An Assessment of First-Year Seminar Modality and Academic and Social Belongingness

An Assessment of First-Year Seminar Modality and Academic and Social Belongingness

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 ad-hoc 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, 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.

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.

Figure 1. Ranking of Social Belongingness Levels by Class Modality.

Figure 1. Ranking of Social Belongingness Levels by Class Modality.

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 faculty-student 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.

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.

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.

This article was originally published in December 2021.