THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

PARTICIPATION IN AN EXTENDED ORIENTATION COURSE AND ITS

RELATIONSHIP WITH STUDENT INVOLVEMENT,

STUDENT SATISFACTION, ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE,

AND STUDENT RETENTION

BY

THOMAS NEAL HOLLINS, JR.

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2004

Copyright © 2004 Thomas Neal Hollins, Jr.

All Rights Reserved

ii

The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Thomas N. Hollins, Jr.,

defended on December 10, 2003.

Robert Schwartz Professor Directing Dissertation George Weaver Outside Committee Member Barbara Mann Committee Member Beverly Bower Committee Member

Approved: Carolyn Herrington, Chairperson, Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

iii

This milestone could not be possible without the sacrifice and help of others. I

dedicate this dissertation to my mother Mrs. Ida Ayala, who not only worked tirelessly

to provide my siblings and I a solid education, but who instilled in me very early that

“anything is possible so long as you put your mind to it”. To my father, the late

Thomas Neal Hollins, whose spirit has filled and guided me since his departure very

early in my life. I also dedicate this effort to the Hollins and Middlebrooks families.

Finally, I dedicate this effort to all of the educators who gave me a chance to achieve a

higher education, particularly Dr. Lee Jones who believed that I could excel as a

doctoral student at Florida State.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to those people who assisted me in this

research process. I would like to thank Dr. Jennifer Buchanan who triggered the idea

of doing research on the First-Year Experience course. I would like to thank the Dean

of Students staff for their support throughout the process. This includes Dr. Robin

Leach who periodically requested updates on my progress and continuously

encouraged me; and Dr. Sara Connolly, whose vast knowledge of orientation courses

aided me in clarifying ideas and concepts.

A special thanks goes to Don Meeks of the Office of Technology Integration

for writing the programs that gathered student data in order to implement this study.

This was a long and challenging process, but Don demonstrated tremendous patience,

professionalism, and determination in order to develop accurate reports for the study.

I would be remiss if I did not thank the Center for Postsecondary Research and

Planning at Indiana University for their consent to use the College Student Experience

Questionnaire (CSEQ), and all of their assistance throughout the process. Kelly Kish

was wonderful throughout the process in answering all of my questions and keeping

me updated during the data collection process.

Thanks goes to the donors of the W. Hugh Stickler award, as well as the Office

of Graduate Studies for the Florida State University Dissertation grant, both awards

helped in funding this research project.

I would like to thank Ms. Betty Brown from ACNS for her assistance in

helping me to understand SPSS and in helping me to better understand how to

organize my data.

v

I would like to thank the Florida State University Statistical Consulting Center

for their assistance in helping me to understand, as well as select the best statistical

approaches for this study. Robert Fowler was invaluable during this process!

I want to thank my committee members who agreed to help me with this

process and who provided me with just the right guidance to help me to understand

how to research. To Dr. Beverly Bower, who was instrumental in helping me to

clarify my direction with the study; to Dr. Barbara Mann, who pushed me towards

developing a thorough understanding of the literature, and kept me focused on how to

tie everything together; to Dr. George Weaver, who provided the necessary insight and

questions that made me think on a higher level throughout the process. Lastly, I

would like to thank Dr. Robert Schwartz. I cannot begin to say all that he has done to

help me through this process. But his openness to my ideas and erratic writing phases,

made this process more pleasant than I could have imagined.

I would like to thank Dr. Joyce Howard who, for the last four years has served

as my supervisor, mentor, friend, committee member, and co-FYE enthusiast! Thanks

for your shared enthusiasm of FYE. I could not have learned so much about FYE and

orientation courses without having someone who shared the same passion.

To my fellow doctoral cohort members: Dr. Kimberly Pavlak, and soon-to-be

doctors Karinda Barrett and Mark Palazesi. Thanks for your support throughout the

process. The dissertation meetings and numerous conversations helped tremendously.

I would also like to thank my good friend Dr. Amanda Turner ‘01, who continuously

encouraged me throughout the writing process and kept me on target.

Lastly, I would like to thank my fiancée Dr. Sydana Rogers. Our teamwork

and support of one another throughout the doctoral process not only made this

experience bearable, but also made it special.

While assistance was received from numerous people on this project, the

responsibility for any errors of fact or interpretation is solely my own.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix CHAPTER 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Operational Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Assumptions in the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CHAPTER 2: Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Development of Extended Orientation Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 The Philosophical and Theoretical Underpinnings of Extended Orientation Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Elements of Extended Orientation Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Research Related to Extended Orientation Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Women and Minority Students’ Relationships to Extended Orientation Courses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 On Campus Residential Living and Extended Orientation Courses . . . . 25 Issues Related to Research on Extended Orientation Courses . . . . . . . 26 Measurement of Student Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Web-Based Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

CHAPTER 3: Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Study Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

vii

Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

CHAPTER 4: Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Participant Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Preliminary Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 CHAPTER 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 74 Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Implications and Recommendations for Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Recommendations for Future Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

viii

LIST OF TABLES Table Page

1. T-Test Comparison of 1999 Student SAT Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 2. T-Test Comparison of 2001 Student SAT Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 3. T-Test Comparison of 1999 Mean Grade Point Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4. T-Test Comparison of 2001 Mean Grade Point Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 5. Comparison of 1999 Student Enrollment Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 6. Comparison of 2001 Student Enrollment Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 7. Two-Way Analysis of Variance Table on Student Involvement . . . . . . . . . 68

8. Frequencies & Percentages “How Well College is Liked” . . . . . . . . . . . 70

9. Frequencies & Percentages “…Would Attend Same Institution Again…”. . . . 70

8. Supplementary Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

ix

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the longitudinal impact of the First-

Year Experience course at Florida State University on student involvement, student

satisfaction, academic performance, and student retention.

Student data was collected on the 1999 and 2001 First-Time-In-College (FTIC)

students at the university. Grade point averages and enrollment records were

compared between students who enrolled in the course and students who did not enroll

in the course.

T-tests revealed mixed results regarding the impact of the course on academic

performance. For the 1999 cohort, students who enrolled in the course had lower

grade point averages than students who did not enroll in the course in all five of the

semesters examined. The results reached statistical significance in one of the

semesters examined. Within the 2001 cohort, students who enrolled in the course had

a higher grade point average in the one semester examined. This difference did not

reach statistical significance. Other comparisons demonstrated that women in both the

1999 and 2001 cohorts of FYE students achieved significantly higher grade point

averages than men who enrolled in the course. White students who enrolled in the

course in 1999 and 2001 had higher grade point averages than both Hispanic and

African American students in each of the semesters examined. Statistical significance

varied with regard to ethnicity and academic performance. FYE students in both the

1999 and 2001 cohorts who resided on campus during their first year had significantly

higher grade point averages in each semester examined than FYE students who did not

reside on campus during their first year.

Chi-square analyses demonstrated that FYE students in both the 1999 and

2001 cohorts had higher retention rates than students who did not enroll in the course.

x

Differences in retention rates were significant in each semester examined with the

exception of one semester for the 1999 cohort. In terms of gender, results were mixed.

However African American and Hispanic FYE students demonstrated higher retention

rates than White FYE students over one semester. Mixed results were also found

between FYE students who resided on campus and FYE students who did not reside

on campus during their first year at the university.

Using data collected from the College student Experiences Questionnaire

(CSEQ), two-Way Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were calculated to examine the

impact of the course on the involvement of FYE students based on year enrolled in

course and gender. Results demonstrated that 1999 students were significantly more

involved in course learning activities and experiences with faculty than 2001 FYE

students. Women scored significantly higher than men in course learning activities,

writing experiences, personal experiences, and information shared in conversation.

Frequencies and percentages demonstrated that 1999 FYE students had higher

satisfaction with their college experiences and with the institution than 2001 FYE

students. Men had higher opinions about their experiences and the institution than

women. White students had a more favorable opinion of their experiences and the

institution than Hispanic and African American students.

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

In 1998, the now defunct Florida Board of Regents (BOR) initiated a five-year

strategic plan to enhance the Florida State University System (SUS). With the

primary goal of increasing the quality of higher education in the state, the purpose of

the strategic plan was to 1) “…facilitate informed, detailed planning and decision

making at both state and institutional levels, and permit the focus of resources on

issues of greatest need.”; and 2) provide “…a framework within which the unique

characteristics and strengths of each university can be enhanced, while ensuring that

current progress toward a cohesive, integrated university system, fully responsive to

the needs of the citizens of Florida, is consolidated and continued.” (Florida Board of

Regents, 1998, p. 5). Twelve goals were presented by the BOR for the State

University System that include the improvement of the quality of undergraduate

education, as well as an increase in degree production (Florida Board of Regents).

One means by which the BOR believed the quality of undergraduate education

and degree production could be improved was through various functions of student

affairs. In its strategic plan, the BOR indicated that student affairs divisions

throughout the SUS should strive to:

1) Assist students in successful transition to college

2) Help students learn, understand, and practice the values and ideals

contained herein, and develop a philosophy of life

3) Encourage the development of friendships among students and a sense of

community within the institution

4) Help students acquire adequate financial resources to support their

education

2

5) Create opportunities for students to expand their aesthetic and cultural

appreciation

6) Teach students how to resolve individual and group conflicts

7) Provide programs and services for students who require assistance

8) Help students understand and appreciate racial, ethnic, gender, and other

differences, and develop respect for all other persons

9) Design opportunities for leadership development

10) Help students to learn to manage stress and develop coping skills to deal

with the pressures of life

11) Establish programs that encourage healthy living and appropriately

confront abusive behaviors

12) Help students clarify career objectives, explore options for further study,

and secure employment

13) Provide opportunities for recreation and leisure-time activities

(Florida Board of Regents, 1998)

In order for student affairs divisions to meet the goals established by the BOR, a

considerable commitment by both institution and student must be established. At the

Florida State University (FSU), one way of achieving the goals outlined by the SUS

was through the First-Year Experience course, otherwise known as FYE.

FYE is an extended orientation course that assists first-year, first-time-in-

college students in making an effective transition into the University. The course has

existed at FSU since the Fall term of 1992. Initially offered as an optional course but

without academic credit to first-year and transfer students, the program underwent

several changes, ultimately becoming a one-credit, optional course for first-year, first-

time in college students. Since the development of the course, two studies have been

conducted at FSU examining the course’s impact on student involvement, academic

performance, and satisfaction (Yarbrough, 1993), as well as the course’s impact on

personal resiliency, academic performance, and student persistence (Brunelle-Joiner,

1999).

3

Purpose of the Study The purpose of the present study was to examine the longitudinal potential of

the First-Year Experience course at Florida State University as a means to improve the

quality of undergraduate students’ educational experience at the Florida State

University. This examination was to be accomplished in two parts: 1) by examining

the impact of the FYE course as it relates to student academic performance and

student retention; 2) by examining the impact of the FYE course as it relates to student

involvement and student satisfaction with the institution.

Several methods have been employed to evaluate the effectiveness of extended

orientation courses. These evaluative methods include personality inventories, data on

the number of courses dropped, number of future course registrations, grade point

averages, student attitudes and perceptions of the environment, sources of student

assistance, actual dollar benefits, and student retention (Gordon & Grites, 1984).

However most of the literature on the impact of extended orientation course has

focused primarily on the academic outcomes (Maisto & Tammi, 1991; Wilkie &

Kuckuck, 1989; Starke, Harth, & Sirianni, 2001; Yarbrough, 1993; and Brunelle-

Joiner, 1999), as well as student retention (Fidler, 1991; Donnangelo & Santa Rita,

1982; Shanley & Witten, 1990; Sidle & McReynolds, 1999; Yarbrough, 1993, and

Brunelle-Joiner, 1999) based on participation in an extended orientation course. As a

result, both academic performance and student retention have become standard

measures for evaluating the effectiveness of such courses.

However, to evaluate the overall educational experiences of students related to

participation in an extended orientation course, student involvement and student

satisfaction must be considered. Astin (1985) contended that student involvement -

the amount of physical and psychological energy that a student exerts toward the

academic experience - is the cornerstone of educational effectiveness. As such, the

greater a student’s involvement with the various aspects of the college experience (e.g.

academics, faculty and staff, and extracurricular activities), the more likely a student is

to achieve and be satisfied with their educational experience. Because extended

orientation courses encourage student interaction with the college environment, the

evaluation of student involvement, student satisfaction, academic performance, and

4

student retention at the institution can provide valuable information regarding

students’ experiences both inside and outside the classroom at the university.

Significance of the Study Research on the First-Year Experience course at FSU contributes to the

existing body of knowledge regarding the impact of extended orientation courses on

student involvement, student satisfaction, academic performance, and student retention

in higher education. Although this study was conducted at a large research university,

it can benefit both peer and other types of institutions (e.g. small private institutions

and teaching colleges) in determining the usefulness of extended orientation courses.

This study can also benefit the future design, implementation, and assessment of the

course. It can provide practical, yet critical information regarding the effectiveness of

the course as a vehicle to assist students in their adjustment to FSU. Finally, this study

can allow one major institution in the Florida system, Florida State University an

opportunity to provide feedback to the Florida Department of Education regarding the

effectiveness of orientation courses as a vehicle to help meet the goals of the

Department’s strategic plan.

Research Questions The research questions that guided this study were:

1. Is there a difference in the academic performance and the retention rates

between students who participate in the First-Year Experience course and students

who do not participate in the course?

2. Is there a difference is the academic performance and the retention rates of

First-Year Experience students based on gender, ethnicity, and campus residence

status?

3. Is there a difference between the levels of involvement among students who

participated in the First-Year Experience course in 1999 and 2001?

4. Is there a difference between the levels of involvement among students who

participated in the First-Year Experience course in 1999 and 2001 based on gender?

5. Is there a difference in the student satisfaction of the First-Year Experience

students based on year, gender, and ethnicity?

5

Because this study was longitudinal in nature, and the course make up has changed

since the last study, the research was based on the 1999 cohort who would be nearing

the end of their bachelor degree programs at the time of the study. The 2001 cohort

was also studied in order to compare the short-term impact of the program against the

1999 cohort.

Operational Definitions For the purposes of this study, the following terms were used and are defined

below:

1. Extended Orientation Course – Extended orientation courses are courses that

assist students with becoming familiar with their institutional environment. Gordon

(1989) indicated that these types of courses have several objectives, which include

acquiring knowledge about the history, nature, and purpose of higher education as it

relates to them; assisting students in examining goals and developing positive attitudes

toward themselves and learning; assisting students with becoming productive citizens

of the college community; enhancing self-esteem; clarifying personal, academic, and

career values; and making the connection between curricular experiences and personal

development. While Gordon (1989) provided this description specifically for

orientation courses, extended orientation course may be used interchangeably

throughout this study with terms such as freshman seminar, orientation courses, etc.,

as it is used interchangeably throughout the literature on this topic.

2. First-Time-In-College (FTIC) - First-Time-In-College students refers to

traditional college age students who are between the ages of 17 and 21, who were

recent high school graduates and are entering college for the first time. These students

are full-time students, and are working towards the bachelor degree.

3. Student Involvement – Astin (1984) defined involvement as the amount of

physical and psychological energy that a student devotes to their academic experience.

Because Astin spoke to student involvement using the various areas of a student’s

experience, student involvement within the context of this study will refer to the

amount of effort that the student places in the various areas outlined in the College

Activities scales of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ). These

scales are Library; Computer and Information Technology; Course Learning;

6

Experiences with Faculty; Writing Experiences; Art, Music, Theatre; Campus

Facilities; Student Acquaintances; Clubs and Organizations; Personal Experiences;

Scientific and Quantitative Experiences; Topics in Conversation; and Information in

Conversations.

4. Student Satisfaction – Student satisfaction refers to students’ subjective

experience during their college years and their perceptions of the value of their

educational experience (Astin, 1993). For the purposes of this study, student

satisfaction was evaluated by student responses to the “Opinions About Your College

or University” section of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. These

questions are: 1) How well do you like college? and 2) If you could start over again,

would you go to the same institution you are now attending?

5. Academic Performance – Refers to the academic achievement of students as

it relates to their cumulative grade point average (GPA) in college. The literature

demonstrates that academic performance may be used interchangeably with academic

achievement.

6. Student Retention – Student retention refers to students’ re-enrollment at a

university. More specifically, retention refers to the re-enrollment rates of students

after their first fall term at FSU, through the Fall 2002 term.

7. Minority Student – For purposes of this study, minority refers to African

American and Hispanic/Latino students.

Assumptions in the Study Within the study, several assumptions were made.

1. Content for each section of FYE is generally the same. Some sections may

vary slightly in content within the course, and the time of the semester that

a subject is discussed based on the preferences of the instructor.

2. All instructors of the course met the expectations and requirements to teach

the course, which included a master’s degree and participation in FYE

instructor training.

3. All FYE students in the study completed the First-Year Experience course,

receiving a grade of “S” or “U”

7

4. Subjects who participate in the study answered all questions on the survey

honestly.

Limitations of the Study There were several limitations to this study:

1. The study was conducted at a large, research university. While the results

found in this study may be of benefit to all types of extended orientation

programs and institutions, the results of this study may not be generalizable

to other types of institutions.

2. Because First-Year Experience is an optional course, students self-select

into the course. Self-selection (also known as the volunteer effect) implies

that students who take the course are more motivated than students who do

not take the course. This process of self-selection could impact the

outcomes of the study, particularly if the participants in the course are not

representative of the first-year student population and/or the cohort of

students who enrolled in a particular year.

While not considered a limitation for the study, it should be noted that the researcher

served as the director of the FYE program at the time that the study was conducted.

Because of the dual nature of the researcher’s role, special care was taken to ensure

that the results of the study as well as the discussion of the results reflected an

objective opinion in order to maintain the integrity of this study. It should be further

noted that the outcomes of this study had no impact on the researcher’s status as an

employee, as the researcher relocated to another state after collecting the data and

completed the final draft of the study at a distance.

8

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

John Gardner wrote, “a movement is taking place in American higher

education to change the way colleges and universities treat, welcome, assimilate,

support, and most importantly, inform their freshman students in this new dawning

age of information” (1986, p.261). The movement to which Gardner refers is the

resurgence of interest and use of orientation courses; a resurgence that has developed

into the freshman year experience phenomenon. This chapter discusses both the

development of orientation courses and the freshman year experience phenomenon.

The philosophical underpinnings, as well as related literature regarding the research on

such programs in the areas of student involvement, student satisfaction, academic

performance, and student retention, will also be reviewed. Additional discussion on

the impact of the course on gender, ethnicity, and on campus residence, as well as the

measurement of student satisfaction, and online surveys is also included.

The Development of Extended Orientation Courses Since the time of the medieval university, students have wrestled with

adjustment issues during their first year of college (Dwyer, 1989). From finding a

place to live, to their initiation into a society of scholars, to the selection of a master to

develop their programs of study, students experienced many obstacles in order to

begin their education (Dwyer). The same can be said for students in American higher

education.

In the early days of American higher education, freshmen had to work hard to

become a part of the social and academic fabric of their institutions. Oftentimes,

compliance with the social hierarchy within college called for meeting the menial

demands of upperclassmen (Dwyer, 1989). As a result of trying to meet these social

9

demands, the academic performance of freshmen often suffered (Dwyer). Because of

the challenges that freshmen faced, various measures were taken by institutions to

alleviate these social and academic pressures.

One measure taken to alleviate the social and academic pressures on freshmen

was the development of tutors. Tutors were graduate students who befriended

freshmen and assisted them through their transition to college (Dwyer, 1989). Other

measures included an increased faculty and student interaction; the development of

freshman dormitories; as well as the development of advising systems (Dwyer;

Gordon, 1989). As institutions of higher education became more sophisticated, so did

the methods by which students were assisted in making an effective transition into the

college environment. Continued efforts to assist freshmen eventually led to the

development of the orientation course.

The first orientation course was developed at Boston University in 1888

(Gardner, 1986; Gordon, 1989). Although other institutions such as the University of

Michigan and Oberlin offered similar courses, the first extended orientation course

offered for credit was at Reed College in 1911 (Gardner; Gordon). After World War I,

the orientation movement began to grow. One-third of all colleges and universities in

the U.S. offered these courses by 1930 (Gordon). However, as these courses became

popular, so did the objections to the courses by faculty who believed that the focus of

these courses was simply on life adjustment (Caple, 1964). Due to faculty objections

that they were not academic enough in content, extended orientation courses declined

during the mid-20th century until the late 1960s, when a different type of student began

to enroll in America’s colleges and universities (Gordon).

Students who entered colleges and universities during the late 1960s and early

1970s included students who traditionally had not aspired to attend college. These

students included blue-collar white males, ethnic minorities, women, and first-

generation students (Cross, 1971). Many of these students were viewed as low

academic achievers because they represented the lowest third of their cohorts based on

the results of nationally administered exams. K. Patricia Cross (1971) believed that

these students’ low achievement resulted from a fear of failure that developed during

their elementary and secondary school experiences. So as these students began

10

entering higher education, many educators, including Cross (1971) and Arthur

Chickering (1969), called for the development of programs and services that would

effectively assist new students to succeed in college.

During that same period, many educators advocated on behalf of new

programs for students. Institutions began developing extended orientation courses to

assist students in making successful transitions into college (Felker, 1973; O’Banion,

1969). One notable course was University 101, which was developed in 1972 at the

University of South Carolina (Gardner, 1986; Shanley & Witten, 1990). The

University 101 course at the University of South Carolina has become the model

extended orientation course for colleges and universities throughout the country.

Approximately 70% of colleges and universities in the United States have similar

courses (University 101, 2001).

The popularity of extended orientation courses has grown for several reasons.

First, higher education has become egalitarian (Cross, 1971). As opposed to a higher

education system that was available to only those students of a certain socioeconomic

status and/or academic merit, institutions began opening their doors to any student

who wanted to pursue an education beyond a high school diploma (Cross; Gordon &

Grites, 1984). In addition to more students from diverse backgrounds being admitted

to postsecondary education, colleges became more complex with academic regulations

and institutional requirements such as career planning (Cohen & Jody, 1978). Finally,

peer culture was no longer effective in assisting first-year students in adapting to their

environment (Cohen & Jody).

Consequently, institutions sought new ways to increase student success.

Because extended orientation courses provided an overview of institutional resources

and explored topics such as the purposes of a higher education, they offered solutions

to address the growing diversity and complexity of both the student population and

higher education. One direct result of extended orientation courses was a positive

impact on student retention (Fidler, 1991; Shanley & Witten, 1990; Sidle & Reynolds,

1999). However, the benefits of orientation courses extended well beyond student

retention.

11

Extended orientation courses also have been cited for contributing to academic

and personal development of students (Sidle & McReynolds, 1999; Twale, 1989). In

“The Freshman Year Experience” M. Lee Upcraft and the founder of University 101,

John Gardner (1989), noted that freshmen succeed when they work toward fulfilling

their educational and personal goals. These goals consist of developing academic and

intellectual competence; establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships;

developing an identity; deciding on a career and life-style; maintaining personal health

and wellness; and developing an integrated philosophy on life (Upcraft & Gardner,

1989). Extended orientation courses such as the First-Year Experience and other

courses attempt to initiate and facilitate the development of first-year college students

so that students can be successful within the institution as well as in life. These

conclusions can be discerned through the philosophical and the theoretical connections

between course elements and design and student development theory.

The Philosophical and Theoretical Underpinnings of

Extended Orientation Courses

In general, the objectives of extended orientation courses are to 1) acquaint

students with institutional resources; 2) provide students with an understanding of the

nature of higher education; 3) assist students with examining their personal goals; and

4) help students to become productive citizens while enhancing their self esteem

(Gordon, 1989). Although an introductory course to colleges and universities, as well

as a course for personal development, extended orientation courses are closely

connected to the student development theories of higher education. One such theory is

Chickering’s Theory of Identity Development (1969, 1974, Chickering &

Reisser, 1993).

Chickering’s Theory of Identity Development

One of the most cited theories of student development in higher education is

Chickering’s Theory of Identity Development. Based on his review of the literature

and research on development in higher education, Chickering (1969) proposed seven

vectors of development through which students move while in college.

1. Developing Competence – This vector consists of students developing

intellectual, physical and manual, and intellectual competence (Chickering, 1969).

12

Intellectual competence consists of the acquisition of knowledge and skills related to

particular subject matter; intellectual, cultural and aesthetic appreciation; as well as

increased skills in critical thinking and reasoning (Reisser, 1995). Physical

competence consists of the development of physical skills through participation in

athletic and recreational activities (Reisser). Interpersonal competence involves

developing the ability to work effectively with others as well as the development of

communication and leadership skills (Reisser).

2. Managing Emotions – Within this vector, students develop the ability to

recognize and accept emotions. They deal with issues that include excessive anger,

fear and anxiety, depression, guilt, shame, as well as the dysfunctional sexual or

romantic attraction (Reisser, 1995). However the students learn how to express and

control their feelings appropriately, as well as act on their feelings responsibly

(Chickering, 1969; Reisser).

3. Moving Through Autonomy Towards Interdependence – Formerly named

“Becoming Autonomous”, this vector is characterized by students’ effort to increase

their emotional independence. As students gain more self-confidence, develop self-

direction, problem-solving ability, and mobility, they feel less need for constant

reassurance, affection, or approval (Chickering, 1969). Students also gain more

interdependence and accept their interconnectedness with others (Reisser).

4. Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships – Formerly called “Freeing

Interpersonal Relationships”, this vector deals with the development of intercultural

and interpersonal tolerance (Chickering, 1969; Reisser, 1995). Students gain an

appreciation of differences as well as the capacity to maintain healthy and lasting

relationships with partners and friends (Reisser).

5. Establishing Identity – Formerly the fourth vector, within this vector

students develop comfort in their appearance; comfort with their gender and sexual

orientation, as well as a sense of their social and cultural heritage (Reisser, 1995).

Students also develop a clear self-concept and comfort with their role in life (Reisser).

6. Developing Purpose – Within this vector, students clarify plans that involve

their vocational and recreational interests (Chickering, 1969). They also develop, or

13

sharpen their priorities based on their personal interests, and make lifestyle choices

(Reisser, 1995).

7. Developing Integrity – Within this vector, students move through three

stages. These stages include the progression from a rigid moralistic thinking towards

a more humanized value system; a development of a personalized value system; and

finally the establishment of congruence between personal values and socially

responsible behavior (Chickering, 1969; Reisser, 1995).

Chickering (1969) suggested that institutional environments are very

influential in facilitating a student’s movement through his seven developmental

vectors. Areas such as institutional objectives, institutional size, student faculty

relationships, curriculum, instruction, student relationships/friendships, and residence

halls play crucial roles in the developmental process. He recommended that these

areas should be developed in such ways to facilitate student growth and development

(Chickering 1969; Chickering & Reisser, 1993). While Chickering’s focus was on the

environment that institutions create for student growth and development, it is

important to note that he did recognize the students’ role in their own development.

Generally speaking, the more time students invested in activities such as reading for

pleasure and interacting with other students, the greater the growth of these students

(Chickering, 1974).

Chickering’s theory of identity development was an important foundation in

student development theory as applied to higher education. Although there had been

previous studies and development theories that higher education professionals

integrated into their practice, there were few theories developed that were specific to

student development during the college years. Chickering’s theory called for a

comprehensive and innovative way to facilitate growth in students, specifically growth

in the areas of self-esteem and career exploration.

Because of Chickering’s contribution to higher education during the late

1960s, it is easy to assert that the extended orientation courses throughout the country,

as well as the University 101 course at the University of South Carolina, were

developed with this theory of identity development in mind. Extended orientation

courses attempt to examine many aspects of academic and personal development for

14

students during their freshman year, and introduce these students to the proper

resources and opportunities that may assist them in their growth and development.

The course’s intentional method of introducing students to the college environment is

crucial in students’ adjustment, growth, and success during their first year in college.

In attempting to introduce the student to the college environment through an extended

orientation course, certain factors must be considered. Key elements of an extended

orientation course are central to the success of any such course.

Elements of Extended Orientation Courses Because of the multiple goals of extended orientation courses, the structure and

style in which they are taught may vary by institution. Despite these differences, there

are key elements that all extended orientation courses should possess.

The first element of an extended orientation is the interactive/active element of

the course. Gordon and Grites (1984) suggested that a successful freshman seminar

should have a maximum of active, participatory methods and materials for teaching

the course. They stress that all students should be involved in activities of the course

(Gordon & Grites). Jewler (1989) made a very similar point, indicating that the course

should be exciting and fun to both students and instructors. The interactive element of

an extended orientation course is designed to build unity within the class between both

students and instructors.

Extended orientation courses should provide information that would assist

students in learning about the institution. Jewler (1989) indicated that sessions on the

library, career, and academic major planning should be covered. In addition, a

cognitive element should also be provided (Jewler). One approach to the cognitive

element of the course is a developmental model that would cover areas such as

academics, vocation, social skills, physical health, as well as spiritual and emotional

health (Jewler). Other important elements of the course include having the students

write journals in reaction to their experiences, as well as visiting various areas of the

institution, and discussing special topics such as values and diversity (Jewler). In sum,

these elements allow for the students to explore their institutions, their thoughts, as

well as their beliefs in order to begin the personal growth that should occur during

college.

15

Research Related to Extended Orientation Programs Student Involvement

Several other researchers in the field of higher education have explored the

benefits of student involvement while in college. To a greater or lesser degree,

involvement speaks to the amount of effort that a student places into his or her

education. One of the most notable researchers in this area has been Alexander Astin.

Astin (1984) developed a theory on student involvement based on longitudinal

research that he conducted on college dropouts. To Astin (1984), involvement

referred to the amount of physical and psychological energy a student devotes to the

academic experience. He suggested that the greater the amount of involvement that a

student has in the various areas of college, the greater the amount of student learning

and personal development (Astin). Therefore, a highly involved student would be a

student who is involved in various aspects of the institution which includes living on

campus, participating in student organizations, and interacting with faculty and other

students (Astin). Chickering (1969) and Pace (1982) indicated similar positions on the

topic.

Chickering (1969) recognized that for students to accomplish the various

stages outlined in his theory on identity development, students would have to put forth

a sufficient amount of effort. Pace (1982) also indicated that learning and

development requires an investment of time and effort by students. A high quality

effort, “…is the best predictor of high quality achievement…” (Pace, 1982, p.31).

All of these researchers take into consideration that a welcoming environment

with adequate resources provided by the institution, provides students opportunities

for academic and personal development. Because a key element of extended

orientation courses is introducing students to the various services and activities on

campus, the assumption is that students will receive both a welcoming environment,

and have the knowledge of staff and/or services that would be able to assist them in

their development. Following is further discussion on research regarding the impact

of extended orientation courses on student involvement. More specifically, how much

students who have participated in an extended orientation course, participate in

16

activities and utilize institutional resources in comparison to students who have not

participated in such courses.

Blimline and New (1975) found a significant difference in student–counselor

contact for students who enrolled in the orientation course at their institution over

those students who did not. Wilkie and Kuckuck (1989) found that students who

enrolled in their orientation course utilized university resources more than students

who did not enroll in the orientation course. Their finding was based on the higher

number of orientation course participants who used tutorial services in their second

and third years of college. Candia (1998) found a significant association between

students who participated in an orientation course and their use of student services, as

opposed to students who did not participate in an orientation course at a community

college.

Prola and Stern (1984) found that students who enrolled in a freshman

orientation course attended more college activities, joined more college organizations,

and read more college publications. Similar results were found by Prola, Rosenberg,

and Wright (1977), who found that the students who enrolled in their courses were

often spectators at, or and participated in more activities than students who did not

enroll in the course. Of these students, a significant difference was found in the

number of students who held memberships in student organizations for the students

who enrolled in the orientation course and those students who did not enroll in the

course (Prola, et al, 1977).

Starke, Harth, and Sirianni (2001) found a significant difference in the number

of events attended between college seminar students and non-college seminar students.

Lincoln (1990) found that students who enrolled in orientation courses demonstrated

higher efforts in areas such as Personal Experiences, Course Learning, and Student

Acquaintances on the College Student Experience Questionnaire (CSEQ) than

students who did not enroll in the course. Yarbrough (1993), who also used the

CSEQ, found that students enrolled in the FYE course AMS 1363 at Florida State

University demonstrated higher efforts in the areas of student experiences with

faculty, use of athletic and recreational facilities, and in the areas of art, music, and

theatre.

17

Student Satisfaction

A review of the literature found no development theories specifically

associated with student satisfaction. Despite the lack of theories associated with this

topic, research has been conducted in this area. In general, student satisfaction refers

to students’ subjective experiences during their college years and their perceptions of

the value of their educational experiences (Astin, 1993). Following are the results of

some studies that examined the impact of orientation courses on student satisfaction.

In studying student involvement, perceptions and student satisfaction,

Abrahamowicz (1988) found that students who participated in student organizations

were more satisfied with their college experiences. Astin, Korn, and Green (1987)

found that 75% percent of the students they surveyed were satisfied with the college

experience. House (1998) found that students who worked on group projects, and

spent more hours per week studying were more likely to be satisfied with the quality

of instruction and their college experiences.

In examining the impact of an extended orientation course on students’

perceptions of their university environment, Doman and Christensen (1976) found that

students who enrolled in freshman seminar perceived their environment to be more

open, friendly, practical, and academically challenging than those students who did

not enroll in the course. These findings were based on higher response rates for

participants in the freshman seminar responses on the College and University

Environment Scales (CUES) in areas such as practicality, scholarship, community,

awareness, campus morale, and quality of teaching (Doman & Christensen, 1976). Of

the various results, participants scored significantly higher in campus awareness.

Doman and Christensen believed that the students had a more favorable outlook on

their environment because of the nature of the course – which challenged students to

use campus resources and activities, discuss and explore their experiences. Like

Doman and Christensen, other researchers found similar results.

Starke, Harth, and Sirianni (2001) found that students enrolled in an extended

orientation course at Ramapo College were more satisfied with their college

experience than students who did not enroll in the course. Based on the responses to a

survey, Ramapo students enrolled in the course indicated that they were more likely to

18

return to the institution and were more likely to graduate from the institution at a

significantly higher rate than their peers at the institution who did not enroll in the

course (Starke, Harth, & Sirianni). Prola, Rosenberg, and Wright (1977) found that

students who enrolled in Student Development 101 were more satisfied with various

aspects of their university, which included the friendliness of the students, the

competence of the teachers, the helpfulness of counselors, chances of graduating,

satisfaction with grades, and more.

Academic Performance

Overall, the results on the impact of extended orientation courses on the

academic performance of students, as determined by students’ grade point averages

yield varied results. In examining the effects of a freshman seminar on the academic

and social integration of students who participated in freshman seminar against

students who did not enroll in freshman seminar, Maisto and Tammi (1991) found a

significant difference in the grade point averages of students who participated in

freshman seminar and those students who did not. Starke, Harth, and Sirianni (2001)

examined the longitudinal impact of freshman seminar on eight factors, which

included academic performance. In their study, they found a statistically significant

difference in the grade point averages for students who participated in freshman

seminar for two to four months over students who did not enroll in freshman seminar.

Wilkie and Kuckuck (1989) examined the academic performance of high risk students

over a three-year period and found that the students who successfully completed an

orientation course had a grade point average significantly higher over a three-year

period than those students who did not enroll in the course. Similarly, Silver (1978)

found significant differences in the grade point average of students who participated in

orientation courses versus students who did not, while Yarbrough (1993) and

Brunelle-Joiner (1999) both found the same results at Florida State University.

Throughout the literature, there are studies that examined the effects of

different types of orientation courses on academic achievement such as Rice and

Thomas (1989), and Donnangelo and Santa Rita (1982). Rice and Thomas examined

the effects of four types of orientation programming, which included a traditional one

week orientation program; a two-day orientation program; a one-credit seminar taught

19

by upper-level undergraduate students; and a one-credit seminar taught by faculty and

staff members. In their study, they found that the grade point average of the students

who participated in the orientation course taught by faculty and staff was significantly

higher than the students who participated in the orientation course taught by

undergraduate students and the students who went through the one-week and two-day

orientation programs.

Donnangelo and Santa Rita (1982) compared the effects of a zero-credit, and

one-credit orientation course between two academic years at the Bronx Community

College. They found the grade point average of the students who participated in the

zero-credit orientation course significantly higher than the students who did not

participate in the course. Similar to these results, the grade point average of the

students who participated in the one-credit orientation course was significantly higher

than those students who did not enroll in the course.

Despite many studies that have found significant differences in the grade point

averages of participants in orientation courses over non-participants, there also have

been studies that found higher, but not statistically significant differences in grade

point averages between students who participated in orientation courses and students

who did not participate in these courses. In their longitudinal study examining the

effects of a freshman seminar on student retention and academic achievement, Sidle

and McReynolds (1999) found no significant difference between the grade point

averages of students who participated in freshman seminar and students who did not

participate. Other studies that have found no significant differences include Gerber

(1970), Beck (1980), Boudreau and Kromrey (1994), Chapman and Reed (1987),

Stewart (1997), and Candia (1998).

Other findings include Mark and Romano (1982) who found no significant

difference in the grade point averages between the students who enrolled in their

freshman seminar course at Pennsylvania State University and those students who did

not enroll in their course. Key in this study was that Mark and Romano found that the

students who enrolled in the course yielded lower grade point averages than those

students who did not enroll in the course. Similar to Mark and Romano, Prola,

Rosenberg, and Wright (1977) found no significant difference in the grade point

20

averages of their orientation course participants and non-participants, with non-

participants demonstrating higher grade point averages.

Student Retention

Vincent Tinto (1975, 1987) developed a theory on student departure based on

Durkheim’s theory of suicide that is frequently referenced in discussions on student

retention. Tinto (1975, 1987) proposed that student departure from college resulted

from an inability of the student to integrate into the formal or informal, academic and /

or social community of the institution. This inability to integrate into the institution

can result from a lack of commitment by the student to obtaining a degree, or a lack of

commitment by the student to the institution. At the same time, a lack of intervention

or interaction by the institution with students also contributes to departure (Tinto 1975,

1987). As such, institutions strive to provide environments that would contribute to

the retention of students within their institutions.

Much of the research on extended orientation courses has been in the area of

student retention. Throughout the literature extended orientation courses have

demonstrated positive relationships with student retention. Boudreau and Kromrey

(1994) examined the retention rates of students who enrolled in their University

Experience course from 1987 to 1990. They reported significantly higher retention

rates for students who participated in the course in two of the four years examined.

In examining sophomore return rates at the University of South Carolina

between 1973 and 1988, Fidler (1991) found a significantly higher return rate for

University 101 participants over non-participants. Donnangelo and Santa Rita (1982)

found that students who attended the courses more frequently had a significantly

higher retention rate than students with low or no attendance in their classes. Shanley

and Witten (1990) found that over a three-year period that students who enrolled in

University 101 had a significantly higher retention rate than students who did not

enroll in the course.

In addition to those studies that found significantly higher retention rates for

students who participated in orientation courses are those studies that reported higher

retention rates, but no significant differences between the students examined. Sidle

and McReynolds (1999) found that students who enrolled in the freshman year

21

experience course were retained at a higher rate from their first year to their second

year than those students who did not enroll in the course. Wilkie and Kuckuck (1989)

found that the students who successfully completed their freshman seminar were

retained at a higher rate over a three-year period than those students who did not enroll

in their freshman seminar. Their results did not reach statistical significance;

however, the retention rate between the two groups increased after each year.

Rice and Thomas (1989) examined four matched groups of first-year students

to determine the impact of exposure to different levels of orientation programming

(one week traditional orientation, two-day, orientation course with student teachers,

orientation course with faculty teachers. They found no significant difference in the

retention rates at any level of orientation programming. Other studies that have found

no significant difference between orientation course participants and non-participants,

but did find higher retention rates for orientation course participants include Beck

(1977), Silver (1978), Stewart (1997), and Mark and Romano (1982). At Florida

State University, Yarbrough (1993) found no significant difference in the retention

rates of students who had participated in the extended orientation program and those

students who did not participate in the course, though the students who participated in

the course did attain higher retention rates between the first and second semester of

enrollment.

Women and Minority Students’ Relationship to

Extended Orientation Courses

Over the last 30 years, various nontraditional student groups have increasingly

enrolled in institutions of higher education. These students include women, and

minority students. Despite their increasing participation in higher education,

particularly at predominately White institutions, these students have demonstrated

issues with becoming acclimated to the academic and social lifestyle of college. The

following section will discuss some of the issues related to these various groups, as

well as the impact that extended orientation courses have had on these groups of

students in the areas of academic performance and retention.

22

Women and Extended Orientation Courses

Women now represent the majority of all college students in the United States

(Chapman, 1989). Despite their numbers, women still face many challenges on

campus. Chapman (1989) outlined several issues affecting women’s experiences in

college. These include the low number of permanent women faculty and full

professors as models and mentors to female students; the lack of an inclusive

curriculum that would contribute to female college student development; the

unfriendly classroom environments created by discrimination; and a lack of

understanding with regard to how women learn. In addition to the chilly classroom

environments to which women are subjected, there are cases of sexual harassment that

occur outside of the classroom (Chapman). As such, it is important to create an

environment that is welcoming of female students in college. Lack of support for

women by any institution would make it very difficult for them to adjust to the

academic and the social lifestyles of college. Because of their nature, extended

orientation courses, they could potentially serve as mediums to assist women with

becoming acquainted with the university environment, and allow them to build

relationships with instructors who would nurture their growth and development in

college. Limited research has been conducted on the impact of orientation courses on

women. Following is some discussion on studies that have been found on this topic.

In examining the sophomore return rates of students at the University of South

Carolina from 1973 to 1988, Fidler (1991) found that women who participated in

University 101 demonstrated higher return rates than male participants, though not at a

significant difference. Also at the University of South Carolina, Shanley and Witten

(1990) also found that female participants in University 101 graduated at higher rates

than male participants, female non-participants, and male non-participants over a

seven-year period.

Minority Students and Extended Orientation Courses

Of the literature on minority students, the two largest and probably the two

most documented groups in higher education are African American and Hispanic

students. This section will focus on these two groups, specifically their challenges in

attending college at predominantly White institutions, as well as the impact that

23

extended orientation courses have had on their academic success and retention in

college.

African American Students

African American students have had access to higher education since the mid-

nineteenth century. However it was not until the 1960s that African Americans had

access to all institutions of higher learning. As these students entered college,

particularly predominantly White institutions of higher learning, several issues

surfaced with regard to their academic and social experiences.

Many of today’s African American students are first-generation college

students (Pounds, 1989). As such, several issues have been documented as part of the

African American student experience in higher education. One such issue is the

feeling of alienation and loneliness for African American students. Pounds (1989)

indicated that these feelings are the result of faculty, staff, and students, particularly at

predominantly White institutions, not (or the perception that they are not)

acknowledging African American students’ cultural backgrounds. Along the same

lines, there may be a lack of faculty and staff to serve as role models and mentors at

these institutions that can address various adjustment issues for these students

(Pounds).

In addition to feelings of alienation and loneliness and the lack of role models

and mentors, Rowser (1997) found that many African American students have

unrealistic expectations of their academic ability in college. This was determined after

finding that 70% of the students she surveyed had a grade point average of 3.0 or

better (on a 4.0 scale), when 90 percent of the students surveyed had expected a 3.0 or

better. Although it is good that these students are optimistic about their abilities as

they enter college, they often lack adequate academic preparation and study habits,

which often contribute to attrition (McNairy, 1996). In addition, many of these

students have generic goals such as obtaining “a good job” after graduating from

college (McNairy). Tinto (1987) indicated that the higher a student’s goal

(educational or occupational), the higher the chances that a student is willing to work

to attain that goal. As such, it can become very difficult for these students to work

toward obtaining higher education when they do not have clear or high educational

24

goals, and perceive their environment as unwelcoming and / or hostile. Many other

issues challenge African American students in higher education, including finances

(Fleming, 1988). However, the issues presented here are seen as the most relevant as

these challenges impact how these new students perceive their educational experience.

These first impressions are, therefore, the most critical ingredients in shaping African

American students successful integration into the university environment.

Hispanic Students

As the fastest growing segment of the population in the United States,

Hispanics are becoming increasingly present on college campuses. The major

Hispanic subgroups in the United States are Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, and

Cuban-Americans (Justiz & Rendon, 1989). Like many African American students,

many Hispanic students are first-generation college students and come from low

socioeconomic backgrounds. As such, many challenges also confront these students

which include inadequate reading, writing, and math preparation; a lack of

understanding or appreciation for the higher education system and the benefits of

college; the need to work and contribute to the family’s income; as well as cultural and

language barriers (Justiz & Rendon). While attending college, these students may feel

alienation, a lack of motivation, and a distrust of the institutional infrastructure (Justiz

& Rendon). All of these issues contribute to Hispanic students who do not earn

bachelors and graduate degrees as well as whose development in college is limited.

Extended Orientation Courses and Minority Students

In examining the longitudinal effects of the University 101 course on

persistence, retention, and graduation rates, Shanley and Witten (1990) found that

African American students who participated in the course had higher rates than

African American students who did not participate in the course in all three categories.

Fidler (1991) found that sophomore return rates for African American students who

participated in freshman seminar were higher than White students who participated in

the course, and African American students who did not participate in the course.

Starke, Harth, and Sirianni (2001) found improved retention rates for African

American and Hispanic/Latino students who enrolled in their course. Despite these

positive results regarding ethnicity and the impact of orientation courses on students’

25

educational experiences, ethnicity as well as gender remain critical areas needing

additional research in this area as these populations of students continue to enroll in

colleges and universities in increasing numbers.

On-Campus Residential Living and Extended Orientation Courses Throughout the history of American higher education, residence halls have

played an important role in educating and developing students. However it wasn’t

until the 1970s that research evidence began to develop on the benefits of living in a

residence hall (Upcraft, 1989). In general, residence halls help students gain

independence from their families, develop personal values, develop confidence and

understanding, and build tolerance and acceptance (Upcraft). In addition, students

residing in residence halls were less likely to drop out, and more likely to attain a

bachelor’s degree in four years, earn a higher grade point average, and be more

satisfied with their undergraduate experience than students not living on campus

(Astin, 1973). Following is some discussion on the impact of extended orientation

courses on students who reside in residence halls on campus.

Fidler and Moore (1996) compared the impact of campus residence and

participation in University 101 at the University of South Carolina on dropout rates at

the institution. In their study, they found that both University 101 and on-campus

living contributed to greater student persistence. However, on-campus living appeared

to have a stronger impact on student retention than the course.

In another study, Kanoy and Bruhn (1996) examined the impact of a living and

learning program over two years to determine its effects on student retention and

academic performance. They found that the students participating in the living

learning residence hall achieved higher GPA’s than students who resided in other

residence halls during the freshman year (Kanoy and Bruhn, 1996). There was no

significant difference in retention rates between students participating in the living and

learning residence hall and students residing in other residence halls (Kanoy and

Bruhn).

In comparing the effects of residential learning communities and traditional

living arrangements on the educational gains of first-year students, Pike (1999) found

that participants in residential learning communities demonstrated higher levels of

26

involvement, interaction with faculty and peers, integration of course information, and

educational gains in their first year of college than students who lived in traditional

residence halls. Because residential learning communities are similar to extended

orientation courses in that they attempt to integrate students into the academic and

social environments of institutions, it reinforces the findings of many studies that

extended orientation courses and residence halls have a positive influence on the

educational development and gains of students while in college.

Issues Related to Research on Extended Orientation Courses While there has been a growing amount of research on the impact of extended

orientation courses, the majority of the research found on the subject appears to focus

on the academic performance of students and student retention. While it is

understandable that extended orientation courses were developed primarily to address

students’ academic success and retention in college, extended orientation courses offer

a broad range of benefits that extend beyond the academic success and retention of

students. This review of literature has demonstrated that some studies have been

conducted in areas other than academic performance and student retention. However,

many of the studies on extended orientation courses, which may include student

involvement (e.g. Prola, Rosenberg, & Wright, 1977; Maisto & Tammi, 1991; and

Blimline & New, 1975) and student satisfaction (e.g. House, 1998; Doman &

Christensen, 1976; and Starke, Harth, & Sirianni, 2001), have failed to provide

standard designs and outcomes that would help to effectively measure the impact of

these programs.

In the area of academic performance, Boudreau and Kromrey (1994) measured

academic achievement via students’ academic standing, cumulative grade point

average, and total credits completed. In contrast, Starke, Harth, and Sirianni (2001)

defined academic achievement by the grade point average. Along with a lack of

clearly defined indices of measurement outside of retention, many of the studies found

in the literature were short-term assessments (semester-to-semester, and one-year

evaluations) of the impact of orientation courses on retention and other areas. Starke,

Harth, and Sirianni (2001) highlighted this issue when they commented, “…most of

these studies have been limited by the use of only one type of outcome measure, or by

27

the lack of a control group, or they have considered only short-term assessments of the

program’s effectiveness” (p.9). This phenomenon is illustrated in Silver (1978),

Donnangelo and Santa Rita (1982), and Rice and Thomas (1989).

Another issue in the research on the impact of extended orientation courses on

various areas is the issue of the volunteer (or self-select) effect. Because many

courses are offered on an optional basis, it is believed that the students who enroll in

these courses are more motivated than those students who do not enroll in these

courses. Several studies have addressed have attempted to examine the volunteer

effect by examining pre-college characteristics to the actual motivation of students.

Fidler (1991), Brunelle-Joiner (1999), and Sidle and McReynalds (1999)

controlled for pre-college characteristics and input variables such as age, high school

rank, high school grade point average, Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores, ACT

scores, race, sex, gender, academic ability, course load, and more. All of these studies

found that the volunteer effect, based on pre-college characteristics had no influence

on the impact of the course on the various areas as students who enrolled in the course

had higher retention rates than those students who did not enroll in the course.

Strumpf and Hunt (1993) controlled for motivation and found that the students who

enrolled in the course had higher retention rates than those students who did not enroll

in the course.

Despite these results, controlling for the volunteer effect, has not received

much attention in the literature. It is an issue that needs to be considered when

conducting research on the impact of such programs on student experiences in college.

Finally, there appears to be a lack of research that considers how gender and ethnicity

relates to the impact of the program on students’ educational experiences.

In all, there are several issues to be addressed in researching extended-

orientation courses. This study will attempt to address the issues mentioned in this

review of the literature in hopes of adding to the literature regarding extended

orientation courses’ impact on student involvement, student satisfaction, academic

performance, and student retention.

28

Measurement of Student Effort Probably the most popular and widely used instrument that measures college

students’ experiences in college is the College Student Experiences Questionnaire

(CSEQ). Developed in 1979 by C. Robert Pace, the CSEQ measures three areas of

students’ experiences in college: 1) students’ quality of effort in college via their

efforts expended using resources provided for their learning; 2) students’ perceptions

of the educational environment that fosters their learning and development; and 3)

students’ perception of the gains they make while in college (Kuh & Siegel, 2000).

Four editions of the CSEQ have been used since its inception in 1979. Norms

for the first edition of the questionnaire were based on 13 institutions and 4,351

records (Miller, 1985). Norms for the second edition of the questionnaire were based

on the responses of 25,606 students from 74 institutions, while the norms of the third

edition were based on the responses of 50,188 students from 66 colleges and

universities (Kuh & Siegel, 2000). Currently in its fourth edition, norms for the CSEQ

have been established by the records of 32,787 students from 78 colleges and

universities between the spring of 1998 and the spring of 2000 (Kuh & Siegel).

In general, the survey has maintained 3 areas of measurement regarding

students’ experiences in college: college activities, the college environment, and the

estimate of gains. The largest part of the questionnaire, the College Activities section

measures the quality of a student’s effort in 13 areas, that include library experiences;

course learning; computer and information technology; experiences with faculty;

writing experiences; art, music, and theatre; campus facilities; student acquaintances;

clubs and organizations; personal experiences; scientific and quantitative experiences,

topics of conversation, and information in conversations (Kuh & Siegel). Earlier

editions of the questionnaire examined the experiences of students in dormitories and

fraternities/sororities (DeCoster, 1989). The College Environment section of the

questionnaire asks students to evaluate their institution’s emphasis in various areas

which include academic, scholarly, and intellectual qualities; the development of

students’ aesthetic, expressive, and creative qualities; the development of students’

critical, evaluative, and analytical qualities; the development of students’

understanding and appreciation of human diversity; the development of students’

29

information literacy skills; the development of vocational and occupational

competence; personal relevance and practical value of students’ courses; relationships

with others; relationships with administrative personnel and offices; and relationships

with faculty members (Kuh & Siegal). The Estimate of Gains section asks the student

to indicate the extent to which they feel that they have gained or made progress in

various aspects of their college experiences (Kuh & Siegel).

Throughout the four editions of the CSEQ, several organizational changes have

been made to the questionnaire from moving various questions (such as the

satisfaction questions) from one section to another, to changing the names of various

scales in order to maintain the questionnaire’s currency with the times (e.g. from Lab

Activities scale to Science and Quantitative). In addition scales have been added and

deleted from the questionnaire over time, such as the Computer and Information

Technology scale in College Activities, while the Dormitory or Fraternity/Sorority

scale was deleted from the questionnaire. In all, the questionnaire has proven a useful

tool in documenting students’ activities, perceptions of college, and perceptions of

their gains in college (Brown, 1985).

Web-Based Surveys Since the early 1990s the use of the World Wide Web (or Internet) for the

administration of surveys has become a viable option for government and market

researchers. Online surveys present many benefits. Schmidt (1997) indicated that

online surveys provide access to large populations, save money and time associated

with preparing surveys, and increase respondents’ motivation to provide accurate and

thoughtful responses. In discussing email surveys, Tse (1998) added that email

surveys are transmitted faster and are environmentally friendly. Despite the

advantages of online surveys, there are some disadvantages associated with using this

method of research.

Of the disadvantages associated with the administration of online surveys,

coverage error (or low sample coverage) has been a big issue (Ramos, Sedivi, &

Sweet, 1998; Tse, 1998). When online surveys became viable options for research,

the population of people who used the Internet was primarily males in their late teens

to their early thirties (Schmidt, 1997). In contrast to coverage error is the possibility

30

of persons not part of the sample population having access to the survey. Stanton

(1998) explained that surveys that use a WWW page are freely available to anyone

who comes across the information with their web browser. Other issues associated

with online surveys include incomplete responses, unacceptable responses, multiple

submissions, and security and data integrity (Schmidt). Research regarding the

administration of web-based surveys demonstrates mixed results regarding the

effectiveness of this method.

In studying the response rate, response speed and the quality of surveys

administered via email and regular mail, Tse (1998) found mail survey response rates

are higher than email response rates. In contrast to these results, Hancock and Flowers

(2001) found no difference in the response rate between pencil and paper surveys and

online surveys administered to undergraduate and graduate students. This supports the

notion that research on the response rate of online surveys is inconclusive (Ramos et

al, 1998). Various factors affect whether or not a person responds to paper or online

surveys. In the case of online surveys, factors such as knowledge about computers,

perceptions about security, the ease of using software and the instrument, relevance of

the survey topic, perceptions of the project sponsor, as well as whether or not

prenotices, prescreening, reminders, or incentives used, come into play (Ramos et al.,

1998).

Response speed yields similar results in the literature. Tse (1998) found that

the response speed of online surveys was faster than paper surveys. Schuldt and

Totten (1994) found that email responses were not faster than paper surveys. Response

speed to online surveys could be affected by various factors which include computer

perceptions, about security, the ease of using software and the instrument, relevance of

the survey topic, perceptions of the project sponsor, etc. (Ramos et al.,1998). These

factors should be considered when administering online surveys.

Overall, the response quality of online surveys has been found to be higher

than the quality of paper surveys (Ramos et al., 1998). To support this, Stanton (1998)

found that the data collected via the Internet provides useful information when

compared to paper surveys. In his study, Stanton found that the data collected from

the Internet had fewer missing data points, and comparable data to paper surveys

31

(Stanton). Tse (1998) on the other hand, found no difference in the quality of the

responses between email and mail surveys. He concluded from his examination of the

response quality that the same information is provided on either type of survey (Tse).

Based on the findings in the literature regarding the response rate, response

speed, and response quality of online surveys, it can be assumed that there would not

be any difference in the responses that are received from the administration of an

online survey as opposed to a paper survey. However, to maximize the responses

from the participants in a study, it would be critical to obtain the informed consent of

the participants in a study, take measures that will ensure that the population in

question in the study is represented in the sample, and to use software that would

make it easy for the average computer user to complete the survey (Schmidt, 1997).

Summary From the medieval university through the American colonial college, freshmen

have faced many adjustment issues in college. Because of the many issues students

had to face, American colleges have consistently attempted to address the issue of

adjustment for freshmen that would contribute toward their academic success in

college. One attempt to address this issue was the development of the extended

orientation course.

The first extended orientation course was developed at Boston University in

1888 with the first extended orientation course for credit being offered at Reed

College in 1911. The popularity of such courses grew during the early 20th century

whereby more than one-third of the colleges and universities offered such courses.

However the popularity of such courses eventually declined until the mid-to-late

1960s when higher education began to change.

During the mid-to-late 1960s higher education changed in several areas.

During this period, higher education became egalitarian, opening its doors to students

from all backgrounds and those who had not previously aspired or had been allowed to

attend college. In addition, academic regulations and institutional requirements had

become more complex. Because of these changes, as well as changes within the

student culture whereby peers were no longer seen as viable sources to assist freshmen

32

with adapting to their new environment, extended orientation courses re-emerged as a

way to assist students with their adjustments to the college environment.

There are many elements to an extended orientation course. First, the extended

orientation course should be interactive. Student involvement in the course should be

stressed in order to build unity within the class between both students and the

instructors. In addition to being interactive, extended orientation courses should

provide students information about their institution such as information on the library

and other institutional resources. A cognitive element should be provided that would

assist the students in learning academic skills, social skills, vocational skills, and

wellness. Finally journals should be used to document students’ reactions to their

experiences, along with campus visits and special topics for discussion.

In addition to assisting students with learning about campus resources,

academic development and personal development are the key goals of extended

orientation courses. These goals are deeply grounded in many student development

theories. One such theory is Arthur Chickering’s Theory of Identity Development.

Chickering’s theory proposes that students move through seven vectors of

development. These vectors include developing competence; managing emotions,

moving from autonomy toward interdependence; developing mature interpersonal

relationships; establishing identity; developing purpose; and developing identity.

Chickering indicated that institutional environments are influential in facilitating

student development. Institutional objectives, institutional size, student-faculty

relationships, student-student relationships curriculum, etc., all play an important role.

The more students invest in these areas, the more likely they will develop. Through

the introduction to institutional resources and close relationships established between

instructors and students, extended orientation courses encourage the development

outlined by Chickering and other theorists.

Extended orientation courses have been found to have a positive impact on

student involvement, student satisfaction, academic performance, and student

retention. With regard to student involvement, students who have enrolled in

extended orientation courses have demonstrated more involvement in with counselors.

They attend more college functions and join more student organizations.

33

As students become increasingly familiar with the campus and more involved

with faculty and staff members, student services, and campus activities, they tend to

demonstrate more satisfaction with the educational experience. The literature on

extended orientation courses and their impact on student satisfaction demonstrates that

students who enroll in extended orientation courses tend to be more satisfied with their

college experience than students who have not enrolled in extended orientation

courses.

Despite the positive impact reflected in the literature on extended orientation

courses and student involvement and student satisfaction, the literature on the impact

of orientation courses on academic performance indicates mixed results. While

several studies demonstrated significant differences in the academic performance of

students who enrolled in orientation courses over students who did not enroll in the

courses, several studies found no significant differences in the academic performance

of students who enrolled in these courses. Finally, students who enrolled in extended

orientation courses demonstrated higher retention rates than students who did not

enroll in an extended orientation course.

Although limited in the amount of coverage in the literature, extended

orientation course have demonstrated positive results in the areas of retention and

graduation rates of women; and the retention rates of minority students such as

African Americans and Hispanic/Latino students. Strong effects have also been

associated between extended orientation courses when combined with on campus

living.

Several issues have been identified regarding the research on orientation

courses. These issues include the focus of these types of studies being limited to

academic performance and student retention; the lack of agreement on the definition

of certain variables such as academic achievement/performance; and the focus on

short-term effects of these types of courses. Another issue that has been the question

of whether or not students who participate in these courses are more motivated than

students who do not participate in these types of courses (known as the volunteer

effect or self-select effect). To date there have been few studies that indicate that there

34

is no volunteer effect associated with the success of students that participate in these

types of courses.

Probably one of the more prominent surveys that assess student effort in

college is the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ). In its fourth

edition, the CSEQ has three sections that examine students’ efforts toward their

academic and social involvement on campus; students’ perceptions of their

institution’s environment; as well as students’ perceptions of their gains in college.

The CSEQ is offered in the paper or online format. Online surveys have been in use

since the mid-1990s. The literature on the use of online surveys has yielded mixed

results with regard to the response rate and response speed of this method. However,

if administered properly, online surveys can yield responses (rate and speed) that are

comparable to the responses of paper surveys.

Based on this review of the literature, it can be assumed that extended

orientation courses serve as viable options for institutions of higher education to use in

improving the quality of education for students. However, more studies need to be

developed exploring the longitudinal impact that these types of courses have on the

many different aspects of students’ experiences in college. Two areas that can be

considered are student involvement and student satisfaction.

35

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This section presents a detailed overview and discussion of the research design

used in the study. The research design, study site, subjects, description of the

program, instrument, data collection, and method of analysis are presented.

Research Design This study was non-experimental in design and used a combination of causal

comparative research and survey research.

Causal-Comparative Research

Often referred to as ex-post facto research, causal-comparative research has

been described as research that is “…similar to an experiment, except the independent

variable is not manipulated by the researcher but has already occurred in the natural

course of events. The researcher then compares groups differing on the independent

variable to determine its effect on the dependent variable” (Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh,

1996, p. 21). In attempting to examine the effects of participation in the FSU First-

Year Experience course on academic performance and student retention, data already

collected was examined to determine the impact of the FYE course in these two areas.

Survey Research

Survey research utilizes instruments, such as questionnaires and interviews that

gather information from different groups of subjects (Ary et al., 1996). The

information in these studies refers to the different characteristics of groups, as well as

their attitudes and/or their opinions on various issues. For this study, the College

Student Experience Questionnaire was used to assess students’ perceptions of their

efforts towards their education, as well as their perceptions of their college

experiences.

36

Variables The following variables were used in the study: participation and non-

participation in the First-Year Experience course, student involvement, student

satisfaction, academic performance, and student retention. Participation and non-

participation in the First-Year Experience course served as the independent variables.

Attribute variables in this study were gender, ethnicity, and residence. Ary et al.

(1996) defined attribute variables as “characteristics of individuals that cannot be

manipulated at will” (p. 31). As such, gender, ethnicity, and residence were examined

to determine how they relate to the course’s impact on the dependent variables in the

study.

Dependent variables used in this study included student involvement, student

satisfaction, academic performance, and student retention. Student involvement refers

to the amount of energy dedicated toward their academic experience (Astin, 1984;

Pace, 1982), as measured by the CSEQ. Student satisfaction referred to how students

perceive their experiences with the university, such as their relationships with faculty

and staff, as well as the services that they receive from the institution. Academic

performance refers to the students’ cumulative grade point averages at the time of

study. Student retention refers to the student re-enrollment rate at the institution each

semester after their initial term of enrollment.

Study Site The site for the study was The Florida State University (FSU), one of the

largest and oldest public universities of the Florida State University System (Florida

State University, 2000). FSU is a comprehensive graduate-research university with a

strong liberal arts base. (Florida State University, 2002). For the academic year 2002-

2003, the average Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score and American College

Testing (ACT) score for entering first-year students were 1145.6 and 24.1 respectively

(Florida State University, 2002). Some designated peer institutions of FSU include

the University of Texas – Austin, the University of Maryland – College Park, Indiana

University – Bloomington, the University of Georgia, and the University of Kansas

(FSU Institutional Research Online).

37

FSU was founded by an 1851 legislative act, and opened its doors in 1857 as

the West Florida Seminary (Florida State University, 2000). An all-male institution at

the time, the institution opened it doors to women in 1858 and became co-ed. During

the time of the Civil War, the Florida Legislature changed the name of the institution

to The Florida Military and Collegiate Institute to reflect the addition of a military

section to the institution that trained cadets. In 1901, another legislative act changed

the name of the institution to Florida State College.

In 1905, a reorganization of Florida’s educational system established Florida

State College as a woman’s college under the name of Florida Female College, which

later was changed to Florida State College for Women. In 1947, the legislature

changed the name of the institution to Florida State University, and made it a co-

educational institution to meet the demand of men who returned from World War II.

During the Fall 2001 term, Florida State University had 35,462 students enrolled

(Florida State University, 2002). Of the 35,462 students enrolled at FSU in the fall

2001 term, 76.5% of the students enrolled were undergraduate students; 56.4% were

of the students enrolled women; and 23.1% of the students enrolled were minorities.

Course Design & Instruction

First-Year Experience (FYE) at Florida State University is an optional one-

credit course offered to first-year, first-time-in-college students to assist these students

with making effective transitions into the university environment. Initially offered

during the Fall term of 1992, FYE began as an optional, zero-credit course. Both

freshmen and transfer students enrolled in the course between 1992 and 1995.

However, as a result of declining student enrollment during the 1995-96 academic

year, the course was modified during the 1996-97 academic year and developed into

an optional two-credit, graded (A, B, C, D, F) course offered only to first-year, first-

time-in-college students. In 1999 the course’s credit load and grade status were

revised to its current status as a one-credit, satisfactory/unsatisfactory (S/U) graded

course.

Because the course is and has been offered during the summer and regular

academic year (Spring and Fall terms), the number of sessions and the amount of class

time committed to each section has varied. Summer sections of FYE meet 12 times (2

38

times per week) during the 6-week Summer C term. Fall and Spring sections of FYE

meet 17 times over the first 8.5 weeks of the term. Instructors have the option to meet

an additional class in the Fall and Spring terms to evaluate the course and do a course

wrap-up. Because of the strict time limits in the Summer session (six weeks), the

additional session for evaluation and course wrap-up is not available. However,

summer session sections are 70 minutes (1 hour, 10 minutes) as opposed to the 50

minutes allowed in the Fall and Spring sessions. Overall, the amount of time is

comparable between Summer, Fall, and Spring terms.

Each section of FYE is co-taught by an instructional team that may consist of

an instructor and a peer leader. Instructors are FSU faculty, staff, or graduate students

from throughout the University who have attained a master’s degree, professional

degree, or higher. Peer leaders are undergraduate student leaders of sophomore status

or higher who assist with the instruction of the course. Some sections have

instructional teams that consist of co-instructors; two faculty or staff or graduate

student(s) who meet the criteria to serve as instructors. A peer leader is automatically

assigned to each section of the course. Other sections may have an instructor,

assistant instructor, and a peer leader. Assistant instructors are faculty, staff, or

graduate students who have not earned a master’s or professional degree, or higher,

who would like to participate in the program. All instructional team members

participate in an annual training program before they can teach the course.

Course Objectives & Content

As previously indicated, the goal of the First-Year Experience Program is to

assist students with making an effective transition into the university environment, at

FSU this goal is accomplished by the pursuit of five objectives:

1. To introduce students to an education based in the liberal arts.

2. To assist students in recognizing and respecting the dignity and worth of each

person and understanding the requirements for successful community life.

3. To assist students in acquiring valuable academic survival skills.

4. To challenge students to become involved and find avenues in the university

community for the development of the whole person.

39

5. To assist students in developing a support network for successful transition

(Florida State University, 2001).

These objectives are accomplished by each section of FYE covering topics that

include the history and mission of FSU, the importance of a liberal arts education,

University Policies, and academic integrity (objective 1); values clarification,

diversity, wellness, stress and time management, financial management, and

relationships (objective 2); academic policies and academic advising, academic

resources, as well as study skills, writing and note-taking, test-taking skills, and

presentation skills (objective 3); and leadership and student involvement, campus

activities, student resources and students services (objective 4). Objective 5

(developing a support network) is accomplished through relationship established by

faculty and staff participants, as well as peer leaders and classmates (Florida State

University, 2001). Instructional teams have the autonomy to determine which topics

they would like to cover in their sections of FYE.

Each class is required to attend a mandatory library presentation that consists

of a presentation on the campus’s online research program (Web Luis) and/or a tour of

the campus’s main library. Each section is also required to receive a presentation by

the FSU Career Center regarding the resources available in the Center. Finally, each

section receives a presentation from the FSU Victim Advocate program, which is a

program that assists students who are victims of crime. Students are also required to

visit an academic advisor, as well as submit journal entries reflecting on the

information that they learned in class, as well as their experiences outside of the

classroom. Quizzes and exams are optional components of the course (Florida State

University, 2001). An outline of the course objectives and course content, along with

a sample syllabus is provided in Appendix A.

Subjects Subjects for the study were comprised of two groups: 1) students who

completed the First-Year Experience course (AMS 1363) course during their first

semester at FSU; 2) students who did not complete the course while at FSU.

Completion of the FYE course means that the student received a grade

(Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory, or S/U) for the term in which they were enrolled in the

40

course. All students were traditional-age, undergraduate students who began their

enrollment at FSU as a first-year, first-time-in-college student during the Summer or

Fall terms of 1999, and 2001. Because the two previous studies on the FYE course at

FSU (Yarbrough 1993; Brunelle-Joiner, 1999) were conducted while the course was a

zero-credit and two-credit graded course respectively, the 1999 and 2001 cohorts were

selected because they provided short-term and long-term data regarding the impact of

the course as a one-credit S/U graded course.

Students are recruited to enroll in the FYE course by a number of means.

Students can receive information regarding the program as a prospective or admitted

student via the university’s website. Students are also provided information during

Preview programs. Preview is a program sponsored by the Admissions Office at FSU,

whereby admitted students and their families visit the university and receive

information regarding the various services and programs provided by the institution.

During orientation, orientation leaders promote the course with students during their

small group sessions, while academic advisors also advertise the course as an elective

credit and a way for students to familiarize themselves with the University. Some

students participating in the summer CARE program are required to enroll in the

course as a means for preparing them for the academic rigors of college.

In addition to the activities of orientation leaders and academic advisors, the

FYE program staff advertises the course during Seminole Sensation sessions.

Seminole Sensation sessions are midday sessions hosted during each orientation

session where student organizations and University departments advertise their

services and programs. FYE staff also promote and encourage students to enroll in the

program during orientation networking sessions, which are one-hour sessions that

allow parents and students to learn more about the various areas (activities, programs,

and departments) of the University. Since the reorganization of the course in 1997,

the number of FYE sections has grown from 13 sections in 1997 to 63 sections in

2001. The annual enrollment in FYE has increased from 250 students in 1997 to 1,135

students in 2001. Class size is generally limited to 25 students in each class.

41

Instrument The College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) was used in this study

(see Appendix B). The CSEQ measures the quality of effort that a student applies to

using resources provided for their learning, various aspects of the college environment

that assist with the learning process, and the estimated gains that students make while

in college (Kuh & Siegel, 2000). The questionnaire has more than 150 items and is

broken into three sections: the Quality of Effort Measures, the College Environment

Measures; and the Estimate of Gains Measures.

Because part of this study focused on student involvement and student

satisfaction at the institution, only the responses to the College Activities section and

the two satisfaction items from the “Opinions About Your College or University” are

reported in this study. Partial reporting of the CSEQ does not impact the instrument’s

validity or its reliability (K. Kish, personal communication, 10/03/02).

Validity Babbie (1998) defines validity as “…the extent to which an empirical measure

adequately reflects the real meaning of the concept under consideration” (p. 133).

Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh (1996) expand on this notion by indicating that validity

(and reliability) is determined by the information produced by the measuring

instrument, as opposed to the instrument itself. There are various ways by which

information demonstrates that an instrument is valid. The most noted are content-

related evidence, criterion-related evidence, and construct-related evidence (Ary et al.,

1996).

Content-related evidence/validity refers to the type of information, or evidence

that shows the extent to which the sample of items on an instrument is representative

of a defined universe or domain (Ary et al., 1996). Defined in simpler terms, it is how

much an instrument covers the range of meanings included within a concept (Babbie,

1998). In order to determine the content validity of the CSEQ, information provided

by the results of the instrument must demonstrate that the instrument covers the broad

range of theory as it relates to student involvement (or student effort), student

satisfaction, and estimate of gains in college.

42

Criterion-related evidence/validity, or predictive validity, refers to the extent

that the information from the scores of an instrument are related to an independent

external variable that is believed to measure the behavior or a characteristic in

question (Ary et al., 1996). In order to establish criterion-related validity, the

instrument must demonstrate relevance, reliability, and be free from bias (Ary et al,

1996).

Construct-related validity refers to the demonstration of the instrument having

a logical relationship among the variables being measured (Babbie, 1998). In other

words, the instrument must show logical characteristics of a construct, and that these

characteristics are being measured effectively. Ways by which construct validity can

be measured include demonstrating relationships with other measures, experimental

studies, the comparison of scores of defined groups, and intratest analysis (Ary et al.,

1996).

In demonstrating relationships with other measures, convergence and

discriminability must be established. By convergence, it must be shown that the

instrument is related to other measures that are presumed to be valid indicators of the

same construct (Ary et al., 1996). At the same time, the instrument must demonstrate

discriminability, that is evidence that the instrument construct does not substantially

correlate with instruments that are known to measure different constructs (Ary et al.,

1996).

Factor analysis is another process that can assist in determining the construct

validity of an instrument via a correlational approach. In this method, a statistical

analysis is implemented, studying the intercorrelations among a set of test scores in

order to determine the number of factors or constructs needed to account for the

intercorrelations (Ary et al., 1996). These methods differ from experimental studies

and comparisons of defined groups, whereby distinctions could be made via the test

scores of different experiments and / or different groups using the same instrument

(Ary et al., 1996). Intratest methods examine the instrument itself and gather

information regarding the content of the instrument, processes used to respond to

items on the instrument, and correlations among items on the instrument (Ary et al.,

1996).

43

Validity of CSEQ

Pace and Swayze (1992) utilized the Guttman-scale analysis and factor

analysis to determine the content validity of the CSEQ. Pace and Swayze (1992)

explained that two components are needed in order to ensure validity: 1) the activities

with a scale must comprise a coherent universe of content; and 2) the activities would

reflect a unidimensional hierarchy. In having these conditions met, Pace and Swayze

(1992) indicate that a very reliable measure can be accomplished with a relatively

small number of items. They indicate that this is accomplished with the 13 Quality of

Effort measures. If the item content is totally coherent and interrelated, then the

variance in the scale would be accounted for by a single dominant factor (Pace &

Swayze, 1992).

Ten Quality of Effort measures have more than 80% of the variance accounted

for by one dominant factor (Pace & Swayze, 1992). Three of the scales have 70% or

better of the variance accounted for, while the art, music, and theatre scale falls below

these percentages in part because it is designed to represent three different sets of

activities (Pace & Swayze, 1992). Taken together, the Guttman-scale analysis and

factor analysis indicate the content coherence of the activities in each scale as very

high (Pace & Swayze, 1992).

Regarding construct validity, Pace and Swayze (1992) indicate that the validity

can be determined by examining whether the relationships between various measures

on the CSEQ and other variables are consistent with related research. They further

note that their results match the patterns of related research in the field.

To establish validity of the estimate of gains, a determination has to be made as

to whether or not student responses match what is known from other sources about

student achievement and satisfaction, and from the analysis of internal consistencies in

the responses. In other words, student self-estimate of gains should reflect their

interest. Pace and Swayze (1992) found that student responses to gains do reflect their

interests. The same can be said for students’ experiences and their reported progress

(Pace & Swayze). No effort scale was available for vocational preparation. However,

two environment scales, emphasis on the development of vocational and occupational

44

competence, and personal relevance and practical value of the students’ courses, can

be used as predictors (Pace & Swayze).

Reliability Reliability can be defined as the degree of consistency by which an instrument

measures whatever is being measured (Ary et al., 1996). Ary, et al. indicate that

reliability, or consistency of an instrument is determined by scores of an instrument

remaining the same in repeated measurements. The two approaches that express

reliability are the standard error of measurement, and the reliability coefficient (Ary et

al.). The standard error of measurement is concerned with the variation of scores that

is to be expected within a set of repeated measurements, while the reliability

coefficient is concerned with the extent to which each individual maintains the same

relative position in the group (Ary et al.). Several methods can be used to determine

the reliability of an instrument. For example, there are methods that examine the

relationship of the instrument to the individuals, or other instruments. There are also

methods that examine the items of an instrument, testing for internal consistency.

Of the methods that examine the relationship of the instrument to the

individuals and / or to other instruments, test-retest reliability coefficient, and alternate

forms (or parallel forms) techniques are most often cited. The test-retest reliability

coefficient refers to the examination of individuals on two occasions while correlating

the paired scores (Ary et al.). This method allows reliability to be determined over

time based on the performance of an individual on the two tests.

As opposed to the test-retest technique, the equivalent-forms technique

correlates the scores of equivalent forms of an instrument administered to the same

individuals (Ary et al.). This method can be implemented in immediate succession, or

over a period of time. Depending on the method (whether in immediate succession, or

over a period of time), the coefficient of equivalence or the coefficient of stability and

equivalence can be determined.

Other methods that determine the reliability of an instrument examine the

effectiveness of the items on an instrument. Known as the internal-consistency

methods, these procedures include the split-half reliability coefficient, and

homogeneity measures (Ary et al.). The split-half coefficient occurs when a test is

45

provided to individuals. Later the items from the test are split into two halves and the

scores of the individuals are used to calculate a coefficient of correlation (Ary et al.).

Homogeneity measures are used to calculate the internal consistency of an instrument.

More specifically, these measures examine the content sampling, and the

heterogeneity of the domain being sampled. Two prominent procedures used to

determine homogeneity measures are the Kuder-Richardson Procedures and the

Coefficient (or Cronbach) Alpha. Kuder-Richardson procedures are generally used

when the instrument is scored dichotomously, while the Cronbach alpha is used when

instruments are not scored dichotomously (Ary et al.).

Reliability of CSEQ

Pace and Swayze (1992) indicate that using reliability coefficients for scales

are arguably the most important indicator of trustworthiness of instruments such as the

CSEQ. As such the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the 13 Quality of Effort scales are

high, ranging from .81 to .91 which Pace and Swayze indicate are dependable. In

addition, these scores were essentially the same as the scores calculated for the second

edition of the CSEQ (Pace & Swayze).

Data Collection Data collection for this study was conducted in two stages. The first stage

consisted of obtaining a list of students who enrolled in sections of FYE (listed as

AMS 1363) during the Summer and Fall terms of 1999 and 2001 from the Registrar’s

Office. Along with the listing of students who enrolled in FYE, a separate listing of

all first-year, first-time-in-college students who enrolled at the University during the

Summer or Fall terms of 1999 and 2001, and who did not enroll in FYE, was collected

from the Registrar’s Office. Within the lists of FYE and non-FYE students, was

information regarding the students’ demographics data such as email addresses,

gender, ethnicity, etc., as well as student grade point averages and enrollment history

at the institution. The researcher tracked the enrollment rates and grade point averages

of all subjects during each Fall and Spring term after their initial semester of

enrollment (1999 and 2001) through the Spring 2002 (for academic performance), and

Fall 2002 (for retention) to help determine the impact of the course on student

academic performance and student retention. Collection of data for students from

46

1999 and 2001 allowed the researcher to determine the impact of the program for both

short-term (one semester – academic progress; one-year student retention), and long-

term (after three years). At the time that the study was conducted, data for the 1999

cohort was unavailable.

Stage 2 of the data collection for this study consisted of collecting data from

the 1999 and 2001 FYE participants who had registered e-mail accounts with the

university. This procedure was necessary to measure student involvement and student

satisfaction as determined by the CSEQ. Of the 1630 students who were identified for

participation, 555 students had participated in FYE in 1999, and 1,075 students had

participated in the course in 2001. The names and e-mail addresses of the students

were provided to the CSEQ administrators at Indiana University who sent e-mails

directly to the students at the end of the Spring 2003 semester requesting their

participation in the study (see Appendix C).

Students were offered a $100 prize via their voluntary participation in a raffle

based on their return of a completed questionnaire. A raffle winner was selected based

on the identification number (ID) provided to each student by the CSEQ

administrators. Identification numbers were assigned to each student and served as

login numbers that assisted the researcher in identifying the participants in the data set

(K. Kish, personal communication, 1/6/03). All student identities remained

confidential. All student participants were required to acknowledge informed consent

before participating in the study (see Appendix C). Consent was obtained as students

logged into the online survey. The informed consent form was approved by the

Human Subjects committee of the university before administration of the survey (see

Appendix C).

The online CSEQ is generally administered over a three to four-week period

(K. Kish, personal communication, September 15, 2002). For this study, the CSEQ

was administered over a three-week period. During the first week that the

questionnaire was administered, students selected to participate in the study received

an e-mail requesting that they complete the questionnaire. “Follow up” e-mails were

sent during the second and third weeks during the three-week administration of the

survey (see Appendix C). Typically there has been a 30-35% completion rate for the

47

online CSEQ, while most of the surveys completed have been completed during the

first week of administration (K. Kish, personal communication, September 15, 2002).

Because the literature on response rate provided no conclusive evidence that there is a

difference in the response rate between online surveys and paper surveys, it was

assumed that the response rate estimated by CSEQ would hold true for the FSU study.

Because a high percentage of Florida State students have e-mail accounts with the

university (nearly 100%), it was assumed that a representative sample of students was

asked to participate in the study. Once the study was completed, the administrators of

the questionnaire at Indiana University tabulated the scores and returned the raw data

to the researcher on a 3.5 inch floppy disk for analysis.

Research Questions The research questions that guided this study were:

1. Is there a difference in the academic performance and the retention rates

between students who participate in the First-Year Experience course and students

who do not participate in the course?

2. Is there a difference is the academic performance and the retention rates of

First-Year Experience students based on gender, ethnicity, and campus residence

status?

3. Is there a difference between the levels of involvement among students who

participated in the First-Year Experience course in 1999 and 2001?

4. Is there a difference between the levels of involvement among students who

participated in the First-Year Experience course in 1999 and 2001 based on gender?

5. Is there a difference in the student satisfaction of the First-Year Experience

students based on year, gender, and ethnicity?

Analysis of the Data Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data for

this study. Descriptive statistics allow for data to be organized and summarized (Ary,

et al., 1999), whereby the frequencies, means, and standard deviations are computed.

Inferential statistics involve making reasonable decisions from the data presented

(Ary, et al.). These decisions often involve testing the level of significance of the

effects of a treatment. The statistical program SPSS 11.0.1 was used to process all of

48

the analyses in this study. Prior to the examination of each research question, the

mean scores of the SAT scores for all respondents were calculated. Once the mean

scores were calculated, t-tests were used to compare the mean scores for participants

of FYE against the mean SAT scores for non-participants in order to determine if there

is a significant difference between the two groups. Ary et al. (1996) defined

significant as being “less likely to be a function of chance than some predetermined

probability” (p. 191). This statistical procedure was taken for both the FYE

participants and non-participant groups because a significantly higher mean SAT score

for students who have participated in the FYE course might imply that the FYE

students were not representative of the general population of first-year students; that

students who self-select into FYE are more academically capable than the students

who do not enroll in FYE, and could support the notion that there is a volunteer effect

with regard to the impact of orientation courses on academic performance, student

retention, and other areas. The following methods were employed to assess the impact

of the program on the four dependent variables in the study.

Questions 1 & 2

Research question one attempted to determine if there was any difference in

the academic performance and student retention between students who enrolled in

FYE and students who did not enroll in the course. Research question two attempted

to determine if there was any difference in the academic performance and student

retention of FYE students in 1999 and 2001. Following is an explanation of the

statistical methods employed to assess both academic performance and student

retention.

Academic Performance

T-tests were used to examine the differences between grade point averages of

students who participated in FYE and students who did not participate in the course.

The fall and spring grade point averages of the 1999 and 2001 cohorts were compiled

from initial enrollment records through the Spring 2002 term.

Student Retention

To determine if there were any differences in student retention, chi-square

analyses were used to compare re-enrollment rates. These tests compare the reported,

49

or observed, frequencies with theoretical or expected frequencies (McMillan &

Schumacher). In this case, the observed frequencies were the retention rates of FYE

and non-FYE students.

Questions 3 & 4

Questions three and four attempted to determine if there was any statistical

difference in the involvement levels of students who participated in the FYE course

based on year and gender. Following is an explanation of the statistical methods used

to make this determination.

Student Involvement

To assess the impact of FYE on student involvement, a Two-Way Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) was utilized. An ANOVA tests the difference between two or

more mean scores (Ary et al., 1996). When compared to the t test, ANOVA

advantages include 1) an accurate and known type-I error probability; 2) it is more

powerful with regard to determining if the null hypothesis is false; and 3) it can assess

the effects of two or more independent variables simultaneously (Glass & Hopkins,

1996). A two-way analysis of variance allows for three hypotheses to be tested: a) the

effect of each factor tested, and b) whether or not there is interaction between the two

factors. Interaction exists if the mean differences among two factors are not constant

across the two factors (Glass & Hopkins). For this study, the year students enrolled in

FYE, and gender were used as factors in the statistical tests. The F ratio was used to

determine the statistical significance of the effect of the treatment.

Question 5

Question number five attempted to determine the impact of FYE on student

satisfaction based on the year of participation, gender, and ethnicity. Following is an

explanation of how this was accomplished.

Student Satisfaction

To examine the satisfaction levels of FYE students, simple frequencies and

percentages were calculated and assessed. If a high frequency of students responded

based on year, gender, or ethnicity, the result would be considered important and

reported as such. If no such result was found, it would be assumed that such

differences did not exist.

50

For all statistical procedures, with the exception of question number five,

statistical significance was set at .05.

Summary This study employed both causal comparative and survey research designs. A

causal comparative approach was employed as some of the data had already been

determined by the subjects’ enrollment and academic performance. The survey

research method was used to obtain student’s perception of their level of involvement

at the university, as well as their perceptions of the institution.

The independent variable in the study was participation in First-Year

Experience. Independent “attributes” used in this study were gender, ethnicity, and

campus residence status. Attribute variables were used to examine the relationship

between these variables and the dependent variables.

The dependent variables in this study were student involvement, student

satisfaction, academic performance, and student retention. Student involvement refers

to the level of energy that a student applies toward their education (Astin, 1984; Pace

1984). Student satisfaction is defined as students’ perceptions of their institutions

(Astin, 1993). Academic performance refers to the students’ cumulative grade point

average of students, while student retention refers the re-enrollment rate of students

after their initial enrollment at the institution.

The FYE course at FSU is an optional one-credit course offered to first-year,

first-time-in-college students to assist in the students in making an effective transition

into the university. Specifically, the course attempts to introduce students to the

notion of liberal education; help students understand the requirements for successful

community life; assist students in acquiring valuable academic skills; challenge

students to becoming involved with the university; and help students in developing a

support network. Topics covered in the classes may include understanding a liberal

education, time management, relationships, academic policies, and the like. Sections

of the course are team-taught by faculty, staff, and students of the university for 8.5

weeks during the fall terms, and 6 weeks during the Summer C terms.

The dependent variables student involvement and student satisfaction were

collected and measured through the College Student Experiences Questionnaire

51

(CSEQ). The CSEQ is an instrument that measures the quality of effort that a student

applies toward their education, the various aspects of the college environment that

assist with student learning, and the estimated gains that a student makes while in

college. It has three parts: Quality of Effort Measures, College Environment

Measures, and Estimate of Gains Measures.

Because of the content covered in the CSEQ, the Quality of Effort Measures

section were used in this study to assess the level of student involvement and student

satisfaction with the university. Validity of the instrument was established through

the Gutmman-scale analysis, factor analysis, and a comparison of student responses to

other sources. Reliability of the CSEQ has ranged from .81 to .91 using a Cronbach

alpha coefficient. The two remaining dependent variables, academic performance and

student retention, were obtained from data gathered on individual students from

institutional records.

Data collection for the study was conducted in two stages. The first stage

consisted of obtaining lists of all first-time-in-college students at the university in

academic years 1999 and 2001. The lists of students were split between students who

enrolled in FYE and students who did not enroll in the course. For the first stage of the

study, grade point averages and student re-enrollment rates of 1999 and 2001 FYE

students and non-FYE students were assessed to determine the impact of the program

on academic performance and student retention.

The second stage of the study consisted of gathering data through the

administration of the online College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ).

Students who participated in the FYE course in 1999 and 2001, who had registered e-

mail accounts were asked to complete the questionnaire. Student involvement and

student satisfaction were assessed based on student responses to the College Activities

Measures and the “Opinions About Your College or University” section of the survey.

Descriptive and inferential statistics were used in analyzing the data, which included

frequencies, percentages, means, standard deviations, t-tests, chi square analyses, and

two-way analyses of variance (ANOVA).

52

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS The purpose of this study was to examine the potential of the First-Year

Experience course at Florida State University as a means to improve the quality of the

undergraduate students’ educational experience at the institution. Specifically, this

study examined the relationship between student participation in the course and the

variables student involvement, student satisfaction, academic performance, and

student retention. The data analysis reported in this chapter considers the impact of

the FYE course on each of these variables and discuss the interrelated associations of

gender, ethnicity, and residence status.

Data Collection This study used both causal comparative and survey research methods. Similar

to an experiment, causal comparative research examines the impact of an independent

variable on a dependent variable, with the exception that the researcher does not

manipulate the independent variable. Instead the independent variable has already

occurred (Ary, Jacobs, and Razavieh, 1996). Survey research utilizes instruments

such as questionnaires and interviews to gather information from different groups of

subjects (Ary et al., 1996).

During the Spring 2003 term, data for the 1999 and 2001 First-Time-In-

College (FTIC) cohorts was obtained. This data included information such as students

names, social security numbers, email addresses, SAT scores, grade point average,

enrollment rates, etc. File for 5,107 students were collected for the 1999 cohort, and

5,824 files were collected for the 2001 cohort. Upon receipt of the data, the researcher

examined and “cleaned” the data by eliminating from the sample any students who

had a class code of “2” (sophomore) or higher, or an age of “21” or higher. This

53

process was an attempt to ensure that the students in the samples were first-year, first-

time-in-college students and within the traditional age for college freshmen

(approximately 18-20 years). Final sample sizes resulted with 4,524 students for the

1999 cohort, which included 750 students who had participated in the FYE course, and

3,774 students who did not. For the 2001 cohort, 5,481 students were in the final

sample, of whom 1,071 participated in the course and 4,410 students who did not.

Once the final samples were established, 1,626 files of 1999 and 2001 FYE

students, who possessed FSU email accounts, were forwarded to the administrators of

the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) in Bloomington, Indiana,

along with an informed consent (Appendix C) and introductory letter (Appendix C),

for processing and an e-mail administration of the online CSEQ survey. The CSEQ

survey was administered over a three-week period in April 2003. A $100 raffle prize

was used as incentive for students to participate. Students agreed to the conditions of

the study by logging into the online survey. A total of 381 surveys were returned to

the CSEQ administrators reflecting a response rate of 23%. When the three-week

period ended, the administrators of the CSEQ forwarded the results of the survey to

the researcher for analysis. Upon receipt of the data, the researcher reviewed the data

from the CSEQ and removed any students who indicated a class status of 5 (graduate

student) or 6 (unclassified). This further processing was done to eliminate any

respondents who may have received their bachelor degree from the institution, but

were still enrolled at the university as a graduate student during the administration of

the questionnaire. In addition, all incomplete surveys, as indicated by the absences of

a submission time within the data set, were removed from the sample.

Participant Demographics The following section provides a description of those participants who

remained in the study for analysis purposes.

1999 Cohort (Academic Performance & Student Retention)

A total of 4,524 students’ files were used for the analysis of the academic

performance and retention rates of the 1999 first-year students. Of this number, 750

students, or 16.6%, participated in the FYE course. The number of students who did

not participate in the course was 3,774, or 83.4%.

54

The 1999 sample of students used in this study closely resembled that of the

total student population at FSU during the 1999 – 2000 academic year. Of the cohort,

42.6% of the participants were men, compared to the university’s percentage of

44.4%; while 57.4% of the participants were women, compared to the university’s

percentage of 55.6%. In terms of race / ethnicity, 75.9% of the sample’s participants

were White, compared to 74.2% overall at the university. African American students

constituted 11.9% of the sample, compared to a 12.3% total at the university; and

8.9% of the participants were Hispanic, compared to a total of 7.1%.

In terms of gender, 34.4% of FYE students were men versus 44.2% of non-

FYE students. Women represented 65.6% of the FYE students versus 55.8% of the

students who did not take the course. Regarding race / ethnicity, 65.5% of the 1999

FYE students in this study were White, compared to 77.9% of non-FYE students.

African American FYE students constituted 20.5%, compared to 10.2% of all students

who did not take the course. Hispanic students represented 10.1% of the students who

participated in the course, compared to 8.6% of all students who did not take the

course.

2001 Cohort (Academic Performance & Student Retention)

A total of 5,481 students’ files were used for the analysis of the academic

performance and retention rates of the 2001 first-year students. Of this group, 1,071

students, or 19.5%, enrolled in FYE; while 4,410 students, or 80.5%, did not

participate in the course.

In comparing the participants in the study with the overall demographics of the

university, the 2001sample appeared to be very similar to the overall 2001 – 2002

enrollment at the university. Of the participants in the course, 42.4% were men,

compared to the university rate of 43.6%. Women represented 57.6% of students who

participated in the course, compared to the institutional rate of 56.4%. In regards to

ethnicity, 70.6% of the students who participated in FYE were White, compared to

72.5% at FSU; 12.1% were African-American compared to 11.9% at the university.

Finally, 12.9% of the FYE participants were Hispanic compared to 8.1% within the

university.

55

Participants in this study were very similar in composition to the general

population of students at the university. Men constituted 40.6% of the 2001 FYE

students, compared to 42.9% of the students who did not take the course. Women

made up 59.4% of the students who participated in the course, compared to the 57.1%

of first-year women who did not take the course. In terms of ethnicity, 70.8% of the

FYE students were White compared to 70.5% of the non-FYE students. African

Americans made up 12.7% of the FYE students, compared to 11.9% of the non-FYE

students; while 13.0% of the FYE students were Hispanic, compared to 12.9% of the

non-FYE students.

College Student Experiences Questionnaire Respondents

From the CSEQ administration, 342 files were used in the analysis of FYE

student involvement and student satisfaction at FSU. Of these, 105, or 30.7%, had

completed the course in 1999. The remaining 237 respondents, or 69.3%, completed

the course in 2001. Eighty-three men accounted for 24.5% of the CSEQ respondents,

while 254, or 74.3% were women. With regard to ethnicity, 254 or 74.3% respondents

indicated their ethnicity as White or “Caucasian”. African Americans accounted for

40 responses, or 11.6%. Finally, Hispanics accounted for 48 responses, or 14.0%.

The CSEQ provides three categories for respondents to select within the “Hispanic”

category. Within the Hispanic student category, 12 students indicated Mexican

American, 15 students indicated Puerto Rican, and 21 indicated “Other Hispanic”.

Preliminary Analysis Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores of the participants were examined to

determine if there were significant statistical differences between the two groups.

SAT scores are one pre-college characteristic used to determine the similarity of

groups. A significantly higher SAT score by FYE students could indicate that the

students who enroll in FYE are not representative of the general population of first-

year students, in particular, that they are academically stronger students, or students

who demonstrate a higher level of motivation.

T tests were used to compare the mean SAT scores between groups. McMillan

and Schumacher (1989) define the t test as a statistical formula that generates a

number that is used to determine the probability level of rejecting the null hypothesis.

56

When computing the t test, it is assumed that the samples are independent; the samples

are normally distributed, and the samples meet the assumption of homogeneity of

variance (Glass & Hopkins, 1996).

For the analysis of SAT scores, all subjects for the 1999 and 2001 cohorts were

independent of one another. Each score was obtained from the institution’s data

warehouse through the FSU Registrar’s Office. The distribution of the FYE students’

SAT scores for 1999 met the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality (p = .459), while the

distributions of SAT scores for the 1999 non-FYE, and the 2001 FYE and non-FYE

students did not meet the test of normality (p = .000). Glass & Hopkins (1996)

indicate that any violations of the assumption of normality “…has almost no practical

consequences in using the two-tailed t test” (p. 291). The t test is robust with regard to

violation of the assumption of normality. As the size of the sample increases, the

probability becomes more accurate (Glass & Hopkins, 1996). As such, it was

expected that there would be no consequence as a result of this violation due to the

large sample of SAT scores for both groups in both cohorts.

The last assumption, the assumption of variance of homogeneity was

calculated using the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances in SPSS. It was found

that there was no difference in the variance of both distributions for the 1999 cohort (p

= .792), while a difference in variances was found for the 2001 cohort (p = .001). As

such, the “equal variances not assumed” calculation was used to determine if there

were any differences in mean SAT scores for the 2001 cohort. Results of the test of

homogeneity can be found in Appendix D.

1999 Comparison of SAT Scores

Students who enrolled in the FYE course in 1999 scored lower on the SAT

than students who did not enroll in the course. Furthermore, the SAT scores of the

students who enrolled in the course were significantly lower (p = .000) than the

students who did not enroll in the course, as demonstrated in Table 4.1.

57

Table 4.1

T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students and Non-FYE Students SAT Scores

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

FYE 699 1059.84 119.024 -8.990 .000*

Non-FYE 3492 1103.65 117.297

* Significant at p < .05

1999 SAT Scores and Gender, Ethnicity, and Residence Status

In comparing the SAT scores of FYE students based on their gender, ethnicity,

and Fall 1999 residence status, the researcher found that men scored significantly

higher on the SAT than women. White students scored significantly higher than

African American and Hispanic students. Hispanic students scored significantly

higher than African American students. Finally, students who resided on campus

during the Fall 1999 term scored significantly higher on the SAT than students who

did not reside on campus. Tables with the final scores are reported in Appendix D.

2001 Comparison of SAT Scores

For the 2001 cohort, students who enrolled in the FYE course scored lower

than the students who did not enroll in the course. However after calculating the t test,

it was found that the difference between the two groups was not significantly different

(p = .239). Table 4.2 demonstrates this finding.

2001 SAT Scores and Gender, Ethnicity, and Residence Status

In comparing the SAT scores of FYE students based on their gender, ethnicity,

and Fall 2001 residence status, it was found that men scored higher on the SAT than

women. African American students scored lower than White and Hispanic students.

There was no difference found in the SAT scores between White and Hispanic

students, though White students scored higher. Students who resided on campus

during the Fall 2001 term scored higher on the SAT than students who did not reside

on campus. Tables with the final scores are reported in the Appendix D.

58

Table 4.2

T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE Students and Non-FYE Students SAT Scores

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

FYE 993 1112.70 119.393 -1.178 .239

Non-FYE 4128 1117.76 130.010

Research Questions Research Question One

Is there a difference in the academic performance and student retention rates

between students who participate in the First-Year Experience course and students

who do not participate in the course?

To determine if differences existed between FYE students and non-FYE

students in academic performance and student retention, two types of analyses were

conducted. For academic performance, t tests were calculated to compare the mean

grade point averages between the two groups for each Fall and Spring term after the

students’ initial Fall enrollment through the Spring 2002 term. To determine if there

was a difference in the student retention rates, chi-square analyses were conducted for

each Fall and Spring term after the students’ initial fall enrollment through the Fall

2002 term.

Academic Performance: 1999 Cohort

Prior to comparing the mean grade point averages of students who participated

in the course and those who did not participate the course, the data was examined to

determine if the assumptions of the t test were met. Both samples were independent of

one another by virtue of their participation, or non-participation in the course (ie. FYE

and non-FYE).

To determine the normality of the distributions, the Shapiro-Wilk Test of

Normality was utilized using SPSS. The Shapiro-Wilk test determines departures of

normality without requiring the mean or the variance of the hypothesized normal

59

distribution being specified in advance. The test does not indicate the type of

skewness or kurtosis (Prophet Statguide online). As such, scatterplots and

standardized residuals were also examined to determine the type of skewness. The

Shapiro-Wilk test demonstrated that the distributions of grade point averages for all

participants (FYE and non-FYE), for each semester examined, violated the assumption

of normality. A review of the scatterplots and standardized residuals indicated that the

distributions were negatively skewed, with some distributions demonstrating a slight

peakedness (see Appendix D). Despite the failure of the assumption of normality, the

t-test was still utilized, as the test is robust against any violation of normality (Glass &

Hopkins, 1996).

The last assumption, the test of homogeneity of variance, was examined using

the Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances. It was found that the distributions met

the test of equal variance for each semester examined (Appendix D).

T tests were then calculated to examine and compare mean grade point

averages for the 1999 sample of FYE and non-FYE students. It was found that

students who participated in FYE had a lower mean grade point average than those

students who did not enroll in the course for the Fall and Spring terms subsequent to

their enrollment in 1999 through the spring term 2002. Table 4.3 highlights that the t

test found no significant differences in the grade point averages between the two

groups of students (FYE and non-FYE) for each term with the exception of the Spring

2001 term (p = .50).

Academic Performance: 2001 Cohort

In examining the assumptions of the 2001 cohort, it was found that the distributions

were independent of one another. The assumption of normality was violated, as the

both FYE and non-FYE grade point average distributions for Spring 2002 were

negatively skewed and demonstrated slight light-tailedness. Both distributions met the

test of homogeneity of variance (p = .300).

In examining the mean grade point average of the 2001 cohort of FYE and

non-FYE students, it was found that FYE students had a higher grade point average

than non-FYE students in the following semester (Spring 2002). Results of the t test

60

comparison indicated no significant difference (p = .921) in the grade point averages

between the two groups (see Table 4.4).

Table 4.3

T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE students and Non-FYE students Mean Grade

Point Averages

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2000 GPA

FYE 721 2.75 .747 -1.378 .168

Non-FYE 3504 2.79 .748

Fall 2000 GPA

FYE 641 2.83 .645 -1.546 .122

Non-FYE 3072 2.87 .635

Spring 2001 GPA

FYE 612 2.87 .591 -1.959 .050*

Non-FYE 2889 2.92 .573

Fall 2001 GPA

FYE 557 2.93 .548 -1.585 .113

Non-FYE 2657 2.97 .536

Spring 2002 GPA

FYE 534 2.98 .515 -.671 .502

Non-FYE 2580 2.99 .523

* Significant at p < .05

61

Table 4.4

T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE students and Non-FYE students Mean Grade

Point Averages

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2002 GPA

FYE 1025 2.93 .686 .099 .921

Non-FYE 4103 2.92 .714

Student Retention

To determine the impact of the FYE course on student retention, 2 x 2 chi-

square analyses were conducted to examine the difference in the retention rates, or re-

enrollment rates, between students enrolled in the course and those who were not. As

indicted earlier, a chi-square analysis is used to examine associations, or relationships

of variables based on frequencies of observations (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989).

Ary et al. (1996) indicate that there are three assumptions to be met to conduct

a chi-square analysis. First, the observations must be independent, meaning that they

must be randomly and independently selected. In addition to independence, the

observations must be mutually exclusive, meaning that they cannot appear in more

than one category in the table. Finally, the observations must be measured as

frequencies. Data for the chi-square analyses for the 1999 and 2001 cohorts met these

assumptions, as all of the observations were extracted from the population of students

who either enrolled, or did not enroll in the course. Each observation was counted

once and do not appear in any other count, and appeared as frequencies.

Comparison of Retention Rates: 1999 Cohort

Results of the chi-square analyses revealed that students who enrolled in FYE

were retained at a higher rate than students who did not enroll in the course in each fall

and spring semester after the Fall 1999 term through the Fall 2002 term. The chi-

square analyses indicated that the differences in retention rates were significantly

62

higher for FYE students than non-FYE students for each semester examined, except

for Spring 2002 term. Table 4.5 shows the number of students who enrolled in each

term. Expected counts based on the chi-square calculations are in parenthesis.

Table 4.5

Comparison of Enrollment Rates 1999 FYE students and Non-FYE students

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2000 Enrollment

FYE 750 721 (700.2) 29 (49.8)

Non-FYE 3774 3508 (3528.8) 272 (251.2)

Fall 2000 Enrollment

FYE 750 641 (615.4) 109 (134.6)

Non-FYE 3774 3076 (3101.6) 704 (678.4)

Spring 2001 Enrollment

FYE 750 612 (580.1) 138 (169.9)

Non-FYE 3774 2892 (2923.9) 888 (856.1)

Fall 2001 Enrollment

FYE 750 557 (532.8) 193 (217.2)

Non-FYE 3774 2661 (2685.2) 1119 (1094.8)

Spring 2002 Enrollment

FYE 750 534 (516.2) 216 (233.8)

Non-FYE 3774 2584 (2601.8) 1196 (1178.2)

Fall 2002 Enrollment

FYE 750 520 (496.2) 230 (253.8)

Non-FYE 3774 2477 (2500.8) 1303 (1279.2)

63

Comparison of Retention Rates: 2001 Cohort

For the 2001 cohort, students who enrolled in the FYE course had a higher

retention rate than those students who did not enroll in the course over the two terms

following the Fall 2001 term. The retention rates were significant for each term

(p < .05). Table 4.6 highlights these results.

Table 4.6

Comparison of Enrollment Rates 2001 FYE students and Non-FYE students

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2002 Enrollment

FYE 1071 1025 (1002.0) 46 (69.0)

Non-FYE 4410 4103 (4126.0) 307 (284.0)

Fall 2002 Enrollment

FYE 1071 923 (897.7) 148 (173.3)

Non-FYE 4410 3671 (3696.3) 739 (713.7)

Research Question Two

Is there a difference between the academic performance and retention rates of

First-Year Experience students based on gender, ethnicity, or campus residence status?

Academic Performance: 1999 Cohort (Gender, Ethnicity, Residence Status)

To examine the impact of gender, ethnicity, and students’ residence status on

the Fall 1999 cohort’s academic progress, further investigation was done using t-tests

to compare the differences of the mean grade point averages of students within the

FYE student populations. Following are results from this analysis. In terms of

gender, the 1999 female students who enrolled in the course had a significantly higher

grade point average than male students who enrolled in the course for each subsequent

Fall and Spring term through the Spring 2002 term.

Mixed results were found in the analysis of mean grade point averages of FYE

students based on ethnicity. White FYE students had a higher mean grade point

64

average than African American and Hispanic students in each subsequent Fall and

Spring term through the Spring 2002 term. White students’ mean grade point average

was significantly higher than African American students’ mean grade point average

for each subsequent Fall and Spring term through the Spring 2002 term, while their

mean grade point average was significantly higher than Hispanic students’ mean grade

point average in only two of the terms (Fall 2000 and Spring 2001). Hispanic students

in the 1999 cohort held a significantly higher mean grade point average than African

American students in each Fall and Spring term with the exception of the Fall 2000

term.

In comparing the grade point averages of FYE students by residence status

during the students’ first Fall term at the university, students who participated in FYE

and lived on campus during their first year had a higher mean grade point average for

each subsequent Fall and Spring semester through Spring 2002. A t-test analysis

demonstrated that the differences between the mean grade point averages were

significant. Results of these analyses can be found in the Appendix D.

Academic Performance: 2001 Cohort (Gender, Ethnicity, Residence Status)

For the 2001 cohort of FYE students, female students who enrolled in the

course had a significantly higher grade point average (p = .001) in the Spring 2002

term. White students had a higher mean grade point average than African American

students and Hispanic students. Both White students’ and Hispanic students’ mean

scores were significantly higher than African American students in Spring 2002. In

terms of academic performance as related to residence status for the 2001 cohort of

FYE students, FYE students who resided on campus during their first Fall semester

had a significantly higher mean grade point average than FYE students who did not

reside on campus. These results are provided in Appendix D.

Student Retention: 1999 Cohort Gender, Ethnicity, Residence Status

In examining the impact of the FYE course on retention as it relates to gender,

ethnicity, and residence status during the first fall term, it was found that retention

rates fluctuated. In the Spring 2000 term, both men and women who had completed

the FYE course had re-enrolled at 96.1%. For the following Fall and Spring terms

(Fall 2000, Spring 2001), men had a higher retention rate than the women. At the start

65

of their junior year (Fall 2001) through the Fall 2002 term, women had a higher

retention rate than the men. However, none of these comparisons reached statistical

significance (Appendix D).

With regard to FYE and ethnicity, African Americans had the highest retention

rate in the Spring 2000 term (96.8%), while Hispanics had the highest retention rate

for the first semester of their sophomore year (Fall 2000, 86.8%). From the Spring

2001 term through the Fall 2002 term, White students were retained at a higher rate

than African Americans and Hispanics. None of these comparisons were statistically

significant.

With regard to residence status and retention rates, FYE students who lived on

campus had a higher retention rate for each subsequent Fall and Spring term through

Fall 2002 term. These differences reached statistical significance only once, during

the Spring 2000 term.

Student Retention: 2001 Cohort Gender, Ethnicity, Residence Status

With regard to participation in FYE and its relationship with gender, ethnicity,

and residence status during the first fall term, men had a higher retention rate than

women over the first term (Spring 2002). Women had a higher retention rate than the

men at the start of their sophomore year (Fall 2002). Neither comparison reached

statistical significance.

Regarding ethnicity, both African Americans and Hispanics had higher

retention rates than White students over the first two terms. Hispanics had the highest

retention rate in the Spring 2002 term (98.6%). Hispanics also had the highest

retention rate in the subsequent Fall 2002 term at 91.4%, followed by African

Americans (89.7%). Of the comparisons between groups, Hispanic students’ retention

rates were significantly higher than White students during the Fall 2002 term (see

Appendix D).

In regard to residence status and participation in FYE, on-campus students had

a slightly lower retention rate (95.6%) than students who did not reside on campus

(95.9%) during their first year. However at the start of their sophomore year (Fall

2002), students who resided on campus during their first year had a higher retention

66

rate (84.5%) than the students who did not reside on campus in their first year

(82.9%). Neither of the differences in retention rates reached statistical significance.

Research Questions Three and Four

Is there a difference in the levels of student involvement among students who

participated in the First-Year Experience course in 1999 and 2001?

Is there a difference in the levels of student involvement among students who

participated in the First-Year Experience course in 1999 and 2001 based on gender?

Student responses to questions within the 13 quality of effort scales of the

College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) were examined to determine the

involvement level of FYE students at the institution. A two-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was calculated for each scale to determine if any difference existed in

student experiences. The scales were the Library; Computer Information and

Technology; Course Learning; Writing Experiences; Experiences with Faculty; Art,

Music, and Theatre; Campus Facilities; Clubs and Organizations; Personal

Experiences; Student Acquaintances; Science and Quantitative Experiences; Topics of

Conversation; and Information in Conversation.

To examine student involvement levels as they relate to both year in college

and gender, a Two-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted for each

college activity scale within the CSEQ. Prior to conducting the analysis, data from the

CSEQ was examined to determine if it met assumptions for the Two-Way ANOVA.

Some violations were found however (Appendix D), however the Analysis of

Variance is robust with regard to violations of normality or homogeneity of variance

(Glass & Hopkins, 1996). As such, the researcher proceeded with the analysis.

Student Involvement: Comparison by Year in College

Students who enrolled in FYE in 1999 scored higher than the 2001 FYE

students in ten of the thirteen college activity scales of the CSEQ. Of the ten scales,

1999 students scored significantly higher in two scales, which were: Course Learning

activities and Experiences with Faculty. Table 4.7 illustrates the results of the Two-

Way ANOVA.

67

Student Involvement: Comparison by Gender

In examining the association between gender and the 13 activity scales of the

CSEQ, it was found that women had higher mean scores than men in 11 of the 13

college activity scales of the CSEQ. Of the 11 scales, scores were statistically

significant in four areas: Course Learning, Writing Experiences, Personal Experiences,

and Information in Conversation. Table 4.7 highlights the results of the two-way

ANOVA.

The mean scores of the CSEQ can be found in Appendix D.

Table 4.7

Two-Way Analysis of Variance on Student Involvement, N = 332

Scale Source df F Sig.

Gender 1 .008 .928 Year in FYE 1 .216 .642

Library

G x Y 1 .004 .949 Gender 1 .116 .734

Year in FYE 1 .777 .379

Computer & Information Technology G x Y 1 1.090 .297 Gender 1 14.959 .000*

Year in FYE 1 7.418 .007*

Course Learning G x Y 1 1.307 .254 Gender 1 16.426 .000*

Year in FYE 1 2.448 .119

Writing Experiences G x Y 1 .040 .842 Gender 1 2.208 .138

Year in FYE 1 13.179 .000*

Experiences with Faculty G x Y 1 .604 .438 Gender 1 .131 .718

Year in FYE 1 .310 .578

Art, Music, Theatre G x Y 1 4.701 .031* Gender 1 .704 .402

Year in FYE 1 .346 .557

Campus Facilities G x Y 1 .012 .913 Gender 1 .743 .389

Year in FYE 1 1.220 .270

Clubs & Organizations G x Y 1 1.193 .276 Gender 1 22.498 .000*

Year in FYE 1 1.573 .211

Personal Experiences G x Y 1 .044 .834

* Significant at < .05

68

Table 4.7 (Continued)

Two-Way Analysis of Variance on Student Involvement, N = 332

Scale Source df F Sig.

Gender 1 .281 .597 Student Acquaintances Year in FYE 1 .985 .322

G x Y 1 .231 .631 Gender 1 .001 .978

Scientific & Quantitative Experiences Year in FYE 1 2.485 .116 G x Y 1 .878 .349 Gender 1 .043 .837

Topics of Conversations Year in FYE 1 .434 .510 G x Y 1 .255 .614 Gender 1 4.208 .041*

Information in Conversations Year in FYE 1 .306 .581 G x Y 1 .128 .721

* Significant at < .05

Research Question Five

Is there a difference in the student satisfaction levels of the First-Year

Experience students based on year, gender, and ethnicity?

Data from student responses to the questions in the “Opinions About Your

College or University” section of the CSEQ were examined in order to determine the

relationship between participation in the FYE course and satisfaction with the

institution. The questions in this section of the survey are “ How well do you like

college?” and “If you could start over again, would you go to the same institution?”

Four-point likert-type scales were used to assess the students’ level satisfaction, which

ranged from “Do Not Like It” to “Enthusiastic” for the “How well do you like

college” question. Students were able to select from “No, Definitely” to “Yes,

Definitely” for the “…would you go to the same institution…” question. Frequencies

and percentages were calculated in order to determine any differences based on

gender, ethnicity, and year students enrolled in FYE.

It was found that the students who enrolled in FYE in 1999 had a more

favorable opinion towards college than students who enrolled in the course in 2001.

More than ninety-three percent (93.4%) of the 1999 students indicated that they “like

it” or are “enthusiastic” about college compared to 88.6 percent of the 2001 cohort of

69

students. Table 4.20 highlight these results. With regard to gender, men (91.6%)

demonstrated a more of a favorable opinion of college than women (89.5%)

(Appendix D). Finally, White students (89.8%) liked college more than Hispanic

students (89.5%) and African Americans (85.0%) (Appendix D).

In examining if students would return to the same institution, 95.2% of the

students in the 1999 cohort indicated that they would return to the same institution

(probably yes – yes definitely) compared to 87.4% of the 2001 cohort (Table 4.21).

With regard to gender 91.6% of the men indicated that they would return to the same

institution (probably yes – yes, definitely), compared to 79.1% of the women

indicating that they would return to the same institution (Appendix D). In terms of

ethnicity, 92.1% of the White students indicated that they would return to the same

institution, compared to 85.4% of Hispanic students and 80% of African American

students (Appendix D).

Table 4.8

Frequencies & Percentages: “How Well College is Liked”

N = 342

1999 Cohort 2001 Cohort

Response N % N %

“Don’t Not Like It” 0 0 4 1.7

“More or Less Neutral” 7 6.7 23 9.7

“Like It” 49 46.7 104 43.9

“Enthusiastic” 49 46.7 106 44.7

70

Table 4.9

Frequencies & Percentages: “…Would Attend Same Institution Again…”

N = 342

1999 Cohort 2001 Cohort

Response N % N %

“No, Definitely” 0 0 5 2.1

“Probably no” 5 4.8 25 10.5

“Probably yes” 44 41.9 89 37.6

“Yes, definitely” 56 53.3 118 49.8

Summary The purpose of this study was to assess the longitudinal impact of the First-

Year Experience (FYE) course at FSU. The study used both causal comparative data

and survey research data to accomplish this end. A causal comparative method uses

existing data (grade point averages and enrollment records) from university records,

while the survey data refers to the use of the College Student Experiences

Questionnaire (CSEQ) to collect data from FYE students.

For the study, 4,524 student files from the 1999 cohort of first-year students

and 5,481 student files from the 2001 cohort of first-year students were used to assess

the impact of the course on academic performance and student retention. For student

involvement and student satisfaction, 342 completed CSEQ surveys were used to

assess the impact of the course on specific indices of student satisfaction as measured

by the CSEQ. Of all the samples of participants, each sample closely resembled the

overall population of students at the university.

Calculated t tests found mixed results in the academic performance of the

participants. For the 1999 cohort of students, FYE students had lower grade point

averages than non-FYE students for each subsequent semester through the Spring

2002 term. Results reached statistical significance in the Spring 2001 term. For the

71

2001 cohort, FYE students had a higher grade point average in the following term than

non-FYE students. This difference in scores did not reach statistical significance.

Regarding academic progress and gender, ethnicity, and campus residence

status during the first year, women in both the 1999 and 2001 cohorts maintained

significantly higher grade point averages for each term than the men in these cohorts.

White students in both the 1999 and the 2001 cohorts maintained higher grade point

averages than African Americans and Hispanics. The difference between Whites and

African Americans reached statistical significance in each semester for each cohort,

while the difference in grade point averages between White students and Hispanic

students reached statistical significance two times for the 1999 cohort but not for the

2001 cohort. For the 1999 cohort of participants, African Americans students’ grade

point average was significantly lower than Hispanic students’ grade point averages for

each term except for the Fall 2000 term, while their grade point average was

significantly lower than Hispanic students over one term for the 2001 cohort. Finally,

students living on campus who participated in FYE in the 1999 and 2001 cohorts

maintained a significantly higher grade point average for each semester after their

initial enrollment through the Spring 2002 semester.

Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine the impact of the FYE

course on student retention rates. For the 1999 cohort, FYE students were retained at

higher rate than non-FYE students for each term after the Fall 1999 term through the

Fall 2002 term. The difference in retention rates reached statistical significance in

each term with the exception of the Spring 2002 term. For the 2001 cohort, FYE

students had a significantly higher retention rate than non-FYE students for each

semester through the Fall 2002 term.

With regard to gender, ethnicity, and campus residence during the first year,

men and women in the 1999 cohort were retained at the same rate in the Spring 2000

term. Men were retained at a higher retention rate than women for the Fall 2000 and

Spring 2001 terms, while women maintained a higher retention rate from the Fall 2001

term through the Fall 2002 term. None of these differences in retention rates between

genders reached statistical significance. For the 2001 cohort, men had a higher

retention rate than women in the following semester, while women had a higher

72

retention rate for the Fall 2002 term. Neither of the differences in retention rates met

statistical significance. With regard to ethnicity, African Americans in the 1999

cohort maintained a higher retention rate over than Whites and Hispanics over their

first term, while Hispanics had a higher retention rate over African Americans and

Whites in the Fall 2000 term. Whites maintained the highest retention rate from the

Spring 2001 term through the Fall 2002 term. None of these differences in retention

rates reached statistical significance. For the 2001 cohort, both Hispanic and African

American students had higher retention rates than White students. Statistical

significance was reached by Hispanic students’ retention rates over White students’

retention rates only in the Fall 2002.

Finally, mixed results were found with regard to campus residence and

participation in the FYE course as students who resided on campus during their first

year had a lower retention rate during the Spring 2002 term than the students who did

not reside on campus. Students who resided on campus did have a higher retention

rate going into their sophomore year than did students who did not reside on campus.

Neither of the differences reached statistical significance.

A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to examine the impact

of the FYE course on student involvement as measured by the 13 Quality of Effort

scales of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ). The factors used in

the calculations were gender and year enrolled in FYE. Significant differences were

found in the scores for five of the thirteen scales. The five scales were course learning

activities (women and year), writing experiences (women), experiences with faculty

(year), personal experiences (women), and information in conversations (women).

In examining the impact of the FYE course on student satisfaction, two

questions from the CSEQ were examined, “How well college is liked” and “…would

attend same institution again”. Based on calculated frequencies and percentages, the

1999 cohort of students demonstrated a more favorable opinion of college than the

students in the 2001 cohort. Men demonstrated a more favorable opinion of college

than women, while White students demonstrated a more favorable opinion than either

Hispanic or African American students.

73

In determining whether or not the students would return to the same institution,

more students in the 1999 cohort indicated that they would return to the same

institution than students in the 2001 cohort. Men indicated that they would return to

the same institution at a higher rate than women. White students indicated that they

would return to the same institution at a higher rate than African Americans and

Hispanics.

74

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, and RECOMMENDATIONS

Adjustment to college has been an issue in higher education since the medieval

university. Attempts to address this issue in American higher education date back to

the 19th century. Among these efforts was the creation of the orientation course,

which was developed in 1888 at Boston University. Orientation courses experienced a

period of growth during the early part of the 20th century, and declined in mid-century

as a result of faculty objections regarding their academic merit. However, as a result

of the changing demographics and changing needs within institutions of higher

learning during the 1960s and 1970s, orientation courses were re-introduced and have

gained increasing popularity.

Ultimately, the goal of these courses has been to connect students with the

institution by providing students with a sense of personal awareness, goal-orientation

and purpose in college and life, and to build relationships between the students and

their new environment. Several researchers have asserted that the more students are

involved with their environment, the more likely that they will learn (Chickering,

1974; Astin, 1984; Pace, 1982) and remain in college (Tinto, 1987). Many studies

have been conducted since the renaissance of orientation courses, examining primarily

the impact of these courses on student retention, and academic performance. However

many of the studies focus on the short-term impact (semester to semester, and one-

year evaluations) of the course.

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of the First-Year

Experience course (FYE) at Florida State University (FSU) on student involvement,

student satisfaction, academic performance, and student retention. Specifically, the

researcher attempted to examine the longitudinal impact of the program on these four

75

variables by comparing the differences in academic performance and student retention

between FYE and non-FYE students; and student involvement and student satisfaction

levels within FYE students.

Summary of Findings Five research questions guided this study:

1. Is there a difference in the academic performance and the student retention

rates between students who participate in the First-Year Experience course and

students who do not participate in the course?

2. Is there a difference is the academic performance and the student retention

rates of First-Year Experience students based on gender, ethnicity, and campus

residence status?

3. Is there a difference in the student involvement of students who participated

in the First-Year Experience course in 1999 and 2001?

4. Is there a difference in the student involvement of students who participated

in the First-Year Experience course in 1999 and 2001 based on gender?

5. Is there a difference in the student satisfaction of the First-Year Experience

students based on year, gender, and ethnicity?

To examine the academic progress and student retention, the academic and

enrollment records of 4,524 and 5,481 students were collected from the 1999 and 2001

first-year student populations respectively. Of the samples 750, of the students in the

1999 sample participated in the FYE course, while 1,071 of the students participated

in the FYE course in 2001.

To examine the student involvement and student satisfaction of FYE students,

the online version of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) was

administered. FYE students from the 1999 and 2001 cohorts were emailed invitation

letters asking them to complete the College Student Experiences Questionnaire

(CSEQ). Of the students who were contacted, 342 completed the questionnaire, which

resulted in a 21% return rate.

T tests were used in a preliminary analysis to determine if any difference in

scores existed between FYE and non-FYE students based on student scores from the

Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). There have been criticisms in the literature regarding

76

orientation courses that deal with the self-select effect. The self-select effect indicates

that students who enroll in orientation courses are already more motivated and are

more capable students than students who do not enroll in such courses. However, the

results of the t tests in the present study found that the FYE students had lower SAT

scores than non-FYE students in 1999 and 2001. The differences between the FYE

and non-FYE were statistically significant in 1999.

Research Question One

Research question one used t tests to examine the academic performance of

students, and chi-square analyses to examine student retention rates. Results of the t

tests demonstrated mixed results regarding the impact of the course on academic

performance. For the 1999 cohort, students who did not enroll in FYE had higher

grade point averages than students who participated in FYE for each semester after

their initial semester through the Spring 2002 term. These scores reached statistical

significance in the Spring 2001 term. For the 2001 cohort, FYE students had a higher

grade point average than non-FYE students in the Spring 2002 term. This difference

did not reach statistical significance.

In examining the impact of the course on student retention, results of the chi-

square analyses for the 1999 cohort indicated that students who enrolled in FYE were

retained at a higher rate than non-FYE students for each term after the Fall 1999 term

through the Fall 2002 term. The difference in rates reached statistical significance in

each term with the exception of the Spring 2002 term. For the 2001 cohort, FYE

students were retained at a significantly higher rate than non-FYE students for each

semester through the Fall 2002 term.

Research Question Two

Similar to research question one, research question two examined the

difference in academic performance and student retention rates. However, the

emphasis was on only on FYE students based on gender, ethnicity, and residence

status during the students first year at the university. With regard to academic

performance, women maintained significantly higher grade point averages than men in

each semester after their initial enrollment for both the 1999 and 2001 cohorts. With

regard to ethnicity, White students who enrolled in FYE maintained higher grade point

77

averages than both African American and Hispanic students who enrolled in FYE for

both the 1999 and 2001 cohorts. The difference in grade point averages between

White students and African American students were statistically significant for each

semester, and among both the 1999 and 2001 cohorts. The difference in grade point

averages between White students and Hispanic students reached statistical significance

in two of the five semesters among the 1999 cohort. African American students’ grade

point averages were significantly lower than Hispanic students for four of five terms

examined for the 1999 cohort, and significantly lower than Hispanic students over the

one term examined for the 2001 cohort. Finally, FYE students who resided on campus

during their first year maintained a significantly higher grade point average for each

term after their initial enrollment than FYE students who did not reside on campus

during their first year. These results were the same for both cohorts.

In examining FYE student retention rates as they relate to gender, ethnicity,

and on campus residence status, men and women in the 1999 cohort maintained the

same retention rate over the first semester. Men maintained a higher retention rate

than women over the following (sophomore) year, while women maintained a higher

retention rate over their third (junior) year and the start of their fourth year (Fall 2002).

In terms of the 2001 cohort, men maintained a higher retention rate during the Spring

2002 term, while women maintained a higher retention rate going into their second

year. None of the differences in retention rates between men and women reached

statistical significance.

With regard to the impact of the course on student retention and ethnicity,

African American students in the 1999 cohort maintained a higher retention rate than

White students and Hispanic students over their first term, while Hispanics had a

higher retention rate than African Americans and Whites in the Fall 2000 term. White

students maintained the highest retention rate from the Spring 2001 term through the

Fall 2002 term. None of the differences in retention rates reached statistical

significance.

For the 2001 cohort, Hispanics and African Americans maintained higher

retention rates than White students over the Spring and Fall terms of 2002. Hispanics

had the highest retention rate for both terms. The only difference in retention rates

78

that reached statistical significance were Hispanic student retention rates, which were

higher than White students retention rates during the Fall 2002 term.

Finally, in examining the impact of the course on FYE students as it relates to

on campus residence during students first year in college, FYE students in the 1999

cohort who resided on campus maintained a higher retention rate than FYE students

who did not reside for each semester after the Fall 1999 term through the Fall 2002

term. The differences were statistically significant in the Spring 2000 term. For the

2001 cohort, FYE students who did not reside on campus maintained a higher

retention rate than students who did reside on campus. The retention rates did not

reach statistical significance in either term examined.

Research Question Three and Four

Research question three examined student involvement levels by using a two-

way analysis of variance. Based on the analyses, significant differences were found

between years in two of the thirteen Quality of Effort scales. The 1999 cohort of

students scored significantly higher than the 2001 cohort with regard to involvement

in their course learning activities and their experiences with faculty. For research

question four, women scored significantly higher than men in four of the thirteen

scales. These scales were course learning, writing experiences, personal experiences,

and information in conversations.

Research Question Five

Research question five was answered using frequencies and percentages to

determine the satisfaction rates of FYE students based on year enrolled, gender, and

ethnicity. The 1999 cohort of students responded more favorably to the “How well is

college liked” question on the CSEQ, while men demonstrated more satisfaction with

their experience. White students demonstrated a more favorable opinion about college

than both African American and Hispanic students. African American students

demonstrated the lowest opinion of the three groups.

In terms of whether or not students “…would attend the same institution

again…”, students in the 1999 cohort that they would likely attend the same institution

at a higher rate than students in the 2001cohort. Men indicated that they would attend

the same institution at a higher rate than women. White students indicated that they

79

would return to the same institution at a higher rate than African American and

Hispanic students. Again, African American students had the lowest percentage of the

three groups examined.

Discussion The analysis conducted in this study was based on the tracking of student grade

point averages, enrollment records, and by analyzing student responses to a nationally

recognized survey instrument. The intent was to examine the longitudinal impact of

the FYE course at Florida State University, with focus on the impact of FYE from the

first through the third year of enrollment. Results of this study led to the following

conclusions.

Academic Performance

Short-term Assessment

Similar to the results found in the review of the literature, mixed results were

found regarding the short term impact of the FYE course on the academic performance

of FYE students when compared to non-FYE students. Results of the 1999 cohort’s

academic performance show that non-FYE students achieved a higher grade point

average over a one-semester period. These results were similar to the results found in

Mark and Romano (1982) and Prola, Rosenberg, and Wright (1977), where no

statistically significant difference was found between students who enrolled in an

orientation course versus students did not enroll in a course, but non-orientation course

students scoring lower grade point averages.

In contrast to the 1999 cohort’s findings, the 2001 cohort of FYE students

achieved a higher grade point average over a one-semester period than students who

did not enroll in the FYE course. These findings were similar to the findings of Sidle

and McReynolds (1999), Gerber (1970), Beck (1980), Chapman and Reed (1987), and

Candia (1998). However despite the higher grade point average, no significant

difference was found between the two groups in these studies.

The results from these analyses may be related to the overall Scholastic

Aptitude Test (SAT) scores of each group. The SAT is a test that measures the

academic skills of students prior to entering college. While the SAT cannot predict

how a student would perform over their four years in college, it is regarded as an exam

80

that can determine the academic readiness of high school students for college. In this

study, SAT scores of both the 1999 and 2001 cohorts were examined to determine if

the groups were the same with regard to their academic readiness prior to enrolling at

FSU. Critics have argued that students who are more prepared academically would

self-select into the FYE course. However, it was found that the students who enrolled

in FYE from both cohorts, had a lower mean SAT score than students who did not

enroll in the course. SAT scores were significantly different for the 1999 cohort. This

finding suggests that students who enrolled in the course were not as academically

prepared as students who did not enroll in the course. Despite having a lower SAT

score, the 1999 cohort maintained virtually the same grade point average as non-FYE

students, while 2001 cohort of FYE students had a higher grade point average after

one semester. There is no known reason for the results of the 2001 cohort. However

increased SAT requirements for entering students at the institution and a revamped

FYE instructor training program in 2001 that provided instructors more information

about the university’s resources, may have contributed to the 2001 FYE students better

academic performance. A possible explanation is that the more prepared FYE

instructors are for their FYE classes, the more information they can disseminate to

students to help them in their academic transition.

Long-term Assessment

Because of the timing and design of this study, only the academic progress of

only the 1999 cohort of students was examined over a full three-year period. The

results showed that the students who did not enroll in FYE maintained a higher grade

point average than the students who did enroll in the course. These results reached

statistical significance after the second year (Spring 2001) of enrollment. Despite

having a lower grade point average over a three-year period, the grade point averages

of FYE students were virtually the same as non-FYE students, and the difference in

the averages reached its closest point in the last semester examined (Spring 2002) at

.01. As indicated in the discussion of the results for the 1999 cohort, there is no

known reason for the difference in scores. Perhaps FYE students’ exposure to

institutional resources and the goal orientation of FYE contributed to students’ having

a clear understanding of their academic purpose and utilization of institutional

81

resources, which could have benefited them academically over an extended period.

For either short-term or long-term, it is difficult to conclude that the course had a

definite impact on academic performance.

Academic Performance and Gender, Ethnicity, and Campus Residence

In examining the impact of the course on academic progress as it relates to

gender, ethnicity, and campus residence during the first-year in college, FYE women,

in both the 1999 and 2001cohorts, maintained a higher grade point average than the

men who enrolled in FYE in each academic term that they were enrolled at the

institution. This is a noteworthy finding particularly as the FYE women in each FYE

cohort had significantly lower SAT scores than the men enrolled in the course.

Perhaps the close relationships that the FYE courses foster along with the

dissemination of information regarding the academic resources available on campus

assisted the women enrolled in the course with their academic performance in college.

Regarding ethnicity, White students in both the 1999 and 2001 cohorts

maintained higher grade point averages than African Americans and Hispanic

students. The differences between White students and African Americans were

notable. Hispanic students also maintained higher grade point averages than African

American students. The results of these findings must be viewed in direct relation to

the SAT scores of the three groups. African American students scored significantly

lower on the SAT than both White and Hispanic students. Based on SAT scores the

African American students may have been much less prepared academically than

White and Hispanic students and may had to develop academic skills during their time

in college that they should have had coming into college. McNairy (1996) highlighted

this point. Another explanation of the low ranking grade point averages of African

American students could be their perceptions of the institutional environment as

indicated by Pounds (1989). Feelings of alienation or loneliness at predominantly

White institutions could contribute to lower academic performance. Within FYE,

perhaps the racial ethnic / ethnic background of the instructional team, combined with

efforts to engage students, or potentially lack thereof, could affect African American

students’ academic transition into the university.

82

Regarding campus residence status, FYE students in both the 1999 and 2001

cohorts who resided on campus during their first year at FSU maintained a higher

grade point average in each term examined than FYE students who did not reside on

campus during their first year. These results suggest that when combined with an

extended orientation course, on-campus residence living has a positive impact on the

academic performance of students. In addition, the findings support the findings of

previous studies by Astin (1973) and Kanoy and Bruhn (1996) which indicate that on

campus residence contribute to better academic performance by students. Because

students are on campus, they are more likely to be engaged in activities that integrate

classroom learning, which may include interacting with faculty and other students.

Pike (1999) found this to be the case in his study on residential communities.

Student Retention

Short-term Assessment

Results of the short-term impact of the FYE course on student retention

indicate that students who enroll in the FYE course are more likely to be retained over

one academic year than students who do not enroll in the course. Chi-square analyses

conducted demonstrated that the students in both the 1999 and the 2001 cohorts were

retained at significantly higher rates than students who did not enroll in the course

over two semesters. The findings on student retention in this study support the

findings Fidler (1991), Sidle and McReynolds (1999), Shanley and Witten (1990), and

others. Because FYE introduces students to the academic and extracurricular

resources on campus students are likely to successfully integrate into the academic and

social environment of the institution. This notion is in line with Tinto’s (1987) theory

of student departure, which indicates that a student is more likely to remain at an

institution if they successfully integrate academically or socially.

Long-term Assessment

In examining the impact of the FYE course over a three-year period, it was

determined that students who participated in FYE, were retained at a higher rate than

students who did not participate in the course. These results were consistent for each

term, except Spring 2002 term. Findings in this study were consistent with Shanley

and Witten (1990) who found participants to have significantly higher retention rates

83

than non-participants over three years. This suggests that participation in the FYE

course may impact a students’ long-term commitment to the institution as a result of

the student making connections with the faculty and staff who can assist in obtaining

their academic and personal objectives. As a result, long-term retention rates can

benefit from such an orientation to the university.

Student Retention and Gender, Ethnicity, and Campus Residence

In examining the short-term and long-term relationships between participation

in the FYE course and gender, ethnicity, and campus residence, a number of

conclusions were reached. Of the three areas, gender was the area with the most

inconclusive results. For example, 1999 FYE men had a higher freshman to

sophomore retention rate than FYE women, while 2001 FYE women had a higher

freshman to sophomore retention rate than FYE men. No significant differences were

found in the analyses. Despite Fidler’s (1991) conclusion that gender has an impact

on participants’ sophomore return rates, it was not possible to conclude the same result

from this study, particularly because of the mixed results. While Fidler’s study was

based on the analysis of 16 years of data, there was not enough data in the present

study to conclude one way or the other. More data would have to be collected to

determine if gender plays a statistically significant role in the return rate of FYE

students. One anecdotal note was the higher retention rate among the 1999 FYE

women demonstrated after four semesters of enrollment at the university. This may

point to a trend regarding the long-term impact of FYE on retention when combined

with gender.

With regard to ethnicity, African American FYE students were retained at a

higher rate than White FYE students over a one-year (freshman to sophomore) period

for both the 1999 and 2001 cohorts. These findings were similar to Fidler’s (1991)

finding for sophomore return rates when factoring race. Many of the African

American students who enroll in the university also participate in a pre-college /

summer enrichment program sponsored by the Center for Academic and Retention

Enhancement (C.A.R.E.). Therefore, it is likely that some or all of the African

American FYE students who participated in the present study established relationships

with the faculty and staff who have worked with the program, as well as the other

84

students who have participated in the summer program. The early connections these

students made in combination with the course could have further facilitated the

necessary academic and social integration needed to successfully transition into the

university. In terms of a long-term assessment, African American FYE students had a

lower retention rate than White FYE students in their fourth semester (Spring 2001)

and beyond. Several factors could have affected these rates, including withdrawals

from the university for financial, or other personal reasons.

Hispanic FYE students had a higher freshman to sophomore retention rate than

White FYE students in both the 1999 and 2001 cohorts. While no study was found in

the literature review that directly examined the impact of the course on ethnicity for

Hispanic and White students, these results are important as they speak to the benefit of

the course on the retention of Hispanic students, as Starke, Harth, and Sirianni (2001)

discussed the impact of orientation courses. Perhaps the FYE course, along with other

services improved for Hispanic students. Like African American students, many

Hispanic students within the institution benefit from the services of C.A.R.E., which

aids in a successful transition into the university and forges a greater commitment to

their education.

In terms of campus residence and the relationship between residence and

student retention, a positive results were found. In both cohorts, FYE students who

resided on campus during their first year were retained virtually at the same rate as

off-campus FYE students, or higher for each term after taking the course. This is

consistent with the findings of Astin (1973), who indicated that students who reside on

campus were less likely to drop out. Based on their findings, Fidler and Moore (1996)

determined that campus residence has a stronger impact on retention, which is

consistent with the higher rate for FYE students who were on campus in this study.

Another interesting point is that chi-square analyses found no significant difference in

retention rates between on-campus FYE students and off-campus FYE students, which

could point to the connections that students make academically and socially on

campus as a result of the course.

85

Student Involvement

In using the 13 effort scales of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire

(CSEQ) to assess the differences in involvement levels between students who enrolled

in the course in 1999 and 2001, it was found that in only two scales was there

significant differences. The results reflected that the older FYE students (1999 cohort)

were significantly more involved than students in the 2001 cohort in the Course

Learning and Experiences with Faculty scales. It can be assumed that the 1999

students would be more immersed in their coursework and involved with their faculty

because at the time of the administration of the survey, these students were in their

fourth year of enrollment. Many of the students were taking advanced courses within

their respective majors, which require advanced study habits and discipline, and higher

levels of interaction with their faculty.

Although not statistically significant, the 1999 cohort had a higher mean score

than the 2001cohort in 8 of the remaining 11 scales. The eight scales were library

activities; computer information and technology; writing experiences; art, music, and

theatre; clubs and organizations; personal experiences; topics of conversation; and

information in conversations. Interestingly, the 2001 cohort had higher, but not

statistically significant, mean scores in campus facilities, and student acquaintances.

Perhaps the course’s introduction of the campus to the students facilitated a

connection between students and the campus whereby the students frequented places

such as the Leach (fitness) Center and Oglesby Student Union where they could

socialize with other students. Studies that support the notion that orientation courses

connect students to campuses and friends include Lincoln (1990), who found that

students who enrolled in their course had a significantly higher score in the “student

acquaintances” scale of the CSEQ; Prola and Stern (1984), who indicated that students

who enrolled in the course attended more college functions and joined more

organizations than students who did not enroll in the course; and Yarbrough (1993)

who found that students who enrolled in the course at Florida State scored

significantly higher in the “athletics and recreation” scale of the CSEQ.

In examining the involvement levels between men and women, women

demonstrated significantly higher scores than men on the Course Learning, Writing

86

Experiences, Personal Experiences, and Information in Conversation scales. These

findings indicate that the women in this study invested more effort in their academic

and personal development during the academic year that the survey was completed.

Furthermore, this finding could explain the differences found in the academic

performance between the men and women where women had higher grade point

averages than men, in both the 1999 and 2001 cohorts.

Student Satisfaction

A large majority of both the 1999 and 2001 cohorts indicated that they enjoyed

their college experience and that they would likely attend the same institution if they

had to decide again. However between the cohorts, the 1999 cohort demonstrated

higher levels of satisfaction in their college experience and with the institution than the

2001 cohort. While a statistical test was not calculated to determine a statistical

difference between cohorts, the results could be a reflection of Astin’s (1973)

indication that students who are more involved with faculty tend to be more satisfied

in various aspects of their college experiences. Perhaps the advanced, major, courses

of the 2001cohort and increased interaction with faculty contributed to the differences

in satisfaction.

In addition, men tended to be more satisfied with their college experience and

the institution than women. White students tended to demonstrate more satisfaction

with their college experience and the institution than Hispanic students and African

American students. African American students demonstrated a higher level of

dissatisfaction than the other two groups.

Implications and Recommendations for Practice From the results gathered in this study, a number of recommendations can be

made with regard to the continued development of the FYE course that can aid first-

year, first-time-in-college students during their transition into the university. Based on

the results of the inquiry into the impact of the course on academic progress, a

mandatory discussion on academics could be added to the three required sessions of

the course. Because results on academic performance were mixed, a required session

on academic skills that would assist students in developing effective study habits and

87

could have a positive influence on the performance of FYE students, particularly in

their first year.

Probably the most compelling results of the study were the retention results.

FYE students were retained at the institution at a significantly higher rate than students

who did not take the course over both the one-year and three-year periods examined in

this study. This finding is consistent with other studies of the FYE student population.

Because of their early connections with the campus facilities, resources, staff and

other students, FYE students stay in school.

Despite these findings, more could be done to assist students, especially as it

relates to gender and ethnicity. With regard to gender, the retention rates over a one-

year and three-year period demonstrated mixed results. Men were generally retained

at higher rates over the first two years. Women were retained at a higher rate going

into the third year. Perhaps the FYE course could provide more avenues or increased

opportunities for discussion between students and instructors in the course about the

students’ experiences during their first term, as well as exploring educational and

career goals over a four-year period. Discussion through journals and group

interaction can benefit all students, but women in particular, who may be withdrawing

from school at a higher rate during the first two years as a result of academic and

social challenges, might benefit most from such an effort. Goal setting could also

allow all students to be clear on their purpose in college, perhaps helping the men

achieve their degree within four years.

With regard to ethnicity, African American and Hispanic students held a

higher retention rate than White students over three semesters. Efforts to introduce

students to faculty and staff throughout the university may have aided in providing

these students a welcoming environment. Efforts by the institution should be made to

try and remedy any issues that these students have beyond the scope of FYE during

their junior and senior years where their retention rates fell below White students.

In examining student involvement and student satisfaction, there appeared to

be a relationship between year in college, involvement, and satisfaction levels with the

college experience and institution. Students who enrolled in the FYE course in 1999

were more satisfied with their college experience and the institution than students who

88

enrolled in the course in 2001. It was also found that the 1999 cohort of students were

more involved in aspects of their course learning and experiences with their faculty

than the students in the 2001 cohort. These students represented students who are in

their senior and sophomore years respectively, and as a result, may vary in their

involvement with faculty. Sophomores may tend to have some general education

courses in their schedule, and may still have teaching assistants as opposed to faculty

members. Increased recruitment and participation of faculty to serve as FYE

instructors for the course may help in providing first-year students a sense of

connection to faculty and to the institution in their early months at the institution, as

well as increase levels of satisfaction with their college experiences.

Recommendations for Future Research Based on the findings in this study, recommendations for future research

include:

1. Because this study is a preliminary longitudinal study on the impact of the

FYE course at Florida State University on student involvement, student satisfaction,

academic performance, and student retention, replicating this study could provide

additional information that would provide greater understanding of the long-term

relationship between participation in the course and student involvement on campus,

student perceptions of their college experience, student retention, and academic

performance.

2. A qualitative assessment of the impact of the course could be implemented

to provide understanding about the various aspects of the course that helps students

during their transition into the university, as well as how the course may influence

student involvement with the various resources and activities on campus, academic

performance, and student satisfaction with their college experience and the institution.

3. Because this study did not examine the differences between FYE and non-

FYE women and minority students, further research should examine the impact of the

FYE course on academic performance, student retention, student involvement, and

student satisfaction as it relates to FYE and non-FYE women and minority students at

the institution.

89

4. Implement a qualitative assessment of the impact of the course on student

transition into the university can be conducted for women and minority students at the

institution.

5. Conduct a follow up study using the CSEQ to examine the impact of the

FYE course on student involvement between first-year students and upper level

students. This would provide information how the course impacts involvement levels

of first-year students and how they compare to upper-level students who would have

successfully transitioned into the university.

6. Assess student involvement and student satisfaction using the CSEQ

between FYE students and non-FYE students (first-year or upper level), which would

provide additional information on the impact of the course on student involvement and

student satisfaction as it relates to participation in the course.

7. Assess departure factors for FYE students using survey or qualitative

methods of inquiry.

Based on the results of this study it is easy to assert the significance of

extended orientation courses within our colleges and universities. Orientation courses

provide numerous benefits to both students and institutions. This study attempted to

examine the longitudinal impact of an orientation course at a major research

institution, Florida State University, located in the southeastern region of the country.

As demonstrated in the findings, the course at FSU demonstrated positive short-term

and long-term results primarily in the area of student retention, supporting the results

of many studies on similar courses. What adds to the notion that orientation courses

benefit student retention, particularly at FSU, is the fact that this is the third study

conducted on the First-Year Experience course at the institution. Yarbrough (1993),

and Brunelle-Joiner (1999), examined the short-term impact of the course retention

and other areas while it was a zero-credit and two-credit graded course respectively.

They also found the course to positively affect the retention of students who enrolled

in the course over a one-semester period.

In addition to the benefits of student retention, orientation courses also provide

benefits in the areas of academic performance and student involvement. Although the

results of this study regarding the academic performance of FYE students were mixed,

90

the FYE students were academically less prepared than non-FYE students based on

their scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), yet they achieved grade point

averages that were either higher (2001 cohort), or not statistically different (1999

cohort) than non-FYE students. Both Yarbrough (1993) and Brunelle-Joiner also

examined the impact of the course on academic performance at FSU and found that

FYE students in their studies achieved significantly higher grade point averages.

A key to the success of these types of courses is the connection that students

make with faculty, staff, other students, activities, and campus resources. They

become involved in campus activities and organizations at a more rapid pace than non-

FYE students. As noted in this study, the younger FYE students (2001 cohort) scored

higher on the CSEQ than the older FYE students (1999) in the use of campus facilities

and student acquaintances. Yarbrough (1993) found that FYE students used the

athletic facilities than non-FYE students who were not participants in any learning

community on campus.

Orientation courses provide many benefits that cannot be captured in a

quantitative study such as this study. A qualitative study would also be appropriate to

grasp the depth of what such courses do for students. It is strongly recommended that

institutions explore orientation courses as options for enhancing college students’

experiences, while enhancing those courses that already exist.

91

APPENDIX A

FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE (FYE) COURSE INFORMATION

92

APPENDIX A.1 FYE Course Objectives & Course Content

1. To introduce students to an education based in the liberal arts.

• History and Mission of FSU • Importance of Liberal Studies • University Policies • Academic Integrity

2. To recognize and respect the dignity and worth of each person and the

requirements for successful community life. • Civic Education • Values Clarification • Cultural Diversity • Wellness Issues • Stress and Time Management • Financial Management • Relationships

3. To acquire valuable academic survival skills.

• Academic Advising • Academic Resources (services and personnel) • Library and Research Skills • Academic Policies • Study, Writing, and Presentation Skills • Note-Taking and Test-Taking Skills

4. To challenge the student to become involved and find avenues in the university

community for the development of the whole person. • Campus Activities • Developing Mentors • Leadership Skills / Involvement • Resources and Services Available

5. To develop a support group for successful transitions.

93

Course Structure and Content Small, personalized classes meet two times per week for eight and one-half weeks during the fall, and six weeks in the summer. Students take advantage of several built-in field trips to places like the Strozier Library, and FSU Career Center. Students also benefit from presentations by the Victim Advocate program and other departments from throughout the campus. Careful attention is also given to increasing students’ academic survival skills and helping them appreciate the value of a liberal arts education. Some sections of FYE have attended plays and other cultural events, participated in community service, learned etiquette, and have hosted faculty luncheons. Assignments may include reflective journals, research papers, and class presentations. Required Components:

• Library and Web-Luis Presentations: to familiarize students with the resources available in the FSU libraries, as well as the Florida State University System libraries.

• Career Development Presentations: to familiarize the students with the resources available in this department (ie. internship and job opportunities, and typology indicators).

• Victim Advocate Presentations: to familiarize students with services provided to victims of crimes on campus.

• Visits to Academic Advisors: to familiarize students with the academic requirements of the university, as well as the services provided by academic advisors.

• Journal Entries: to assist students in processing their experiences during their first term, as well as reflect on discussions and course material covered in classes.

Suggested / Optional Components:

• Midterm or Final Exams (can be a take home exam) • Reaction Papers (at least four pages, covering any topic that the instructor

believe will enhance the student’s learning) • Class Presentations • Group Projects • Cultural Events

94

APPENDIX A.2 FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE

AMS1363 Sample Syllabus

Instructor: Peer Leader: Office Hours: Textbook: Gardner, J. N. & Jewler, A. J. (1999). Your College Experience: Strategies for Success 4th edition. (available at FSU Bookstore and Bill’s) Please bring your book to class daily. Course Description: This class will help students understand the importance of a liberal arts education, develop a framework for understanding their university experiences, and become more goal-oriented in their academic and extra-curricular experiences. Students will learn the history of FSU, including the values of the institution, and will explore the various University resources available to them. Active participation in learning and openness to discussing student issues will help to make the most of this FYE experience and will facilitate the transition into Florida State University. Please note that this course is designed exclusively for first-time-in-college students during their initial semester of enrollment. Academic Honor System: "The Academic Honor System of The Florida State University is based on the premise that each student has the responsibility to: 1) Uphold the highest standards of academic integrity in the student's own work, 2) Refuse to tolerate violations of academic integrity in the academic community, and 3) Foster a high sense of integrity and social responsibility on the part of the University community." Please note that violations of this Academic Honor System will not be tolerated in this class. Specifically, incidents of plagiarism of any type or referring to any unauthorized material during examinations will be rigorously pursued by these instructors. Before

95

submitting any work for this class, please read the "Academic Honor System" in its entirety (as found in the FSU General Bulletin and in the FSU Student Handbook) and ask the instructors to clarify any of its expectations that you do not understand. ADA Statement: Florida State University provides high-quality services to students with disabilities, and we encourage you to take advantage of them. Students with disabilities needing academic accommodations should: 1) register with and provide documentation to the Student Disability Resource Center in Kellum Hall (644-9566), and 2) bring a letter to the instructor from the SDRC indicating that you need academic accommodations. Please do this as soon as possible, preferably within the first week of class. Assignments/ Evaluation: This course is graded on an “S/U” (Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory) basis. Satisfactory completion of the course is defined as earning a C- or above. There will be a 4-5 page paper assignment and weekly journal assignments. The group will also attend a cultural event outside of class time (to be determined based on class members’ schedules). Attendance will be taken daily. The only absences excused will be religious holidays, documented medical problems, other documented crises, or officially sanctioned University events. More than one unexcused absence will result in the assignment of an “Unsatisfactory” grade. Reading the assigned material and doing any other preparatory work assigned is essential to your ability to make meaningful contributions to class discussions and will be assessed to determine your class participation grade. No extra credit is given. Grading: Grading Scale: A 94-100 Class Participation 40% A- 90-93 Journals 30% B+ 87-89 Paper 20% B 83-86 Advisor Form 10% B- 80-82 C+ 77-79

C 73-76 C- 70-72 D+ 67-69 D 63-66 D- 60-62 F LT 60

96

COURSE LECTURE AND READING OUTLINE

Date Topic Chapter Readings Due

Assignment

8/29 Intro to Course Purchase book/ Establish

Email Acct. 8/31 Stress Management 17 Journal 1 9/5 Liberal Arts Tradition 1, 2 9/7 Time Management 4 Journal 2 9/12 Victim Advocate Presentation 18 9/14 Learning Styles, Test Taking 5, 6, 8 Journal 3 9/19 Library Resources 9 Meet at Strozier

Library 9/21 Health Education

Meet at Thagard

Health Center Journal 4

9/26 Math, Analytical Skills 12 9/28 Presentation and Study Skills 11, 7 Journal 5 10/3 Alcohol and Drug Awareness 19 10/5 Career Development 13 Meet at FSU

Career Center Journal 6

10/10 Values Clarification 14 10/12 Student Leadership 15 Meet at the

Center for Civic Education Journal 7

10/17 Diversity 16 10/19 Campus Resources Journal 8 10/24 Financial Management 20 Advisor Form

due 10/26 Wrap Up Day 10 Paper Due

- AVAILABLE IN ALTERNATIVE FORMAT UPON REQUEST -

97

APPENDIX B

CESQ PERMISSION LETTER,

COLLEGE STUDENT EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE

98

APPENDIX B.1 CSEQ PERMISSION LETTER

99

APPENCIX B.2 COLLEGE STUDENT EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE

100

APPENCIX B.2 (Continued) COLLEGE STUDENT EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE

101

APPENCIX B.2 (Continued) COLLEGE STUDENT EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE

102

APPENCIX B.2 (Continued) COLLEGE STUDENT EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE

103

APPENCIX B.2 (Continued) COLLEGE STUDENT EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE

104

APPENCIX B.2 (Continued) COLLEGE STUDENT EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE

105

APPENCIX B.2 (Continued) COLLEGE STUDENT EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE

106

APPENCIX B.2 (Continued) COLLEGE STUDENT EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE

107

APPENDIX C

INVITATION LETTER, INFORMED CONSENT, HUMAN

SUBJECTS APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

108

APPENDIX C.1 INVITATION EMAIL

April, 2003 Dear Student , As a former student in the First-Year Experience (FYE) course at FSU, I am asking you to participate in a study that is being conducted at Florida State. The title of the study is “Participation in an Extended Orientation Course and its Relationship with Student Involvement, Student Satisfaction, Academic Performance, and Student Retention.” I am completing this study, in partial fulfillment of the Doctor of Education degree through the FSU College of Education. FYE has been a vehicle to assist students, like you, in making an effective transition into FSU. To date, there have been two studies conducted on FYE at FSU. Both studies examined the short-term effects of the course. Because you took the course more than two years ago, we would like to learn about your experiences and perceptions of FSU. The information that you provide in this study will greatly assist us in determining if FYE is a viable program for assisting students be successful at FSU over en extended period of time. I ask that you complete the questionnaire that is provided at the following link. The questionnaire will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Please be assured that your confidentiality will be protected throughout this process, and that no individual responses will be reported in the results of the study. Also, successful completion of this survey will automatically enter you in a raffle whereby one $100 cash prize will be provided to the selected winner. This raffle will be drawn by use of the login number assigned to you for the survey, and awarded by early summer. Information received in this study will be shared with key administrators at the university. You may receive a summary of the results upon request. Please take a minute to review the informed consent attached. Although you may terminate your participation in this study with no loss to you, logging into the survey and completion of the survey demonstrates that you acknowledge the terms of the informed consent document (attached). If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study or your rights, please feel free to contact me at 850-644-8707, or by email at thollins@admin.fsu.edu. You may also contact my supervising professor, Dr. Robert Schwartz, Department of Educational Leadership at 644-6777. Finally, you may contact the FSU Institutional Review Board at 644-8633. Thank you for your assistance in this effort. Sincerely, Thomas N. Hollins, Jr. Assistant Dean of Students / Director of First-Year Experience Doctoral Candidate, Department of Educational Leadership

109

APPENDIX C.2 INFORMED CONSENT NOTICE

I freely and voluntarily consent to participate in the study entitled “Participation in an Extended Orientation Course and its Relationship with Student Involvement, Student Satisfaction, Academic Performance, and Student Retention”. The research is being conducted by Thomas N. Hollins, Jr., who serves as Assistant Dean of Students / Director of First-Year Experience, as well as a doctoral candidate in the department of Educational Leadership in the College of Education at Florida State University. I understand that the purpose of the study is to gain information about the impact that the First-Year Experience course has on student involvement with FSU activities and resources, student satisfaction with the institution, student academic performance, and student re-enrollment rates at the university. I understand that I have been requested to participate in this study as a result of my previous enrollment in the course. I understand that I am being asked to complete the College Student Experiences Questionnaire, and that I will be asked about my attitudes and my behaviors at the institution. The total time to complete the survey is approximately 20 minutes. If I complete the questionnaire in its entirety I will be entered into a raffle for a $100 cash prize to be paid once administration of the survey is complete. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I can stop participation at any time. My name, records, and responses will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law and that I can only be identified by a code number issued by the administrators of the questionnaire. My name will not appear on the results of the study. Only group results will be reported, and I am entitled to a summary of the results upon request. I understand that there is minimal risk involved in this study. My participation in this study will have no negative affect on my status in school. I understand that there are benefits to participating in this study. These benefits include my personal awareness of how extended orientation courses benefit students. I will also provide college administrators with beneficial information regarding orientation courses such as FYE. Logging into the survey demonstrates that I acknowledge the terms of this study. I understand that I may contact Thomas N. Hollins, Jr. at A4328 University Center, Florida State University, (850) 644-8707, Robert Schwartz (faculty advisor; 644 - 6777), or the FSU Institutional Review Board at 644-8633, for questions regarding this research or my rights as a participant. Results will be provided to me upon request.

110

APPENDIX C.3 HUMAN SUBJECTS APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

111

APPENDIX D

ADDITIONAL DATA AND TABLES

112

APPENDIX D.1 Shapiro-Wilk Test of Normality SAT Scores FYE & Non-FYE Students

Group Statistic df Sig.

1999

FYE .998 699 .459

Non-FYE .993 3492 .000*

2001

FYE .992 993 .000*

Non-FYE .994 4128 .000*

* Significant at p < .05

113

APPENDIX D.2 1999 Mean Grade Point Average Test of Normality FYE & Non-FYE

Group Statistic df Sig.

Spring 2000

FYE .978 506 .000*

Non-FYE .981 2431 .000*

Fall 2000

FYE .986 506 .000*

Non-FYE .985 2431 .000*

Spring 2001

FYE .988 506 .000*

Non-FYE .987 2431 .000*

Fall 2001

FYE .987 506 .000*

Non-FYE .986 2431 .000*

Spring 2002

FYE .986 506 .000*

Non-FYE .985 2431 .000*

* Significant at p < .05

114

APPENDIX D.2 (Continued) 2001 Mean Grade Point Average Test of Normality FYE & Non-FYE

Group Statistic df Sig.

Spring 2002

FYE .956 1025 .000*

Non FYE .947 4103 .000*

* Significant at p < .05

115

APPENDIX D.3 Test of Normality Quality of Effort (Student Involvement)

Scale Statistic df Sig.

Library

1999 .975 104 .047*

2001 .974 231 .000*

Computer and Information Technology

1999 .975 102 .053

2001 .991 233 .149

Course Learning

1999 .965 104 .008*

2001 .989 228 .074

Writing Experiences

1999 .960 104 .003*

2001 .983 234 .007*

Experiences with Faculty

1999 .968 102 .015*

2001 .958 234 .000*

* Significant at p < .05

116

APPENDIX D.3 (Continued) Test of Normality Quality of Effort (Student Involvement) – Continued

Scale Statistic df Sig.

Art, Music, Theatre

1999 .901 104 .000*

2001 .952 235 000*

Campus Facilities

1999 .949 104 .001*

2001 .977 236 .001*

Clubs &

Organizations

1999 .905 104 .000*

2001 .883 236 .000*

Personal Experiences

1999 .977 103 .070*

2001 .981 233 .003*

* Significant at p < .05

117

APPENDIX D.3 (Continued) Test of Normality Quality of Effort (Student Involvement) – Continued

Scale Statistic df Sig.

Student Acquaintances

1999 .985 102 .318

2001 .974 233 .000*

Science & Quantitative Experiences

1999 .905 102 .000*

2001 .948 233 .000*

Topics of Conversation

1999 .982 101 .170

2001 .986 232 .022*

Information in Conversations

1999 .970 105 .017*

2001 .968 232 .000*

* Significant at p < .05

118

APPENDIX D.4 Residual Data on Variables for Normality: FYE and Non-FYE SAT Scores

Group Skewness Std.Error Kurtosis Std.Error

1999

FYE .107 .092 -.111 .185

Non FYE .273 .041 .208 .083

2001

FYE .215 .078 .169 .155

Non FYE .218 .038 -.152 .076

119

APPENDIX D.5 1999 Residual Data on Variables for Normality – Academic Progress

Group Skewness Std.Error Kurtosis Std.Error

Spring 2000

FYE -.503 .109 -.001 .217

Non FYE -.436 .050 -.069 .099

Fall 2000

FYE -.281 .109 -.439 .217

Non FYE -.234 .050 -.616 .099

Spring 2001

FYE -.236 .109 -.542 .217

Non FYE -.182 .050 -.659 .099

Fall 2001

FYE -.224 .109 -569 .217

Non FYE -.214 .050 -.641 .099

Spring 2002

FYE -.258 .109 -.548 .217

Non FYE -.270 .050 -.579 .099

120

APPENDIX D.6 2001 Residual Data on Variables for Normality – Academic Progress

Group Skewness Std.Error Kurtosis Std.Error

Spring 2002

FYE -.785 .076 .514 .153

Non FYE -.886 .038 .667 .076

121

APPENDIX D.7 Residual Data on Variables for Normality – Student Involvement

Scale Skewness Std.Error Kurtosis Std.Error

Library

1999 .505 .237 .583 .469

2001 .449 .160 -.065 .319

Computer Information & Technology

1999 .383 .239 .051 .474

2001 .148 .159 -.217 .318

Course Learning

1999 -.155 .237 -.727 .469

2001 .134 .161 -.465 .321

Writing Experiences

1999 .157 .237 -.957 .469

2001 -.139 .159 -.536 .317

Experiences with Faculty

1999 .476 .239 -.392 .474

2001 .658 .159 -.048 .317

122

APPENDIX D.7 (Continued) Residual Data on Variables for Normality – Student Involvement

Scale Skewness Std.Error Kurtosis Std.Error

Art, Music, Theatre

1999 1.171 .237 1.216 .469

2001 .734 .159 .213 .316

Campus Facilities

1999 .847 .237 1.200 .469

2001 .503 .158 .224 .316

Clubs & Organizations

1999 .345 .237 -1.240 .469

2001 .812 .158 -.474 .316

Personal Experiences

1999 .155 .238 -.682 .472

2001 .246 .159 -.561 .318

Student Acquaintances

1999 .078 .239 -.557 .474

2001 .175 .159 -.703 .318

123

APPENDIX D.7 (Continued) Residual Data on Variables for Normality – Student Involvement

Scale Skewness Std.Error Kurtosis Std.Error

Science &Quantitative Experiences 1999 1.163 .239 1.323 .474

2001 .682 .159 -.204 .318

Topics of Conversation

1999 .291 .240 -.345 .476

2001 .196 .160 -.154 .318

Information in Conversations

1999 .363 .236 -.055 .467

2001 .402 .160 -.282 .318

124

APPENDIX D.8 Test of Homogeneity of Variance – SAT Scores

Group F df1 df2 Sig.

1999 ..619 1 4189 .431

2001 11.854 1 5119 .001*

* Significant at p < .05

125

APPENDIX D.8 1999 Test of Homogeneity of Variance – Academic Progress

Term F df1 df2 Sig.

Spring 2000 .525 1 2935 .469

Fall 2000 .090 1 2935 .764

Spring 2001 .152 1 2935 .697

Fall 2001 .287 1 2935 .592

Spring 2002 .464 1 2935 .496

126

APPENDIX D.9 2001Test of Homogeneity of Variance – Academic Progress

Term F df1 df2 Sig.

Spring 2002 1.076 1 5126 .300

127

APPENDIX D.10 Test of Homogeneity of Variance – Quality of Effort (Student Involvement)

Scale F df1 df2 Sig.

Library .041 1 333 .840

Computer & Information Technology .664 1 333 .416

Course Learning .1.161 1 330 .282

Writing Experiences 1.211 1 336 .272

Experiences with Faculty 5.816 1 334 .016*

Art, Music, Theatre .020 1 337 .887

Campus Facilities .009 1 338 .925

Clubs & Organizations 5.262 1 338 .022*

Personal Experiences .008 1 334 .931

Student Acquaintances .440 1 333 .508

Science & Quant. Exp. 2.326 1 333 .128

Topics of Conversation 1.044 1 331 .308

Information in Conversations .037 1 335 .849

128

APPENDIX D.11 T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students SAT Scores by Gender

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

Men 241 1076.39 118.194 2.678 .008*

Women 458 1051.14 118.661

* Significant at p < .05

129

APPENDIX D.12 T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students SAT Scores by Ethnicity

(White & African American)

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

White 462 1096.23 103.474 14.360 .000*

African American 132 951.14 98.451

* Significant at p < .05

130

APPENDIX D.13 T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students SAT Scores by Ethnicity

(White & Hispanic)

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

White 462 1096.23 103.474 4.824 .000*

Hispanic 76 1033.16 118.065

* Significant at p < .05

131

APPENDIX D.14 T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students SAT Scores by Ethnicity

(African American & Hispanic)

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

African American 132 951.14 98.451 -5.373 .000*

Hispanic 76 1033.16 118.065

* Significant at p < .05

132

APPENDIX D.15 T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students SAT Scores by Residence Status

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

On Campus

(’99 – ’00) 437 1080.23 115.544 5.993 .000*

Off Campus

(’99 – ’00) 262 1025.84 117.166

* Significant at p < .05

133

APPENDIX D.16 T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE Students SAT Scores by Gender

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

Men 403 1142.36 120.081 6.607 .008*

Women 590 1092.44 114.688

* Significant at p < .05

134

APPENDIX D.17 T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE Students SAT Scores by Ethnicity

(White & African American)

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

White 699 1121.53 115.691 7.488 .000*

African

American 121 1036.69 111.306

* Significant at p < .05

135

APPENDIX D.18 T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE Students SAT Scores by Ethnicity

(White & Hispanic)

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

White 699 1121.53 115.691 -.952 .341

Hispanic 136 1132.06 129.186

136

APPENDIX D.19 T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE Students SAT Scores by Ethnicity

(African American & Hispanic)

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

African American 121 1036.69 111.306 -6.301 .000*

Hispanic 136 1132.06 129.186

* Significant at p < .05

137

APPENDIX D.20 T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE Students SAT Scores by Residence Status

Group N Mean SD t Value Sig.

On Campus

(’01 – ’02) 539 1122.00 118.311 2.684 .007*

Off Campus

(’01 – ’02) 454 1101.65 119.859

* Significant at p < .05

138

APPENDIX D.21 T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages by

Gender

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2000

Men 248 2.56 .746 -5.016 .000*

Women 473 2.85 .729

Fall 2000

Men 223 2.62 .646 -5.835 .000*

Women 418 2.93 .619

Spring 2001

Men 212 2.68 .582 -5.882 .000*

Women 400 2.97 .573

Fall 2001

Men 190 2.76 .528 -5.333 .000*

Women 367 3.01 .538

Spring 2002

Men 180 2.80 .487 -5.643 .000*

Women 354 3.06 .507

* Significant at p < .05

139

APPENDIX D.22 T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages by

Ethnicity (White & African American)

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2000

White 471 2.85 .714 6.198 .000*

African American 149 2.43 .767

Fall 2000

White 419 2.94 .597 6.900 .000*

African American 132 2.52 .628

Spring 2001

White 405 2.97 .558 6.994 .000*

African American 126 2.58 .553

Fall 2001

White 372 3.02 .523 7.154 .000*

African American 110 2.62 .523

140

APPENDIX D.23 T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages by

Ethnicity (White & African American) - Continued

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2002

White 357 3.07 .485 7.546 .000*

African American 107 2.66 .494

* Significant at p < .05

141

APPENDIX D.24

T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages by

Ethnicity (White & Hispanic)

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2000

White 471 2.85 .714 1.927 .055

Hispanic 72 2.68 .764

Fall 2000

White 419 2.94 .597 2.648 .010**

Hispanic 66 2.68 .756

Spring 2001

White 405 2.97 .558 2.272 .024*

Hispanic 57 2.79 .651

Fall 2001

White 372 3.02 .523 1.342 .180

Hispanic 52 2.92 .496

Spring 2002

White 357 3.07 .485 1.514 .131

Hispanic 50 2.96 .475

* Significant at p < .05

** Significant, Equal Variances Not Assumed

142

APPENDIX D.25 T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages by

Ethnicity (African American & Hispanic)

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2000

African American 149 2.43 .767 -2.252 .025*

Hispanic 72 2.68 .764

Fall 2000

African American 132 2.52 .628 -1.557 .121

Hispanic 66 2.68 .756

Spring 2001

African American 126 2.58 .553 -2.291 .023*

Hispanic 57 2.79 .651

Fall 2001

African American 110 2.62 .523 -3.499 .001*

Hispanic 52 2.92 .496

143

APPENDIX D.26 T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages by

Ethnicity (African American & Hispanic) - Continued

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2002

African American 107 2.66 .494 -3.523 .001*

Hispanic 50 2.96 .475

* Significant at p < .05

144

APPENDIX D.27 T Test Comparison of 1999 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages by

Residence Status 1999 - 2000

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2000

On Campus 451 2.84 .726 4.243 .000*

Off Campus 270 2.60 .760

Fall 2000

On Campus 398 2.94 .605 5.920 .000*

Off Campus 243 2.63 .665

Spring 2001

On Campus 381 2.98 .560 5.930 .000*

Off Campus 231 2.69 .599

Fall 2001

On Campus 352 3.03 .528 5.864 .000*

Off Campus 205 2.75 .539

Spring 2002

On Campus 342 3.07 .491 5.974 .000*

Off Campus 192 2.80 .511

* Significant at p < .05

145

APPENDIX D.28 T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages

by Gender

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2002

Men 419 2.84 .704 -3.489 .001*

Women 606 2.99 .667

* Significant at p < .05

146

APPENDIX D.29 T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages by

Ethnicity (White & African American)

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2002

White 720 2.97 .673 4.125 .000*

African American 131 2.70 .698

* Significant at p < .05

147

APPENDIX D.30 T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages by

Ethnicity (White & Hispanic)

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2002

White 720 2.97 .673 .544 .587

Hispanic 137 2.93 .713

148

APPENDIX D.31 T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages by

Ethnicity (Hispanic & African American)

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2002

African American 131 2.70 .698 -2.677 .008*

Hispanic 137 2.93 .713

* Significant at p < .05

149

APPENDIX D.32 T Test Comparison of 2001 FYE Students Mean Grade Point Averages by

Residence Status 2001 - 2002

Variable N Mean SD t Sig.

Spring 2000

On Campus 547 3.01 .664 4.011 .000*

Off Campus 478 2.83 .700

* Significant at p < .05

150

APPENDIX D.33 Chi-Square Comparison of 1999 FYE Student Enrollment Rates by Gender

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2000 Enrollment

Men 258 248 (248.0) 10 (10.0)

Women 492 473 (473.0) 19 (19.0)

Fall 2000 Enrollment

FYE 258 223 (220.5) 35 (37.5)

Non-FYE 492 418 (420.5) 74 (71.5)

Spring 2001 Enrollment

FYE 258 212 (210.5) 46 (47.5)

Non-FYE 492 400 (401.5) 92 (90.5)

Fall 2001 Enrollment

FYE 258 190 (191.6) 68 (66.4)

Non-FYE 492 367 (365.4) 125 (126.6)

Spring 2002 Enrollment

FYE 258 180 (183.7) 78 (74.3)

Non-FYE 492 354 (350.3) 138 (141.7)

151

APPENDIX D.34 Chi-Square Comparison of 1999 FYE Student Enrollment Rates by Gender -

Continued

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Fall 2002 Enrollment

FYE 258 172 (178.9) 86 (79.1)

Non-FYE 492 348 (341.1) 144 (150.9)

152

APPENDIX D.35 Chi-Square Comparison of 1999 FYE Student Enrollment Rates by Ethnicity

(White & African American)

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2000 Enrollment

White 491 471 (472.0) 20 (19.0)

African American 154 149 (148.0) 5 (6.0)

Fall 2000 Enrollment

White 491 419 (419.4) 72 (71.6)

African American 154 132 (131.6) 22 (22.4)

Spring 2001 Enrollment

White 491 405 (404.2) 86 (86.8)

African American 154 126 (126.8) 28 (27.2)

Fall 2001 Enrollment

White 491 372 (366.9) 119 (124.1)

African American 154 110 (115.1) 44 (38.9)

153

APPENDIX D.36 Chi-Square Comparison of 1999 FYE Student Enrollment Rates by Ethnicity

(White & African American)

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2002 Enrollment

White 491 357 (353.2) 134 (137.8)

African American 154 107 (110.8) 47 (43.2)

Fall 2002 Enrollment

White 491 350 (344.1) 141 (146.9)

African American 154 102 (107.9) 52 (46.1)

154

APPENDIX D.37 Chi-Square Comparison of 1999 FYE Student Enrollment Rates by Ethnicity

(White & Hispanic)

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2000 Enrollment

White 491 471 (472.0) 20 (19.0)

Hispanic 76 72 (72.8) 4 (3.2)

Fall 2000 Enrollment

White 491 419 (419.4) 72 (71.6)

Hispanic 76 66 (65.0) 10 (11.0)

Spring 2001 Enrollment

White 491 405 (404.2) 86 (86.8)

Hispanic 76 57 (61.9) 19 (14.1)

Fall 2001 Enrollment

White 491 372 (366.9) 119 (124.1)

Hispanic 76 52 (56.8) 24 (19.2)

155

APPENDIX D.38 Chi-Square Comparison of 1999 FYE Student Enrollment Rates by Ethnicity

(White & Hispanic)

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2002 Enrollment

White 491 357 (353.2) 134 (137.8)

Hispanic 76 50 (54.6) 26 (21.4)

Fall 2002 Enrollment

White 491 350 (344.1) 141 (146.9)

Hispanic 76 50 (53.6) 26 (22.4)

156

APPENDIX D.39 Chi-Square Comparison of 1999 FYE Student Enrollment Rates by Ethnicity

(African American & Hispanic)

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2000 Enrollment

African American 154 149 (148.0) 5 (6.0)

Hispanic 76 72 (72.8) 4 (3.2)

Fall 2000 Enrollment

African American 154 132 (131.6) 22 (22.4)

Hispanic 76 66 (65.0) 10 (11.0)

Spring 2001 Enrollment

African American 154 126 (126.8) 28 (27.2)

Hispanic 76 57 (61.9) 19 (14.1)

Fall 2001 Enrollment

African American 154 110 (115.1) 44 (38.9)

Hispanic 76 52 (56.8) 24 (19.2)

157

APPENDIX D.40 Chi-Square Comparison of 1999 FYE Student Enrollment Rates by Ethnicity

(African American & Hispanic) – Continued

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2002 Enrollment

African American 154 107 (110.8) 47 (43.2)

Hispanic 76 50 (54.6) 26 (21.4)

Fall 2002 Enrollment

African American 154 102 (107.9) 52 (46.1)

Hispanic 76 50 (53.6) 26 (22.4)

158

APPENDIX D.41 Chi-Square Comparison of 1999 FYE Student Enrollment Rates by Residence

Status 1999 – 2000

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2000 Enrollment

On Campus 464 451 (446.1) 13 (17.9)

Off Campus 286 270 (274.9) 16 (11.1)

Fall 2000 Enrollment

On Campus 464 398 (396.6) 66 (67.4)

Off Campus 286 243 (244.4) 43 (41.6)

Spring 2001 Enrollment

On Campus 464 381 (378.6) 83 (85.4)

Off Campus 286 231 (233.4) 55 (52.6)

Fall 2001 Enrollment

On Campus 464 352 (344.6) 112 (119.4)

Off Campus 286 205 (212.4) 81 (73.6)

159

APPENDIX D.42 Chi-Square Comparison of 1999 FYE Student Enrollment Rates by Residence

Status 1999 – 2000 – Continued

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2002 Enrollment

On Campus 464 342 (330.4) 122 (133.6)

Off Campus 286 192 (203.6) 94 (82.4)

Fall 2002 Enrollment

On Campus 464 333 (321.7) 131 (142.3)

Off Campus 286 187 (198.3) 99 (87.7)

160

APPENDIX D.43 Comparison of 2001 FYE Students’ Enrollment Rates by Gender

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2002 Enrollment

Men 435 419 (416.3) 16 (18.7)

Women 636 606 (608.7) 30 (27.3)

Fall 2002 Enrollment

Men 435 369 (374.9) 66 (60.1)

Women 636 554 (548.1) 82 (87.9)

161

APPENDIX D.44 Comparison of 2001 FYE Students’ Enrollment Rates by Ethnicity

(White & African American)

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2002 Enrollment

White 758 720 (721.5) 38 (36.5)

African American 136 131 (129.5) 5 (6.5)

Fall 2002 Enrollment

White 758 639 (645.2) 119 (112.8)

African American 136 122 (115.8) 14 (20.2)

162

APPENDIX D.45 Comparison of 2001 FYE Students’ Enrollment Rates by Ethnicity

(White & Hispanic)

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2002 Enrollment

White 758 720 (721.5) 38 (33.5)

Hispanic 139 137 (132.8) 2 (6.2)

Fall 2002 Enrollment

White 758 639 (647.3) 119 (110.7)

Hispanic 139 127 (118.7) 12 (20.3)

163

APPENDIX D.46 Comparison of 2001 FYE Students’ Enrollment Rates by Ethnicity

(White & Hispanic)

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2002 Enrollment

African American 136 131 (132.5) 5 (3.5)

Hispanic 139 137 (135.5) 2 (3.5)

Fall 2002 Enrollment

African American 136 122 (123.1) 14 (12.9)

Hispanic 139 127 (125.9) 12 (13.1)

164

APPENDIX D.47 Comparison of 2001 FYE Students’ Enrollment Rates by Residence Status

2001 - 2002

Variable N Enrolled Not Enrolled

Spring 2002 Enrollment

On Campus 652 558 (561.9) 94 (90.1)

Off Campus 419 365 (361.1) 54 (57.9)

Fall 2002 Enrollment

On Campus 652 623 (624.0) 29 (28.0)

Off Campus 419 402 (401.0) 17 (18.0)

165

APPENDIX D.48 Mean Scores: Student Involvement – College Student Experiences Questionnaire

Group

Scale 1999 2001 Men Women

Library 32.90 32.26 32.64 32.52

Computer & Information Technology 48.89 47.63 48.02 48.50

Course Learning 66.21 61.74 60.80 67.15

Writing Experiences 36.72 34.79 33.26 38.25

Experiences with Faculty 46.72 40.56 42.38 44.90

Art, Music & Theatre 29.70 28.95 29.08 29.57

Campus Facilities 34.31 35.04 35.20 34.15

Clubs & Organizations 20.77 19.33 19.49 20.61

Personal Experiences 41.83 40.10 37.69 44.24

Student Acquaintances 51.85 53.83 52.31 53.37

Science & Quantitative Analysis 39.45 42.77 41.10 41.16

Topics of Conversation 53.25 52.14 52.52 52.87

Information in Conversations 31.43 30.86 30.10 32.19

166

APPENDIX D.49 Responses to “How Well College is Liked” by Gender

Men Women

Response N % N %

“Don’t Not Like It” 0 0 4 1.6

“More or Less Neutral” 7 8.4 23 9.0

“Like It” 44 53.0 107 41.8

“Enthusiastic” 32 38.6 122 47.7

167

APPENDIX D.50 Responses to “How Well College is Liked” by Ethnicity

White African American Hispanic

Response N % N % N %

“Don’t Not Like It” 4 1.6 0 0 0 0

“More or Less Neutral” 21 8.3 6 15.0 5 10.4

“Like It” 106 41.7 22 55.0 25 52.0

“Enthusiastic” 123 48.4 12 30.0 18 37.5

168

APPENDIX D.51 “…Would Attend Same Institution Again…” by Gender

Men Women

Response N % N %

“No, Definitely” 2 2.4 3 1.2

“Probably no” 5 6.0 25 9.8

“Probably yes” 37 44.6 95 37.1

“Yes, definitely” 39 47.0 133 52.0

169

APPENDIX D.52 “…Would Attend Same Institution Again…” by Ethnicity

White African American Hispanic

Response N % N % N %

“No, Definitely” 1 .4 1 2.5 3 6.2

“Probably no” 19 7.5 7 17.5 4 8.3

“Probably yes” 98 38.6 17 42.5 16 33.3

“Yes, definitely” 136 53.5 15 37.5 25 52.0

170

REFERENCES

Abrahamowicz, D. (1988). College involvement, perceptions, and satisfaction: A study of membership in student organizations. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 233-238.

Ary, D., Jacobs, L.C., & Razavieh, A. (1996). Introduction to research in education (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Astin, A.W. (1973). The impact of dormitory living on students. Educational Record, 54, 204-210.

Astin, A.W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(7), 297-308.

Astin, A.W. (1993). What matter’s in college: Four critical years revisited. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A.W., Korn, W., & Green, K. (1987) Retaining and satisfying students. Educational Record, 68(1), 36-42.

Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Beck, M.C. (1980). Decreasing the risk of high-risk students. Community and Junior College Journal, 51(1), 4-6.

Blimline, C. & New, R. (1975). Evaluating the effectiveness of a freshman orientation course. Journal of College Student Personnel, 16(5), 471-474.

Boudreau, C.A. & Kromrey, J.D. (1994). A longitudinal study of the retention and academic performance of participants in freshmen orientation course. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 444-449.

Brown, R.D. (1985). Review of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. In J.V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 1, pp. 365-366). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska, Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

171

Brunelle-Joiner, K.M. (1999). Effects of an extended orientation program on personal resiliency and adjustment to college as it relates to academic performance and retention. (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International,60, 354.

Caple, R. (1964). A rationale for the orientation course. Journal of College Student Personnel, 6, 42-46.

Chapman, L.C. & Reed, P.J. (1987). Evaluating the effectiveness of a freshman orientation course. Journal of College Student Personnel, 28, 178-179.

Chapman, S.C. (1989). Women students. In M.L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner, & Associates (Eds.), The Freshman Year Experience (pp. 287-302). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Chickering, A.W. (1974). The impact of various college environments on personality

development. Journal of American College Health Association, 23(2), 82-93.

Chickering, A.W. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, R.D. & Jody, R. (1978). Freshman seminar: A new orientation. Boulder Colorado: Westview Press.

Cross, K.P. (1971). Beyond the open door: New students to higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DeCoster, D.A. (1989). Review of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. In J.C. Conoley and J.J. Kramer (Eds.), The tenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 197-199). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Doman E.F. & Christensen, M.G. (1976). Effects of a group life seminar on perceptions of the university environment. Journal of College Student Personnel, 17(1), 66-71.

Donnangelo, F.P. & Santa Rita, E.D. (1982). The effects of two college orientation courses upon the academic performance and retention of entering freshmen. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 232 747).

Dwyer, J.O. (1989). A historical look at the freshman year experience. In M.L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner, & Associates (Eds.), The Freshman Year Experience (pp. 25-39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

172

Felker, K.R. (1973). Grow: An experience for college freshmen. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 51(8), 558-561.

Fidler, P.P. (1991). Relationship of freshman orientation seminars to sophomore return rates. Journal of Freshman Year Experience, 3(1), 7-38.

Fidler, P.P. & Moore, P.S. (1996). A comparison of effects of campus residence and freshman seminar attendance on freshman dropout rates. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 8(2), 7-16.

Fleming, J. (1984). Blacks in college: A comparative study of students’ success in Black and White institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Florida Board of Regents. (1998). Clear Focus: Reinventing the State University System for the new millennium. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Florida State University. (2000, July). The Florida State University General Bulletin 2000-2001. (Available from the Florida State University Office of the University Registrar, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1011) Florida State University. (2001).

Florida State University (2001, April). 2001 First-Year Experience Instructional Resource Manual. Unpublished manuscript, The Florida State University.

Florida State University (2002). 2001-2002 Florida State University Factbook. Retrieved February 20, 2002, from http://www.ir.fsu.edu/Factbooks/.

Gardner, J.N. (1986). The freshman year experience. College and University, 61(4), 261-274.

Gerber, S.K. (1970). Four approaches to freshman orientation. Improving College and University Teaching, 18(1), 57-60.

Glass, G.V. & Hopkins, K.D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychology (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Gordon, V.N. (1989). Origins and purposes of the Freshman Seminar. In M.L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner, & Associates (Eds.), The Freshman Year Experience (pp. 183-197). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gordon, V.N. & Grites, T.J. (1984). The freshman seminar course: Helping students succeed. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 315-320.

Hancock, D.R. & Flowers, C.P. (2001). Comparing social desirability responding on World Wide Web and paper-administered surveys. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 5-13.

173

House, D.J. (1998). The effects of entering characteristics and college experiences on student satisfaction and degree completion: An application of the Input-Environment-Outcome Assessment Model. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, Minneapolis, MN. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 429 491).

Jewler, A.J. (1989). Elements of an effective seminar: The University 101 program. In M.L.Upcraft, J.N. Gardner & Associates (Eds.), The Freshman Year

Experience (pp. 198-215). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Justiz, M.J. & Rendon, L.I. (1989), Hispanic students. In M.L.Upcraft, J.N. Gardner & Associates (Eds.), The Freshman Year Experience (pp. 261-276). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kanoy, K.W. & Bruhn, J.W. (1996). Effects of a first-year living and learning residence hall on retention and academic performance. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 8(1), 7-23.

Kuh, G.D. & Siegel, M.J. (2000). College Student Experiences Questionnaire: Tentative forms for the fourth edition. Bloomington, IN: Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning, Indiana University.

Lincoln, C. A. (1990). The relationship between college orientation and student effort: An exploratory study. (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 4034.

Maisto, A.A. & Tammi, M.W. (1991). The effect of a content-based freshman Seminar on academic and social integration. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 3(2), 29-47.

Mark, M.M. & Romano, J.J. (1982). The freshman seminar program: Experimental evaluation of an introduction to the liberal arts. Evaluation Review, 6(6), 801-810.

McMillan, J.H. & Schumacher, S. (1989). Research in education: A conceptual introduction (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

McNairy, F.G. (1996). The challenge for higher education: Retaining students of color. New Directions for Student Services, No.74, 3-14.

Miller, J.K. (1985). Review of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. In J.V. Mitchell, Jr. (Ed.), The ninth mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 1, pp. 366-368). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Newton, R.R. & Rudestam, K.E. (1999). Your statistical consultant: Answers to your data analysis questions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

174

O’Banion, T. (1969). Experiment in orientation of junior college students. The Journal of College Student Personnel, 10(1), 12-15.

Pace, C.R. (1982). Achievement and the quality of student effort. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 227 101).

Pace, C.R. & Swayze, S. (1992). Psychometric supplement to the CSEQ Third Edition, 1990. Los Angeles: University of California, The Center for the Study of Evaluation, Graduate School of Education.

Phillips, M. (1993). Too many institutions still taking band-aid approach to minority student retention, experts say. Black Issues in Higher Education, 9(24), 24-28.

Pike, G.R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40(3), 269-284.

Pounds, A. W. (1989). Black students. In M.L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner, & Associates (Eds.), The Freshman Year Experience (pp. 277-286). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Prophet Statguide. Retrieved August 6, 2003, from the Northwestern University Medical School web site: http://www.basic.nwu.edu/statguidefiles/n-dist_exam_res.html.

Prola, M., Rosenberg, P., & Wright, B. (1977). The impact of a freshman orientation course. New York State Personnel and Guidance Journal, 12(1), 26-31.

Prola, M. & Stern, D. (1984). The effect of a freshman orientation program on

student leadership and academic persistence. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(5), 472-473.

Ramos, M., Sedivi, B. M., & Sweet, E. M. (1998). Computerized self-administered questionnaires. In M. P. Couper, R. P. Baker, J. Bethlehem, C. Z. F. Clark, J. Martin, W. L. N. II, et al. (Eds.), Computer assisted survey information collection (pp. 389-408). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Reisser, L. (1995). Revisiting the seven vectors. Journal of College Student Development, 36(6), 505-511.

Rice, R., & Thomas, W. (1989). The effects of various types of orientation programming upon freshman academic performance and reaction to college. Paper presented at the Western Regional Conference of the Freshman Year Experience, Irvine, CA. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. 323 443)

175

Rowser, J.F. (1997). Do African American students’ perceptions of their needs have implications for retention? Journal of Black Studies, 27(5), 718-726.

Schmidt, W.C. (1997). World-wide web survey research: Benefits, potential problems, and solutions. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 29(2), 274-279.

Schuldt, B.A. & Totten, J.W. (1994). Electronic mail vs. mail survey response rates. Marketing Research, A Magazine for Management and Applications, 6, 36-139.

Shanley, M.G. & Witten, C.H. (1990). University 101 freshman seminar course: A longitudinal study of persistence, retention, and graduation rates. NASPA Journal, 27(4), 344-352.

Sidle, M.W. & McReynalds, J. (1999). The freshman year experience: Student retention and student success. NASPA Journal, 36(4), 288-300.

Silver, J.H. (1978). The effect of a self-development seminar on freshman learning as Measured by grade point average, units completed and retention rate. Practicum presented to Nova University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Doctor of Education Degree. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. 152 357)

Stanton, J.M. (1998). An empirical assessment of data collection using the internet. Personnel Psychology, 51, 709-726.

Starke, M.C., Harth, M., & Sirianni, F. (2001). Retention, bonding, and academic Achievement: Success of a first-year seminar. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 13(2), 7-35.

Stewart, B.W. (1997). The effects of a freshman seminar course on student retention, academic success, and academic performance. (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, 3373.

Strumpf, G. & Hunt, P. (1993). The effects of an orientation course on the retention and academic standing of entering freshmen, controlling for the volunteer effect. The Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 5(1), 7-14.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from Higher Education: A theoretical synthesis of recent

research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student

attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

176

Tse, A. (1998). Comparing the response rate, response speed, and response quality of two methods of sending questionnaires: Email vs. mail. Journal of the Market Research Society, 40, 353-361.

Tuckman, B.W. (1988). Conducting educational research (3rd ed.). San Diego: CA;

Harcourt Brace Jovanich. Twale, D.J. (1989). Social and academic development in freshman orientation: A

time frame. NASPA Journal, 27(2), 160-165. University 101. (2001). Retrieved September 25, 2001, from National Resource Center

for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition web site: http://www.sc.edu/univ101/101ye/whatisintro.html.

Upcraft, M.L. (1989). Residence halls and campus living. In M.L. Upcraft, J.N.

Gardner, & Associates (Eds.), The Freshman Year Experience (pp. 142-155). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Upcraft, M.L. & Gardner, J.N. (1989). A comprehensive approach to enhancing

freshman success. In M.L. Upcraft, J.N. Gardner, & Associates (Eds.), The Freshman Year Experience (pp. 1-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wilkie, C. & Kuckuck, S. (1989). A longitudinal study of the effects of a freshman

seminar. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 1(1), 7-16. Yarbrough, B. (1993). The effects of an extended orientation program on student

out-of-classroom involvement as it relates to academic performance and retention. (Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 55.

177

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Thomas Neal Hollins, Jr., was born in Newark, New Jersey where he spent

most of his life. He graduated from St. Benedict’s Preparatory School in 1987, then

went on to achieve a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from The College of

New Jersey (TCNJ) in 1991. After graduating from TCNJ, Thomas obtained

employment at Essex County College in Newark where he served in two positions:

Financial Aid Officer and Coordinator of Federal Work-Study. After three years, he

obtained a position as Assistant Director of Financial Assistance at Drew University

located in Madison, New Jersey.

While at Drew, Thomas attended Montclair State University and attained a

Master of Arts degree in Counseling in 1998. Immediately following his graduation

from Montclair State, he enrolled in the Higher Education program at Florida State

University. During his enrollment at Florida State, Thomas served as a graduate

assistant to the First-Year Experience program. He was eventually promoted to

Assistant Dean of Students / Director of First-Year Experience, serving as the first

director of the program, until leaving FSU in August 2003. Thomas was awarded the

Doctor of Education degree (Ed.D.) in Higher Education during the Spring 2004 term.

Currently he resides in Richmond, Virginia with his fiancée Dr. Sydana Rogers.