Vol. 18 No. 2 April 2021
What are the Academic Expectations of Incoming College Students?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Middle Tennessee State University examines first-year students’ college expectaions and how faculty can help these students succeed based on the results.
Dr. Matthew D. Duncan, Assistant Professor Ryan Korstange, Assistant Professor & Coordinator of UNIV 1010 & 2020 Middle Tennessee State University A students’ success in their first year in college is conditioned by their expectations. Understanding what students expect out of their academic experiences including coursework and interactions with faculty are at the heart of successful program design and effective teaching for first-year college students. When expectations do not align with experiences, students may experience decreased motivation and greater dissatisfaction (Byrne et al., 2012), which correlates to reduced learning and lower persistence and graduation rates (Casanova et al., 2019).
Our analysis identifies trends present in student responses to open-ended questions related to their expectations of the learning context. Coded qualitative data are summarized as word clouds, which illustrate the variety and relative frequency of student responses. An increase in text size denotes words that appeared more frequently, but word size is not to scale. Student responses were also constrained by the nature of the question (e.g., What three words describe your expectations of college faculty?). This limitation is important to keep in mind when reviewing the data.
This study starts from the question, “what do students expect from their academic experiences?” Previous studies have investigated students’ expectations, but the results originated from retroactive data collection. This study, however, surveyed incoming students at new student orientation events held in the summer before their first semester of full-time enrollment in order to capture their expectations uninfluenced by any post-secondary academic experience.
Results: What are Students Expecting?
Method The survey was conducted at a four-year regional comprehensive public university with an enrollment of roughly 20,000 undergraduate students. The data was collected on the first day of a two-day orientation event required of all 3,312 incoming first-year students. We asked students about both the expectations about the learning context (i.e., classes and faculty) and for the actions they would take to facilitate their learning (i.e.., attending classes, studying, using resources). Demographic and personal data were not collected due to IRB constraints. Of the new-student orientation participants, 442 answered at least one question, and 320 completed the survey.
Students were asked to complete the sentence: “To be successful in college, students must …” Thematic coding of the 404 responses suggested that students expect academic success in college through showing up (28% of responses), putting in the time (23%), studying (19%), and commitment (7%). Yet, students do not have consistent expectations for attendance requirements (n=402): 1.5% expected no attendance policy, 33% expected optional attendance, 32% expected mandatory attendance, and 35% expected mandatory attendance but noted that the faculty would not care if they were absent. Other research indicates that the academic strategies students employ while attending class are not always the most effective (Korstange et al., 2019). The data suggests that incoming students at least understand the necessity of devoting time and effort to their academic work.
What are the Academic Expectations of Incoming College Students?
4
Finding Your Pathway Course: Providing an Organized Process for Forming Goals The University of Wisconsin Milwaukee College of General Studies designs a class for students to develop career and academic goals and a plan for achieving those goals.
7
The House That Gen Z Built: Housing Style and First-Year Student Success Oklahoma State University explores how on-campus student housing impacts academic success and persistence in Gen Z.
10
12
Advising Students Foreclosed to Academic Major Decisions The University of Pittsburgh assists academic advisors in working with “forclosed” students and the practices to help them thrive in college.
How and Why Institutions Choose Common Books The University of Kansas dives into emerging research suggesting that participation in common reading experiences (CREs) predicts student success outcomes.
WWW.SC.EDU/FYE/ESOURCE
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 2 April 2021
Expectations of Classes Participants were asked open-ended questions about their expectations of both college classes and faculty. With regard to college classes, the students’ responses focused on the environment and rigor of the class. They also commented on the way information would be provided and their engagement with course content.
Rigor. Students expect that classes will be a rigorous and challenging encounter with novel material. When students described classes— rigor came up. The most frequent themes cast classes as challenging (34% of responses), hard (36%), and difficult (17%; see Figure 1).
Figure 3 Responses reflecting expectations of class engagement.
Figure 1 Responses reflecting expectations of class rigor. Stress. In addition, students expect that their class experience will
be stressful, and they anticipate that classes will expose them to new material, which they predict will be exciting and helpful (see Figure 2). What is not clear from these results is whether students understand challenge or difficulty to be positive or negative. A similar question exists with their depiction of class as stressful. Likely both connotations are present in the results.
Fun. Though the students’ expectations of the faculty’s presentation style vary (see Figure 4), it is overwhelmingly clear that their responses lean toward expecting class sessions to be entertaining or, at a minimum, worth their attendance. The data indicates that students are looking to be engaged and that the faculty in their classes are well-prepared and effective, though perhaps that hope is mitigated by other expectations, such as being bored by lectures.
Figure 4 Responses reflecting expectations of faculty’s course presentation. Note. Low frequency responses removed.
Helpfulness. The data reflects conflicting student expectations about
Figure 2 Responses reflecting expectations of class environment.
how faculty will mitigate the anticipated difficulty of college-level courses. When describing the concern students expected faculty to have for their learning, approximately 90% of responses described faculty as helpful or caring (see Figure 5).
Engagement. Incoming students expect their classes to be fun,
interactive, and engaging. These expectations emerge from trends in both students’ responses to qualitative questions about their expectations of classes and the faculty. Of the responses that characterized student expectations of engagement in class, a large proportion of students indicated that they expected for their classes to be fun (53%), interactive (21%), or engaging (13%; see Figure 3). Taken together, the data indicates that students are looking to be engaged or captivated by their college classes.
Expectations of Faculty Students’ responses about their expectations of faculty most frequently included attentiveness or interest in students and their learning (or lack thereof), the perception of ease of access to the faculty, appearance, and presentation ability and style. Three overarching trends emerged from the thematic coding of these results. When students were asked to describe their expectations of the faculty, the responses related to the faculty’s presentation style and broke out into three categories: Fun or entertaining (31%), beneficial or effective (34%), and boring or unstimulating (36%).
page 2
Figure 5 Responses reflecting expectations of faculty concern.
Inaccessible. However, regarding access to the faculty, more than 50% of responses demonstrated that incoming students expect the faculty to be inaccessible or unapproachable (e.g., mean, intimidating, or distant; see Figure 6). The data suggests a misalignment of expectations. A noticeable portion of students expect that they will largely be on their own after class sessions end, while still expecting faculty to be caring and helpful. This misalignment of expectations is incredibly concerning. Faculty support is a significant catalyst for student learning, retention, and satisfaction (Trolian et al., 2016). The data indicates that students either incorrectly assume the faculty is inaccessible and thereby the students will potentially miss out on essential help, or that the faculty really is unavailable in which case the expectation is well-founded, if disappointing.
inaccessible. In part, this discontinuity suggests students understand college faculty have a different function than high school teachers even if they aren’t sure what that function will be. From a course design perspective, faculty should clarify the role they expect to play in students’ learning. Students need to know when they should seek faculty help and how they can expect to find that help. Further, faculty need to be exceedingly careful to avoid student shaming since that may play into the students’ expectations that faculty are aloof or mean (Lauricella, 2019). Misalignment between students’ expectations and their experiences produces tension. Students’ expectations correlate with motivation for learning, academic success, and general academic satisfaction. However, the misalignment of expectations threatens a student’s success, reducing learning, persistence, and graduation (Byrne et al., 2012). It is imperative that we know a lot more about what students expect and provide regular opportunities for re-alignment and reformation of their educational expectations in order to help our students learn and find success in the college environment.
References Byrne, M., Flood, B., Hassall, T., Joyce, J., Montaño, J. L. A., González, J. M. G., & Tourna-Germanou, E. (2012). Motivations, expectations and preparedness for higher education: A study of accounting students in Ireland, the UK, Spain and Greece. Accounting Forum, 36(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2011.12.001
Figure 6 Responses reflecting expectations of faculty accessibility.
Casanova, J. R., Almeida, L. S., Peixoto, F., Ribeiro, R.-B., & Marôco, J. (2019). Academic expectations questionnaire: A proposal for a short version. Sage Open, 9(1), 1–-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018824496
Suggestions for Practice
Korstange, R., Craig, M., & Duncan M. (2019). Understanding and addressing student procrastination in college. The Learning Assistance Review, 24(2), 57-70.
Note. Low frequency responses removed.
Considering the preceding analysis, we offer three suggestions for practice for the faculty teaching first-year students. These suggestions offer strategies to either help students align their errant expectations, or to leverage their expectations to maximize their success in college.
1. Give students the opportunity to express their expectations early in the semester in order to identify and rectify misalignment. This research shows that students think that passing college classes requires that they show up and put in the work. Yet, other research demonstrates that students do not fully understand the type and amount of work necessary for success (Korstange et al., 2019). Early expectation-centered conversations provide a rich environment for students to explicitly articulate what they anticipate and provides a critical mechanism to begin the process of aligning those expectations with the reality of what college learning requires. As it relates to student success, the sooner expectations are aligned, the better.
2. Provide meaningful and active learning experiences. The results of this study demonstrate that students expect classes to be fun, engaging, and difficult, which correlates with other research on student perceptions of effective teaching (e.g., Prather, 2009). Not providing an engaging and interactive learning environment is detrimental to students’ learning. Not only do these interactive learning experiences create better learning, but they also provide an opportunity to meet student expectations for college. Ensuring quality student-centered instruction requires continual training and ongoing instructional redesign. This research serves as a reminder that students come to college expecting to learn, and they want to be engaged in their classes. They understand that this learning will require growth and change and anticipate that it will result in opportunities after graduation. 3. Faculty members must go out of their way to communicate the ways in which they are accessible to students outside class. This
Lauricella, S. (2019) Darkness as the frenemy: Social media, student shaming, and building academic culture. Communication Education, 68(3), 386-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2019.1609055 Prather, C. D. (2009). Student perceptions of effective college teachers. Collegiate Aviation Review International, 27(2), 69-76. http://dx.doi. org/10.22488/okstate.18.100395 Trolian, T, L., Jach, E. A., Hanson, J. M., & Pascarella, E. T., (2016). Influencing academic motivation: The effects of student–faculty interaction. Journal of College Student Development, 57(7), 810–826. https://doi.org/10.1353/ csd.2016.0080
CONTACT Dr. Matthew D. Duncan matthew.duncan@mtsu.edu
Dr. Ryan Korstange ryan.korstange@mtsu.edu
RETURN
to Table of Contents
»
study reveals that students expect the faculty to be helpful but also
page 3
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 2 April 2021
Finding Your Pathway Course: Providing an Organized Process for Forming Goals Dr. Greg M. Ahrenhoerster, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Sue Kalinka, Director of Student Development University of Wisconsin Milwaukee College of General Studies Bailey (2017) observed: “Most colleges do not provide an organized process to help students form long-term goals and design an academic program to achieve those goals. Rather, students must recognize when they need help and seek it out on their own” (p. 36). This is an accurate description of our institution, the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee (UWM) College of General Studies, which is an open-access, two-year liberal arts institution of around 2000 students (more than 50% first-generation and 25-30% Pelleligible). Most students enter college undecided about their major. Resources were available to help students develop academic and career goals in the form of academic advisors and a career counselor, but students had to seek them out, and many did not. We concluded that we could address this problem by designing a class in which students researched various academic and career goals and developed a plan for achieving those goals, which we did in Fall 2017. After teaching this course for multiple semesters and gathering extensive data on the 2018-2019 cohort, we are convinced this class achieves the goal of effectively providing students with an organized process for forming academic and career goals and is positively correlated with student retention and academic success.
Course Design We designed the course, Finding Your Pathway (LEC 105) together, drawing on our experiences as a writing professor and Director of Student Development, in consultation with the Academic Advising team and career counselor. We incorporated sessions with advising and career staff into the course so students are required to interact with them. The result was a course designed to help students meet the following learning objectives: 1. develop the skills to create an academic, career, and financial pathway, and learn the process for future revisions to that pathway; 2. create a vision for one’s future, based on internal and external characteristics; 3. identify personal core values and desired work values, along with personal strengths, abilities, talents, gifts, and interests; 4. become an engaged and self-reflective learner who takes responsibility for their goals and learning process; 5. use appropriate campus resources for academic success and personal development; 6. communicate effectively (e.g., fluent use of thesis, argumentation, support, source materials, and organization); and 7. demonstrate critical thinking, information literacy, and technological skills.
page 4
After team-teaching a pilot section of the class in Spring 2018, we revised the course and offered five sections in Fall 2018. A general call was sent out to find people interested in teaching the course. Instructors from the fields of psychology, philosophy, and english expressed interest. We provided the new instructors with a halfday training session and access to a Canvas site containing course resources. Students were recruited into this three-credit elective course by advisors, both during New Student Orientation and during one-on-one advising sessions. The class is divided into three units, culminating in a final project. Unit 1 is largely focused on learning objectives 3 and 4 but lays the groundwork for the other objectives. Students read about student success, the psychology of choice, happiness, and the value of the liberal arts. In addition, students work through exercises requiring reflection on their interests, skills, and values. One reflective activity is a paper entitled The Student I Am and the Student I’d Like to Become. The paper discusses how they could use student success strategies more effectively. Units 2 and 3 more directly focus on learning objectives 1, 2, and 5 (objectives 6 and 7 are worked on throughout the class). Unit 2 requires students to research two potential careers, using multiple career exploration resources (e.g., My Plan, Career One Stop, O*Net Online, and Occupational Outlook Handbook) and to conduct two informational interviews. The career counselor leads two class sessions and encourages students to make individual appointments to receive personalized support. This unit culminates in a paper summarizing their research and reflecting on how well the careers match their skills, values, and interests. Unit 3 requires students to research at least two distinct academic goals they are considering, including colleges they could transfer to and degrees they might pursue. Academic advisors lead class sessions on finding information about other schools and how to transfer. We also cover financial literacy and paying for college. The students write a paper summarizing their research and mapping out the courses they would take each semester if they pursued a particular goal. At the end of the semester, students present the career and academic pathway they are currently planning to pursue and offer a significant reflection about how their goals fit what they have learned about themselves in both an oral presentation and a paper. They must reflect on the challenges they might encounter and discuss their plan for addressing those challenges.
Research Findings As a way to assess learning objectives 1, 2, 3, and 4, information was gathered about the effects that completing the course had on students enrolled in Fall 2018 or Spring 2019, through student surveys and textual analysis of final projects.
Expectations of Faculty At the beginning and end of the semester, students were invited to complete an anonymous Qualtrics survey about their confidence in their academic and career plans and how much personal responsibility they took for their decisions, which relate to learning objectives 1, 2, and 3. We found that completing the class significantly increased the students’ confidence in their career goal, their academic goal, and their academic pathway (see Table 1). A significance level below 0.05 was considered significant. It is worth noting that student participation in the survey was lower at the end of the semester. Unfortunately, students in all UWM classes had been asked to participate in many surveys at the end of this particular semester, so survey fatigue had likely set in. Despite the lower response rate, the data analysis still showed statistical significance. In addition, we asked students how much they saw themselves as personally responsible for their own academic and career goals, which relates to learning objective 4. Again, we saw a significant increase at the end of the semester.
Textual Analysis of Final Projects Permission was obtained from 54 students to use their final projects as evidence for our study. The textual analysis showed that most students gained significant knowledge about their career and academic goals (learning objectives 1 and 2), though fewer students thoroughly reflected on their values, skills, and interests (learning objectives 3 and 4). Many discussed the relief they felt in finally having a goal:
• “It is refreshing knowing exactly what I want…to do for a career. I am so excited to fulfill my dreams and truly look forward to where this path will lead me.” In addition, many students who were not able to identify a specific career or academic goal expressed appreciation for the knowledge they gained in the course: • “If I need to alter my current pathway or attend a different university, there are four other colleges I have researched… that align with my…plans as a student.” Thus, while not every student had specific career and academic goals at the end of the semester, it is noteworthy that many students still appreciated the skills they learned.
Retention Data As Table 3 shows, 66.1% of the 112 students who completed Finding Your Pathway that year were still enrolled in our college the following fall, which is significantly higher than our typical fall-to-fall retention rate of 50%. An additional 21 students (18.8%) had successfully transferred to another college or university, meaning 84.8% were still enrolled in higher education one year later, higher than our typical rate of 70%. Three students (2.7%) had completed an associate degree and stopped attending college. Thus, only 12.5% of the students had neither earned a degree nor were actively working toward one.
• “When I first started [college] I had no idea what I was going for, what school I would transfer to, and where I would live. This made it extremely difficult to be motivated to stay in college. Taking LEC 105 has made me motivated to stay in school and I now know what I want to do.”
Table 1 Confidence in Goals and Plans Start of semester (n = 80)
End of semester (n = 41)
T value
Sig.
Confidence in career goal (1-5)
2.36
3.00
4.098
0.001
Confidence in academic goal (1-5)
2.50
3.24
4.463
0.000
Confidence in academic pathway (1-5)
2.50
3.07
4.054
0.001
Start of semester (n = 80)
End of semester (n = 41)
T value
Sig.
% Responsible for own Academic Goal (0-100)
57.9%
72.4%
3.893
0.001
% Responsible for own Career Goal (0-100)
58.6%
72.2%
3.555
0.002
Note. 1 being not at all confident and 5 being very confident.
Table 2 Personal Responsibility
Note. Students could respond with anything from 0% to 100% to indicate how much they saw themselves as personally responsible.
page 5
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 2 April 2021 Table 3 Persistence in Higher Education, Fall 2018 to Fall 2019 Where student was one year later
Percent
Still enrolled at UWM College of General Studies
66.1%
Transferred to other college or university
18.8%
Completed associates degree and stopped
2.7%
Not enrolled in higher ed and no degree
12.5%
Conclusion Our findings suggest that this course successfully created “an organized process to help students form long-term goals and design an academic program to achieve those goals,” which had meaningful effects on our students’ understanding of how to develop such goals and confidence in their ability to achieve them. This, in turn, appears to have increased their retention in higher education one year later. Future plans include tracking these students to determine whether taking the course increases the likelihood of completing a college degree. We are currently considering the best ways to encourage students to take the Finding Your Pathway course. Currently, it is an optional, elective course, but it could be made a degree requirement. For the 2020-2021 cohort of students enrolled in UW Milwaukee’s First Year Bridge program, we have made this course mandatory in the students’ second semester. We believe that this is a sustainable and effective intervention that could easily be duplicated at other schools and colleges with many options for customizing the course to reflect each institution’s unique advising and matriculation processes.
References Bailey, T (2017). Community colleges and student success: Models for comprehensive reform. Educause Review, 52(3), 32-44.
page 6
CONTACT Dr. Greg M. Ahrenhoerster ahrenhoe@uwm.edu
Sue Kalinka kalinkas@uwm.edu
RETURN
to Table of Contents
»
The House That Gen Z Built: Housing Style and First-Year Student Success Emily Gilley, M.S., Graduate Research Assistant Amber Manning-Ouellette, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Higher Education and Student Affairs Leon McClinton, Jr., Ph.D., Director of Housing and Residential Life Oklahoma State University Residence halls are more than designated buildings and spaces for students to rest or sleep. They are hubs of interaction, engagement, and learning between peers who come from diverse backgrounds and experiences. They play a key role in student academic success, largely due to the extended amount of time students spend in those spaces. Researchers have long found evidence that living on campus has a direct impact on academic success and persistence. The architectural design of living spaces can foster students’ socialization and feelings of community. A study by Brown and colleagues (2019) found that students living in traditional housing, where greater socialization occurs through shared spaces with an entire floor, had higher GPAs than students who lived in apartmentstyle housing that can limit peer-to-peer interactions. In the fall 2019 semester, Oklahoma State University’s (OSU) Department of Housing & Residential Life (HRL) partnered with a graduate-level assessment course to build upon Brown et al.’s (2019) findings; measuring retention rate instead of GPA. This partnership was bolstered by the department and the university’s desire to examine first-to-second-year student retention. Therefore, this article’s intention is to address the complex issue surrounding on-campus living environments and student success among Gen Z students, describing one university’s investigation into housing’s architectural influence on student success. In this piece, we define success as a student achieving both educational goals and life satisfaction through academic self-efficacy, attention to study, and emotional satisfaction with academics (Krumrei-Mancusco et al., 2013). Furthermore, this article will provide recommendations to address housing’s role in student success during the first year of college.
Traditional
Suite
Gen Z and Housing First-year students living on college campuses today have vastly different worldviews, interests, and concerns than generations of students before, considering the unique eras they were raised in— for example, heightened security following September 11th, 2001, the Great Recession (2007-2009), and the emergence of technology, Internet, and smartphones. Therefore, first-year students’ residential expectations largely diverge from the original design of residential spaces in postsecondary education. Older residence halls in use today were architecturally designed to house an influx of students and address overcrowding after World War II. Therefore, they were not initially intended to promote community and co-curricular learning expectations that current students have for educational spaces (Yanni, 2019; Seemiller & Grace, 2015). Through this field of knowledge, OSU explored how housing style might impact their first-year student success.
First-Year Housing Style Assessment Partnering with a graduate-level assessment course and institutional research, the Oklahoma State University Housing & Residential Life (OSUHRL) department was able to examine the interactions between the types of residential living options and student success. At OSU, students can choose from traditional, suite, and apartmentstyle residential options. Student success was examined related to student’s achievement of both academic goals, life satisfaction through academic self-efficacy, attention to study, and emotional satisfaction with academics (Krumrei-Mancusco et al., 2013). We collaborated with the institutional research department to examine overall university retention rates of students (first-
Apartment
Figure 1 Housing configurations at Oklahoma State University. page 7
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 2 April 2021 to-second-year) based on housing style during the 2018-2019 academic year. Through the partnership of the assessment course, one of the researchers was able to explore contributing factors in residence halls that might influence the institution’s first-tosecond-year student retention rate. Subsequently, we conducted a follow-up survey with first-year students (also categorized as Gen Z students) to consider how the different living options may have had an impact on student academic success at the institution. A recruitment email was sent to 2,374 first-year students, living on campus, with a response rate of 60 students. The open-ended assessment survey was conducted face-to-face and offered a $10 dining card incentive for participation. Participants were asked questions related to their learning and academic achievement while living on campus.
Key Considerations at Oklahoma State University At OSU and within OSUHRL, suites retained more students than traditional housing and apartments, from both Fall 2018 to Spring 2019 and Fall 2018 to Fall 2019 (see Figure 2). First-year student retention data indicates that suite and traditional-style housing retained over 80% of students in contrast with apartment styles only retaining 79.3% from the first to second year of college. While suites and traditional options have similar architectural layouts, they are priced differently. Students living in suites pay at least an additional $500 a semester for their own private bedroom. Thus, students who live in suites likely have a higher household income, an element known to be associated with greater retention from Year 1 to Year 2 (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2019). This financial implication is important to consider within housing and residential life, as research indicates students who are economically disadvantaged are also likely to have less access to academic support, capital, and resources, thus affecting college success (Stephens et al., 2014). Due to the limitations of
this assessment, income level was not controlled when analyzing retention data by housing style. In the open-ended assessment feedback from Fall 2019, suite residents mentioned the impact of living-learning programs (LLP) on their feelings of community and study habits. Living-learning programs are a form of learning communities found in select OSU residence halls—most commonly suite and traditional-style housing—where students are given the opportunity to live in close proximity to peers who have similar interests, majors, or personal identifying characteristics (OSU Housing & Residential Life, 2019). One student stated, “I live in [disclosed hall] so we have a lot of the same general education classes. That helps a lot because we can study as a group and help each other when we don’t understand a topic.” Additionally, LLPs have created a sense of responsibility and importance of dedicating more time to academics within their residential community. Another student added, “It makes me feel guilty when I don’t [study] (living-learning communities you know).” Students living in apartment and suite-style halls boasted about their larger spaces and the privacy provided by separate bedrooms, which allowed them to study with minimal distractions. Though students in traditional halls reported that designated community spaces in their residence halls were conducive to studying, many reported their rooms were too compact, and the hallways were too noisy for them to properly focus on their coursework. Several noted that they studied outside the residence hall altogether—at the library or other places on campus. These considerations help provide a foundation regarding implications for practice.
Implications for Practice Similar to the findings of Seemiller and Grace (2015), students at OSU preferred to have a designated area with limited distractions for greater focus when studying. They also favored areas that had
First-Year Student Retention 81.9%
Traditional
83.8%
Suite
Apartment
79.3%
90.2%
80.0%
Figure 2 First-year retention rates by type of residence hall.
92.2%
85.0%
Fall 2018 to Fall 2019
page 8
92.8%
83.2%
University Total
75.0%
92.1%
90.0%
Fall 2018 to Spring 2019
95.0%
100.0%
the resources to support successful study time, including Internet access and sufficient table space. Learning spaces within residence halls that offer an array of setups, including rooms for small groups, reading lounges, presentation practice rooms, and those with interactive technology and computer equipment, appealed the most to Gen Z students. Therefore, as a result of this feedback, OSU has modified buildings and diversified the spaces where Gen Z students can learn, study, and gather.
References
Unfortunately, at OSU and elsewhere, there may not be enough traditional or suite-style living for first-year students. Subsequently, HRL departments may need to be strategic and innovative in ways to engage students who live in apartment-style housing. The following strategies should be considered in developing academic support spaces within residential spaces for first-year Gen Z students.
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. (2019). High school benchmarks report: National college progression rates (7th ed.). https://nscresearchcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019_ HSBenchmarksReport_FIN_ 04OCT19.pdf
One promising strategy is to prioritize the clustering of first-year students in apartment communities. This would allow students to locate peers in close proximity, aligning with Gen Z preferences (Seemiller & Grace, 2015). Additionally, being intentional about assigning community mentors that understand the unique needs of first-year students is critical in these specific areas of housing. More specifically, Gen Z students have been found to respond favorably to guidance by peer leaders (Seemiller & Grace, 2015). First-year experience units should become involved by advocating how housing style may affect students’ success. Feedback from OSU first-year students indicates that LLPs within apartment, suite, and traditional styles of housing is an intervention that promotes, not only student success but community engagement. By encouraging incoming first-year students to join an LLP or reside in suites or similar styles, students would be able to choose a specific community of “shared values and shared hobbies” that would lead to greater connection and relationship with their peers (Seemiller & Grace, 2015). Further, continuing to advocate for suite-style housing and similar designs in the future, could increase the likelihood that students would find communities that supported their academic achievements. In conclusion, our assessment indicates that residence hall living environments influence academic and holistic student development. With heightened efforts to increase student retention, along with diminished resources and funding, housing and residential life must collaborate with other departments to create simple, yet impactful initiatives, that meet both the personal and academic needs of our students. Creating and adapting environments known to be beneficial for first-year students is one such way to make an impact, as well as understanding how architecture and style play a role in positive and negative interactions with academics.
Brown, J., Volk, F., & Spratto, E. M. (2019). The hidden structure: The influence of residence hall design on academic outcomes. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 56(3), 267-283. Krumrei-Mancusco, E. J., Newton, F. B., Kim, E., & Wilcox, D. (2013). Psychosocial factors predicting first-year college student success. Journal of College Student Development, 54(3), 247-266.
OSU Housing and Residential Life. (2019b). Living learning programs (LLPs). https://residentiallife.okstate.edu/current-residents/living-learningprograms Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2015). Generation Z goes to college. Jossey-Bass. Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the socialclass achievement gap: A difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science, 25(4), 943-953. Yanni, C. (2019). Living on campus: An architectural history of the American dormitory. University of Minnesota Press.
CONTACT Emily F. Gilley emily.gilley@okstate.edu
Dr. Amber Manning-Ouellette amber.manning-ouellette@okstate.edu
RETURN
to Table of Contents
»
page 9
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 2 April 2021
Advising Students Foreclosed to Academic Major Decisions April Belback, Director of Undergraduate Advising and Mentoring, University of Pittsburgh
Academic advisors have long recognized and understood the value of exploration for students in higher education. However, it is common that undergraduate students are unwilling or unaware of opportunities to explore academic majors and career choices, especially in their first college year (Fox & Martin, 2017). Advisors more likely hear statements such as: “I have always wanted to be a teacher since I was little” or “everyone in my family is in the medical field so I’m not sure what else to do” or “my counselor said that I am good at math so I want to be an engineer.” Such students, often presenting themselves as having made a choice about a plan of study, can become dissatisfied in college and are at risk of failing to persist if not carefully advised (Shaffer & Zalewski, 2011). These students are in foreclosure status, meaning they have “premature commitments to plans and goals despite minimal or no effort to explore options or to understand oneself” (Shaffer & Zalewski, 2017, p. 165). While recognizing and working with foreclosed students may be new to higher education academic advising, educational and psychological research has contributed to our understanding of identity status, and foreclosure in particular, for more than three decades (Shaffer & Zalewski, 2011). Apt to come to college without the preparation or vernacular to navigate what can often be complicated institutions, students from underrepresented populations are even more likely to be in foreclosure status during the first few years of college. Such populations include those who are the first in their families to go to college (i.e., first-generation), students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, and students who are from traditionally underrepresented groups (e.g., students of color, students with disabilities, or LGBTQ+ students, among others). Transition and decision points about academic majors and careers are often some of the most complicated pathways for students in college. However, proactive (intrusive) academic advising strategies that educate students about their options and help students avoid potential problems can mean increased retention for universities (Varney, 2012). Using Marcia’s identity status theory and O’Banion’s advising model to frame the issue, three strategies for advising students in foreclosure will be described. These strategies can be used by advisors in facilitating discussions with students about the complex topic of major selection. The strategies focus on a proactive advising approach to increase retention of students in foreclosure status. Providing the advising and student success community with this information can help inform their work, specifically given the increasing diversity of college student populations.
foreclosure status in late adolescents, and Terry O’Banion’s (2012) model of academic advising is a widely accepted process for helping students successfully navigate the curriculum.
Marcia Ego-Identity Status Theory. In 1966, James Marcia’s quantitative
study was the framework for his ego-identity status theory in late adolescents. Congruent with Erikson’s formulation of identity, Marcia (1966) identified four statuses: identity achievement, moratorium, foreclosure, and identity diffusion, each with different intersections of exploration (crisis) and commitment. Students in foreclosure status are low on the exploration continuum and high on the commitment continuum (Marcia, 1966). In other words, a foreclosed student expresses high commitment to a major or career without exploring their own goals and dreams, and it can be difficult to tell the difference between their own ideas from that of their parents, guardians, or counselors (Marcia, 1966). Salinas and Ross (2015) note that foreclosed students [H]ave dedicated themselves to a single path at an immature degree of awareness, creating a type of pseudo-identity with their choice, and committed to the first major/career perceived as viable. A denial of this goal creates a crisis that requires a solution. A transition from the original choice is mandatory, but, without identified alternatives, these students remain ‘foreclosed.’ (para. 2) Thus, intrusive advising may be a critical strategy in ensuring that students in this status are successful.
O’Banion Advising. Terry O’Banion (2012) provides a model of
academic advising and a five-step process that values self-identity and exploration. The model situates the purpose of academic advising as helping students select a major that promotes the attainment of vocational goals, rather than curricular or scheduling goals alone (O’Banion, 2012). Working from the bottom up in five sequential steps, academic advisors help students to self-identify and explore major and career goals and choices. The steps include (1) exploring life goals, (2) exploring vocational goals, (3) discussing program choice, (4) making course or curricular choices, and (5) scheduling courses (O’Banion, 2012). To boost their success, students need to experience each step of the process, but colleges often fail to use this sequence with students (O’Banion, 2012). If the first three exploratory steps are skipped, students may be more apt to be foreclosed to academic major decisions.
Proactive Advising for Foreclosed Students Proactive advising strategies for students in foreclosure status include helping students navigate family and parent expectations, creating secondary academic plans and major choices, and providing opportunities for deep conversations.
Theoretical Models
Navigating Family and Parent Expectations
Two models are presented to frame the issue and increase the understanding of how students’ academic major decision-making among the foreclosed student population is an important factor in the advising process (Salinas & Ross, 2015; Shaffer & Zalewski, 2011). First, James Marcia’s ego-identity status theory (1966) defines
College students often seek majors defined by the expectations of their parents or family members. When provided the opportunity to self-reflect and explore, different paths are illuminated. However, adolescents have difficulty navigating conversations with family members about a change of major or career aspiration, and these
page 10
conversations can bring feelings of disappointment and resentment. In addition to providing opportunities for reflection and exploration, advisors can help students find language to navigate difficult family conversations. Such an intervention, however, needs to be carefully considered to empower students during this transition point. For example, advisors can help students anticipate questions family members might ask and help them practice their responses. Advisors may also point to information about the new major or career path to help family members understand the student’s journey.
Creating Secondary Academic Plans Despite the high commitment, students may seek a major that is not a good fit or in which they may not be successful. Advisors can help these students create secondary academic plans. When educated on all of their options and choices of majors, minors, and certificates, students begin to understand additional career paths and are more likely to explore. Students may take time to ingest secondary plans, as foreclosed students have typically been committed to their first major choice for some time. Therefore, it is important that options are presented in a supportive and careful manner. Also, advisors may find that repetition of the options and information is helpful, as students may need time to adjust their mindset for change. One way advisors can help students develop secondary plans is by asking open-ended questions, which emphasize student strengths and interests and offers a unique shift away from a focus on any deficiencies (Fox & Martin, 2017). In her work focused on strength-based learning and advising, Laurie Schreiner (n.d.) developed an excellent list of questions to help advisors in these types of conversations with students.
References Fox, J. R., & Martin, H. E. (Eds.). (2017). Academic advising and the first college year. University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition and NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising. Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3(5), 551-558. O’Banion, T. (2012). Be advised: Updating the traditional academic advising model for the 21st century. Community College Journal, 83(2), 42-47. Salinas, O. T., & Ross, K. W. (2015). Courageous conversations: Advising the foreclosed student. http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/ Clearinghouse/View-Articles/Courageous-Conversations-Advising-theForeclosed-Student.aspx Schreiner, L. A. (n.d.). Questions for each phase of strengths-based advising. http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Portals/0/Resources/Publications/ documents/Questions%20for%20Strengths-Based%20Advising.pdf Shaffer, L. S. & Zalewski, J. (2017). Dangers of foreclosure. In Fox, J. R., & Martin, H. E. (Eds.), Academic advising and the first college year (pp. 165178). National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition and NACADA: The Global Community for Academic Advising. Shaffer, L. S. & Zalewski, J. M. (2011). “It’s what I have always wanted to do.” Advising the foreclosure student. NACADA Journal, 31(2), 62-77. Varney, J. (2012). Proactive (intrusive) advising! Academic Advising Today, 35(3). https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Academic-Advising-Today/ View-Articles/Proactive-Intrusive-Advising.aspx
Providing Opportunities for Deep Conversations Advisors may only recognize that students are in foreclosure status when they are given the opportunity to have deep, meaningful conversations with students (i.e., those that go beyond scheduling courses). It takes time and effort to build trusting relationships that allow meaningful conversations to happen. However, when advisors recognize students are in foreclosure status, continuing to use an intrusive approach can prove to be helpful. Discussions about negotiating family expectations or identifying secondary plans are examples of deep conversations that might happen in the advising space. These conversations can also help students uncover additional information about themselves, identify new areas of strength or interest, and anticipate possible barriers to educational goals.
CONTACT April Belback abelback@pitt.edu
RETURN to Table of Contents
»
Implications The limitations of these advising strategies include time and capacity. Academic advisors often have overwhelming rosters of students that result in limited time for each interaction. Time restrictions make it difficult to help students navigate difficult family conversations; develop secondary plans; and explore their own strengths, interests, and goals. Each recommended strategy takes extra time and relationship-building. However, the investment of time spent providing proactive advising will likely reap the rewards of increased student success and higher retention (Varney, 2012).
page 11
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 2 April 2021
How and Why Institutions Choose Common Books Adam Brazil, Grant Program Director, Center for Educational Opportunity Programs, University of Kansas While an emerging research base suggests that participation in common reading experiences (CREs) predicts student success outcomes (Daugherty & Hayes, 2012; Soria, 2015, Young & Stolzenberg, 2017), the current research literature focuses almost exclusively on which common books are chosen. Notably, researchers in the field (see Keup & Young, 2015 and the annual Beach Books report from the National Association of Scholars) appear to draw diametrically opposed conclusions from near-identical data sets about why common books are chosen. Common book selection processes are informed by and embedded in the local campus context. Laufgraben (2006) described the characteristics of a typical selection process, yet left open to interpretation the question of why institutions choose the common books they do. Thus, an exploration of common book decision-making procedures is needed in order to test assumptions about why common books are chosen in context.
institutions accepted book nominations from campus and community stakeholders, culled the pool down to a finalist list, and from that list chose a common book that satisfied pre-determined selection criteria. Each institution outlined selection criteria that mirrored those mentioned by Laugfraben (2006; i.e., readability, interdisciplinarity, richness of content, length). Two programs (i.e., KU, UM) convened a selection committee of volunteer students, staff, and faculty to make the final selection while UI, a communitybased CRE, had recently streamlined a committee approach to allow CRE administrators to decide. One implication is that the selection processes outlined by Laufgraben (2006) are still widely used today. Institutions who are determining or refining selection procedures for their own CREs may find recommendations for best practices in the literature or from other CREs.
To explore this further, a purposeful sample was taken from a pool of flagship institutions that (a) enroll a large number of firstyear students (> 3,000), (b) have institutional missions that address state-level goals; (c) have a CRE; and (d) compete (e.g., for students, for state appropriations) with a same-state, land-grant institution that also has a CRE and shares similar characteristics (e.g., size, admissions). Three institutions—University of Iowa (UI), University of Kansas (KU), and University of Mississippi (UM)—that fit the selection criteria accepted the invitation to participate, and 31 faceto-face and phone interviews were conducted with a variety of CRE stakeholders (see Table 1). The following research questions were explored:
interpreted similar selection criteria in distinct ways reflective of the campus context. In other words, the three institutions often chose
Though similarities were noted in selection criteria, processes, and in how CREs were implemented, selection committees in this study
books during and before the study period that were meaningful at the local level (e.g., books written by alumni, books set in the institution’s geographic region). Two specific examples from this study underscore how institutions’ selection procedures evolved to reflect their independence and self-direction. First, KU’s committee included selection criteria that facilitated their choosing common books not widely used in other CREs (see Table 2). Second, even when institutions chose the same common book, they intended to achieve different ends. For instance, UI and UM chose Just Mercy during the study period, yet each institution outlined distinct objectives for the book and its CRE (i.e., start a community dialogue around human rights in criminal justice at UI; introduce first-year UM students to critical discourse using a compelling, complex topic like criminal justice in the South). An implication of this finding is that CRE practitioners may want to elaborate formal or informal selection criteria that directly underscore their institutions’ unique missions, student bodies, and priorities (Grenier, 2007).
1. How do institutions go about choosing common books? 2. What, if anything, are institutions trying to accomplish by selecting the common book? In other words, why do they choose the books they do?
Results and Implications
Selection committees in this study occasionally used alternative selection procedures to choose common books that highlighted institutional or community characteristics. In other words, sample
Four findings from the study and related practical implications may serve practitioners in the field. Institutions in the sample chose common books in similar ways. Each year, the three sample
Table 1 Title and Number of Interviewees at Each Sample Site (N = 26) Title
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Mississippi
CRE Administrator
3
2
2
Faculty Member
2
4
5
Student
0
4
2
Community Organization
2
0
0
7
10
9
Representativea Total
Note. a Interviewees represented the public library and a performing arts center..
page 12
Table 2 Common Books Chosen During the Study Period at Each Sample Site Year
University of Iowa
University of Kansas
University of Mississippi
2015-2016
Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson
A Farewell to Arms, Ernest Hemingway
The Education of a Lifetime, Robert Khayat
2016-2017
Without You, There Is No Us, Suki Kim
Between the World and Me, Ta-Nehisi Coates
Ten Little Indians, Sherman Alexie
2017-2018
The Butterfly Mosque, G. Willow Wilson
Citizen: An American Lyric, Claudia Rankine
Just Mercy, Bryan Stevenson
institutions occasionally treated formal selection criteria as optional or flexible in order to highlight local, cultural objectives. For instance, UM’s committee forewent its formal criteria in 2018 to select a compendium of short stories by William Faulkner because they wished to underscore his importance as a famous local writer who reflects UM’s history and culture. In another example, UI’s selection committee worked backward in 2017 to identify a book by an author who was already scheduled to visit Iowa City to speak (i.e., G. Willow Wilson) in order to develop an interdisciplinary, collaborative partnership with the hosting organization. The implication of this finding is that selection committees should consider how books can mirror what is important to their institutions and communities. This requires that selection committee members are plugged into current events on their campuses and consider how common book choices might advance or complement those programs. At times, balancing potentially competing objectives may invite practitioners to think creatively and to occasionally embrace alternative selection approaches. Finally, some committee members felt common books could send symbolic messages that touched on aspirational goals (e.g., improve racial climate, altruism). In this study, those messages were directed to institutional and community leaders but not students. As one illustration, some committee members at KU recalled that they chose Between the World and Me and Citizen in response to a period of racial tension on campus. Still, none of my interviewees expressed the belief that chosen common books (or the themes within) fully represented who their institutions think they are. In fact, most of the interviewed committee members understood that each common book contained a wide variety of perspectives and potential interpretations. As one CRE administrator said, “… it’s not the function of any given book to be the single way that we talk about any [topic].” Though data collection did not allow for extensive follow-up on this emergent finding, it suggests that selection criteria may be evolving to exert a two-way influence on the institution. That is, institutions’ educational goals guided common book selection processes and those processes evolved to identify books that might in turn influence the institution’s character to some extent. In lieu of more research on this conclusion, an implication of this finding is that selection committees should be deliberate and even cautious about how books’ symbolic messages enter into selection procedures. Grounding selections in the goals of the program will help avoid scenarios where common books are seen as one-sided, political statements rather than educational tools.
Conclusions and Future Research This study suggests that how and why common books are chosen says a lot about an institution: selection processes and outcomes
identified in this study’s sample were expressions of those institutions’ goals and character. While informative for current practitioners, this study leaves unanswered many questions. For instance, selection committees and procedures in this study exhibited some level of change year after year. Researchers and practitioners alike should ask themselves how institutional memory affects CREs, selection processes, and their readers. Further, researchers should continue to investigate the role that common book selection processes can play at the institutional level (e.g., in branding exercises). Finally, though the research base linking CREs and student outcomes helped frame this study, no data was collected to explore that association. There is still much to be explored in the relationship between common books (and related programming) and reader outcomes. Practitioners should seek out opportunities to collaborate with researchers to rigorously assess the many facets of their CREs, from implementation, exposure, and academic outcomes.
References Daugherty, T. K., & Hayes, M. W. (2012). Social and academic correlates of reading a common book. Learning Assistance Review, 17(2), 33-41. Grenier, C. (2007). A survey of college freshmen summer reading programs in the Unites States. International Journal of the Book, 4(2), 77-84. Keup, J. R., & Young, D. G. (2015, March 7). Telling the “story” of common reading programs: Using national data. The American College Personnel Association. Tampa, FL. Laufgraben, J. L. (2006). Common reading programs: Going beyond the book (Monograph No. 44). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition Soria, K. M. (2015). Reading, learning, and growing: An examination of the benefits of common book programs for first-year students’ development. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 27(1), 29-47. Young, D. G., & Stolzenberg, E. B. (2017, February 12). (Common) reading is fundamental? Exploring outcomes of common reading programs. The Annual First-Year Experience Conference. Atlanta, GA.
CONTACT Adam Brazil brazila@ku.edu
RETURN to Table of Contents
» page 13
Vol. 18 No. 2 April 2021
E-Source for College Transitions (ISSN 1545-5742) is published three times a year by the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208. The National Resource Center has as its mission to support and advance efforts to improve student learning and transitions into and through higher education. 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 the written approval of the University of South Carolina. The University of South Carolina is an equal opportunity institution.
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS
SUBMISSIONS GUIDELINES
E-Source for College Transitions is accepting submissions for future issues.
For complete guidelines and issue dates, see http://www.sc.edu/fye/ esource. Articles should adhere to guidelines in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.).
E-Source is published three times a year. The submission deadline for the July 2021 issue is January 25, 2021, and the deadline for the October 2021 issue is April 19, 2021. Articles on a variety of topics related to student transitions are welcome, including those focusing on • college transition issues; • innovative and creative strategies to support student learning, development, and success; • organizational structures and institutional resources for supporting college success; and
Rebecca Campbell
Style: Articles, tables, figures, and references should adhere to current APA (American Psychological Association) style. Format: Submissions should be submitted online as a Microsoft Word document, via our online submission portal. Length: Original feature-length articles should be 1,000-1,500 words. The editor reserves the right to edit submissions for length. Please address all questions and submissions to:
• reviews of books and other resources supporting the work of student success practitioners.
PUBLICATIONS STAFF
Audience: E-Source readers include academic and student affairs administrators and faculty from a variety of fields.
Rebecca Campbell, Editor Email: esource@mailbox.sc.edu
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Michelle L. Ashcraft
Amy McEvoy
Purdue University
Dalhousie University
Krista Larson
Marsha Butler
Amelia Noel-Elkins
Jennifer Keup
Tracey Glaessgen
Emily Shreve
Missouri State University
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Charles Haberle
Ahmad Sims
Theresa Haug-Belvin
Michael Sparrow
E-Source Editor
Graphic Designer
Executive Director
Valencia College - West Campus
Providence College
Utah Valley University
Sheryl K. Larson-Rhodes Rhodes State University at New York at Genesco
Elaine Lewis
Utah Valley University
Illinois State University
Tennessee State University
Northampton Community College
Elizabeth Turton
Miami University
Kathryn Wilhite Clemson University
Scott Wojciechowski page 14
High Point University
