<p> Institutions of higher education are replete with programs designed to position incoming undergraduate students to successfully persist toward a degree and to do and be well along the way. This longitudinal field study of incoming students&rsquo; transitional year focused on outcomes associated with two common types of program: bridge programs and living-learning programs. Bridge programs are intended to boost achievement and persistence of structurally disadvantaged (e.g., low-income) students to close the gap between them and their more advantaged peers, usually with some combination of financial and academic support. Living-learning programs are intended to generally promote achievement and persistence through the intentional formation of communities in which groups of students live together in wings of residence halls and engage in curricular and/or cocurricular activities together. Social-psychological interventions have been inspired by critiques that such programs inadequately support students who are at a structural disadvantage. Specifically, critiques have argued that financial and academic support are insufficient, that students also need psychological support. To strongly test that claim, I replicated one of these interventions within a bridge program and examined whether it affected students&rsquo; wellness and success at the end of their transitional year, over and above the bridge program itself. I also examined whether living-learning programs contributed to students&rsquo; wellness and success over and above living in conventional residence halls, and whether either of those two types of residential groups differed from students living off-campus. </p><p> Results from the intervention did not fit the theoretical framework on which it was based, the same framework contextualized in the bridge program, or an alternative framework on which other similar interventions are based. Results regarding residential groups suggest that living-learning communities did not augment wellness or success, at least at the particular institution under study. Rather, living on campus generally is associated with a greater sense of social-belonging, higher life satisfaction, more extracurricular activity, and taking advantage of campus resources. Practical advice and recommendations for administrators and researchers are outlined in the Discussion.</p>

<p> Recent studies suggest that using multiple measures can potentially reduce misplacement and improve student success in college (Bracco et al., 2014; Ngo, Kwon, Melguizo, Prather, &amp; Bos, 2013; Scott-Clayton, 2012). Minimal research, however, describes the multiple-measures placement in community colleges, at the institutional level. An embedded mixed-method (quantitatively dominant) study was employed to investigate the relationship between student success and a multiple-measures placement process implemented at a Northeast community college. Four research questions guided the study:</p><p> 1. To what extent do students enroll in courses recommended by the placement process?</p><p> 2. To what extent and in what manner can variation in first term academic success be explained by high school GPA and ACCUPLACER&reg; scores?</p><p> 3. Is there a relationship between students&rsquo; ACCUPLACER&reg; scores and first term academic success?</p><p> 4. How do academic advisors describe their perceptions and expectations of the placement process on student academic success?</p><p> The sample included students (N=1,073) enrolled in Mathematics courses and students (<i>N</i>=1,537) enrolled in English courses from Fall 2014 to Spring 2016. Analyses of ex post facto data included: descriptive statistics to describe placement and enrollment patterns, correlation analysis to examine relationship between academic success and high school GPA and ACCUPLACER&reg; scores, and ANOVA to compare academic success among student with different ACCUPLACER&reg; scores. For the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with (<i>N</i>=4) academic advisors to explore their perceptions and expectations of the placement process on student academic success.</p><p> Quantitative findings revealed that: 1) a high percentage of students enrolled in courses recommended by the placement process; 2) high school GPA had the highest predictive power for academic success; and 3) ACCUPLACER&reg; scores were predictive for academic success in courses with additional support. Qualitative results generated three themes regarding: 1) perceptions &ndash; the good, the bad, and the complicated; 2) expectations &ndash; encouraging and worrisome; and 3) needs &ndash; human and technological resources. Connected findings identified that resources were needed for continuous assessment and improvement of the placement process. Institutional administrators and policy makers leading multiple-measures efforts might utilize the study&rsquo;s findings and recommendations to implement and improve their own placement processes. </p><p>

<p> The current trends observed in 4-year college graduation and retention rates (ACT 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014; Tinto, 2006) demonstrate a need for improvement in student academic achievement outcomes. Overwhelmingly, research finds that the first year in college is the time of greatest risk for student academic failure and drop out. Challenges associated with academic-oriented forms of stress and anxiety (Baillie &amp; Fitzgerald, 2000; Bembenutty, 2008; Cassady, 2010; Collier &amp; Morgan, 2008; Jean, 2010; Pike &amp; Kuh, 2005; Soria &amp; Stebleton, 2012; Turner et al., 2012) coupled with limitations in effective coping strategies (Hofer et al., 1998; Kitsantas et al., 2008; McInerney, 2011; Pintrich &amp; Zusho, 2002; Robbins et al., 2004; Zimmerman &amp; Schunk, 2008) lie at the center of the difficulties these first-year students experience, which ultimately play a significant role in persistence and achievement outcomes. This is particularly true for students from at-risk populations (e.g., first-generation students, ethnic minorities; Balemian &amp; Feng, 2013; Borman &amp; Overman, 2004; Choy, 2001; Engle, 2007; Jones et al., 2010; Pascarella et al., 2004; Toldson, 2012).</p><p> The wide body of research confirms that no single factor reliably predicts college academic success or failure, although institutions have traditionally relied upon indicators of prior achievement (i.e., H.S. GPA and college entrance exams) for such inferences (Alarcon &amp; Edwards, 2013; DeBerard et al., 2004; Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Kowitlawakul et al., 2013; Randsell, 2001; Zypher et al., 2007). Rather, it is the collective of factors from environmental, behavioral and personal domains that interact and have the potential to positively or negatively influence college student achievement (Bandura, 1986; 1997; 1999; Lazarus &amp; Folkman, 1984; Snow et al., 1996). As such, the Transactional Stress and Coping model (Lazarus &amp; Folkman, 1984) provides a comprehensive model through which the influence and interaction of multiple factors associated with student stress-appraisals, coping responses, and eventual outcomes can be examined within investigations of college academic achievement. </p><p> The main purpose of this study was to examine the degree of influence student background characteristics, indicators of prior achievement, anxiety-laden cognitive belief states, and self-regulated learning had on first-year college student achievement. Informed by the Lazarus and Folkman (1984) framework, a proposed academic-oriented stress-appraisal and coping model was tested for viability in predicting student achievement outcomes at the conclusion of their first-year in college. This study investigated research questions specifically associated with: 1) the influence of gender, ethnicity and first-generation status on first-year achievement; 2) the influence of student prior achievement (i.e., H. S. GPA and SAT scores) on first-year achievement; 3) the potential mediating influence of cognitive appraisals on first-year achievement; and 4) the potential moderating role of self-regulated learning in first-year achievement. For this archival study, all student demographic data, measures of prior achievement, first-year college achievement (cumulative GPA) and self-report responses to the LASSI-HS (Weinstein &amp; Palmer, 1990) instrument were accessed from a large sample (<i>N</i> = 29,431) of first-time, first-year students enrolled at a mid-sized, Midwestern 4-year university during years 2004-2012. Using an established model of stress-appraisal and coping (Lazarus &amp; Folkman, 1984) within an academic context, five models were tested using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to answer the specific research questions and investigate the utility of the models in predicting first-year college achievement. </p><p> The results revealed that although all background factors (i.e., gender, ethnicity, first-generation status) were statistically significant predictors of first-year achievement (GPA), their influence on first-year GPA was minimal. Additionally, prior achievement had a statistically significant, but weak, influence on first-year GPA. Although the direct path relationships for all pre-existing personal factors were statistically significant, the results also indicated anxious cognitive appraisals served a mediating role between these factors and first-year GPA. Thus, a partially mediated model best represented the relationships among these variables. The potential moderating effects of motivational regulation and active coping strategies did not have any meaningful impact in the two self-regulatory coping models tested. Although some statistically significant relationships were observed and provided evidence that background factors, prior achievement, anxious cognitive appraisals and self-regulated learning are associated, their influence was minimal and offered little practical utility in explaining first-year college student achievement. </p><p> Overall, the results of the study were unexpected given the strong theoretical and empirical support for the measures utilized in the study and literature supporting meaningful and rather robust relationships among the variables of interest. This atypical finding seemed to be due primarily to the first-year student GPAs, and suggests attending to concerns related to the evaluation of student performance and achievement in the first year of college. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)</p>

<p> Although enrollment in online community college courses continues to increase, there is evidence that many students are not completing their studies. Research on persistence indicates the importance of students feeling connected with their institution through faculty and staff which can be difficult when separated geographically. Using the Model of Online Community College Student Satisfaction and Continued Enrollment (MOCCSSE), a path model which includes components from both Tinto&rsquo;s Theory of Student Departure and Kember&rsquo;s Model of Dropout in Distance Education, this study explored traditional-aged community college students&rsquo; levels of satisfaction with their academic advisor to determine if they influence the students&rsquo; decision to continue enrolling online. </p><p> Study participants included 346 traditional-aged community college students who enrolled exclusively in online courses for at least one semester in Maryland, Pennsylvania, or Virginia. Eligible students were identified by institutions and invited by email to participate in an electronic survey using SurveyMonkey. Results of this study were analyzed using path analysis to build a model linking students&rsquo; satisfaction with academic advising and online experience with online adaptability level and continued online enrollment. </p><p> The interaction of satisfaction with online education experience and the advisor seems to indicate a positive effect on continued online enrollment. Continued online enrollment was also positively affected by online adaptability level, which was measured by student&rsquo;s self-efficacy and perceived mastery of computer usage and time management. These findings suggest that while students who have the necessary skills to succeed in an online education environment are likely to continue enrolling online, their satisfaction with their advisor and their online education experience may also impact that decision. </p><p> A major limitation was that the survey items that were thought to measure online satisfaction did not; instead student&rsquo;s level of overall satisfaction was used to create a construct. Other limitations included removal of participants who did not communicate with their academic advisor, and the low percentage of students who check email regularly. Future research should investigate demographics of traditional-aged community college students further. Topics should include expanding diversification of online students so that demographics align with overall population, and comparing traditional-aged and non-traditional students with previous studies.</p>

No description available.

<p>The primary purpose of this study was to design a valid and reliable survey instrument gauging three concepts; (a) utilization of technology-enhanced instructional practices, (b) perceptions of Missouri higher education faculty concerning self-reported instructor role and (c) perceptions of millennial students&rsquo; preferred learning styles. The secondary purpose of this study was to identify differences and similarities among various subsets of the data, examined by investigated concepts, as well as disaggregated by each demographic for individual survey items. </p><p> The six independent variables included type of institution, size of institution (based on Carnegie Size Classification), department, rank, gender and age range. The study also included 34 dependent variables divided into three sections. First were 8 items (items 7&ndash;14), designed to discern the HE faculty&rsquo;s self-reported utilization of technology-enhanced instruction in their classroom. Next were 10 items (items 15&ndash;24), focusing on faculty perceptions of their instructional role in the classroom. Following were 16 items (items 25&ndash;40) asking for self-reported faculty perceptions concerning the learning preferences of higher education students. </p><p> The population for this study included 2,978 faculty at a randomly selected group of 15 two-year and four-year, public and private Missouri higher education institutions based on a listing of Missouri higher education institutions provided by the Missouri Department of Higher Education (MDHE). The survey was completed by 249 of these faculty members. Cronbach&rsquo;s alpha and a pilot survey were conducted to determine validity and reliability. Univariate analyses, including cross tabulations and graphs showing frequency counts and percentages and measures of central tendency and dispersion, consisting of mean, median, mode, standard deviation and variance, were employed to determine utilization of technology-enhanced instruction by Missouri HE faculty as well as perceptions concerning instructional roles and millennial students&rsquo; learning characteristics as identified by research. Finally, Chi-square analysis and cross tabulations showing frequency numbers and percentages of each survey item were generated for each of the six demographic items. </p><p> The findings confirmed that the Survey of Higher Education Instructional Practices (SHEIP) was a valid and reliable instrument for collecting information concerning utilization of technology-enhanced instruction as well as perceptions of instructor role and students&rsquo; preferred learning styles. It was also shown a majority of Missouri higher education faculty are employing technology-enhanced instruction. Findings also indicated percentages of faculty using traditional and contemporary instructor roles were nearly equal. A small percentage more faculty did report using more contemporary instructor roles, but this is a point that could be explored in further research. Furthermore, outcomes indicated that a majority of faculty did agree with the manners which current research indicated millennial students prefer to learn. The theory of disruptive innovation indicated manners in which higher education can implement the change needed to &ldquo;disrupt&rdquo; the current system in academia. Research indicates change is needed if higher education is going to prosper in the rapidly changing academic world. </p>