Recent estimates suggest that by the year 2015, underrepresented and nontraditional students will account for two-thirds of the collegiate population within the United States (Gohn & Albin 2006). These students represent various demographic characteristics including ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, and ability. However, the fastest growing at-risk group is first-generation college (FG) students (Choy 2001, Pike & Kuh 2005). These students come from a family in which neither parent has received a bachelor’s degree, and they make up a significant proportion of the general student population at higher education institutions (Choy 2001, Horwedel 2008). Research also shows half these students will fail to graduate, particularly from four-year institutions (Swail 2003, Siedman 2005). According to the literature, FG students are more likely to be academically under prepared, come from low income and minority backgrounds, and be less engaged in the higher education experience than continuing generation college students. (Horn 2002, Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin 1998, Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004, Pike & Kuh, 2005).
Retention is an increasingly important issue for colleges and universities. State legislatures and accrediting organizations have demanded greater accountability resulting in retention and graduation rates being tied to funding and accreditation.
The U.S. Department of Education emphasized student retention rates when it
worked with Congress to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Data indicates the
retention record of most colleges for first- and second-year students is not good.
The Department of Education has examined retention policies and ways to use
federal money in an incentive fashion to reward programs that work (DeBerard &
Spelman, 2004, p. 31).
At the institutional level, “attrition represents a direct loss of tuition income and, other things being equal, a failure to accomplish their educational missions” (Bean 2005). The increased pressure and accountability for retention is both complex and critical for the sustainability of colleges and universities. This has resulted in a number of research attempts to explain factors that contribute to student persistence. Since first-generation college students represent a larger proportion of at-risk students, it is essential that higher education institutions understand the unique characteristics of this population so that they may develop appropriate policies and programs to enhance their success. Therefore, the purpose of this review of literature is to define first-generation students, understand their common experience and describe their transition from high school to college.
The definition of a first-generation student focuses on the highest level of a parent’s education and includes different “acceptable‟ types of postsecondary education. Billson and Terry (1982) and York-Anderson and Bowman (1991) classified students as FG if “neither of their parents nor siblings attended college for 1 year”. Some researchers considered students first-generation if neither of their parents had more than a high school education (Choy 2001, Ishitani 2006, McConnell 2000, Pascarella et al. 2004, Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007, Warburton et al., 2001). Engle et al. (2006) defined this student as one “whose parents have not attended college and/or have not earned a college degree” thus including both students whose parents had earned only a high school diploma and those who had some college. Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin (1998) defined first generation students as “those [students] whose parents’ highest level of education is a high school diploma or less. In cases where parents have different levels of education, the maximum education level of either parent determines how the student is categorized”. It is important to know what definition is being used. Depending on the demographics of the institution and the purpose of the study, researchers have used different definitions.
Choy (1998 & 2001) examined three national longitudinal studies (the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS:88),The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) and the Baccalaureate and Beyond Study (B&B)) and compared those students where at least one parent completed a minimum of a bachelor’s degree to two separate groups of FG students: (1) students whose parents had earned a high school diploma or less and (2) students whose parents had attended “some college” but had not earned a baccalaureate degree. Ishitani (2006) used the above groupings and also included students whose parents had earned at least a bachelor’s degree, in his study on role of parents’ education in degree completion.
As stated previously, first generation students represent a growing segment of the college-going population and, as a group, share some common characteristics. They tend to work more than their peers, they score lower on standardized tests, and they have lower high school GPA’s. (Pascarella et al., 2004). According to Nunez & Curraro-Alamin (1998) they are often female, older, married and have children. First generation students are more likely to be Black or Hispanic and are more likely to originate from low-income backgrounds when compared to their peers (Bui 2002, Chen 2005, Choy 2001, Nunez & Curraro-Alamin 1998, Terenzini 1996). In a follow-up study to Nunez, Warburton (2001) found that FG students were more likely to speak a language other than English at home. Not only do they share some common demographic characteristics, but also similar pre-college experiences. As a group, these students are less academically prepared for college (Choy 2001).
Horn and Nunez (2000) found that a rigorous high school curriculum can greatly improve the chances that first-generation students will go to college. In his work, Adelman (2006) defines “rigor” as “academic intensity and the quality of one’s high school curriculum” Horn and Kojaku (2001) further defined a rigorous curriculum as one that included: 4 years of English, 3 years of a foreign language, 3 years of social studies, 4 years of mathematics (including pre-calculus or higher), 3 years of science (including biology, chemistry & physics) and at least one Advanced Placement (AP) course taken. According to Horn and Nunez (2000), taking advanced math courses in high school more than doubles the chances that first-generation students will enroll in a four-year college. In their study of the relationship between high school academic curriculum and college persistence, Horn and Kojaku (2001) found that low income and FG students were less likely to complete a rigorous high school program and were more likely to “leave the bachelor’s degree tract” after three years of college. Ishitani (2006) determined a positive correlation between graduating in four years to those who completed a more rigorous high school curriculum.
Contributing factors include the lack of familial encouragement and availability of college preparatory courses. The combination of students with involved, encouraging parents who also take a rigorous HS course load, enroll in college regardless of parental educational level (Horn & Nunez 2000, Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper 1999). Unfortunately, FG students reported receiving less encouragement and support, and to some extent discouragement, from their parents when going to college (Billson & Terry, 1982; Horn & Nunez, 2000; Terenzini et al., 1996). Due to a lack of exposure to postsecondary education, the parents of first-generation students may not have been aware of the social and economic benefits of college attendance (Voile & Federico, 1997). Additionally, they might have lacked knowledge or had misperceptions about the college-going process, particularly about costs and financial aid, which may have led them to discourage their children from pursuing postsecondary education (Vargas, 2004). First-generation students and their parents often lack access to key informational sources regarding the process of preparing, applying, and paying for postsecondary education, as well as the admission process (Choy 200, Oliverez & Tierney 2005, Vargas 2004). Consequently, FG students were less likely to complete the necessary steps toward enrolling in college, especially a four-year institution, even if they were college-qualified and had aspirations to attend college (Berkner & Chavez 1997, Choy, 2001, Voile & Federico 1997).
As early as eighth grade, first-generation students have low expectations about the highest level of education they will attain (Choy, 2001). In twelfth grade, approximately 53% of FG students expected to earn a bachelor's degree, compared to nearly 90% of their peers (Berkner & Chavez, 1997; Choy, 2001). First-generation students who do enroll in college are much more likely to choose to attend less selective institutions, even when they are qualified for admission to more selective ones (Berkner & Chavez 1997, Pascarella et al., 2004). This is due to a number of factors, primarily related to cost and location. First-generation students are more likely to cite obtaining financial aid, finishing in a short period of time and being able to work while attending college as very important reasons for their choice of institution. FG students are also more likely to choose institutions that are close to home and/or that allow them to live at home (Inman & Mayes 1999, Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005, Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). According to Pascarella et. al (2004) and Vargas (2004), attending a less selective two- or four-year college or university can have a negative effect on a student's chance of earning a degree. In addition, FG students who do attend college are less likely to enroll in a four-year institution; are less likely to attend full time, are more likely to “stop out” and are more likely to leave without earning a degree (Chen 2005, Choy 2001, Engle, et al., 2006). Furthermore, according to Choy (2001) and Ishitani (2003) 16% of FG students who enroll in 4-year institutions leave before the second year.
Further studies have shown that first generation students work more hours and tend not to live-on campus or develop relationships with faculty members (Kuh & Pike 2005, Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora,1996). In addition, they are less likely to develop relationships with other students and less likely to become involved in on-campus activities (Billson & Terry, 1982; Kuh & Pike, 2005; Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Terenzini et al., 1994; Terenzini et al., 1996). Additionally, FG college students are more likely to be dissatisfied with the campus environment (Kuh & Pike, 2005; Terenzini et al., 1996).
As summarized in Terenzini et al. (1996), first-generation college students have more difficulty transitioning from secondary school to college than peers with parents who have attained college degrees. Students whose parents are college educated tend to experience college as a continuation of their academic and social experiences in high school. FG students, however, often experience college as a disjointed from their familiar academic and social patterns. Students often feel alienated from their families if they have been discouraged from going to college. First-generation students think that they are not college material, which leaves them doubting their academic and motivational abilities. In order for them to successfully transition, they must overcome these personal challenges (Striplin, 1999).
As stated previously, FG students tend to be less prepared academically for college than their peers. Chen and Carroll (2005) provided a comprehensive analysis of the first-generation students by studying the 2000 Postsecondary Education Transcript Study (PETS) and the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988.
This study identified a number of distinguishing characteristics of FGCS, who
typically completed fewer credits, took fewer academic courses, earned lower
grades, needed more remedial assistance, and were more likely to withdraw from
or repeat courses they attempted. As a result, the likelihood of attaining a
bachelor’s degree was lower for first-generation students compared to their peers
whose parents attended college.
They often require remedial coursework and lack study and time-management skills; they also experience more difficulty navigating the bureaucracy of the university, and have less confidence in their academic abilities (Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Terenzini et al., 1996). Moreover, first-generation students tend to perform at lower levels academically (Chen & Carroll 2005, Lohfink & Paulsen 2005, Nunez & Cuccarco-Alamin 1998, Pascarella et al., 2003, 2004; Warburton et al., 2001). The lower performance and persistence rates of first-generation students are attributable to the fact they lack the necessary financial resources and are less likely to engage in the successful academic and social experiences such as studying, interacting with faculty and other students, participating in extracurricular activities and using support services (Kuh & Pike 2005, Billson & Terry 1982, Lohfink & Paulsen 2005, Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin 1998, Pascarella et al, 2003& 2004, Richardson & Skinner 1992, Terenzini et al., 1996).
In evaluating degree completion of students by socio-economic status (SES), Cabrera and colleagues (2005) found that those students with higher academic preparation were more likely to graduate. However, only 25% of the lowest SES students had access to higher education resources versus 59% of those at the highest SES levels. SES students who did complete rigorous high school academics and had access to resources, performed in college at the same level as non-first generation students (Warburton et. al, 2001, Horn & Kojaju 2001). In conjunction with curricular rigor, academic performance (HS GPA, class rank & performance on standardized college entrance test) factor significantly into a FG student’s successful degree completion (Chen 2005, Choy, 2001 & 2002, Engle et al., 2006, Ishitani, 2006; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). Furthermore, they confirmed that students with higher GPAs, test scores and rank were more likely to graduate from college, regardless of SES or FG status. Inshitani (2006) found students in the highest class rank quintile were more likely to graduate. However, according to Chen (2005), Ishitani (2006) and Warburton et. al., (2001) first-generation students and those who are economically disadvantaged are less likely to appear in this group. Regardless, research has found that increases in financial aid (in the form of grants, scholarships and work study) increase the likelihood that first-generation students will persist in college. The converse is also true, that an increase in debt is often a contributing factor of students leaving college. (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005).
First-generation students not only face barriers to their academic and social integration, they also confront obstacles with respect to cultural adaptation due to disparities between the culture (e.g., norms, values, and expectations) of their families and communities, and the culture that exists on college campuses. Rendon (1992) describes first-generation students often experience problems "that arise from [living] simultaneously in two vastly different worlds while being fully accepted in neither." At home, first-generation students report that relationships with family and friends who did not go to college often become strained and difficult to maintain, as they are perceived as changing and separating from them, which causes intense stress for these students (Rendon 1992, Richardson & Skinner, 1992, Terenzini et al., 1994, 1996).
On campus, first-generation students, particularly those of racial and ethnic minority backgrounds, often describe themselves as unprepared for the isolation and alienation they feel upon entering college (Richardson & Skinner, 1992). First-generation students are more likely to view the campus environment, particularly the faculty, as less supportive and less concerned about them (Kuh & Pike, 2005; Terenzini et al., 1996). The extent to which first-generation students can participate in and transition across these two worlds, which can be aided or impeded by the level of support available at home and on campus, has a significant impact on whether they can be successful in college.
Student retention is both a financial and ethical challenge for colleges and universities. Because of this, greater efforts to understand today’s college students are being made across the country. However, these studies currently do not include non-heterosexual students. Student retention theories are attempting to explain student departure in order to provide colleges and universities methods for systematically creating policies and processes to retain their students and further studies and necessary to understand the unique needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students.
Because of the complexity of first generation students and the diverse nature of higher education institutions, colleges and universities must not only understand the broad concepts of the FG student but also apply these findings to their unique situations. In today’s complex and challenging higher education environment – characterized by a burgeoning college-bound population, escalating costs, lagging state support, intense scrutiny from state and federal agencies – colleges and universities must be able to put policies and practices in place that promote student success.
REFERENCES
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high
school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Vocational and Adult Education (ED).
Bean, J. (2005). Nine Themes of College Student Retention. In Seidman, A. (Ed.)
College Student Retention: Formula for student success. American Council on
Education and Praeger Publishers. Westport, CT.
Berkner, L., & Chavez, L. (1997). Access to postsecondary education for 1992 high
school graduates. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Billson, J. & Terry, B. (1982). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among first generation students. College and University, 58, 57-75.
Bui, K. V. T. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university:
Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year
experiences. College Student Journal, 36(1), 3.
Cabrera, A.F., Burkum, K.R. & LaNasa, S.M. (2005). Pathways to a four year degree:
Determinants of transfer and degree completion. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College
student retention: A formula for student success (pp.155-209). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.
Chen, X., & Carroll, C. D. (2005). First-generation students in postsecondary education: A look at their college transcripts (Postsecondary education descriptive analysis report, NCES 2005-171). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005171
Choy, S. (1998). First generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never
enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: U.S. National Center for Education Statistics http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=98082
Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access,
persistence, and attainment. Findings from the Condition of Education, 2001.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf
DeBerard, S., & Spelmans, G. (2004). Predictors of Academic Achievement and
Retention Among College Freshmen: A Longitudinal Study. College Student
Journal, 38(1), 66-80.
Engle, J., Bermeo, A., & O’Brien, C. (2006). Straight from the source. Washington
D.C.: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
Gohn, L. A., & Albin, G. R., (Eds.). (2006). Understanding college student
subpopulations: A guide for student affairs professionals. National
Association of College and Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)
Horn, L., and Kojaku, L.K. (2001). High school academic curriculum and the
persistence path through college: Persistence and transfer behavior of
undergraduates 3 years after entering 4 year institutions. Washington D.C.:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Horn, L., & Nunez, A. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First-generation students'
math track, planning strategies, and context of support. Education Statistics
Quarterly, 2, 81-86.
Horn, L., Peter, K., & Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of Undergraduates in US
Postsecondary Institutions: 1999-2000. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study.
Horwedel, D. M. (2008). Putting first-generation students first. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 25(5), 10–12.
Hossler, D., Schrnit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic,and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD:The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Inman, W. E. & Mayes, L. (1999). The importance of being first: Unique characteristics of first generation community college students. Community College Review,26(4), 3-22.
Ishitani, T. T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among firstgeneration students: Time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 433.
Ishitani, T.T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first
generation college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher
Education, 77(5), 861-885.
Kuh, G. D., & Pike, G. R. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A
comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 276-300.
Lohfink, M. M., & Paulsen, M. B. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first-generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student
Development, 46(4): 409-428.
McConnell, P. J. (2000). What community colleges should do to assist first-generation
students. Community College Review, 28(3), 75.
Nunez, A. & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First generation students: Undergraduates
whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 1999-082). Washington D.C. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf
Oliverez, P. M., & Tierney, W. G. (2005). Show us the money: Low- income students,
families, and financial aid. Los Angeles: Center for Higher Education Policy
Analysis.
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C, & Terenzini, P. T. (2003). Experiences and outcomes of first-generation college students in community colleges. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 420-429.
Pascarella, E., Pierson, C. Wolniak, G. & Terenzini, P. (2004). First generation
students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of
Higher Education 73(3): 249-284.
Pike, G. & Kuh, G. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges
and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 185-209.
Prospero, M., & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2007). First generation college students: Motivation,integration, and academic achievement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(12), 963–975.
Rendon, L.I. (1992). From the barrio to the academy: Revelations of a Mexican American scholarship girl. In L.S. Swerling and H.B. London (Eds.), First generation students: Confronting the cultural issues (pp. 55-64). New Directions for Community Colleges, No.80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Richardson, R. C, Jr., & Skinner, E. F. (1992). Helping first-generation minority students achieve degrees. In L. S. Zwerling & H. B. London (Eds.), First-generation
students: Confronting the cultural issues (pp. 29-43). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Seidman, A. (Ed.). (2005). College Student Retention: Formula for student success.
American Council on Education/ Praeger Series on Higher Education.
Striplin, J. J. (1999). Facilitating transfer for first-generation community college students(ERIC ED430627). http://www.eric.ed.gov
Swail, W. S., (2003). Retaining minority students in higher education: A framework
for success. ASHE-ERIC Report. Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series.
Terenzini, P. T., Rendon, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L.,et al. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research
in Higher Education, 35(1), 1-22.
Terenzini, P. T.; Springer, Leonard; Yaeger, Patricia; Pascarella, Ernest & Nora, Amaury (1996). First-generation college students: Characteristics,experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1-22: DOI: 10.1007/BF0168003
Voile, K., & Federico, A. (1997). Missed opportunities: A new look at disadvantaged
college aspirants. Washington, DC: The Educational Resources Institute and The
Institute for Higher Education Policy.
Warburton, E.C., Bugarin, R., Nunez, A.. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic
preparation and post-secondary success of first-generation students (Statistical
Analysis Report No. NCES 2001-153). Washington DC: U.S. National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001153
York-Anderson, D. & Bowman, S. (1991). Assessing the college knowledge of first
generation and second generation students. Journal of College Student
Development, 32, 116-122.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Pell Grant Problems
As the United States politicians continue to negotiate about budget cuts to rein in our country’s spiraling debt, it is no surprise that our leaders would turn their gaze to higher education and financial aid. As governments, companies, transportation, and every other form of business shifts more financial burden to individual consumers, colleges and universities are doing their best to meet their students’ financial need as tuition prices continue to soar year after year. This paper will examine the current higher education turmoil surrounding the potential cuts to the Pell Grant and I will offer some ideas as to what I believe is the best course of action for the Pell Grant.
In 1972, the Pell Grant was created as an amendment of the Higher Education Act. Named after Senator Claiborne Pell, the Pell Grant is a non-repayable grant from the United States Federal Government, typically awarded to low-income students pursuing a bachelor’s degree at an undergraduate degree granting institution to promote access to postsecondary education. The value of the Pell Grant award need is determined by the U.S. Department of Education using a standard formula, established by Congress, to evaluate the financial information reported on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Multiple factors in the formula include the costs to attend school, a student’s status as a full-time or part-time student, and plans to attend school for a full academic year or less. The current maximum Pell Grant award for the 2011-12 award years (July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2012) is $5,550. (US Department of Education, 2011).
Congress's failure to pass this year's budget, has kept the Pell Grant program in limbo for quite some time. Doing so has allowed the program to continue as is, but with a $10.7-billion shortfall in the Pell Grant program, Congress is looking to desperately reform the program in the next round of budget negotiations. This state of confusion is causing many institutions to discuss the possibility of rolling back a portion of the financial-aid offers they have made to students for the coming academic year. This is a major concern when we are seeing a huge increase in the students qualifying for federal aid. In 2011, it is estimated that up to 9.4 million students are expected to receive grants, up from 6.2 million in 2008 (Field, 2011). Because of the large increases in numbers and the growth in the maximum award, analysts have seen the cost of Pell Grants double over the past three years. To combat the issue, Republicans in the House of Representatives, have proposed cutting $5.7-billion from the Pell Grant Program. If the Bill is passed, it would end aid to a quarter of all Pell Grant recipients and cut the average award by $785, forcing students to borrow more for their college education (Field, 2011).
In our current state of economic perplexity, high unemployment and lack of direction and purpose, it seems to be counterproductive to cut the funding to a program that was set up to help low-income Americans who have a desire to attend college and attain a degree. While the decrease does not seem like a whole lot for our aspiring degree seeking students, what about the average cost in tuition increases? Growth in college costs has exponentially outpaced growth in the Pell Grant program. In addition, the aid colleges are awarding is covering less of students costs. In 2008, the average institutional grant for first-time freshmen covered 52.3 percent of the average sticker price for grant recipients. In 2009, it fell to 48.5 percent, and it was estimated to cover 49.1 percent for those entering in fall 2010 (Blumenstyk, 2011).
With higher costs, lower grant amounts, and lower discount rates from colleges, this cut could potentially force some students who have an unsteady income or those who don't have much financial flexibility, to take fewer classes or drop out altogether. An increasing number of jobs require a college education. If we have more jobs than there will be qualified people to fill the vacancies, how will we put our current workforce back to work? What about our economic future and impact across the world? All of these questions are all strongly connected to the current financial aid questions, funds, and future of our higher education system. Without stable Pell Grant funds available to all driven students who qualify and have a desire to pursue a college degree, no matter what their age or experiences may be, we will see a growing mismatch between the demand for skills and the supply of skills. If this qualified workforce has to pay back higher loans, or take out riskier private loans, due to lower Pell Grants and our institutions inability to offer them institutional aid to meet their need, this will continue to add to the burden of fees and rising costs being imposed on our citizens from every other facet in their lives.
The challenges for higher education financial aid are great, but there are also opportunities to rise to these challenges and make progress that is best for all parties involved. I do believe that we need to adjust the Pell Grant, but I am confident that it can be done in a way without cutting funding to the program. Currently, proposed changes to the Pell grant include eliminating funding for summer semesters. Instead of eliminating funding for summer semesters, I think we should find a way to encourage students to complete summer classes to potentially graduate earlier. This could also reduce the number of guaranteed Pell Grant semesters from the current 18, to a lower number, and allow for more potential savings and allocate finite funds more efficiently to those that need the Pell Grant. Another proposed adjustment the Pell grant program is warning students who are not meeting the academic benchmarks that their benefits could be cut off if they do not adjust their scholarly performance.
While this analysis includes a small sample of the issues and proposals surrounding the Pell Grant, all proposals have some merit. Going forward, I believe it is best for our higher education system to look at both goals of access and efficiency of completion, instead of looking at it as we can only have one or the other. With both of these objectives serving as a guide for the best interest of our students, access and success, we can look to make significant strides forward that will prove to be a strong investment for our nation and our future qualified workforce.
References
Blumenstyk, G. (2011). Private Colleges Increased Aid as Economy Sank, Tuition-Discounting Survey Finds, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on October 1, 2011 from http://chronicle.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/article/Private-Colleges-Increased-Aid/127599/.
Field, K. (2011). Pell Grants Face Cuts, Possible Overhaul, The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved on October 2, 2011 from http://chronicle.com.ezproxy.lib.usf.edu/article/Pell-Grants-Face-Cuts/126807/.
U.S. Department of Education. Federal Pell Grant Program. Retrieved on October 1, 2011 from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/fpg/index.html.
Florida's AA Transfer Success Rates = “2+2”
by Rebecca Puig
Introduction
The Florida College System takes its student success rates very seriously and is continually looking for ways in which to improve them. One area of focus has been on the success rate of Florida’s Associate of Arts (AA) transfer students.
In 1971, the Florida College System, in collaboration with the State University System (SUS), established Florida’s “2+2” Statewide Articulation Agreement. The agreement establishes that an AA transfer student who has graduated from one of Florida’s public community colleges, junior colleges, or state colleges with an AA or AS (in predetermined disciplines) degree and is in good standing, is guaranteed admission to one of Florida’s eleven state universities. Although the agreement guarantees acceptance at one of Florida’s universities it may not be the student’s first choice, but the risk of the credits not transferring over to a four-year institution is eliminated. Ensuring that the AA or AS degree will satisfy the 60 credit hour requirement needed for the student to enter the university as a “junior.” (Hughes, Scheuch, & Alexander, 2009)
In 1972, the Florida Board of Governors put into practice Regulation 6.004 entitled, Implementation of Undergraduate, Degree-Seeking Transfer Students, which states “AA graduates will receive priority admission over out-of-state students” (BOG, 1972). The only restrictions that may be imposed on the AA transfer students’ eligibility would be that of curriculum, space or fiscal limitations.
AA Transfer Student Proportion
Examining the 2007-08 data, provided by the Florida Board of Governors, 38 percent of the admissions made during that academic year where to AA transfer students and 37.5 percent of the admissions were to SUS natives (FBOG, 2009). An SUS native is a student that starts out attending a four-year institution and does not transfer in with an AA degree from another institution.
Grade Point Averages
There was little to no difference in student grade point averages between the AA transfer and SUS native students in 2007-08. AA transfer students maintained a “B” average despite their many external responsibilities and distractions (e.g. working full-time, families) competing for their time and attention. The SUS native maintained a “B+” average during the same timeframe and typically attended school full-time. AA transfer students’ GPAs have remained steady at 2.96 since 2001-02, according the Division of Community Colleges’. Demonstrating that even though they are attending part-time and working full-time, the AA transfers students are able to maintain their grades.
Student Semester Hours
Interestingly enough, when you compare the average number of Student Semester Hours (SSH) an AA transfer student takes to that of an SUS native student; the AA transfer student will take on average “1.5 fewer semester hours per term” or “one less course per year.” This seems to be a reasonable difference, since most community college students’ work part- or full-time and take longer to reach graduation (OPPAGA, April, 2005).
Academic Advising
Through the years, research has revealed that the greatest frustration on the part of an AA transfer student was the lack of guidance and counseling when enrolling for courses. This often resulted in the student taking hours in excess of those required for their program. Today thanks to the many advances in technology, students and counselors can utilize online platforms like the AA Transfer Evaluation, available on the FACTS.org website, to ensure they are on track with their program requirements. Counselors for the SUS native students utilize a tracking or advising-mapping systems to help them in facilitating their students’ progress through the program, in conjunction with FACTS.
When you compare the number of courses taken by the SUS natives to that of the AA transfer students you will see that the AA transfer student has usually taken at least one additional course, a foreign language. This is due in part to the fact that there are no language requirements in high school or for most AA degrees. This is one criterion that the SUS should take into consideration adding to the “2+2” System. Overall though, indications are strong that the “2+2” system is working for Florida’s community college students and has eased the transition between the institutions.
Graduation Rates
Graduation rates are also a strong indicator of success for this program. However, when you try to compare the rates between SUS natives to AA transfers, it would be like comparing apples and oranges. Data indicates that 70 percent of all AA transfer students graduate versus 80 percent of the SUS natives. Most AA transfer students are working full-time and attending school part-time, which results in a longer time to confer their degrees than that of the SUS natives and skews the data comparison.
Today, Tomorrow and the Future Based on statistics alone you could say that the “2+2” System has helped improve the success rate of AA transfer students in our State. It is impressive, how a program started in 1971 still plays a pivotal role in student success at both the community college and university level today.
In a recent news release prepared by the State University System (SUS, August, 2011) , The College Board, a nationally known not-for-profit membership organization, ranked the University of Central Florida (UCF) as the “largest transfer Institution in the State University System of Florida.” The article goes on to say that “Florida’s 2+2 Pathways to Success Program” earns a national nod (SUS, 2011).
UCF has received over $1M in funding from the State Legislature for its existing program, Direct Connect to UCF. UCF has partnered with six community colleges from across the state: Brevard Community College, College of Central Florida, Daytona State College, Lake-Sumter Community College, Seminole State College of Florida and Valencia College; these partnerships have undoubtedly led to UCF’s AA transfer success; a win-win, for the students and the institution.
There is no doubt that the basic tenet of the “2+2” Pathways to Success Program has been just that, a success!
6.004 Admission of Undergraduate, Degree-Seeking Transfer Students. (July 6, 1972) Florida Board of Governors. Retrieved October 1, 2011 from http://www.flbog.org/documents_regulations/regulations/6%20004%20Admission%20of%20Undergraduate%20Degree%20Seeking%20Transfer%20Students%20(mv%20edits).pdf
Hughes, J., Scheuch, K., & Alexander, J., (Ed. 2009-01). (April, 2009). Statewide Articulation Agreement. Retrieved September 28, 2011 from http://www.fldoe.org/cc/osas/evaluations/pdf/Zoom2009-01.pdf
Layman, K. (August, 2011) Florida’s “2+2 Pathways to Success Program” earns national nod. State University System of Florida. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.flbog.edu/pressroom/news.php?id=408
OPPAGA (Report No. 05-30). (April, 2005) Excess Hours at Community Colleges Warrant Attention by Department of Education and the Legislature. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0530rpt.pdf
State University System (SUS) of Florida Facts and Figures. (2007-2008) SUS Fact Book. Retrieved September 28, 2011 from http://www.flbog.org/resources/factbooks/factbooks.php
Introduction
The Florida College System takes its student success rates very seriously and is continually looking for ways in which to improve them. One area of focus has been on the success rate of Florida’s Associate of Arts (AA) transfer students.
In 1971, the Florida College System, in collaboration with the State University System (SUS), established Florida’s “2+2” Statewide Articulation Agreement. The agreement establishes that an AA transfer student who has graduated from one of Florida’s public community colleges, junior colleges, or state colleges with an AA or AS (in predetermined disciplines) degree and is in good standing, is guaranteed admission to one of Florida’s eleven state universities. Although the agreement guarantees acceptance at one of Florida’s universities it may not be the student’s first choice, but the risk of the credits not transferring over to a four-year institution is eliminated. Ensuring that the AA or AS degree will satisfy the 60 credit hour requirement needed for the student to enter the university as a “junior.” (Hughes, Scheuch, & Alexander, 2009)
In 1972, the Florida Board of Governors put into practice Regulation 6.004 entitled, Implementation of Undergraduate, Degree-Seeking Transfer Students, which states “AA graduates will receive priority admission over out-of-state students” (BOG, 1972). The only restrictions that may be imposed on the AA transfer students’ eligibility would be that of curriculum, space or fiscal limitations.
AA Transfer Student Proportion
Examining the 2007-08 data, provided by the Florida Board of Governors, 38 percent of the admissions made during that academic year where to AA transfer students and 37.5 percent of the admissions were to SUS natives (FBOG, 2009). An SUS native is a student that starts out attending a four-year institution and does not transfer in with an AA degree from another institution.
Grade Point Averages
There was little to no difference in student grade point averages between the AA transfer and SUS native students in 2007-08. AA transfer students maintained a “B” average despite their many external responsibilities and distractions (e.g. working full-time, families) competing for their time and attention. The SUS native maintained a “B+” average during the same timeframe and typically attended school full-time. AA transfer students’ GPAs have remained steady at 2.96 since 2001-02, according the Division of Community Colleges’. Demonstrating that even though they are attending part-time and working full-time, the AA transfers students are able to maintain their grades.
Student Semester Hours
Interestingly enough, when you compare the average number of Student Semester Hours (SSH) an AA transfer student takes to that of an SUS native student; the AA transfer student will take on average “1.5 fewer semester hours per term” or “one less course per year.” This seems to be a reasonable difference, since most community college students’ work part- or full-time and take longer to reach graduation (OPPAGA, April, 2005).
Academic Advising
Through the years, research has revealed that the greatest frustration on the part of an AA transfer student was the lack of guidance and counseling when enrolling for courses. This often resulted in the student taking hours in excess of those required for their program. Today thanks to the many advances in technology, students and counselors can utilize online platforms like the AA Transfer Evaluation, available on the FACTS.org website, to ensure they are on track with their program requirements. Counselors for the SUS native students utilize a tracking or advising-mapping systems to help them in facilitating their students’ progress through the program, in conjunction with FACTS.
When you compare the number of courses taken by the SUS natives to that of the AA transfer students you will see that the AA transfer student has usually taken at least one additional course, a foreign language. This is due in part to the fact that there are no language requirements in high school or for most AA degrees. This is one criterion that the SUS should take into consideration adding to the “2+2” System. Overall though, indications are strong that the “2+2” system is working for Florida’s community college students and has eased the transition between the institutions.
Graduation Rates
Graduation rates are also a strong indicator of success for this program. However, when you try to compare the rates between SUS natives to AA transfers, it would be like comparing apples and oranges. Data indicates that 70 percent of all AA transfer students graduate versus 80 percent of the SUS natives. Most AA transfer students are working full-time and attending school part-time, which results in a longer time to confer their degrees than that of the SUS natives and skews the data comparison.
Today, Tomorrow and the Future Based on statistics alone you could say that the “2+2” System has helped improve the success rate of AA transfer students in our State. It is impressive, how a program started in 1971 still plays a pivotal role in student success at both the community college and university level today.
In a recent news release prepared by the State University System (SUS, August, 2011) , The College Board, a nationally known not-for-profit membership organization, ranked the University of Central Florida (UCF) as the “largest transfer Institution in the State University System of Florida.” The article goes on to say that “Florida’s 2+2 Pathways to Success Program” earns a national nod (SUS, 2011).
UCF has received over $1M in funding from the State Legislature for its existing program, Direct Connect to UCF. UCF has partnered with six community colleges from across the state: Brevard Community College, College of Central Florida, Daytona State College, Lake-Sumter Community College, Seminole State College of Florida and Valencia College; these partnerships have undoubtedly led to UCF’s AA transfer success; a win-win, for the students and the institution.
There is no doubt that the basic tenet of the “2+2” Pathways to Success Program has been just that, a success!
References
Hughes, J., Scheuch, K., & Alexander, J., (Ed. 2009-01). (April, 2009). Statewide Articulation Agreement. Retrieved September 28, 2011 from http://www.fldoe.org/cc/osas/evaluations/pdf/Zoom2009-01.pdf
Layman, K. (August, 2011) Florida’s “2+2 Pathways to Success Program” earns national nod. State University System of Florida. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.flbog.edu/pressroom/news.php?id=408
OPPAGA (Report No. 05-30). (April, 2005) Excess Hours at Community Colleges Warrant Attention by Department of Education and the Legislature. Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/0530rpt.pdf
State University System (SUS) of Florida Facts and Figures. (2007-2008) SUS Fact Book. Retrieved September 28, 2011 from http://www.flbog.org/resources/factbooks/factbooks.php
Ebracing Technology: A Primer for Student Affairs
Recent class discussions have revolved around the critical issues and challenges facing higher education. The arrival of digital natives, along with their enhanced and increased use of the internet and technology has transformed the way institutions of higher learning have integrated educational technology into their curriculum. Current literature has focused on the changing role of faculty in instructional design, but little has been written about how Student Affairs staff can utilize this same technology to enhance community and engage students in their learning process.
Campus life is about learning how to learn and digital learners learn differently. The advent of the web has transformed learning from a one-way model where information is transmitted and absorbed by the learning to one that is “discovery based (John Brown 2002). In his work “Growing up Digital”, John Brown describes a shift in cognitive learning to also include social learning “where understandings are socially constructed and shared” and learning becomes a “part of action and knowledge creation.” He further states that we know more than we know by our active participation in learning communities.
Rovai (2002) defines community as “a feeling of belonging, acceptance and trust.” In addition, Brown (2001) in her work with adult learners lists three stages of community as including “making friends, conferment and camaraderie.” In her study of Adult Learners and on-line learning, she revealed that there was a greater degree of engagement with each increasing level of community. Lear, et. al. (2010) echoes these finding. Their research showed that there was a relationship between students’ level of interaction and their sense of belonging/building trust (community) and between their participation/interaction and their grades. They concluded that there was a correlation between a sense of community and the student engagement and that engaged students are good learners.
In 1984, Alexander Astin proposed a developmental theory for college students that focused on the concept of involvement, which he later renamed engagement. According to Pasccarella & Terenzini (2005) and Kuh (2009), engagement encompasses various factors including investment in the academic experience of college, interactions with faculty and staff, involvement in co-curricular activities and interaction with peers. Kuh (2009) emphasized that student success is dependent on both academic engagement and “out-of-class engagements in educationally relevant co-curricular activities.”
Chickering and Gamson (1987) identified seven principles of good practices for learning in Higher Education and later gave examples of how technology can be used to implement these principles. Pascarella & Terenzini (2005) and Kuh (2009) concluded that “academic and co-curricular engagement are powerful forces both in students’ psychosocial development and in their academic success.” They noted an improvement in grades and persistence to graduation across a variety of populations (minority students, low-income, first generation and underprepared students) with increased engagement.
There is a wide range of social media technologies available to facilitate social interaction on-line and thus enhance student engagement. Social media is a “collection of websites, services and practices that support collaboration, community building, participation and sharing.” (Junco, Heibergert & Loken 2011). There has been a growing interest by institutions to integrate various social media tools (blogs, microblogs, video-sharing sites and social networking) into the learning process. Gunawardena et. al (2009) defines social networking as the “practice of expanding knowledge by making connection with individuals of similar interests.” It includes such things as Facebook and Twitter, and is a considered a major category of social media.
The Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) study (2007) demonstrated there was a positive correlation between social networking and student engagement and “social network users participated more in and spent more time in campus organizations.” Junco, Heibergert & Loken (2011) took this study one step further and discovered that micoblogging (in the form of Twittering) also enhanced student engagement.
Traditionally, the division of Student Affairs was responsible for the psychosocial development of students and learning that occurred outside of the classroom. They were slow to embrace technology because they feared that it would result in students “cocooning,” that is, using the internet to isolate themselves from the campus community. Early studies by Jan Lloyd et. al. (2009) demonstrated that those students who used technology for entertainment and who also used Facebook and instant messaging at a higher rate, were less academically involved, had poor peer relations and were more likely to become addicted to the internet. However, these studies were done in 2005, one year after the roll out of Facebook.
During that time, using Facebook required a computer. Smart phones have changed all that. Now, students can log in to report where they are and check Facebook while standing on line. For students, this can include “checking in” where they are on campus and could be used to induce instant gatherings at particular locations on campus. The combination of social media and smart phones, changes the entire picture, especially for Student Affairs.
Successful institutions are those with an increased in retention rates. Students who are engaged are more likely to persist and graduate. Students are more motivated and perceive a higher educational value when they connect with other students and the instructors and these connections are vital to the building a sense of community. Student Affairs has always been instrumental in building community. To be successful in the 21st century learning environment they must face the reality that social media and social networking are tools of today’s learners and design programs and activities that embraces technology that impact student engagement.
REFERENCES
Astin A. (1984) Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel 25, 297–308.
Brown, John (February 2002) Growing up Digital: How the Web changes the Work, Education and the Ways People Learn.” USDL Journal, vol 16: no. 2. February 2002. http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html
Brown, R. E. (September 2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). 18-35. http://sloanc.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/pdf/v5n2_brown.pdf
Chickering A.W. & Ehrmann S.C. (1996) Implementing the seven principles: technology as a lever. AAHE Bulletin October, 3–6.
Chickering A.W. & Gamson Z.F. (1987) Seven principles forgood practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin March, 3–7.
Gunawardena, C.N., M.B. Hermans, D. Sanchez, C. Richmond, M. Bohley, and R. Tuttle. 2009. A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International 46, no. 1: 3_16.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) (2007) College freshmen and online social networking sites.
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/PDFs/pubs/briefs/brief-091107-SocialNetworking.pdf
Junco,R.,Heiberger, G., & Loken, E., (2010) “The Effect of Twitter on College Student Engagement and Grades” The Journal of Computer Assisted Learning; v27 n2 p119-132 Apr 2011.
http://blog.reyjunco.com/pdf/JuncoHeibergerLokenTwitterEngagementGrades.pdf
Kuh G.D. (2009) What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development 50, 683–706.
Lear, Janet., Ansorge, Charles & Steckelberg, “Interactivity/Community A Process Model for the Online Education Environment”, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Vol.6, No.1, March 2010. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no1/lear_0310.htm
Lloyd, Jan, Dean, Laura & Cooper, Diane, (2009) “Students’ Technology Use and Its Effects on Peer Relationships, Academic Involvement, and Healthy Lifestyles” NASPA Journal, Vol. 46, no. 4. 2009.
Pascarella E.T. & Terenzini P.T. (2005) How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). “Development of an instrument to measure classroom community.” Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197-211.
Campus life is about learning how to learn and digital learners learn differently. The advent of the web has transformed learning from a one-way model where information is transmitted and absorbed by the learning to one that is “discovery based (John Brown 2002). In his work “Growing up Digital”, John Brown describes a shift in cognitive learning to also include social learning “where understandings are socially constructed and shared” and learning becomes a “part of action and knowledge creation.” He further states that we know more than we know by our active participation in learning communities.
Rovai (2002) defines community as “a feeling of belonging, acceptance and trust.” In addition, Brown (2001) in her work with adult learners lists three stages of community as including “making friends, conferment and camaraderie.” In her study of Adult Learners and on-line learning, she revealed that there was a greater degree of engagement with each increasing level of community. Lear, et. al. (2010) echoes these finding. Their research showed that there was a relationship between students’ level of interaction and their sense of belonging/building trust (community) and between their participation/interaction and their grades. They concluded that there was a correlation between a sense of community and the student engagement and that engaged students are good learners.
In 1984, Alexander Astin proposed a developmental theory for college students that focused on the concept of involvement, which he later renamed engagement. According to Pasccarella & Terenzini (2005) and Kuh (2009), engagement encompasses various factors including investment in the academic experience of college, interactions with faculty and staff, involvement in co-curricular activities and interaction with peers. Kuh (2009) emphasized that student success is dependent on both academic engagement and “out-of-class engagements in educationally relevant co-curricular activities.”
Chickering and Gamson (1987) identified seven principles of good practices for learning in Higher Education and later gave examples of how technology can be used to implement these principles. Pascarella & Terenzini (2005) and Kuh (2009) concluded that “academic and co-curricular engagement are powerful forces both in students’ psychosocial development and in their academic success.” They noted an improvement in grades and persistence to graduation across a variety of populations (minority students, low-income, first generation and underprepared students) with increased engagement.
There is a wide range of social media technologies available to facilitate social interaction on-line and thus enhance student engagement. Social media is a “collection of websites, services and practices that support collaboration, community building, participation and sharing.” (Junco, Heibergert & Loken 2011). There has been a growing interest by institutions to integrate various social media tools (blogs, microblogs, video-sharing sites and social networking) into the learning process. Gunawardena et. al (2009) defines social networking as the “practice of expanding knowledge by making connection with individuals of similar interests.” It includes such things as Facebook and Twitter, and is a considered a major category of social media.
The Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) study (2007) demonstrated there was a positive correlation between social networking and student engagement and “social network users participated more in and spent more time in campus organizations.” Junco, Heibergert & Loken (2011) took this study one step further and discovered that micoblogging (in the form of Twittering) also enhanced student engagement.
Traditionally, the division of Student Affairs was responsible for the psychosocial development of students and learning that occurred outside of the classroom. They were slow to embrace technology because they feared that it would result in students “cocooning,” that is, using the internet to isolate themselves from the campus community. Early studies by Jan Lloyd et. al. (2009) demonstrated that those students who used technology for entertainment and who also used Facebook and instant messaging at a higher rate, were less academically involved, had poor peer relations and were more likely to become addicted to the internet. However, these studies were done in 2005, one year after the roll out of Facebook.
During that time, using Facebook required a computer. Smart phones have changed all that. Now, students can log in to report where they are and check Facebook while standing on line. For students, this can include “checking in” where they are on campus and could be used to induce instant gatherings at particular locations on campus. The combination of social media and smart phones, changes the entire picture, especially for Student Affairs.
Successful institutions are those with an increased in retention rates. Students who are engaged are more likely to persist and graduate. Students are more motivated and perceive a higher educational value when they connect with other students and the instructors and these connections are vital to the building a sense of community. Student Affairs has always been instrumental in building community. To be successful in the 21st century learning environment they must face the reality that social media and social networking are tools of today’s learners and design programs and activities that embraces technology that impact student engagement.
REFERENCES
Astin A. (1984) Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel 25, 297–308.
Brown, John (February 2002) Growing up Digital: How the Web changes the Work, Education and the Ways People Learn.” USDL Journal, vol 16: no. 2. February 2002. http://www.usdla.org/html/journal/FEB02_Issue/article01.html
Brown, R. E. (September 2001). The process of community-building in distance learning classes. Journal for Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2). 18-35. http://sloanc.org/publications/jaln/v5n2/pdf/v5n2_brown.pdf
Chickering A.W. & Ehrmann S.C. (1996) Implementing the seven principles: technology as a lever. AAHE Bulletin October, 3–6.
Chickering A.W. & Gamson Z.F. (1987) Seven principles forgood practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin March, 3–7.
Gunawardena, C.N., M.B. Hermans, D. Sanchez, C. Richmond, M. Bohley, and R. Tuttle. 2009. A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools. Educational Media International 46, no. 1: 3_16.
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) (2007) College freshmen and online social networking sites.
http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/PDFs/pubs/briefs/brief-091107-SocialNetworking.pdf
Junco,R.,Heiberger, G., & Loken, E., (2010) “The Effect of Twitter on College Student Engagement and Grades” The Journal of Computer Assisted Learning; v27 n2 p119-132 Apr 2011.
http://blog.reyjunco.com/pdf/JuncoHeibergerLokenTwitterEngagementGrades.pdf
Kuh G.D. (2009) What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development 50, 683–706.
Lear, Janet., Ansorge, Charles & Steckelberg, “Interactivity/Community A Process Model for the Online Education Environment”, MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching. Vol.6, No.1, March 2010. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol6no1/lear_0310.htm
Lloyd, Jan, Dean, Laura & Cooper, Diane, (2009) “Students’ Technology Use and Its Effects on Peer Relationships, Academic Involvement, and Healthy Lifestyles” NASPA Journal, Vol. 46, no. 4. 2009.
Pascarella E.T. & Terenzini P.T. (2005) How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). “Development of an instrument to measure classroom community.” Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197-211.
Monday, October 3, 2011
The Invisible Learner: Student Services and Adult Learners on Campus
Adult student learners are increasingly dominating and changing the landscape of higher education today. In 2007 the U.S. Department of Labor reported that approximately 44 percent of adult learners over the age of 24 can be found on American college campuses. However, these students are invisible and their needs often go ignored in terms of the services and programs that are available on campus that are meant to cater to traditional aged college students. Due to their large presence on campus it is important for student affairs professionals and college administrators to understand who these students are in order to better serve them and help enhance their collegiate experience. This paper will first define the adult learner in terms of both demographic and personal characteristics. Several key motivating factors are discussed next in terms of what is driving adult learners to pursue college degrees. And finally, several recommendations are identified in reference to support services that need to be given special attention to by student affairs administrators and professionals so as to help adult learners succeed.
A profile of the adult learner according to Johnstone and Rivera (1965) and as cited by Merriam and Brockett (1997) that still holds up today defines the adult learner as typically under 40 years of age, is known to have completed a high school diploma, works full time in a white collar job making an above average income, is married with children, lives in an urban area, and is found all over the country, although primarily on the West coast, and finally both men and women have been found to participate equally in pursuing a formal education.
In addition to demographic characteristics of the adult learner it is also important to recognize that adult students are much more complex than the typical first time in college student and this is due largely to maturity and having more life experience. Adult learners for instance are more motivated to learn and most often their motivation is intrinsically driven such as to improve quality of life and increase their self-confidence. Grades and higher salary rates are more often than not irrelevant in the pursuit of a higher education degree (Slotnick et al., 1993). Adult students know what they want and have specific goals and learning objectives in mind in continuing their education. These students also know who they are as a result of their life experiences and the many hats they have worn in their lifetimes. Adult learners are self-directed and independent and prefer to learn at their own pace and have control over what they learn and how they learn it.
Being aware of what is motivating adults to return to college is key in providing appropriate and timely services to help these students achieve their academic goals. For instance, Kasworm et al., 2010 found that more and more adults are putting off marriage and having children and are engaged in making several career changes over their lifetimes. Longer life expectancy is influencing individuals to forego retirement until their later years. Retirement timelines are also being stretched as a result of the need to work due to a poor economy and the need to make more money. Furthermore, adults are finding that it is getting more challenging to meet workforce trends that are highly influenced by technology and global business affairs (Kasworm 2003). And finally, there are those adults who return to college just purely out of leisure with the intent to learn for pleasure and personal growth.
Based on the demographics, characteristics, and principle factors motivating adults to enroll in higher education, the following are some of the services that student affairs practitioners and campus administrators need to focus on in order to best serve this student population on campus. First the office of admissions can make the enrollment process easier and smoother for these students by asking crucial questions in initial interviews with adult students as to the student’s degree objectives. By doing so, the admissions counselor can determine if the student will be better served by pursuing a degree or enrolling in a certificate program. Other important programs should focus on the initial entry of the student such as orientation services that can identify the key resources on campus geared toward meeting the needs of adult students. Financial aid, counseling services, academic advising, study skills workshops, IT and distance learning, and veterans services should also be structured to include programming relevant to adult learners. Campus wide, post secondary institutions based on their academic make-up and the presence of adult learners on campus should implement extended operating hours, consider establishing a central unit on campus serving the needs of adults students and create support groups (Fairchild, 2003; Rice, 2003; Slotnick et al., 1993).
Research has shown that adults are more motivated in pursuing a degree. This may imply that they are more likely to persist and achieve this goal but due to their complex personal lives persistence can be difficult and often times achieving a degree can take much longer than planned (O’Conor, 2009; Capps, 2010). Adults make up a large portion of the student population on college campuses today, ignoring this population is not in the best interest of higher education institutions. The continued lifelong pursuit of adults to engage in education has given rise to for profit private education institutions who are welcoming these students with open arms, an invitation that is not being overlooked by adult learners. It is to the benefit of institutions of higher education to provide a campus environment that is welcoming and supportive of adult learners so as to retain their presence on campus. Furthermore, adult students further enrich a collegial campus environment because of the experiences they bring with them and their diverse make-up. Adult learners are represented by women, military veterans, and international students, just to name a few. The diverse and complex personal lives of adults demand that colleges and universities address their needs differently. Adult students are limited in terms of time as they are balancing family, work, and school. In order to help adult students persist and be successful in college, institutions of higher education must implement programs that keep these students motivated and that provide them with the necessary academic tools to attain their educational objectives.
References
Capps, R. (2010). A grounded theory of adult student persistence (Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Utah, 2010). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3412552).
Fairchild, E.E. (2003). Multiple roles of adult learners. New Directions for Student
Services, 102, 11-16.
Kasworm, C.E. (2003). Setting the stage: Adults in higher education. New Directions forStudent Services, 102, 3-10.
Merriam, S.B., & Brockett, R.G. (1997). The profession and practice of adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
O’Conor, M.A. (2009). Degree attainment among adult learners. (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago, 2009). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 3366140).
Rice, P.J. (2003). Adult student services office. New Directions for Student Services, 102, 53-57.
Slotnick, H.B., Pelton, M.H., Fuller, M.L., & Tabor, L. (1993). Adult learners on campus.Washington: Falmer Press.
Smith, C.M., & Taylor, K. (2010). Adult Development. In C. E. Kasworm, A.D. Rose, &
J.M. Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education.
California: Sage.
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (2007). Adult
learners in higher education: Barriers to success and strategies to improve results.
Retrieved from http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Adult%20Learners%20in%20Higher%20Education%20%20Barriers%20to%20Success%20and%20Strategies
%20to%20Improve%20Results.pdf
A profile of the adult learner according to Johnstone and Rivera (1965) and as cited by Merriam and Brockett (1997) that still holds up today defines the adult learner as typically under 40 years of age, is known to have completed a high school diploma, works full time in a white collar job making an above average income, is married with children, lives in an urban area, and is found all over the country, although primarily on the West coast, and finally both men and women have been found to participate equally in pursuing a formal education.
In addition to demographic characteristics of the adult learner it is also important to recognize that adult students are much more complex than the typical first time in college student and this is due largely to maturity and having more life experience. Adult learners for instance are more motivated to learn and most often their motivation is intrinsically driven such as to improve quality of life and increase their self-confidence. Grades and higher salary rates are more often than not irrelevant in the pursuit of a higher education degree (Slotnick et al., 1993). Adult students know what they want and have specific goals and learning objectives in mind in continuing their education. These students also know who they are as a result of their life experiences and the many hats they have worn in their lifetimes. Adult learners are self-directed and independent and prefer to learn at their own pace and have control over what they learn and how they learn it.
Being aware of what is motivating adults to return to college is key in providing appropriate and timely services to help these students achieve their academic goals. For instance, Kasworm et al., 2010 found that more and more adults are putting off marriage and having children and are engaged in making several career changes over their lifetimes. Longer life expectancy is influencing individuals to forego retirement until their later years. Retirement timelines are also being stretched as a result of the need to work due to a poor economy and the need to make more money. Furthermore, adults are finding that it is getting more challenging to meet workforce trends that are highly influenced by technology and global business affairs (Kasworm 2003). And finally, there are those adults who return to college just purely out of leisure with the intent to learn for pleasure and personal growth.
Based on the demographics, characteristics, and principle factors motivating adults to enroll in higher education, the following are some of the services that student affairs practitioners and campus administrators need to focus on in order to best serve this student population on campus. First the office of admissions can make the enrollment process easier and smoother for these students by asking crucial questions in initial interviews with adult students as to the student’s degree objectives. By doing so, the admissions counselor can determine if the student will be better served by pursuing a degree or enrolling in a certificate program. Other important programs should focus on the initial entry of the student such as orientation services that can identify the key resources on campus geared toward meeting the needs of adult students. Financial aid, counseling services, academic advising, study skills workshops, IT and distance learning, and veterans services should also be structured to include programming relevant to adult learners. Campus wide, post secondary institutions based on their academic make-up and the presence of adult learners on campus should implement extended operating hours, consider establishing a central unit on campus serving the needs of adults students and create support groups (Fairchild, 2003; Rice, 2003; Slotnick et al., 1993).
Research has shown that adults are more motivated in pursuing a degree. This may imply that they are more likely to persist and achieve this goal but due to their complex personal lives persistence can be difficult and often times achieving a degree can take much longer than planned (O’Conor, 2009; Capps, 2010). Adults make up a large portion of the student population on college campuses today, ignoring this population is not in the best interest of higher education institutions. The continued lifelong pursuit of adults to engage in education has given rise to for profit private education institutions who are welcoming these students with open arms, an invitation that is not being overlooked by adult learners. It is to the benefit of institutions of higher education to provide a campus environment that is welcoming and supportive of adult learners so as to retain their presence on campus. Furthermore, adult students further enrich a collegial campus environment because of the experiences they bring with them and their diverse make-up. Adult learners are represented by women, military veterans, and international students, just to name a few. The diverse and complex personal lives of adults demand that colleges and universities address their needs differently. Adult students are limited in terms of time as they are balancing family, work, and school. In order to help adult students persist and be successful in college, institutions of higher education must implement programs that keep these students motivated and that provide them with the necessary academic tools to attain their educational objectives.
References
Capps, R. (2010). A grounded theory of adult student persistence (Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Utah, 2010). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation
and Theses database. (UMI No. 3412552).
Fairchild, E.E. (2003). Multiple roles of adult learners. New Directions for Student
Services, 102, 11-16.
Kasworm, C.E. (2003). Setting the stage: Adults in higher education. New Directions forStudent Services, 102, 3-10.
Merriam, S.B., & Brockett, R.G. (1997). The profession and practice of adult education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
O’Conor, M.A. (2009). Degree attainment among adult learners. (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago, 2009). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertation and Theses database. (UMI No. 3366140).
Rice, P.J. (2003). Adult student services office. New Directions for Student Services, 102, 53-57.
Slotnick, H.B., Pelton, M.H., Fuller, M.L., & Tabor, L. (1993). Adult learners on campus.Washington: Falmer Press.
Smith, C.M., & Taylor, K. (2010). Adult Development. In C. E. Kasworm, A.D. Rose, &
J.M. Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of adult and continuing education.
California: Sage.
U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. (2007). Adult
learners in higher education: Barriers to success and strategies to improve results.
Retrieved from http://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/Adult%20Learners%20in%20Higher%20Education%20%20Barriers%20to%20Success%20and%20Strategies
%20to%20Improve%20Results.pdf
Student Success in Online Courses
by: Hidelisa C. Manibusan
With the continued development of online classes and curriculum in higher education today, questions have arisen as to what makes a student successful in an online format versus a “traditional classroom”. Even at the University of South Florida, students are required to take at least one online course when they enter as freshmen. Although our institution continues to grow with its traditional students, we also still have an increasing number of non-traditional students. The question then is whether both of these different types of students will be successful, or does one culture of digital natives have an advantage over our digital immigrants.
Through personal experience and discussion in courses I have taken in the College of Education, many of these non-traditional students have a different motivation than those who are considered traditional. In fact, I do not know of any traditional students in my courses. Many of these students currently work in a higher education system full time. Also, many of these students are married or have a family as well. If we can take a look at what characteristics or motivational factors have improved the rate of success, how do we develop these same characteristics across the board to increase the success rate?
Various new studies have arisen to determine what characteristics or learning styles may be most advantageous versus a face-to-face format. While benefits of online courses include flexibility, convenience, and cost-effective educational education opportunities anywhere and any time (Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005), success may not necessarily be tied to convenience. Difficulties for students may then arise dependent on their computer literacy, navigations skills, electronic connection capabilities, and concerns of isolation. (Howell et al, 2003). At the same route, a higher rate of students taking online courses tend to drop out of class compared to those in conventional courses (Frankola, 2001; Oblender, 2002).
Although it may be easy to jump to conclusions and assume that our digital immigrants may not be as successful in an online course, or that age may play a factor, it seems that this may not be factual. In a study by Wojciechowski and Palmer, characteristics of students, which had the greatest significance in success, included attendance at an orientation session, the student’s grade point average, previous course withdrawals, ASSET reading scores, previous online courses, and age. However despite these findings, the average online student in this study was 25 years old, suggesting an increase in age for the students in general (Wojciechowski & Palmer, 2005). This shift in age may also suggest a shift in the culture of our “traditional student”.
Learning styles, despite the categorization between the traditional and non-traditional student doesn’t seem to have as much of an impact either. According to Aragon, Johnson, & Shaik, in comparisons between online students and students in face-to-face environments, although learning styles were deemed to have significant differences, they were not significant when the success factors were controlled. This included comparison in environmental factors of maintaining student motivation, promoting task engagement strategies, and instilling cognitive controls (Aragon, Johnson, & Shaik, 2003).
The importance of understanding the student population and demographics may be essential to faculty developing “good” courses online as well as increasing student success in these courses. However, these characteristics or demographics should not be the sole determinant as to whom should take an online course, nor is it up to the school to limit one’s choice of education. What should be considered is the faculty member’s ability to take the knowledge obtain from the demographics, student interests and motivation, and learning styles to develop a course in which these variables are considered and integrated to increase collaboration, a “sense of community”, and high level of motivation. Instead then of focusing on whether or not students will be successful in an online format, more work may need to be redirected towards faculty development for increased recruitment and retention in these courses. This should be collaborative between the students, faculty, administration, and community, despite geographical distance.
Works Cited
Aragon, S. J. (2002). The influence of learning style preferences on student success in online versus face-to-face environments. American Journal of Distance Education , 16 (4), 227-243.
Frankola, K. (2001). Why online learners drop out. Workforce , 80 (10), 53-59.
Holcomb, L. K. (2004). Student traits and attributes contributing to success in online courses: Evaluation of university online courses. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning , 2 (3).
Howell, S. W. (2003). Thirty-two trends affecting distance education: An informed foundation for strategic planning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 6 (3).
Oblender, T. (2002). A hybrid course model: One solution to the high onine drop-out rate. Learning and Leading with Technology , 29 (6).
Wojciechowski, A. P. (2005). Individual student characteristics: Can any be predictors of success in online classes? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration , 8 (2).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)