Transition to First-Year: Academic Support Pilot Project

Sheilagh Grills

Report to the Acting Executive Dean, Student & International Affairs / University Registrar,

Brandon University

© 2006

TRANSITION TO FIRST-YEAR: ACADEMIC SUPPORT PILOT PROJECT

“Over the past decade many institutions have declared

their commitment to various ‘signature pedagogies’

(e.g., co-op education, inquiry based-learning,

learner-centredness). More recently there has been

interest in studying the effect of these approaches on

student learning” (J. Hughes, 2006:2).

According to the Pew Foundation’s report Understanding University

Success, students need to develop habits of mind to succeed

in entry-level courses. That is, first-year students need

to learn the learning and thinking skills that are most

often taught through academic support services. As students

transition out of high school, they also need to learn how

to engage in self-regulatory learning (Zimmerman, 2000).

Students who monitor and take control of their own learning

are more successful academically, are less likely to

attribute failure to external, stable sources (Weiner,

1986), are more likely to work harder, longer and select

more challenging learning tasks (Weiner, 1992), and have an

improved sense of self-efficacy (Zimmerman & Risemberg,

1997).

Through a meta-analysis of earlier research on academic

support programs in post-secondary settings, Kulik, Kulik

and Shwalb (1983) found that while there were

inconsistencies in the 60 studies under investigation,

academic support programs generally had statistically

reliable positive effects on student persistence.

Materniak (1982) suggested that incorporating information

processing theory into learning skills curriculum promoted

active learning and individual responsibility on the part of

the student. In an extensive study, Dansereau, McDonald,

Collins, Garland, Holley, Diekhoff & Evans (1979) concluded

that direct learning skills instruction produced

significantly positive changes in measures of comprehension

and retention.

Typical units or workshops in study skills are

relatively superficial treatments that provide information

on how to take notes or exam preparation strategies.

However post-secondary education is more accurately viewed

as a process of learning – the acquisition of cognitive

skills - rather than the acquisition of facts (e.g.

Anderson, 1981; Andre & Phye, 1986; Dembo & Seli, 2004).

How students approach this process of learning depends upon

the context of the learning task (e.g., Ramsden, 1988).

Cognitive psychologists have long described these different

approaches of students to the learning task as a distinction

between deep and surface levels of processing (Craik &

Lockhart, 1972; Craik & Tulving, 1975). Surface approaches

to learning tasks can be induced in students relatively

easily, but deep processing produces the greatest and

longest effects in knowledge acquisition, comprehension and

retention (e.g., Fay, Isingrini, Ragot & Pouthas, 2005).

Post-secondary institutions with an open admissions

policy encourage participation by students who may otherwise

not have a chance to pursue the dream of post-secondary

education. As the Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University

Education states, “programs to improve the first year

experience should be adopted at all universities, especially

where attrition is high” (1991:141). At the site

institution for this study, the retention rate for 2005 was

71.2% for a rank of 21st out of 21 primarily undergraduate

schools in the Maclean’s annual university report, while the

proportion who graduate was ranked 20th at 63.1%.

While high school entering grades give an indication of

prior performance, this measure captures many layers of

variables. In an investigation using existing databases at

the University of California, San Diego, Morell (1993, as

cited in Betts & Morell, 1999) established significantly

positive associations between high school GPA and the

probability of graduating within six years. However the

transition from high school to first-year to graduation is

highly complex, involving a sociological, psychological and

educational journey. Pre-enrolment characteristics combined

with measures of social and academic integration have been

found to explain only 31-37% of the variance in first-year

persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1979), while pre-

matriculation characteristics alone account for less than

four percent of the variance in attrition (Terenzini &

Pascarella, 1978). Pascarella, Terenzini and Wolfle (1986)

reported that measures of entering academic aptitude

(combined SAT scores and percentile rank in the secondary

school graduating class) had no significant direct or

indirect effects on freshman persistence. Socioeconomic

traits of the school and the neighbouring population,

demographic characteristics of students, and the experience

level of teachers are all consistently and strongly

correlated with post-secondary GPA (Pascarella & Terenzini,

1980; Betts & Morell, 1999). Students who are more poorly

prepared for university but who performed very well at their

secondary school may not have had access to the same level

of laboratory, library or enrichment services. This wide

variety of information is difficult to capture by any single

measure of high school performance. As Terenzini and

Pascarella (1978: 362) concluded, “even at schools without

an open admissions policy, what happens to a student after

matriculation may be more important in subsequent voluntary

attrition among freshmen than are the attributes the student

brings to college”.

The objectives of the learning strategies/critical

thinking course in the current study are consistent with

general education programs designed to emphasize skills that

transfer broadly across disciplines, and form the foundation

for intense studies within particular disciplines (Gaff,

Ratcliff & Associates, 1997). It is not enough to recommend

or teach appropriate learning strategies. The learning

process requires students to transfer any newly learned

strategies to other settings and situations (e.g., Bessant,

1988). However as twenty years of learning strategy courses

in post-secondary education has taught us, teaching about

self-regulation of cognition is not necessarily the same as

improving cognition or self-regulating behaviour across

courses (McKeachie, Pintrich & Lin, 1985; Pintrich,

McKeachie & Lin, 1987; Dembo & Seli, 2004).

In the first and last week of the course, all students

will complete the LASSI. This inventory provides

standardized scores and norms for a 10-scale assessment of

students’ awareness about and reported use of learning and

study strategies. According to Weinstein, Zimmerman &

Palmer (1988), higher scores on each scale of the LASSI are

related to success in post-secondary educational settings.

The LASSI was used at the University of Texas to assist

under-prepared students by identifying areas in which

individual students were particularly weak. In collecting

LASSI data over four semesters, Weinstein et al (1988) found

that the majority of students were extremely deficient in

the information processing subscale.

In this research project, it is expected that students

will improve their meta-cognitive abilities and become more

active learners through directed class instruction. When

students learn to monitor and manage their own learning,

they are more likely to achieve academic success

(McLoughlin, 1999). Students who feel more in control of

their learning are more likely to work harder, longer and

select more challenging learning tasks (Weiner, 1992). In

the academic year 2005-06, a project was launched to

investigate the efficacy of learning strategy instruction in

a for-credit class setting. Two of the aims of this study

are to more fully identify and understand dimensions of

academic competencies, and to provide measures for

developing and improving learning skills services and

general education programs.

In the first and last week of the course, all students

regardless of their participation in this study will

complete the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory or

LASSI (sample attached) as part of the curriculum. This

inventory provides standardized scores and norms for a 10-

scale assessment of students’ awareness about and reported

use of learning and study strategies. According to

Weinstein, Zimmerman and Palmer (1988), higher scores on

each scale of the LASSI are related to success in post-

secondary educational settings. The LASSI has been used at

many post-secondary institutions to assist under-prepared

students by identifying areas in which individual students

were particularly weak.

Information has been collected from students enrolled

in an introductory course on critical thinking (99:175:

Fundamentals of Inquiry), and a control group of students

not enrolled in this course during the fall and winter

semesters of 2005-06. The second intake for this study is

planned for the fall semester of 2006.

An investigation of average entering grade indicates

that the control group of students had high school grades

equivalent to the average entering grade of Brandon

University students (78.8%) as reported to Maclean’s for the

2005 and 2006 combined academic years. Students enrolled in

the Inquiry course had significantly lower high school

grades than the control group (Inquiry = 74.28 7.65; Control =

80.84 8.16; t(61) = 3.26, p < .01), as calculated by the

Maclean’s criteria.

Preliminary data from the first intake of students in

2005-06 strongly support the efficacy of direct learning

skills instruction in the context of a critical thinking

course. In an examination of Learning and Study Strategy

Inventory (LASSI) data thus far, students enrolled in the

Fundamentals of Inquiry class appear to differ significantly

from their peers in the first week of the semester on four

dimensions (see Table 1). Students enrolled in the

critical thinking course had significantly lower scores on

the Motivation, Self Testing, Time Management and Test

Taking subscales.1 This would support the working

assumption that students are either choosing this course, or

this course is being suggested to them, on the basis of weak

motivation or an accurate self-assessment of their skills in

the latter three areas.

In an examination of Learning and Study Strategy

Inventory data thus far, students enrolled in the

Fundamentals of Inquiry class appear to differ significantly

from their peers in the first week of the semester on four

subscales. Students enrolled in the critical thinking

course had significantly lower scores on the Motivation

(Inquiry = 27.03 6.07; Control = 31.24 5.04; z = 2.883, p <

.01), Self Testing (Inquiry = 22.09 5.83; Control = 25.53 +/-

5.64; t(64) = 2.475, p < .05), Time Management (Inquiry = 21.78

7.54; Control = 25.97 6.14; t(64) = 2.481, p < .05) and Test

1 Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality indicated the distributions of scores in the Attitude, Motivation, Selecting Main Ideas and Use of Support Techniques & Materials subscales were not normally distributed. Nonparametric tests on these subscales indicated pre-test differences between the class and control groups on the Motivation subscale only (Mann-Whitney U=320; z=2.9). Levene’s tests indicated homogeneous variances on the remaining subscales, and independent samples t-tests were performed.

Taking (Inquiry = 24.34 5.07; Control = 28.62 4.60; t(64) =

3.509, p < .001) subscales.2 This would support the working

assumption that students are either choosing this course, or

this course is being suggested to them, on the basis of weak

motivation or an accurate self-assessment of their weaker

skills in the latter three areas.

Preliminary data from the first intake of students in

2005-06 strongly support the efficacy of direct learning

skills instruction in the context of a critical thinking

course. When investigating for any changes in awareness and

reported use of learning skills between the first week and

last week of the semester, there were no significant

differences in the control group for any subscales.

Students enrolled in an introductory psychology course were

found to have no significant changes between September and

December in anxiety, attitude, concentration, information

2 Shapiro-Wilk tests of normality indicated the distributions of scores in the Attitude, Motivation, Selecting Main Ideas and Use of Support Techniques & Materials subscales were not normally distributed. Nonparametric tests on these subscales indicated pre-test differences between the class and control groups on the Motivation subscale only (Mann-Whitney U=320; z=2.9). Levene’s tests indicated homogeneous variances on the remaining subscales, and independent samples t-tests were performed.

processing, motivation, self-testing, selecting main ideas,

use of support services, time management or test taking (see

Figures 1 & 2). Although this control group was found to

have significantly higher scores for the Motivation, Self-

Testing, Time Management and Test Taking subscales at

initial entry, these advantages were all erased at the end

of the semester. For the students enrolled in Fundamentals

of Inquiry, significant improvements were made in all areas

except the Attitude subscale (see Figures 3 – 11).

In looking at students’ academic success, the average

sessional GPA for the first semester of the control group

was 3.05 ( 0.747). While there was a slight decline in

performance, there was no significant change in sessional

GPA in the second semester for this group. For those

enrolled in the ‘Fundamentals of Inquiry’ class, sessional

GPA for first semester was weak but highly variable (2.06

1.30), further supporting the evidence that this group of

students was in need of academic assistance.3 Students in 3 The sessional GPAs for students in the first semester was not normallydistributed, therefore nonparametric analyses were used to compare academic performance across semesters. Students were grouped according to the success of their performance: a GPA of 3.3 or higher was categorized as honours; a GPA of 2 – 3.29 was categorized as average and

the ‘Fundamentals of Inquiry’ class, particularly those with

weak or average beginning or first semester grades, improved

their marks significantly more in their second semester than

first year students not enrolled in this course (see Figure

12).

Fundamentals Control Of Inquiry Group

M SD M SD DIFFERENCEMEASURE

ANX 21.69

7.53

///

23.79

6.75

ATT 30.91

4.04

///

32.56

4.36

CON 23.50

6.76

//

25.79

5.32

a GPA of lower than 1.99 was categorized as weak.

/INP 25.6

95.29

///

27.68

5.50

MOT 27.03

6.07

///

31.24

5.04

z = 2.883, p< .01

SFT 22.09

5.63

///

25.53

5.64

t(64) = 2.475, p< .05

SMI 23.88

5.51

///

26.91

5.18

STA 24.56

8.43

///

24.82

4.96

TMT 21.78

7.54

///

25.97

6.14

t(64) = 2.481, p< .05

TST 24.34

5.29

///

28.62

4.60

t(64) = 3.509, p< .001

Table 1. Comparison of LASSI scores at Pre-Test, by Group

When investigating for any changes in awareness and

reported use of learning skills between the first week and

last week of the semester, there were no significant

differences in the control group for any subscales.

Students enrolled in an introductory psychology course were

found to have no significant changes between September and

December in anxiety, attitude, concentration, information

processing, motivation, self-testing, selecting main ideas,

use of support services, time management or test taking.

Although this control group was found to have significantly

higher scores for the Motivation, Self-Testing, Time

Management and Test Taking subscales at initial entry, these

advantages were all erased at the end of the semester. For

the students enrolled in Fundamentals of Inquiry,

significant improvements were made in all areas except the

Attitude subscale (see Table 2 and Figures 1 – 10).4

Table 2. COMPARISON OF PRE - POST LASSI SCORES FOR STUDENTSENROLLED IN ‘FUNDAMENTALS OF INQUIRY’

M SD M SD DIFFERENCEMEASURE

ANX 21.69

7.53

///

24.97

8.07

t(31) = 2.203, p <.05

ATT 30.91

4.04

///

32.09

4.65

CON 23.50

6.76

//

28.28

5.64

t(31) = 5.248, p <.001

4 Because the Attitude, Motivation, Selecting Main Ideas and Use of Support Techniques & Materials subscales were not normally distributed, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test was employed.

/INP 25.6

95.29

///

30.47

4.60

t(31) = 4.052, p <.001

MOT 27.03

6.07

///

30.06

6.14

z = 3.331, p<.001

SFT 22.09

5.63

///

26.41

5.36

t(31) = 3.372, p <.01

SMI 23.88

5.51

///

30.00

5.64

z = 4.213, p<.001

STA 24.56

8.43

///

27.44

4.26

z = 3.027, p<.01

TMT 21.78

7.54

///

25.72

6.98

t(31) = 4.111, p <.001

TST 24.34

5.29

///

28.97

4.70

t(31) = 4.669, p <.001

Summary

Incoming students are self-identifying or are being

placed into ‘Fundamentals of Inquiry’ with an average

entering grade of 74.3%. This group of students initially

scored significantly lower than their peers on measures of

motivation, self-testing, time management and test taking

skills. Based on these preliminary data, this critical

thinking course is reaching an at-risk target, however this

group would not be identified with a 65% or 70% provisional

admission category. As research leaders in post-secondary

retention conclude, efforts to reduce current attrition

levels are more likely to succeed if they are focused on

what happens to students after their arrival on campus,

rather than on what they are like at the time of admission.

‘Typical’ students enrolled in introductory psychology

did not improve in any area of learning as measured by the

LASSI from one semester to the next. These students’

grades, while satisfactory, also did not improve over their

first year of studies, and in fact decreased slightly but

not significantly.

First-year students enrolled in the critical

thinking/learning skills course showed vast improvements in

academic skills necessary for success at university

(information processing, self-testing, selecting main ideas

from text, time management, and test taking skills). This

group also improved in the more affective areas of

motivation, lack of anxiety and concentration, as well as in

awareness of and reported use of support techniques and

materials. After directed learning strategy instruction,

the sessional GPAs for this group went from a probationary

average of 2.06 to 2.55 in the following semester.

References

Anderson, J.R. (1981). Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Andre, T. & Phye, G.D. (1986). Cognitive Classroom Learning:

Understanding Thinking and Problem Solving. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc..

Conley, D. (2003). Understanding University Success: A report from Standards for Success: A project of the Association of American Universities and The Pew Charitable Trusts. Eugene, Oregon: Center for Educational Policy Research.http://www.s4s.org/cepr.uus.php. Accessed July 12,

2005.Craik, F.I.M. & Lockhart, R.S. (1972). Levels of

processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.

Craik, F.I.M. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing andthe retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 268-294.

Dansereau, D.F., McDonald, B.A., Collins, K.W., Garland, J.,Holley, C.D. Diekhoff, G.M. & Evans, S.H. (1979). Evaluation of a Learning Strategy System. In H.F. O’Neil & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Cognitive and Affective Learning Strategies (pp. 3-22). New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc..

Dembo, M.H. & Seli, H.P. (2004). Students’ Resistance to Change in Learning Strategies Courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 27(3), 2-11.

Fay, S., Isingrini, M., Ragot, R. & Pouthas, V. (2005). Theeffect of encoding manipulation on word-stem cued recall: An event-related potential study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24(3), 615-626.

Gaff, J., Ratcliff, J., & Associates (1997). Handbook of the undergraduate curriculum. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Glynn, S.M., Aultman, L.P., Owens, A.M. (2005). Motivation to learn in general education programs. The Journal of General Education, 54(2), 150-170.

Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J.A., & Shwalb, B.J. (1983, Autumn). College Programs for High-Risk and

Disadvantaged Students: A Meta-Analysis of Findings. Review of Educational Research, 53(3), 397-414.

Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning: I. Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

Materniak, G. (1982). Study Skills: A Practical Applicationof Information-Processing Theory. In A.S. Algier & K.W. Algier (Eds.), Improving Reading and Study Skills (pp. 3-11). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

McKeachie, W.J., Pintrich, P.R., & Lin, Y.-G. (1985). Teaching Learning Strategies. Educational Psychologist, 20(3), 153-160.

McLoughlin, C. (1999). The implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 15 (3), 222-241.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1979). Interaction Effects in Spady’s and Tinto’s Conceptual Models of college Dropout. Sociology of Education, 52(4), 197-210.

Pascarella, E.T. & Terenzini, P.T. (1980). Predicting Freshman Persistence and voluntary Dropout Decisions from a Theoretical Model. The Journal of Higher Education, 51(1), 60-75.

Pintrich, P.R., McKeachie, W.J. & Lin, Y.-G. (1987). Teaching a Course in Learning to Learn. Teaching of Psychology, 14(2), 81-86.

Terenzini, P.T. & Pascarella, E.T. (1978). The Relation of Students’ Precollege Characteristics and Freshman Year Experience to Voluntary Attrition. Research in Higher Education, 9, 347-366.

Tinto, V. (2000). What have we learned about the impact of learning communities on students? Assessment Update, 12(2), 1-3.

Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Weinstein, C.E., Zimmerman, S.A. & Palmer, D.R. (1988). Assessing Learning Strategies: The Design and

Development of the LASSI. In C.E. Weinstein, E.T. Goetz & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and Study Strategies: issues in assessment, instruction and evaluation (pp. 25-40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekarts, P.R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego: Academic Press.

Zimmerman, B.J. & Risemberg, R. (1997). Self-regulatory dimensions of academic learning and motivation. In G.D. Phye (Ed.), Handbook of academic learning: Construction of knowledge (pp. 105-125). San Diego: Academic Press.