s.chers.moe.gov.sa/en/publications/publications/hej-0011-en.pdf · • some modern trends in ......

A peer-refreed, bi-annual journal Issue No.11 - Rajab 1435 AH - May 2014

PERSPECTIVES ON

- Preparatory Year in Saudi Universities from a Global Perspective.

RESEARCH- Developing the Ecosystem of Business

Incubators in Japanese Universities: Current Situation and Challenge.

- The Degree of Practicing Organizational Commitment For the Heads of Departments in the Colleges of Salman bin Abdulaziz University

- Relationship Between the Knowledge Management Processes of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research- Jordan and the Administrative Empowerment With the Employees.

Research Projects- Some Modern Trends in Teacher

Education

2 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014

General Rules:1- Topics to be submitted have to be

related to the field of higher education.2- Articles could be written in Arabic or

English. In addition, the journal accepts book reviews.

3- Manuscripts submitted are judged on the originality, appropriateness of methodologies, clearness of ideas and statements, contribution to the advancement of knowledge. In addition, they should not be taken from a dissertation or published book.

4- Manuscripts should be submitted with a cover letter asking for acceptance

with the name, short biography, and contact information of the first author.

5- Author should sign a declaration that the manuscript has not be submitted or accepted in other venues.

6- The editorial board then will forward the manuscript to selected reviewers to be blindly-evaluated. Revision might be required based on this review.

7- The author will be eventually notified about the decision of acceptance or rejection. No submitted materials would be returned.

8- Accepted manuscripts can’t be

submitted for publication in other

venues without written permission from

the editor.

9- Five free copies of the issue containing

the published manuscript will be sent to

the author.

Technical Instruction:

1- Submitted articles should not exceed

20 A4 pages, using “Time New

Roman” font, size 12. Other materials

should not exceed 5 pages.

2- Tables and figures should be sized to

12x18 cm.

3- Submission has to be digital in MS

Word format.

4- Text citations and the end references

should be written and sorted in APA

style.

5- Using endnotes is not recommended. If

it is needed, it should be minimized to

the clarification points, and numbered

throughout the article, then listed at the

end after the references.

Manuscript submission

All manuscripts should be submitted in MS Word format to this email address:[email protected]

3The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014

The Saudi Journal of Higher Education

A Peer-refereed, bi-annual JournalPublished by : Center for Higher Education Research and

Studies (CHERS) Ministry of Higher Education, Saudi Arabia

© Center for Higher Education Research and Studies, Ministry of Higher Education 2014

This journal is copyright. All rights reserved. Except for legitimate non-commercial educational use, no part of this publication may be reproduced or communicated in any form or by any means without the written permission of the Journal Editor-in-Chief

Deposit Ref: 47 / 1424 Date 2 / 1 / 1424 HISSN : 1658 - 1113

The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this Journal and for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of CHERS nor the Ministry of Higher Education

SupervisorDr. Khalid M. Al-AnkaryMinister of Higher Education

Deputy SupervisorDr. Abdulhalem A. Mazi

Director, CHERS

Editorial BoardProf . Abdulrahman A. Sayegh

)Editor-in-Chief(King Saud University

Prof . Mohammed M. Al-Hamid Al-Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud Islamic

University

Prof .Mahroos A. Al-GhabbanTaibah University

Prof . Saleh A. Al-NassarKing Saud University

Prof . Amal M. Al-ShamanKing Saud Univeristy

Prof . Fatimah M. Al-Oboudi Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman

University

Dr. Abdullah H. Al-KhalafAl-Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud

Islamic University

Associate EditorDr. Majda I. Al-Jaroudi

King Saud University

SecretaryArwa S. Al-Ruhaimi

Language editorHmood A. Al-Salamah

DesignerEng. Jamal E. Mashali

Contact UsE-mail: [email protected]

www.chers.edu.sa

Contents

7

9

11

45

65

71

73

75

77

79

81

PREFACE

PERSPECTIVES ON :

• A History of the First-Year Experience in the United States during the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries Past Practices, Current Approches, and Future Directions

Prof. Andrew K. Koch and Prof. John N. Gardner

• The Preparatory Year: Global Perspectives & Local Practices

Prof. Abdulmohsen S. Aloqaili

• Preparatory Year (First Year Experience)

Prof. Saud Nasser Al Kathiri

RESEARcH

• Developing the Ecosystem of Business Incubators in Japanese Universities: Current Situation and Challenges.

Dr. Eng. Essam Amanallah Bukhary

• The Degree of Practicing Organizational Commitment For the Heads of Departments in the Colleges of Salman bin Abdulaziz University.

Dr. Abdulrahman Albabtain

• Relationship Between the Knowledge Management Processes of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research- Jordan and the Administrative Empowerment With the Employees

Dr. Ahmad Badah

RESEARcH PROJEcTS

• Some Modern Trends in Teacher Education

Prof. Mohammed M. Al-Hamid


Saudi higher education institutions have witnessed a

quantum leap over the past decade. This is evident in institutional

academic quality in addition to numerous achievements on

human, administrative, and regulatory development levels.

Praise be to Allah and thanks to the unlimited support of the

Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.

Achieving higher international ranks, international

college accreditation, and academic/research partnerships

with reputable institutions are some of the most significant

characteristics of this progression. Additionally, many Saudi

universities have initiated preparatory years, excellence

research centers, and research chairs and incubators. Lastly,

e-learning, which was crowned through transforming the Saudi

Electronic University (SEU) project into a reality.

The Saudi Higher Education Journal essentially aims

at monitoring the Saudi experience in developing higher

education institutions through research and analysis. This

is achieved through comparisons with similar leading

international experiences. This issue sheds the light on the

issue of the preparatory year from the local and international

perspective(s) of the American experience. Concentrating

on past practices, methodologies, and current and future

trends. Articles in this issue address academic practices and

applications at the international level. These perspectives

Dr. Khalid M. Al-Anqari Minister of Higher Education

Magazine's General Supervisor

Preface


include studying the development of business incubators in the Japanese experience while

focusing on the current situation and challenges. At the regional level, the relationship between

processes of knowledge management in the Jordanian Ministry of Higher Education & Research

and administrative empowerment among employees. Finally, at the local level, identifying the

degree of organizational commitment of department chairs at Prince Salman University. The

research project of this issue focuses on new approaches to teacher preparation. In addition,

this issue includes a book review on higher education issues and developments by an American

University president.

As I thank my colleagues the members of the editorial board, I urge them to move forward

and continue to fathom higher education issues, challenges, and future outlooks at home and

abroad. Hoping to achieve the ambitious mission of the journal.

Minister of Higher Education

Director General, Saudi Higher Education Journal

Dr. Khalid bin Mohammed Al-Angari


The Experience of the Preparatory Year in Saudi Universities from a Global Perspective.

Perspectives on


Abstract

This article examines the historical factors in the United States that combined to form

the postsecondary movement known today as” the first-year experience.” Included within

this historical overview is an examination of the first year of university study in the United

States prior to World War II; a discussion about the changes to American higher education,

especially during the 1960s, that resulted in the launch of a first-year experience movement;

a review of the events leading up to and reasons for the creation of several centers focused

on improving the first year of college in the latter portion of the twentieth century; and recent

developments in the first-year experience in the early twenty-first century. The authors then

provide a synopsis of the current state of some of the initiatives proven to make a difference

for first-year students. Finally, they make some suggestions about what lies in the future for

the first-year experience in the United States.

A History of the First-Year Experience in the United States during the Twentieth and Twenty-First centuries:Past Practices, current Approches, and Future Directions

Andrew K. Koch, Ph.D.Executive Vice President

[email protected]

Pers

pect

ives

on

John N. GardnerInstitute for Excellence in

Undergraduate Education


Introduction

Like higher education in the United States itself, the first-year experience in American

higher education has been a dynamic and contextually-specific movement – one that has

consistently changed to meet the needs of students, instituitions, and the broader society

of which they are a part. This essay tracks that history, with particular emphasis placed

on events that occurred during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The authors’

pragmatic intent for providing this overview is to furnish readers – especially Saudi higher

educators and policy makers – with perspective on the first-year experience’s past that can be

used to shape the lives of present and future first-year students – in the United States, Saudi

Arabia, or elsewhere. While it is understood that not all the lessons of the American first-year

experience are transferable, it is hoped that knowledge about the successes and the failures

of the movement in the United States can be used by others – especially in Saudi Arabia – to

enhance and expand the efforts that they undertake on behalf of first-year students in their

own countries.

The authors use the phrase “first year experience” to describe a multiplicity of efforts

used by American universities during the latter twentieth and early twenty-first centuries to

enhance the academic and social success of first-year students. The first-year experience is

both cultural- and time-specific – that is, it varies by institutional context at any point in time,

and it varies within a specific institution over the course of time. Because of this, within the

past ten to fifteen years, the expression has been used by many American educators in ways

that were not intended by John Gardner, the developer of the phrase. For example, any search

by Saudi educators of the US literature would find that the phrase “first-year experience”

is also widely used to describe a particular initiative in the curriculum or co-curriculum,

most notably something known as a “first-year seminar” which will be described later in

this article. In short, there is much ambiguity associated with a definition for “the first year

experience.” But the authors of this article are using this concept to describe the entirety of an

educational institution’s approach to the beginning university experience: everything it does

with and for new students.

For the purposes of this article, the phrase “first-year experience” is not a single program


or initiative, but rather an intentional combination of academic and co-curricular efforts

within and across postsecondary institutions. It is used to name a purposefully connected

set of initiatives designed and implemented to strengthen the quality of student learning

during and satisfaction with the first year of college – the stage in American higher education

during which the largest proportion of university dropout occurs (Upcraft, Gardner and

Barefoot 2003). The first-year experience has contributed both meaningfully and measuably

to the ability of universities in the United States to educate and retain students and maintain

or enhance instituitonal financial well being. For this reason, the first-year experience is a

movement that should be examined by both educational scholars and practitioners alike from

across the globe – persons who are interested in enhancing learning and, as a by-product,

increasing retention and instituitonal financial well being. Another fundamental context in

which this “first-year experience” must be understood is that it is part of US efforts to expand

access to post secondary education and simultaneously improve university completion rates

through enhanced student “retention.” As we shall make clear in this article, the “retention

and completion agenda” has been the single greatest motivator for US institutions to adopt the

first-year student success-focused efforts.

Background History of Higher Education as context for the First-Year Experience in

the United States

History of Higher Education in the United States Leading up to the First-Year Experience

Movement

From the founding of Harvard college – the oldest university in the United States – in

1636 through most of the nineteenth century, higher education in the Amercia was largely an

experience enjoyed by a select group of privileged, white, land owning males. The combined

impact of mid-nineteenth century reform efforts, abrupt technological and societal changes

associated with the Civil War, and the sweeping economic and social effects of the industrial

revolution produced both changes in the structure of American higher education – which

adopted a model similar to that of the German research university – and a gradual but steady

alteration in the size and composition of the postsecondary student body in the United States

during the latter part of the nineteenth century. While still not an experience in which the


masses participated, postsecondary education in the United States on the eve of the twentieth

century was pursued by a steadily increasing number of men and a gradually increasing

number of women. In short, if they displayed their merit, and had the means, they could attend

– although for most non-Cacucasians, attendance occurred in racially segregated instituitons

(Brubacher and Rudy, 1997; Rudolph, 1990).

The merit-based stage of American higher education continued up to the onset of the

Second World War. During that conflict, however, war-related training needs brought tens of

thousands of men and women to university campuses for accelerated educational experiences

that would help the United States in its war effort (Cardozier, 1993; and Rudy, 1991). In

addition, the government poured massive sums of monies into the universities to sponsor war-

related research. This large-scale, federal role in higher education during the Second World

War was a mere shadow of things to come.

With the end of World War Two in sight, the federal government began to plan for the

return of millions of soldiers. In an attempt to offset the impact that this large group of job-

seeking men and women would have on the American economy, the government introduced

what would come to be known as the G. I. Bill – a program that provided financial resources

for returning soldiers to both attend universities and support their families while doing

so. The post World War II and Korean War G. I. Bills transformed the relationship that

the federal government had with higher education and the purpose of higher education in

the United States itself (Bennett, 1996; and Olsen, 1974). During the 1940s and 1950s,

postsecondary education became an accepted norm for many American citizens, and with

the “democratization” of higher education came increased enrollments and resources. The

stimulus for this change was the Second World War and the ensuing Cold War. It must be

noted that the United States’ federal government enacted the higher education-related funding

and access legislation during the 1940s and 1950s to address economic and political pressures

– civil rights would not become a significant higher education access-related goal for the

federal government until the 1960s. Nevertheless, on the eve of the 1960s, American higher

education had been transformed. No longer was it an experience offered by a small cluster

of private institutions to a limited number of privileged students. It had become something

promoted by the federal government, enjoyed by a considerably larger segment of the


population, and provided by an expanding number of public institutions.

During the 1960s, five factors combined to expand postsecondary education at a rate

that had not been seen before. These factors included: 1) the growth of the overall pool of

the university-age students due to the rise of the post World War II Baby Boom generation;

2) the robust economy during the 1960s – an economy that created an ideal job climate

for university graduates; 3) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which resulted in the federally

enforced desegregation of higher education; 4) the legislation associated with President

Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program, in particular the Higher Education Act of 1965 –

which created the legal basis for federal financial aid programs and academic preparation and

support initiatives for economically disadvantaged students such as the TRIO programs (see:

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html); and, 5) the war in Vietnam – during

which, draft deferments were granted to men who pursued a postsecondary degree, and many

young men chose going to attend a university over going into combat. In addition, the G.I.

bill was again authorized, and many who served in Vietnam used it to gain access to higher

education upon their return from the war.

It is beyond the scope of this article to explore these factors in any additional depth.

However, it must be stated that, when examined collectively, that these five factors all

combined to bring steadily increasing numbers of students to campus from varying

backgrounds. By the end of the decade, university enrollments totaled nearly 8.6 million

students – more than double the 1960 level (American Council on Education, 1984, 58). New

campuses opened across the nation at a previously unimaginable rate; and many of these

new institutions were “community colleges” – institutions that were designed to award two-

year associate degrees. Within the ranks of the growing student body were many non-white

and low-income students – students who added racial and socioeconomic diversity to the

previously heavily white, upper and middle class campus populations. Simply making room

for a large group of diverse students in such a short period would have created strains. The

social, racial and political factors of the era brought the tensions to a boiling point.

During the late 1960s, student activists energetically displayed their displeasure over

racial inequality and the federal government’s Vietnam War policies by staging protests on


campuses across the United States. On many campuses, these protests became violent, and

at some universities, such as at Kent State University and South Carolina State College, they

resulted in student deaths. The violent protests and their human costs shook public confidence

in higher education. Searching for ways to curb student unrest and restore their position in

society, many American postsecondary institutions began experimenting with more student-

centered approaches to education. One such institution, the University of South Carolina,

responded to student unrest on its campus by instituting a first-year seminar named University

101 – a type of course that will be described later in this article. While its faculty and staff

did not know it at the time, this action would place South Carolina at the vanguard of a new

movement in American higher education – the first-year experience movement.

Re-Emergence of First-Year Seminars and the Emergence of the First-Year Experience

First-year seminars – small enrollment courses that help beginning students with their

academic and social transition – were not new to American higher education in 1972, the year

in which the University of South Carolina initiated its University 101 seminar. The initial

first-year orientation seminar was launched at Reed College (in Oregon) in 1911. Slowly

gaining momentum, by the 1915-16 academic year, four other American postsecondary

institutions followed Reed’s example and offered credit-bearing first-year orientation seminars

of their own. By 1925-1926, eighty-two American universities did (Brubacher and Rudy,

1956, 331) – including Princeton, Indiana, Stanford, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins and Ohio

State (Gordon, 1989, 185). By 1938, nine out of ten freshmen in American universities were

required to take them (Gordon, 187). However, this would be the apex of first-year seminar

offerings during the first half of the twentieth century. Following the middle part of the 1930s,

the courses began to wane in both number and, where they still existed, scope. The first-year

experience scholar/practitioner Virginia Gordon shares that the courses were reduced “because

of faculty objections to offering credit for their ‘life adjustment’ content” (Gordon, 188). In

the minds of those who objected to them, the first-year seminars were too remedial and non-

academic in scope to be tolerated. By the early 1960s, the first-year orientation seminar was

practically non-existent on American university campuses (Gordon, 188).

It took a campus riot to convince Thomas Jones, the President at the University of South


Carolina, to bring back a first-year seminar at his institution. In his words, the University

was offering the course to “teach students not to riot” (Watts, 1999, 246). In its early days

in the 1970’s, the course was not without its opponents. Faculty critics decried the course’s

lack of “structure” and pointed out that it was missing any credible evaluation results that

could convince them of its educational value. With little surprise, when Jones announced

his intention to resign following the end of the 1974 academic year, the future existence of

University 101 was not guaranteed. Jones and his administrative colleagues did what they

could to preserve the course and shore it up for the future. One such action was finding a

person to serve as the course’s director. Of the four names considered for the search, the

first two persons to whom the job was offered declined to take it. The third person who was

offered the position was one of the original faculty members who had been trained to teach

the course – an untenured faculty member by the name of John Gardner (Watts, 274).

Over the next few years, Gardner set out to add more traditional course structure and

academic content to University 101, boost student enrollment, and provide credible research

data to prove that the students and the University benefited from offering the course. He

succeeded at accomplishing all three objectives – working with Paul Fidler, a faculty member

and administrator at the University of South Carolina who focused his research efforts

on student outcomes, to conduct the assessment. By the end of January 1975, Fidler and

his associates provided outcomes results showing that there was a statistically significant

positive difference on retention for University 101 students when compared to students

who did not take the course. In other words, students who started at the University of South

Carolina during the fall of one academic year were more likely to return for the start of the

next academic year in the subsequent fall if they had enrolled in the University 101 first-year

seminar. The outcomes also showed that students who took the course were better informed

about the University, made more frequent use of the University’s resources and services, and

participated in extracurricular activities to a greater extent than non-participants. With these

outcomes presented to him, the President decided that the course would continue as long as

student interest and need continued to exist (Watts, 274-84).

In the robust enrollment years of the 1960s, retention-related findings such as those

associated with University 101 might have actually hindered the longevity of the course as


opposed to helping it because administrators and faculty may have assumed such efforts were

a waste of time due to the fact that departing students could easily be replaced. However, by

the late 1970s, concern over retaining students, and with them their tuition, was beginning to

mount. The end of Vietnam War-realted enrollments and the tailing off of the Baby Boom

generation meant that the double-digit annual enrollment increases that were common in the

previous decade shrank to a more typical two-to-four percent increase. In addition, many

higher education enrollment analysts predicted that by the 1980s American universities would

experience enrollment decreases (Centra, 1980, 18). Consequently, as a means of preserving

themselves and avoiding drastic financial cutbacks, universities focused more attention on

efforts that would help them retain the students that they already had. Proven retention-

enhancing programs were sought out and, when found, quickly imitated. And, because of

Gardner’s tireless efforts to share outcomes associated with University 101 at regional and

national conferences, the first-year seminar was one of the most frequently copied retention

enhancing initiatives.

In 1981, after conducting numerous presentations about the University of South Carolina’s

first-year seminar at an array of professional meetings over the previous five year period,

assisting a host of other postsecondary institutions to launch their equivalent of the course,

and finding no literature or higher educator professional association focused on first-year

students, John Gardner decided to host a national conference on the first-year orientation

course in Columbia South Carolina. Approximately 175 higher educators from the United

State and Canada came to take part in and listen to more than thirty descriptions of courses

comparable to University 101. The conference exceeded its organizers expectations –

prompting Gardner to make a decision to offer the conference on a recurring basis under

the title “The Freshman Year Experience.” By doing this, he gave the first-year experience

movement an annual focal point and, just as important, a name – one that was flexible enough

to accommodate the growth and increased scope of the movement in the years to follow

(Watts, 343).

The first-year experience and its by product, retention, both grew in importance in the

United States during the 1980s as a result of increased attention to educational performance

and decreased direct federal funding for higher education – all of which was spurred forward


by the administration of President Ronald Regan. In particular, changes in federal financial

aid funding policies – that made retaining the individual student of greater and greater

significance – and increasing public attention to the quality of education brought about by

reports such as A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform released in 1983

by the Presidential Commission on Excellence in Education helped to fuel both interest in

improving the first-year experience and, as a by product, attendance at the annual conference

and the variety of professional meetings associated with the first year of college (Zeller, 1984,

6).

As a result of the steadily increasing interest in the first-year experience, John Gardner

began actively advancing a plan to create a research and “resource” center for first-year

experience at the University of South Carolina. After nearly two years of planning, the

National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience opened in July 1987. Soon

thereafter, the Center launched its Freshman Year Experience Newsletter. During the same

year, it also began the scholarly, blind refereed, Journal of The Freshman Year Experience.

Hitting desks and library shelves in fall 1988, the journal, like the newsletter, found a ready

and eager readership. In an effort to provide research reports that exceeded twenty pages in

length, the center also initiated a monograph series. To date, the monograph series includes

over fifty titles – several of which have multiple editions (Watts, 380). The newsletter, journal

and monographs provided an important and previously non-existent literature base for higher

education administrators and faculty in the United States who were interested in research-

based approaches to improving undergraduate education. The emphasis on quantifiable

reports, particularly as found in the Journal, satisfied, in a distinguished scholarly fashion,

academe’s demand for credibility and the growing call for accountability and evidence of

effectiveness (Watts, 386-87).

During the 1990s, increased public pressure for educational accountability combined

with changing demographics and further efforts to expand educational access to create new

growing pains for America’s higher education institutions. Specifically, a series of books,

notably Allan Bloom’s 1987 best-seller, The Closing of the American Mind, and reports,

such as An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education issued by the

Wingspread Group in 1993 and The Student Learning Imperative, published by the American


College Personnel Association in 1994, prompted educators to concentrate on showing

measurable improvement within the core functions of the educational enterprise – student

learning and development (Johnson Foundation/Wingspread Group on Higher Education,

1993; and American College Personnel Association, 1994). This quality movement – in part,

an extension of the quality movement in American industry – was endorsed with vigor by

the major postsecondary professional associations in the United States, especially American

Association for Higher Education, and the Association of American Colleges and Universities.

The emphasis on quality came at the same time as a wave of new immigration, principally

from Latin America and Asia, and increased racial diversity in higher education brought less

prepared but nonetheless eager students to American campuses.

To meet these challenges, John Gardner and his colleagues in the National Resource

Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition broadened both the scope

of the Center’s activities and the diversity of the projects that the center undertook within

this expanded scope. The Resource Center continued to conduct the national and regional

conferences that helped to establish the movement – with the annual combined attendance

at these events numbering in the thousands. It also added an array of monographs, journal

articles, and a host of newsletters and occasional papers that addressed issues important to the

success of underrepresented students and those in need of supplemental academic support and

services. Reflecting the technological innovations of the era, in 1994, the Center launched

an internet listserv for first-year issue-oriented faculty and staff, established a website and

created a satellite-transmitted videoconference series – all of which continue to be offered

today – the listserv alone having over seventeen hundred subscribers (Hunter, 2001).

With an ear on the increasingly louder call for accountability and an eye on the growing

influence of accrediting agencies – organizations that serve to certify the quality of the

institutions that make up American higher education – John Gardner and his colleague,

Betsy Barefoot, launched a second center focused on the first-year experience in 1999 – the

Policy Center on the First Year of College (now the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence

in Undergraduate Educaiton). With funding provided by three American philanthropic

organizations –The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Atlantic Philanthropies and Lumina

Foundation for Education – the Policy Center on the First Year of College expanded the first-


year experience movement in the United States by focusing squarely on heling institutions

use assessment to improve the entirety of what they do as part of their respective first-year

programs. Foundations of Excellence® in the First College Year (FoE) is an example of one

of the asessment-based project projects that the Gardner Institute’s staff created to achieve

their mission. Since 2003, FoE has helped over 250 American college and universities

develop and implement a research-based, aspirational, model for the entirety of the first

year. The comprehensive, assessment-based plans of action that institutions generatate by

participating in FoE are subsequently implemented with the aim of increasing first-year

student learning, success, and retention (see: http://www.jngi.org/institute/our-history/).

During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the same types of philanthropic funding

agencies that supported the Gardner Institute’s development of Foundaitons of Excellence

were also supporting broader higher education policy and practice initiatives across the United

States – projects with implications for the ongoing development of the first-year experience

movement. Specifically, organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Lumina

Foundation for Educaiton, and Kresge Foundation, began using their resources to transform

higher educaiton in the United States – so that the U.S. would not only be among the world’s

leaders in access to higher education, but it would once again lead the world in the rates

at which its citizens also complete a postsecondary certificate or degree. The “Completion

Agenda” that has emerged out of these organizations efforts has greatly influenced higher

education in both the states and the nation as a whole (see: http://www.luminafoundation.org/

goal_2025.html).

President Barak Obama made this completion-focused agenda abundantly clear to the

American people during his first joint address to Congress on February 24, 2009. During

that address, Obama set a goal that the nation should once again have the highest proportion

of college graduates in the world by the year 2020. According to U.S. Department of

Education projections, reaching this goal means that the proportion of college graduates in

the U.S. will need to increase by fifty percent nationwide by 2020. This means that eight

million more persons will need to earn associate’s and bachelor’s degrees by the end of

the current decade. Achieving this ambitious goal will require higher education institutions

and systems to implement far-reaching reforms to improve college success and, ultimately,


degree completion while ensuring quality (see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/

higher-education). And the first year of college is the foundation on which the success of the

Completion Agenda must be built.

In the 2012 edition of its annual report, National Collegiate Retention and Persistence to

Degree Rates, ACT noted that first-to-second year degree rates across all higher education

institutions in the United States was 66.5%. In other words, more than a third of all first-

year students did not return to the college at which they began their studies the subsequent

year (ACT, 2012). This is by no means a one-year trend. ACT has conducted its retention

and completion analysis since 1983, and first-to-second year retention rates have remained

relatively flat over the near thirty year period examined for the study (ACT, 2012). In short,

in the early 21st century, the first college year is period in American higher education during

which the largest proportion of dropout occurs. The realization of national education policy

goals hinges, at least in large part, on the ability of higher education institutions in the United

States to make sure that first-year students succeed.

It is beyond the scope of this article to go into all the factors that further complicate this

first-year student success charge. For purposes of this submission, it suffices to share that the

financial implications of the Great Recession that started in 2008 – specifically the decline

in state and federal financial support for higher educaiton since that year – and increases

in military veteran enrollments and the needs that those veterans bring with them to higher

education institutions following their service in the Persian Gulf and/or Afghanistan, have

combined with the Completion Agenda-related policy directives to add complexity to and

enhance the need for increased student success during the first college year and beyond. With

this context in mind, the nation’s ability to successfully support and improve first-year student

success will be a key indicator of whether the Completion Agenda’s admirable goals will be

realized or left unfulfilled.

As evidenced by the content on the preceeding pages of this article, from its beginnings

to its current state, the first-year experience movement has been a story of innovation

and adaptation meeting the postsecondary education needs of a steadily diversifying and

increasingly accountability-oriented society. In the process of doing so, the first-year


experience has become a part of the fabric of higher education in the United States today – it

has both shaped and reflected the broader U.S. postsecondary culture of which it is a part.

The next section profiles some of the contemporary initiatives that are used in varying ways

across postsecondary institutions in the United States to continuously reframe the first-year

experience.

current Practices for First-Year Students in the United States

This section includes overviews of the initiatives and approaches used by many

higher education institutions in the United States to support and enhance first-year student

success. For the readers’ convenience, the content is divided into three sub-sections. The

first, Pre-University Programs for First-Year Students, examines the academic and social

efforts employed by universities in the United States to help their first-year students with

the immediate transition into postsecondary education. In the second sub-section, First-

Year Initiatives Focused on the Curriculum and/or the Faculty, information is shared about

academic-based programs and services that benefit first-year students directly, or indirectly

through the faculty who teach them. The third and final sub-section, Structures, Services and

Activities that Benefit First-Year Students, details the out-of-class initiatives in which students

participate, institutional approaches to the delivery of services, and organizational structures

that enhance the first-year experience. In all cases, footnotes are provided to the readers so

that they can readily find sources that will provide more in-depth information on the first year-

related topics found within each sub-heading.

Pre-University Programs for First-Year Students

New Student Orientation Programs – New student orientation programs are a core

feature of the first-year initiatives found in American universities. According to the National

Survey of First Year Practices, ninety-six percent of all postsecondary institutions offer some

form of orientation program (Barefoot, 2005, 52). While the duration of the programs and

their components may vary from institution to institution, these initiatives generally provide

an introduction to the academic and social aspects of the institution – either during the months

immediately preceding the students’ first days on campus or during the first days themselves.


Given the timing during which they are conducted, orientation programs serve as one of

the earliest forms of outreach and intervention offered to first-year students in the United

States. Frequently, orientation programs include time for an explanation of the curriculum,

course placement testing and registration, an overview of campus resources and services,

and opportunities to meet with staff, faculty and students(Mullendore and Banahan, 2005).

A major influence on the development of orientation programming in the United States is

the National Orientation Directors Association (NODA). NODA’s website (provided at the

end of this article), publications and conferences are excellent resources for practitioners in

the United States or elsewhere who would like to learn more about the ways in which new

students can and should be successfully oriented to a university setting (see: Barefoot, Griffin

and Koch, 2012, 6-10).

Parent/Family Orientation Programs – Like orientation programs for students,

parents and family orientation programs provide resources and information about a specific

institution. The information is tailored to meet the needs of parent and/or family members so,

in turn, they can help their respective first-year students succeed. While the approaches to and

reasons for parent/family orientation vary by institution, generally, universities in the United

States use these programs to devote some attention to the changing roles and relationships

between parents and students issues and what these roles mean for a successful transition to a

university(Mullendore and Banahan, 2005).

Summer Bridge Programs – Summer bridge programs are initiatives that offer incoming

first-year students a structured transition from high school to college. These programs

traditionally occur in the summer that immediately precedes the fall term during which the

students will matriculate. Focused on developing academic skills and awareness of campus

resources, summer bridge programs are targeted at participants who come primarily (but not

necessarily solely) from student populations historically at greater risk of not succeeding in

universities in the United States – such as racial minorities, females in male-dominated fields

and students from low-income backgrounds. The first summer bridge programs were started

as part of the TRIO and Upward Bound efforts that came into existence with the Civil Rights

and Higher Education Acts of the mid 1960s. Exemplary models are presently found in the

City University of New York system and at the University of California at Berkeley. Summer


bridge programs have somewhat different goals than orientation programs, and they last

longer as well – spanning weeks compared to orientation programs that last for a few days.

While they vary in structure across the universities that offer them, these programs generally

include intensive academic experiences – in many cases they include credit-bearing courses.

Additional components found across summer bridge programs include residential living

experiences, time management sessions, study skills programming, academic and career

planning, programs that help students network with faculty, staff and other students, and

efforts that familiarize students with campus resources and services (Pascarella and Patrick T.

Terenzini, 401-405; see also Barefoot, Griffin and Koch, 2-5).

Summer or common Reading Programs – More and more American higher education

institutions – particularly those with a liberal arts foundation – provide their incoming first-

year students with a book to read during the summer before the students’ first year of college.

Frequently, theses institutions will invite the author to campus for convocation – a ceremony

that sets the tempo for the rest of the year. In addition, the books are commonly discussed

during orientation and/or within a first-year course, such as a first-year seminar or an English

composition course in which students are required to enroll. With these components, summer

reading experiences are offered as a means to increase students’ academic integration and to

provide a common experience at the onset of the first-year of college. Both of these intended

outcomes are associated with greater levels of student success (see: Laufgraben, 2006).

First-Year Initiatives Focused on the Curriculum and/or the Faculty

Academic Advising – Academic advising is considered by many higher education

practitioners in the United States as one of the most important ways that first-year students

interact with a representative of their respective universities. Through academic advising,

students gain vital curricular information and guidance that helps them shape their academic

programs of study. Advising services can be offered in a variety of ways – face-to-face,

on the telephone, on-line – and they can be provided in a number of formats – through a

central advising office, by faculty, by professional staff, by peer advisors. Regardless of

how academic advising is provided or by whom it is offered, if done correctly – in a manner

that helps students put their course selections within the context of a broader life plan – it


will enhance student success (King and Kerr, 2005). A major influence on the development

of academic advising in the United States – both as a service and as a profession – is the

National Academic Advising Association (NACADA). NACADA’s website (provided at

the end of this article), publications and conferences are excellent resources for practitioners

in the United States or elsewhere who would like to learn more about the ways in which

academic advising helps new students succeed.

Developmental Education – Drawing from the fields of developmental psychology

and learning theory, developmental education includes programs and services that:

enhance academic preparedness; provide diagnostic evaluation and corresponding course

placement; decrease social barriers to education; and, augment learning skills. Because of

this, developmental education strategies have collectively served as a method for providing

opportunities to first-year students who are not totally prepared for the rigors of college.

In essence, developmental education is based on the premise that some first-year students

are better prepared than others, and that those who are less prepared can nevertheless be

successful in college if they are offered the appropriate forms of support. Some of the reasons

why students may need to take advantage of developmental education offerings include

coming from a low-income background or from a family in which no one has ever attended a

university. While not without controversy (Complete College America, 2012), developmental

education has provided and continues to provide access to higher education for millions

of first-year students in the United States as it has been shown to enhance their academic

achievement and retention (Highbee, 2005). Two professional groups that have had significant

influence on developmental education in American universities are the College Reading and

Learning Association (CRLA) and the National Association for Developmental Education

(NADE).

Distance Education and On-Line First-Year courses – During the last decade,

American universities have taken steps to make use of technology to offer classes to and

provide support for their first-year students. These approaches are particularly used by

two-year institutions – fifty percent of all two-year colleges report offering on-line courses

in which their first-year students can enroll compared to nine percent of the four-year

colleges and universities (Barefoot, 2005, 57). On-line education requires that educators


focus concerted attention to delivering services such as academic advising and orientation

to students in a careful manner – so that students feel connected to the university and that

their instructional and support needs are being met. While the curricular and programmatic

aspects associated with offering on-line courses to first-year students is relatively new to

American universities, some exemplary programs and services exist. These include Brigham

Young University’s web-based student planning system; Pennsylvania State University’s

automated notebook system; Ball State University’s on-line degree audit system; and Pima

Community College’s video academic advising system. When planned and supported well,

on-line courses and services can help first-year students succeed and make progress toward

completing their degrees (Kramer and Childs, 2000).

Faculty Development – Issues of faculty preparation are directly connected to efforts

that focus on enhancing first-year student academic success – particularly those efforts

that are related to or based in the classroom experience. For that reason, many universities

in the United States offer workshops or other professional development activities that are

intended to help their faculty enhance the way they teach first-year students. According to the

results of the National Survey of First Year Practices, sixty-two percent of all postsecondary

institutions indicated that they had provided development initiatives within the five years

leading up to the survey (Barefoot, 2005, 54). An example of a first-year student-focused

professional development initiative is found in the “Teaching First-Year Students” resources

and podcasts offered by Vanderbilt University (see: http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teaching-guides/

interactions/firstyears/). Often, the pedagogical enhancements made within the context of

these development initiatives lend themselves to teaching in general. Thus, by improving the

manner in which they teach first-year students, faculty can serve all students better.

First-Year Seminars – Offered by eighty percent of all four-year and sixty-two percent of

all two-year institutions, first-year seminars are the most commonly implemented curricular

strategy designed for first-year students (Barefoot, 2005, 56). In addition, they are one of the

most researched, and as a result, most measurably successful of all the first-year initiatives

presently employed in American universities (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, 400-3). First-

year seminars come in many forms. Some, like the University 101 course at the University of

South Carolina, are extended orientation courses. Others, such as at Princeton University, are


focused on intensive study of an academic topic or theme. By definition, seminars are small

in size – but in some cases institutions involve more than twenty-to-thirty students in their

first-year courses. Regardless of their form or size, all variations of first-year seminars are

focused on assisting students in their academic and social development and with the transition

to college. Specifically, first-year seminars help students learn about a subject or combination

of subjects. In the process, students learn about themselves and their institutions in ways that

can meaningfully increase their ability to succeed and, ultimately, graduate (Upcraft, Gardner

and Barefoot, 2005, 275-91).

Learning communities – Learning Communities are defined as two or more linked

courses in which the same small group of students is enrolled. Often focused on an academic

theme or major, learning communities are found at thirty-seven percent of all four-year

and twenty-three percent of two-year institutions (Barefoot, 56). Large research-focused

universities, such as Purdue University, make use of learning communities to help make

their environment feel smaller and more manageable for their first-year students. Learning

communities benefit students by connecting the content in their courses in a complimentary

manner. In addition, students are likely to make friends with the other students in their

learning communities – making the formation of study groups easier. Finally, learning

communities facilitate the interaction of students with their faculty. When combined, these

benefits result in enhanced learning, greater satisfaction with the university experience and,

a by-product, higher retention rates (Barefoot, Griffin and Koch, 20-24; Upcraft, Gardner

and Barefoot, 371-90; Pascarella and Terenzini, 109-10 & 422-23). An important source

of information on learning communities in the United States is the Washington Center for

Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education at Evergreen State College in Olympia,

Washington.

Service Learning – Service learning is a pedagogical approach that ties together

voluntary service to the community with credit-bearing, academic activities. In essence,

the approach relates meaningful community service actions to course materials through

reflection activities such as directed writings, class presentations, and small group discussions.

Technically then, service learning becomes mandatory, non-remunerative work that is

incorporated by faculty into their credit-bearing courses. What differentiates service learning


from regular community service is the fact that the service activity is intentionally placed in

context with the curriculum and, as a result, it reinforces course objectives as it enhances civic

responsibility. Many universities in the United States make use of service learning with their

students, with over a third of them – 37% – reporting that they involve their first-year students

in these service learning endeavors (Barefoot, 57). Doing so helps first-year students to: gain a

better understanding of who they are; develop a sense of connection with their new university

community; create a sense of cohesiveness with their classmates; and, apply their course

content to “real world” situations. Thus, service learning helps first-year students integrate

into their new communities as well as understand and apply academic content (Zlotkowski,

2005, 356-70; see also Barefoot, Griffin and Koch, 35-38).

Supplemental Instruction – Pioneered at the University of Missouri at Kansas City

in 1976 and replicated across American higher education and numerous countries abroad,

Supplemental Instruction, or “SI,” is a peer-led, out-of-class learning assistance program

that is targeted at “historically difficult courses”. What differentiates SI from other forms of

academic assistance, such as group or individual tutoring, is that SI is focused on high-risk

courses, not high-risk students. In other words, institutions use Supplemental Instruction to

address student performance issues in courses that historically have high rates of low grades

– with low grade being defined as thirty percent or more of the grades being “F” for failure,

“D” for unsatisfactory or “W” for withdrawal. SI is targeted primarily but not exclusively at

introductory level courses. SI does not “water down” content or lower expectations. In fact,

by requiring students to attend the review sessions outside of regular class time, and usually

for no credit, students actually put in more work. The SI leaders – the session facilitators –

are students (either undergraduates or graduate students) who previously earned a high grade

in the course. By combining study skills concepts with the course content, the SI leaders help

the session participants apply proper study strategies to the material they are learning in their

classes. Consequently, Supplemental Instruction helps first-year students learn how to learn

at the same time that it reinforces what they should be learning. As a result, SI improves both

grades and overall retention rates Hurley, 2005, 308-19; and Pascarella and Terenzini, 106-7).


Structures, Services and Activities that Benefit First-Year Students

Early Alert/Warning Systems – According to Barefoot, Griffin, and Koch, early warning

systems are used by institutions to monitor student academic performance and guide

appropriate intervention. Often affiliated with courses in which students experience great

difficulty, “early warning/academic alert systems take on many different forms across and

even within institutions. Some rely heavily on technology, others on direct human observation

and actions, and still others on a combination of human and technological monitoring and

intervention” (2012, p. 25). In addition, “early warning/academic alert support may also

vary within an institution across student classification levels (class standing) and by student

subpopulations” (2012, p. 25). Some limitations with early warning systems have to do

with the degree to which monitored behaviors are physically observed by faculty and/or

other staff – because they can only act on what they see – and the frequency with which

warnings occur. Often, early alert programs do not occur as early as their names imply – they

may rely on mid-term grades, and these grades may account for as much of half a course

grade. Thus, interventions may occur when it is too late to make meaningful changes in

student performance and the grades they earn. Arkansas State University hosts the National

Clearinghouse for Early Alert Initiatives in Higher Education with a website, listserv, and

other resources dedicated to providing “a collective forum for higher education where

faculty and professionals can join discussion of and access research on early alert strategies”

(National Clearinghouse for early Alert Initiatives in Higher Education, 2010).

Learner Analytics – Learner analytics is one of the newest and most promising forms

of early warning / early intervention tools. Learner analytics tools can mitigate the

aforementioned issues associated with early warning systems due to their ability to provide

more timely feedback and their ability to do so with great granularity. An example of this

is Boise State University’s Student Success Monitoring System – a tool that draws on data

from the institution’s student information system, learning management system, and a

variety of other sources on a routine basis to monitor performance and guide intervention in

twenty-eight challenging courses (Chacon, Spicer & Valbuena, 2012). Purdue University’s

Signals project is another innovative and successful form of learner analytics that is making

a difference in course success. When compared to a sample that controlled for the volunteer


effect, students in courses with Signals earn more A and B grades, fewer D or F grades, make

greater use of help resources, and graduate sooner (Pistilli, Arnold, & Bethune, 2012). With

support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EDUCAUSE has placed great focus on

promoting and researching analytics, most recently devoting an entire issue of its bi- monthly

publication to analytics efforts.

First-Year Activities such as Athletics, “Greek Life” (membership in social organizations

that have existed on American residential campuses for several hundred years and which

are designated with Greek letters), and Residential Life – Once first-year students settle

into classes, and in some cases even before they do, they will begin to identify out-of-class

activities in which they will get involved to help enrich their lives and make meaning in their

new collegiate worlds. In some cases, this may include involvement in student organizations

and clubs, including leadership thereof. Other students will take part in intercollegiate

athletics – defined as being a member of an athletic team. With nearly two-thirds of all

American universities indicating that they provide housing for their first year students, it

should come as no surprise that students also get involved and identify with their residence

halls. In addition to these activities, first-year students also involve themselves in fraternities

or sororities – referred to as “Greek” organizations because of the Greek letter used to name

many of these fraternal groups. In all cases, particularly Greek life, participation in these

out-of-class activities can have a negative impact on first-year students – as involvement can

cause some students to lose focus of their academic responsibilities. Greek life, in particular,

has long been associated with stereotypical concepts of “the intoxicated university student”

– despite the fact that actual involvement in Greek life is declining due to the financial costs

associated with membership and heightened concerns about socially inappropriate behavior

and the liability risks and costs associated therewith. However, when placed into the proper

context, especially with the help of faculty and staff who intentionally set out to do so,

involvement in activities such as those described about can compliment learning, accelerate

socialization and, as a result, increase college success and retention for first-year students

(Barefoot, 57-59).

Institutional Policies, Attendance and Mid-Term Reporting – The policies that American

higher education institutions adopt and enforce have a significant and direct impact on the


success of their first-year students – particularly those policies that are associated with class

attendance and grade reporting. When sharing and reflecting on the results of the National

Survey of First-Year Practices, the researcher Betsy Barefoot asserted the following about

these practices:

Although both class attendance and whether students receive midterm feedback on

academic performance are issues that affect students beyond the first year, many would argue

they have disproportionate impact on first-year students. Both research and mountains of

anecdotal evidence support the importance of class attendance, especially in the first year, and

yet only 39 percent of institutions report an official attendance policy. Only about 4 percent

have an attendance policy for first-year students that “differs in any way from the institution-

wide policy.”

Over 60 percent of all institutions collect and report midterm grades to first-

year students, thereby giving them an important source of feedback on their academic

performance. Some educators would argue that midterm feedback is too late: first-year

students need some idea within the first few weeks of the term about their performance,

hopefully in time to withdraw from classes that are “hopeless” (Barefoot, 55).

Where American universities have recognized the power of their practices and acted to

augment their approaches accordingly, it is no surprise that first-year students are often better

informed and, as a result, experience higher levels of success. This is a valuable lesson to

institutions seeking ways to enhance student learning and success – often small changes in

administrative policies and reporting patterns can make a big difference.

Living-Learning Communities/First-Year Living Environments – Many universities in the

United States operate on-campus residence halls in which their students elect to live for a part

or all of their educational experience. An increasing number of the institutions that provide

such living arrangements also opt to offer unique spaces and/or services for the first-year

students living in these residence halls. Frequently called living-learning communities, these

offerings vary in form, but generally attempt to create an emphasis on an academic theme by

including such aspects as faculty interaction, academic and/or cultural programs, academic


advising, and mentoring. In some cases, particularly at large, research-focused universities

such as Indiana University, some of the first-year classes are taught in the residence halls.

Efforts of this nature connect aspects of the student learning experience to their living

environment and, in the process, they seem to blur the boundaries between students’

academic and social lives. Another example of a combination of the academic and residential

enterprises is the “Residential College,” such as the Preston Residential College at the

University of South Carolina. Residential Colleges serve as a location in which students and

faculty both live and learn. They differ from learning communities in that some of the faculty

actually live in the residence halls with the students. Whether offered as a living-learning

community or as a residential college, intentionally connecting first-year students’ residential

and academic realms tends to lead to greater success in both the academic and social aspects

of college and, in turn, higher retention (Zeller, 2005, 410-27; and Pascarella and Terenzini,

109-10 & 420-22).

Additional comments on the current Practices for First-Year Students in the United

States

Having shared information on the practices most frequently used to help first-year

students succeed in American universities, we must note that not all of these initiatives and

approaches are found in every higher education institution in America. More often than not,

institutional resources and culture combine to produce environments in which only some,

or perhaps even one, of the approaches are employed. In addition, even when initiatives

exist commonly across institutional settings, there is great variation between the respective

programs and services described in the preceding section. There is no “magic pill” – no

single effort that can help all first-year students across all universities in the United States.

But even though differences exist, there are commonalities – if only at a broad level – that

allow universities to adopt successful approaches and adapt them accordingly. Those making

decisions at their institutions about which programs to adopt will do well to keep in mind

the unique cultural contexts in which they are working so that they can select initiatives and

strategies that fit their respective environments and needs well. And, as the last section of this

article reveals, every effort should be made to intentionally connect the various components

that constitute the first-year experience at a particular university.


conclusions About the Past and Recommendations for the Future of the First-Year

Experience in the United States

Since the early 1970s, faculty and staff working with the first-year experience in higher

education institutions in America have succeeded in establishing and advancing a national

reform movement with numerous participants coming from hundreds of instituitons. With

help from the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in

Transition and the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education,

many colleges and universities in the United States have made the first-year experience a

higher priority. Faculty and staff working with first year programs have established and

sustained the growth of a scholarly literature base and a national network of higher educators

focused on a common concern – the legitimization of a unique field of endeavor, inquiry, and

action called the first-year experience. Simultaneously, they have encouraged and supported

the growth of an array of programs and services to enhance the experience of first-year

students as discussed in the previous section of this article. But there is still much work to be

done.

In the second decade of the twenty-first century, there is still too much failure in the

first-year of college in the United States. Attrition is still too high. The first year is still not

sufficiently valued on some campuses. Intentional, mission-focused design is lacking in the

first-year experience at most institutions. And, with a number of initiatives, for example

the signature intervention known as the first-year seminar, it can be argued that much more

attention needs to be paid to the educational quality of such offerings. Assessment is not

practiced throughout first-year experience activities in the United States and, where it is

practiced, decisions are often not being made on the basis of the findings. Assuming that

once the first year is over, students no longer need support, the first-year experience ends

abruptly – often leading to an inevitable drop in performance during the second year of study

known as “the sophomore slump.”Although it is widely recognized now that the beginning

experience does make a great difference in student outcomes, nevertheless, most institutions

have not subjected themselves to a rigorous “self-study” of the first year (with the exception

of about 250 institutions that have engaged in the self-study and improvement planning

process known as “Foundations of Excellence” designed and offered by the John N. Gardner


Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education. Clearly, there is an enormous unfinished

agenda associated with the first-year experience across all institutional types in the United

States. In short, it is time to apply the lessons of the past to the present and, in the process of

doing so, make necessary structural, policy, curricular, and pedagogical changes to better meet

the needs of our students so that they have fuller and richer futures. To achieve this goal, we

recommend that faculty and staff associated with the first-year experience movement focus

attention and effort on accomplishing the following objectives.

1. Make assessment an integral part of the first-year experience – The noted first-

year experience scholar, Betsy Barefoot, has often mused during her presentations,

that the first-year experience cannot be an “assessment free zone.” Making use of

nationally normed instruments, American universities must strive to collect data on

the implementation and performance of first-year programs and on the first year of

college in general. Examples of these instruments include: the Your First College

Year (YFCY) survey produced jointly by the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence

in Undergraduate Education and the Higher Education Research Institute at the

University of California Los Angeles; the First-Year Initiative (FYI) Benchmarking

Survey developed by the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate

Education and Educational Benchmarking, Inc.; the First-Year Data Audit Toolkit

created by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems and the

John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education; the National

Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) directed by researchers at Indiana University

in the Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning; and the Community College

Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) launched as a project of the Community

College Leadership Program at The University of Texas at Austin in conjunction with

the NSSE efforts at Indiana University.

2. Link the first-year experience with the university’s mission by focusing on

measurable forms of learning excellence and as integral part of this focus, conduct a

comprehensive self study of the institution’s approaches to its first-year students. –

American universities must envision a more effective experience for their beginning

students and, in conjunction with this, assess the degree to which they actually


achieve excellence in accordance with these statements and aspirations. To do this,

institutions of comparable types should work collectively to develop a research-

based, comprehensive model of the first year that is attainable and immediately

usable to increase student learning, success, and retention. In addition, they must

develop a method to measure and evaluate their respective levels of achievement in

accordance with this model. An example of a process that helps universities focus

on measurable forms of learning excellence is the Foundations of Excellence in the

First College Year project presently being conducted by the John N. Gardner Institute

for Excellence in Undergraduate Education (see: http://www.jngi.org/foe-program/).

This is a process that uses a set of aspirational principles for excellence in both the

design and measurement of the beginning college experience; it includes a process

for conducting a comprehensive self study which leads to an “action/improvement”

plan to both confirm existing practices that are educationally sound, and to produce

change to improve educational effectiveness. Such a system could be directly tied

into the accreditation process that each institution undergoes on a routine basis – a

process that provides the public and potential employers with a reasonable assurance

of the quality of a specific university’s academic programs and graduates. External

evaluation correlates the high implementation of a Foundations of Excellence-

generated action plan with significant increases in first-to-second year retention rates

(Drake, 2010).

3. Examine and postively transform “gateway courses” – In their nearly seventy years

of combined work in the first-year experience movmement, the authors have come

to conclude that mproving institutional and student performance in high enrollment,

undergraduate, foundation-level courses that typically enroll first- and second-year

students – a.k.a. gateway courses – is the “great untapped frontier” of the first-

year experience movement (Koch, 2012, 21). These courses enroll high numbers

of students within and across course sections – often first-year students – yet, for

decades, the rates at which students earn unsatisfactory grades in these courses –

alarming rates as high as 40%, 50% and even 60% – have remained unchanged.

Lack of success in gateways courses is directly tied to significantly lower rates of

degree completion (Adelman, 1999 and 2006). While some of this lack of success


may be due to lack of student effort, higher education institutions bear some of

the responsibility associated with these failure rates as well. The time has come

for instituitons to focus on what they can control – faculty selection, instructor

professional development, academic support efforts, course policies, etc. – and

directly address gateway course success. One approach for doing so is the newly

initiated Gateways to Completion effort. Initiated by the John N. Gardner Institute in

2013, this effort provides a structured analysis and gateway course improvement plan

implementation process (see: http://www.jngi.org/g2c/). Whether through a structured

process such as Gateways to Completion, or through a self-generated approach, U.S.

colleges and universities must begin to intentionally and directly address the success

of first-year (and other) students in gateway courses if the nation is to realize its

Completion Agenda goals.

4. Make intentional connections between the first-year programs within a given

college or university – Just as John Donne asserted “No man is an island,” we assert

that no first-year program can realize its full potential by operating alone. While

American colleges and universities have done a laudable job at starting programs and

offering services for first-year students, far too often these initiatives are atomized

and disconnected. A truly effective first-year experience is more than the sum of

its parts. Students can, and often do, make sense of these various pieces on their

own – and unfortunately they do so at both their and the institution’s peril. The best

learning occurs when an institution intentionally connects its first-year components

in a meaningful and explicit manner. For example, rather than allowing them to

operate on their own, a university could maximize the benefits of its Supplemental

Instruction and first-year seminar programs by imbedding both within a learning

community. Research conducted at Purdue University shows that when connections

of this nature occur, retention outcomes are greater than when students participate

in any of the programs in a stand-alone fashion (Koch and Drake, 2009). In essence,

regardless of where the various portions of an institution’s first-year programs may

be administratively housed, efforts must be made to create an integrated first-year

experience that reflects both how and what universities want students to learn.


5. Treat the first-year experience as a part of a broader continuum – The first-year

experience is but one of a number of transitions that a student will undergo while

she or he attends a university. Far too often, American higher education institutions

focus heavy attention on helping their first-year students and then believe that the

rest of their students’ educational experience will take care of themselves. The

initial analysis of the first-year experience movement as a response to student needs

must continue to evolve into a much broader conversation, with connections made

with efforts that are evolving to address the “sophomore slump” and the senior

year experience. In essence, just as universities must make efforts to link their first

year programs together in an intentional manner, so they should make sure that the

combined package that these linked programs comprise – the first-year experience –

is intentionally linked with what occurs in other years of study.

These recommended objectives are germane to the unique needs of higher education

in the United States during the second decade of the twenty-first century. But despite their

context, they should not be ignored by university faculty and staff in other countries who

are seeking to enhance their respective nations’ own first-year experience. Simply stated,

the future directions that we suggest for the first-year experience in the United States tell the

reader a great deal about where the movement has gone and where it still needs to go. In the

process, it suggests ways and approaches that others might want to consider when they craft

their own version of action on behalf of first-year students in their own unique countries and

institutional settings. On that note, we hope that our article has provided you with valuable

resources and insight to help you achieve your first-year experience-related objectives in

Saudi Arabia, and we wish you and your students great success and gratification in this

important international enterprise.

Internet-Based Resources Associated with the First-Year Experience in the United States

• College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) – http://www.crla.net/

• Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) – http://www.ccsse.org/

• Foundations of Excellence in the First College Year – http://www.jngi.org/foe-program/


• Gateways to Completion – http://www.jngi.org/g2c/

• Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) – http://www.heri.ucla.edu

• International Center for Supplemental Instruction – http://www.umkc.edu/asm/si/index.shtml

• John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education – http://www.jngi.org

• National Academic Advisors Association (NACADA) – http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/

• National Association for Developmental Education (NADE) – http://www.nade.net/

• National Clearinghouse for Early Alert Initiatives in Higher Education – http://registrar.astate.edu/earlyalert/

• National Resource Center for Learning Communities – http://registrar.astate.edu/earlyalert/

• National Orientation Directors Association (NODA) – http://www.nodaweb.org/

• National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition – http://www.sc.edu/fye/

• National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) – http://nsse.iub.edu


References

Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/ toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf

Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/ Toolbox/Title.html

American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American Council on Education. (1984). Fact book on higher education. New York: Author.

Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Current institutional practices in the first college year. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barefoot, B. O., Griffin, B. Q., & Koch, A. K. (2012). Enhancing student success and retention throughout undergraduate education: A national survey. Brevard, NC: John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education, Brevard, NC. Retrieved from http:// www.jngi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ JNGInational_survey_web.pdf

Barnett, E. A., Bork, R. H., Mayer, A. K., Pretlow, J., Wathington, H. D., & Weiss, M. J. (2012). Bridging the gap: An impact study of eight developmental summer bridge programs in Texas. New York: Columbia University, National Center for Postsecondary Research.

Bradley, P. (2012, July 9). School is in for the summer. Community College Week. Retrieved online from http://www.ccweek.com/news/templates/ template.aspx?articleid=3139

Bennett, M. J. (1996). When dreams came true: The G.I. Bill and the making of modern America. Washington, D.C.: Brassey’s.

Brubacher, J. S., and Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Brubacher, J. S., and Rudy, W. (1956). Higher education in transition: An American history,


1636-1956. New York: Harper and Brothers.

Cardozier, V. R. (1993).Colleges and universities in World War II. Westport, CT: Prager.

Centra, J. A. (January-February 1980). College enrollment in the 1980s: Projections and possibilities. The Journal of Higher Education (51): 18-39.

Center for Excellence in Higher Education (2007). Higher education by the numbers. Retrieved from http://cehe.org/facts-by_the_numbers.html

Chacon, F., Spicer, D., & Valbuena, A. (2012). Analytics in support of student retention and success. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/ analytics-support-student-retention-and-success

Complete College America (2012). Remediation: Higher education’s bridge to nowhere. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http:// completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final.pdf

Cohen, A. M., and Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Drake, B. M. (2010, March). Foundations of Excellence in the first college year: 2010 retention analysis. Brevard, NC: John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education. Re-trieved from http://www.fyfoundations.org/pdf/FoERetentionExecSummary.pdf

Garcia, P. (1991). Summer bridge: Improving retention rates for underprepared students. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 3(2), 91–105.

Gordon, V. (1989). Origins and purposes of the freshman seminar. In M. Lee Upcraft and John N. Gardner (Eds.), The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Highbee, J. L. (2005). Developmental education. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hossler, D., and Anderson, D. K. (2005). The enrollment management process. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the


first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hunter, M. S. (Feburary 2001). The national resource center for the first-year experience twentieth anniversary: Remember, reflect, refocus. Paper delivered at the twentieth Annual Conference for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Houston, TX.

Hunter, M. S., and Linder, C. First-Year Seminars. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson Foundation/Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations for higher education. Racine, WI: Author.

King, M. C., and Kerr, T. J. (2005). Academic Advising. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Koch, A. K. (2012). A call to action: Why high enrollment, high-risk, gateway courses require an intentional institutional improvement effort. SoLAR Flare 2012 Concept Paper. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

Koch, A. K., and Drake, B. M. (2009). The efficacy of a coordinated, multilayered, first-year experience program at Purdue University. In Diane Nutt and Denis Calderon (Eds.), International perspectives on the first-year wxperience in higher education (Monograph No. 52). Columbia, SC: The National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Koch, A. K., Foote, S., Hinkle, S., Keup, J. R., and Pistilli, M.D. (2007). The freshman year experience in American higher education: An annotated bibliography (Monograph No. 2, 4th edition). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Kramer, G. L., and Childs, M. W. (2000). The ‘e’ factor in delivering academic advising and student services. Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advisors Association.

Laufgraben, J. L. (2006). Common reading programs: Going beyond the book (Monograph 44). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for


the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Laufgraben, J. L. (2005). Learning communities. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.. Martin, D. C., & Arendale, D. R. (1993). Supplemental Instruction: Improving first-year student success in high-risk courses (Monograph 12). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Martin, D. C., and Hurley, M. (2005). Supplemental Instruction. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mullendore, R. H., and Banahan, L. A. (2005). Designing orientation programs. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Olsen, K. W. (1974). The G.I. bill, the veterans, and the colleges. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.

Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pistilli, M. D., Arnold, K., & Bethune, M. (2012, July). Signals: Using academic analytics to promote student success. EDUCAUSE Review Online. http:// www.educause.edu/ero/article/signals-using-academic-analytics-promote -student-success

Rudy, W. (1991). Total war and twentieth-century higher learning – Universities of the Western World in the First and Second World Wars. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.

Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

Stone, M. E., & Jacobs, G. (Eds.) (2008). Supplemental Instruction: Improving First-Year Student Success in High-Risk Courses (3rd ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First- Year Experience and Students in Transition.


The City University of New York (n.d.). Summer bridge program at The New Community College at CUNY. Retrieved from http://ncc.cuny.edu/ academics/summerbridgeoverview.html

Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., and Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the first- year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Upcraft, M. L. & Gardner, J. N. (1989). The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Fast facts: Enrollment. In U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2011. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fast-facts/ display.asp?id=98

Watts E. I. (1999). The freshman year experience, 1962-1990: An experiment in humanistic higher education. Kingston, ON: Queens University.

Zeller, T. (July 1984). “A Nation at Risk”: Mandate for change in arts education. Art Education, 37.

Zeller, W. J. (2005). First-year student living environments. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gard-ner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zlotkowski, E. (2005). Service learning and the first-year student. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


The Preparatory Year: Global Perspectives & Local Practices

Prof. Abdulmohsen S. AlaqeeliProfessor of Curriculum and Arabic Teaching &

Learning StrategiesDepartment of Curriculum & Instruction, College of

Education, King Saud UniversityConsultant and Director, Department of Planning &

Statistics, Ministry of Higher [email protected]

Pers

pect

ives

on

Introduction

Various studies indicate that the preparatory year plays a crucial role in the preparing students

for their education and university life. Skill, scientific, psychological, and social preparation are

central objectives of that year. Yet, other objectives concerning raising quality levels in higher

education exist. Following are some of the most important objectives:

1. Increasing retention and graduation rates; thus enhancing institutional internal efficien-

cy levels and reducing educational waste resulting from student attrition, failing, and/or

frequent transfers between specializations.

2. Rationalizing admission through proper student guidance to colleges suiting their skills

and abilities. In addition to assessing student levels for admission to the various sci-

entific and academic disciplines across the university. Furthermore, learning about the

nature of university life/education before joining different colleges.

3. Providing college students with the necessary language and practical skills. As well as

enhancing the skills and knowledge of freshmen in English, computer use, learning,

research, and communication. Leading to facilitating student success during college and


contributing to their distinction after graduation.

4. Improving and regulating institutional resources, equipment, and capabilities by reduc-

ing duplicate courses in programs.

5. Preparing the student to engage in academic, social, and research aspects of university

life. In addition to involvement in on-campus activities and use of various facilities.

Which should result in forming a decent and integrated character, known as the Whole

Personality.

The preparatory year, globally considered as one of the best practices in higher education, is a

relatively new experience in Saudi universities. The principal proposition of this paper is pro-

viding a set of ideas and perceptions to establish a comprehensive vision for the development

of the preparatory year in Saudi universities. To achieve this goal, the paper includes two sec-

tions; the first section involves broad examination of global perspectives and best practices for

the preparatory year. Furthermore, the second section focuses on reviewing local preparatory

year practices in Saudi universities. Ultimately leading to forming ideas and perceptions of a

comprehensive vision for developing the preparatory year intellectually and practically.

Section I: The Preparatory Year: Global Perspectives

Introduction

This section involves reviewing the literature to paint a picture about the global perspective

of the preparatory year its best practices. More specifically, this section will cover the follow-

ing topics regarding the preparatory year: foundational dimensions, self-evaluation, proposed

mechanism for implementing the self-evaluation , basic principles of distinction, trends in-

dicative of best practices based on three essential areas: academic issues, public and private

student support, organization, management, and policies. These areas include several relevant

sub-issues. Finally, a brief presentation of field study findings of the preparatory year at Ameri-

can universities.

Foundational Dimensions of the Preparatory Year

Alexander and Gardner (Alexander & Gardner, 2009) point to the cooperation of the Policy


Center on the First Year of College with Pennsylvania State University’s Center for the Study

of Higher Education & Integration, Campus Compact. This involved an extensive study that

included nearly 300 bachelor’s and diploma degree-awarding academic institutions. Its purpose

was to identify best practices in the preparatory year. The study resulted in nine principles

called Foundational Dimensions. The dimensions were developed to deliver a performance-

measuring platform of learning in the preparatory year among the programs offered on-campus.

The principles were formulated in a general manner to enable academic institutions to articulate

their own beliefs for the preparatory year within the institutional guidelines. The dimensions are

based on four assumptions:

1. Maintaining the institution’s educational mission to preserve its individuality and dis-

tinctiveness.

2. The preparatory year is central in the establishment of the student in accordance with

institutional guidelines throughout the following years of study.

3. Relying on quantitative indicators for performance measurement.

4. These principles are ideal not only for creating quality in the preparatory year, but also

for the entire educational process.

According to the study, the main reasons to be adopted by the academic institution when imple-

menting a comprehensive study of the preparatory year are summarized in the following (Al-

exander & Gardner, 2009):

1. Transition from an Evaluation-Free to an Indicator-Rich Environment

The study reports that only few academic institutions were keen to measure performance, suc-

cess rates for example, in the preparatory year. Teaching methods were neither tested nor evalu-

ated and were only assumed effective while some characteristics have led to doubts. Institutions

also ignored modest teaching capabilities, course levels, faculty competencies, and even the

teaching methods used in the preparatory year.

2. Retention Fatigue

Student retention efforts among academic institutions during the preparatory year focused on


study completion rather than adopting clear and stable academic goals. This was evident as a

number of local universities have suffered from plunging, at certain stages, towards expanding

admission in response to the growing demand for the limited-capabilities higher education. The

unprecedented increment in student numbers resulted in many deep-rooted complications. Most

notably were applicant levels and their deteriorating basic skills the universities initially aimed

to improve through the preparatory year.

3. coping with the Growing Demand for Accountability

The process of improving education generates a lot of stress. This includes accreditation criteria,

achieving better international ranking positions, and pressure from students, faculty, and spon-

sors. Local parents lobby to get the best investment return on education and focus on getting

qualifications that meet the requirements of the labor market. The study argues that institutions

taking the initiative to self-evaluate performance will be more ready to comply with standard

quality requirements that may be imposed by legislative bodies at any time and become more

able to respond to them. Once self-evaluation initiatives improve, a new or existing standard is

set raising the competitive advantage against counterparts. Above all, it becomes the minimum

for others.

4. Seizing the Opportunity to Achieve Further integration and coordination in the

Academic Process

Organized by the University of South Carolina in 1982, a series of annual conferences focused

on the preparatory year “The Fresh Year Experience”. The study indicates that this and similar

conferences were fertile grounds for reviewing and exchanging successful experiences between

academic institutions. However, academic institutions rarely implemented recommendations

and/or incorporated them in strategic plans. Thus becoming an intellectual luxury! The study

claims that these conferences would have been more useful through more dedication and less

repetition, competitiveness, and pursuance of short-term fame. Some institutions aimed the pre-

paratory year towards rehabilitating students in fundamentals that basic education failed at. As

efforts were focused on what students missed in basic education, students were overwhelmed

during their university education.


Self-evaluation of the Preparatory Year

The Foundations of Excellence in the First College Year operate as a general framework for

self-assessment. They include specific criteria for the success of academic institutions in the

preparatory year. Teams formed by the institution evaluate and use the results in proposing

initiatives for development of and improvement. The study indicates that since 2003, 145 aca-

demic institutions ranging from Diploma (two semesters) and BA (four years of study) have ap-

plied the previously mentioned framework in its self-assessment. The study documented many

difficulties these institutions faced. Starting from the academic and administrative aspects of

forming the team with representatives from the various relevant parties such as students .. etc,

to get their perspectives in the development process.

The self-evaluation process began by gathering and classifying data in a databank. This includ-

ed the Current Practices Inventory as an attempt to critique and learn about of student, faculty,

and others’ perspectives on these practices. It may also lead to the development of new practices

or terminating those that prove ineffective. The data may indicate the low achievement rates in

specific curricula, or lack of procedures for student complaints, thus creating a bottleneck with-

out taking corrective action. It can also indicate the lack of a mechanism to identify students

with special needs, unclear academic and social care, and follow-up accountability to integrate

them in the preparatory year.

In contrast, documenting current practices would lead to identifying practices accepted by the

relevant parties and the ability for them to learn more (Alexander & Gardner, 2009).

The impulsive expansion in undergraduate student responsibility versus that during his/her

years at the school age is one of the vital issues in the preparatory year. As the student becomes

fully responsible for his/her achievement at school. At this stage, the preparatory year must ad-

dress this expansion wisely through supporting students, especially those facing difficulties in

these responsibilities.

Proposed Mechanism for Self-Evaluation

The study included a proposed mechanism and several application guidelines as the result of

practices in a number of universities, which can be summarized in the following (Alexander &

Gardner, 2009):


• Forming a balanced group to evaluate the preparatory year with representation from all

relevant parties; administrators, academics ... Etc.

• Developing the team’s structural work by selecting a president or a leader with academic

experience with a lesser workload and whom is acceptable to the rest of the members.

• Educating team members on the standards and guidelines utilizing a document that is ap-

propriately framed and circulated amongst them first and then with the wider circle of

relevant parties.

• In order to start the project, the team should start their research by answering a number of

questions, including:

• Why do we have data on the preparatory year? What should we know?

• What are the strengths of the educational institution? What are the main challenges?

• Begin with summarizing the most important opportunities for development or threats

as the highest priority.

• What are the implementation requirements of the self-evaluation? Such as the amount

of required support from an external advisory group, project duration... etc.?

• Identifying, approving, and publishing the most important project tasks, targets, and com-

pletion stages.

• Assigning sub-teams for implementation.

• Adopting methodology for effective communication between team members and efficiently

managing their performance.

The Basic Principles of Excellence in the Preparatory Year

The John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education (www.fyfoundations.

org) introduced the principles in a published study titled Foundations of Excellence in the First

College Year. Measured through questionnaires filled out by students and faculty, they are as

follows:


1 . Philosophy: Academic institutions offer the preparatory year based on their educational

philosophies and strategic policies. This principle must be documented and easily ex-

changed between stakeholders according to the institutional directions.

2 . Organization: Academic institutions formulate organizational structures and policies that

form an integrated strategy for the preparatory year. It serves the needs of all stakeholders;

students, academics, administrators and others.

3 . Learning: Academic institutions offer curricular and co-curricular courses that support the

integration of students in the learning process. This results in the integrated development

of knowledge, skills, behaviors, and harmonization with institutional philosophy, policies,

and college education requirements. Hence, the preparatory year aims at constructing stu-

dents’ educational and moral values.

4 . Faculty: Institutions prioritize preparatory years. Therefore, faculty and staff also realize

the importance of this year and work to provide high quality education. They strive to

overcome the difficulties students face, whether inside or outside the classroom. This oc-

curs under the supervision of college and department leaders.

5 . Transition: Parties operating the preparatory year strive to make it a transition for the

student. This is achieved through the adoption of policies and practices consistent with

academic policies. Starting from admissions to the end of the year, preparatory year offi-

cials recognize that clear instructions, effective communication, and support to provide all

means of success is completely their responsibility. The transitional setup process should

involve coordination with institutions, schools, and community colleges from which stu-

dents graduated. It may also include parents and other institutions that may provide sup-

port for the student.

6 .Students: Services in the preparatory year include all students. It aims at meeting their

countless needs through preemptive diagnosis, rapid monitoring, and responding. Taking

into account their backgrounds, cultures, interests, and experiences. It also includes creat-

ing a safe campus environment.

7 . Diversity: Students should experience different paradigms of thinking to improve their


understanding, expand their knowledge, and to prepare them to be active participants in

their communities. They should have the ability to interact positively with others from

various levels and cultures.

8 . Roles & Purposes: Universities educate students on their responsibilities and roles during

the preparatory phase. They also should be familiar with the goals and directions of higher

education in general for individuals and society as a whole. These roles include the collec-

tion of knowledge, capacity development, production value of the student in preparation

for the job market, and the development of good citizenship.

9 . Improvement: An academic institution assesses its operations. It seeks to coordinate with

similar organizations, including professional meetings, in order to exchange views and

work together for development and continuous improvement.

The study came out with nearly one hundred recommendations and suggestions for improving

the performance of the educational process in the first year. It also stressed the need for coop-

eration among diploma and bachelor’s granting institutions in a specific field. This cooperation

is to ensure common grounds while integrating educational services, enrollment issues, devel-

oping disciplines with low turnout rates, and synchronizing shared academic content among

various academic institutions. This would result in easier student transfers between institutions.

As strange as it sounds, the study cited a number of successful examples of cooperation be-

tween institutions of different levels. Let alone the prospect of collaboration between second-

ary and higher education, which in our opinion, has huge potential for colleges, universities,

and community colleges. Cooperation in short and medium-term professional programs is very

valuable. It would provide high school graduates with the opportunity to master their profes-

sions for a better life. Afterwards, they could gradually be trained through collegial and univer-

sity programs. Institutions review and compare their rivals’ policies and procedures, which if

borrowed, may pose a dilemma for its academic distinction. Thus, developing higher education

in general and its growing contribution to community development.

The study recommends that institutions follow vigorous steps to initiate self-assessment con-

sistent with the model in question. Moreover, it also recommends a range of guidelines that can

be summarized as follows:


1. Proper selection of leadership for the initiative with adequate authority to get the sup-

port and participation of the relevant parties.

2. Appropriate selection of evaluation tools. Starting with the most important criteria in-

cluded in the model and adding standards from the team. Otherwise, the prior standards

would be sufficient as the first edition. Followed by periodical evaluations and proper

implementation to assure developing and enriching the standards.

3. Form specialized and subdivided teams to facilitate and accelerate the evaluation.

4. Review questionnaires and set performance standards that are consistent with the in-

stitution’s culture and terminology in order to gain access to accurate and objective

evaluation.

5. Adopt, document, and approve a scheduled action plan to cope with team members’

busy schedules.

6. Involve the project’s Executive Committee in the updates and communication in order

to overcome the difficulties facing the teams and support the adoption of initiatives and

continuing development and improvement.

Guidelines for Best Practices in the Preparatory Year

The National Resource Center for The First Year Experience and Students in Transition, Uni-

versity Of South Carolina, published the first edition of the guidelines for best practices for the

preparatory year in 1990. The center released the second edition in 2001 and following is an

introductory synopses. The year consists of a number of strategically interconnected prepara-

tory activities and practices. Certain procedures are taken to monitor the performance standards

to verify effectiveness. The following table illustrates these criteria grouped into major sub-

themes summarizing key issues in each axis (Gardner et al., 2001).


1. Academic Issues Theme

Main Theme Sub Theme Key Issues

AcademicIssues Courses

• What is the course structure in the preparatory year?

• Are educational goals clearly defined?

• Are experiences exchanged between faculty?

• Are there specific shared experiences between prepara-tory year students?

• To what extent are preparatory year courses offered by the best teachers and through the best methods?

• Is the development of reading and conversation tar-geted in the preparatory year?

• Are students introduced to some of the critical thinking skills within the three perspectives: concepts, values, and methods?

• Are students introduced to how to use the library and other cognitive means? How and when is it done? Whose responsibility is it? How effective is it?

• Does the preparatory year program include lectures or orientation meetings? Are they assessed to achieve the goals?

• What is the student-teacher ratio in the Preparatory Year? Is there a target percentage?

• Is there a policy to monitor student attendance? Is it different from other years? Have attendance patterns been studied in the preparatory year?

• Who teaches in the preparatory year? What are their ranks? Are faculty working fulltime, temporarily, or part-time? What are their qualifications? Do non-PhD holders teach? Were they previously provided with ap-propriate guidance and/or training? Are foreign teach-ers proficient in the local and/or foreign language? How are their competencies measured?

• Is teaching and/or supervision of preparatory year students linked with any faculty appointment and/or promotion criteria?

• Is there a program for developing faculty to support preparatory year students?



Pedagogy

• Are faculty encouraged to explore new methods?

• In difficult courses (Example: specialized, or character-ized by difficulty), are students provided with more support? (Example: additional lectures).

• Does the institution support forming learning commu-nities, which integrate a number of classes together?

• Do faculty apply Service Learning with preparatory year students?

• To what extent is information technology utilized in education? Does each student have the opportunity to use a personal computer? Do they have an Internet connection?

Academic Advising & EducationalSupport

• Is advising structured in the preparatory year?

• Does every student have an advisor? Can the student bypass the advisor while registering?

• Are faculty and advisors trained? Are they rewarded? Is advising linked to promotion in the institution?

• Does the institution maintain a system that flags stu-dents in need of academic/social support and/or guid-ance?

• Is there a certain division for pursuing and guiding academically weak students?

2. General & Special Student Support

Main Theme Sub Theme Key Issues General &Special Stu-dent Support

Supporting a Diverse Stu-dent Population

• Are student statistical data collected in terms of gen-der, nationality, academic qualifications etc. ..?

Supporting Special NeedsStudents

• What services are offered to them or some of them?

• Are there services and facilities for students with spe-cial needs?

• Are students diagnosed for learning difficulties in the preparatory year? Are faculty trained on diagnosing these cases and dealing with them?


DevelopmentalStudent Sup-port

• Is there an early-stage warning mechanism that flags students expected to suffer learning and/or social dif-ficulties?

• Are these mechanisms periodically evaluated?

• Are faculty rewarded for taking care of remedial stu-dents (enrolled in remedial tracks)?

• Are faculty trained for teaching remedial classes and dealing with those students?

3. Organizing, Management, & Policies


Orga- nizing,Manage- ment, &Policies

Administration, Organizing, andLeadership

• Who generally runs the preparatory year?

• Is there a body responsible for preparatory year stu-dents? Is there an overseeing body (Higher Council or so)?

• To what extent are senior administrators of the institu-tion involved in the committees and the work of the preparatory year?

• Are there any partnerships between colleges and differ-ent departments in guiding and managing the prepara-tory year?



InstitutionalPolicies

• To what extent do preparatory year tasks align with the philosophy of the university and strategic directions? How are the institutional vision and mission utilized in guiding the work of the university?

• Is there integration between academic programs and other associated activities in the preparatory year?

• Are there faculty, leaders, and/or others advocating student issues in the preparatory year? Do they receive positive recognition from their colleagues? Are they rewarded for that?

• Are the criteria for student success defined in the pre-paratory year? Will these criteria be measured? Are the results verified?

• Does the institution use questionnaires to evaluate stakeholders feedback in the preparatory year? ( Stu-dents , parents , faculty)

• Is senior student feedback evaluated for their benefit from the preparatory year versus what they learned in the years that followed?

The Campus

• Are students appropriately respected, cared-for, and serviced dealing with the academic and administrative parties?

• Are all students equally cared-for on-campus? (Ex-ample: international students, privacy in dealing with female students).

Procedures& Activities

Registration & Admissions

• Is there a general admission philosophy supported by efficiently integrated policies?

• Is there any kind of pre-admission orientation? (Ex-ample: high school).

• What information is the student provided with during registration? How were their expectations effected? Does the institution pursue its promises?

• How do faculty and staff rate the website as being helpful to preparatory year students?

• Does the institution take into account admitted stu-dents’ approval of the study load? Does it have plans to improve chances of success of non-ideal students?



Financial Sup-port

Private Uni-()versities

• What is the tuition discount and statutory exemptions percentage available to students? Is there a dedicated budget for grants? Are there any grant policies?

• What percentage of students receive financial support in the preparatory year?

• What is the size of support? Who are the sponsors?

• What percentage of preparatory year students who work full and/or part-time?

• What is the percentage of students who have loans to pay their tuition?

Orientation

• Does the academic institution offer an orientation program for preparatory year students? Is this a joint program between other academic and administrative parties?

• Is there a supervising and developing body for orienta-tion programs?

• Are there standards for faculty and students to partici-pate in orientation programs?

Managing Insti-tutional Data

• What databases are available on preparatory year stu-dents and their potential?

• Are students who dropout followed-up?

On-campus Cultural &Social Environ- ment

• What are the arrangements for preparatory year student reception?

• What are the activities that enhance student affilia-tion and facilitate their integration into the university environment?

Non-CurricularActivities

• What are the activities and to what extent are students encouraged to participate?

• Are students introduced to these activities? How?

• To what extent is the university prepared to provide services that accommodate a specific category of stu-dents?

Dealing withComplications

• Are the students aware of improper and/or harmful acts and alert to some of the risks they may face?

• Are students allowed to discuss these issues?

• Is the university prepared to deal with certain situa-tions and/or behaviors?


Main Theme Sub Theme Key Issues Professional &Student Societ-ies

• Do academic and professional societies exist within the university? Are there joining conditions? What data is available?

Housing• Does the university provide student housing? What are

the criteria for joining?

• What data is available?

Field Study Results of the Preparatory Year at American Universities

The Institute of John Gadner for Excellence in Higher Education published a study in 2012

titled Enhancing Student Success and Retention throughout Undergraduate Education A Na-

tional Survey. The study, which sampled public and private universities in the US, included a

field evaluation of the seven following components relating to the preparatory year (Barefoot

et al., 2012):

1. Summer Bridge Programs

2. Pre-Term Orientation

3. Special Academic / Transition Seminars

4. Learning Communities

5. Early Warning / Academic Alert Systems

6. Service Learning

7. Undergraduate Research

Data was collected through electronic questionnaires targeting 1,373 Educational Affairs Depu-

ties. The response rate was 34%. The study drew a comprehensive picture of support and as-

sistance levels to the academic and social growth of first-year students especially in preparatory

year in the U.S. It also revealed direction differences between State and private universities.

Other differences were found based on student numbers. Support was concentrated in the first

as well as in the senior year (year of graduation), making this approach a best practice (Barefoot

et al., 2012).


Section II: Local Practices in the Preparatory Year

Introduction

This section focuses on providing insights on the reality of the preparatory year in Saudi uni-

versities. University websites were visited in addition to reviewing available booklets and bro-

chures on preparatory years. The paper concluded with several notes and ideas laying the foun-

dation for a comprehensive vision on how to develop the preparatory year in Saudi universities.

Moreover, international experiences and successful practices worldwide were also reviewed

especially expert papers presented in the 33rd Annual Conference on The First Year-Experience,

held in San Diego, U.S. from January 15 to February 18, 2014. In addition to research carried

out by many global research excellence centers and specialized in the preparatory year.

Key Ideas and concepts for Developing the Preparatory Year at Universities

Following are some vital ideas and perceptions laying the foundation for developing a compre-

hensive vision for improving the preparatory year in Saudi universities:

1. The preparatory year in Saudi universities lacks a Governing Concept philosophy. This

is crucial for building the Preparatory Year in terms of perception, objectives, programs,

and goals. On the other hand, the preparatory year in most American universities is

based on a theoretically and practical structured vision. This is in terms of goals, pro-

grams, skills, strategies, learning dimensions, teaching strategies, and assessment styles.

The point here is not to adopt a single comprehensive preparatory year model in Saudi

universities, as there is no one-size -fits-all. This is due to having different systems,

theories, and intellectual frameworks between schools. In addition to the vision for stu-

dents, knowledge, skills, learning processes in its entire complex and interconnected

dimensions, wide variation in institutional structures, and variety of personal perspec-

tives. However, the previous does not inhibit attempting to agree on shared features

that can frame the proposed model(s) for the preparatory year. The aim is to achieve

(the learner we need: independent and skilled). Taking into account some domestic and

international experiences and especially in developed countries, which have a long tra-

dition in this area.


2. Considerable attention was given in higher education literature, in theory and prac-

tice, to the preparatory year as a trend. This involves developing undergraduate student

skills, preparing them for success in college life, and raising retention and graduation

rates. However, most public universities did not take this trend seriously in terms of the

quality of service. In general, private colleges and universities still lead in managing and

implementing the preparatory year. Perhaps this is due to their recent inception and/or

relations (especially outstanding ones) through agreements and alliances with universi-

ties and advanced centers in America and Europe.

3. Preparatory year organizational forms and administrative bodies differ. They are Dean-

ships (in public universities) and independent programs (in most private colleges and

universities). With the exception of Taibah University where the preparatory year is part

of the Deanship of Educational Services and King Abdulaziz University where it fol-

lows the Deanship of Admission & Registration. Perhaps the difference in the shape of

the preparatory year leads to other differences in the context, components, and programs

from one university to another. According to Evenbeck and his colleagues (Evenbeck et

al., 2010), the University College has the most popular and successful preparatory year

model among American higher education institutions. ,

4. In most Saudi universities, the preparatory year is operated and implemented through

the private sector. According to best practices globally, this practice is unprecedented. I

have attended a number of meetings and discussions at the previously mentioned, 33rd

Annual Conference for the Preparatory Year. None have mentioned running the prepa-

ratory year through the private sector. They are usually operated and implemented by

university faculty. Occasionally, outstanding graduate students were assigned general

courses too. I asked some of the top experts in the preparatory year, such as Dr. John

Gardner, Dr. Andrew Koch, Dr. Arthur Levin, and Dr. Diana Dean about the preparatory

year offered by the private sector in the U.S. They responded that, to their knowledge,

no university in the U.S. did so. The concept startled them too. From their perspectives,

the preparatory year involves teaching and learning. As a central function of universi-

ties that are think-tanks with faculty members. Why would that task be assigned to the

private sector? Moreover, the Saudi private sector has no distinctive institutions spe-


cialized in educational services related to the university preparatory year. On the one

hand, all the available private parties are nothing more than training centers or emerging

offices with few and/or weak qualified and experienced staff. On the other hand, being

assigned that task in absence of faculty results in depriving students from their valuable

first year to be prepared according to the requirements and standards of undergradu-

ate education, learning, research, and interaction with the academic culture. , As their

undergraduate learning should be offered by university faculty. Finally, assigning the

preparatory year to the private sector infers a non-desirable concept according to the

literature, the Commodification of Higher Education. Where it is subjected to the laws

of buying and selling and ultimately weakening its quality. In addition to exhausting

the great opportunity for cultivating the main concepts of the preparatory year as a best

practice through the accumulation of experiences and expertise; making it a solid insti-

tutional structure at the university.

5. The preparatory year in Saudi universities focuses on cognitive skills, such as thinking,

learning, and communication. Although this has many merits, a new trend in the pre-

paratory year at American universities has arisen. It involves including non-cognitive

or non-academic skills in the preparatory year. These skills include educational com-

mitment, campus engagement, self-efficacy, appreciating creativity, seriousness, team-

work, and discipline. Studies indicate that non-cognitive skills explain 80%, while cog-

nitive skills explain 20% of success in life (Payne & Kyllonen, 2012). Saudi universities

should take advantage of this best practice.

6. Most Saudi preparatory year programs lack an integrated program for teaching lan-

guage skills, particularly reading skills. A number of studies, including the study of the

Hart Research Associates (2013), have shown that it is required for students to succeed

in their academic and professional careers. However, American preparatory years have

integrated programs to teach fast reading, analytical, critical, and strategic skills named

Reading Programs in addition to academic writing.

7. The preparatory year in Saudi universities is almost uniform in terms of duration. It is

either a full year or one semester. In contrast, the duration varies in the American experi-

ence. Some are for a year, some a semester, some are summer bridging programs, and


some are less. This is due to the difference in the preparatory year programs in America.

Programs include learning groups, academic early-warning systems, orientation to the

university systems and facilities, learning through community service, undergraduate

research programs, and others.

8. The preparatory year in Saudi universities solely focuses on preparing students for the

first year at the university. While best practices in American universities show that re-

habilitation programs cover all the years of undergraduate study. This is in the form of

programs and lectures according to the characteristics of the school year, students, and

their backgrounds whether for the first (freshman) and/or second (sophomore) year(s).

Studies indicate that students’ dropout is higher within these two years. The third (ju-

nior) and fourth (senior) years focus on preparing students for their professional and

future lives in general. They are called Senior Year Experience.

9. The implementation of the preparatory year in Saudi universities suffers a pedagogi-

cal blur (educationally and methodologically) of the teaching processes. Perhaps this

framework is not clear conceptually or practically (immature) in some universities. As

this pedagogical framework is scientifically and theoretically derived from the concept

of Strategic Teaching. Where the focus is on teaching (strategies and methods) associat-

ed with reading, writing, and communication, thinking, and research skills. The concept

involves functional and non-content teaching. A more abstract statement of describing

the effective framework is: (attention to quality versus epistemology). When we exam-

ine the vocabulary of some articles of the preparatory year, we find that they focus on

content teaching and not strategies.

10. It is recommended to publish (and translate) distinctive books on teaching preparatory

year materials. Particularly those in the general requirements for all students. Alterna-

tively, those dealing with technical aspects (which are irrefutable). Decent books are

few in this area and some commercial books are not good enough. Colleges and univer-

sities may find themselves quoting learning skills from weak books.


References

• Barefoot, B., Griffin, B., & Koch, A. ( 2012). Enhancing Student Success and Retention through-

out Undergraduate Education, A National Survey. The John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in

Undergraduate Education. NC, USA.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/qc585jxicjsecfx/JNGInational_survey_web.pdf

• Evenbeck, S., Jackson, B., Smith, M., Ward, D., & Associates. (2010). Organizing for Student

Success: The University College Model. National Resource Center: First- Year Experience and

Students in Transition. University of South Carolina, USA.

• Gardner, J. ( 2013). Seven Principles of Good Practice for Student Success Partnerships. The John

N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education. NC, USA.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f87mreripiicsgd/7-Principles.pdf

• Gardner, J., Betsy O. Barefoot, B., & Swing, R. ( 2001). Guidelines for Evaluating The First- Year

Experience at Four-Year Colleges, The National Resource Center for The First- Year Experience

and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/avnfmezl9j5h2mi/Guidelines_for_Evaluating-1.pdf

• Hart Research Associates. ( 2013). IT TAKES MORE THAN A MAJOR: Employer Priorities for

College Learning and Student Success. An Online Survey Among Employers Conducted. On Be-

half Of: The Association Of American Colleges And Universities. By Hart Research Associates.

Washington, DC.

http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/2013_EmployerSurvey.pdf

• Julie S. Alexander, J. & Gardner, J. (2009). Beyond Retention: A Comprehensive Approach to the

First College Year. Published online in Wiley InterScience.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xltxyxhxu0wsctt/Beyond-Retention-A-comprehensive-ap-

proach-to-FY.pdf

• Payne, D. & Kyllonen, P. ( 2012). The Role of Noncognitive Skills in Academic Success. 21st

Century Knowledge and Skills: The New Curriculum and the Future of Assessment. Center for

Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice ( CERPP).


Preparatory Year (First Year Experience)

Prof. Saud N. Al Kathiri Assistant Vice President for Educational and Academic Af-

fairs for the development of educational

And director of the Center for Excellence in Learning and

Education at King Saud University

[email protected]

Pers

pect

ives

on

The importance and the role of the preparatory year for students in higher education:

The preparatory year is an important stage due to its role in bridging the gap between

the general education stage and the higher education. It might be thought that its existence is

a result of the general education weakness. However, this is not true because the gap between

the two stages is a result of the requirements of each stage that differs from one another in

addition to the special nature and requirements of the higher education. Accordingly, such dif-

ferences make the preparatory year important for two reasons; to bridge that gap and to guar-

antee students’ success in their new educational stage which is harder and richer in content

than their previous stage and requires specific skills. Within this context, a preparatory year

exists under in the most international universities although they have a strong general educa-

tional system, a matter which indicates the importance of and the need to pay more attention

to this year.

The main goals of the preparatory year are concentrated on preparing the students aca-

demically through improving their skills such as communication skills, social skills, critical

thinking skills, solving problems skills, leadership skills and self education skills. In addition,

the preparatory year programs have some scientific curriculum including math, languages and

business administration.


Different methods of administrating the preparatory year:

Studying the international practices shows that there are different methods of the

administration of the preparatory year. The first method is the Integrated Program in which

the year is considered a part of bachelor degree program and is calculated in the Grade Point

Average (GPA). This method requires a unified center for the whole university to administrate

the program. The second way is the Independent Program in which the preparatory year is

administrated by independent entity away from the university. Succeeding in this program

does not guarantee the acceptance in the university without having the required qualifications

announced by the university, unlike the case in the first method. Each of these methods has its

advantages and disadvantages based on which each university may prefer one to another.

The assessment study of King Saud’s University on the preparatory year:

Out of the belief of King Saud University in the importance of assessing the success

and efficiency of educational system in achieving the objectives of its program and the devel-

opment thereof, the Teaching and Learning Excellence Center in the university has conducted

a comprehensive assessment study over the preparatory year under the supervision of univer-

sity’s Agency of Educational and Academic Affairs and in collaboration with the university’s

Agency for Improvement and Quality. The study has used the multi pattern assessment model

as an organizational frame including the following phases: context, inputs, operations, and

outputs. The study has included the analysis of the international practices, the relevant docu-

ments, and the field literatures. Also, the study has analyzed the results of more than 50.000

students and compared between them; it also included different set of scientific methods and

workshops. More than fifty members of the faculty staff and researchers have participated in

this study.

The results of the assessment study of the preparatory year:

The general results of the study show that introducing and improving the preparatory

year in the educational system of the King Saud University are positive and important steps.

The detailed results of the academic data analysis indicated that the preparatory year has a

positive impact on the performance of the students. Such results are based on some indicators


such as: the grades of the preparatory year were better indicators of the grades of the sec-

ond year when compared with the achievement test, qualification test and secondary school

grades; the classes that followed applying the preparatory year were better than the previous

classes in their final grades and in particular subjects (table 1).

Table1: Comparing Average Math Scores before and after implementing the prep

year

Course Batches Average Math Scores

math 106After prep year 2.89

Before prep year 2.60





The results also included the positive responses of the students towards the prepara-

tory year as they asserted that they have accomplished 74.9% of the year’s goals (table 2). On

the other hand, The questionnaires analysis and workshops results of both students and staff

asserted the importance of revising, developing and tailoring English language program and

general and scientific programs in a way that qualifies the students for their majors.

Table 2: Faculty and Students’ Perceptions on Achieving Prep year’s Goals

Prep Year Goals Faculty Student

Discipline and Responsibility 64% 78%

Confidence and Leadership Skills 69.8% 73.8%

Communication Skills 66.8% 79.2%

Learning and Research Skills 61.8% 71.8%

ESL Skills 61.8% 72.4%

Information Technology 73.2% 79.4%

Numerical Skills 62% 69.8%

Average Percentage 65.7% 74.9%

The results also show high levels of correlation between the preparatory year rates

with its inputs (independent variables) in terms of its dependence on high acceptance crite-


ria especially in the variable achievement test. High input rates clearly led to high rates of

the preparatory year. This interpretation is supported by the remarkable high rates of those

with high inputs in health and science (tables 3, 4.5) and supported also by the existence of a

positive correlation between cumulative average in the preparatory year and the independent

variables (the rate of secondary school and the degree of achievement test and the degree of

qualification test) in addition to a significant increase in the correlation factor with the vari-

able achievement test.

Table 3: Distribution of Accepted Students in Prep Year according to Their

High School GPA, SAT II and SAT I Scores (Science Track)

VariablePercentages

60% – 50 70%-61 80%-71 90%-81 100%-91High School GPA - - - 6.5% 93.5%

SAT II 5.9% 39.8% 41.4% 10.4% 1.3%SAT I 1.4% 13.9% 52.1% 29.3% 3.3%


High School GPA, SAT II and SAT I Scores (Humanities Track)

VariablePercentages

60% – 50 70%-61 80%-71 90%-81 100%-91High School GPA - - - 14.1% 85.9%

SAT II 23.8% 24.5% 23.4% 25% 3.3%SAT I 1% 24.5% 39.9% 30.9% 3.7%


High School GPA, SAT II and SAT I Scores (Health Science Track)

VariablePercentages

60% – 50 70%-61 80%-71 90%-81 100%-91High School GPA - - - 14.1% 85.9%

SAT II 23.8% 24.5% 23.4% 25% 3.3%

SAT I 1% 24.5% 39.9% 30.9% 3.7%

Main challenges facing the preparatory year:


The study found out that the most prominent aspects that formed the biggest challenge

for the preparatory year is to get and attract qualified teachers in the preparatory year and

create programs to develop their performance. It could be argued that unless the universities

adjust their input in terms of selecting efficient faculty staff and focusing on this challenge

while handling it in an efficient and positive way; achieving the aspirations and hopes of the

preparatory year may become continuously questioned which will be reflected on the impact

on the quality of the outputs of the preparatory year and thus may affect reviewing the impor-

tance of a preparatory year in the future.

The study showed – a like the results of international studies - that the student guid-

ance emerges as one of the challenges because it is considered as a necessary and constitutive

stage in the preparatory year specifically due to its impact on the students’ journey academi-

cally and professionally. Therefore, it is necessary to intensify the role of guidance and ori-

entation for students in the preparatory year in addition to systematically planning to educate

and guide the students, and providing all kinds of support to achieve the best results.

The need for administrative and academic support was also one of the most major

challenges facing the preparatory year to achieve its objectives with a high degree of quality

and increasing the quality standards in both the administrative and academic level. Accord-

ingly, the preparatory year is playing the role of university representative who carries out the

role of the university to qualify the students in accordance with the university’s vision and

aspirations.

Improvement Aspects of preparatory year program

The results of the present study do not guarantee the continuous success of achieving the

goals of the preparatory year. Accordingly, the impact of the preparatory year should be more

effective through reviewing and improving a set of its fields to enhance its impact and the

quality of its processes and outputs. These fields are topped by the following:

1- Improving the English language curricula and paying extensive attention to the

practical training. Moreover, improving the followed assessment methods and teach-

ing approaches to achieve all the required lingual skills through coordination with the


faculties to satisfy their needs in this field.

2- Improving the scientific curricula in the preparatory year for all health, scientific,

and humanitarian courses in order to cope with the needs of the universities.

3- Improving the general curricula to include advanced knowledge fundamentals and

extensive practical training in addition to harmonizing the followed assessment meth-

ods with the used teaching strategies.

The need for a comprehensive improvement of the preparatory year and of the

universities

Despite the fact that the whole attention may be directed to the preparatory year due

to its importance, the attention should be paid also to the improvement of the educational

process in the universities. Some students expressed their wish for improving the level

of the education in the universities to be similar to the level of the preparatory year. They

elaborated that the education in the preparatory years depends for example on cooperative

learning and increasing the role of the student in the classes, while the education in the

universities depends on delivery method and negative communication by the educators

without enhancing students participation in the educational process.


Research Abstract


Abstract: This study highlights the experience of business incubators in Japanese universities in

order to extrapolate the current situation and circumstances surrounding this experience and

in the same time monitor the challenges facing the development of the university business

incubator ecosystem in Japan. The author had been relying on the case study for each of the

universities of Tokyo, Waseda and Kyoto which are the strongest three Japanese universities

that have succeeded in generating the largest number of startup companies in the period

between 1998 and 2008. Moreover, interviews with specialists in the fields related to the

subject of study were adopted in the analysis. The findings shows that the experience of Japan

in the field of university business incubator started to reach maturity after nearly a decade

since the launch of “Hiranuma Initiative” to support emerging companies from universities in

the year 2001. This in turn helped the university business incubators to develop the quality of

services provided to startup companies from hard services into higher level of soft services.

In this respect, a number of startup companies from Japanese universities began recently to

record successes in Initial Public Offering (IPO) or being merged and acquisitioned (M&A)

Developing the Ecosystem of Business Incubators in Japanese Universities: current Situation and challenges

Dr. Eng. Essam Amanallah BukharyAssistant Professor, College of Economics and Administrative Science,

Imam Mohammed Bin Saud University. Saudi Cultural Attaché in [email protected]

Key words: Japanese Universities, Business Incubators, Startup Companies, Technology Commercialization, Industrial - Academic Cooperation

Res

earc

h A

bstr

act


by other companies. The remaining challenges facing the Japanese university ecosystem

of business incubators such as attracting talents and the quality of venture capital firms and

negativity of Japanese industrial sector toward startup companies.

In order to improve the ecosystem of university business incubation in Japan the study

suggests launching venture capital fund that is connected with the university and operated

independently. Furthermore, as shown in the American experience, the more numbers of

startup companies from universities succeeded in IPO or M&A, the more positivity would be

expected from Japanese industrial sector toward startup companies. It is also important for

Japanese startup companies from universities to expand their activities in to global market

and not to be limited in the Japanese domestic market. Thus, more efforts are required for

attracting foreign talented students, faculty and researchers as well as building networks with

foreign industrial firms. Finally, the study proposed a number of recommendations in order to

contribute to the development of university business incubators universities in Japan as well

as Saudi Arabia and Arab world.


Abstract:The study aims at identifying the extent of practicing the organizational commitment

for heads of departments in the colleges of Salman bin Abdulaziz University as well as

identifying the degree of divergence in practicing the organizational commitment among the

sample of study in relation to different varia bles such as (sex, college , and academic rank).

The total population of this study is (232) faculty members. In addition, the researchers used

descriptive approach and he concluded his study with the following findings:

- The moral commitment comes in the first class wit average (2.52)

- The emotional commitment comes in the second class with average (2.47)

- The progressive commitment comes in the third class with average (2.45)

- There are differences of statistical significance at the level significance which is less

than (0.05) regarding the views of the study sample regarding The degree of practicing

organizational commitment among the heads of departments in relation to difference of

variable of sex (male and female) and the statistical significance goes in the interest of

female.

The Degree of Practicing Organizational commitment For the Heads of Departments in the colleges of Salman bin Abdulaziz University.

Prof. Abdulrahman Albabtain,Associate College of Education

King saud University

Key words: Organizational Commitment - Heads of Departmens

Res

earc

h A

bstr

act


- There are differences of statistical significance at the level significance which is less


organizational commitment among the heads of departments in relation to difference of

variable of college type (scientific colleges and humanity colleges) and the statistical

significance goes in the interest of humanity colleges .

- There are no differences of statistical significance at the level significance which is less


organizational commitment among the heads of departments in relation to the difference

of variable of academic rank such as (Professor , Associate professor and Assistant

professor)

Based on the above findings , the researcher ends his study with set of recommendations and

suggestions.


Abstract: This study aimed at identifying the practice degree of the knowledge management

processes and their relationship with the administrative empowerment strategy with the employees

of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in Jordan. The study sample consisted

of all the administrative employees at the directorates and departments of the Ministry of Higher

Education (n=153) in the University academic year 2011/2012. Two tools were utilized for

data collection. First, to measure the employees’ practice degree of the knowledge management

process. Second, to measure the degree of the employees’ empowerment. The means, standard

deviations and Pearson correlation coefficients were employed as well. The study results

demonstrated that the practice degree of the knowledge processes management was high, and

the employees’ empowerment degree was high either. Furthermore, there was a statistically

signification relationship between the knowledge management process and the employees’

empowerment degree. In the light of the results, the researcher recommended holding training

courses and workshops for the applications of the knowledge management processes; working

toward establishing trust among the employees to empower them and reinforces their inter-

communication, since they are deemed the intellectual capital and the success base of the Ministry

work, through investing and in and developing their energies and cognitive capabilities.

Relationship Between the Knowledge Management Processes of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research- Jordan and the Administrative Empowerment With the Employees.

Dr. Ahmad BadahAssociate Professor,

Balqa› Applied University

Key words: Knowledge management, administrative empowerment, Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research.

Res

earc

h A

bstr

act


Research projects


Some Modern Trends in Teacher Education

Prof. Mohammed Bin Mu’jib Al-Hamid

Center for Higher Education Research and Studies

[email protected]

Res

earc

h A

bstr

act

Abstract

The future of the countries that desire to keep pace with the requirements of this age is as-

sociated with the level of education quality provided to their children. Institutions responsible

for teacher education are an essential part of the education system in the Kingdom. There-

fore, any difficulties facing these institutions will be reflected in the quality of education and

thus affect the future of the country, especially in the next phase of its history. In this respect,

complaints are increasing regarding the level of graduates from teacher education institutions.

These complaints state that the graduate teachers do not have the competencies and skills

required by the teaching profession. Therefore, teacher education institutions are seeking to

increase their efficiency in the education of teachers and trying to introduce modern trends

in an effort to prepare qualified teachers. It is certain that this alone is not enough. It must be

accompanied by numerous efforts associated with a good selection of the students enrolled in

Education Colleges , and provide outstanding faculty members to meet the educational com-

petencies required by the Ministries of Education.


The requirements of the teaching profession have grown to include skills related to the

prosecution of cognitive developments in the current community of information revolution,

and the requirements associated with being acquainted with modern techniques and how to

use them, and other requirements related to ways of teaching, evaluation methods, and tests.

So the teacher whom we considered in the past as competent may not be so if measured

against the standards of the teaching profession and the modern requirements. Knowledge

alone is no longer sufficient to evaluate the competence of the teacher. .

There are varied styles and trends in teacher preparation and training, some focus on the

cognitive aspects and explore them in depth, perhaps sometimes even at the expense of skill

and performance aspects. Others, however, increase the portion of the educational skills in a

way that minimizes the teacher’s ability to enrich and master the subjects he teaches. Mod-

ern trends have emerged and multiple experiments have invested technical progress and the

development of teaching strategies to suggest new programs in teacher education.

Nowadays, some new trends have emerged in the field of teacher education that empha-

size the need to keep up with the modern developments and the pursuit of scientific, educa-

tional, and technical developments. In addition, keeping pace with the development of the

curriculum and allocating specific ratios to the requirements of teacher education such as the

general preparation, specialized preparation, educational and practical education and in-

service training. The rapid developments on the technical level also require the teacher to

recognize how to deal with modern teaching techniques and effectively use them during the

implementation of his lessons.

It was found through a review of recent trends in teacher preparation and training, an

emphasis on linking teacher preparation institutions to the school. This practice is considered

an essential part of teacher training, his cognitive performance and skill rehabilitation. Just as

one cannot train a doctor unless he practices the profession and has the practical training in

an educational hospital, under the supervision of competent professors; teacher training can-

not be achieved away from school and away from the students, the curriculum , and teaching

techniques, methods of assessment and administration within a school.

It also emerged from recent trends an emphasize on the skills in the education of teachers


and the skills here mean multiple skills in teaching and learning, some of which depend on

training and others depend on the individual’s innate abilities. These skills are:

1. Communication skills.

2. Self-learning skills.

3. Technical skills.

4. Dialogue skills.

5. Persuasion skills.

6. Excitement Skills.

7. Self- confidence skills.

8. Evaluation skills.

9. Self-reliance skills.

10. Judgment Skills.

11. Criticizing skills.

12. All kinds of thinking skills.

13. Leadership skills.

In this study, the review highlighted the global trends in teacher education which include

education directions in the light of the concept of competence and preparation on the basis

of skills and preparation in the light of the approach systems and in-service teacher training

within the school and the integration of the pre-service training, as well as in-service training.

The study also reviewed the current situation in teacher education programs in the Kingdom

besides some international experiences and expertise in this field. It is also essential that the

study is based on a theoretical framework that supports and identifies its fundamental direc-

tions. In addition, the review of previous studies complements this framework and supports it.

Some of the developed countries were keen to establish reliability standards to determine

the technical requirements for teacher education and training, including those developed by

the National Board for professional standards (NBPTS). Standards for the teaching profes-

sion include the following:

1 - Emphasis on professional knowledge.


2 - Compliance with the appropriate teaching methods.

3 - Class management.

4 - Teaching through experience.

5 - A sense of affiliation.

These also include the specific criteria for teacher education in the state of Michigan in

America, namely:

1 - Full knowledge of the material of specialization.

2 - Understanding the environment of students.

3 - Learning how to cope with the difficulties (problem solving).

4 - Knowledge of teaching methods.

The American State of California also specifies certain standards for the teaching profes-

sion, including:

1 - Involve all students in education.

2 -Provide an environment for effective teaching.

3 - Organize educational material.

4 - Plan educational experiences.

5 - Evaluate academic achievement.

6 - The growth of the teacher professionally and educationally.

The National Board for Teacher Performance Evaluation in California identifies the basic

requirements needed in the teaching profession as follows:

A- Wide knowledge in cognition, science and languages.

B- Knowledge of materials to be taught, and knowledge of the curriculum and how they

are organized.

C-Knowledge of the skills required to develop the teacher, in addition to the means and

knowledge that help achieve this task.

D- Knowledge of the general teaching methods related to his subject, in addition to the


skills and knowledge of teaching that suit students of different categories.

E- Knowledge of the methods of student assessment to ensure their development, and their

ability to learn and their willingness to employ what they have learned in their favor.

The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Programs in the United

States (NCATE) formulates national professional standards every five years, specialized in

teacher education institutions, programs and outputs. The formulation of these standards

relies on educational research in the field of teaching and learning in the area of effective

programs in teacher education, in addition to the general criteria for accreditation in the geo-

graphical area (Regional Accreditation), which typically include a group of American States.

The standards of (NCATE) measure the effectiveness of teacher education institutions profes-

sionally not only by relying on the programs and curricula and study plans implemented, but

also on the efficiency of the graduates and their ability to teach.

For detailed criteria adopted by the (NcATE), visit its Web Site (www.ncate.org).

The restructuring witnessed and experienced in teacher education institutions at the uni-

versities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should take advantage of the new trends in teacher

education by employing these trends in the foundations of teacher education and planning

of programs and mechanisms for educating before and during the service. There is no doubt

that the diagnosis of the status quo of these institutions, which is reviewed by the study, will

clarify the extent to which they adopt these new trends. Hence, the next step is how to invest

in these trends when taking practical steps to restructuring according to a scientific basis, tak-

ing into account the needs of the labor market and the civil government in the coming years,

especially after the implementation of the future plan for higher education.

This research project concludes that in order to achieve the goals of teacher education

institutions and in the light of modern trends in teacher education; the training institutions

should do the following:

1. Steer the teacher training programs towards complementary education rather than the

sequential setup for reasons of urgency. It has been proven experimentally that the

integrative setting positively affect the development of the criteria for teacher selection


and educating as well as the psychological preparation of the teacher for the profession

starting from the beginning of college.

2. Emphasize the skills necessary for the training of teachers reviewed in this study and

included in the teacher education programs.

3. Link teacher education programs with competencies necessary for teachers identified by

the Ministry of Education for each specialty.

4. Modernize study plans for teacher education programs.

5. Include all the educational programs that would deepen the student’s/teacher’s identity

and strengthen his religious, national, professional affiliation, and enable him to deal

with, and apply the teaching strategies and methods for the purposes of education and

its goals.

6. Closely connect the students during their studies with schools and prolong the duration

of the program of practical education (a minimum of full semester training their stu-

dents in teaching in the classrooms preceded by a few weeks period to watch).

7. Diversify teaching strategies at the educational institutions, and increase the use of

advanced educational methods, such as: self-learning, cooperative learning, problem

solving and more.

8. Joining the undergraduate program is conditional on the achievement of cumulative

grade average of at least (very good) at the end of the second level.

9. At least one school should be affiliated to every Teacher College or Education College

to supervise, and provide desired application models in the education of teachers and

the teaching methods and the other , called the “School of the college,” Or experimen-

tal school” .

10. Emphasize the importance of rehabilitation of existing teachers in accordance with the

comprehensive education plans which contribute to teacher education institutions and

are supported by the Ministry of Education.

s.chers.moe.gov.sa/en/publications/publications/hej-0011-en.pdf · • some modern trends in ......

Documents