mean
Percent change
I know what majors might interest me.
2.25
2.85
26.67%
I know what my skills and strengths are
and how they might influence my decision
regarding majors and careers.
1.9
2.95
55.26%
I know what my interests are and how they
might influence my decision regarding majors
and careers.
2.4
2.75
14.58%
I know what my values are and how they
might influence my decision regarding majors
and careers.
2.9
3.15
8.62%
Note. Responses on a four-point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree.
Table 3
Pre/Posttest Responses Related to Course Objective 3
Promote exploration of and active research
into majors and careers
Pretest mean
Posttest mean
Percent change
I know what careers might interest me.
2.15
3.1
44.19%
I am familiar with tools and resources for
exploring majors and careers.
1.8
3.1
72.22%
Note. Responses on a four-point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree.
Student Excerpt
ëë “Each experience provided a different outlook on businesses. Visiting each place helped
me to determine the type of work environment that best suits me.”
Course Objective 3
Three items assessed students’ performance over the course of the semester relative to Course
Objective 4 (Table 4). Student responses to writing assignments and on the final course evaluation suggest that some students were more successful in accomplishing this objective than the
pre/posttest means suggest.
University of Minnesota
Table 4
Pre/Posttest Responses Related to Course Objective 4
Prepare students to move toward life
management and self-authorship
Pretest mean
Posttest mean
Percent change
I am confident that I know how to manage
my finances successfully.
2.2
2.45
11.36%
I anticipate that a greater commitment to
being involved in the community and more
engaged and informed about contemporary
social and civic issues will be an important
outcome of my college education.
2.85
3.2
12.28%
In general, I have a difficult time making
decisions.
2.65
2.5
-5.66%
Note. Responses on a four-point Likert scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree.
Student Excerpts
ëë “This is an excellent tool that helps you find your inner self. Not only that, it helps you to
determine what you want out of life.”
ëë “…even if you think that you know what you want to do, this class can open your eyes to
many more opportunities.”
Contributors
Kathleen Peterson (primary contact)
Senior Academic Advisor
University of Minnesota
106 Johnston Hall
101 Pleasant Street S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Phone: (612) 626-7711
E-mail: peter017@umn.edu
Robin Stubblefield
Career Services Coordinator
College of Liberal Arts
77
University of Texas at El Paso
The Institution
The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) is a doctoral, research-intensive, four-year
public institution located on the U.S.-Mexico border. A commuter campus, UTEP’s fall
2006 enrollment was 19,842 students: 11,237 full-time undergraduates and 2,544 first-time,
first-year students. Undergraduates are 76.1% Hispanic. International students include
8.3% from Mexico and 1.3% from a country other than Mexico. Additional undergraduate populations include 9.1% White, 2.8% African American, 1.1% Asian American, and
.2% Native American. Females represent 55.1% of undergraduates. The average age is 23;
27.6% of students are older than 25. Fifty-four percent are first-generation college students
(neither parent has a college degree).
The Seminar
UTEP has offered its first-year seminar, UNIV 1301 Seminar in Critical Inquiry,
since 1999. The seminar is a three-credit academic course with variable content related to
each instructor’s area of expertise. Students may select from such diverse themes as Voices
of Change: Social Protest in the Sixties, Latino Image in Theatre and Film, Food and You,
and Environmental Issues in the El Paso Region. College transition and success skills are
addressed through the theme. Currently 81% of all full-time, first-year students enroll in
the seminar in their first semester. Sections are capped at 25 students.
Many seminar courses are offered in learning communities for the general population and for special populations such as the Circles of Learning for Entering Students
(CircLES) program for prescience/pre-engineering majors. Seminars in learning communities are linked to one, two, or three other courses and often act as the linking course.
For example, the seminar themed “American Dream” is teamed with “History of the
U.S. Since 1865.” The seminar instructor selects literature that connects with key events
discussed in the history course.
79
80
University of Texas at El Paso
An instructional team consisting of an instructor, librarian, academic advisor, and peer leader
teaches each seminar. Instructors may be full-time faculty or staff with a master’s or terminal degree.
Though the theme for each section varies, all must address the same five goals:
1. Strengthen students’ academic performance and facilitate their transition to college
2. Enhance students’ essential academic skills
3. Increase student-student and student-faculty interaction both in and outside of the classroom
4. Encourage students’ self-assessment and goal clarification
5. Increase students’ involvement with UTEP activities and resources
To teach the seminar, instructors must submit a proposal identifying the theme and describing
how the section will address course goals. Proposals are accepted based on academic merit.
Research Design
The seminar assessment strategy focuses on the development and longitudinal tracking of
student cohorts, using data from UTEP’s Student Information System. Additionally, prior to fall
2005, anonymous student surveys provided qualitative analyses to complement the quantitative
results. In total, this evaluation effort addresses all seminar goals listed previously. Collectively,
these efforts address the impact made on student retention, success (measured by GPA), enhanced
student skills, and involvement in campus activities and services.
Findings
Entering student cohorts examined over the past seven years show that students who enroll
in the seminar demonstrate higher retention rates and GPA than their counterparts who do not
complete the seminar. Three indicators of seminar success were selected as baseline measures in
the longitudinal study of student persistence and program effectiveness: (a) first-time seminar
enrollment, (b) retention rates, and (c) cumulative GPA.
Since the seminar’s inception, the number of full-time students enrolled in a fall-semester
seminar has more than doubled, from 777 in fall 1999 to 1,859 in fall 2006. The percentage of
first-time, full-time, first-year students enrolled in the course increased from 44.3% fall 1999 to
80.5% in fall 2006. During this same period, the retention rate of those enrolled in the seminar
ranged between 68.3% and 74.1%. The one-year retention rates for those who never enrolled in
the seminar are considerably lower, between 39.7% and 60.9% (Table 1).
The highest one-year retention rates occurred in 1999 and 2000, the first two years of the
seminar. In subsequent years, as the percentage for the number of entering students enrolled in
a fall semester seminar increased, the one-year retention rate declined. In addition to the impact
on retention resulting from the increased number of students and sections, tuition increases resulting from a significant reduction in state funding may have also negatively impacted retention.
The University increased tuition for enrollment in 12 credit hours by 14.6% in spring 2004 and
another 12% in fall 2004.
University of Texas at El Paso
Table 1
One-Year Student Retention by Cohort (Fall 1999-2005)
Entered fall/Enrolled in
seminar in fall
Entered fall/Never enrolled in
seminar
Fall 1999
74.1%
60.9%
Fall 2000
74.3%
45.6%
Fall 2001
73.4%
42.7%
Fall 2002
72.0%
52.5%
Fall 2003
70.7%
39.7%
Fall 2004
70.6%
42.5%
Fall 2005
68.3%
48.1%
p < .01.
Though the seminar is a course recommended for all first-year students, certain groups of
students are required or strongly encouraged to enroll in the seminar their first semester at UTEP.
These groups are the provisionally admitted, lower-proficiency English as a Second Language (ESL),
and prescience/pre-engineering students. An analysis of covariance, to control for the external
factors of SAT score, ethnicity, and gender, confirmed the findings that GPA is positively affected
for those taking the seminar during their first semester (Table 2).
Table 2
First-Term Average GPA Based on Analysis of Covariance
Entered fall/Enrolled in
seminar in fall
Entered fall/Never enrolled in
seminar
Fall 1999
2.72
2.16
Fall 2000
2.76
1.85
Fall 2001
2.78
1.99
Fall 2002
2.72
2.33
Fall 2003
2.76
2.18
Fall 2004
2.72
2.54
Fall 2005
2.71
2.54
Fall 2006
2.59
2.28
Note. Does not include students without an SAT score. Effects of ethnicity and gender have been
removed.
p < .01.
81
82
University of Texas at El Paso
While the comparison of the one-year retention and GPA data for seminar and nonseminar
students clearly demonstrates the positive impact the seminar has on first-year students, the decline
in retention and GPA is a concern. Additional study is required to determine the causes of the
decline. UTEP will conduct additional research, including contacting leavers, to identify factors
that might be negatively impacting student retention. The findings of this research may help guide
positive changes to the seminar.
Contributors
Maggy Smith
Dean, University College
Dorothy Ward (primary contact)
Director, Entering Student Program
University of Texas at El Paso
Academic Services Building, Room 218
500 West University
El Paso, TX 79968
Phone: (915) 747-8439
E-mail: dpward@utep.edu
Ann Darnell
Research Associate
Francisco Martinez
Research Associate
University of Washington
Bothell
The Institution
The University of Washington (UW) Bothell is a public four-year, commuter campus
located 12 miles north of Seattle and serving the north Puget Sound and Eastside region.
UW Bothell has 1,421 full-time students who study interdisciplinary arts and sciences,
business, education, computing software systems, and nursing. Having previously served
only upper-division and graduate students, in 2006, we admitted our inaugural class of
first-year students. Of the 136 entering students, 49% were women. Students were diverse
in terms of race/ethnicity: 5.1% African American, 5.9% Hispanic, 33.8% Asian American,
44.9% Caucasian, 0.7% Native American, and 0.7% Hawaiian or Pacific Islanders. Of the
incoming first-year class, 35% were first-generation college students; none were over 25.
The Seminar
All of our first-year students take the three-quarter Discovery Sequence, beginning
with the Discovery Core seminar in the fall that consists of a team-taught interdisciplinary course worth 10 credits (15 credits is a normal course load). Small class sizes (25 to 48
students for two instructors) ensure that we meet the needs of individual students. We
integrate multiple learning styles and pedagogies, including science labs, theater games,
mapping, art-making, writing, and the production and interpretation of visual and quantitative data. The seminar involves multiple sites on campus that include the classroom,
library, the Quantitative Skills Center, the Writing Center, Computer Labs, the wetlands,
and art sites. In addition to the course content, we introduce students to university expectations and embed academic services and student life within the seminar. Our goal
is to connect students with each other and with faculty in a learning community that
values a diversity of people, thoughts, and approaches from which a more sophisticated
intellectual exchange will emerge.
Students chose among four different versions of the Discovery Core: (a) Dreaming
the Earth, (b) The Human Place in Nature, (c) Origins, and (d) Growing Things. These
83
84
University of Washington Bothell
courses were unified by a Common Book experience, similar access to academic and cocurricular
services, and a set of learning outcomes, including:
1. Critical inquiry, which draws upon interdisciplinary perspectives to investigate and derive
knowledge
2. Quantitative literacy, the ability to comprehend and analyze mathematical relationships,
especially through interpreting and constructing charts and graphs
3. Communication, especially through oral and multimedia expression, but particularly
through being able to write coherent and well-developed paragraphs
4. Community engagement, including learning in collaboration with local, regional, national, and global communities. At the least, we expected students to develop collaborative
problem-solving skills
Research Design
Because 2006 was the first time we offered the seminar, we wanted to test whether we formed
a learning community, successfully integrated the practice of interdisciplinarity, and developed
similar academic skills in all four versions of the course. In order to assess these items, we developed
several different instruments. We also analyzed syllabi to determine the interdisciplinary nature
of the courses and the skills emphasized.
We recorded quantitative data, including the retention rate and the number of times students
visited the Quantitative Skills Center and Writing Center during the quarter that Discovery Core
was offered. We also assessed the students’ perspective qualitatively by administering a survey in
winter quarter and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). Furthermore, we had
extensive feedback from the faculty at the end of the term and through regular meetings at which
we discussed outcomes, experiences, and challenges.
Findings
We first offered the Discovery Core in 2006, but our preliminary results are encouraging. As
simply one example, the instructors for Growing Things noted:
Let us emphasize again what a pleasure it was to teach Discovery Core! We enjoyed the unique
opportunity to work closely with the first freshman class, to know our students well, and to
have a small class that allowed the students to work with each other and with us as a team.
The data suggest that we are successfully building learning communities. By the end of spring,
we retained 121 of the 136 first-year students who had entered. During the fall, the same quarter
Discovery Core was offered, our first-year students visited the Quantitative Skills Center 160 times
and the Writing Center 93 times, indicating that they recognized the support networks on campus.
Furthermore, 66% of our students feel involved with the university (Table 1). But only 46.9% of
our students recognized the role the Discovery Core played in building the sense of community
(Table 1). Next year, we will include more reflective writing assignments to elucidate the role of
the seminar to the students. We also want the students to recognize more clearly how they, as
individuals, meet the learning outcomes. Finally, we recognize that an ideal learning community
is intellectually rich, and we find that our students overwhelmingly appreciate the intellectual
University of Washington Bothell
challenges of Discovery Core (Table 1). In fact, our NSSE data show that 55.4% of our students
have a high level of academic achievement, performing significantly better (p < 0.05) than firstyear students at peer and Carnegie institutions.
Table 1
Student Response to the Learning Community
Disagree
Neither
Agree
9.2%
24.5%
66.3%
The Discovery Core
course has helped build
a community between
my peers, my professors,
and myself.
23.5%
29.6%
46.9%
My course work
challenges me as I learn
and grow.
4.2%
14.4%
81.4%
UW Bothell offers me
a sense of involvement
with my classes, other
students, and faculty.
Table 2 highlights the range of disciplines represented in Discovery Core, suggesting that we
successfully integrated the practice of interdisciplinarity into the structure. While we have only
assessed this issue from the faculty’s viewpoint, anecdotal evidence suggests that the students do
not initially recognize the importance of interdisciplinary thinking, in part because they do not
distinguish among disciplines, nor do they recognize that research methodologies differ across
disciplines.
Table 2
Interdisciplinary Perspectives in the Discovery Core
Discovery core theme
Disciplines
Dreaming the Earth
Philosophy, history of science, visual culture, literature,
composition
The Human Place in Nature
History, composition, ecology
Origins
Health and culture, physics, computer sciences, composition
Growing Things
Biology, ecology, history
85
86
University of Washington Bothell
We also analyzed the course syllabi to identify discrete skills that faculty emphasized in Discovery Core (Table 3). Despite different content, faculty largely emphasized the same set of skills.
The skills that the faculty emphasized (Table 3) overlap greatly with the skills that students feel
they have mastered adequately for their current level of experience (Table 4). Still, we have plenty
of room for improvement. The instructors are not satisfied with the students’ writing abilities,
their use of evidence, or their ability to define and solve problems through critical reasoning. In
the future, we need to assess the students’ actual ability in these skills, rather than their perception of their ability.
We are extremely pleased with the outcomes of our initial Discovery Core and are constantly
working—through conversations, retreats and workshops, and better assessment instruments—to
make it an even more enriching experience. In order to achieve the next step, we will continue to
work on faculty development during the academic year, host workshops in the summer, develop
more articulate ongoing assessments, and ask students to give us more direct feedback about the
Discovery Core experience itself.
Table 3
Skills That the Faculty Addressed in the Four Versions of the Discovery Core
Dreaming the
Earth
The Human Place
in Nature
Origins
Growing Things
Short and
long writing
assignments
X
X
X
X
Library research
X
X
X
X
Critical reading
and observation
X
X
X
X
X
X
Statistical
hypothesis testing
Constructing
arguments
X
X
X
X
Applying and
evaluating
evidence
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Public speaking
Working
independently
X
X
X
X
Working
collaboratively
X
X
X
X
University of Washington Bothell
Table 4
Students’ Satisfaction With Their Learning
% Less satisfied
% Satisfied
% More satisfied
Writing effectively
11.2
33.7
55.1
Locating information
needed to help make
decisions and solve
problems
10.2
36.7
53.1
Critically analyzing
written information
8.2
31.6
60.2
Defining and solving
problems
10.2
34.7
55.1
Working and/or
learning independently
6.2
30.9
62.9
Working cooperatively
in a group
9.2
29.6
61.2
Contributors
Gray Kochhar-Lindgren (primary contact)
Director, Center for University Studies and Programs
Professor: Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences
University of Washington Bothell
Box 358563 18115 Campus Way NE
Bothell, WA 98011-8246
Phone: (425) 352-3670
E-mail: gklindgren@uwb.edu
J. Droege
Student Life Advisor
S. Leadley
Library Head, Reference and Instruction
R. M. Price
Assistant Professor, Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences,
B. R. Rosenberg
Director, Teaching and Learning Center
B. Tippens
Associate Director, Information Services
87
University of WisconsinGreen Bay
The Institution
Almost 40 years ago the State of Wisconsin founded a four-year, public university on
the shores of Green Bay. Today, University of Wisconsin (UW)-Green Bay serves 5,800
undergraduates (5,000 FTE) each fall across an array of 35 programs. Eighty percent
attend full-time, and one third live on campus. Two thirds of the students are women,
and 7% are ethnic minorities (including 3% Asian, 2% Native American, and 1% each
Hispanic/Latino and African American). Eighty-five percent of undergraduates, and
almost all new first-year students, are under the age of 25. Only 37% of new first-year
students have a parent who has completed a four-year degree.1
The Seminar
In fall 2006, UW-Green Bay piloted six sections of a three-credit first-year seminar
designed to promote engagement and an understanding of interdisciplinarity. UW-Green
Bay first-year students score statistically lower than students at other similar colleges, both
in the UW System and nationwide, on virtually all aspects of educational engagement
measured by the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). With a student-faculty
ratio over 23-to-1, and introductory level general education courses averaging more than
90 students, the university has struggled to identify ways to connect first-year students
with their faculty and university.
The first-year seminar classes were taught by full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty
from the humanities and social sciences, and sections were capped at 25 students each and
limited to entering fall first-year students. Enrollment in a seminar class was optional, and
students were unaware that the seminar section they registered for was different from the
larger general education version of the class (to provide a relatively random sample for the
seminar classes). In all, 15% of the fall 2006 first-year cohort participated in the project.
The seminars met for 75 minutes twice a week, and covered essentially the same content
as the larger-section courses, in addition to first-year seminar elements. These elements
included a film series with follow-up discussions led by seminar faculty, an information
89
90
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
literacy component led by a campus librarian, an extensive writing component, and a variety of
programs and activities sponsored by the Office of Student Life. Common scheduling also enabled
the faculty to implement a common lesson plan designed to enhance students’ understanding of
interdisciplinarity, one of our University’s core values. Students spent two class periods working,
with students from different seminars each representing the perspectives of their course, on a
problem-focused learning exercise.2
Research Design
We used a between-participants experimental design comparing first-year students in the
seminars with a control group of those who did not take the seminars on measures of engagement.
The survey instrument contained items that mirror those found on the NSSEs College Student
Report, with special emphasis on items that focus on the concepts of active and collaborative learning, student-faculty interaction, the supportiveness of the campus environment, and self-reported
intellectual development. Students in the seminars completed a two-page survey at the end of
the semester (n = 130, representing 90% of the students enrolled in a seminar class). The control
group included 158 first-year students who had not enrolled in a seminar and who received an
e-mail invitation to complete the same survey online (total potential sample of 577, representing
a 27% response rate).
Findings
The results of our analyses indicated that seminar participants reported higher levels of various
types of engagement than did members of the control group. For example, as compared to the control
group, seminar participants reported engaging significantly more in class behaviors such as asking
questions, making presentations, and working with classmates (Table 1). However, there were no
significant differences between the groups on variables assessing experiences outside class.
We were particularly interested in examining seminar students’ perceptions of their interaction with faculty, as UW-Green Bay first-year students have scored particularly low on the NSSE
benchmark for Student-Faculty Interaction (SFI) as compared to students at similar campuses in
Wisconsin. As Table 2 indicates, seminar participants reported significantly higher levels of interaction with faculty than did nonparticipants. For example, seminar students were almost twice as
likely to report discussing grades or assignments often with faculty and were more than twice as
likely to report talking often with faculty about career plans. However, out-of-class experiences
did not differ between the groups. Taken together with the findings from Table 1, this lack of difference indicates a potentially useful direction for future curriculum development in the seminar
program, namely encouraging more out-of-class interaction with faculty and other students.
The results of our study indicate that the seminar program may also act to significantly
increase students’ perceptions of the supportiveness of the campus environment. For example,
Figure 1 indicates that seminar students reported receiving significantly more support in their
academic relationships with other students (t = 1.7, p < .06), faculty members (t = 4.7, p < .01),
and university staff (t = 1.7, p < .05). Table 3 also indicates that seminar participants perceived
a more supportive campus environment than did nonparticipants in terms of their social and
nonacademic development.
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Table 1
Percentage of First-Year Students who Reported Engaging in Learning Experiences “Often” or “Very Often”
Percentage response
Control group
(n = 158)
Seminar group
(n = 130)
χ2
Asked questions in class
26%
48%
(3, N = 285) = 19.0***
Made a class presentation
2%
7%
(3, N = 286) = 21.3***
Worked with other
students during class
22%
38%
(3, N = 281) = 23.4***
Worked with classmates
outside of class
25%
23%
(3, N = 283) = 3.6
Discussed class ideas with
others outside of class
37%
45%
(3, N = 282) = 4.5
Activity
Note. The four response options for each item were: Never, Sometimes, Often, and Very Often. The
Often and Very Often options were collapsed for the chi-square tests because indicating that an
activity is performed at least often in a class is the indicator of engagement we were most interested in
for the purposes of this investigation.
***p < .001.
Table 2
Percentage of First-Year Students Reporting Interaction With Faculty
Percentage responding
“Often” or “Very Often”
Percentage responding
“Never”
Control
group
(n = 158)
Seminar
group
(n = 130)
Control
group
(n = 158)
Seminar
group
(n = 130)
Discussed
grades or
assignments
15%
29%
28%
19%
(3, N = 283) = 9.6*
Talked about
career plans
4%
14%
57%
39%
(3, N = 286) = 19.0***
Discussed
class materials
outside of class
7%
13%
68%
55%
(3, N = 281) = 5.5
31%
48%
22%
11%
(3, N = 283) = 12.3**
Activity
Received
prompt
feedback
χ2
Note: The Often and Very Often options were collapsed for this series of chi-square tests because
indicating that an activity is performed at least often in a class is the indicator of engagement we were
most interested in for the purposes of this study. In addition, we excluded the Sometimes category
from this table because we were most interested in comparing the responses clearly indicating
engagement or lack thereof for the purposes of this investigation.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
91
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Degree of support
92
7
Participants
6
Nonparticipants
5
4
3
2
1
Other students
Faculty
Administrators
Potential source of support
Figure 1. First-year students reported quality of support in academic relationships.
Table 3
Student Perceptions of the Supportiveness of the Campus Environment
Percentage
responding
Very Little
UWGB…
Percentage
responding Some
Percentage
responding Quite a
Bit or Very Much
Control Seminar Control Seminar Control Seminar
group
group
group
group
group
group
(n = 158) (n = 130) (n = 158) (n = 130) (n = 158) (n = 130)
χ2
1%
0%
30%
25%
69%
75%
(2, N = 282) = 2.5
… helps students
cope with
non-academic
responsibilities
42%
21%
37%
51%
21%
28%
(2, N = 287) = 14.1***
…provides
support
students need to
thrive socially
26%
8%
40%
38%
34%
54%
(2, N = 283) = 20.0***
…provides
support
students need
to succeed
academically
Note: The Quite a Bit and Very Much options were collapsed for this series of analyses because perceiving the
university helps at least quite a bit is the indicator of engagement we were most interested in for the purposes of
this study.
***p < .001.
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Finally, the seminar program appeared to have a positive influence on students’ perceptions
of their intellectual development. For example, seminar students were significantly more likely to
report engaging in higher-level cognitive activities in their class (Table 4) and, although relatively
few first-year students reported writing any long papers, seminar students reported writing significantly more short papers than did nonparticipants (Figure 2). More than two-thirds (67%) of
seminar participants wrote at least five short papers during their first term, compared to 42% of
nonparticipants (χ2 [4, N = 284] = 32, p < .001). Seminar students also reported that their university
experiences had a significantly greater influence on their intellectual and personal development (see
Table 5), with means for 13 of these survey items differing by statistically significant margins.
Table 4
Student Perceptions of the Mental Activities in the Course
Percentage
responding Very
Little
Percentage
responding Some
Percentage
responding Quite a
Bit or Very Much
Control Seminar Control Seminar Control Seminar
group
group
group
group
Coursework
group
group
emphasizes… (n = 158) (n = 130) (n = 158) (n = 130) (n = 158) (n = 130)
χ2
…analysis
7%
0%
47%
32%
46%
68%
(2, N = 282) = 19.9***
…synthesis
12%
2%
49%
36%
39%
62%
(2, N = 284) = 17.8***
… making
judgments
17%
8%
47%
38%
36%
54%
(2, N = 285) = 11.9**
… applying
theories and
concepts
to practical
problems
13%
5%
52%
29%
35%
66%
(2, N = 286) = 29.1***
Note: The Quite a Bit and Very Much options were collapsed for this series of analyses because perceiving the
coursework emphasizes each at least quite a bit is the indicator of engagement we were most interested in for
the purposes of this study.
**p < .01. ***p < .001.
93
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Participants
Nonparticipants
3.0
Number of assignments
94
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Long papers
Medium papers
Short papers
Type of assignment
Figure 2. First-year students reported amount of writing in courses.
UW-Green Bay has decided to expand the program to 13 seminars for fall 2007. In addition
to the expansion in program size, the results of this pilot study were used to refine and expand on
the seminar program key elements, including an expansion of the information literacy component
of the course and a greater emphasis on partnering with the Office of Student Life to promote
student involvement in cocurricular activities.
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Table 5
Students’ Perceptions of the University’s Contribution to Their Intellectual and Personal Development
Control group
Seminar group
n
Mean
SD
n
Mean
SD
Acquiring a broad general
education
156
2.9
0.73
130
3.0
0.71
(284) = -1.43
Acquiring job or workrelated knowledge and skills
155
2.1
0.85
129
2.3
0.80
(282) = -1.44
Analyzing quantitative
problems
158
2.4
0.80
130
2.6
0.79
(286) = -2.40**
Contributing to the welfare
of your community
157
1.9
0.76
130
2.2
0.80
(285) = -3.08***
Developing a deepened sense
of spirituality
156
1.6
0.81
130
1.9
0.94
(284) = -2.92**
Developing a personal code
of values and ethics
155
2.3
0.85
130
2.5
0.81
(283) = -2.44**
Learning effectively on your
own
155
2.8
0.79
129
2.9
0.77
(282) = -1.06
Solving complex real-world
problemsa
155
2.2
0.79
130
2.5
0.89
(260) = -2.61**
Speaking clearly and
effectively
157
2.1
0.96
130
2.4
0.83
(285) = -2.44**
Thinking critically and
analytically
154
2.8
0.74
130
3.0
0.73
(282) = -1.91*
Understanding people of
other racial and ethnic
backgrounds
158
2.2
0.90
129
2.4
0.94
(285) = -1.99*
Understanding yourself
158
2.5
0.91
130
2.6
0.92
(286) = -1.27
Using computing and
information technology a
156
2.4
0.94
130
2.9
0.83
(283) = -4.59***
Voting in local, state, or
national elections
156
2.3
0.99
129
2.4
1.07
(283) = -0.95
Working effectively with
others
157
2.4
0.82
130
2.7
0.80
(285) = -3.71***
Writing clearly and
effectively a
156
2.7
0.94
130
2.9
0.71
(281) = -2.21*
Item
(df) t
Note. Each item was rated on a scale of 1-4, where 1 = “Very Little” and 4 = “Very Much”
Since the groups’ variances are statistically unequal, a separate variance estimate of the t statistic is reported in
the results column.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
a
95
96
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Notes
Data on parents’ educational level were taken from the 2006 institutional administration of the
National Survey of Student Engagement.
2
A complete description of this lesson plan was published in the March 2007 issue of
Teaching Forum.
1
Contributors
Denise Bartell
Assistant Professor of Human Development and Psychology
Deborah Furlong (primary contact)
Director of Institutional Research
UW-Green Bay
2420 Nicolet Drive
Green Bay, WI 54311-2001
Phone: (920) 465-2374
E-mail: Furlongd@uwgb.edu
Scott Furlong
Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs
Regan A. R. Gurung
Associate Professor of Human Development and Psychology and Chair of
Human Development
Andrew Kersten
Professor of History and Chair of Social Change and Development
Georjeanna Wilson-Doenges
Associate Professor of Psychology and Chair of Psychology
University of WisconsinWhitewater
The Institution
The University of Wisconsin (UW)-Whitewater is a comprehensive university with a
tradition of excellence in both academics and athletics. Founded in 1868, the University
of Wisconsin-Whitewater is a premier public four-year regional university with an enrollment of 10,500 students in 46 undergraduate majors and 13 master’s degree programs
(approximately 9,300 undergraduate and 1,200 graduate students). Fifty-two percent are
female students, 94% are Wisconsin residents, and 93% of the first-year students reside
on campus. Of all first-year students, 76.7% have returned for the second year (five year
average).
UW-Whitewater is part of the 26-campus University of Wisconsin System. It is
located in Whitewater, Wisconsin, a community of 13,000 residents in southeastern
Wisconsin.
The Seminar
A noncredit first-year seminar had been offered at UW-Whitewater for many years.
Historically, a low number of students enrolled each year in the few sections that were
offered. This low enrollment was likely due, in part, to the fact that the course was not
offered for credit. Even as a noncredit course, data demonstrated that seminar participants
had higher retention rates compared to each overall first-year cohort retention rate. In spite
of the evidence demonstrating the first-year seminar’s student retention value, it was not
until relatively recently that changes in this intervention strategy took hold. In the fall
of 2000, the institution’s chancellor, concerned about the apparent downward trend in
student retention rates, convened a cross-disciplinary task force to address the issue. This
eventually led to the first-year seminar course being offered for one credit. Enrollment in
the seminar grew once the course was offered for credit. By the fall of 2002, more than
30% of the incoming first-year class enrolled in 36 course sections. This number has since
grown to well over 50%. Section instructors are predominantly faculty members and
student affairs academic staff members. Instructors are provided with specialized training
97
98
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
and given a recommended syllabus. While instructors have some level of latitude in developing
the section format, certain topics are required, including career planning, time management, and
academic advising. Most instructors make use of the suggested syllabus and use a variety of pedagogical methods, including journal and other writing, visits to student service facilities on campus,
guest speakers, skill development activities, and interpersonal interaction activities.
Research Design
Two studies sought to determine if there was a significant effect on retention to the second
year of college for students who participated in a first-year seminar compared to those who did
not, taking precollege academic preparation into account. The studies also examined possible
interactive effects. The studies used full first-year cohort populations as opposed to random
samples. The first study was conducted using virtually the entire 2002-2003 first-year cohort, and
the second study was a replication using the 2003-2004 data. Since placement into participant
or nonparticipant levels of the independent variable was voluntary, care was taken to validate the
equivalency of the groups.
The students in these studies completed a one-credit first-year seminar during the fall semester.
A chi-square analysis was performed because it was the most explicable statistical method in terms
of the specific research questions.
Findings
First-year seminar participants returned to the second year at a significantly higher rate than
nonparticipants, as did students of higher precollege academic preparation. No significant interaction effects were noted. All students benefited equally from participation (Tables 1 and 2).
Collectively, these two studies set out to answer three research questions. The first question was
posed to determine if there was a significant effect on retention level for students of high, middle,
and low precollege academic preparation entry-level ability. The answer is yes. In both studies, a
significant effect on retention level was noted for students of varying precollege academic preparation, particularly between the distinctly different low and high academic preparation groups. The
second question sought to determine if there was a significant effect on retention level for students
who participate in a first-year seminar and those who do not. The answer was, again, yes. The third
question sought to determine if there were interactive effects of first-year seminar participation and
precollege academic preparation on retention. No interactions were noted in either of the studies,
and as such, no relative differences in retention for participants and nonparticipants at differing
precollege ability levels were found. Students of all three ability levels benefited roughly equally
from participation in the seminar.
The real power of these findings does not reside with the fact that high, middle, and low ability
students persist in their education at different levels. It has long been recognized that measures of
precollege ability, such as standardized test scores and class rank, are associated with differences
in the rates at which students return for their second year of college. The finding that the students
participating in a first-year seminar return at a higher rate than those not participating is somewhat
more interesting. This finding tends to confirm the results found in 15 of the 19 studies previously
referenced, so it is not unexpected either.
What is of particular importance in these studies is the lack of any interactions between
precollege ability and first-year seminar participation on retention rate. These results indicate that
students of all entering ability levels benefit from participation in a first-year seminar and that
students accrue benefits of the same magnitude regardless of entering ability level.
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
Table 1
2002-2003 Cohort Retention Rate by Groups
Seminar participation
Precollege academic
preparation
Nonparticipant
Participant
Total cohort
Low
65%
70%
66%
Mid
74%
82%
77%
High
79%
82%
80%
Total
73%
78%
74%
Table 2
2003-2004 Cohort Retention Rate by Groups
Seminar participation
Precollege academic
preparation
Nonparticipant
Participant
Total cohort
Low
63%
76%
69%
Mid
68%
77%
72%
High
74%
88%
80%
Total
69%
80%
74%
Contributors
Chunju Chen
Director of Institutional Research
University of Wisconsin–Whitewater
Jeff C. Janz (primary contact)
Executive Director of Residence Life
University of Wisconsin–Whitewater
800 W. Main St.
Goodhue Hall, Suite 200
Whitewater, WI 53189
Phone: (262) 472-1157
E-mail: janzj@uww.edu
John W. Miller
President
Central Connecticut State University
99
University of WisconsinWhitewater
The Institution
Located in southeastern Wisconsin about 40 miles east of Madison and 50 miles
west of Milwaukee, the University of Wisconsin (UW)-Whitewater is a public, fouryear, residential institution. Total enrollment in fall 2006 was 10,502 students of whom
9,210 were undergraduates: some 45% of undergraduates are first-generation, and more
than 95% are of traditional age. The 2006 undergraduate population is 52.2% female,
90.0% White, 4.0% Black, 2.4% Asian, 2.4% Hispanic, 0.5% Native American, and 0.7%
nonresident alien. From July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, 1,657 bachelor’s and 424
master’s degrees were awarded.
The Seminar
The New Student Seminar (NSS) was offered at UW-Whitewater for almost 25
years, though it first became eligible for graduation credit in fall 2001. The seminar is
designed as an extended, one-credit orientation course for first-year students. The class
is elective and meets either twice each week for the first eight weeks of the semester, or
once each week for the entire semester at the discretion of the instructor. The seminar is
taught by a mix of faculty and administrative staff, many of whom serve as master advisers for their respective colleges. The past two years, sophomore through senior level peer
mentors have also been assigned to work with a section of the course, and these student
mentors are available to advise and assist seminar participants with myriad academic and
non-academic issues throughout the first semester. Each peer mentor works with 20 to
25 students, and their work is integral to the success of the seminar.
There are several required topics for all sections of the NSS: campus involvement/
career planning, responsible decision-making regarding alcohol and other drugs, appropriate behavior in personal relationships, sexual assault, and appreciating diversity (not
necessarily a stand-alone class, but an infusion of discussion throughout). Other common
topics include (but are not limited to) goals of a university education, time management,
101
102
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
academic and personal integrity, learning styles, connecting with the faculty members on campus,
and group projects.
Enrollment in the NSS has grown significantly over the past five years. In 2001, only 312
students enrolled. By fall 2006, seminar enrollment had soared to 1,221—representing a gain of
some 391%. Despite this dramatic increase in enrollment, the one-year retention rates for students
completing the course continue to be nearly 5% higher than observed for nonparticipants.
Research Design
This research looks at the front and back ends of Whitewater’s NSS to estimate better the
seminar’s effectiveness while concurrently demonstrating (a) the association of seminar participation with enhanced retention outcomes, (b) the precedence of seminar participation over its effects
in time, and (c) the plausibility of the rival hypothesis of participant selection bias.
New first-year student records from fall 2001 through fall 2006 were pooled, and differences
of means tests were conducted on variables summarizing their entering academic characteristics
to explicate the potential impact of selection bias on seminar participation. Continuous variables
such as transfer and test credits were recoded into dichotomies to minimize the effects of low
incidences and both missing values and outliers. The 2001 - 2005 records were merged with retention outcome data, and regression equations were estimated to examine the independent effects
of entering characteristics and selected student collegiate experiences on the one-year retention
outcome. Stepwise (forward and backward) logistic regression was used for initial estimation, and
the resulting validated model was subsequently re-estimated using familiar ordinary least squares
linear regression to enhance the interpretability of the coefficients for general audiences.
Findings
One argument frequently advanced to explain the favorable retention outcomes associated with
the NSS is that participation in the elective seminar is driven by self-selection. In other words, the
seminar has no independent effect because better students opt to participate. While the definition
of what exactly constitutes a better student is arguable, Table 1 shows nonparticipants are admitted
to the University with significantly more college transfer and advanced placement test credits than
are NSS participants on average. Moreover, NSS participants also scored significantly lower on the
ACT composite and all the subtests. Even though the differences of means seen across the groups
would be practically trivial if we were comparing one student to another, the pattern of results is
counterintuitive and inhospitable to the participatory selection bias hypothesis.
As Table 1 details, the only academic advantage enjoyed by NSS participants was their somewhat higher high school percentile ranks. But, since the selection bias hypothesis argues better
students sign up for the seminar, we are not free to ascribe statistical significance to the difference
of means observed employing the one-tailed distribution of t.
Table 2 presents the results of the regression analysis. The constant shows the intercept for the
base model, equating to a retention rate of 64.3%. The estimated independent effects of several
variables, entering with a high school rank in the 65th percentile or higher, earning at least one
hour of advanced placement test credit, and passing the NSS were all associated with a 6.2% retention increment. An hour or more of transfer credit leveraged a somewhat smaller gain of 4.9%, and
only the ACT math score among ACT’s standardized test scores showed any significant impact on
outcomes. Given the difficulty so many first-year students have in their math courses, it should not
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
be surprising that the raw math subtest score is a better predictor of retention than the composite.
Two racial/ethnic classifications were associated with independent impacts in opposite directions.
But the largest estimated impact was felt by the comparatively few students who enrolled in the
NSS yet failed to pass or complete it. Failure in courses such as the NSS is likely to be a very strong
predictor of subsequent attrition.
Table 1
Average Entering Characteristics of New, First-Year Students by New Student Seminar Participation
Status, 2001-2006
Entering Characteristic
Enrolled NSS
(n = 4,963)
Not enrolled
(n = 5,880)
Significance
Transfer units
.29
.38
.012
AP Test units
.73
.94
.000
HS percentile rank
65.18
64.53
.075
ACT English
20.93
21.14
.000
ACT Math
21.76
22.26
.000
ACT Social Science
21.74
22.25
.000
ACT Natural Science
22.01
22.32
.000
ACT Composite
21.71
22.13
.000
Table 2
Average Entering Characteristics of New, First-Year Students by New Student Seminar Participation
Status, 2001-2006 (N = 8,897)
Entering characteristic
Unstand. b
Std. Error
Significance
HS percentile rank > 65
.062
.009
.000
Any AP test credit
.062
.015
.000
Any transfer credit
.049
.019
.012
Black Race/Ethnicity
-.051
.021
.014
Southeast Asian Race/
Ethnicity
.082
.038
.031
ACT Math
.003
.001
.008
NSS grade D or higher
.062
.009
.000
NSS grade of F, W, or I
-.279
.029
.000
Constant
.643
.026
.000
R = .033.
2
103
104
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
The variance in retention explained by the model in Table 2, only a bit over 3% (R2 = .033) using
many of the “usual suspects,” is quite disturbing. Even though this model is clearly underspecified
and does not incorporate the impacts of campus residency, other supportive programs, participation
in student athletics and other activities, financial aid awards, or other factors, the inescapable policy
conclusion is that factors other than admissions criteria, demographics, and NSS participation
accounted for nearly 97% of the variance in one-year retention during the study period at UWWhitewater. The headline could be: one-year retention rates are likely far more random and less
amenable to control than many of us working very hard to enhance the first-year experience might
care to admit. Also, when the equation from Table 2 was applied to the five cohorts separately,
the high school percentile rank and one or both of the variables associated with NSS outcomes
emerged as the only consistently significant predictors. These disaggregated results provide strong
evidence of the consistent effectiveness of the NSS in improving one-year retention.
This last finding brings us full circle back to the self-selection bias hypothesis and points to the
mainsprings of student success. What advantage do students with somewhat higher high school
percentile ranks but significantly lower standardized test scores who enroll in courses they do not
have to take, and pass them, have compared to their peers? Call it academic motivation. Call it
making the effort. Call it trying harder. Call it pride. If only we could assign numbers to fields
in our admissions databases to capture these personal traits correlated with academic success as
easily as we now populate them with standardized test scores.
Contributors
Edward J. Furlong (primary contact)
Associate Institutional Planner
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
800 W Main St.
Whitewater, WI 53190
Phone: (262) 472-1705
E-mail: furlonge@uww.edu
Linda Long
Assistant Dean-New Student Programs/FYE
Wells College
The Institution
Wells College, on the shore of Cayuga Lake in Aurora, New York, was established
as a women’s college in 1868. The College, a nationally recognized private four-year
residential liberal arts college, became coeducational in 2005. In fall 2006, enrollment
was 481 undergraduates (475 FTE), 84% female and 16% male, which was an increase
of 15% from the preceding year, including an increase in male students who comprised
24% of all new students. Eighty-four percent of the first-year class were first-time full-time
students, 25% first generation. Overall, most students are White, non-Hispanic (65%),
of traditional age (91%), and from New York state (65%).
The Seminar
Interdisciplinary first-year seminars were originally implemented in 1993 as a required
two-course, full-year sequence. The sequence was modified in 1999 such that while the
first course maintained a common syllabus interdisciplinary approach, the second used
a variable topic approach. A 2004 evaluation indicated that the content of the commonsyllabus course was narrowing such that it was more or less becoming a humanities course
that students viewed as an “English” course. The Evaluation Subcommittee (2004)
concluded that while it
acknowledged value in the interdisciplinary aims and shared syllabus…, we also
recognized that the inter- or cross-disciplinary approach not only makes the course
difficult to teach, but may also be inappropriate for most first-year students, who
expect faculty to be experts in the texts and methods they teach. (p. 2)
An alternative approach was implemented in 2005 that included a revised WLLS 101
First-Year Writing Seminar and a new one-credit WLLS 111 Introduction to Wells course.
WLLS 111, required of all first-year and transfer students, is designed to facilitate students’
transitions to the College. WLLS 101, required of all incoming first-time students, is
105
106
Wells College
designed to teach writing, analysis, and interpretation in a small, topic-focused seminar. Seminar
topics are chosen by individual faculty members and approved through normal curriculum channels. Twelve faculty members taught the course in fall 2006. Eight were full-time permanent
members of the faculty, four in visiting full-time lines; 58% were associate or full professors; and
33% represented humanities, 33% social sciences, 25% natural and mathematical sciences, and 8%
the arts. Section enrollments were limited to 15 first-year students.
Research Design
This past year, WLLS 101 was systematically assessed beyond standard course evaluations and
faculty narratives. Faculty administered two surveys to students, one during the first class week and
one during the last. The former asked students to provide information regarding their experiences
in high school with writing and class discussions as well as their motivations as college students.
The latter asked students to provide information regarding their experiences with writing and
class discussion in their seminar, what skills they felt they needed to further develop, what they
believed faculty emphasized, and how well the course met the College’s institutional goals. Of the
175 students registered, 174 (M = 17.98 yrs, SD = 0.651) completed the first survey and 149 (M =
18.21 yrs, SD = 0.596) completed the second. Faculty also responded to an end-of-semester survey
on their perceptions of these same issues and provided examples of student work.
Findings
It is clear that WLLS 101 required different writing assignments than students experienced
previously (Table 1) though there were some activity similarities (Table 2). In high school, students
used the formulaic five-paragraph essay approach the majority of the time typically completing
assignments of three pages or less with sources drawn primarily from the Internet, class-assigned
books, or topic-specific books.
At the semester’s start, 82% of students characterized their writing abilities as good, very good,
or excellent and 86% reported that others saw their writing in that way. The majority of students,
however, still reported that improving their writing (78%) and learning how to write college-level
papers (82%) were very important motivations for them.
One third of students reported that the amount of writing in WLLS 101 was less than they
expected; 53% indicated it was about what they expected. Students believed faculty stressed writing, discussion, and the specific content of the course over other objectives such as library research,
presentations, source evaluation, peer feedback, and the ability to examine questions that shape
human understanding. Students indicated that the activities that contributed most to their improvement were class discussions (including developing discussion questions), peer editing, writing
lots of papers (M = 6-8), and submitting drafts to receive instructor feedback.
At the semester’s end, 78% of students characterized their writing abilities as good, very good,
or excellent. While this percentage appears similar to that at the semester’s start, it does not represent the same students. Only 40% of students rated their abilities at the same level at the two
reporting times, 34% indicated a decrease in rating and 24% an increase.
Areas where most students felt the need for additional development included writing well,
constructing well-informed and persuasive arguments, thinking analytically, making oral presentations, reading critically, conducting library research, and using discussion as a means of inquiry.
Wells College
Regarding class discussion, students participated when the topic was of interest to them, not because
participation was required, which was consistent with their behavior in high school.
Students and faculty evaluated the course similarly. Differences tended to be between course
sections rather than between students and faculty and extended to almost every course element
including class format, workload, and types of assignments. This finding of inconsistency across
sections is a common one across institutions (e.g., Dolinsky & Barnes, 2005). Regardless, students
perceived WLLS 101 as meeting the institution’s goals (Table 3).
Wells is committed to providing a high-quality first-year seminar experience. To do so, we
have implemented a new procedure for recruiting program faculty, are improving communication
between faculty to facilitate consistency, and have started the discussions on revising the course
objectives such that they focus on the common learning expectations across sections. In particular,
we plan to articulate the specific measurable learning outcomes related to writing, class discussion,
and essential skills for college success.
Table 1
Types and Frequencies of Writing Assignments Completed by Students
High School
WLLS 101
Frequently
Rarely/Never
Frequently
Rarely/Never
Literary analysis
87%
6%
51%
38%
Essay in response to instructorprovided topic
86%
7%
74%
16%
Current event analysis
60%
30%
21%
75%
News report
37%
55%
15%
83%
News feature
31%
61%
13%
83%
Creative writing
74%
19%
17%
73%
Laboratory report
59%
37%
1%
95%
Book review
53%
40%
18%
75%
Research (term) paper
39%
36%
22%
70%
Annotated bibliography
48%
39%
20%
77%
Informal writing (e.g., reading
notes/questions, in-class
writes)
91%
4%
67%
27%
Note: The Frequently category includes survey responses of monthly, weekly, and daily while the
Rarely/Never category includes responses of once or never.
107
108
Wells College
Table 2
Assignment Activities and Frequencies Completed by Students
High school
Not
Frequently frequently
WLLS 101
Never
Not
Frequently frequently
Never
Describe
87%
11%
1%
78%
19%
2%
Report facts
78%
19%
1%
71%
25%
4%
Synthesize information
from multiple sources
76%
20%
2%
72%
25%
2%
Analyze needs of
audience
44%
46%
8%
46%
43%
11%
Critique written
arguments
49%
41%
5%
40%
43%
16%
Offer and support your
opinion
84%
13%
1%
78%
18%
2%
Make revisions
73%
22%
3%
72%
20%
7%
Engage in peer editing
47%
42%
9%
44%
38%
18%
Submit multiple drafts
50%
41%
6%
59%
29%
12%
Note: The Frequently category includes survey responses of very often and often while Not Frequently
includes sometimes and occasionally.
Table 3
Students’ Ratings of How Well WLLS 101 Met the Institutional Goals
Very
Somewhat
A bit
Not at all
Provide an educational experience that supports
students as unique individuals engaged in the
study and practice of the liberal arts
48%
37%
9%
5%
Maintain an excellent faculty that is skilled
in teaching, dedicated to rigorous intellectual
development, and actively committed to pursuing
new knowledge and learning strategies
58%
32%
5%
4%
Develop students’ intellectual curiosity, analytical
and critical capabilities, and aesthetic awareness
and creativity
50%
32%
11%
6%
Provide a rich community environment that
fosters awareness and sensitivity to social
diversity and encourages responsible action in an
interdependent world
41%
33%
14%
11%
Develop self-confident individuals, who exercise
sound judgment and have the knowledge and
skills for thoughtful decision-making
36%
42%
13%
7%
Wells College
References
Dolinsky, B., & Barnes, K. (2005). Endicott College. In B. F. Tobolowsky, B. E. Cox, & M. T. Wagner (Eds.), Exploring the evidence: Report research on first-year seminars, Vol. III (Monograph
No 42, pp. 47-50). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center
for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Wells 101-102 Evaluation Subcommittee. (2004, April). Report to APPC from the Wells 101-102
Evaluation Subcommittee, April 2004. Aurora, NY: Author.
Contributor
Cindy J. Speaker
Associate Dean of the College
Wells College
170 Main St.
Aurora, NY 13026
Phone: (315) 364-3473
E-mail: cspeaker@wells.edu
109
West Texas A&M University
The Institution
West Texas A&M University (WTAMU) is a four-year residential public institution with 61 undergraduate degree programs, 43 masters programs, and one doctoral
program. Of the 5,765 undergraduate students, 1,178 lived on campus during the 20062007 academic year. In fall 2006, 58% were female, 75% were White, 4% were international students, and 19% were of ethnic origin (African American: 4%, Hispanic: 15%,
Other: 2%) and the average age was 26. Seventy percent of the University’s students are
first-generation, defined as the first person in their family to attend a postsecondary
educational institution.
The Seminar
WTAMU’s college success course is called IDS 1071: Elementary Group Dynamics. Though offered since 1997, it is only recently that the course has been successfully
marketed to students beyond those with low test scores, who are required to take it. IDS
is a three-hour academic course limited to 25 students per section. As the course has
moved from a developmental requirement to a student success course, more faculty have
been willing to teach it in addition to their departmental course load. Still, the majority
of sections are taught by staff members with a graduate degree and at least 18 hours of
interdisciplinary graduate hours. In fall 2006, 454 students were enrolled this course,
48% of all first-year students.
The course is an interdisciplinary course that helps students develop communication
and college success skills. With this communication focus, students develop a set of skills
and gain experiences to ensure their academic and professional success. This course lays
a strong foundation for success by helping students to
ëë Develop effective writing skills
ëë Articulate a career vision and understand the discipline-specific courses necessary
to fulfill their career vision
111
112
West Texas A&M University
ëë
ëë
ëë
ëë
ëë
Display critical thinking and problem-solving skills
Exhibit public speaking skills with less anxiety
Produce an action plan for their personal, social, and professional goals
List and describe specific methods to study effectively
Locate resources available on campus that assist students with concerns related to health,
academics, career planning, research, residential life, and campus activities
Research Design
This research was designed to answer the question: Does changing the IDS course structure
by lowering class size, offering themed sections, and meetings with students prior to the start
of the semester positively impact student success? Researchers developed five pilot sections of
the IDS course. Pilot instructors developed themes and required students to attend two days of
presemester meetings as well as the WTAMU’s student life orientation. Students were recruited
for the pilot sections through new student academic orientation during the summer. Of the 454
students enrolled in the IDS course, 96 (20%) enrolled in the pilot sections.
Pilot students were e-mailed a survey prior to the first class meeting that collected demographic data and their self-reported level of readiness for college courses, college level material
and the overall college experience. Nonpilot students did not complete the initial survey. At the
end of the semester, surveys were given to all IDS students so that data could be compared. Additionally, a focus group was conducted with one pilot section to gather qualitative data about
their IDS experience.
Findings
Data available through the university were also used to monitor the students participating
in the IDS study as they progress at WTAMU’s. Table 1 shows that the mean GPA for pilot IDS
students in fall 2006 was significantly higher than the mean GPA for traditional IDS students.
This was also true in spring 2007 and again when the overall GPAs were compared.
Table 1
GPAs of IDS Students by Semester
Pilot IDS students (n = 94)
Traditional IDS students (n = 307)
Fall 2006 GPA
2.44
2.31
Spring 2007 GPA
1.88
1.79
Overall GPA
2.30
2.05
p < .05.
West Texas A&M University
While the students in the pilot sections earned significantly higher GPA, we cannot determine
with certainty that changes in the course led to improved GPAs’. Nevertheless, there appears to
be a positive impact related to the course, which should be explored more fully.
Qualitative data obtained from the focus group of one pilot IDS section suggested the students benefited from both the course content and the opportunity to continually ask questions
as they applied the skills addressed throughout the semester. These focus group students also said
the most important factor in their course was the relationships developed with one another and
with the instructor before the semester began.
Marketing the college success course to all students, rather than simply requiring it as a
remedial course was a significant change in philosophy for the university. As a result of this new
philosophy, the IDS course grew from 19 sections in fall 2006 to 35 sections in fall 2007 with a
total enrollment of 761 students, 80% of the first-year class.
IDS instructors were trained on such topics as relationship building skills, student engagement, and assessing and adapting to student strengths and abilities. Based on the success of the
pilot sections of IDS for fall 2006, every IDS section for fall 2007 included a theme. Students
sign up for sections including themes ranging from “Everything I Need to Know I Learned From
Star Trek” to “The I-Pod Generation.”
More students chose to enroll in the IDS class as a result in the change in course philosophy. As
additional strategies are developed and studied, IDS sections will be adjusted so that all first-year
students may benefit from the most innovative and most effective teaching methods available.
Contributors
Mo Cuevas (primary contact)
Assistant Professor and Program Director, Social Work Program
OM 432
West Texas A&M University
Canyon, Texas 79016
Phone: (806) 651-2592
E-mail: mcuevas@wtamu.edu
Amy Andersen
Assistant Professor, Education
Jessica Mallard
Associate Professor of Communication
Russell Lowery-Hart
Executive Director of Quality Enhancement & First Year Experience
113