Academic Support and Advising

UNC FYE 108 Learning Outcomes Research

Purpose

The purpose of assessment is to yield information that will ultimately improve the desired learning outcomes of the specific program (Upcraft & Schuh, 2002). For learning communities and first year experience programs specifically, the desired outcomes are to facilitate students’ successful transition to college and to increase their likelihood of persisting to graduation. Other outcomes that are typically reported include: (1) student satisfaction with course/instructor/institution; (2) use of campus services; (3) academic skills or grade point average; (4) number of friendships among seminar classmates; (5) out-of-class interaction with faculty; (6) level of student participation in campus activities; and (7) levels of campus involvement. (National Survey of Freshman Seminar Programs, 1994).

However, this assessment project took a broader approach based on current theoretical models of student withdrawal (Bean, 1980; Tinto, 1975; Pascarella, & Terenzini, 1980). Models of student withdrawal specify what aspects of student experiences influence their likelihood of re-enrolling. For example, Tinto’s (1975) model suggests that attrition is predicted by institutional commitment, goal commitment, academic integration, and social integration. Tinto’s (1975) model also includes pre-existing student characteristics, such as initial goal commitment, family background, and prior educational experiences. However, Pascarella and Terenzini (1983) suggest that “the quality of the student’s interactions with the college environment subsequent to enrollment is a more important factor in persistence than the characteristics the student brings to college” (p. 225). UNCs FYE program can have an impact on student retention by providing an environment that will foster students’ transition to college during their first semester.

Methodology

We designed a survey to capture all of the elements that the theoretical models specified will influence students’ re-enrollment. Each question was worded to specifically direct students to think about how participation in UNCs FYE affected their experiences. The survey is can be viewed in Table 1.

UNCs FYE instructors administered the survey to their FYE classes on the last day that the class met. Surveys were administered from late October to early December in the fall semester of 2007. The total enrollment of students in UNCs FYE courses was 1,196. The number of students who responded was 759. Unusable responses were eliminated, which resulted in 600 usable cases. Therefore, the response rate for number of usable cases was 50%.

These cases were subjected to a factor analysis using FACTOR 7.0 (Lorenzo-Seva, & Ferrando, (2006). All items were eliminated that had factor loadings lower than 0.30 and additional items were eliminated to reduce redundancy. The factor analysis yielded six significant factors. The items that loaded on each factor and the factor loadings for each item are presented in Table 2.

Results

The mean response for each factor are shown in Figure 3 below. According to the figure, the strengths of the program are the close connection that students form with their FYE instructor and the formation of friends with which to socialize.

Figure 1

We also asked students to report on how frequently they interacted with their FYE and other instructors outside of the classroom. We asked how frequently students The scores ranged from 1 to 4 with 1 being no interaction, 2 being 1-2 times, 3 being 3 to 4 times, and 5 being 5 or more times. Overall, the results, shown in Figure 2, indicate that on average, most students do not frequently interact with instructors outside of the classroom. However, students reported interacting slightly more frequently with their FYE instructors, especially to discuss career goals.

Figure 2

We also compared FYE courses that were major specific with FYE courses for undeclared students. We found that students who participated in major focused FYE courses reported higher goal commitment and social integration than students in non-major focused FYE courses.

Figure 3

References

  • Barefoot, B., & Fidler, P. (1994). The 1994 National Survey of Freshman Seminar Programs: Continuing Innovations in the Collegiate Curriculum. The Freshman Year Experience Monograph Series No. 20. South Carolina Univ., Columbia. National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition.
  • Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover. The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-87.
  • Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P.J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 38(1), 88-91.
  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 60-75.
  • Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1983). Predicting voluntary freshman-year persistence/withdrawal behavior in a residential university: A path analytic validation of Tinto's model." Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 215-26.
  • Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125.
  • Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Upcraft, M. L., & Schuh, J. H. (2002). Assessment vs. research: Why we should care about the difference. About Campus, 7(1),16-20.