Transition to and through the first year: Strategies to enhance the student experience

Full text

1
Transition to and through the first year: Strategies to enhance the student experience
Kerri-Lee Krause (PhD)
Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne
Keynote Paper
Inaugural Vice-Chancellor’s Learning and Teaching Colloquium 2006
University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
31 May 2006
Introduction
The subject of the first year experience has received growing attention over the past decade in
Australian higher education. At enrolment time, around February or March each year, newspaper
articles abound with advice for students entering university. Every university in the country boasts some
kind of first year support for students, whether in the form of ‘orientation to university’ activities, or more
substantial transition programs.
While much emphasis is usually placed on transition to university, relatively limited attention is given to
the issue of transition through the first year. When the hype of orientation subsides and the initial
sources of good advice disappear, what can be done to enhance the quality of the student experience
through the first year? This is the subject of the present paper.
Common misconceptions about the first year
To frame discussion of these issues, I propose to challenge five common misconceptions about the first
year in higher education. These are:
1. the first year begins at enrolment
2. once we orient students, the task is complete
3. the first year experience is homogeneous: one size fits all
4. first year issues are student support issues
5. first year enrolees evolve into engaged university students just by being part of the university
environment.
Challenging misconceptions with evidence-based practice
Misconception 1: the first year begins at enrolment
Typically, the university experience is deemed to begin when students arrive on their campus to enrol.
Increasingly we are realising that this narrow view of the first year fails to take account of the many
factors that shape student aspirations and expectations regarding university study prior to enrolment. In
the case of under-represented groups in higher education, such as those from low socio-economic
backgrounds, or those who are first in their family to attend university, the first taste of university should
begin in the early years of primary school, if not before. The first year of university is, in fact, the
culmination of years of socialisation and shaping of an individual’s views about whether or not university
study is something to which they can and should aspire.
As part of targeted institutional equity initiatives, many Australian universities have active programs of
outreach into communities that are typically under-represented in higher education. These include rural
communities, indigenous communities and the like. Some programs involve regular visits to schools –
both primary and high school – in efforts to introduce the idea of university study to students who may
never have aspired to do so. Other programs involve working with careers advisers to inform them of
scholarships and support available to students entering the first year of university. The most successful
of these programs involve an integrated approach, with student representatives (ambassadors), student

2
support staff and academic staff working together with university recruitment personnel, where
appropriate, to present a holistic view of the university experience. Current students should be
encouraged to play a significant role as mentors and guides for younger students considering the option
of university study. Student support staff are key sources of information for students and their parents
about such matters as housing and financial options. Academic staff play an important part in bridging
the gap between school and university study. They may provide discipline-specific information, or they
may talk more generally about teaching and learning styles at university. In this way, a more seamless
and representative picture of university life is depicted for students who may never have set foot on a
university campus or considered it a viable option.
Awareness raising, expectation shaping, and aspiration building activities thus begin well before
enrolment day. In addition to making personal contact with individuals, their schools, families and
communities, universities may adopt more active marketing strategies via brochures or websites. This is
particularly the case for the recruitment of international students. However, many universities are also
adopting an approach of non-institution-specific aspiration-raising activities as part of a socially
responsible approach to encouraging students from disadvantaged and under-represented
demographic subgroups to consider the option of university study, no matter what the institution.
This more expansive view of the first year experience, as something that takes root in the lives of future
students well before enrolment day, has significant implications for institutional priorities and activities. It
means targeting under-represented groups in your university and developing medium- and long-term
strategies for reaching young people in such groups in a variety of ways. Importantly, it also involves
planning for student transition to the first year by drawing on the expertise of the whole learning
community, including current students, academic and support staff, and other key players.
Misconception 2: once we orient students, the task is complete
It is true that orientation programs play a very important part in introducing students to each other, to
university staff and to the campus. In the national study of the first year experience (Krause et al., 2005)
we sought student feedback on the perceived impact of orientation programs on their experience and
sense of belonging within the university community. Almost half of the first years believed that the
orientation programs they had attended provided them with a good introduction to the university.
Somewhat fewer students (40 per cent) felt that these programs helped them to develop a sense of
belonging in the university community. Perhaps more concerning is the view of a quarter of the students
sampled that the orientation programs did not play a role in helping them to feel that they belonged at
university.
Institution-level orientation programs are most successful if accompanied by department or faculty-
based initiatives designed to support students within their disciplinary subgroups. In addition to
providing orientation programs, institutions can enhance students’ engagement with learning by
ensuring that they receive adequate advice about subject choices, thereby working to ensure that
students find themselves in courses about which they are well informed and prepared. The majority of
students were satisfied with the subject choices they had made. However, one-third said they did not
receive helpful advice in this respect and a quarter were dissatisfied with the range of subject choices
they had at the start of their first year. If students perceive that they have been well advised
academically and feel satisfied with their choices, they are more likely to be committed to their studies
and academically engaged. Table 1 provides a number of other indicators of student engagement with
the university. A fuller discussion of this table can be found in the full report, available online.

3
Table 1 Indicators of student engagement with university, 1994-2004 (% of students)
(1994, N=4 028; 1999, N=2 609; 2004, N=2344)
Disagree
Agree
I was given helpful advice when choosing my subjects/units
2004
34
33
33
I am satisfied with the subject choices I made this year
2004
12
27
61
I was satisfied with the range of subjects/
units from which I could choose this year
2004
25
26
49
I feel like I belong to the university community
2004
16
33
51
I really like being on my university campus
2004
12
28
60
I really like being a university student
1994
1999
2004
8
7
8
18
19
17
74
74
75
I am not particularly interested in the extra-curricular activities
or facilities provided
1994
1999
2004
44
43
37
28
31
31
28
27
32*1 2
* significant at .01 ** significant at .05 1 Denotes significant change 1999 to 2004. 2 Denotes significant change 1994 to 2004.
These indicators challenge the notion that successful transition is achieved through orientation activities
alone. Transition is an ongoing process of developing an identity as a university student, of engaging
with peers, staff and the university community. This takes time and must be carefully planned through
coordinated efforts within academic departments and student support units, not to mention the student
union organizations that play such a critical role in engaging students in sporting and club activities and
the like. Ideally, an institution should encourage discussion among staff across these areas as a way of
encouraging a seamless transition experience for students.
Misconception 3: the first year experience is homogeneous: one size fits all
It was once the case that the phrase ‘first year experience’ was used to depict a relatively common set
of experiences characterising most students entering higher education. Over the past decade, the
massification of the sector has meant that the first year is experienced in diverse ways by diverse
groups of students. A one-size-fits-all approach to teaching and supporting students in the first year is
far from adequate for the 21st century generation of university students.
To challenge this misconception, I will provide a brief sketch of what the research tells us about the
varied experiences of three demographic subgroups in higher education: students from low
socioeconomic backgrounds, mature age students, and international students. Data are drawn primarily
from the national study of the first year experience (Krause et al., 2005).
i. The effects of socioeconomic background
There are continuing social disparities in the access to and participation in Australian higher education.
Australians from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are far less likely to participate in higher education
than Australians from higher or medium socioeconomic backgrounds. These imbalances have persisted
despite a national equity policy framework and the sustained efforts of universities in offering a variety
of access programs (Coates & Krause, 2005). For the first year project we explored whether or not
there were any patterns of student response according to their socioeconomic background, though we
were aware that the available data on students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds shows that
while access rates are lower, students once enrolled have broadly comparable rates of success,
retention and completion (James et al., 2004).

4
The 2004 first year experience data were analysed using the postcode definition of socioeconomic
status (SES). There were many demographic differences between the high and low SES groups. The
high SES students were disproportionately male and the low SES students were disproportionately
female. As expected, parental education levels were significantly higher for the high SES group
compared with the low SES group. Students from low SES backgrounds in the sample were more likely
to be the first in their family to attend university. The high SES students were more likely to be enrolled
in combined degrees and to have paid their Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) payments
at enrolment (as opposed to opting for deferred payments).
There were differences in the patterns of part-time work across the SES groups. The high SES students
were the most likely to report that part-time work was their main or only source of income (39 per cent,
compared with 24 per cent of low SES students). Overall, 67 per cent of high SES students were
undertaking paid work of some kind, compared with 60 per cent for low SES students. A high proportion
of the employed students reported that the work allowed them to afford extras. This was more likely to
be the principal motivation for high SES students (84 per cent reported this), whereas the low SES
students were more likely to indicate that they worked part-time in order to meet their basic needs (68
per cent). The low SES students were more likely to indicate that money worries made it difficult for
them to study.
Students across the SES subgroups reported similar levels of satisfaction with the quality of teaching
and expressed similar levels of enjoyment with their university experience. Nevertheless, the lower SES
students were more likely to say that they had difficulty comprehending the material and had difficulty
adjusting to the style of university teaching. They were also more likely to report that their parents had
little understanding of their university lives. The value of committing time and resources to academic
transition throughout the first year is undeniable. Students, particularly those for whom the university
culture is alien, need to be oriented to the disciplinary conventions as well as the learning and teaching
styles that characterise the culture of universities. These issues are discussed further in the next
section.
ii. The influence of age
For the first time in 2004, the transition experiences of mature age students in the first year were
reported in some depth. These students emerged as a highly satisfied group on the whole. They
typically received higher marks than their younger peers, and were slightly more positive about the way
university had met their expectations. They tended to have strong clarity of purpose and were more
likely to seek assistance from staff. However they typically kept to themselves at university and were
less interested in extracurricular activities than were younger students.
The 19 year old school-leavers were more likely to be of higher socioeconomic background. The
students 25 years and over were more likely to be the first in their family to have attended university.
Predictably, the older students were more likely to be enrolled part-time and more likely to be enrolled
by distance education. The attitudinal differences across the age groups were marked. The older
students were very focused on their study. They indicated clear sets of goals and expressed fewer
concerns about motivation to study. They also expressed high levels of satisfaction with their study and
indicated they enjoyed the intellectual challenge of their courses. Table 2 summarises some of the main
areas of contrast in the attitudes of school-leavers and mature-age students (25 years and over).

5
Table 2 Comparison of the attitudes of school-leaversa and mature-age students (25 years +)
School-leavers (age 19 years) are
more likely to:
Mature-age students (age 25 years and over) are
more likely to:
Be marking time while they decide their future
Find it difficult to get motivated to study
Skip classes
Wish to change courses
Have made close friends at university
Work collaboratively with other students and borrow notes
from others
Like being on campus and be active in extracurricular
activities
Have a strong clarity of purpose
Be motivated to develop talents and to be confident they
know the occupation they want
Find their course stimulating and get satisfaction from
studying
Find lectures stimulating
Seek assistance from staff and believe they are receiving
helpful feedback
Be strategic about managing their workload
Keep to themselves at university and be uninterested in
extracurricular activities
a school-leavers are those who successfully complete high school study before making the transition to university.
The responses of the older students indicated they were strategic students who often worked
independently. They were far less likely to borrow course notes than their younger peers, and were less
likely to engage in collaborative study. Mature-age students were less likely to report that they used
web-based resources and were more likely to report that they kept to themselves at university (39 per
cent compared with 26 per cent). Overall, students aged 25 years and over emerged as a highly
satisfied group. They expressed strong satisfaction with their courses and believed they were receiving
helpful feedback from their teachers. Mature age students were also a highly engaged group. They
emerged as a group with clear goals, they worked consistently, they enjoyed the teaching and learning
process and the challenges associated with it.
Nevertheless, the relative lack of social engagement with peers in the learning community among
mature age students is a reason for close monitoring of this group. Despite the positive learning
experiences and strategic self-analyses, mature age students also have a tendency to feel disengaged
from social networks on campus. During times of stress, uncertainty or self-doubt, such connections
become a particularly powerful means of building resilience (Krause, 2005). Collaboration with peers in
academic contexts is also an important means of developing problem-solving and team-building skills,
and of cognitive skill development. If these experiences are largely missing from the mature-age student
experience, this is a cause for concern.
iii. The unique experiences of international students
The threefold increase during the past decade in the proportion of fee-paying overseas students has
been one of the most significant changes to occur within the Australian higher education system. The
patterns of the responses of international students to the first year survey reflect numerous concerns
that have been raised during recent years associated with student adjustment, academic progress and
the overall quality of their university experience.
The signs of academic stress experienced by international students during their first year at an
Australian campus are unambiguous:
• the international students were significantly less likely to indicate that orientation programs
helped them make a good start to university (in part a possible sign of problems caused by
arrival times near the start of the academic year);
• forty per cent of the international students reported they had difficulty comprehending course
material compared with 21 per cent of domestic students;
• close to half of the international students were receiving grades lower than they had expected;

6
• the international students reported considerably more discomfort in participating in class
discussions (31 per cent compared with 20 per cent — a finding related to differing
pedagogical expectations and experiences); and
• 46 per cent of the international students found the workload too heavy, compared with 30 per
cent of domestic students.
Overall, 56 per cent of international students found the academic standard higher than they expected
compared with only 39 per cent of domestic students. One of the worrying signs in the 2004 dataset
was the apparently lower level of social integration of international students. Fewer international
students reported feeling part of a group committed to learning (46 per cent compared with 56 per cent
of domestic students), and fewer experienced a sense of belonging (35 per cent compared with 52 per
cent of their local peers). Fewer were confident that a staff member knew their name and fewer believed
staff took an interest in their progress. Generally, the international students were more critical of the
teaching and, significantly from a policy perspective, 46 per cent of the international students reported
that university had not lived up to their expectation (compared with 27 per cent of domestic students).
A far larger proportion of the international students said that their families were their main source of
income, and international students were more likely than their domestic counterparts to report they felt
pressured by financial commitments (40 per cent compared with 23 per cent). This finding may indicate
that international students were particularly concerned about the financial commitments their families
had made on their behalf. Certainly, parental expectations figured more highly in the thinking of
international students than they did for domestic students. The distinctive experiences of international
students once again draw attention to the importance of considering the complementary roles of both
social and academic experiences in contributing to the quality of the first year.
Misconception 4: first year issues are student support issues
In some universities, the first year experience is seen as an administrative issue that is best addressed
by student support staff and a range of social activities during the first week of the students’ encounter
with the university. Notwithstanding the vital importance of students’ social experiences and the support
services available to them, transition to first year should first and foremost be viewed in terms of
academic transition. As we have seen, students from low SES backgrounds are more likely than their
higher SES peers to comment on the difficulty of adjusting to the university style of teaching. They also
report that their parents have little understanding of what study is all about. In many cases, this can be
attributed to the fact that students from low SES backgrounds are more likely to be first generation
students, some of whom also come from rural areas where going to university is a relatively uncommon
path to pursue. Similarly, international students studying in Australian universities for the first time
comment on the mismatch between their expectations and the reality of university study. They refer to
difficulties they face in adjusting to the learning and teaching styles and assessment requirements in
Australian universities.
These are issues of profound importance in the first year. They point to the significant role to be played
by academic staff who need to scaffold student learning and adjustments to the demands of study
during the first year. This is not to diminish the importance of student support staff and learning advisers
– ideally they should be working in partnership with academic staff. For instance, some academics
invite learning skills advisers into their lecture theatres to provide strategies and advice on preparing for
the first major assignment. This is a critical milestone for first year students and often assignments can
be a catalyst in students’ decision-making about whether or not they are suited to university study
(Krause, 2001). Resources from as many quarters as possible should be gathered to support students
at this phase, but the academic staff member is pivotal to making this happen.
Student support staff and faculty or department-based transition officers may also assist by helping to
establish student study groups and peer-assisted learning programs. The partnership of student support
and academic staff is vital as a vehicle for supporting student transition during the often-challenging first
semester of study and, where possible, into the second half of their first year. Students need to learn

7
how to learn in higher education settings. This takes time. They also need to be supported as they
come to terms with vast amounts of disciplinary knowledge and sources of information, such as online
databases. While many orientation programs point students in the direction of these resources in
‘introduction to university’ sessions, it is not until students really need the information (typically around
week 5 or 6 of semester), that the advice becomes meaningful. Moreover, this development of
academic skills is best developed and supported over time, in disciplinary learning contexts.
The role of academic staff in supporting effective transition experiences cannot be underestimated. A
responsive first year curriculum, custom-designed learning resources, and supportive approaches to
teaching and assessment are just some of the keys to a successful and top quality first year experience.
Misconception 5: first year enrolees evolve into engaged university students just by being part
of the university environment
The word ‘engagement’ functions as both a noun and a verb. It is the latter denotation that is sometimes
overlooked in discussion of student engagement at university. The outcome of engaged university
students is one to which all universities aspire. To achieve this end, one must consider how and when
students have opportunity to become engaged. The first year establishes the foundation for success in
this regard. It is certainly not the case that by turning up or logging on, students will naturally become
engaged as a university student. Universities need to examine all dimensions of the institution to
determine how best to facilitate engagement.
Engaging with academic staff
One way to enhance student engagement in the first year is to promote connections between students
and academic staff. It is gratifying to note an increase over the past decade in the numbers of first year
students who regularly approach academic staff for advice (see Table 3). In the 2004 national first year
study, we added a survey item intended to serve as a simple proxy for students’ sense of personal
connectedness to those who teach them at university. Two-thirds of students were confident that at
least one teacher knew their name. It is perhaps a concern that one-third did not share such confidence
towards the end of their first year at university.
Table 3 Indicators of student engagement with academic staff (% of students)
(1994, N=4 028; 1999, N=2 609; 2004, N=2344)
Disagree
Agree
I feel confident that at least one of my teachers knows my
name
2004
23
11
66
I regularly seek advice or help from academic staff
1994
1999
2004
49
50
36
30
31
35
20
19
29**1 2
* significant at .01 ** significant at .05 1 Denotes significant change 1999 to 2004. 2 Denotes significant change 1994 to 2004.
Engaging in the learning environment
Another important factor contributing to students’ engagement with learning and with peers and
academics is the fostering of an environment in which students participate actively and develop a sense
of belonging in both small and large group settings. Such opportunities manifest themselves in many
ways, but opportunities to ask questions and contribute to group discussion are particularly conducive to
engagement. Just over one-third of first year students say they frequently participate in class
discussions or raise questions in class. The majority of students, however, do so infrequently or not at
all. Similarly, making class presentations does not feature as a significant activity in the experience of
the majority of first year students.

8
Further opportunities for fostering engagement in the learning environment both in and beyond formal
classes include
• organising peer learning and study groups that extend interactions beyond classroom walls;
• ensuring that students have a point of contact within their academic department or faculty
when they need course advice;
• scheduling department-based barbeques or equivalent social events to build a sense of
community with peers and staff in the disciplinary area of study; and
• using online resources, such as forums, to encourage online interaction. Guidelines and
groundrules for their use should be carefully planned and communicated so that the purpose is
clear.
Concluding thoughts and strategies
There are, indeed, many misconceptions about the first undergraduate year and the diversity it
represents. To be fair, these misconceptions may once have been legitimate beliefs in an era when the
student population was less diverse and students faced less complex issues and challenges than they
do today. Many universities have now developed orientation programs that support the transition of first
year students to higher education, but the process cannot stop there. The next stage in the
development of integrated and sustainable first year support initiatives is to monitor the needs and
experiences of students from diverse demographic subgroups, particularly those from equity groups.
Monitoring and data gathering should, in turn, inform targeted initiatives to enhance the quality of the
first year experience for all students, including those most under-represented in higher education. The
data should inform ongoing discussions across the institution about the implications for enhancing the
quality of student learning and support.
Four strategies to guide ongoing discussions and planning associated with enhancing the transition to
and through the first year are:
1. Consider the first year as a continuum, commencing well before enrolment and involving a
process of aspiration-building and expectation-shaping, particularly among under-represented
groups in higher education. Include all stakeholders in such community outreach: students,
academic staff, student support staff and university recruiting staff, where appropriate.
2. Plan transition programs that extend well beyond initial orientation events to support students
through the first semester and beyond. The goal is to build student independence and support
networks as part of an integrated academic and social transition experience. Devise ways to
remove the scaffolded support progressively over the first year to ensure the development of
student independence.
3. Establish a systematic approach to monitoring and evaluating the quality of the first year
experience, with a particular focus on analysing and responding to demographic subgroup
differences in your student population. This may take the form of surveys, focus group
discussions, or one-to-one interviews by email or over the phone. Aim for a range of
approaches to avoid survey fatigue. Once you have collected the data, ensure that you have
strategies in place to respond to it. Consider the implications of your findings for policy and
practice across the university. Importantly, plan for ways in which you will give feedback to
students on your findings and how you have responded to their input. This is critical for
establishing a reciprocal relationship of trust between students and the institution.
4. Develop strategies to support both academic and social transition in the first year. This will
involve collaboration between academic staff and student support staff. It will also necessitate
curriculum review activities to ensure that all dimensions of the curriculum, including
assessment, are appropriately designed to:
• scaffold student learning with a view to developing increased independence;

9
• provide early and ongoing feedback on progress through a range of formative and
summative approaches;
• introduce students to your disciplinary culture, the language, conventions, and
ways of knowing and learning in the discipline. Make tacit knowledge in this
regard as explicit as possible to facilitate successful academic transition;
• support students at key milestones in the first year, particularly during stressful
periods such as when assignments are due;
• connect students with their peers to foster collaborative learning and a sense of
belonging to the learning community.
References
Coates, H., & Krause, K. (2005). Australian higher education equity policy framework: Analysis of trends and
suggestions for improvement. Journal of Higher Education, Management and Policy, 27(1), 35-48.
James, R., Baldwin, G., Coates, H., Krause, K., & McInnis, C. (2004). Analysis of equity groups in higher
education. Canberra: DEST. Available online: http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au
Krause, K. (2005). Serious thoughts about dropping out in first year: Trends, patterns and implications for higher
education. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation and Development, 2(3), 55-67. Available online:
http://sleid.cqu.edu.au/
Krause, K. (2001). The university essay writing experience: A pathway for academic integration during transition.
Higher Education Research and Development, 20(2), 147-168.
Krause, K., Hartley, R., James, R., & McInnis, C. (2005). The first year experience in Australian universities:
Findings from a decade of national studies. Canberra: Australian Department of Education, Science and
Training. Available online: http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au
Acknowledgements
I acknowledge the collaboration and intellectual contribution of my CSHE colleagues with whom I co-authored the
full report. Some excerpts from that report are included in this paper.
Author contact details:
Kerri-Lee Krause
Centre for the Study of Higher Education
University of Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
k.krause@unimelb.edu.au