Benefiting From the First-Year Experience

First-year seminars are a hot topic in recent years, and for good reason. Many researchers show that the seminars—especially when well-designed and implemented—have clearly positive effects on students. Although the research into their effectiveness is relatively new, evidence is available to support the continued development and offering of these courses. “First-year experience” courses or seminars are most often designed to ease students’ transition to college, teach them basic skills necessary for survival, and offer them support and counsel in the opening semester of their college career. Reviewing the studies that were synthesized by Pascarella and Terenzini in their books How College Affects Students (1991, 2005) provides a summary of positive outcomes. The authors found considerable evidence that first-year programs increase persistence from the first to second year of college (Goodman & Pascarella, 2006).

Barefoot (2002) observed that first-year seminars vary greatly in form and function across institutions, and have been around since at least 1972. She also noted that approximately 95 percent of American four-year colleges and universities offer first-year seminars. The seminars are also taking hold at two-year colleges nationwide, although no national numbers are readily available.

The long-term goal of most first-year seminars is increased graduation rates, but persistence from the first year into the second year of college is the outcome most often studied, and most of these studies have occurred in the past 20 years. For example, the University of South Carolina (where John Gardner launched what was likely the first seminar) found that students who took a first-year seminar there between 1973 and 1996 were significantly more likely to persist into their sophomore year than were nonparticipants. With few exceptions, other studies of persistence rates showed that seminar participants were more likely to successfully continue on to a second year of higher education than those students not enrolled in the seminar.

Pacarella and Terenzini’s exhaustive 2005 review also noted that the benefits from first-year seminars are measurable for all groups of students; men and women, minority and majority students, students across most age groups, students from differing majors, and students living both on campus and off benefit from taking a first-year seminar class. The benefits seem to accrue to traditionally admitted students and at-risk students as well, but there were two exceptions in the research; one study noted no apparent advantage for at-risk students, and another found that first-year seminar participation may have no effect on persistence for underachieving or overachieving students, although low-achieving students were more likely to continue into the second year of college. (In this case, “underachieving” means students at the lowest level of college readiness.)

Overall, research shows that students taking a first-year seminar are more likely to graduate than are those students not taking such a course. Those taking an FYE course or seminar may graduate at five to 15 percent higher rates!

There are other positive outcomes for those who participate in first year seminars—effects beyond (but certainly related to) persistence. Among these other positive effects are more frequent and meaningful interaction with faculty members and other students, more active involvement in extra- or co-curricular activities, more positive perceptions of self as learner, and greater satisfaction with the college experience. All of these outcomes also are detailed in the 2005 Pascarella and Terenzini study.

So, does the benefit to students from first-year seminars worth the investment in time, human, and fiscal resources? It’s up to the individual campus to decide, but the preponderance of evidence indicates that there is clear and positive benefit. What is clear is that in most of the research studies exploring these course offerings, the seminars “are a good all-purpose intervention to increase persistence from first to second year” (Goodman and Pascarella, 2006, p. 27). What remains to be established is how the positive effects are achieved. They may, for instance, be the indirect result of enhancement of grades and engagement in the college’s academic and social dimensions.

- Thomas Wortman

Full citations appear at the bottom of this HTML version and in the PDF version.

CTL Resources for Faculty

Teaching in the Disciplines

Redesigning a First-Year Seminar for Student Learning
Jarilyn Gess, Minnesota State University Moorhead

Have you ever found yourself “tired?” I mean tired of teaching the same class, same semester, same hour of the day with the same content, possibly the same student facsimile, just with a different name. Out of such complacency, The Corrick Center for General Education (CCGE) at Minnesota State University Moorhead (MSUM) received a Designed for Learning grant from CTL to assist its faculty in redesigning the core course in its curriculum.

CCGE 109: Introduction to Higher Education, has been, since 1972, the required one-credit course for all new entering freshmen in MSUM’s alternative entry program for students who do not meet regular admission criteria for the university. Enrollment is about 250 students each year. This course traditionally has addressed student issues pertaining to the transition to college.

It had become apparent that this course did not meet the students’ needs. Students reported wanting more relevant issues covered, especially study skills, time management, and community involvement. By redesigning the course to a three-credit course, the new course now fills a foundation area and students can enhance their critical thinking skills, and increase their awareness of multicultural issues. With the help of the Designed for Learning grant, the FYE course has been redefined and shaped into CCGE 109: Multiculturalism and Critical Thinking in Higher Education, a multicultural and critical thinking foundation course.

The redesign format used for this is called a supplemental model because course material is supplemented by additional services outside of the classroom, and normal course activities are supplemented by creating an active-learning environment within a large lecture hall setting. Assessment is multidimensional and includes a pretest-post test quantitative assessment and a qualitative assessment of learning outcomes using a rubric based on students’ written work.

With the CTL grant money, we created a customized textbook, hired eight student peer mentors to assist with the course, and hired an onsite writing tutor. The grant also allowed us to purchase video equipment to use for assessment purposes, to record student presentations, and to supplement the large group lectures. We purchased books and videos about diversity. By redesigning the class, we anticipate a savings of $171.20 per student

Quality has been enhanced by creating a course that provides for consistency across all sections; students tend to have a similar experience as faculty work toward the same course outcomes and goals. This course has always been taught in the small group format, but by using a large group format one day each week, each faculty member is responsible for just two of the 16 weeks. Large group sessions provide the other faculty with time for research, class preparation, and continuing education. What we experienced, however, was that faculty all attended the large group session in support of their colleague and to “hear” material presented to assist in facilitating their small-group sessions The small group format was used for the other class sessions where students could focus on other components of the class building on the student learning outcomes.

The role of the student peer mentor includes, but is not limited to, peer advising, assisting with the service learning component, tracking attendance and course assignments, assisting students to complete a required alcohol awareness course, coordinating the CCGE Student Activities Committee, and videotaping of presentations for assessment. The writing tutor is another benefit to both the student and the faculty member because this course includes many written assignments.

One of the primary goals of redesigning this course was to identify student risk factors that impact persistence, as well as allow for greater student engagement and improve student learning, partially by reinforcing the student-mentor relationship. Attention to campus services and organizations allowed for guest speakers and panel discussions as well as related videos, providing students with a feeling of more significant campus involvement—also enhanced by including an academic service-learning component.

As a foundation course, all of the Dragon Core outcomes were included in the assessment process. Based on a preliminary analysis of the fall 2007 assessments from each section, the course appears to be successful in meeting most of the learning outcomes for the foundation area: multicultural and critical thinking. Yes, we are still “learning,” but we are no longer complacent about the course. And not so tired.

CTL Library Search Page:

http://www.ctl.mnscu.edu/iteach/libsearch.cgi?=1&=*&=3&login=accept