Vol. 18 No. 4 December 2021
An Assessment of First-Year Seminar Modality and Academic and Social Belongingness
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
Kennesaw State does a deep dive on how first-year seminar modality affects student engagement and outcomes.
Deborah Smith , Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, Dept. of Interdisciplinary Studies, Kennesaw State University Miyanna Clements-Williamson , Student, Kennesaw State University Kennesaw State University, a large, public, R2 university in the Southeastern United States, has a long-standing three-credit hour, free elective, first-year seminar (FYS) course which met the institution’s previous first-year curriculum requirement. The FYS faculty were housed in an academic department devoted solely to first-year and students in transition. Over the course of an academic year, an adhoc committee of several full-time FYS faculty met to discuss possible course revisions. One proposed course update was to revise the course learning outcomes, which primarily focused on skills and knowledge acquisition. In order to align with current literature (Shook & Keup, 2012; Strayhorn, 2018) and best practices (e.g., near-peer mentoring and positive student/faculty interactions), the faculty deemed emphasizing students’ sense of belongingness should be a primary course learning outcome. Furthermore, they agreed it was essential to focus on two aspects of belongingness – social and academic.
Belongingness Overview Social belongingness concerns a human need for connectedness while academic belongingness involves feeling successful and capable in one’s endeavors (Strayhorn, 2018). Both constructs are related to student attrition (Pittman & Richmond, 2008; Strayhorn, 2018) and as thirty percent of college students do not progress from their first to second year of college (Schneider, 2010), it is important to continue to explore why first-year college retention is so low. Ranging from a lifetime of reduced earnings to a loss in perceived college prestige, students and universities suffer multiple negative consequences when students do not persist to graduation.
Study Purpose While the general effectiveness of FYS has been well researched, the literature is less robust in its comparisons of FYS modalities (e.g., course meeting formats such as hybrid, online, or in-person) and their effectiveness in meeting course learning outcomes. Additionally, while the literature thoroughly discusses the importance of belongingness, there are not studies in which belongingness and the modality of the FYS are considered together. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess how effective the various FYS course modalities were in helping students achieve academic and social belonging. The data gathered was then used to inform course redesign.
Assessing Sense of Belonging by Course Modality in FYS The FYS compared were four sections the lead author (hereafter referred to as I) taught in the previous academic year and included classes that met (a) twice a week in person (one as a stand-alone seminar and one embedded in a learning community); (b) fully online (asynchronous); and (c) in person 34% of the time and online the remaining 66% (hybrid format). Other than the difference that students in the learning community went through an application and selection process, there were no other differences between the students in the four classes. All students in the three non-learning community sections chose to take the elective FYS. The students in the learning community section chose to be in the program, which included the FYS as one of the two required courses. All four classes contained identical assignments, readings, activities,
An Assessment of First-Year Seminar Modality and Academic and Social Belongingness
4
The Benefits of a Provisional Admission Program as a Strategy to Increase Enrollment The College of Charleston uses provisional admissions to increase enrollment without lowering enrollment standards.
6
Effecting Change: A Redesigned FYS Call-to-Action ServiceLearning Project Reinhardt University redesigns their service-learning project to increase student engagement and allow for online delivery.
9
11
Rethinking a Faculty Academic Advising Model Moravian University considers fundamental questions about faculty advising and strengthening its connections to the first-year seminar.
Who Gets In?: Determining Equitable Admissions Criteria for Students from Migrant Backgrounds Problem The University of Kansas facilitates the transition of a vulnerable group of students through the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP).
WWW.SC.EDU/FYE/ESOURCE
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 4 December 2021 and resources related to belongingness. Assignment examples were (a) attending campus events and writing follow-up reflections; (b) completing a career research project; (c) developing an academic plan; and (d) reading and responding to blogs about belongingness written by former Kennesaw State University first-year students. The assignments either introduced students to campus resources which support their academic success or helped them connect socially with peers and envision themselves as part of the campus community. Students were invited to participate in the study and given the same questionnaire at the beginning and end of the semester. The questionnaire was comprised of demographic, Likert scale, and open-ended questions about students’ understanding and sense of academic and social belongingness. The students were also asked to identify campus resources that could help them with improving their academic and social belongingness. The response rate was 71% on the pre-test (n=95) and 72% on the post-test (n=90; A few students dropped the course. Thus, while the n is lower on the post-test the response percentage was higher). In both the pre- and post-test, comparable sample sizes were spread across each of the four sections. An analysis of the students’ self-ratings and open-ended question responses on the pre- and post-tests did not reveal differences between the four groups on academic belongingness levels but did on social belongingness levels (detailed below).
Academic Belongingness Findings Students in all four sections rated themselves higher in their understanding of the general academic system and in academic belonging at the end of the semester than at the beginning of the semester. Their open-ended definitions of academic belongingness for themselves were also more robust at the end of the semester than at the beginning of the semester. For example, pre-test definitions of academic belongingness were generally very brief (e.g., good grades or not failing). Post-test definitions, however, had evolved to include statements about academic abilities and knowing the university cared about student success. Students also identified many more academic resources in the post-test than they did in the pre-test.
Figure 1 Ranking of Social Belongingness Levels by Class Modality. page 2
Social Belongingness Findings There was a slight improvement between the pre- and post-test responses in all four groups’ ratings of the degree to which they felt they socially belonged at the university. Students in the section that met twice a week in person, and was also a part of a learning community, rated themselves higher than their peers in the other sections on social belongingness. This finding is in congruence with other research which reports on the added benefits of embedding a FYS in a learning community, as opposed to offering it as a stand-alone course (Swing, 2004). Conversely, students in the fully online, asynchronous, standalone section rated themselves the lowest on social belongingness and showed the least improvement from the pre- to post-test among the four groups. The fully online students made comments such as “I’m never on campus so I feel disconnected” and “I don’t feel like this school is for me.” Among their peers, they were also the group least aware of resources available to help them develop a sense of social belongingness. Figure 1 depicts the social belongingness study findings.
Course Revisions Over the course of a semester, all four modalities of the FYS were successful in fostering academic belongingness. However, since professors were rarely mentioned as an academic resource, I will be incorporating an assignment in my future FYS which will require students to attend professor office hours in one of their other courses. As mentioned in the findings, online students had the lowest levels of social belongingness. Feedback from end of course evaluations also pointed towards high levels of isolation in online students. As noted in Korstange et al.’s (2020) article, online FYEs are a new reality that are increasingly being offered. Accordingly, my initial FYS course revisions were centered on enhancing social belongingness in online sections. I made three adaptations to my most recently taught fully online, asynchronous section of FYS (which was the only modality of the FYS I taught that semester). Since students in the other FYS modalities offered in previous semesters commented on the benefits of being
able to consistently connect with me face-to-face, I attempted to create a similar connection with my online students. First, I added weekly module videos to the course. Besides introducing module objectives and assignments, the goal of the videos was for students to regularly see my face, hear my voice, and perhaps connect with me on a more personal level. The videos were short, informal, and filmed in a variety of settings so as to potentially provide a sense of connection for students (e.g. on the campus green or at a local, popular hiking trail). Students were invited to identify where the videos were filmed and share their own story or picture about the locations. Second, to increase facultystudent connectivity, I occasionally provided audio or video feedback, instead of only written comments on assignments. End-of-course evaluations indicated the students appreciated and enjoyed the videos and video feedback.
References
Third, I added two peer leaders to the course (peer leaders had previously been utilized only in sections that met in person). The peer leaders had taken FYS and were participating in a Student Affairs leadership program through which they received ongoing training and development. The peer leaders were not paid and were charged with helping first-year students connect to and engage with the university (i.e., social belongingness). Each peer leader had a group of approximately ten students with whom they regularly kept in touch. Built into the course were two assignments the first-year students discussed with their peer leader – one related to campus engagement and one about developing a growth mindset. The peer leaders also (a) made an introduction on the course introduction discussion board and responded to their small group of students’ introductory posts; (b) posted announcements of interest to students; and (c) created/posted videos that provided a student perspective on various course topics. Responses from two reflective assignments confirmed the students greatly valued their peer leader. While the first-year students welcomed academic success tips from their peer leader, they were most thankful for the myriad of ways their peer leader helped them better understand and connect to their university.
Shook, J. L, & Keup, J. R. (2012). The benefits of peer leader programs: An overview from the literature. New Directions for Higher Education, 157, 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20002
Conclusion This study revealed some distinct differences in social sense of belonging between the four course modalities. It is important for FYS faculty to be aware of these differences so they can design their courses and employ pedagogical strategies that will most enhance their students’ social belongingness levels. My recent course revisions offer a starting point. As the global pandemic continues and multiple aspects of our students’ lives take place online, helping them feel less isolated and more connected to their collegiate community is essential.
Korstange, R.,Hall, J., Holcomb, J., & Jackson, J. (2020). The online First-Year Experience: Defining and illustrating a new reality. Adult Learning, 31(3), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159519892680 Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and psychological adjustment during the transition to college. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(4), 343-361. https://doi. org/10.3200/JEXE.76.4.343-362 Schneider, M. (2010, October). Finishing the first lap: The cost of firstyear student attrition in America’s four-year colleges and universities. American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/ AIR_Schneider_Finishing_the_First_Lap_Oct101.pdf
Strayhorn, T.L. (2018). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781315297293 Swing, R. (2004). The improved learning outcomes of linked versus standalone first-year seminars. In J. M. Henscheid (Ed.), Integrating the firstyear experience: The role of learning communities in first-year seminars (Monograph No. 39, pp. 9-16). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
CONTACT Deborah Smith dsmith1@kennesaw.edu
RETURN to Table of Contents
»
page 3
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 4 December 2021
The Benefits of a Provisional Admission Program as a Strategy to Increase Enrollment Robin Stewart, Director, Impact Programs, Center for Academic Performance and Persistence, College of Charleston
The Benefits of a Provisional Admission Program as a Strategy to Increase Enrollment A report by the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education found that “provisional admission programs can provide the much-needed structure and support that many academically underprepared students need upon enrolling in college” (Nichols & Clinedinst, 2013). Provisional or Conditional admission programs allow colleges and universities to increase their enrollment numbers and provide greater access to higher education for students who fall below admission standards. Creating a provisional program can be a strategy for colleges & universities seeking to increase tuition revenue without having to lower their academic admission standards in order to remain competitive (Hughes et al., 2020).
College of Charleston Provisional Program Overview Located in Charleston, South Carolina, the College of Charleston is a public institution with more than 10,000 students. In 2012, the Director of the Center for Academic Performance & Persistence determined that provisionally admitted students were not given enough targeted support to reach the GPA and credit requirements needed in order to be fully admitted after receiving feedback from students and parents. The Director worked with Institutional Research to do a comprehensive data review to determine predictive factors of graduation for these students. After the review was completed, the provisional program became the First Year Impact (FYI) program in 2015 and expanded to support both provisionally admitted and bridge students in their transition from high school through their first academic year of college. The Director and Program Coordinator of Impact Programs manage the FYI program at the College of Charleston. The FYI program now supports about 300 students each semester with over 50 peer academic coaches mentoring them. The key elements of the FYI program were completing specific academic requirements supported by the involvement of peer academic coaches and FYI program staff. Students in the FYI program signed a learning contract outlining the academic requirements they would need to meet during their first two semesters. The FYI program contract requirements were created to assist students in their transition from high school to college level classes. Those requirements included a minimum 2.00 GPA and completion of 24 credits, bi-weekly meetings with a peer academic coach (PAC), attendance at advising sessions, and grade monitoring by program staff. Additionally, students not meeting the GPA requirement after the first semester are required to take EDLS-100 Learning Strategies, an academic recovery class. After the second semester, students who have met the requirements become fully enrolled at the College of Charleston. Students not meeting program requirements cannot continue at the College of Charleston and must complete 30 hours of transferable credit at another accredited institution before applying for conditional readmission at a future date.
page 4
Importance of Peer Academic Coaches Based on a survey given by FYI staff at the end of the Fall 2020 semester, 93.5% of students in the program responded that their PAC was the most important aspect of the FYI program. FYI staff hire and train former FYI students for these paid leadership positions each academic year. Students who successfully completed the program and work as a PAC are able to build strong connections with current FYI students since they can provide a personal perspective on how the program helped them and can help students navigate similar challenges. Academic Coaches give individualized support by going through syllabi for each class, guiding preparation for upcoming assignments and exams, and helping students create weekly time management plans that balance completing coursework with extracurricular activities and work. A current provisionally admitted student said the following: “I loved being a part of the first-year impact program, and having a PAC really helped ease the transition. The first year impact program gave me tools and methods to be successful here at the College, and I plan on using these for the rest of my life. I met with my PAC and talked with her about my studies, how I was doing, and she was always there for me whenever I needed her. Being a part of this really helped ease my transition, helped me get to know my way around campus, and I could ask her questions and advice which was really helpful as well.” Academic coaches also connect students to campus resources such as faculty office hours, the counseling center, academic tutoring, and the student health center. They also share opportunities for students to engage on campus through student organizations and attending events.
Role of FYI Staff FYI program staff also play an integral role in supporting FYI students. They collaborate with the Center for Student Learning to offer academic workshops for FYI students on topics such as time management, critical reading skills, and test taking strategies. Program staff review midterm grades and meet with students not meeting the GPA requirement who are at risk for not being able to continue as a student at the College of Charleston. When final grades post, all students are emailed an update with their current GPA, credits, and expectations for the next semester. FYI staff also meet individually with students who are not meeting program requirements after their first semester. Challenges are discussed with the student for goal setting and determining a plan for improvement in order to be continued after their second semester. A former FYI student said the following: “The impact program is a great experience. I feel very fortunate that I am/ was a part of it genuinely. I feel as though I have some type of upper hand on most students. This program makes me feel like people other than my mom genuinely care about me becoming the absolute best and healthiest me. The only thing
I would like to add or say is a thank you to Robin Stewart. She genuinely is one of the nicest, most genuine people I have ever met. As soon as I joined a zoom call with her I instantly felt a positive vibration from her. Her smile is radiant and she makes me and I am sure everyone she meets feels welcome. So much so that I met with her twice by choice and strongly expressed how much I enjoyed her presence! Also, thank you for believing in me and not being another negative person in my ear saying that I couldn’t do it. She made me feel excited to speak with her.”
Conclusion Over the last two years, 85% of students in the FYI program have been successfully retained as fully enrolled students at the College of Charleston. For institutions considering creating a provisional program, be sure to conduct a needs-based assessment on your college mission and strategic plan to determine your program goals based on resources available at your institution (Nichols & Clinedinst, 2013). Provisional programs allow students to demonstrate that they are capable of being successful in college even though they were not originally offered full admission. Students benefit by having greater access to higher education and institutions benefit by increasing enrollment numbers for students who would otherwise not have the opportunity to attend. Even before the financial impacts of COVID-19, the competition for students had become more critical. State funding for colleges and universities has steadily decreased since the 2008 recession and the overall number of high school students available to pursue higher education has dropped over the last 10 years (Butrymowicz & D’Amato, 2020). Institutions need to seek new targeted admission strategies to prevent a significant decline in future tuition revenue. Creating a provisional admission program could provide the financial solution colleges are looking for to help mitigate continued budget cuts due to the current nationwide enrollment crisis.
CONTACT Robin Stewart stewartrc@cofc.edu
RETURN
to Table of Contents
»
References Butrymowicz, S. & D’Amato, P. (2020). A crisis is looming for U.S. colleges and not just because of the pandemic. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews. com/news/education/crisis-looming-u-s-colleges-not-just-becausepandemic-n1235338 Hughes, P., Nutter, C., & Ryan, J. (2020). A second chance at success: Retention through provisional admission programs. The Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange. https://csrde.ou.edu/wp-content/uploads/ White-Paper-2020-A-Second-Chance-at-Success.pdf Nichols, A.H., & Clinedinst, M. (2013). Provisional admission practices: Blending access and support to facilitate student success. The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.http://www. pellinstitute.org/downloads/publications-Provisional_Admission_ Practices_April_ 2013.pdf
page 5
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 4 December 2021
Effecting Change: A Redesigned FYS Call-to-Action Service Learning Project Lydia Laucella , Assistant Director, Center for Innovative Teaching and Engaged Learning, Assistant Professor of Education and Instructional Design Center for Innovative Teaching and Engaged Learning, Reinhardt University Dr. Walter May , Dean of Students, Reinhardt University
Abstract During the Covid-19 pandemic, some college students have felt isolated, seeking connections with peers, with faculty, and with community partners. During this time, political and social issues in the United States have brought awareness to the need for a platform for youth to voice their opinions and to effect change. During the Fall 2020 semester, the Reinhardt University FYS administrators were tasked with revising the FYS curriculum to fit the needs of its first-year student population. To fit a new course design, a pre-existing service learning project would need to be redesigned to be student-driven, site-flexible, social-change forward, compliant with Covid-19 restrictions, and aligned to the institution’s QEP assessment plan. This article outlines the creation of the 6- week long project titled, Effecting Change: A Call-to-Action Service Learning Project, which resulted in Reinhardt’s first-year students making an impact on the Reinhardt University campus and its surrounding communities.
Introduction Service learning and community-based learning opportunities are recognized as a high-impact educational practice by the Association of American Colleges and Universities. These learning opportunities “model the idea that giving something back to the community is an important college outcome, and that working with community partners is good preparation for citizenship, work, and life” (AAC&U, 2020). Service to the institution and to the larger community is an integral part of Reinhardt University’s (RU) culture and aligns with the university’s mission, which is to educate the whole person by developing the intellectual, social, personal, vocational, spiritual, and physical dimensions of its students. It is also an integral part of Reinhardt University’s First-Year Seminar (FYS) course, a 25-person capacity course that is mandatory for all incoming, first-year students.
Problem In the Fall 2020 semester, 310 first-year students were enrolled across 15 FYS course sections, including two Honors sections. The Covid-19 pandemic required Reinhardt’s FYS administrators-the author (current FYS Coordinator) and coauthor, Dr. Walter May (Dean of Students and former FYS Coordinator)- to replicate engaging face-to-face interactions typical of the FYS course in modified online spaces. This was particularly challenging in a course that is reliant on fostering in-person, studentto-student, and student-to-faculty interactions, especially since many of RU’s students could face difficulty engaging in on-ground classes because of work commitments, athletic travel, or quarantine mandates based on pandemic mitigation efforts. A micro-hybrid FYS course model was piloted in Fall 2020 that was intentionally designed to accommodate the first-year students’ needs. The micro-hybrid course fused brief on-ground; in-person scheduled meetings (students were provided a synchronous meeting option) with
page 6
additional weekly asynchronous learning components. All sections of FYS utilized the same course design, providing a common first-year experience. In the process of redesigning the course, the FYS faculty encountered a hurdle, how to redesign a pre-existing service learning component that would fit the micro-hybrid course design model while accounting for Covid-19 masking and social distancing requirements. Additionally, RU’s Quality Enhancement Plan required specific assessment and reporting guidelines for service learning experiences. Therefore, the redesigned service learning project needed to be student-driven, site-flexible, and aligned to RU’s QEP assessment plan.
Designing Effecting Change When considering how to redesign the project, not only would the outcome of the project need to be measurable for reporting HIP engagement, but what is more, the FYS faculty felt a sense of urgency to create a project that could foster meaningful connections to the campus and to the community. This sense of urgency arose because of two reasons- the impact of Covid-19 on our first-year students and the social climate in the United States during the time of the project’s redesign. Covid-19 could negatively impact students’ college transition experiences and their development of a sense of belonging. Many college students have felt isolated because of the pandemic (Gopalan & Brady 2020). Quarantine, social distancing, and limited social interactions might have curtailed students’ interactions with faculty, students, and community partners. Yet, these interactions are vital to first-year students’ development of a sense of belonging. The project redesign was also influenced by the political and social climate of the United States during the time of the redesign. There was a rise in youth-activism, a heightened awareness of social justice issues, and the desire for a platform in which youth can voice their opinions and effect change. Effecting Change: A Call-to-Action Service Learning Project, was created as a fusion of Delaney’s (2015) call-to-action project with a previous social-change forward project the author had created. Effecting Change was a six-week project, containing four components: a proposal, a check-in, the call-to-action, and a presentation. The Effecting Change project was designed to be student-driven, siteflexible, and social-change forward. Students a.) picked a call-to-action subject of interest, b.) completed research on their subject of interest and developed a rationale for why they chose that subject, c.) chose their audience (requirements were at least twenty people), d.) proposed a timeline to complete their call-to-action, and e.) chose a method in which they would conduct it (e.g. petition, donation, solicitation of a behavioral change). Students chose their cause and conducted their call-to-action in any desired format as long as it adhered to the audience requirements. For instance, they could choose to create and distribute t-shirts on campus spreading awareness of youth suicide prevention, or, they could choose to elicit Red Cross donations for the 2020 wildfires in Oregon.
It aligned to RU’s QEP assessment plan; the measurable outcome of the project was the students’ creation of a Pecha Kucha- style presentation (a story-telling presentation style). The QEP standards were included in the project description; student reflections on the QEP standards were necessary to earn full credit on their presentations. The presentation was aligned to a common rubric in Canvas that assessed for the following QEP Professional Development standards based on the service learning HIP: 1. Initiative: How did completion of this service learning project help you generate and pursue opportunities to expand your knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes, or values? 2. Independence: How did you go about gathering more information on your subject, how did you approach information gathering differently as a result of this experience, and how did this approach inform future professional challenges? 3. Curiosity: How would you continue this project? 4. Transfer: How have you applied the knowledge you gained during your service learning experience to other areas of their life? In particular, how has this project fueled your imagination, independent thought, and lifelong learning? 5. Self-Reflection/Self-Assessment: What did you learn about your strengths and weaknesses as it relates to professional development through completion of this service learning project? FYS instructors evaluated the products of the service learning projects based on the common outcome rubric associated with the assignment. These outcome scores were retrieved using reporting mechanisms in Reinhardt’s LMS.
Assessment of Effecting Change After completing the project in the Fall 2020 semester, the FYS faculty learned important lessons that would influence future
iterations of the project. The faculty discovered that the Office of Student Affairs was overwhelmed from fielding students’ logistical questions and were unprepared for the project’s enormity. At the time of the project, RU did not have a funding structure in place to support students’ projects; funding is now in the approval process. The FYS faculty discovered that it was vital to collaborate with RU’s Coordinator of Spiritual Life and Service to provide community outreach resources for students interested in working with community partners. Finally, students needed models to help them understand the final desired outcome of the project. It was hypothesized that based on QEP assessment results the redesigned project would indicate deeper student reflection on their service-learning experience than the prior year (Fall 2019);however, it is important to acknowledge that the data from the Fall 2019 and Fall 2020 semesters are not comparable for numerous reasons. First, the student artifact assessed in 2019 was a service learning reflection paper, but in Fall 2020, it was a Pecha Kucha presentation. Second, the measured service learning experiences were not comparable. In Fall 2019, FYS students engaged in a service learning project in partnership with Junior Achievement of Georgia. In Fall 2020, students engaged in the Effecting Change service learning projects. Third, reporting numbers were different between the Fall 2019 and Fall 2020 semesters. In Fall 2019, there were n= 419 first-year students enrolled in FYS, n= ~250 (or ~59%) of those students were assessed via the outcome rubric. In Fall 2020, there were n=310 students enrolled in FYS, n= ~150 (or ~48%) of those students were assessed via the outcome rubric (N.M. Conklin, personal communication, March 9, 2021). Exploratory statistical analysis revealed no statistically significant differences between Fall 2019 and Fall 2020. However, based on the mean outcome scores, the Fall 2020 assessment scores outperformed Fall 2019 on two QEP standards: Independence and Curiosity. Transfer and Self-Assessment results were similar between the Fall 2019 and Fall 2020 semesters. And, in Fall 2019,
2.5
Mean Outcome Score
2.0
1.5
Course Term 2020
1.0
2019 0.5
0.0
QEP 2-1 Initiative
QEP 2-2 Independence
QEP 2-3 Curiosity
QEP 2-4 Transfer
QEP 2-5 Self-Assessment
Learning Outcome Name Figure 1 QEP Summary Assessment Report Results, Fall 2019 and Fall 2020. page 7
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 4 December 2021 Initiative outperformed Fall 2020 (see Figure 1) (N.M. Conklin, personal communication, March 9, 2021). Although the data is unable to indicate whether students reflected more deeply on their service learning experiences, anecdotally, the FYS faculty observed that some students used the project to socially interact. Even though the project was originally designed to be an individual project, some students collaborated within their course or with students from other FYS courses. For instance, some students collaborated to establish a RU Fall Festival that involved combining numerous student groups running donation drives or advertising their causes. Another group reinstated the campus recycling program. Throughout the duration of the project, many FYS students had to collaborate with faculty and staff on campus, and with other organizations outside of campus, in order to achieve a successful project. For example, one student collaborated with a local theatre company and raised money to support it because it had been negatively impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. The FYS faculty also observed that many students enjoyed the project. In one class, the majority of students indicated in their end-of-term course evaluations that their favorite assignment was the service learning project (n=10 out of 16 respondents). In another, n=4 out of 8 respondents indicated that it was their favorite assignment. Further, one student stated in her project: “This project has absolutely invigorated me for more service in the future…I’ve realized that if you just pick something you care about and you want done, you should want to improve your community.” Some students also demonstrated an authentic passion for their topic and dedication to the project after the end of the course. At least two groups were still actively engaged in their causes after the end of the fall 2020 semester: one of which was a group that reinstated the LGBTQ+ Alliance on campus. They are still actively running the club and presented their project at Reinhardt’s Spring 2021 Convocation of Artists and Scholars. The other, was a group of students who have continued their cause of reinvigorating the campus recycling program.
Conclusion As a result of the redesigned service learning project, RU’s FYS students collaborated, acted, and effected change, and in some cases, longterm change. In conclusion, the Effecting Change service learning project was student-driven, site-flexible, and social-change forward. It was Covid-19 social distancing and masking compliant, and it aligned to RU’s QEP assessment plan. More importantly, the Effecting Change service learning project provided a platform in which students were given the opportunity to engage with each other, with faculty, and with community partners to effect change on the Reinhardt campus and its surrounding communities.
References AAC&U. (2020). High- Impact Educational Practices: A Brief Overview. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu. org/node/4084 Delaney, S. (2015). How can I create an online service learning project? [Video]. Magna Publications 20-Minute Mentor Series. https://www. magnalearning.com/learn/video/how-can-i-create-an-online-servicelearning-project Gopalan, M., & Brady, S. (2020). Fostering College Students’ Sense of Belonging Amidst COVID-19: Recommendations for higher education institutions. Penn State Social Science Research Institute. https://covid-19. ssri.psu.edu/articles/fostering-college-students-sense-belongingamidst-covid-19
page 8
CONTACT Lydia Laucella Lydia.Laucella@reinhardt.edu
RETURN
to Table of Contents
»
Rethinking a Faculty Academic Advising Model Robert Brill, Associate Professor of Psychology, Moravian University Dr. Nancy Allen, Director of Advising, Moravian University Moravian College, a small liberal arts college in Pennsylvania, faced the challenges of increasing retention among first and second-year students (baseline retention rate of 80.50%) and the difficulty of recruiting faculty to advise first-year students. The existing model, which tied advising with the First-Year Writing Seminar (FYWS), was not sustainable because faculty time in training was focused on first-year writing strategies with no time devoted to advising training. Therefore, an Academic Advising Task Force (AATF), which included both faculty and the Director of Academic Advising, was charged with rethinking the faculty advising program. Committed to a faculty advising system, the AATF sought ways to integrate the best practices of professional advising systems into faculty advising. The new advising model built upon the work of Hemwall and Trachtee (2005) in “Academic Advising as Learning: 10 Organizing Principles”, connecting advising to the teaching responsibilities of faculty, and embracing advising as a relationship with shared responsibilities between the faculty advisor and the student. While the model proposed was a faculty advising system for the four-year undergraduate experience, this overview focuses on advising first-year students.
Front-end Assessment The AATF surveyed the faculty (n = 128) to ascertain if academic advising should continue to be yoked with teaching The First-Year Writing Seminar. Sixty-two faculty responded (48.44% response rate), representing 85% of the academic departments. Participants identified which model (advising integrated with or separated from FYWS) was most effective. Survey results demonstrated that 35.6% saw critical synergy in teaching FYWS with students they were also advising. They identified shared connections between instructor and students because students chose the FYWS theme; setting up opportunities for building rapport during class; and using class time for efficient group advising. The survey also demonstrated the concerns of 64.4% that FYWS was challenging enough without the added advising responsibilities. Other supporting responses suggested that time was needed for more writing instruction, faculty’s lack of confidence in advising students in an unfamiliar major, a lack of confidence in teaching writing, wanting to teach FYWS without the large advising load, and being able to avoid the awkwardness of advising students who were doing poorly in their FYWS class. Finally, difficulties in recruiting faculty to serve in the dual role model provided another indication a needed change.
Advising aligned with college’s mission and values The proposed advising program adapted an advising as teaching and learning model, complementing the college’s liberal arts mission to “ensure that reflection is a central learning outcome” (Strategic Plan 1.2.1 Success Measure 1). Advising, like teaching, is an ongoing dialogue engaging students in active learning as they shape their academic plans. Each year, faculty would be recruited to serve as First Year Faculty Advisors (FYFA). Faculty who advised in the former model were permitted to continue teaching the FYWS.
Early connection between the College and faculty advisors and students The Director of Advising, in conjunction with the Admissions team, developed a robust communication plan to ensure that FirstYear students are connected with the college as soon as they are matriculated. Students receive a welcome letter from Admissions and an email from the Dean of Student Success, asking students to complete an online orientation. The online orientation includes the following: •
Questions about the student’s “intended major” and professional interests;
•
Descriptions of both the student and advisor responsibilities;
•
Information about student support and accessibility services; and
•
Instructions for accessing the student system and registering for the First Year Writing Seminar.
Information about students’ intended major and intended professional direction enabled advising staff to assign an appropriate advisor and build a significant portion of each student’s schedule before summer orientation. If a student is undecided, the Director of Advising speaks with the student to get additional information about the student’s interest.
One-on-one and group advising Faculty advisors attend three summer orientations to meet with their 20 first-year students. A week before orientation, faculty advisors send a welcome email to each student, that included reflection questions about the college experience. During orientation, faculty advisors meet in small groups with advisees to discuss the responsibilities of both student and advisor in the advising relationship, emphasizing the importance of an active teaching and learning relationship, as well as the importance of being proactive in seeking academic support. Other topics discussed in small groups included the transition from high school to college, time management, and setting academic goals for the first semester and first year. Subsequent half-hour individual advising sessions allow time for advisors to get to know each student and talk about individual academic goals. Faculty advisors meet with students individually during the first two weeks of classes, continuing the discussion about the transition to college and making any necessary course changes. Faculty identify students who need extra support. At midsemester, faculty meet with students receiving unsatisfactory or failing grades. All advisees meet to discuss spring courses and ongoing academic goals. Faculty advisors reach out to all their advisees in the first few weeks of the spring semester to ask if there are any questions or concerns. Advisors, then, meet with advisees to discuss potential majors and course planning for the second year. All faculty advisors are required to meet with all advisees placed on probation during the first week of the Spring Semester to develop an academic plan.
page 9
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 4 December 2021 Advisors meet with advisees frequently to ensure advisees are following the academic plan.
Faculty advisor training Faculty advisors are required to participate in six Professional Development Workshops (two during the first spring semester, focusing on summer orientation and the initial fall advising meetings; two during the fall semester to address mid-term interventions, academic standing, and ongoing advising issues; and two during the second spring semester to discuss declaration of major and bridges to academic departments). Advisor training topics included: •
Advising as Teaching and Learning
•
Intrusive or Proactive Advising
•
Developing a Philosophy of Advising
•
Empowering students to take responsibility for their own learning in academic advising
•
Working with Undecided Students
•
Advisors as Referral Agents: College Community
•
Mastering the Technology Needed for Advising
•
Working with At-Risk Students
•
Liberal arts approach to personal and professional development and exploration of academic majors
•
Strategies for getting students engaged with pre-professional or Academic Major Requirements
Connecting Students to the
The training workshops provided a philosophical framework for advising as well as practical information. Since we learn from each other, time was always provided for discussion.
this latter metric, additional structure and support is needed for sophomores who are undecided regarding their academic major. It should be noted that these retention rate changes exist and are reported outside of any rigorous controlled design strategy, so causal inferences are not possible.
Conclusion This faculty advising model and the subsequent retention success can be generalized to other colleges. Current “next efforts” will be to explore best practices within academic departments and work with students as they transition to the major. Ongoing efforts to ensure staffing sustainability needs to be a priority, which is not always easy in economically constrained institutions. Critical to the success of the model is support for properly trained faculty who valued advising and teaching first-year students.
References Hemwall, M. K. & Trachte, K. C. (2005). Academic advising as learning: 10 organizing principles. NACADA Journal, 25 (2), 74 - 83. Williams, S. R. & Manning, N. F. (2014). The sophomore transition: Considerations for effective academic advising. NACADA Clearinghouse: Academic Advising Resources. https://nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/ View-Articles/The-sophomore-transition-Considerations-for-effectiveacademic-advising-a3285.aspx
CONTACT Robert Brill brillr@moravian.edu
Attention to Undecided Students While workshops addressed needs of undecided students, additional programmatic support is also needed. Many students who do not get established in an academic major at the end of the first year are not prepared for the lack of structure in the sophomore year (Williams & Manning, 2014). To this end, the college saw the need to provide a course, “Exploring the Liberal Arts and Sciences,” for undeclared sophomores, with the following goals: •
Explore the relationship between intellectual and emotional skills and academic majors;
•
Articulate an understanding of academic major and skills development with students in the course; with faculty members, and with alumni;
•
Complete the Strong Campbell Inventory and StrengthsQuest activities to identify interests and strengths; and
•
Study the history of Liberal Arts and Sciences education in the United States through stories of prominent individuals.
Retention Success First-year to sophomore retention increased two percentage points for the first cohort engaged in the new model (2018: 82.47%) from the baseline (2017: 80.50%). This improvement level was sustained for the second cohort (2019: 82.67). This change magnitude continued for the only available first-year to Junior rate (2018 cohort: 74.39%) compared to baseline cohort (2017: 72.96%). To increase
page 10
RETURN
to Table of Contents
»
Who Gets In? Determining Equitable Admissions Criteria for Students from Migrant Backgrounds Silas Schaeffer , Graduate Research Assistant, University of Kansas
Problem
Impact on Student Success
Migrant workers are essential to the United States’ economy. They work important jobs such as planting and harvesting crops and processing and packing meat. These workers put food on the table for millions of Americans by engaging in work that is physically exhausting and sometimes dangerous. Despite the importance of migrant and seasonal farmworkers (MSFWs), many live under the poverty line, with few opportunities for economic mobility (Hernandez & Gabbard, 2018).
While it would be ideal for all students from migrant families to participate in CAMP, limited federal resources make that unfeasible. The limitation of funds means that students are accepted to CAMP on a competitive basis, requiring administrators to use criteria such as high school GPA, ACT scores, and entrance essays to decide which students will be accepted.
The difficulties of MSFWs do not end with the workers themselves but extend to their children as well. Students from migrant, seasonal, and farmwork families have lower secondary and postsecondary outcomes (Green, 2003; Salinas & Reyes, 2004). Like any vulnerable population, they face a series of unique challenges and thus deserve the chance to obtain the necessary support and resources to help them succeed (Cranston-Gingras, Morse, & McHatton, 2004). Programs, such as the federal College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), provide support to these students through resources which includes scholarships, academic counseling, tutoring, and social gatherings (Araujo, 2011; Ramirez, 2010). CAMP provides targeted supports and services to help these students transition into college. CAMP is a 5-year federally funded college access program that helps high school students from migrant farm work backgrounds transition to college through help with college and scholarship applications and assistance with FAFSA completion. CAMP also supports students through their first year of post-secondary education by providing advising, tutoring, freshman success courses, and social events to foster a sense of belonging among students. The CAMP program described in this study served 35 students each year across four institutions: two 2-year community colleges and two 4-year institutions. There are about 40 CAMP projects in the United States. Most CAMPs partner with one Institute of Higher Education (IHE) and work exclusively with students that have been admitted to and are currently enrolled in classes at that IHE. However, there are some CAMPs, particularly those in the Midwest, that work with students from several different IHE’s simultaneously. The reason for this is due to the low population density and widespread location of midwestern migrant and seasonal workers. Most CAMP students come from Latinx backgrounds and their parents are seasonal farm laborers. The demographics of Midwestern CAMP students are different; there is an almost even proportion of students from Latinx and Southeast Asian backgrounds (e.g., Thai, Khmer, Laotian, Hmong, Vietnamese). The students’ parents are often involved in the meat packing industry, rather than working as farm laborers. The meatpacking industry remains a dangerous industry, including hazards of physical exertion and exposure to dangerous chemicals (Smith, 2017). These challenges facing the families of migrant students significantly impact their children’s academic success.
One of the challenges facing admissions administrators of any program is to establish fair and equitable criteria that also accurately predict the success of the students. Our study examined High School GPA and ACT scores to see if they significantly predicted the first-year completion of students from migrant backgrounds. After determining if the two variables were predictive of firstyear completion, we investigated if students from Latinx and Southeast Asian backgrounds differed in their High School GPA or ACT scores. While deciding which students will be admitted is never an easy process, many CAMP administrators select from an almost entirely Latinx population, making it more manageable for them to compare students’ GPA and ACT scores. Midwestern CAMP administrators have the additional complication of having an almost even number of Latinx and Southeast Asian students. There is some research on the academic factors that predict the success of Latinx students in CAMP programs (Mendez & Bauman, 2018; Ramirez, 2010). However, the same cannot be said about migrant students from Southeast Asian backgrounds. This study fills a void of literature predicting the first-year completion of students from Southeast Asian backgrounds and also is unique in providing a comparison in the achievement of migrant students from Latinx and Southeast Asian backgrounds.
The Study Our research investigated data from 163 undergraduate CAMP students attending midwestern colleges or universities. All students accepted to the target CAMP program submitted their high school transcript, demographic information (gender and ethnicity), and financial information as part of the application process. This information was entered into SPSS and used to conduct the following statistical analyses: 1. We conducted two t-tests to see if Latinx and Southeast Asian students differed on high school GPA or composite ACT scores. 2. We then conducted a logistic regression to examine the effects of gender, ethnicity, GPA, and ACT scores on students’ firstyear completion.
Findings An independent samples t-test was conducted to see if there was a difference in ACT scores and high school GPAs among students from Latinx and Southeast Asian backgrounds. Admitted students from Latinx backgrounds (M = 20.72, SD = 4.96) had
page 11
eSource for College Transitions, Vol. 18 No. 4 December 2021 statistically significantly higher ACT scores than students from Asian backgrounds (M = 14.94, SD = 4.12), t(89) = -6.10, p < .001. No significant difference between Latinx students (M = 3.23, SD = .72) and Asian students (M = 3.22, SD = .45) was found in high school GPA, t(140) = -0.09, p = .93.
References
A logistic regression was performed to investigate the effects of gender, ethnicity, GPA, and ACT scores on the likelihood that students completed their first year in higher education. The logistic regression model was not statistically significant, χ2(4, N = 89) = 6.67, p = .16. While it was not statistically significant it still accounted for 16% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variance in completion of the first year in higher education and correctly classified 91% of cases. While no variables were statistically significant, high school GPA was approaching significance, Wald χ2 (1, N = 89) = 3.49, p = .06, as seen in Table 1. For a one unit increase in GPA, the odds of completing the first year of college increased by 6.88%.
Cranston-Gingras, A., Morse, W., & McHatton, P. (2004). First-year college experiences of students from migrant farmworker families. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 16(1), 9-25.
Implications for the Future
Mendez, J. J., & Bauman, S. (2018). From migrant farmworkers to first generation latina/o students: Factors predicting college outcomes for students participating in the college assistance migrant program. The Review of Higher Education, 42(1), 173-208.
The results of our study indicated that admitted students from Latinx backgrounds scored higher on the ACT than admitted students from Southeast Asian backgrounds, but that both groups had similar high school GPAs. Further research is needed to ascertain the specific cause of this difference, but it could be explained by the high percentage of students from Southeast Asian backgrounds who are refugees (Museus, 2013; Uy, Kim, & Khuon, 2019). The lower ACT scores could then result from not possessing the necessary forms of capital to navigate the U.S. standardized testing system (Duong et al., 2016; Salinas & Reyes, 2004). High school GPA and ACT scores are traditionally two of the most heavily considered variables in the college admissions process. The results of our study suggest that GPA is a better criterion for college administrators working with migrant students from both Southeast Asian and Latinx backgrounds than are ACT scores. While there was a significant difference in Latinx and Southeast Asian students’ ACT scores, their high school GPAs and first-year college completion rates were similar. The admissions criteria used could greatly affect students from migrant backgrounds in their ability to be admitted to college, accepted to programs such as CAMP, or be eligible for merit-based scholarships. Administrators are often asked to make these difficult decisions largely based on a student’s high school achievement. With this in mind, we recommend that GPA is a more equitable admissions criteria than ACT scores for students from Latinx and Southeast Asian backgrounds.
Araujo, B. (2011, 2011/07/01). The college assistance migrant program: A valuable resource for migrant farmworker students. Journal of Hispanic HigherEducation,10(3),252-265.https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192711406282
Duong, M. T., Badaly, D., Liu, F. F., Schwartz, D., & McCarty, C. A. (2016). Generational differences in academic achievement among immigrant youths: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational research, 86(1), 3-41. Green, P. E. (2003). The undocumented: Educating the children of migrant workers in america. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(1), 51-71. Hernandez, T., & Gabbard, S. (2018). Findings from the national agricultural workers survey (naws) 2015-2016: A demographic and employment profile of united states farmworkers.
Museus, S. D. (2013). Unpacking the complex and multifaceted nature of parental influences on southeast asian american college students’ educational trajectories. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(5), 708-738. Ramirez, A. D. (2010). The impact of the college assistance migrant program on migrant student achievement in the california state university system. ERIC. Salinas, C., & Reyes, R. (2004). Graduation enhancement and postsecondary opportunities for migrant students: Issues and approaches. Smith, S. M. (2017). How safe are the workers who process our food? Monthly Labor Review U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Uy, P. S., Kim, S. J., & Khuon, C. (2019). College and career readiness of southeast asian american college students in new england. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 20(4), 414-436.
Table 1 Logistic Regression, Factors Predicting First Year Completion 95% C.I. for OR
Step 1
LO
S.E.
Wald
df
Sig.
OR
Lower
Upper
Gender
-1.383
1.135
1.485
1
.223
.251
.027
2.320
HS GPA
1.929
1.033
3.489
1
.062
6.881
.909
52.068
ACT Composite
-.097
.106
.832
1
.362
.908
.737
1.117
Ethnicity
.476
.947
.253
1
.615
1.610
.252
10.298
Constant
-1.507
2.599
.336
1
.562
.222
Note. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Sex, HS Weighted GPA, ACT Composite, Asian and Latinx Ethnicities.
page 12
CONTACT Silas Schaeffer silas.schaeffer@houghton.edu
RETURN
to Table of Contents
»
page 13
Vol. 18 No. 4 December 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.).
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 • reviews of books and other resources supporting the work of student success practitioners.
Audience: E-Source readers include academic and student affairs administrators and faculty from a variety of fields. 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: Rebecca Campbell, Editor Email: esource@mailbox.sc.edu
PUBLICATIONS STAFF Rebecca Campbell
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Michelle L. Ashcraft
Amy McEvoy
Purdue University
Dalhousie University
Krista Larson
Marsha Butler
Amelia Noel-Elkins
Lisa Grundy
Tracey Glaessgen
Emily Shreve
Copy editor
Missouri State University
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Rico Reed
Charles Haberle
Ahmad Sims
Jennifer Keup
Theresa Haug-Belvin
Michael Sparrow
E-Source Editor
Graphic Designer
Managing editor
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
