A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
at the University of Mary Washington
Kimmy Slater
University of Mary Washington
1
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
2
Introduction
Student transition programs—also known as bridge programs— are increasingly common
throughout colleges and universities. These programs serve to prepare students for what they will
encounter in college and help aid in the transition from high school. While many of these
programs are open to all incoming students, some target distinct groups. The Student Transition
Program (STP) at the University of Mary Washington is an example of one such transition
program. In an effort to determine exactly who is targeted for participation in STP, as well as
how they are chosen and what their experiences are, my colleague and I pursue this topic through
qualitative research. After interviewing both students and administrators involved in the
program, five distinct themes emerge: ambiguity, reactions to contingency, friendship, networks
and resources, and academics.
Methods
In setting out to study the Student Transition Program at the University of Mary
Washington, my research partner Bethany and I reflected on what we already knew about the
program. Throughout our time at the university, we had heard mention of the possible racial
stipulations involved in the selection process for the program, but did not have any evidence to
support these claims. Intrigued by these assertions, and realizing that we really did not know
anything about the program’s mission, we decided to follow-up on exactly how students are
selected for the program, what the goal is, as well as students’ experiences within the program.
In determining who to interview for this project, Bethany and I used our social
connections with past and present members of the Student Transition Program. We have a good
relationship with one of the main individuals involved with STP—Larry (pseudonym) — who
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
3
has participated as a student in the program, worked as a counselor, and works as a student aid
for STP. We thought a great starting place would be to informally interview him to determine
what questions to ask, what topics he found particularly important, and to get a feel for his
overall perception of the program. This interview proved to be very important due to his
extensive knowledge on the program, and we later went back to formally interview him.
In choosing other students to interview, Bethany and I contacted individuals we know
have participated in, or are currently participating in STP, who we know from courses we have
been enrolled in, as well as campus organizations and clubs we are a part of. In selecting students
to interview, we wanted to ensure we would be getting a balanced viewpoint—a concept Rubin
and Rubin (2012) emphasize. For this reason, we chose students from multiple races, genders,
and class years. We interviewed six Black, one White, and two Latino students, four males and
five females, as well as three current freshmen and five current seniors. In this way, we hope to
make our research richer and more thorough.
The scheduling of these interviews with students took a generally informal route. We
approached individuals in person when we saw them both in and out of class, messaged them via
Facebook, and/or texted them. We told them about the research project we are working on, and
asked if they would be interested in participating in an interview. Bethany and I had a very high
success rate using this method, and everyone we asked agreed to speak with us. We interviewed
a total of nine students in a variety of locations depending on individual interviewee
convenience. Some interviews occurred in the Link, others in Lee Hall, one in my apartment, and
one in Monroe. Each interview lasted between twenty minutes and an hour, but averaged around
thirty minutes. In order to get more interviews done, Bethany and I split up and each interviewed
four students on our own. Prior to doing this, we conducted one interview together—our
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
4
informal and formal interview with Larry—to ensure we were on the same page as far as how to
conduct the interviews. We used an interview guide to structure our interviews, but did not solely
stick to the questions on the guide. Using a responsive interview technique (Rubin & Rubin,
2012), Bethany and I framed new questions based off of participant responses. After conducting
a few interviews, we made adaptations to our interview guide in response to the themes that
came up as a result of these interviews. In an effort to gain insight into what individuals found
important about the Student Transition Program, at the end of each interview we asked if there
was anything we did not cover that the individual found important or wanted others to know
about STP. This allowed interviewees to disclose themes we may not have otherwise discovered.
As Rubin and Rubin (2012) emphasize, it is important to involve the interviewee in the interview
process.
After conducting the interviews, Bethany and I followed up as needed to fill in missing
information or answer new questions that arose. I followed up with one individual while we were
volunteering together to see if she had to pay for her participation in the program since she asked
to be involved. This follow-up could not have lasted for more than a minute or two, but was
important to our overall understanding of the program. Bethany followed up with an interviewee
regarding his racial identification when we discovered that this information was left out of the
interview. These quick follow-ups were implemented as we reflected on the information we were
gaining.
Bethany and I believe it is important to not only target students to interview, but also to
speak directly with the administration behind the selection and implementation of the Student
Transition Program. Observing the sense of ambiguity that students feel surrounds the program
and the selection process, we believe interviewing admissions and the current and past directors
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
5
of the program is essential to a well-rounded analysis of STP. After hearing multiple student
interviewees mention the past director of the program—Dean Cox—we decided that
interviewing her would allow us to gain more insight into the Student Transition Program. We
located her contact information online and e-mailed her to setup an appointment to conduct an
interview. After scheduling a day and time, Bethany and I met up to discuss what we hoped to
gain from this interview. We reviewed the interview guide I created at the inception of our
project and made necessary changes based on the information gained so far. We then met with
her in her office and engaged in conversation with her regarding her perception of the program’s
goals, selection process, and effectiveness. We used our interview guide to structure the
interview, but strayed away from this to pursue her individual responses.
One of our student interviewees told us that the current director of the Student Transition
Program—Dr. Don Trohan—would also be a good person to contact to further understand STP.
In response to this, Bethany and I went into the STP office and asked if we could setup an
interview with him. We were able to schedule an interview for the following week in Dr.
Trohan’s office, and conducted this interview in a similar fashion to the one with Dean Cox.
Both administrator interviews were conducted by both Bethany and I, because we believe it is
important that we both have a complete understanding of these individuals’ responses since there
are only two administrators who we were able to interview.
Since a large amount of the ambiguity surrounding the Student Transition Program
revolves around the selection process, and because the directors of STP do not even know the
exact selection process, we found it crucial to conduct an interview with admissions. However,
after going into the Admissions’ Office and e-mailing the individual we were told to contact, we
were unable to secure such an interview. After relaying our difficulty to one of our student
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
6
interviewees who works in admissions, we were told that if anyone was going to say no to an
interview about the Student Transition Program it would be him. Therefore, while we tried to get
to the direct source of the selection process, we were unable to do so and thus must rely on
perceptions given by students and STP administrators.
The interviews that I conducted were recorded using an app on my iPod and those that
Bethany conducted were recorded using her iPhone. After conducting each interview, we
transcribed everything that was said word for word. While this was a tedious process, it ensures
accuracy of what was said during the interview and allows the reader a clearer understanding of
the context. To code the interviews Bethany and I each compiled them together into one
document and read through them for common themes. I used a color-coded system to signify the
appearance of specific themes present in each interview. If a statement reflected more than one
theme I added the word “And” after the statement and highlighted this word in the corresponding
color. While Bethany and I coded the interviews separately, we came together afterwards to
compare codes. We discovered that because we had been discussing themes as they arose in our
interviews, our codes were almost identical. We worked together to collapse similar codes under
more general themes. This has resulted in the identification of the major themes presented in this
paper.
Throughout the research process Bethany and I have been maintaining constant
communication to ensure consistency and to discuss developing themes. We have gone to great
lengths to ensure documentation of our progress and development as this project has unfolded.
Our blog has been updated periodically and reflects this.
Themes
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
7
Ambiguity
As we engage in interviews with students who were in, or are currently in the Student
Transition Program, it becomes clear that there is a general sense of ambiguity surrounding the
selection process. Students from every race, gender, and class year simply do not understand
why they are chosen to participate in the Student Transition Program. As a current freshman in
the program, Nadia (pseudonym) describes her confusion upon receiving her acceptance letter
attached to the contingency that she participates in STP:
I, I didn’t know…like I just didn’t understand because it just wasn’t really like clear. It
was just kind of like given. Like I said, I got my acceptance letter and then um, I got that.
And I just didn’t understand it, and so my friend from high school, I called her and I was
like, did you get this in the mail because I did and I don’t understand. Like, and it just
confused me because I was like, well, why is it that I need to go, go to this program if I’m
already accepted into the school. Like, I just didn’t understand so…I, I just, I really didn’t
know. I didn’t know like how many people like this program was gonna hold. Like I, I
honestly had no idea about the program until I got that paper and until I actually got here.
So I didn’t really like have an idea of like, why or, you know, why I was picked for it,
what the point of it was, like…it just had the sheet and it didn’t have like information or
anything. So it was just, confusing.
As is demonstrated by this excerpt, many students who were notified of their contingency
to participate in STP had never heard of it before. Students did not receive substantial
information to provide them with the background necessary to prepare them for what they would
encounter when they arrived at the program in the summer. Nadia was not alone in her
experience; an overwhelming majority of students went through the same confusion. Many
students called the university to inquire about their selection in STP and how they were chosen,
but were met with answers that were not very helpful.
In determining why they were chosen to participate in the program, students typically
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
8
point to race, socio-economic status, their first generation status, SAT scores, and high school
GPA. However, just when students think they have figured out the puzzle behind their selection,
a curve-ball is thrown in and theories are brought back to square one. Larry’s selection for
participation in STP is an intriguing case. Larry comes from a middle-class family, both his
parents went to college and have advanced degrees, as well as his sister. He scored a 2030 on his
SATs and graduated high school with somewhere between a 4.1-4.2 and received an IB diploma
at graduation. The only qualification that would have placed him in the STP is his minority
status: he is black. However, this becomes more complicated when he announces that his sister,
who has a similar academic and family background, was not required to enroll in STP upon her
acceptance to the university. This conundrum has led Larry to believe that it is his scholarship
made it contingent for him to participate in the program.
The idea that scholarships are a determining factor in the selection of STP seems like a
plausible idea, until the past and current directors of the program are involved. “It’s not
scholarship,” Dr. Don Trahan—the current director of STP—announces when we present the
idea. He goes on to say that:
Admissions, during their process, it’s something that they’ve identified—and once again
it’s gonna vary, there’s no one thing, or even collectively oh, if they fall into this category
then they’re gonna have to be mandated to be a part of STP. I think admissions look
collectively at, ok, this is a student. Do we feel that this student would benefit from STP?
Yes. Why? Here are the reasons. And then we come together and make that decision. But
for the most part the appointments are on admissions’ side.
Dr. Trahan does acknowledge that even to him the process of selection is unclear; however, he
attributes this to his being new to the program—as he has only worked at the university for two
months.
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
9
Dean Cox—the past director of the Student Transition Program—also reveals the
ambiguity of the program through her inconclusive statement that:
It could be that they [participants] are from a very rural part of VA where they have not
had access to college life, or it could be first generation students where no one in their
family has ever been to college. They could be students from families who have recently
immigrated to the US. These students are citizens but English may not be the first
language at home, they may have only been in the U.S. for 5 or 6 years so there is still
some cultural things they have to adjust to so we try to look for all those students to be a
good fit for the program.
Once again, responsibility for selection is placed on admissions. This idea that selection happens
“behind the scenes” is a prominent trend that has appeared throughout our research. Both
directors also emphasize that participation is not reliant upon any one factor and is not
necessarily due to high school and SAT achievement. Dean Cox and Dr. Trohan repeatedly state
that there are a number of students who have profound SAT scores and academic backgrounds.
Larry points out that one student whose admission to the university was contingent upon his
participation in STP was salutatorian in high school. It is clear through analysis of both student
and administrator interviews that the selection process for the Student Transition Program is very
vague and ambiguous.
A major theme surrounding the vagueness of the program involves student reactions upon
their arrival; almost all students interviewed pointed out their surprise in regard to the racial
composition of the program. This racially unprepared mentality is reminiscent in many
interviews. Kendra (pseudonym), an African American senior who participated in the program
her freshman year summed up her preparation in the following way:
I did not, um, all I knew was that it was to help students, you know transition. But then
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
10
when I got there it was… it was a major shock because I didn’t know there were going to
be so many black people. So that was, that was just my first initial experience. Like why
are there so many black people here. I had no clue.
Emily (pseudonym), another African American senior who participated in the program,
remembers her father’s reaction when she arrived at the program that summer. “My dad was
more surprised that I was, he was like isn’t this a white school… I was like yeah it is… I saw like
two or three white people in the program, they must feel out of place or have special
circumstances to be here.”
This disproportionate emphasis on race is also noted by white and Latino students.
Natasha (pseudonym), a white freshman, describes how she felt like the minority in the program,
being one of three white students:
I think of it as very, I don’t wanna say racially driven, cause that’s the wrong way to
describe it, but it does focus more on like minority groups, or minority groups than it
does on the actual general population of the school. So like when I was in it, I was one of
three white people there. And umm…. and so it was a little bit offsetting to be there,
cause I kinda felt like I didn’t really belong there, which I guess is how minorities feel all
the time. But at the same time, I expected a larger mix of kids.
As these excerpts demonstrate, race plays a role in the selection of students for the Student
Transition Program. Many students were unaware that STP focuses on minority students prior to
their arrival on campus. This in turn makes students reflect on the “true” reasons they are chosen
for the program, which at times makes students uncomfortable.
Topanga (pseudonym)—a black senior who participated in STP— believes that the
program is targeted at minority students, so she did not find it surprising that the program was
composed of a majority minority students. She notes her ability to point out which students are in
the program each year because “it’s usually like, if you see like a group of minorities. Or a group
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
11
of like black people together they’re either from Rappahannock Scholar Program, which is the
other program I’m in, or they’re STP kids.” In her opinion, race is a determining feature of the
Student Transition Program.
While the majority of students emphasized race as a component of STP and pointed out
the homogeneity of the program, administrators were not in agreement. Dean Cox and Dr.
Trahan both asserted that the composition was not merely black or Hispanic students, but
incorporated a wide range of diversity. Dr. Trahan states that:
While we do primarily serve historically marginalized—I think I should go on to say: a
lot of times there’s a misconception that, well that means race. Or someone possibly from
a particular racial background. And that doesn’t have to be the case. Historically
marginalized could be someone—age, gender, sexual orientation—or various cultural
factors. Or first-generational students or someone who just needs an additional assistance
with navigating.
Dean Cox states that “they [students in STP] are not all Hispanic, or Black, or
Asian…there are white kids in the program too…so it’s not about race.” She blames the
misconception that the Student Transition Program is based on race on other students at the
university.
Unfortunately because it is a predominately white campus, kids see other kids of color
who are in a special program and then attach a stigma to it, which sort of perpetuates the
issue of race on our campus when we are trying to de-stigmatize it so I purposefully don’t
want to keep putting those kids out there to be spotlighted, you know I want them to be a
part of the college campus, I want them to just blend in, but unfortunately folks try and
make sure they don’t.
With all of this confusion about targeting racial minorities in the program, it begs the
question: what is the goal of the Student Transition Program? According to students, the program
targets minority and first generation students to help them transition from high school to college
and allows them to familiarize themselves with campus, make friends, and understand the
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
12
academic standards of the university. Dean Cox points to retention and making underrepresented
students feel welcome, as well as supplying them with the resources necessary to succeed in
college. Dr. Trohan’s understanding of the goal of STP mirrors this:
So primarily what our goal is to make sure that students from historically marginalized
backgrounds, or first-generation students are able to not only get acclimated here at Mary
Washington, but that we’re able to retain them and graduate them.
Dr. Trohan constantly emphasized his goal of being subjective with students to ensure that he
look at each student’s specific “lens” in order to make the program most beneficial for them.
Overall, both students and administrators have a consistent understanding of the goal of
the Student Transition Program. However, while administrators know what the goal is from the
get-go, students are left in a sea of ambiguity until they are actually attending the program. While
many students complained that they were lost as to why they were chosen to participate in the
program, and did not understand its purpose upon beginning, by the end of the program students
had grasped an understanding of the intentions of STP.
Reactions to Contingency
Upon receipt of the letter informing them of the contingency of their participation in the
Student Transition Program, students reacted in a variety of ways. Some students felt belittled,
and others were upset about losing their summer. Most students were not happy, or at least, not
particularly excited about having to partake in the program. However, these students typically
looked at their requirement to attend STP as a step they had to take because they knew they
wanted to attend the university. These students “did what they had to do.” Some students were
excited about attending the program; however, these students tended to be those who had the
option to participate. The directors believe that the contingency of the program is a way to give
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
13
students a “second chance” and prove to the university that they have what it takes to succeed in
college. Let us look at each of these cases in greater detail.
The idea that requiring students to participate in the program is a blow to their selfesteem is reinforced by numerous student comments. Nadia demonstrates this clearly:
At first, it made me feel dumb. Like I didn’t like it. I was like, this is, I was just like—I
didn’t like it cause explaining the program to friends back at home was really like hard,
because I didn’t know how to be like, oh I was picked because I have a low SAT score
and cause I’m Spanish and…it was just like hard to explain that. And and then it was
also, but then other like adults would be like, oh that’s so good, you’re in a great
program, and I’m like no, like I don’t think it’s a good thing. Like it was…so it was hard
like in the beginning it definitely like… explaining it to people was difficult and just
because I didn’t know, it just made me feel like I wasn’t qualified, like…and I didn’t like
that, I really didn’t like the feeling of like, oh you’re accepted BUT.
Friendship
Networks and Resources
Academics
Conclusion
A Qualitative Look at the Student Transition Program
References
Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Sage
Publications.
14