Are Non-First-Generation
Students Successful?
A case of Japanese College Students
Yoshiko Kato
(Kansai University of International Studies, Japan)
Keiko Nakashima Yoshihara
(Hyogo University, Japan)
1
Contents
Part I: Our situation in Japan:
Past and Now
Part II: Our students:
Identifying the Problems
Part III: What Data Shows: Analyses,
Interpretation and Suggestions
2
Purpose of our presentation
• To share our data and information to contribute
building of an international understanding of FYE
• To specify the needs of Japanese students and
FYE programs to give feedback to our institutions
3
Goals of this presentation
・ To compare with the American FYE concepts and practices,
• To identify our students needs,
• To identify the role of FYE in Japanese universities; and
• To make suggestions to improve our
FYE programs
4
Part I
Our situation in Japan:
Past and Now
5
Shared problems: US and Japan
• Decrease of 18 year-old population
• Student readiness for college
US: 1970’s – 1980’s
Japan: 2000’s – Now
“Year 2006” problem and
“Year 2007” problem
6
History of FYE in Japan
•
•
•
•
•
Introductory courses
Remedial education (late 1980’s)
Study skills (late 1990’s)
Learning assistance (around 2000)
Social skills and transition (around 2000)
 FYE was started to ease difficulty in teaching
students with lower readiness for college
7
FYE in Japan
Fig. 1 FYE programs adoption ratio (faculty level)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
(Yamada, R. and Oki, K., et al., 2005)
8
Different issues: US and Japan
Japanese colleges have:
•
•
•
•
•
Fewer first-generation students
Very high retention rates (97-98% or more)
Underdeveloped culture of assessment
Ranks of high schools and universities
Graduates with unstable job situation (shift from
lifelong employment system)
9
Fig.2: First generation students
1954-2029
〔 Prepared by Inoue (2006) 〕
Åì
100
!st St age
Sec ond St age
Third St age
90
First Genration Students
80
70
60
50
Enrollement rates
40
30
20
10
0
îN
19541957 1960 1963 1966 1969 1972 1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 19931996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029
10
Fig. 3
11
High-school and college ranks
•
Fig.4 Correspondence of high school rank and college rank
Selective
examination
Rank A
Rank A
Rank B
1990 -
Rank B
Rank C
Entrance
examination
Rank C
high school
rank
college rank
Rank A
Rank A
Rank B
Rank B
-1990
Rank C
Rank C
Recommendation
form
high school
rank
college
rank
12
Fig.5 Change in the job market
• 新規採用の手控えデータあるか？
• 大学ランクごとの就職状況
Job-to-applicants ratio
Not-in-employment ratio
(Kosugi, R., 2006)
13
New components added to FYE…
• Career Education
• Long-term planning (life-long, career-wise)
• More social skill (= generic skills) education
14
Our FYE:
• Was started to bridge the gap between the
knowledge required in high-school and college
• Was also welcomed to help the students
connected academically to the second and third
year of college
• Is expected to get the students started to prepare
for job-hunting
15
Part I conclusion: our reality
• Difficulty in teaching is not due to the increase of
first generation students
• Since culture of evaluation and assessment is not
developed, GPA is not a good scale of student
academic skills or performance
• Instead, colleges are evaluated by graduates’
professional opportunities (their jobs and
salaries), which influences on recruitment of
incoming students
16
Assumptions
• Colleges’ primary goal is to get the students
jobs as they graduate (not to make them
part-timers or unemployed)
• Students’ skills to access the job market
matter to the colleges (rather than getting
them academic skills)
17
Student Reality
• Students are expected to be successful in
study and job-hunting
• Study and job-hunting are perceived
relatively independent from each other
(academic success doesn’t automatically
offer them good jobs)
18
Part II
Our students:
Identifying the problems
19
Goals of data analysis
• Finding relationship between social class and
college (from the point of cultural reproduction)
• Finding relationship between high-school GPA
and entering selective colleges (from the point of
tracking and social mobility)
20
Issues and strategies
• Comparing first and non-first generation
students
• Following overall educational changes:
policies and demography
• Specifying the Japanese educational
context and challenge
21
Survey on student transition
• Started in 2003 (and on-going)
• Once a year for 4 years of college (first-year
students take twice
• Able to track a student from first-year to
fourth year
• Asks students’ satisfaction in study and skills,
personal and interpersonal environment
• Implemented in 4 universities and colleges in
different ranks
22
Survey on Student Transition
• Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B)
• Program Development for Continuous
Undergraduate Education Connected with FirstYear Education and Its Quality Assurance:
Comparative Approach and Analysis
• Head Investigator: Atsushi Hamana
• 2004-2006
23
Student samples
• The case: College A: C rank, private and local
• 2 departments, 4 majors
• Class of 2007(graduated) and 2008
• Data of their first three years of college
• 624 students answered
• 228 samples for the 1st panel
• 396 samples for the 2nd panel
• 273 samples answered all the 4 surveys
24
Profile of the students
• Male: 356(68.2) Female: 156(31.6)
• First generation: 217(42.4)
• Non-first generation: 293(57.2)
• High-school Grades (Self declared)
High: 156(33.5) Middle:131(28.2) Low: 178(38.3)
• High-school Rank
High (upper-middle): 144(28.9) Middle:172(34.5)
Low: 118(23.7) DK: 64(12.9)
Asked only in the first survey (April, first year)
25
First-Year Courses
• Career Planning:
1st semester, 4 credit hours, required
• Study Skills:
1st semester, 2 credit hours, required
• Basic Seminar:
2nd semester, 1 credit hour, required
• Presentation:
2nd semester, 1 credit hour, elective
26
Adjustment to college
Fig. 6
First
Year
(S)
First
Year
(F)
×
×
×
×
13
4
6
×
×
×
○
12
5
8
×
×
○
×
4
5
7
×
×
○
○
16
11
16
×
○
×
×
13
8
5
×
○
×
○
18
6
6
×
○
○
×
10
7
6
×
○
○
○
23
69
20
○
×
×
×
4
2
3
○
×
×
○
3
2
3
○
×
○
×
3
2
3
○
×
○
○
9
11
7
○
○
×
×
11
5
9
○
○
×
○
15
6
13
○
○
○
×
8
6
15
○
○
○
○
45
64
76
2nd
Year
3rd
Year
InterPersonal
Academics
Personal
Life
• Students stay
successful
once they get
adjusted
• Our FYE
works in
general
27
Number of As and Bs
by Generation
• Students who answered “I received As and Bs for
75% of the courses or more last semester”
Fig. 7
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
First Gen
38
(22.1%)
16
(10.7%)
23
(17.2%)
Non-first
Gen
55
(23.5%)
28
(14.7%)
31
(20.5)
28
Number of As and Bs
by High-school Grades
• Students who answered “I received As and Bs for 75%
of the courses or more last semester”
Fig. 8
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
Low
Grades
26
(19.7%)
5
(4.6%)
6
(6.4%)
High
Grades
35
(27.3%)
25
(22.3%)
25
(28.1%)
29
number of As and Bs
by Four Groups
• Students who answered “I received As and Bs for 75%
of the courses or more last semester”
Fig. 9
1st Year
2nd Year
3rd Year
FGxLowGPA
10(17.5%)
2(4.3%)
2(4.9%)
FGxHighGPA
11(21.6%)
10(20.8%)
10(23.8%)
NFGxLowGPA
16(22.2%)
3(5.3%)
4(8.5%)
NFGxHighGPA
23(30.3%)
15(24.2%)
15(32.6%)
30
High school grade or
Generation?
• Academic performance is influenced more by
high-school grade than by generation
• In the first year the difference is hardly seen (even
by high-school grade)
 There is no generational effect on success in
college?
31
Frequency of job-hunting actions by 4
groups (Second-year)
NFG groups make a head start in job-hunting
[FG*Low]< [FG*High] < [NFG*Low] < [NFG*High]
Fig. 10
FG ｘ High grade
Av. 0.96
Min.0, Max.3
n=27
FG ｘ Low grade
Av. 0.93
Min.0, Max.4
n=29
NFG ｘ High grade
Av. 2.17
Min.0, Max.7
n=28
NFG ｘ Low grade
Av. 1.17
Min.0, Max.8
n=35
32
Frequency of job-hunting actions by 4
groups (Third-year)
[FG*Low]< [FG*High] < [NFG*Low]<[NFG*High]
NFG students are more proactive in job hunting
Fig. 11
FG ｘ High grade
Av. 4.65
Min.0, Max.15
NFG ｘ High grade
Av. 5.52
n=65
FG ｘ Low grade
Av. 4.44
Min.0, Max.10
Min.0, Max.16
n=89
NFG ｘ Low grade
Av. 4.86
n=73
Min.0, Max.12
n=99
33
4 groups look at career
differently
• FG says:
“Ability to cope with real world is more required
than credentials”
“I hope to be employer than employee”
• NFG x High grade says:
“I feel comfortable with life-long employment”
“I would like to contribute to the society through my
job”
“Good pay motivates me better than interest”
34
Academic skills and social skills ：
generic skills as learning outcomes
List of generic skills
Study Skills
Fig.12
Personal Attributes
Writing
Itemizing
Summarizing
Basic/fundamental skills
Computer literacy
Searching on the Internet
Presentation
People-related skills Speaking
Human relations
How to search books outcampus
Conceptual/thinkingReviewing books critically
skills
Differentiating facts and ideas
Personal skills and
attributes
Scheduling with a notebook
Behaving according to schedule
Submitting assignment in time
Confidence
Making effort
Leadership
Analysing of the self
Calm judgement
Compliance on campus
35
High school grade is dominant
over Generation
• 4 groups x Generic Skills (Study skills)
(1st Panel + 2nd Panel)
Fig. 13
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
ãLèqìùåvó 4.00
3.00
FG*Low
FG*High
NFG*Low
NGH*High
2.00
1.00
0.00
April
June
Oct
Second Third
36
[NFG ＊ Low] is poorest in Personal
attributes
• 4 groups x Generic Skills (Personal attributes)
Åi1st Panel + 2nd Panel)
Fig. 14
7.00
6.00
5.00
FG*Low
FG*High
NFG*Low
NFG*High
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
April
June
Oct
Second Third
37
Part II: Conclusion
• Good grades in high-school is the key to student
academic success
• Having college educated parents (a parent) doesn’t help
non-first generation students make good grades in
college, when they worked poorly in high-school
• NFG students know how to access a job market
• FG students (especially academically successful students)
have difficulty starting job-hunting
38
Part III
Analysis, Interpretation
and
Suggestions
39
Are non-first generation students
successful?
• YES: When starting job hunting and making
connections between college experience and the
world of work
• NO: Not necessarily during the first two years of
college, when it comes to good grades
• Why?
40
Findings
• FYE helps students make a good start in the first
semester
• Student who did poorly in high-school have
difficulty in being successful in college
• Academic success doesn’t necessarily get the
students started to look for a job
• In job hunting the generational influence is more
strongly seen – NFG students know better about
the world of work
41
Interpretation of data
• First Generation and Non-first Generation
students bring to campus different visions of
future
• They use resources differently according to their
own knowledge and experience
 Knowing students’ generations is helpful to teach
and guide them through four years of college
42
Role of FYE
• Helping students make smooth transitions
• Making connections between academics
and world of work, and to peers and
professors from different background
43
Suggestions
• Goals of four years of learning need to
be connected and aligned (academic
and career development)
• Assistance has to be offered based on
research
44
Ideas?
• Do our students sound familiar to
you?
• Suggestions?
45
Bibliography
• Arai, K. (1999), What is a problem “a drop in scholastic ability”?, High sch
ool education(Sept. in 1999), Gakuji-Shuppan, Tokyo, pp.34-44.
• Feiler, B. (1991), Learning to Bow, Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.
• Hamana, A. and Kawashima, T., et al.(2007), Program Development for C
ontinuous Undergraduate Education Connected with First-Year Education
and Its Quality Assurance: Comparative Approach and Analysis, Grant-inAid for Scientific Research (B) .
• Inoue, Y. (2006), First-generation Phenomenon in Student Culture, Childr
en, School and Society, Sekai Shisousha, Tokyo, pp.116-135.
• Kosugi, R.(2006), Labor Market of Youth and Issues of College Educatio
n, Paper for the 3rd Central Council for Education.
• Yamada, R. and Oki, K., et al. (2005), First Year Education in Japanese P
rivate Universities, RIIHE, Tokyo, p.4.
46
Thank you!
[email protected]
[email protected]
47