20th Intl. Conference on The First-Year Experience
The Effect of First-Year Seminar Regarding Students’ Perception on
Sophomore Return Rates
Wonseok Suh
[email protected]
Smeal College of Business
Pennsylvania State University
Abstract
Student retention has been one of the most important and challenging issues for the
successful academic community. With a purpose to investigate the effect of the first-year
seminar, the researcher seeks to find out the most influential factors among the students’
perception on students’ retention. The perception of the students who attended the first-year
seminar were collected and analyzed to see the effect of first year seminar on sophomore
return rates.
Background
Many first year students are overwhelmed with the transition from high school to college life
being overly stressed from the dramatic changes through the first year of college. Many
researches found that the freshman year has been the time when the greatest attrition occurs
(Noel et at., 1985; Tinto, 1987; Consortium for Students Retention Data Exchange, 1999).
That is, the first academic year in college is the very critical period which can affect
students’ decision to continue the study. Generally dropping out is considered a negative
experience for both students and higher education institutions (Pantages & Creedon, 1978).
Especially, the costs from student attrition includes “…loss of future tuition and fees, loss of
faculty lines, and increased recruitment costs” (Habley, 2004).
In this study, the students’ first year experience with their first-year seminar were measured
via self-reported perception survey and analyzed to find out the meaningful results to
decrease the student retention.
Problem Statement
Many researches have consistently indicated that college students who have difficulty in
continuing study usually left school within the first academic year (Lau, 2003; Wetzel,
O’Toole and Peterson, 1999). Considering the previous research on the first year seminar
and student retention, many researches investigated and showed the students who
1
20th Intl. Conference on The First-Year Experience
participated in the first year seminar performed better in academic results comparing with
the student who didn’t participate in the first year seminar. It is no exaggeration to say that
the role of the First-Year Seminar has great importance as emerging and necessary tools for
universities to decrease students’ drop out rates. However, the research on finding out which
factors are related to and affected the first year students’ successful transition to college life
was relatively less conducted. There are needs for more study which explore the experience
and the students’ perception which can be potential effect on the student retention.
The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the students’ perception based on their
experience with the first-year seminar and identifies the factors which affect the retention of
the students who participated in the first year seminar. The researcher expects this research
findings can explain and provide very meaningful and practical result to decrease the college
drop out rates and improve the first year students’ experience.
Review of Literature
Many institutions adopted the first-year seminar program as a method of decreasing the drop
out rate due to the great attrition during the freshman year (Noel et al., 1985). The University
101 freshman seminar course established in 1972 at the University of Sough Carolina has is
the well-known model for freshman year program designed to assist new students in making
a successful transition to college life introducing key student services and building a student
support group to promote student retention. One of the meaningful finding from the
University 101 study over a 12 year period is that students with a lower predicted potential
for survival did survive at a higher rate than students who didn’t take the courses. In
addition, high risk students participating in the University 101 program had higher retention
rates than students who were not high risk of pursuing degree (Gardner, 1986). Many
researches asserted students’ first year experience have both short-term and long-term effect
on their academic and non-academic life. Also, as a best research design, longitudinal study
approach has been suggested to accurately assess the effects of the retention programs
(Pascarella, Terenzini, & Wolfe, 1986; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980).
From the several studies to seek the factors influencing student retention, Lau (2003)
suggested three categories which affect student in retention which are institutional
administration factors (funding, academic support, manage multicultural and diversity and
physical facilities), faculty factors (technology, cooperative learning, collaborative learning
and academic advising), and student factors (student accountability, motivation, peer
learning and tutoring, small group training). Especially, one of the most important factors
2
20th Intl. Conference on The First-Year Experience
affecting on the sophomore return rates is establishing strong student and faculty
relationships for personal assistance (Pantages & Creedon, 1978; Tinto, 1982, 1985).
In this study, six students’ perceptions variables including social integration, social growth,
classroom climate, academic experience, faculty and peer feedback, and collaborative
learning experience were considered as potential factors to see the correlation between first
year seminar and student retention. These factors in this study are selected based on the
previous research findings (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1976; Zuben, 2004; Lenning, Beal &
Sauer, 1980; Garripa, 2004) because these types of perception variables are strongly related
to the student and the faculty.
Research Question
This study investigates student’s perception based on their first year experience with the
students participating in first-year seminar to find out the influential factors on the student
retention rates with following research question.
Which factor of perception difference including social integration, social growth,
classroom climate, faculty and peer feedback, academic experiences, and collaborative
learning experience in the first year experience affects the sophomore return rates of the
business first year students the most?
Methodology
This student retention study employed a logistic regression analysis in order to identify
which perception factor(s) affect the sophomore return rates the most. The cohorts from the
academic year of 2003 and 2004 who participated in the first year seminar were analyzed
based on their perception toward first-year experience and their retention rate with the preenrollment characteristics.
Research variables
This study examined several perception variables that reflect students’ first year experience
participating in the first-year seminar course. These students’ perception, which is selfreported via survey, refers to the perceptions of academic and social integration and expected
to explain possible differential student retention rate. Students’ perception is measured by
self-reported survey and six perceptions variables used in this study are defined as followed
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2000; NCES, 2002; Haughton, 2004). First, social integration refers to
the peer associations and involvement in extracurricular activities within this construct
3
20th Intl. Conference on The First-Year Experience
(Pascarella, Terenzini, & Wolfe, 1986). Second, social growth pertained to the ability to have
and maintain social relationships and acceptance of diversity (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991)
and included measures of understanding the views of others, managing social situations, and
locating support systems as needed. Third, classroom climate refers to the quality of peer
and faculty interaction and included equal treatment and the encouragement to share and
challenge ideas. Fourth, academic experiences means the level of academic involvement
(Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991) and included measures of intellectual stimulation, level of
satisfaction with the quality of instruction, and the congruence between experiences,
assignments, and presentations. Fifth, faculty and peer feedback refers to the quality,
frequency, and comprehensiveness of feedback received from course instructors and peers
regarding school work. Sixth, collaborative learning experience pertains to the experience of
working with other students, which includes sharing and discussing ideas, clarifying
concepts, and evaluating competing arguments.
In this study, student retention variable as a dependent variable refers to the academic
progress with continuing the study without leaving the program during a subsequent year
and following completion of the course.
Procedure of Data Selection
For each 2003 and 2004 academic year, a perception survey includes the demographic and
academic variables such as gender, ethnicity, the major status, parent’s education level, and
pre- and post-test perception data toward the first-year experience. Data collection was taken
at the beginning and the end of each semester. Relatively, the retention data were collected at
the beginning of second academic year based on their registration status to continue the
study.
According to the numerous studies (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1976; Tinto, 1982, 1985; von
Zuben, 2004; Lenning et al.; Garripa, 2004), the six perception variables which include
social integration, social growth, classroom climate, faculty and peer feedback, academic
experiences, faculty and peer feedback and collaborative learning experience were selected
for this study. These six variables are related to the social and academic integration, and
establishing strong student and faculty relationships which were considered as the mot
important factors which affect on sophomore return rates.
Results
As a pre-characteristic analysis, the researcher compared the perception of drop-out students
with the perceptions of non drop-out students during the following sophomore year. From
4
20th Intl. Conference on The First-Year Experience
the data analysis result, drop out students had lower perception in terms of social integration,
academic experience, faculty & peer feedback and collaborative learning experience
compared to the students who continued their study without leaving the program.
Retention Figures
For the retention data analysis, 590 students from the Fall 2003 freshmen and 604 students
from the Fall 2004 freshmen in the Smeal College of Business at the Pennsylvania State
University were collected and analyzed through logistic regression. Freshmen students who
were enrolled in the Smeal College First-Year Seminar persisted to the sophomore year at a
rate of 93.90% for 2003 cohort group and 96.36% for 2004 cohort group. Table 2 gives the
details on freshman retention by gender, ethnicity and major comparing with the 2002
cohort, 2003 cohort and 2004 cohort. One Particularly impressive figure was the freshman
retention of female African-American students, which was a 100 percent.
Table 1 Retention Comparison by Freshman Cohorts
2002 Cohort
2003 Cohort
2004 Cohort
Female African American
96.00%
100.00%
100.00%
Male Hispanic American
92.30%
91.70%
85.70%
Male White American
95.20%
94.90%
96.00%
Male International
81.50%
100.00%
100.00%
All International
87.20%
100.00%
94.10%
All Students
95.70%
94.70%
95.60%
Logistic Regression Models
As a continuation of the pre-characteristic analysis and a purpose to find out the influential
perceptions factors which affect on the student’s decision to continue the study without
leaving the program during a subsequent year, logistic regression analysis with six
perception variables as predictor on student retention was conducted with the 2003 cohort
and 2004 cohort. In details, 590 out of 759 cases from the 2003 cohort and 604 out of 762
cases from the 2004 cohort were included in logistic regression analysis excluding missing
cases. The result of logistic regression analysis are shown on the Table 3(2003 cohort) and
Table 4 (2004 cohort).
5
20th Intl. Conference on The First-Year Experience
From the result, classroom climate and academic experience for 2003 cohort and
collaborative learning experience for 2004 cohort were shown as relatively high effective
factors though it was not significant.
Table 2 Logistic Regression Results for 2003 Cohort
B
S.E.
Wald
df
Sig.
Exp(B)
Social integration
.127
.196
.420
1
.517
1.135
Social growth
-.301
.280
1.153
1
.283
.740
Classroom climate
-.355
.297
1.425
1
.233
.701
Academic experiences
.324
.264
1.502
1
.220
1.383
Faculty and peer feedback
-.191
.174
1.213
1
.271
.826
Collaborative learning
experience
-.118
.286
.170
1
.680
.889
Constant
5.635
1.689
11.131
1
.001
280.076
Table 3 Logistic Regression Results for 2004 Cohort
B
S.E.
Wald
df
Sig.
Exp(B)
Social integration
.069
.222
.097
1
.756
1.071
Social growth
.234
.293
.635
1
.426
1.263
Classroom climate
-.056
.305
.03
1
.855
.946
Academic experiences
.167
.291
.327
1
.567
1.181
Faculty and peer feedback
.010
.212
.2
1
.962
1.010
Collaborative learning
experience
.329
.284
1.336
1
.248
1.389
Constant
-.413
1.638
.063
1
.801
.662
Discussion
This study focused on finding out the student’s perception factors which affect on the student
retention because the researcher, instead of just showing the positive values of taking the
first year seminar, wanted to find out which factors are effective and influential on student’s
decision to continue the study. The logistic regression analysis indicated that the first year
student’s perception with classroom climate, academic experience and collaborative learning
experience are meaningful and influential factors on student retention. This result explains as
the students have good quality of peer and faculty interaction and the experience of working
with other students, the possibility of leaving the program can be decreased. That is, these
6
20th Intl. Conference on The First-Year Experience
three perception variables should be considered as important factors in order to improve the
course quality, provide better first-year experience and also to retain students to graduation
in the long run.
With these findings, the researcher emphasizes the necessity of deep understanding and
investigation on first year seminar conducting various evaluation approaches. In addition, the
evaluation of first year experience which is strongly connected to the successful transition to
new school life and potential for graduation should be measured longitudinally and analyzed
from the multiple perspectives from not only academic performance but also students’
successful experiences with the first year seminar.
Limitation
The result of the study is based on the past two years of student cohort. This might be a short
period of time to assess and understand the first-year student’s experience. So, this study
needs to be continued as a longitudinal study to answer the questions at hand. Also, the
experience of students taking the First-Year Seminar can be influenced by other factors such
as their relationships with new friends and various kinds of college activity participation. In
addition, further assessment of the orientation course format is required to be developed in
order to accurately measure the short-term and long-term effect of the first-year seminar.
References
Beal, P.E., & Noel, L. (1980). What Works in Student Retention. The American College
Testing Program and the National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems.
Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (1999). Executive summary 1998-1999
CSRDE report: The retention and graduation rates in 69 colleges and universities.
Norman, OK: Center for Institutional Data Exchange and Analysis, University of
Oklahoma.
Gardner, J.N. (1986, Summer). The freshman year experience. College and University,
61(4); 261-274.
Garripa, S. P. (2004). Factors associated with student retention among college haspanic
freshmen attending border institution. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M
University.
Habley, W. (2004). What works in student retention? Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
7
20th Intl. Conference on The First-Year Experience
Haughton, N. A. (2004). The interactional effects of pre-college characteristics and
participation in a freshman learning community on student outcomes: A structural
equation model analysis. Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University,
University Park.
Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education, 124(1), 126136.
Lenning, O.T., Beal, P.E., & Sauer, K. (1980). Retention and attrition: Evidence for action
and research. Boulder, CO: National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems.
Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (1989). Connecting students to institutions: Keys to retention and
success.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2002). Descriptive summary of 1995-96
beginning postsecondary students: Six years later. Statistical Analysis Report.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. Retrieved February 8,
2003, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003151.pdf.
Noel, L, Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (1985). Increasing student retention: Effective program and
practices for reducing the dripout rate.. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pantages, T.J., & Creedon, C.F. (1978). Studies of college attrition: 1950-1975. Review of
Educational Research, 48(1), 49-101
Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights
from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pascarella, E., Terenzini, P., & Wolfe, L. (1986). Orientation to college and freshman year
persistence / withdrawal decisions. Journal of Higher Education, 57, 155 - 175.
Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T., (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary
dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 6075.
Porter, S. R., and R. L. Swing. 2006. Understanding how first-year seminars affect
persistence. Research in Higher Education 47 (1): 89–109.
Stampen, J.O., and Cabrera, A.F. (1986). Exploring the effects of student aid on attrition,
Journal of Student Financial Aid 16:28-40
Tinto, V. (1982). Dropouts from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125
Tinto, V. (1985). Dropping out and other forms of withdrawal from college, In L. Noel, R.
Levitz, & D. Saluri (Eds.), Increasing student retention: Effective programs and
practices for reducing the dropout rate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
8
20th Intl. Conference on The First-Year Experience
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
U. S. Census Bureau (2000). State and county quick facts. Retrieved January 2, 3003 from
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_71065.htm.
Wetzel, J. N., O’Toole, D., Perterson, S. (1999). Factors affecting student retention
probabilities: A case study. Journal of Economics and Finance, 23(1), 45-55.
Zuben, F. C. (2004). Evaluating the factors related to first-year college student retention
from the perspective of a university-based counseling center. Unpublished
9