Content uploaded by Joe Cuseo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joe Cuseo on Nov 21, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Empirical Case for the First-Year Seminar:
Evidence of Course Impact on Student Retention, Persistence to Graduation,
and Academic Achievement
Joe Cuseo
jcuseo@earthlink.net
Introduction
Not all first-year seminars are created equally. Some seminars focus only on the development
of basic academic skills (e.g., study skills courses), critical thinking skills (e.g., academic
seminars) or major-specific information (e.g., discipline-based or pre-professional seminars).
This manuscript focuses on the impact of first-year seminars that go beyond strictly academic
topics and take a holistic (whole-person), student-centered approach to promoting college
success. This type of first-year seminar is often referred to as an “extended orientation,” “college
transition,” or “FYE” (first-year experience) course. It is the most common form of first-year
seminar higher education, accounting for over 60% of all reported seminars offered nationally
(Tobolowsky & Associates, 2008). The holistic nature of the course is consistent with what
Upcraft and Gardner (1989) called for in their seminal text, The Freshman Year Experience:
“Freshmen succeed when they make progress toward fulfilling [the following] educational and
personal goals: (1) developing academic and intellectual competence; (2) establishing and
maintaining interpersonal relationships; (3) developing an identity; (4) deciding on a career and
life-style; (5) maintaining personal health and wellness; and (6) developing an integrated
philosophy of life” (p. 2). This holistic type of first-year seminar is one in place at the University
of South Carolina (University 101), which has served as a prototype and national model for more
than a quarter of a century: “University 101 subscribes to the belief that development is not a one-
dimensional affair but must reach far beyond the intellect and into emotional, spiritual,
occupational, physical and social areas” (Jewler, 1989, p. 201).
National research suggests that holistic first-year seminars have the most significant impact on
student outcomes. Swing (2002) conducted a multi-institutional study of different types of first-
year seminars, based on self-reported student outcomes from over 31,000 students attending 62
institutions. He found that college transition seminars which focused on academic and non-
academic (holistic) topics, “performed best overall across the ten learning outcomes investigated”
(p. 1). College transition seminars with a holistic focus were especially more effective than
discipline-based seminars housed in academic departments that focused exclusively on
introducing first-year students to an academic discipline or major field of study. Consistent with
Swing’s findings is the observation made by Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot (2005) based on their
national experience with first-year seminars: “The most effective first-year seminars are those that
are designed to facilitate first-year student success in both academic and non-academic facets of
college life.”
Collectively, these findings and observations point strongly to the conclusion that first-year
seminars should move beyond just cognitive and academic-skill development to address
development of the student as a “whole person.” Additional cross-institutional and campus-
specific research supporting this recommendation is summarized in the following sections.
National (Multi-Institutional) Research
2
Multi-institutional evidence for the positive impact of first-year seminars on student behavior
and campus perceptions is provided by the National Survey of Student Engagement (2005), which
included students’ survey responses from more than 80,000 first-year students. Results of this
Web-based survey revealed that relative to students who did not participate in the course, first-
year seminar participants reported that they: (a) were more challenged academically, (b) were
more likely to engage in active and collaborative learning activities, (c) interacted more frequently
with faculty, (d) perceived the campus environment to be more supportive, (e) made greater gains
in learning during their first year of college, and (f) were more satisfied with their first-year
experience. Compared to students who only participated in orientation but not a first-year
seminar, course participants reported greater engagement, higher levels of satisfaction, and
greater developmental gains in the following areas: (a) academic advising and planning, (b) career
advising and planning, (c) financial aid advising, (d) academic assistance, (e) academic challenge,
(f), active and collaborative learning, and (g) student-faculty interaction (National Survey of
Student Engagement, 2005).
Student retention (persistence) and academic performance (achievement) have been the two
most frequently assessed outcomes of the first-year seminar. Positive impact of the seminar on
these outcomes has been reported through use of multiple research methods
(quantitative/qualitative and experimental/correlational), for all types of students (at-risk/well-
prepared, minority/majority, residential/commuter, male/female), at all institutional types (2-
year/4-year, public/ private), sizes (small/mid-sized/ large) and locations (urban/suburban/rural)
(Barefoot, 1993; Barefoot et al., 1998; Boudreau & Kromrey, 1994; Fidler & Godwin, 1994;
Glass & Garrett, 1995; Grunder & Hellmich, 1996; Shanley & Witten, 1990; Sidle &
McReynolds, 1999; Starke, Harth, & Sirianni, 2001; Tobolowsky, 2005). As Barefoot and
Gardner note, “First-year/student success seminars are remarkably creative courses that are
adaptable to a great variety of institutional settings, structures, and students” (1998, p. xiv).
In a study conducted by the Institute of for Higher Education Leadership & Policy
(Sacramento, CA), the academic progress of a sizable cohort of California community college
students were tracked across time. Student participation in a college success (first-year
experience) course proved to be one of the factors associated with students achievement of
important educational milestones—such as: (a) completion of developmental education, (b)
passing college-level English and Math courses within two years, (c) avoiding excessive course
withdrawals and (d) accumulating at least 20 credits in the first year of college enrollment
(Moore, Shulock, & Offenstein, 2009).
The Division of Community Colleges within the Florida Department of Education examined the
impact of student success courses (a.k.a. first-year experience courses) across the state and found
that students who completed such courses (compared to students who did not take or complete
such courses) had significantly higher rates of: (a) continuous college enrollment, (b) program
completion, and (c) transfer to 4-year universities within the state. Furthermore, the positive
impact of student participation in these courses was not restricted to students who tested into
developmental education; similar effects were found for students who entered the community
college system “college ready” (Florida Department of Education, 2006). Subsequent analyses
conducted by the Community College Research Center at Columbia University (NY) revealed
similar findings, even after controlling for a variety of student demographic characteristics
(Zeidenberg, Jenkins, & Calcagno, 2007).
In a meticulous synthesis of more than 2600 postsecondary studies on the impact of college
programs and experience on student development, Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) reached the
3
following conclusion: “The weight of the evidence suggests that a first-semester freshman seminar
is positively linked with both freshman-year persistence and degree completion. This positive link
persists even when academic aptitude and secondary school achievement are taken into account”
(pp. 419-420). In a more recent synthesis, which included reviews of research studies published
after release of their original volume in 1991, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) reached a similar
conclusion:
With rare exceptions they [first-year seminars] produce uniformly consistent evidence of
positive and statistically significant advantages to students who take the courses. Some of this
evidence comes from studies in which participant and nonparticipant groups are “matched” on
various combinations of precollege characteristics. These studies consistently find that FYS
[first-year seminar] participation promotes persistence into the second year and over longer
periods of time. More recent studies employ various multivariate statistical procedures to
control for academic ability and achievement and other precollege characteristics. Whatever
the procedure, the research points to the same conclusion, indicating positive and statistically
significant net effect of FYS participation versus nonparticipation on persistence into the
second year or attainment of a bachelor’s degree. In short, the weight of evidence indicates
that FYS participation has statistically significant and substantial, positive effects on a
student’s successful transition to college and the likelihood of persistence into the second year
as well as on academic performance while in college and on a considerable array of other
college experiences known to be related directly and indirectly to bachelor’s degree
completion (pp.400-401 & 402-403).
Consistent with Pascarella and Terenzini’s comprehensive reviews of the literature is the
conclusion drawn by Hunter and Linder (2005), based on their review of research on first-year
seminars published in the Journal The First-year Experience and Students in Transition and in
three volumes of studies published as monographs by the National Resource Center at the
University of South Carolina (Barefoot, 1993; Barefoot et al., 1998; Tobolowsky, 2005):
The overwhelming majority of first-year seminar research has shown that these courses
positively affect retention, grade point average, number of credit hours attempted and
completed, graduation rates, student involvement in campus activities, and student attitudes
and perceptions of higher education, as well as faculty development and methods of
instruction (p. 288).
Under the auspices of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, Brownell and Swaner
(2010) conducted a cross-institutional review of the literature and identified first-year seminars as
one of their top-five “high impact” practices.
Local (Single-Institution) Studies
In addition to national (cross-institutional) research, there have been numerous local (single-
institution) studies conducted on the impact of first-year seminars. The results of these studies on
two key student outcomes—student retention and academic achievement—are summarized
below.
STUDENT RETENTION OUTCOMES
4
The best documented outcome of the first-year seminar is its positive effect on student retention;
it is a finding that has been replicated across a wide variety of institutional settings and student
populations. Based on her 10-plus years of experience reviewing research studies on the first-year
seminar as Co-Director for Research & Publications at the University of South Carolina’s
National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience, Barefoot (2000) reported that there is a
growing body of research indicating that first-year seminars are positively correlated with
improved student retention. Barefoot’s conclusion is reinforced by a national survey of more than
1,000 institutions conducted under the auspices of ACT, which asked chief academic officers to
identify three campus retention practices that had the greatest impact on student retention. The
reported practice that ranked first in terms of having the most impact on student retention was a
“freshman seminar/university 101 course for credit” (Habley & McClanahan, 2004).
Described below is a series of single-institution studies that demonstrate the first-year seminar’s
positive impact on student persistence through and beyond the first year of college.
1. Persistence to Completion of the First Semester/Quarter of College
Research conducted at Sacramento City College revealed that students who participated in the
first-year seminar persisted to completion of the first term at a rate 50% higher than non-
participants (Stupka, 1993). California State University-San Marcos also reported statistically
significant differences (p<.01) between college-continuation rates of students who enrolled in a
first-term seminar versus those who did not (Sparks, 2005).
2. Persistence to Completion of the First Year of College
At Widener University (PA), first-year seminar participants returned for their sophomore year
at a rate that was approximately 18% higher (87.3% vs. 69.6%) than their expected return rate—
as predicted by their entering SAT scores (Bushko, 1995). Research conducted at Miami-Dade
Community College found that participants in the first-year seminar displayed a 67% first-year
retention rate, compared to 46% for non-participants (Belcher, 1993). The University of South
Carolina conducted a series of studies on successive cohorts of first-year students enrolled in
University 101 (first-year seminar). Results of these studies revealed that for 16 consecutive
years, first-year students who participated in the seminar were more likely to persist to the
sophomore year than non-participants. In 11 of the 16 years, the differences reached statistically
significant levels—despite the fact that course participants had higher course loads and lower
predicted academic success—as measured by standardized-admissions test scores (Fidler, 1991).
At Ramapo College (New Jersey), the average first-to-second-year retention rate for five
consecutive years after the first-year seminar became a requirement was significantly higher than
the average retention rate for first-year students who entered the college during the three-year
period that preceded course adoption (Starke, Harth, & Sirianni, 2001).
Controlling for student background characteristics and participation in academic support
programs, students at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis who participated in a
first-year seminar displayed first-year retention rates that were significantly higher (p<.01) than
non-participants (Jackson, 2005).
At the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, students who participated in a first-year seminar
returned for their sophomore year at a higher rate than did students with better pre-college
academic preparation. Moreover, course participation was associated with higher persistence
5
rates for students at all levels of academic ability—as measured by ACT score, college
preparatory courses completed, and high school rank (Miller & Janz, 2007).
3. Persistence to Completion of the Sophomore Year
At the University of Maryland, students who were randomly assigned to participate in the first-
year seminar displayed significantly higher retention rates throughout their first four semesters in
college than students randomly assigned to a control group that did not take the course (Strumpf
& Hunt, 1993).
4. Cumulative (Total) Number of College Units/Credits Completed
Research conducted at Sacramento City College revealed that first-year seminar participants
completed 326% more units than did non-participants (Stupka, 1993). At Oakton Community
College (IL), course participants went on to earn 50% more academic units in college than did
non-participants (Deutch, 1998).
5. Persistence to Junior and Senior Year
At Northern Michigan University, students who participated in the first-year seminar persisted
into the third and fourth year of college at a higher rate than did non-participants (Verduin, 2005).
6. Persistence to Degree/Program Completion
At the State University of New York in Buffalo, first-year students who did and did not
participate in a first-year seminar were matched according to gender, race, SAT score, high
school GPA and intended program of study. Students who completed the first-year seminar
graduated within four, five, and six years at higher rates than did their matched counterparts who
did not participate in the course (Lang, 2007). North Dakota State University conducted a
longitudinal study of 1700 students from four classes of new-student cohorts. Students enrolled in
the first-year seminar were matched with non-participants on a variety of pre-college
characteristics, which included ACT composite scores, high school rank, size of high school
graduating class, and intended academic major. Chi-square tests revealed that the 4- and 5-year
graduation rates for seminar participants were significantly higher than for a matched control
group of non-participants; moreover, significant differences were found at the end of each year of
college enrollment—from students’ first year to their year of graduation (Schnell & Doetkott,
2002-2003).
The impressive impact of the first-year seminar on graduation rates has been replicated at a
wide variety of institutions. In a study conducted at the University of Prince Edward Island
(Canada), 49% of course participants persisted to completion of the baccalaureate degree—
versus 28% for non-participants (Robb, 1993). At Ohio University, 4-, 5- and 6-year graduation
rates were higher for course participants than non-participants (Chapman & Kahrig, 1998). At
Dalton College (GA), institutional researchers tracked students over a 5-year period and found
that 30.8% of course participants met the 90 quarter-hour requirement for graduation—compared
to 19.4% for non-participants (Hoff, Cook, & Price, 1996).
At the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, both commuter and residential students who
participated in a first-year seminar graduated (within four years) at higher rates than non-
participants (Blowers, 2005). At Northern Kentucky University, first-year seminar students
demonstrated significantly higher 6- and 7-year graduation rates than students who did not take
the course, independent of their pre-college curriculum and ACT score at college entry (Stieha,
6
2005). At the State University of New York, Buffalo, students who participated in a first-year
seminar evidenced higher 4-, 5- and 6-year graduation rates than a matched group of non-
participants (Lang, 2007).
7. Time Taken to Degree/Program Completion
At Keene State College (New Hampshire), 29% of first-year seminar participants graduated
within four years—versus 16% of non-participants, and 52% graduated within 5-1/2 years—
versus 35% for non-participants (Backes, 1998).
Possible Explanations for the Positive Impact of the First-Year Seminar on
Student Retention and College Graduation Rates
Why do students who participate in the first-year seminar demonstrate higher retention and
graduation rates? What specific experiences do students have in the course that mediate or
eventuate in their higher persistence rates? Conclusive, empirically-based answers to these
questions are not yet available; however, the following course experiences are likely to be
explanatory candidates.
Increased student use of support services and involvement in campus life
Research indicates that there is a strong relationship between student retention and student
involvement with support services and campus life (Churchill & Iwai, 1981; Stoecker, Pascarella,
& Wolfle, 1988; Pascaralla & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). Historically, one the most frequently cited
goals of first-year seminars has been to increase students’ use of campus and involvement in
campus life (Barefoot & Fidler, 1996). Campus-specific studies reveal that the first-year seminar
increases student involvement with campus services and campus life. For instance, at Champlain
College (VT), student utilization of the learning resource center and tutoring services has
remained consistently and substantially higher among first-year seminar participants than non-
participants (Goldsweig, 1998). At Bloomsburg University, one of Pennsylvania’s 14 state
universities, course participants reported higher levels of academic and social integration on a
standardized, externally validated instrument; for example, participants reported more interactions
with peers and with faculty outside the classroom, greater use of student services, higher rates of
participation in student clubs and organizations, and greater commitment to institutional and
educational goals (Yale, 2000). At the University of California-Santa Barbara, first-year seminar
participants were found to attend campus events and participate in student government at
significantly higher rates than students who do not take the course (Andreatta, 1998). At the
University of North Carolina at Charlotte, students who participated in the seminar reported
significantly more informal contact with faculty outside of class throughout their first-year of
college did than non-participants (Maisto & Tammi, 1991). The University of Wyoming reported
an increase in library circulation and use of student services following institutional adoption of
the first-year seminar as a required course (Reeve, 1993).
Particularly powerful results on sustained student use of campus resources among first-year
seminar student were obtained at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, which revealed that students
who participated in the course during their initial term on campus went on to use the college’s
learning resource and tutorial services as sophomores and juniors at a rate double that of
sophomores and juniors who did not take the course during their first year (Wilkie & Kuckuck,
7
1989). This finding strongly suggests that the impact of the first-year seminar extends beyond the
first term and can exert iterative or cumulative effects on students’ engagement with campus
resources throughout their undergraduate experience. This may explain, at least in part, why
first-year seminar participants have demonstrated higher persistence and graduation rates.
Increased student satisfaction with the college experience
College satisfaction is a “primary predictor” of student persistence (Noel & Levitz, 1995), i.e.,
there is a well-established empirical relationship between students’ level of satisfaction with the
postsecondary institution they are attending and their rate of retention at that institution (Bean,
1980, 1983; Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985). Furthermore, it has been found that college
satisfaction is a college-experience variable that is least likely to be influenced or confounded by
students’ college-entry characteristics—e.g., academic preparedness, educational aspirations,
gender, and socioeconomic status (Astin, 1991). The importance of first-year student satisfaction,
in particular, is underscored by Barefoot and Fidler (1992): “First-year students are often
compliant and reluctant to complain about even the most egregious injustices. Institutions must
take the initiative in determining the existing quality of life for first-year students both in and out
of the classroom” (p. 63).
Since the first-year seminar one major purpose of the first-year seminar is to integrate and
involve students’ with key educational agents, support services, and co-curricular opportunities,
these greater sense of campus connection may be expected to lead to heightened levels of college
satisfaction. The positive impact of the first-year seminar on students’ college satisfaction has
been demonstrated at Bethel College (Kansas) where before the first-year seminar was
implemented, ACT Student Opinion Surveys of college sophomores indicated that the college
rated below the mean of other colleges of the same institutional type. However, once the college
initiated the first-year seminar, student opinions of the institution improved to the point where it
has scored significantly above the mean in a number of areas (Zerger, 1993). At Northern
Kentucky University, the Noel- Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory was administered to first-
year students, and results revealed that students who participated in the first-year seminar
reported a higher overall level of satisfaction with the college than did non-participants;
statistically significant differences emerged on the following items: “The campus staff is caring
and helpful (p<.01) and, “Faculty care about me as an individual” (p<.05) (Stieha, 2005).
These findings indicating that the first-year seminar has the capacity to increase students’
overall college satisfaction and, in so doing, may increase their rate of college persistence.
Increased crystallization of students’ major/career plans and future goals
Retention research suggests that student commitment to educational and career goals is perhaps
the strongest factor associated with persistence to degree completion (Wyckoff, 1999), and
students who lack commitment to educational and occupational goals are more likely to leave
college (e.g., Astin, 1975; Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985). Educational planning, goal setting, and
career exploration are common topics for discussion and self-assessment in the first-year seminar.
The seminar’s potential for promoting earlier and more accurate crystallization of students’
college major and career plans is suggested by findings reported at Irvine Valley College, where
longitudinal research was conducted on course participants' self-reported academic and career
plans prior to the course, immediately after the course, and after the third semester of college.
This study revealed that students who participated in the first-year seminar reported much more
focused career and academic goals at the end of the course and did so, again, after completion of
8
their third semester in college (Belson & Deegan, 1993).
Increased student enthusiasm for and commitment to their home campus
One of the primary goals of many first-year seminars has been to introduce students to their
home institution (Barefoot & Fidler, 1996), including its history, mission, and distinctive features.
The first-year seminar class may the only venue in the students’ entire college experience where
students receive any exposure the college’s distinctive unique history and mission, and how they
can take advantage of it. This practice not only increases student awareness and knowledge of
their own campus, but may also serve the more subtle purpose of cementing an early foundation
for new students’ long-term commitment to the postsecondary institution they chose to begin
higher education. John Gardner (1986) points out the importance of introducing this topic to first-
term students by likening it to the consumer principle of “post-purchase marketing” or the
“second sale” in which institutions are trying to help students overcome “buyers’ remorse” and
instead make a commitment to remain at the institution.
Increasing students’ early commitment to their campus not only reduces risk for subsequent
student attrition, it may also increase student involvement and effort because research suggests
that if students perceive their institution as being committed to them by providing facilitative
experiences (such as the first-year seminar), then they expend more effort at becoming
academically and socially involved in the college experience (Davis & Murrell, 1993). Similarly,
national survey research reveals that student engagement on campus correlates positively with
student perceptions of campus support (National Survey of Student Engagement (2005).
Thus, the first-year seminar may enhance students’ perceived level of support, which in turn, may
increase their level of engagement and subsequent persistence.
Improved academic performance during the first year of college
Another way in which participation in the first-year seminar may promote students’ persistence
to degree completion is by improving their academic performance during the first term in college.
Research indicates that there is a relationship between higher first-term GPA and student retention
(Fox, 1986; Pascarella & Chapman, 1983), higher rate of college completion (DesJardins, et al.,
2002; Nora & Cabrera, 1996) as well as shorter time to graduation (Goldman & Gillis, 1989;
Young, 1982). The first-year seminar has been found to improve students’ academic performance
during the first year of college (see the following section). Thus, by impacting the short-term
outcome of first-year academic performance, the first-year seminar may in turn contribute to the
longer-term outcome of persistence to graduation.
Summary and Conclusion
Viewed collectively, the foregoing results warrant the conclusion that any postsecondary
institution which is seriously committed to making research-based, data-driven decisions about
implementing educational interventions that are likely to improve student retention and graduation
rates, particularly for first-generation and underprepared students (Stovall, 1999; Strumpf &
Hunt, 1993), should strongly consider adopting or expanding a first-year seminar. This conclusion
is supported by a recent national study of institutions enrolling high percentages of students at risk
for attrition (e.g., academically underprepared, low-income, first-generation students) but have
higher-than-predicted graduation rates that are near the national average for all students. Every
one of these high-performing institutions had adopted programs that were intentionally designed
to promote student persistence to degree completion, the most common of which was a first-year
9
experience course modeled after the holistic, student-centered seminar developed at the
University of South Carolina (SREB, 2010).
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT/PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES
In addition to studies supporting the first-year seminar’s positive impact on student retention,
numerous campus-specific studies indicate that participation in a first-year seminar also increases
students’ first-year GPA and decreases their risk of being placed on academic probation
(Barefoot, et al., 1998; House, 2005; Jackson, 2005; Porter & Swing, 2006; Soldner, 1998;
Wahlstrom, 1993). National surveys suggest that the improved academic performance of students
who participate in the seminar is mediated by their greater likelihood of: (a) attending class
regularly, (b) speaking up in class and (c) interacting with faculty, compared to students with
similar college-entry characteristics who do not participate in the seminar (Keup & Barefoot,
2005). Further evidence that student participation in the first-year seminar promotes productive
change in students’ academic behavior is suggested by research conducted at the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte. Using the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), it was
found that significantly higher percentages of first-year seminar participants than non-participants
reported that they were “more likely to spend more than 10 hours per week preparing for class”
and “more likely to go to class having completed reading or assignments” (Blowers, 2005).
Although evidence for the positive impact of first-year seminars on academic achievement isn’t
not as widespread and consistent as it is for student retention (Barefoot, 2000), a substantial
number of campus-specific studies do suggest that student participation in the seminar is
associated with improved academic performance—as measured by the seven different academic-
achievement indicators cited below.
1. Cumulative GPA Attained at the End of the First Term or First Year of College
Research conducted at Genesee Community College (NY) revealed that first-year seminar
participants earned a first-term GPA about one-half point higher than a matched control group of
non-participants (Wahlstrom, 1993). At Northern Illinois University, five consecutive first-year
cohorts were compared with a matched group of non-participants, and it was found that students
who took the course earned significantly higher first-term and first-year GPAs (House, 1998). In
a follow-up study at the same university, analysis of covariance procedures were used to control
for differences between the ACT composite scores of students who enrolled and did not enroll in
the seminar, first-year seminar enrollees earned significantly higher mean GPAs (p<.0001) than
non-enrollees (House, 2005).
At Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, conditionally admitted students who
participated in the first-year seminar achieved a significantly higher first-term GPA (p<.01) than
did non-participants, even after controlling for students’ background characteristics and
participation in other academic-support programs (Jackson, 2005). At the State University of
New York, Buffalo, students who completed a first-year seminar achieved a higher first-semester
mean GPA than students with a similar level of academic preparedness (high school GPAs and
SAT scores) who did not take the course (Lang, 2007).
2. Cumulative GPA Attained Beyond the First Year
At Indiana University of Pennsylvania, at-risk students were randomly assigned to either of two
10
groups, one of which took the first-year seminar and the other did not. Over a period of three
successive years, students who successfully completed the first-year seminar achieved significantly
higher GPAs (p<.01) than a matched control group of students who did not take the course
(Wilkie & Kuckuck, 1989).
3. GPA Attained vs. GPA Predicted
The aforementioned study at Indiana University of Pennsylvania also found that when first-year
students with similar predicted GPAs were randomly assigned to take or not take the first-year
seminar, the cumulative GPAs attained by course participants at the end of their first, second, and
third years of college were significantly higher than non-participants (Wilkie & Kuckuck, 1989).
4. Total Number of First-Year Students in Good Academic Standing (i.e., Students
Not Placed on Academic Probation or Academically Dismissed)
Research conducted at the University of Maryland demonstrated that first-year seminar
participants completed their first two years of college in good academic standing at a significantly
higher rate than students with comparable levels of academic preparation who did not participate
in the course (Strumpf & Hunt, 1993).
At Northern Michigan University, significantly higher percentages of first-year seminar
participants than non-participants maintained good academic standing (GPA of at least 2.0) over
their first five semesters in college (Soldner, 1998). A subsequent study at the same university
examined the aggregated first-term GPAs of eight successive cohorts of new students, and it was
found that students who participated in the first-year seminar completed their first term in good
academic standing at a significantly higher rate than did non-participants (Verduin, 2005).
At Averett College (VA), after the first-year seminar was adopted and required, there was a
20% drop in the percentage of students that ended their first year on academic probation, without
the college making any other changes in its admissions standards or implementing any other
retention initiative (Vinson, 1993).
5. Total Number of First-Year Courses Passed (versus Dropped or Failed)
Research conducted by a consortium of four community colleges in North Carolina revealed
that first-year seminar participants completed an average of nine more units by the end of their
first year of college than did non-participants (Garret, 1993).
6. Total Number of First-Year Courses Completed with a Grade of “C” or Higher
Research conducted at Sacramento City College revealed that course participants
completed four times as many math classes, three times as many writing classes, and twice as
many reading classes with a grade of “C” or higher than did non-participants (Stupka, 1993).
7. Percentage of Students Qualifying for the Dean’s List and Honors Program
At the University of Vermont, where the first-year seminar is taught as an introduction to the
liberal arts and sciences with special emphasis placed on critical/creative thinking, research skills
and oral/written communication skills, the percentage of students qualifying for the Dean’s List
and gaining acceptance into the school’s honor program was significantly higher for course
participants than non-participants (Thomson, 1998).
11
Conclusion
Arguably, it’s safe to say that more rigorous research has been conducted on, and more
compelling evidence gathered for, the first-year seminar than any other course in the history of
American higher education. Discipline-based course have not been required to justify their
existence or their impact on student success; their perennial place in the college curriculum is
ensured by the perpetual force of academic tradition and the political power of the academic
departments within which they are housed. The non-traditional, almost “foreign” nature of the
first-year seminar’s student-centered content and student-engaging pedagogy have frequently
activated the university’s “organizational immune system,” resulting in frequent and virulent
attacks on the course’s academic legitimacy. Consequently, the first-year seminar has become
higher education’s most repeatedly challenged and most thoroughly assessed course.
Since “necessity is the mother of invention,” innovative methodologies have been devised to
document the course’s positive impact and ensure its birth and survival. One would be hard
pressed to find any other curricular intervention in higher education that has received more
rigorous evaluation or has better qualifications to serve as a “best practice” for promoting student
success.
Appendix:
Methodological Notes
Reflecting the fact that the majority of first-year seminars are offered as an elective course
(Barefoot & Fidler, 1996; National Resource Center, 1998), most campus-specific research
studies on first-year seminars have used a quasi-experimental (a.k.a., matched-pair) design,
whereby course outcomes for students who elect (volunteer) to take the course are compared
with those of a “matched” control group—i.e., first-year students not enrolled in the course
whose personal characteristics are similar to (match) those of course participants with respect to
student variables that are likely to influence educational outcomes (e.g., high school GPA or rank,
standardized college-admission tests—ACT/SAT, residential status—commuter/on-campus).
Although the matched control group in the quasi-experimental design serves as an effective
control for these potentially confounding students’ demographic variables, it does not control for
the “volunteer effect” or “self-selection bias,” i.e., the possibility that students who elect
(volunteer) to take the course (selecting themselves into it) may be students who are more
motivated to succeed in college than students who opt out of the course. To address the
possibility that higher levels of student motivation may account for the positive findings generated
by matched-control group studies, the University of South Carolina surveyed its first-year seminar
(University 101) participants and matched groups of non-participants at the start of the term to
assess whether they differed in their reported level of college motivation (e.g., perceived
importance and likelihood of completing their degree; willingness to participate in campus
activities and student organizations). Surveys conducted on several cohorts of first-year students
revealed no differences between the two groups in their college-motivation survey scores,
12
suggesting that the course’s positive impact could not be explained away as merely an artifact of
student self-selection (Fidler, 1991).
Experimental Design
At least three published studies on the first-year seminar have employed a true experimental
design, whereby students were randomly assigned to either an experimental group that takes the
course or a control group that does not. At Indiana University of Pennsylvania, high-risk students
were randomly assigned to either register or not register for the first-year seminar. Students who
successfully completed the first-year seminar achieved significantly higher GPAs (p<.01) over a 3-
year period than a matched control group of students who did not take the course (Wilkie &
Kuckuck, 1989).
An experimental design was also used at the University of Maryland at College Park, which
yielded results indicated that, relative to a control group, students who took the course displayed
significantly higher rates of retention (with good academic standing) throughout their first four
semesters on campus (Strumpf & Hunt, 1993). Yet another experimental study was conducted at
Bloomsburg University (PA), whose students were randomly assigned to be course participants or
non-participants. Using a standardized, externally- validated survey instrument, it was found that
course participants reported higher levels of both academic and social integration—for example,
more interactions with peers and faculty outside the classroom, greater use of student services and
participation in student clubs or organizations, and greater commitment to institutional and
educational goals (Yale, 2000).
Some campus-specific studies eliminated the volunteer effect by requiring the first-year seminar
for all its students and evaluating course impact by means of a time-series research design. In this
research design, outcomes obtained after the course is required of all students are compared with
student outcomes achieved prior to the course requirement. Thus, previous cohorts of first-year
students who did not experience the seminar serve as a “historical” control group to compare
outcomes obtained with the “current” experimental group (cohort) of first-year students who are
required to take the course. At Ramapo College (New Jersey), a time-series design was used to
provide evidence that the average freshman-to-sophomore retention rate for five successive
cohorts of freshmen who participated in the seminar was significantly higher than the average
retention rate for freshmen who entered the college during the three-year period prior to the
course requirement (Starke, Harth, & Sirianni, 2001). Similarly, at Averett College (VA), a time-
series design revealed that after adoption of the first-year seminar, there was a 26% reduction in
freshman-to-sophomore attrition rate and a 24% drop in the percentage of freshmen completing
their first year on academic probation (Vinson, 1993). It is noteworthy that during the time
period when the seminar was adopted and evaluated on both of these campuses, there were no
significant changes made in student-admission standards, nor were was any other major retention
initiatives implemented.
13
References
Andreatta, B. (1998). University of California, Santa Barbara. In B. O. Barefoot, C. L. Warnock,
M. P. Dickinson, S. E. Richardson, & M. R. Roberts (Eds.), Exploring the evidence,
Volume II: Reporting outcomes of first-year seminars (Monograph No. 29) (pp. 99-100).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year
Experience and Students in Transition,
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for excellence: The philosophy and practice of assessment and
evaluation in higher education. New York: Macmillan.
Backes, P. (1998). Keene State College. In B. O. Barefoot, C. L. Warnock, M. P. Dickinson, S.
E. Richardson, & M. R. Roberts (Eds.), Exploring the evidence, Volume II: Reporting
outcomes of first-year seminars (Monograph No. 29) (pp. 31-32). Columbia, SC: University
of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition.
Barefoot, B. O. (Ed.) (1993). Exploring the evidence: Reporting outcomes of freshman
seminars. Monograph Series No. 11. National Resource Center for The Freshman Year
Experience. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.
Barefoot, B. O. (2000, September 15). Evaluating the first-year seminar. Retrieved from
the World Wide Web: http://fya-list@vm.sc.edu
Barefoot, B. O., & Fidler, P. P. (1992). Helping students climb the ladder: 1991 national survey
of freshman seminar programs. (Monograph No. 10). Columbia, SC: National Resource
14
Center for The Freshman Year Experience, University of South Carolina.
Barefoot, B. O., & Fidler, P. P. (1996). The 1994 survey of freshman seminar programs:
Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum. (Monograph No. 20). National
Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience & Students in Transition, University of
South Carolina.
Barefoot. B. O., & Gardner, J. N. (1998). Introduction. In B. O. Barefoot, C. L. Warnock, M. P.
Dickinson, S.E. Richardson, & M. R. Roberts (Eds.), Exploring the evidence, Volume II:
Reporting outcomes of first-year seminars (Monograph No. 29) (pp. xiii-xiv). Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and
Students in Transition.
Barefoot, B. O., Warnock, C. L., Dickinson, M. P., Richardson, S. E., & Roberts, M. R. (1998)
(Eds.). Exploring the evidence, Volume II: Reporting outcomes of first-year
seminars. (Monograph No. 29). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The
First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.
Bean, J. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and a test of a causal model of
student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155-187.
Bean, J. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the
student attrition process. The Review of Higher Education, 6, 129-148.
Belcher, M. J. (1993). Mimi-Dade Community College. . In B. O. Barefoot (Ed.), Exploring the
evidence: Reporting outcomes of freshman seminars (Monograph No. 11) (p. 21). Columbia,
SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The Freshman Year
Experience.
Belson, K., & Deegan, R. (1993). Irvine Valley College. In B. O. Barefoot (Ed.), Exploring the
evidence: Reporting outcomes of freshman seminars (Monograph No. 11) (pp. 17-18).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The Freshman
Year Experience.
Berger, J. B. (2000). Organizational behavior at colleges and student outcomes: A new
perspective e on college impact. Review of Higher Education, 23, 177-198.
Blowers, A. N. (2005). University of North Carolina at Charlotte. In B. F. Tobolowsky, B. E.
Cox, & M.T. Wagner (Eds.), Exploring the evidence: Reporting research on first-year
seminars, Volume III (Monograph No. 42) (pp. 175-178). Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Boudreau, C. & Kromrey, J. (1994). A longitudinal study of the retention and academic
performance of participants in a freshman orientation course. Journal of College Student
Development, 35, 444-449.
15
Brownell , J. E., & Swaner, L. E. (2010). Five high-impact practices: Research on learning
outcomes, completion, and quality. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Bushko, A. A. (1995). Freshman seminar improve student retention at Widener
University. Freshman Year Experience Newsletter, 8(2), p. 9.
Chapman, L. C., & Kahrig, T. (1998). Ohio University. In B. O. Barefoot, C. L. Warnock,
M. P. Dickinson, S. E. Richardson, & M. R. Roberts (Eds.), Exploring the evidence,
Volume II: Reporting outcomes of first-year seminars (Monograph No. 29) (pp. 89-90).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year
Experience and Students in Transition.
Churchill, W., & Iwai, S. (1981). College attrition, student use of facilities, and
consideration of self-reported personal problems. Research in Higher Education, 14,
353-365.
Davis, T. M. & Murrell, P. H. (1993). Turning teaching into learning: The role of student
responsibility in the collegiate experience. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.
8. Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human
Development.
DesJardins, S. L., McCall, B. P., Ahlburg, D. A., & Moye, M. J. (2002). Adding a timing light to
the “Tool Box.” Research in Higher Education, 43(1), 83-114.
Deutch, (1998). Oakton Community College. In B. O. Barefoot, C. L. Warnock,
M. P. Dickinson, S. E. Richardson, & M. R. Roberts (Eds.), Exploring the evidence,
Volume II: Reporting outcomes of first-year seminars (Monograph No. 29) (pp. 11-12).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year
Experience and Students in Transition.
Fidler, P. F. (1991). Relationship of freshman orientation seminars to sophomore return
rates. Journal of The Freshman Year Experience, 3(1), 7-38.
Fidler, P., & Godwin, M. (1994). Retaining African-American students through the freshman
seminar. Journal of Developmental Education, 17, 34-41.
Florida Department of Education (2006, November). Data trends #31: Taking student life skills
course increases academic success. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education.
Fox, R. N. (1986). Application of a conceptual model of college withdrawal to disadvantaged
students. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 415-424.
Gardner, J. N. (1986). The freshman year experience. College and University, 61(4), 261-274.
Garret, M. S. (1993). Four North Carolina Community Colleges. In B. O. Barefoot (Ed.),
16
Exploring the evidence: Reporting outcomes of freshman seminars (Monograph No. 11) (pp.
25-26). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The
Freshman Year Experience.
Glass, J., & Garrett, M. (1995). Student participation in a college orientation course: retention,
and grade point average. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 19, 117-132.
Goldman, B. A., & Gillis, J. H. (1989). Graduation and attrition rates: A closer look at
influences. Journal of The Freshman Year Experience, 1(1), 65-77.
Goldsweig, S. (1998). Champlain College. In B. O. Barefoot, C. L. Warnock, M. P. Dickinson, S.
E. Richardson, & M. R. Roberts (Eds.), Exploring the evidence, Volume II: Reporting
outcomes of first-year seminars (Monograph No. 29) (pp. 27-28). Columbia, SC: University
of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition.
Grunder, P., & Hellmich, D. (1996). Academic persistence and achievement of remedial students
in a community college’s success program. Community College Review, 24, 21-33.
Habley, W. R., & McClanahan, R. (2004). What works in student retention? All Survey Colleges.
Retrieved February 12, 2006, from
http://www.act.org/path/postsec/droptables/pdf/AllColleges.pdf
Hoff, M., Cook, D., & Price, C. (1996). The first five years of freshman seminars at
Dalton College: Student success and retention. Journal of The Freshman Year
Experience & Students in Transition, 8(2), 33-42.
House, D. (1998). Northern Illinois University. In B. O. Barefoot, C. L. Warnock, M. P.
Dickinson, S.E. Richardson, & M. R. Roberts (Eds.), Exploring the evidence, Volume
II: Reporting outcomes of first-year seminars (Monograph No. 29) (pp. 87-88). Columbia,
SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience
and Students in Transition.
House, J. D. (2005). Northern Illinois University. In B. F. Tobolowsky, B. E. Cox, & M.
T. Wagner (Eds.), Exploring the evidence: Reporting research on first-year seminars,
Volume
III (Monograph No. 42) (pp. 103-106). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National
Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Hunter, M. A., & Linder, C. W. (2005). First-year seminars. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, B.
O. Barefoot, & Associates, Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook
for improving the first year of college (pp. 275-291). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jackson, B. (2005). Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. In B. F. Tobolowsky, B.
E. Cox, & M. T. Wagner (Eds.), Exploring the evidence: Reporting research on first-year
seminars, Volume III (Monograph No. 42) (pp. 61-65). Columbia, SC: University of South
17
Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Jewler, A. J. (1989). Elements of an effective seminar: The University 101 program. In
M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & Associates (Eds.), The freshman year experience:
Helping students survive and succeed in college (pp. 198-215). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Keup, J. R. & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Learning how to be a successful student: Exploring the
impact of first-year seminars on student outcomes. Journal of The First-Year Experience &
Students in Transition, 17(1), 11-47.
Kramer, M. (1993). Lengthening of time to degree. Change, 25(3), pp. 5-7.
Lang, D. J. (2007). The impact of a first-year experience course on the academic performance,
persistence, and graduation rates of first-semester college students at a public research
university. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 19(1), 9-25.
Maisto, A., & Tammi, M. W. (1991). The effect of a content-based freshman seminar on
academic and social integration. Journal of The Freshman Year Experience, 3(2), 29-48.
McDonough, P. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Miller, J. W., & Janz, J. C. (2007). The retention impact of a first-year seminar on students with
varying pre-college academic performance. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students
in Transition, 19(1), 47-62.
Moore, C., Shulock, N., & Offenstein, J. (2009). Steps to success: Analyzing milestone
achievement to improve community college student outcomes. Sacramento, CA: Institute for
Higher Education Leadership & Policy.
National Resource Center for The First Year Experience and Students in Transition. (1998).
1997 national survey of first-year seminar programming. Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, Author.
National Survey of Student Engagement (2005). Exploring different dimensions of student
engagement: 2005 annual results. Retrieved February 14, 2006, from
http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/NSSE2005_annual_report.pdf
Noel, L. & Levitz, R. (1996). A comprehensive student success program: Part 1. Recruitment &
Retention in Higher Education, 10(7), pp. 4-7.
Noel, L., & Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (Eds.) (1985). Increasing student retention: New
challenges and potential. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Nora, A., & Cabrera, A. F. (1996). The role of perceptions of prejudice and discrimination on the
18
adjustment of minority students to college. Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 119-148.
Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D. W. (1983). Validation of a theoretical model of college
withdrawal: Interaction effects in a multi-institutional sample. Research in Higher
Education, 19, 25-48.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students, Volume 2: A third
decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Porter, S. R., & Swing, R. L. (2006). Understanding how first-year seminars affect persistence.
Research in Higher Education, 47(1), 89-109.
Reeve, A. (1993). University of Wyoming. In B. O. Barefoot (Ed.), Exploring the evidence:
Reporting outcomes of freshman seminars. (Monograph No. 11) (pp. 61-62). Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience.
Robb, A. (1993). University of Prince Edward Island. In B. O. Barefoot (Ed.), Exploring the
evidence: Reporting outcomes of freshman seminars (Monograph No. 11)( pp. 41-42).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The Freshman
Year Experience.
Schnell, C. A., & Doetkott, C. D. (2002-2003). First year seminars produce long-term impact.
Journal of College Student Retention, 4(4), 377-391.
Shanley, M., & Witten, C. (1990). University 101 freshman seminar course: A longitudinal study
of persistence, retention, and graduation rates. NASPA Journal, 27, 344-352.
Sidle, M., & McReynolds, J. (1999). The freshman year experience: Student retention and
student success. NASPA Journal, 36, 288-300.
Soldner, L. B. (1998). Northern Michigan University. In B. O. Barefoot, C. L. Warnock, M. P.
Dickinson, S. E. Richardson, & M. R. Roberts (Eds.), Exploring the evidence, Volume
II: Reporting outcomes of first-year seminars (Monograph No. 29) (pp. 69-70). Columbia,
SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience
and Students in Transition.
Sparks, J. (2005). California State University, San Marcos. In B. F. Tobolowsky, B. E. Cox, &
M. T. Wagner (Eds.). Exploring the evidence: Reporting research on first-year seminars,
Volume III (Monograph No. 42) (pp. 33-35). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina,
National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
19
SREB (Southern Regional Education Board) (2010). Promoting a culture of student success:
How colleges and universities are improving degree completion. Retrieved November 11,
2010, from publications.sreb.org/2010/10E02_Promoting_Culture.pdf
Starke, M. C., Harth, M., & Sirianni, F. (2001). Retention, bonding, and academic
achievement: Success of a first-year seminar. Journal of The First-Year Experience &
Students in Transition, 13(2), 7-35.
Stieha, V. (2005). Northern Kentucky University. In B. F. Tobolowsky, B. E. Cox, & M.
T. Wagner (Eds.), Exploring the evidence: Reporting research on first-year seminars,
Volume
III (Monograph No. 42) (pp. 107-112). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National
Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Stoecker, J., Pascarella, E., & Wolfle, L. (1988). Persistence in higher education: A nine-year test
of a theoretical model. Journal of College Student Development, 29, 196-209.
Stovall, M. (2000). Using success courses for promoting persistence and completion. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 112, 45-54.
Strumpf G., & Hunt, P. (1993). The effects of an orientation course on the retention and
academic standing of entering freshmen, controlling for the volunteer effect. Journal
of The Freshman Year Experience, 5(1), 7-14.
Stupka, E. (1993). Sacramento City College. In B. O. Barefoot (Ed.), Exploring the evidence:
Reporting outcomes of freshman seminars (Monograph No. 11) (pp. 23-24). Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience.
Swing, R. (2002). What type of seminar is best? Retrieved October 15, 2003, from
www.brevard.edu/fyc/fyi/essays/index.htm
Thomson, R. (1998). University of Vermont. In B. O. Barefoot, C. L. Warnock, M. P. Dickinson,
S. E. Richardson, & M. R. Roberts (Eds.), Exploring the evidence, Volume II: Reporting
outcomes of first-year seminars (Monograph No. 29) (pp. 77-78). Columbia, SC: University
of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition.
Tobolowsky, B. F. (2005). The 2003 national survey on first-year seminars: Continuing
innovations in the college curriculum (Monograph No. 41). Columbia, SC: University of
South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition.
Tobolowsky, B. F., & Associates (2008). 2006 National survey of first-year seminars:
Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum. (Monograph No. 51). Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and
Students in Transition.
20
Upcraft, M. L., & Gardner, J. N. (1989). A comprehensive approach to enhancing freshman
success. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & Associates (Eds.), The freshman year
experience (pp. 1-12). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., Barefoot, B. O., & Associates (2005). Challenging and
supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Verduin, S. (2005). Northern Michigan University, San Marcos. In B. F. Tobolowsky, B. E. Cox,
& M. T. Wagner (Eds.), Exploring the evidence: Reporting research on first-year seminars,
Volume III (Monograph No. 42) (pp. 115-117). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina,
National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Vinson, R. B. (1993). A working program at Averett College. Freshman Year Experience
Newsletter, 6(1), p. 8.
Wahlstrom, C. M. (1993). Genesee Community College. In B. O. Barefoot (Ed.), Exploring the
evidence: Reporting outcomes of freshman seminars (Monograph No. 11) (pp. 15-16).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The Freshman
Year Experience.
Wilkie, C., & Kuckuck, S. (1989). A longitudinal study of the effects of a freshman seminar.
Journal of The Freshman Year Experience, 1(1), 7-16.
Wyckoff, S. C. (1999). The academic advising process in higher education: History,
research, and improvement. Recruitment & Retention in Higher Education, 13(1), pp.
1-3.
Yale, A. (2000). Bloomsburg University sets its FYE program’s effectiveness. FYE Newsletter,
12(4), pp. 4-5.
Young, R. W. (1982). Seventeen year graduation study of 1963 freshmen at the University of
New Mexico. College and University, 57(3), 279-288.
Zeidenberg, M., Jenkins, D., & Calcagno, J. C. (2007). Do student success courses actually help
community college student succeed? New York, NY: Community College Research Center,
Teachers College, Columbia University.
Zerger, S. (1993, February). Description and explanation of freshman to sophomore attrition
rates. Paper presented at the annual conference of The Freshman Year Experience,
Columbia, South Carolina.
