By Thomas N. Hollins, Jr.
from Inquiry, Volume 14, Number 1, Spring 2009, 15-27
© Copyright 2009 Virginia Community College System
Abstract
The author presents research on the benefits of providing students with more than one form of orientation to college.
Perhaps
one of the most underemphasized strategies for achieving student success within
the community college is the development and implementation of an intentional,
comprehensive approach to orienting new students to the college environment.
Orientation can be considered as any effort by an institution to help
students make a successful transition from their previous environment into the
collegiate experience (Upcraft & Farnsworth, 1984).
The goals for such programs may include academic preparation, personal
adjustment, and increasing awareness of students and parents during the
transition process (Perigo & Upcraft, 1989; Cook, 1996). Although orientation
programs have been part of the higher education landscape for more than one
century, it was not until recent decades that these types of programs have
gained in popularity and numbers.
Strumpf, Sharer, and Wawrzynski (2003) found that, between the years of 1980 and
2000, more students and parents were attending orientation programs.
Hunter, Skipper, and Linder (2003) estimated that 74 percent of the
institutions of higher education within the United States have an orientation
course or first-year seminar.
Institutions of higher education realize the value of these programs in
addressing transitional issues for the many types of students enrolling in
higher education. Despite the broad
recognition of their potential, community colleges struggle with successfully
transitioning students through orientation.
Studies have placed the first-year retention rate for community colleges at
slightly less than 50 percent (Rode, 2004).
The Virginia Community College System (VCCS) has not been immune to what
would be considered low retention rates.
Between the years of 2000 and 2004, the VCCS had a fall-to-fall retention
rate ranging from 49 to 50 percent for all curricular students and 38 to 40
percent for curricular and non-curricular students (VCCS Retention Summary,
2007). Perhaps the challenge of
community colleges to successfully transition and retain students in the college
environment has much to do with the types of students that are enrolling in the
community college.
Community-college students are often first-generation and lower-ability students
(Cohen & Brawer, 2003). Two recent
national studies highlight that community-college students enroll part time in
higher percentages and that a considerable percentage have dependents while in
college (Community College Survey of Student Engagement, 2005; ACT, 2005).
Since 2003, two major activities have shifted the VCCS’s approach to increasing
student success. The first is
Dateline 2009, our five-year strategic plan for improving the VCCS.
Released in the fall of 2003 by Chancellor Glenn DuBois, this plan sets
the standard for achieving success in seven areas, including that of student
retention (VCCS Dateline 2009). As
a follow up, the VCCS central office has sponsored several activities to
encourage discussion and work in the area of student success among all VCCS
institutions. One of these
activities was the 2005
administration of the Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE),
which provided all institutions with a snapshot of how students perceived their
experiences with academic programs and student services.
The results of the survey generated both institutional and system-wide
conversation about strategies that might be used to better engage students
within the VCCS and improve student success and retention.
J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College (JSRCC) participated in the 2004
administration of CCSSE. As a
follow-up to the survey, JSRCC engaged in a year-long, college-wide discussion
regarding activities that would better engage its students, and several
initiatives were established in 2005 to address student success at JSRCC.
Destination Success
Prior to 2005-2006, JSRCC offered no pre-enrollment orientation program or
intervention that gave new students an overview of the college.
At that time, students had two methods by which they could enroll in
courses at the college: they could
either self-advise and then register online or by phone, or they could visit an
advising office (Student Success Center) to receive information about placement
testing and program requirements.
With only these avenues of entry into the college, students often lacked
comprehensive information regarding
curricula requirements and had a limited understanding of course requirements.
In addition, those students who opted to register in person were often
faced with long lines and shorter individual advising sessions with advising
specialists – especially if they registered near the start of classes.
As can be imagined, this type of advising and orientation activity (or
lack thereof) sometimes resulted in poor curricula choices and course
selections. Students also lacked
important knowledge about institutional policies, services, and resources on
campus that could aid them in a successful transition into the college and
ultimately the achievement of their academic goals. To improve the situation,
JSRCC initiated Destination Success, a combination of a new-student orientation
program entitled Student Orientation, Advising, and Registration (SOAR) and
shorter orientation sessions known as Group Advising sessions, designed to
improve the advising and enrollment processes.
SOAR is a traditional new-student orientation program that provides
·
a general welcome and introduction to college from an executive level officer,
·
an introduction to campus life and opportunity to meet other new and upper-level
students,
·
a tour of the campus,
·
an overview of student services, academic programs, institutional policies, and
student organizations,
·
academic advising that provides an overview of students’ test scores with
recommendations of courses based on their scores, and
·
an opportunity to register for classes.
In its pilot year at the college, full-day and half-day sessions were scheduled
to determine which methods were most effective for both the institution and the
student.
Group Advising sessions are shorter orientation/advising sessions designed to
provide students with an alternative to SOAR (based on the various backgrounds
and demands of the students’ schedules) and remedy the long lines usually
experienced by students and staff during registration periods.
These new sessions provided students and staff with an opportunity to
engage in more meaningful conversation about the college experience and were
strategically scheduled at various times of the day for a six-week period.
Academic-advising specialists and other trained student-affairs staff led
sessions of 20 to 25 students, providing them with an overview of
·
their placement scores with recommended courses based on selected curricula,
·
the college catalog and schedule of classes,
·
JSRCC’s learning-environment principles, as well as policies for student conduct
and academic honesty,
·
instructions for registering and paying for courses,
·
institutional drop and withdrawal policies, and
·
guidance in using the Student Information System and institutional email.
JSRCC recommended both programs to students.
Students who participated in these activities were also strongly
encouraged to enroll in the institution’s College Success Skills course (SDV
100) during their first term.
SDV 100 is a one-credit orientation course intended to assist students with
their transition into the institution during their first term.
Specifically, the course “provides
overviews of college policies, procedures, curricular offerings. Encourages
contacts with other students and staff. Assists students toward college success
through information regarding effective study habits, career and academic
planning, and other college resources available to students” (Virginia Community
College System Master Course File, 2007).
This course is required of all curricular students for graduation.
However, prior to 2005, many curricular students delayed enrolling in
this course for several semesters, thus reducing the potential value of the
course.
Impact of Orientation on Student Success
Very little research has been conducted to show the effects of pre-college,
new-student orientation programs on student success as defined by academic
performance and student retention, and even fewer studies have examined the
impact of these programs on the success of students within the community
college. However, Busby, Gammel,
and Jeffcoat (2002) found that students who participated in new-student
orientation programs generally performed better academically than students who
did not. Perhaps this conclusion
could be explained by the notion that students who participate in orientation
programs are more likely to miss fewer classes, participate in more
extracurricular activities, talk with faculty and staff about personal concerns,
become friends with those whose interests were different from their own, and
attend lectures or panel discussions (Gentry, Kuhnert, Johnson, & Cox, 2006).
In general, students who participate in new-student orientation programs
are satisfied with them (Bumgarner, Mathies, & Ranges, 1997; Booker, 2006) and
believe that the programs provide good academic information and develop personal
relationships (Nadler & Miller, 1997).
Over the past twenty years, numerous studies have been conducted to examine the
impact of an orientation course on students’ experiences in college.
Much of the research on this type of intervention focused on
participation in these types of courses and its relationship with academic
performance, as well as student retention and/or persistence. In terms of the
impact of orientation courses on academic performance, mixed results have been
found. Several studies have found
significant differences in grade point averages (GPAs) between students who
participated in orientation courses and those who did not (Yarbrough, 1993;
Brunelle-Joiner, 1999; Starke, Harth, & Sirianni, 2001).
Other studies attributed the higher GPAs of participants due to chance
(Boudreau & Kromrey, 1994; Stewart, 1997; Green & Miller, 1998; Sidle &
McReynolds, 1999), while some
studies found non-participants to have earned higher GPAs (Prola, Rosenberg, &
Wright, 1977; Mark & Romano, 1982).
Suffice it to say that the literature on orientation programs and courses
yielded varied results as it relates to the impact on academic performance.
The majority of the studies examining the impact of orientation courses on
student retention found higher retention rates for participants in these
courses, whether statistically significant (Boudreau & Kromrey, 1994; Green &
Miller, 1998; Sidle & McReynolds, 1999; Hollins, 2004) or by chance (Yarbrough,
1993; Stewart, 1997; Brunelle-Joiner, 1999).
JSRCC’s Study
We captured the student identification numbers of those who participated in SOAR
or Group Advising in order to determine the impact of the program on student
success. We also eliminated the data of
students
with inaccurate student identification numbers in order to ensure
accurate tracking. In addition, we eliminated the data of students who had
previously participated in either intervention or previously earned college
credit so as to examine the impact on first-year,
first-time-in-college students exclusively. We then compared the data on all
first-year students who did not participate in any of the interventions with
that of the participants. The data we examined covered one semester, fall to
spring.
In order to determine the impact of the interventions on academic performance,
we asked the following questions:
·
Is there a difference in the academic performance of students who participated
in SOAR and those who did not?
·
Is there a difference in the academic performance of students who participated
in Group Advising and those who did not?
·
Is there a difference in the academic performance of students who participated
in both SOAR and SDV 100 and those who did not participate in both?
·
Is there a difference in the academic performance of students who participated
in both Group Advising and SDV 100 and those who did not participate in both?
To assess the impact of the program on academic performance, t-tests were
calculated in order to compare the
mean GPAs of those students who participated in SOAR or Group Advising against
those students who did not.
Secondly, we asked the following questions to determine the impact of the
interventions on student retention:
·
Is there a difference in the fall-to-spring retention rates of students who
participated in SOAR and students who did not?
·
Is there a difference in the fall-to-spring retention rates of students who
participated in Group Advising and students who did not?
·
Is there a difference in the fall-to-spring retention rates of students who
participated in both SOAR and SDV 100 and students who did not participate in
both?
·
Is there a difference in the fall-to-spring retention rates of students who
participated in both Group Advising and SDV 100 and students who did not
participate both?
Chi-square analyses were used to assess the impact of these interventions on the
re-enrollment rate of students after one semester.
Our Results
Altogether, 143 SOAR participants and 531 Group Advising participants were
examined. Within these groups, the
majority of the students were women (64.3 and 60.8 percent respectively), and
more than 40 percent of the participants were minority.
Some 282 students participated in multiple orientation interventions.
Of these participants, 66 participated in both SOAR and SDV 100, while
216 participated in both Group Advising and SDV 100.
Similar to the demographics of the individual interventions, both gender
and ethnicity were approximately a 60 to 40 percent ratio (60 percent women, 40
percent men, and 37-40 percent minority).
In general, participation in SOAR or group advising demonstrated a positive
relationship as reflected in a higher GPA (see Tables 1 and 2).
No statistical significance was found when comparing the groups.
Table 1.
Participation in SOAR
Group
N
Mean GPA
SD
t-value
Sig.
Yes
143
2.117
1.2987
.684
.495
No
4,296
2.041
1.6324
Table 2.
Participation in Group Advising
Group
N
Mean GPA
SD
t-value
Sig.
Yes
531
2.061
1.4350
.294
.769
No
3,918
2.041
1.6462
When comparing SOAR and Group Advising in combination with participation in SDV
100 (see Tables 3 and 4), students who participated in either a SOAR or Group
Advising session in combination with SDV 100 demonstrated a higher GPA than
students who did not participate in the combination of orientation
interventions. Statistical
significance was found when examining participation in Group Advising in
combination with SDV 100 (see Table 4).
Table 3.
Participation in SOAR and SDV 100
Group
N
Mean GPA
SD
t-value
Sig.
Yes
66
2.214
1.1877
1.164
.248
No
4,373
2.041
1.6283
Table 4.
Participation in Group Advising and SDV 100
Group
N
Mean GPA
SD
t-value
Sig.
Yes
216
2.270
1.3933
2.432
.016*
No
4,080
2.032
1.6329
* Significant at .05
As it relates to student retention over one semester (fall to spring), Table 5
illustrates that students who participated in SOAR were found to be retained at
a higher rate (77.6 percent) than students who did not participate in SOAR (57.9
percent). Similar results were
found with students who participated in Group Advising.
Students who participated in Group Advising were retained at a rate of
72.4 percent versus students who did not participate in Group Advising, for
which the retention rate over one semester was 56.7 percent (see Table 6).
Both assessments were found to be statistically significant.
Table 5.
Spring 2006 Enrollment
of SOAR Participants and Non-SOAR Participants
Variable
N
Enrolled
Not Enrolled
SOAR
143
111
(77.6%)*
32
(22.4%)
Non-SOAR
4,296
2,489 (57.9%)
1,807 (42.1%)
* Significant at .05
Table 6.
Spring 2006 Enrollment of Group Advising and Non-Group Participants
Variable
N
Enrolled
Not Enrolled
Group Advising
521
377
(72.4%)*
144
(27.6%)
Non-Group Advising
3,775
2,223
(56.7%)
1,695 (43.3%)
* Significant at .05
When comparing SOAR and Group Advising in combination with participation in SDV
100, students who participated in either a SOAR or Group-Advising session and
who subsequently enrolled in and completed SDV 100 demonstrated significantly
higher retention rates than students who did not participate in the
interventions in combination.
Table 7.
Spring 2006 Enrollment of SOAR/ SDV 100 Participants and Non-Group Participants
Variable
N
Enrolled
Not Enrolled
SOAR & SDV 100
66
58
(87.9%)*
8
(12.1%)
Non-SOAR & SDV 100
4,373
2,542 (58.1%)
1,831 (41.9%)
* Significant at .05
Table 8.
Spring 2006 Enrollment Group Advising and SDV 100 Participants and Non-Group
Participants
Variable
N
Enrolled
Not Enrolled
Group & SDV 100
216
166
(76.9%)*
50
(23.1%)
Non-Group & SDV 100
4,223
2,434 (57.6%)
1,789 (42.4%)
* Significant at .05
Academic Performance
The results of this study are consistent with the literature on the topic of
orientation and academic performance.
Students who participate in orientation tend to have higher GPAs than
students who do not. However, our
results showed limited statistical significance.
Similar to the findings in the literature, students who participate in
orientation do perform better academically than students who do not participate
in some orientation program, but this is more than likely by chance.
Because the orientation efforts such as SOAR and Group Advising do not
provide any study-skills preparation, it cannot be inferred that there is a
causal relationship.
When examining the impact of the orientation interventions in combination with
SDV 100, students who participated in SOAR and SDV 100 had higher GPAs than
students who did not participate in both.
Again these findings were consistent with the literature, in that higher
GPAs were found amongst those participating in orientation programs and courses,
but this is more than likely due to chance.
However, Group Advising participants who enrolled in SDV 100 did
demonstrate higher GPAs than students who did not participate in Group Advising
alone, yielding an inconsistent finding with the literature.
Despite these findings being largely attributed to chance, the higher GPAs by
participants in these interventions suggest that the academic emphasis in the
content of both the program and the course may increase the likelihood of
success of students in these programs and course, which legitimizes the May 2005
action of the State Board for Community Colleges to require that the course be
taken within the first fifteen credits of a community-college curriculum (E.
Tobian, personal communication, April 30, 2007).
This researcher recommends that SDV 100 be required within the first semester of
curriculum enrollment at the community college; however, some may argue that
enforcing such a policy could impact enrollment negatively, as many students
want to enroll immediately in core courses, or there are not sufficient
resources to deliver the course to all first-year students.
Our colleges may need to explore how
these courses are marketed in order to highlight the value of these courses to
students’ overall college success.
Student Retention
The results of our study are consistent with the literature on student
retention. Students who participate
in orientation programs and courses tend to be retained at rates significantly
higher than students who do not.
Perhaps much of the impact can be attributed to students becoming familiar with
the programs and services that are introduced
to them during orientation sessions and lectures within SDV 100 courses, as well
as the personal connections that they make with faculty, staff, and students who
participate in these programs and courses, which engenders comfort and
confidence in students in seeking assistance when needed.
Some limitations to this study include a low number of students
who participated in SOAR and SDV 100 (66), which makes generalizing this study
to other institutions difficult.
Despite the low numbers, data suggest that there is value in using multiple
interventions to help students transition into the community college.
In addition to the low numbers of students who participated in SOAR and
SDV 100, the results only provide data over one semester.
Additional research needs to be conducted over extended periods of time,
to include fall-to-fall results, two-year results, and three-year results.
Recommendations
As it relates to implementation of this approach elsewhere, community colleges
should examine the development of pre-college new-student orientation programs.
Pre-college or new-student orientation programs offer the opportunity to
become familiar with institutions and their campus culture so that students have
references with whom they can connect if they may need assistance or want to
become involved. In addition to
developing new-student orientation programs on campuses, VCCS colleges should
require new students to enroll in SDV 100 within their first semester of
enrollment. If this is a challenge
to enrollment or resources, institutions should explore requiring this
combination of interventions to targeted groups of students based on
pre-enrollment characteristics (such as placement test scores).
When combined, these interventions may provide students with a better
opportunity at achieving success within their first year and may lead to an
increase in graduation.
VCCS student-affairs
professionals should continue to examine this approach to transitioning students
into college. As a result of this
study, questions have been developed related to the quality, long-term impact,
and effectiveness of these types of interventions delivered in different modes.
Because this study examined fall-to-spring retention rates, additional
studies should examine the long-term impact of these types of interventions
within the VCCS over a one-year (fall to fall) and two-year period.
Further investigation should focus on underrepresented student
populations within the VCCS. For
instance, researchers might ask how these types of programs impact student
success amongst a particular population.
Also, qualitative studies should be conducted to understand the various
nuances of such programs and how they might influence student success in
college. Finally, research should
be conducted on the growing area of online orientation programs and online SDV
100, as recommended by Tighe (2006).
In conducting research on the impact of multiple orientation interventions on
student success, as defined by academic performance and student retention within
the VCCS, this study has found that there is tremendous potential in increasing
student success through the delivery of new student orientation programs when
combined with orientation courses such as SDV 100.
Institutions would best serve themselves and students by offering these
types of options as well as requiring such interventions based on pre-college
(and other) characteristics such as placement test scores.
References
ACT. (2005). Faces of the future national comparison data report. Iowa
City, IA.
Booker, K. (2006). Building the connection: An evaluation of new student
orientation at a
Boudreau, C.A., & Kromrey, J.D. (1994). A longitudinal study of the retention
and
Brunelle-Joiner, K.M. (1999). Effects of an extended orientation program on
personal
Bumgarner, L., Mathies, C., & Ranges, S. (1997). A larger research university’s
approach to a
Busby, R.R., Gammel, H.L., & Jeffcoat, N.K. (2002). Grades, graduation, and
orientation: A
Cohen, A.M., & Brawer, F.B. (2003). The American community college (4th
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE).
(2005). Overview of 2005
national survey results.
Austin, TX.
Cook, L.P. (1996). A description of
orientation programs at two-year colleges in the
Gentry, W.A., Kuhnert, K.W., Johnson, R.M., & Cox, B. (2006). Even a weekend
works: The
Green, J. T., & Miller, M.T. (1998). A comparison study of enrollees and
non-enrollees in an
Hollins, Jr., T.N. (2004). Participation in an extended orientation course and
its relationships
Hunter, M.S., Skipper, T.L., & Linder, C.W. (2003). The first-year seminar:
Continuing
Mark, M.M., & Romano, J.J. (1982). The freshman seminar program: Experimental
evaluation
Nadler, D.P., & Miller, M.T. (1997). Student satisfaction with orientation: A
program assessment
Perigo, D.J. & Upcraft, M.L. (1989). Orientation programs. In M.L. Upcraft, J.N.
Gardner, & Associates (Eds.),
The Freshman Year Experience
(pp. 82-94).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Prola, M., Rosenberg, P., & Wright, B. (1977). The impact of a freshman
orientation course.
Rode, D. (2004). The role of
institutional retention. In M.J. Fabich (Ed.),
Orientation Planning
Sidle, M.W., & McReynolds, J. (1999). The freshman year experience: Student
retention and
Starke, M.C., Harth, M., & Sirianni, F.
(2001). Retention, bonding, and academic
Stewart, B.W. (1997). The effects of a freshman seminar course on student
retention,
Strumpf, G., Sharer, G., & Wawrzynski, M. (2003). 20 years of trends and issues
in
Tighe, W.L. (2006). The VCCS online college orientation: A faculty survey and
syllabi analysis
Upcraft, M.L., & Farnsworth, W.E. (1984). Orientation programs and activities.
In M.L. Upcraft
Virginia Community College System Dateline 2009. Retrieved February 12, 2006,
from
Virginia Community College System
Master Course File. Retrieved April
7, 2007 from
http://system.vccs.edu/mcf/FILEDESS.HTM#SDV.100.
Virginia Community College System Student Retention Summary (2007). Retrieved
May 11, 2007 from
http://system.vccs.edu/vccsasr/Research/retention.htm.
Yarbrough, B. (1993). The effects of an extended orientation program on student
Dr. Thomas N. Hollins, Jr. serves as associate vice president
of student affairs at J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College.