Specialized Versus General First-Year
Seminars and Changes in Academic SelfEfficacy
Stephanie Applewhite Secondary Educa4on & Educa4onal Leadership Ins4tu4onal Overview •  Regional State University Fall 2013 •  More than 11,000 (86%) Lumberjacks are Undergraduates. •  Approximately Half of students self iden4fy as First Genera4on Students. Lumberjacks by Ethnicity Background of the Problem •  A steady decline in college comple4on (Klein, Rice & Levy, 2012). •  Decline is likely due to issues with transi4oning into college, especially for underrepresented popula4ons (Tinto, 1993). •  Also because first-­‐year students are increasingly diverse demographically (Harper & Quaye, 2009). •  Despite awareness of transi4on needs, and a\empts to create supports through first-­‐year seminars, comple4on is s4ll a concern. Problem Statement •  As college and university leaders seek to create effec4ve first-­‐year programs, the problem is that ins4tu4ons of higher educa4on do not understand to what degree the place of academic self-­‐efficacy resides within student transi4ons, especially within a first-­‐year seminar. •  Furthermore, leaders of ins4tu4ons of higher educa4on do not understand to what degree students’ experiences with specialized sec4ons with or without high-­‐impact prac4ces in first-­‐ year seminars impact academic self-­‐efficacy. High Impact Prac4ces •  Kuh (2008) iden4fied ten high-­‐impact prac4ces that increased students’ persistence, grade point averages, and career readiness. – 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
First-­‐year seminars and experiences Common intellectual experiences Learning communi4es Wri4ng-­‐intensive courses Collabora4ve assignments and projects Undergraduate research Diversity/global learning Service learning, community-­‐based learning Internships Capstone courses and projects Purpose of the Study •  The purpose of this research study was to determine what, if any, sta4s4cally significant change in academic self-­‐efficacy occurs when students par4cipate in first-­‐year seminar delivered by trained faculty who incorporate high impact prac4ces into course curriculum in specialized sec4ons and generally populated sec4ons versus a seminar delivered by faculty who did not receive the high impact prac4ces training in special and generally populated sec4ons. Research Ques4on •  What is, if any, the mean difference in academic self-­‐efficacy between students who were instructed in a one-­‐semester, first-­‐year seminar by faculty who had completed high-­‐impact prac4ces training in specialized sec4ons and students who were instructed by faculty that had not received the high-­‐impact prac4ces training in general sec4ons? Theore4cal Framework •  Researchers know that academic self-­‐
efficacy is important, and that high-­‐
impact prac4ces are beneficial, and they also know that first-­‐year seminars can be effec4ve, and most importantly, leaders in higher educa4on need to become more knowledgeable about how to create the most highly probable success cultures for students who have been underserved and are seeking college pathways. Theore4cal Framework Cont. In order to fully understand the context of this research effort, it is important to grasp the interconnec4ons of four factors: 1. Transi'on process (Carter, 2006; Padge\ & Keup, 2009; Tinto, 1993). 2. First-­‐year seminars (Keup, 2005-­‐2006, Strayhorn, 2009; Tinto, 2012) 3. High-­‐impact prac'ces (Kuh, 2008) 4. Academic self-­‐efficacy (Bandura, 1997, Pajares, 2002; Schunk, 1995). Research Ques4on •  Is there a sta4s4cally relevant mean difference in academic self-­‐efficacy between students who were instructed in a one-­‐semester, first-­‐year seminar by faculty who had completed high-­‐impact prac4ces training in specialized sec4ons and students who were instructed by faculty that had not received the high-­‐
impact prac4ces training in general sec4ons? Social Cogni4ve Theory and FYE •  When researching theories that have connec4ons to the transi4on process, first-­‐year experiences and self-­‐efficacy, the social cogni4ve theory rises above other student development theories. •  Social cogni4ve theory has relevance for inves4ga4ng how self-­‐efficacy and learning are connected (Tinto, 2012, p. 27). What is Academic Self-­‐Efficacy •  “Perceived [academic] self-­‐efficacy is defined as people’s [students’] beliefs about their [academic] capabili4es to produce designated levels of [academic] performance that exercise influence over events that affect their lives. [Academic] self-­‐efficacy beliefs determine how people [students] feel, think, mo4vate themselves and behave in [academic seongs] (Bandura, 1994, p. 71). High Impact Prac4ces & the Na4onal Survey of Student Engagement •  Looks at Three Ac4ons: 1. What students do? 2. What ins4tu4ons do? 3. How effec4vely the ins4tu4on channels student energy toward the right ac4vi4es? Popula4on and Methodology Group
N-­‐T1
N-­‐T2
Gen Jacks
23
21
GNHIP
100
68
GHIP
93
50
SNHIP
105
60
SHIP
104
55
5 Groups 1 = GenJacks 2 = GNHIP: Generally populated NOT HIP 3 = GHIP: Generally Populated HIP 4 = SNHIP: Specially Populated NOT HIP 5 = SHIP: Specially Populated HIP Matched 5 sec4ons for each group – Not Students Survey Tool – CASES: College Academic Self-­‐Efficacy Scale o  33 Items o  5 Point Likert Scale o  Calculates an overall Mean o  Designed by Owen and Froman (1988) o  Adding 5 demographic ques4ons to pretest o  Adding two open-­‐ended ques4ons to pos\est Results Specialized Versus General First-­‐Year Seminars and Changes in Academic Self-­‐Efficacy 4 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 Gen Jacks GNHIP GHIP T1 Mean SNHIP T2 Mean SHIP Change Effect Change Effect 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Gen Jacks GNHIP GHIP Change Effect SNHIP SHIP Ques4ons and Ideas for Future Research GenJacks Class of 2018 References • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Bandura, A. (1986). Social founda,ons of thought and ac,on: A social cogni,ve theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren4ce Hall. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-­‐efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (pp. 71-­‐81). New York: Academic Press. Retrieved from h\p://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/BanEncy.html Bandura, A. (1997). Self-­‐efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman. Barefoot, B. O. (1992). Helping first-­‐year college students climb the academic ladder: Report of a na,onal survey of freshman seminar programming in American higher educa,on (Doctoral disserta4on). Retrieved from ProQuest. (9226630). Carter, D. F. (2006). Key issues in the persistence of underrepresented minority students. New Direc,ons for Ins,tu,onal Research, 130, 33-­‐46. Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (1985). Research methods in educa,on (2nd ed.). Dover, NH: Croom Helm. Crisp, G.(2010). The impact of mentoring on the success of community college students. Review of Higher Educa,on 34(4), 39-­‐60. Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Student engagement in higher educa,on: Theore,cal perspec,ves and prac,cal approaches for diverse popula,ons. New York: Routledge. Jemelske, E. (2009). Measuring the impact of a university first-­‐year experience program on student GPA and reten4on. Higher Educa,on, 57, 373-­‐ 391. doi: 10.1007/
s10734-­‐008-­‐9161-­‐1 Keup, J. R. (2005-­‐2006). The impact of curricular interven4ons on intended second year re-­‐enrollment. Journal of College Student Reten,on: Research, Theory & Prac,ce, 7, 1-­‐2. Kinzie, J. (2012). Fostering student learning and success: the value of high-­‐impact prac4ces. UWGB, Indiana University center for Postsecondary Research: Jan. 20. Klein, J. I., Rice, C., & Levy, J. (2012). U.S. Educa,on reform and na,onal security (Independent Task Force Report No. 68). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Ins4tu4on Press. Kuh, G. (2008). High-­‐impact educa,onal prac,ces: What they are, who has access to them, and why they maYer. Washington, D.C.: Associa4on of American Colleges and Universi4es. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualita,ve and quan,ta,ve approaches (7th ed.). New York: Pearson. Owen, S. & Froman, R.D. (1988). Development of a college academic self-­‐efficacy scale. Paper presented at the Annual Mee,ng of the Na,onal council on Measurement in Educa,on . New Orleans, LA, April 6-­‐8. Padge\, R. D., & Keup, J. R. (2011). 2009 Na,onal survey of first-­‐year seminars: Ongoing efforts to support students in transi,on. (Research Reports on College Transi4ons No. 20). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, na4onal Resource Center for The First-­‐Year Experience and Students in Transi4on. Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cogni,ve theory and self-­‐efficacy. h\p://www.emory.edu/educa4on/mfp/eff.html Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-­‐efficacy and educa4on and instruc4on. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-­‐efficacy, adapta,on, and adjustment: Theory, research and applica,on (pp. 281-­‐303). New York: Plenum Press. Strayhorn, T. L. (2009). An examina4on of the impact of first-­‐year seminars on correlates of college student reten4on. Journal of the first-­‐year experience & students in transi,on, 21(1), 9-­‐27. Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student aYri,on (2nd ed). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (2012). Comple,ng college: Rethinking ins,tu,onal ac,on. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.