Presented By: Jason Simon, M.Ed., Principal Investigator Jan Hillman, Ed.D., Co-Investigator

Jan Hillman, Ed.D. and Jason F. Simon, M.Ed.

Assessing Transfer, Veteran and Nontraditional Students at UNT: Results from the 2009 Student Experience SurveyInsights on Academically Successful Transfer Students: Experiences and Expectations of Campus Life and Services2010 National Institute for the Study of Transfer Students

Presented By Jason F. Simon, M.Ed. & Jan Hillman, Ed.D.

Insights on Academically Successful Transfer Students:

Experiences and Expectations of Campus Life and Services

Presented By:Jason Simon, M.Ed., Principal Investigator

Jan Hillman, Ed.D., Co-Investigator




Session Agenda• Introduction• Session goals• Background on the University of North Texas• Research questions• Brief review of the literature• Methodology• Results• Discussion of findings• Discussion of challenges related to assessing these sub-

populations




Session Goals• Share the methodology used to design and the results

collected from the 2009 Student Experience Survey conducted at UNT

• Report how results are informing and impacting practice within the UNT Division of Student Development

• Facilitate discussion on the rewards and pitfalls of assessing transfer student populations




University of North Texas*• Founded in 1890, located in Denton, Texas• Fall 2008/09 Enrollment: 34,698, Undergraduate

27,779, Graduate 6,919• Student Body: 63.7% Caucasian, 12% Hispanic, 12.8%

African American, 5.2% Asian, 0.7% American Indian• Degree Programs: 99 bachelor’s, 104 master’s, 48

doctoral degree programs in 11 colleges• Alumni: 316,201 (190,155 in Metroplex)• 4th largest institution of higher education in Texas

* Fall 2008 Data




University of North Texas*

• Average Fall/Spring in-state undergraduate cost of living on/off campus: $17,026/$18,470

• Average Fall/Spring out-of-state undergraduate cost of living on/off campus: $25,456/$26,900

• Student Admissions Profile: 3,335 New from High School; 4,012 New Transfers, 1,135 Post Bac; 2,022 New Graduate Students

• Average age of students: 22.4 Undergraduate, 32.4 Graduate, 24.4 Total

• Gender of students: 56% Female, 44% Male* Fall 2008 Data




Rationale for Studying Transfer Students

• UNT is the fourth (by %) public institution to admit transfer students in Fall 2008 (US News & World Report 2009)

• 20% of UNT undergraduates are 25 or older• Other large scale surveys done at UNT (CIRP, YFCY, NSSE, GSS)

do not focus specifically or in-depth on transfer• UNT hosts the National Institute for the Study of Transfer

Students and the Association for the Study of Transfer Students




Investigating the Experiences of Transfer Students

• Given UNT’s predominance as a top transfer institution and the growing transfer enrollment, we asked what differences exist between transfer students and native students in the following areas:- Programming interests and usage- Adjustment to college life at UNT- On campus experiences and perceptions- Affinity towards UNT




Prior Research on Transfer Students• 32% of 1995-96 beginning postsecondary students had transferred at

least once by 2001 and 26% of these students starting in 4-year institutions transferred at least once by 2001 (Peter & Cataldi, 2005).

• New information and understanding to assist campuses needed (Jacobs, 2004).

• Transfer students face challenges locating information (Handel, 2007). DeTro (2005) concurs.

• Five dimensions of transition key to transfer success: Learning Resources, Connecting, Familiarity, Negotiating, and Integrating (Flaga, 2006).




• Transfer student definitions should include 4 - 4 (Berkner, He, Mason & Wheeless, 2007).

• Texas community college students difficulties: transferring credit, lost

transfer credit, increased number of transfer students, elimination of duplicate courses, and time to degree (Bush, 2002).

• Transfer student pride & affinity factors include: institutional influences at

the community & baccalaureate institutions; expectations of success at both institutions; expectations of the ease of the transfer process; actual + or - experiences of transferring; and individual factors impacting academic performance & degree completion progress. (Alpern, 2000).

Prior Research on Transfer Students




Prior Research: Nontraditional Transfers

• Nontraditional transfers need to have a deeper understanding of the system they are entering. Also more pedagogically inclined & less willing to be involved outside of the classroom (Cejda, 2004).

• Nontraditional transfer women need academic and social integration to occur through the provision of scholarships, peer meeting, and mentoring, and early orientation to academic resources (Austin, 2007).

• The UNT study was designed to parse out nontraditional transfer students as a subset of transfers given the research findings above.




Methodology: Collaboration • Student affairs staff convened to brainstorm items of interest

• Meeting with the IR&E to brainstorm items of interest

• PASD constructed a 222 item instrument with 4 logic driven sections (note - this session focuses exclusively on transfer):– All student questions (173 items)– Transfer student section (19 items)– Non-traditional student section (9 items)– Veteran student section (21 items)




Methodology: Defining “transfer” • Undergraduates self-reporting one or more of the following traits

prior to enrolling at UNT were considered transfers:– I attended a 2 year institution.– I attended another 4 year institution.– I was awarded credit for military training.– I earned an Associates degree.




Methodology: Defining Non-Trad • Undergraduates self-reporting one or more of the following

traits were considered nontraditional students:– I have dependents at home. – I am married/have a life partner.– I am divorced/separated.– I am widowed.– I am over the age of 25. – I aged out of foster care.– I took more than one year off between high school and

college.– I consider myself a non-traditional student for other reasons.




Methodology: Administration/Analysis • IRB approval granted in Spring ‘09, survey administered to entire

student population (n=34,795)

• 1423 respondents = a 4% response rate (380 responses were needed for 95% confidence at ±5%). For all students: CI = ± 2.54%, CL=95%.

• 547 undergraduates self reported transfer traits.

• Data separated into transfer and traditional students to provide descriptive statistics.

• Mann Whitney U & Chi Square (PASW v17) to identify differences. Data was primarily ordinal/nominal and comparison groups were independent.




Limitations of Study• Captured a relatively high achieving group (average GPA 3.0+).

• Students who self-identified as transfers may not fit the state or institutional definition.

• Nontraditional definition is variable.

• UNT only records age.

• The quantitative questions privilege breadth over depth.




• Limited generalizable to institutions NOT large, public and research oriented with significant transfer student populations located near a major metroplex.

• These data are not representative of the entire spectrum of transfer and non-traditional students given the high GPAs of respondents.

Generalization




Native vs. Transfer Respondents: Demographics• No significant differences in gender or ethnicity. • Native students over-represented in traditional group. • Transfers over-represented among older groups. • Transfers more likely nontraditional & enrolled part-time.• No significant difference in first-generation status.• Transfer students are more likely to report family incomes in lower brackets.

Transfer Students Native Students Chi Square Sig

Age 18-23 61.2% 89.5% 0.000

Age 24+ 38.5% 7.0% 0.000

Nontraditional student 47.3% 13.8% 0.000

Part-time 26.9% 8.5% 0.000

Full-time 73.1% 91.5% 0.000

First generation 25.2% 20.9% 0.150




• 61.8% Female, 38.2% Male

• 9% African American, 1% American Indian, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 10% Hispanic, 72% White and 3% Non-Resident/Other.

• Transfer self reported stats*: 38.8% attended another 4-year, 79.7% attended a 2-year, 2.9% earned credit for military service, and 25% earned an Associates prior to enrolling at UNT .

• Transfers rated themselves lower than native students in intellectual self-confidence, mathematical ability and artistic ability (p<0.05),

• Transfer associated more with the philosophy that higher education is career preparation than native students (p=0.03).

Transfer Respondents

*students could select multiple traits




• 75% of transfers did not know “Transfer Shock” term.

• 71% of transfers reported 3.0+ GPA at last institution.

• 56% of transfers transferred to UNT without any semesters lapsing from time of enrollment at their previous institution. 20% reported a 1-2 semester time lapse.

• 55% of transfers attended 1 degree-granting institution prior to enrolling, 31% report attending 2 institutions and 14% attended 3 or more.

• 60%+ of transfers report being unaware of DSD transfer programs.

Transfer Respondents




• Transfer students were less interested in the following types of events than native students. (Mann-Whitney U)

− Social events (p=0.000), Career skill sessions (p=0.014) and Health & wellness workshops. (p=0.021)

• No significant differences in interest among transfers and native students for the following types of programming* (Mann-Whitney U).– Budgeting & Personal Finance Events– Mentoring Programs– Academic Assistance & Networking Events – Tutoring Sessions – Study Skill Sessions – Leadership Skill Programs – Family programs on weekends or weeknights

Native vs. Transfer Respondents: Interests

* About 30-45% of all undergraduates were interested or very interested in

most of these programs.




• Transfers and natives differed significantly on reasons for non-participation.

• Native students were more likely to indicate they did not want to be involved, were not interested in events & didn’t want to go alone.

• Transfer students were more likely to indicate that they had jobs or family responsibilities that conflicted with campus activities.

Native vs. Transfer Respondents: Participation

Reasons “A Reason” why I don’t participate MWU Sig

Transfer Students Native StudentsI don’t want to be involved 56.7% 66.2% 0.012

I have a job that conflicts with times when campus activities occur. 71.4% 60.3% 0.000

I have family responsibilities that conflict with campus activities. 46.3% 25.9% 0.000

Events offered are not interesting to me. 64.3% 77.7% 0.000

I don’t want to go alone. 57.8% 65.7% 0.015




• Natives more likely to participate in student orgs, UPC events, rec sports & homecoming than transfers. Greater % of transfers indicated NOT using or seeing themselves as part of these activities (Chi Square).

• Transfers are more likely to be unaware of events & programs on campus.

• Transfers less likely to spend significant time web-surfing, social networking, attending events & participating in student orgs.

• Campus Engagement (Mann Whitney U): Natives more likely to answer positively to the following campus connectivity statements:– I know at least one faculty or staff member well. (p=0.000)– Most of my friends are other UNT students. (p=0.000)– I feel welcome on campus. (p=0.029)– I feel connected to student life at UNT. (p=0.000)– I am involved in one or more campus groups or organizations. (p=0.000)– I am able to find a quiet place to study on campus when I want. (p=0.003)

Native vs. Transfer Respondents: Engagement




• Transfers report less trouble adjusting to college life, preparing for classes & selecting a major/career path.

• Transfers indicate more difficulty paying for tuition & academic expenses.

• There were no differences between transfers and native students in making friends, registering for courses, interacting with professors, balancing work, family & school or having money for living expenses.

Native vs. Transfer Respondents: Difficulties

Did you have any problems… I had some or many problems MWU Sig

Transfer Students Native Students

Adjusting to college life? 41.1% 52.1% 0.001

Studying or preparing for classes? 50.6% 62.5% 0.000

Deciding on a major or career path? 41.0% 54.3% 0.000

Paying for tuition or academic expenses? 64.8% 54.3% 0.002




• Transfers more likely reported that “A specific academic program or major at UNT” (p=0.04) & “UNT’s good academic reputation” (p=0.011) greatly influenced their enrollment decision.

• Natives more likely to agree with the following indicators of school pride and affinity (Mann-Whitney U):– I brag about my experiences at UNT to others. (p=0.044)– I believe in wearing green on campus. (p=0.038)– I believe I am forming lifelong friendships at UNT. (p=0.000)

• Transfers more likely to join the UNT Alumni Association at graduation. (p=0.037)

• Natives slightly more likely to “love” their college experience at UNT so far. (p=0.01)

Native vs. Transfer Respondents: Affinity




Open-Ended Comments: Transfers• 212 open-ended comments• Validity > 70%, Inter-rater reliability > 0.40.




Open-Ended Comments: Nontraditional Students• 94 open-ended comments • Validity > 80%, Inter-rater reliability > 0.40.




Discussion: Transfer Students• High achieving group, but still challenges reported with credit transfer,

advising, course scheduling etc. Tinto (1975) in question?

• Awareness of services & programs, particularly those targeted at transfers, is lacking.

• Other responsibilities outside school interfering with participation.

• More difficulty paying for school. Fewer opportunities for financial assistance and credit limits for aid eligibility. Report lost credits, challenges with advising, unawareness of major options & extended time to degree.

• More analysis needed, but appear to fall into two distinct groups (traditional transfers & nontraditional transfers) with very different characteristics.




Discussion of challenges related to assessing these sub-populations

• Transfer 2-4, 4-4, 4-2-4, 4-4-4 patterns etc. complicate data management

• Busy and hard to assess because they are not always on campus• May not see value in participating in survey research• Incentives may not have the same effect




How the Division of Student Development is using these findings• New Student Programs is evolving transfer programming:

– expanding focus on career programs– adding in new networking opportunities– adding an online component to the Transfer Talk-back

programs to accommodate varying schedules/needs of traditional and nontraditional transfers.




How the Division of Student Development is using these findings• Student Activities Center staff reviewed involvement feedback to

design new marketing approaches and strategize programming mix for the future.

• Student Activities Center staff disseminated information to Student Organization leaders on time of week and hour event preferences.

• Data was shared with the Office of Advancement for Student Development to impact grant requests, solicitation letters and case statement development.




How the Division of Student Development is using these findings• The Division is partnering with Provost to glean Transfer

information on issues around entry and transition to the academic community and coursework.

• Office of Parent Programs is using information to direct program offerings, marketing approaches and better understand the needs and expectations of UNT students and their family members. Information on traditional undergraduate involvement also culled for distribution to parents in newsletter.




How UNT is using these findings

• Partnering with Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, additional statistical processes will be applied in the coming months to determine utility of study in predicting success of transfer students at UNT.




Further Research Needed• More studies are needed on transfer and nontraditional students

who are academically underperforming at UNT.

• Graduation rates for respondents should be tracked to ultimately refute or bolster Tinto’s 1975 claim that students need co-curricular involvement and support systems in order to graduate.

Questions and Discussion




To Contact Your Speakers• Dr. Jan Hillman, Executive Director for Planning and

Administration, 940.565.4909, [email protected]• Jason F. Simon, M.Ed., Graduate Research Assistant,

940.369.8054, [email protected]

The Office of Planning and Assessment for Student Development at the University of North Texas can be found at:

http://www.unt.edu/pasd

Note: Dr. Sharon Karackattu-Traum was also involved as a co-Investigator of this study




References• Alpern, B. E. (2000). Factors that influence community college transfer students' satisfaction with

their baccalaureate institutions. Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of Michigan. • Austin, S. A. (2007). A Successful University-Foundation Partnership to Assist Non-Traditional Transfer

Women. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. 8 (3), 275-295. • Berkner, L., He, S., Mason, M., & Wheeless, S. (2007). Persistence and attainment of 2003-04 beginning

postsecondary students After three years : first look. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Education. http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS85058.

• Bush, W. B. (2002). Articulation and transfer: The Texas perspective. Thesis (Ed. D.)--Texas Tech University, 2002.

• Chao, R., & Good, G. (2004). Nontraditional Students' Perspectives on College Education: A Qualitative Study. Journal of College Counseling, 7(1), 5. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ699186) Retrieved September 24, 2009, from ERIC database.

• Cejda, B. (2004). Nontraditional Students as Transfers. In The college transfer student in America. Jacobs, B. (Ed.). American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Washington, D.C.

• DeTro, G. (2005, Fall). Keeping students informed of the transfer process. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9(3), 141-145.

• Duggan, M. H., & Pickering, J. W. (2008). Barriers to Transfer Student Academic Success and Retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. 9 (4), 437- 459.




References Continued• Flaga, C. (2006, January). The process of transition for community college transfer students.

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 30(1), 3-19. • Glass Jr., J. C. & Bunn, C. E.(1998) Length of time required to graduate for community college students

transferring to senior institutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22:3,239-263.

• Handel, S. (2007, October). Transfer students apply to college, too. How come we don't help them? Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(9), 1.

• Handy, T. J. (2001). Building Transfer Partnerships between Private Colleges and Community Colleges: A Unique Approach That Works.

• Jacobs, B. C. (2004). The college transfer student in America: The forgotten student. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

• Strage, A. (2008). Traditional and Non-Traditional College Students' Descriptions of the Ideal Professor and the Ideal Course and Perceived Strengths and Limitations. College Student Journal,

42(1), 225-231. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EJ816884) Retrieved September 24, 2009, from ERIC database.

• Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89-125.

• U.S. Department of Education. (2009). NCES Issues Table (NCES 2009-182) National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Presented By: Jason Simon, M.Ed., Principal Investigator Jan Hillman, Ed.D., Co-Investigator

Documents

Transcript of Presented By: Jason Simon, M.Ed., Principal Investigator Jan Hillman, Ed.D., Co-Investigator