Transfer Student Experiences at a Four-Year University (2024)

(1)

California State University, San Bernardino California State University, San Bernardino

CSUSB ScholarWorks

Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations Office of Graduate Studies

12-2016

Transfer Student Experiences at a Four-Year University

Virginia Kay Stewart-Hattar

California State University - San Bernardino, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd

Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Higher Education Administration Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Stewart-Hattar, Virginia Kay, "Transfer Student Experiences at a Four-Year University" (2016). Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations. 430.

https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/etd/430

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Office of Graduate Studies at CSUSB

ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Projects, and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of CSUSB ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].

(2)

TRANSFER STUDENT EXPERIENCES AT A FOUR-YEAR UNIVERSITY

A Dissertation Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University, San Bernardino

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Education

Educational Leadership

Virginia Kay Stewart-Hattar December 2016

(3)

TRANSFER STUDENT EXPERIENCES AT A FOUR-YEAR UNIVERSITY

A Dissertation Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University, San Bernardino

Virginia Kay Stewart-Hattar December 2016

Approved by:

Dr. Donna Schnorr, Committee Chair, Education

Dr. Marita Mahoney, Committee Member

(4)(5)

iii ABSTRACT

In recent years attention has been concentrated on the experiences of traditional college students, with very little research or attention on the

experiences of transfer students. The purpose of this causal comparative mixed-methods study was to describe the experiences of transfer students who engage in the experiential learning activities of service learning and/or internship

activities at a four-year public Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the Inland Empire. Relationships were found between transfer students who participated in service learning and/or internship activities and those transfer students who did not participate in those activities on the following: level of satisfaction with their educational experience, current job/career, and sense of connectedness to the university, and beliefs about how much the university contributed to their

acquisition of job- or work-related knowledge and skills. Predominant concepts regarding transfer students' beliefs about what the university could do to help them be successful, were the implementation of a transfer student orientation and creating a transfer student center.

(6)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My success in the doctoral program would not have been possible without the support and guidance of numerous people. First, I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Donna Schnorr (chair), Dr. Marita Mahoney and Dr. Diane Podolske. Dr. Schnorr provided guidance and feedback throughout the entire process. Dr. Mahoney encouraged me to present my research at university symposiums. Dr. Podolske provided expert advice from the field and encouragement. And to Cohort 7, Alyssa, Amanda, Avi, Claudia, Cristina, Erika, Felix, Jackie, Jesse, Kathy, LaTrenda, and Shine, from day one we encouraged and motivated each other to be the best educators that we could be.

I am also eternally grateful to my family and friends. To my loving family, mom (Vicki), Donna, Joe, Jillian, Andrew, Nicholas, Richie, Angel, Grandma, Grandpa, Michael, Rodger and countless others, thank you for your patience and encouragement over the past few years. To my amazing co-workers, Carol Dixon, Mike Arteaga, Stephanie Ceja, Jessica Madrigal, Auvenida Pena, Orlando Reynolds, Mark Sikes, and all of the student assistants, your support has truly motivated me. To my friends, Dasa and Dr. Ericka Paddock thank you for your friendship and inspiration. And last, but definitely not least, to my husband, James, I could not have achieved this accomplishment without your

encouragement, tough love and constant question of “don’t you have homework to do?”

(7)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ... iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...iv

LIST OF TABLES ...ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...xi

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTIONProblem Statement ... 1

Purpose Statement ... 3

Research Questions and Hypotheses... 3

Significance of the Study ... 7

Theoretical Underpinnings ... 8

Assumptions ... 8

Delimitations ... 9

Definitions of Key Terms ... 10

Summary ... 13

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEWIntroduction ... 14

Transfer Students ... 17

Definition ... 17

Transfer Completion Rates ... 18

Transfer Student Grade Point Average (GPA) Levels ... 19

Orientation of Transfer Students ... 20

(8)

Components of Student Engagement ... 23

Cognitive Student Engagement... 25

Affective Student Engagement ... 25

Experiential Learning ... 25

High Impact Practices ... 28

High Impact Practices and Transfer Students ... 31

Service Learning ... 33

Internships ... 36

Current Surveys and Instruments Being Used ... 38

National Survey of Student Engagement ... 38

Community College Survey of Student Engagement ... 39

Experiential Learning Survey ... 41

Summary ... 42

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGYIntroduction ... 43

Research Design ... 43

Research Questions and Hypotheses... 44

Research Setting ... 48Research Sample ... 48Research Instrumentation ... 49Data Collection ... 51Data Analysis ... 52Summary ... 53CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS

(9)

vii

Introduction ... 54

Sample Demographics... 54

Sample Descriptive Data ... 57

Results of the Study ... 58

Research Question 1a. ... 58

Research Question 1b. ... 60

Research Question 1c. ... 60

Research Question 2 ... 63

Groups and Time to Completion ... 74

Groups and Self-Reported Grade Point Average (GPA) ... 75

Groups and Educational Experience ... 76

Groups and Institutional Contribution to Thinking Critically and Analytically ... 79

Groups and Institutional Contribution to Acquiring Job- or Work-related Knowledge and Skills ... 80

Groups and Job/Career Satisfaction ... 83

Group and Sense of Connectedness ... 84

Research Question 3a. ... 87

Research Question 3b. ... 89

Research Question 3c. ... 91

Research Question 4 ... 95

Summary ... 99

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONSOverview ... 101

(10)

viii

Build Connectedness ... 102

Promote the Benefits of Service Learning and Internship Engagement ... 103

Provide Transfer Student Resources ... 104

Recommendations for Future Research ... 106

Study Design ... 106

Additional Qualitative Research Items ... 106

Observe Transfer Students Who Did Not Obtain a Degree Prior to Departing ... 106

Observe Differences Between Traditional and Transfer Students ... 107

Types of Service Learning and Internship Activities ... 107

Limitations of the Study: Threats to Validity ... 107

Content Validity ... 107

Internal Threats ... 108

External Threats ... 109

Conclusion ... 109

APPENDIX A: TRANSFER STUDENT EXPERIENCES AT A FOUR- YEAR UNIVERSITY QUALTRICS SURVEY ... 111

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW ITEMS ... 118

APPENDIX C: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD LETTER... 120

(11)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Participant Self-Reported Demographics ... 55

Table 2. Self-Reported Variables (Scale Data) ... 57

Table 3. Self-Reported Variable (Ordinal Data) ... 58

Table 4. Self-Reported Educational Experience and Job/Career Satisfaction ... 59

Table 5. Self-Reported Sense of Connectedness... 60

Table 6. Self-Reported Institutional Contribution ... 61

Table 7. Self-Reported Time to Completion by Experience (Scale Data) ... 64

Table 8. Demographics ... 66

Table 9. Academics ... 67

Table 10. Cognitive Engagement ... 69

Table 11. Affective Engagement ... 71

Table 12. Participant Experience, 2 groups ... 72

Table 13. Participant Descriptive Data, 2 groups... 73

Table 14. Self-Reported Time to Completion... 74

Table 15. Self-Reported Grade Point Average (GPA) ... 76

Table 16. Educational Experience ... 77

Table 17. Educational Experience and Gender ... 78

Table 18. Institutional Contribution to Thinking Critically and Analytically ... 80

Table 19. Institutional Contribution to Acquiring Job- or Work-related Knowledge and Skills ... 81

(12)

Table 20. Institutional Contribution to Acquiring Job- or Work-related

Knowledge and Gender ... 82

Table 21. Job/Career Satisfaction ... 83

Table 22. Job/Career Satisfaction and Gender... 84

Table 23. Sense of Connectedness ... 85

Table 24. Sense of Connectedness and Gender ... 86

Table 25. Participation ... 88

Table 26. Overall Experiences ... 90

Table 27. Participant Self-Reported Experience, 3 groups ... 93

Table 28. Concepts of Transfer Student Success ... 95

(13)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Appleton’s Types of Student Engagement. ... 24Figure 2. Kolb’s Cycle of Experiential Learning. ... 27Figure 3. Job/Career Word Cloud ... 59

(14)

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

Problem Statement

In recent years the persistence of traditional students has been a major focus of discussion within higher education (Tinto, 1998). According to Tinto (1998):

One thing we know about persistence is that involvement matters. The more academically and socially involved individuals are—that is, the more they interact with other students and faculty—the more likely they are to persist (e.g. Astin, 1984; Mallette & Cabrera, 1991; Nora, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1977). And the more they see those interactions as positive and themselves as integrated into the

institution and as valued members of it (i.e., validated), the more likely it is that they will persist. (p. 168)

Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement (1984) further supports Tinto’s involvement claims and states that “the greater the student’s involvement in college, the greater will be the amount of student learning and personal

development” (pp. 528-529). A principle benefit of Astin’s Theory of Involvement, over traditional education theories, is that it refocuses the attention away from the traditional academic curriculum and testing, to the involvement, motivation,

(15)

Attention has focused on the engagement experiences of traditional students, with very little focus on the experiences of transfer students. Colleges and universities spend a great deal of effort on first-time freshman, and due to this freshman to sophom*ore retention has begun to increase. However, transfer students aren’t provided the same resources as first-time freshman (Handel, 2011; Davies & Casey, 1999).

“Student engagement has been found to have almost uniformly positive effects for all students…” (Wolf-Wendel, Ward, & Kinzie, 2009, pp. 422-433). According to the University of Minnesota (2015), “engagement is associated with desired academic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective outcomes, such as

persisting in school and graduating.” More specifically, thinking critically and analytically, and acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills, both

supports a student’s cognitive engagement by providing relevance of schoolwork and making it applicable to real-work success (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008). Additionally, educational experience, job/career satisfaction, and

connectedness directly relate to a student’s affective engagement and helps to promote a sense of belonging which promotes persistence (Appleton,

Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Lester, Leonard, & Mathias, 2013).

At the sample university in the fall of 2014 there were a total of 2,311 new transfer students enrolled, which was the highest number of transfer students over the past 7 years for the sample university, only 413 less than first-time freshmen during the same time period. National research shows that only 25.3%

(16)

of students transferring with an associate degree to a university receive their bachelor’s degree, compared to 43.5% of those who entered without one (University of Southern California, 2011). At the sample university, there is a mandatory multi-day freshman program that students must participate in before beginning class in the fall, and a great deal of time and resources are focused specifically on that group. However, when it comes to transfer students there are limited resources provided to this group of students.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study was to describe the experiences of transfer students who engaged in the experiential learning activities of service learning and/or internship activities at a four-year public Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the Inland Empire. Multiple studies that were reviewed demonstrated the benefits of student engagement, experiential learning activities and persistence within the traditional student population. According to Kuh (2009), “engaging in a variety of educationally productive activities also builds the foundation of skills and dispositions people need to live a productive, satisfying life after college” (p. 5). In essence, this study was a continuation of those studies on traditional student populations, focusing primarily on the transfer student population and the potential benefits of student engagement.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

(17)

1a. How satisfied are transfer students regarding their educational experience and job/career satisfaction at a four year public Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the Inland Empire?

1b. What is the degree of connectedness that transfer students feel at a four-year public Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the Inland Empire?

1c. How much do transfer students believe their experiences at a four-year Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the Inland Empire contributes to thinking critically and analytically and acquiring job- or work-related knowledge and skills?

2. How do transfer students who participated in service learning

and/or internship activities compare to transfer students who did not participate in these experiences at a four-year public Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the Inland Empire?

Hypotheses:

a) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or internship activities will have a lower self-reported time to

completion than those transfer students who did not participate in those activities.

b) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or

internship activities will have a higher self-reported GPA than those transfer students who did not participate in those activities.

(18)

c) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or internship activities will have a higher satisfaction regarding overall educational experience than those transfer students who did not participate in those activities.

d) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or internship activities will have a higher self-reported perception of the university’s contribution to their critical and analytical thinking. e) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or

internship activities will have a higher self-reported perception of the university’s contribution to their acquisition of job- or work-related knowledge and skills.

f) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or internship activities will have higher job/career satisfaction than those transfer students who did not participate in those activities. g) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or

internship activities will have a higher satisfaction regarding their sense of connection to the university than those transfer students who did not participate in those activities.

Null Hypotheses

a) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or internship activities will not have a lower self-reported time to

(19)

completion than those transfer students who did not participate in those activities.

b) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or internship activities will not have a higher self-reported GPA than those transfer students who did not participate in those activities. c) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or

internship activities will not have a higher satisfaction regarding overall educational experience than those transfer students who did not participate in those activities.

d) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or internship activities will not have a higher self-reported perception of the university’s contribution to their critical and analytical

thinking.

e) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or internship activities will not have a higher self-reported perception of the university’s contribution to their acquisition of job- or work-related knowledge and skills.

f) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or internship activities will not have higher job/career satisfaction than those transfer students who did not participate in those activities. g) Transfer students who participated in service learning and/or

(20)

their sense of connection to the university than those transfer students who did not participate in those activities.

3a. Why do transfer students choose to participate in service learning and/or internship activities?

3b. How do transfer students describe their overall experience when they participated in service learning and/or internship activities? 3c. Out of those students who participated in service learning and/or

internship activities, how much do they believe that their

participation in these activities made them feel more connected to the university?

4. What do transfer students suggest the university could do to support their success at a four-year public Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the Inland Empire?

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study is paramount as it contributed to a better understanding of the engagement of transfer students. There have been a

plethora of studies conducted on traditional students and what contributes to their successes; however, there are limited studies that look at the experiences of transfer students at four-year universities. Pascarella (2006) indicated that further research is needed on previously ignored populations of students, such as transfer students. The findings of this study can be utilized to provide necessary resources for this population.

(21)

Theoretical Underpinnings

This study explored the impact of student engagement. According to Kuh (2008b), as a result of student engagement students will not only understand themselves better in a larger worldly scope, but they will also gain intellectual and ethical tools that will give them the confidence to help people overall. In addition, according to Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement (1984), the more a student is engaged in activities while in college, the more the student will learn and further their personal development.

The Experiential Learning Theory expands on the previously mentioned theories as it focuses in on the two activities/HIPs that are the primary emphasis of this study. According to Kolb and Kolb (2005):

Assumptions

The study did not try to prove any of the following assumptions, but rested on these ideas as truths:

- There are factors beyond GPA that are important to explore in relation to the effects of HIPs, such as critical and analytical thinking,

job/career satisfaction, job- or work-related knowledge and skills, educational experience and sense of connection.

(22)

- Two important and beneficial HIPs are service learning and internship experiences.

- These HIPs are good examples of practices that offer experiential learning opportunities.

- Student connectedness, job- or work-related knowledge and skills, and critical and analytical thinking are appropriate ways to measure

aspects of student engagement, and each can be measured in a single survey item.

- The sample responded to the survey items honestly and accurately to the best of their knowledge.

- The interpretation of the data accurately represents the perceptions of the sample.

Delimitations

The delimitations of this study were set out in order to gain a full

understanding of a specific student population and their experiences. The first delimitation was to only observe students who attended a Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) with historical numbers of transfer students. According to Quaye and Harper (2015), 38.3% of transfer students are Hispanic/Latino/a, the highest concentration of one ethnic affiliation. The second delimitation was the timespan of data that were observed. The data ranged from the academic years of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012 as a sample of the most recent transfer students who had either graduated or departed from the university. Lastly, this

(23)

study did not take into consideration any other potential influences that the sample population were facing other than participating or not participating in service learning and/or internship activities.

Definitions of Key Terms

For the purposes of this study, the following terms were defined as listed below:

• Affective engagement: “feelings of identification or belonging, and relationships with teachers and peers” (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly, 2006, p. 249).

• Cognitive engagement: “Perceived relevance of schoolwork, personal goals, and autonomy, value of learning and success in school" (Appleton, Christenson, & Furlong, 2008)

• Connectedness: emotional or affective engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004); “term used to refer to the study of a student’s relationship to school” (Libbey, H., 2006, p. 274).

• Critical thinking: In the article, College Students on Critical Thinking

in the Classroom, by Massey (2014), “99% of students believe

critical thinking is an important skill.” The article continues on to define critical thinking as “thinking outside of the box” and “going beneath the surface level of a topic, thinking of all possible routes and outcomes” and “using reasoning/common-sense skills to come

(24)

to conclusions, rather than just memorizing specific information (Massey, 2014).

• Educational experience: “any interaction, course, program, or other experience in which learning takes place, whether it occurs in traditional academic settings (schools, classrooms) or

nontraditional settings (outside-of-school locations, outdoor environments), or whether it includes traditional educational interactions (students learning from teachers and professors) or nontraditional interactions (students learning through games and interactive software applications)” (Learning Experience, 2014). • Experiential Learning: the process of learning through experience,

and is more specifically defined as “any learning that supports students in applying their knowledge and conceptual understanding to real-world problems or situations where the instructor directs and facilitates learning” (Center for Teacher Learning at University of Texas at Austin, 2015).

• High Impact Practices (HIPs): “techniques and designs for teaching and learning that have proven to be beneficial for student

engagement and successful learning among students. Through intentional program design and advanced pedagogy, these types of practices can enhance student learning and work to narrow gaps in achievement across student populations” (Association of American

(25)

Colleges and Universities, 2015). According to Kuh (2008a), HIPs have been “widely tested and have been shown to be beneficial for college students from many backgrounds” (p. 9).

• Internships: “a form of experiential learning that integrates knowledge and theory learned in the classroom with practical application and skills development in a professional setting. Internships give students the opportunity to gain valuable applied experience and make connections in professional fields they are considering for career paths; and give employers the opportunity to guide and evaluate talent” National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE, 2015).

• Job/career satisfaction: “the feeling of pleasure and achievement that you experience in your job when you know that your work is worth doing, or the degree to which your work gives you this feeling” (Cambridge Dictionary, 2016).

• Service learning: “teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities.” Learn and Serve America National Service Learning Clearinghouse (2015)

• Student Engagement: “In education, student engagement refers to the degree of attention, curiosity, interest, optimism, and passion

(26)

that students show when they are learning or being taught, which extends to the level of motivation they have to learn and progress in their education” (Learning Experience, 2014).

• Time to Completion: the obtainment of a degree from a four-year university. Does not include separation from the university without a degree.

• Work-related knowledge and skills: for the purposes of this study this phrase will be defined as the knowledge and skills that are necessary to be successful in a work environment.

Summary

In this chapter, the problem statement, purpose statement, research questions and hypotheses, significance of the study, theoretical underpinnings, assumptions, delimitations, positionality of the researcher, and the definition of key terms were all discussed in order to provide the reader a comprehensive understanding of the findings in the following chapters.

(27)

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

The United States Census Bureau (2012) reported that there are over four million people in San Bernardino County, and only 9.4% of that population have a bachelor’s degree or higher. According to the ACT, Inc. (2008 & 2015),

retention/completion rates have fallen from 40.3% in 2008 to 36.4% in 2015 for four-year public colleges. Unfortunately, even though college degrees have replaced the power of a high school diploma, the trend of dropping out before completing a degree is continuing (Kuh, 2008b). In addition, Kuh (2008b), stated that:

earning a bachelor’s degree is linked to long-term cognitive, social, and economic benefits to individuals—benefits that are passed onto future generations, enhancing the quality of life of the families of college-educated persons, the communities in which they live, and the larger society. (p. 540)

The California Postsecondary Education Commission (2011) reported that the average rates of completion for students attending a California State

University institution is 14.2% in four years, 35.6% in five years, and 45.7% in six years. With suppressed numbers of completion, it is imperative to research why some students fail to complete their degree and others succeed. It has been estimated that by the year 2025 California will face a deficit of over one million

(28)

college degree holders necessary to sustain the workforce (California Community College Chancellors Office, 2015a).

Unfortunately, low student retention rates are prevalent at all levels of education in today’s society. In the K-12 system, students are required by law to attend school and there are programs/strategies in place to help K-12 students stay in school. But what about retention in public four-year universities where attendance and completion are voluntary? How do the universities increase their retention rates when attendance is optional to begin with? In a report from

Harvard University (2011), it was found that in the United States approximately 56% of students graduate from a public university within six years. However, in the state of California, the approximate graduation rate is 65% (The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2010), which is clearly above the national average, but still needs improvement.

While the completion and retention rate of all students is an issue, one specific demographic that needs additional focus is transfer students. In the “2013-14 academic year, 46% of students who completed a degree at a four-year institution were enrolled at a two-year institution in the past 10 years” (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2015). National research shows that only 25.3% of students transferring with an associate degree to a 4-year

university receive their bachelor’s degree, compared to 43.5% of those who entered without one (University of Southern California, 2011).

(29)

There are multiple studies that focus on first-time freshmen that have “sought to develop, test and modify models dealing with patterns of “traditional students”…Conversely, very few studies have addressed the needs of “non-traditional” students such as transfer students...” (Monroe, 2006, p. 33). However, despite the few studies that show transfer students do not always complete their degree or may take longer to do so than traditional students who start in a 4-year institution (Adelman, 2005) the research is lacking clear and detailed results. “What affects transfer students’ persistence and time to degree is not well understood, in spite of research over several decades” (Townsend & Wilson, 2009).

Transfer students make up a major part of the overall population at today’s four-year universities (Monroe, 2006). However, attention on graduation is all too often focused on first-time freshmen, even though the numbers between the two groups is slowly becoming equal. “In 14 states, more than half of four-year degree recipients were previously enrolled at a two-year institution” (National Student Clearing House Research Center, 2015). The fall 2015 transfer cohort at the sample university was 2,493 students, which was the largest transfer cohort to date and only 512 students less than the incoming freshman class. Since the fall of 2011, there had been more than a 60% increase in transfer students, compared to a less than 45% increase of traditional students. At the sample university, the importance of transfer student retention was addressed in the 2015-2020 Strategic Plan. The plan stated that one of the main university

(30)

goals is to increase the graduation rates, while decreasing the time to graduation, of transfer students over the next five years.

In the attempt to further understand transfer student success, attention had been placed on the importance of student engagement and high impact practices (HIPs). High impact practices aim to integrate students into the

campus. “The more connected a student is to the social and academic fabric of a campus, the more likely he or she is to persist in college” (Lester, Leonard, & Mathias, 2013, p. 203). In a study conducted by Kirk (2007), it was found that “student integration is an important issue in universities today because it can determine whether or not a student stays at the school, does well in classes, or completes a degree” (p. 2).

Transfer Students Definition

There are many different types of transfer students. First, and the most common, is the two-year to four-year institution transfer student. Second, includes those students who transfer from one four-year to another four-year institution. The last, and the least common transfer students are those transferring from a four-year institution to a two-year institution. Transfer students are also known as non-traditional students in that unlike traditional students, they attended a two-year institution prior to attending a four-year institution.

(31)

18 Transfer Completion Rates

According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2015), there were seven million two-year college students in 2013-2014, and according to the California Community College Chancellor’s Office (2015b) there were a total of 198,492 community college students statewide in the winter of 2015. The Foundation for California Community Colleges (2014), reported that “almost 51 percent of graduates of the California State University system and 29 percent of the University of California system transferred from a California Community College.” Completion rates for these students vary from that of traditional

students, with “over half of these students completed the four-year degree within three years of leaving the two-year institution. More than three quarters of them did so within five years” (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, 2015).

Similarly to these national results, at the sample university, 24% of

transfer students graduate in two years, 60% in four years, and 68% in six years. Even though the transfer student completion statistics demonstrate relatively high success rates, the overall rate of transfer from a two-year to a four-year

institution is low (Johnson & Sengupta, 2009). In an interview conducted by Smith (2015), according to Jason DeWitt, a research manager at the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, “the idea that there is only one path through college is antiquated.” (p. 1) and four-year universities must strive to

(32)

completely understand what tools transfer students need to complete their degrees.

Transfer Student Grade Point Average (GPA) Levels

Multiple studies have detailed the differences in GPA levels of transfer students. In a study conducted by Carlan and Byxbe (2000), during the first semester transfer students’ GPA levels fell below their community college GPA levels. However, native (traditional) students had fewer issues with their GPA levels (Carlan & Byxbe, 2000). On the flip side, in a study by Cejda, Kaylor and Rewey (1998), the opposite results were concluded. Transfer student GPA levels rose after their first semester of classes. Both of these scenarios have terms that have been associated with them. The first, where GPA levels drop, is known as transfer shock. The second, where GPA levels rise, is known as transfer ecstasy (Nickens, 1972).

In 1965, Hill coined the term “transfer shock”, a term that is still used and referenced to today. Transfer shock “occurs when there is a dip in transfer student’s grades during the first semester after transferring to a four-year

institution” (Ish*tani, 2008, p. 404). In multiple studies it was found that the GPA level of transfer students were generally lower than traditional students GPA (Peng & Bailey, 1977; Porter, 1999) and graduation rates were lower as well (Avakian, MacKinney, & Allen, 1982; Porter, 1999).

There are many attributes that have been tied to this phenomenon. Even though the research is scant on transfer students, there are a few studies that

(33)

have identified some of the reasons why many students have transfer shock and in turn have lower GPAs and take longer to graduate. Students “run into

obstacles while transferring between colleges – such as losing course credits in the process – or because they make poor choices about their majors, can’t get the courses they need on time or have trouble making it out of a remediation pipeline” (Bidwell, 2014). According to Monroe (2006), “there is little urgency to assist these [transfer] students who are perceived to eventually work out their academic transition on their own” (p. 37).

On the other side, transfer ecstasy is a term coined by Nickens (1972) and is the direct opposite of transfer shock. This term, despite being created in 1972, is not well-defined and is often only used in opposition to transfer shock.

According to Cejda, Kaylor and Rewey (1998), the term “need[s] further clarification” (p. 6).

Orientation of Transfer Students

According to a report by The College Board, “helping students engage the campus community requires the development of some basic transfer services” (Handel, 2011, p. 25). Such services include an orientation for transfer students. A report by The College Board stated that:

Freshman orientations dominate the college landscape and their importance in providing students with a good start to the college

experience is generally unquestioned. Orientation programs for transfer students are less prominent and, even if an institution offers one, it is

(34)

almost always a slimmed-down version of the freshman event. (Handel, 2011, p. 26)

Even as far back as 1942, in the article The Orientation of Transfer Students, Robbins details the same issues. And to this day, the concept of transfer orientations is often misconstrued due to number of false assumptions that undermine transfer students integration at four-year institutions.

One assumption (Handel, 2011) is that because non-traditional students have experience on a college campus, they already have the knowledge and tools to be success in college and overall they require less consideration and fewer services than traditional students. In reality there are many differences between two-year and four-year institutions. “People say transfer students will take care of themselves. The reality is they won’t. If you really want to help them get the baccalaureate degree, you’ve got to have services for them when they get to the four-year institution” (Handel, 2011, p. 23).

Orientations for many freshmen last two or three days at many universities, however, orientation for transfer students only last a few hours (Handel, 2011, p.28). One example of this fact can be seen at the research setting. The incoming freshmen are offered a two-day, overnight stay that include seminars and class registration assistance. However, transfer students are offered a one-day program that includes learning about key services and are elsewise recommended to explore the university website and prepare to become a part of the [campus] community. Further supporting the idea that transfer

(35)

students need assistance as well, in a study by Townsend and Wilson (2006), they found that “transfer students may need more of a “hand hold” during their” first year in order to ensure academic and social integration.

Student Engagement

In recent years persistence of both traditional and non-traditional students has been a major topic of discussion within higher education (Tinto, 1998). According to Tinto (1998):

institution and as valued members of it (i.e., validated), the more likely it is that they will persist. (p. 168)

In addition, a report by Lotkowski, Robbins and Noeth (2004) summarized that Tinto “believes that social interaction has a positive effect on grade performance when students establish friendships with persons who have strong academic orientations” (p. 12).

(36)

development” (pp. 528-529). A principle benefit of Astin’s Theory of Involvement, over the traditional education theories, is that it refocuses the attention away from the traditional academic curriculum and testing, to the motivation and behavior of students.

Researchers have also found similar outcomes for both traditional and transfer/nontraditional students in regards to student engagement and

involvement (Wolf-Wendel, Ward, & Kinzie, 2009, Astin, 1984). “Student engagement has been found to have almost uniformly positive effects for all students…” (Wolf-Wendel, Ward, & Kinzie, 2009, pp. 422-433). Astin (1984), expands and stated that “older students are probably affected by somewhat different forms of involvement, but I don’t see involvement as not being equally relevant to students of all ages” (p. 412).

Components of Student Engagement

According to Appleton, Christenson and Furlong (2008), “engagement is typically described as having two or three components” (p. 370). However, after years of research and studies, “researchers have proposed an engagement taxonomy with four subtypes: academic, behavioral, cognitive and affective” (Appleton, Christenson and Furlong, 2008) (see Figure 1). According to the University of Minnesota (2015):

The subtypes of engagement are interrelated. For example, a student’s feelings of belonging (affective engagement) may promote greater effort and participation on the student’s part (behavioral engagement); teaching

(37)

practices that promote strategy use or self-regulation (cognitive engagement) may also facilitate greater time on task or homework completion with high success rates (academic engagement).

For the purposes of this study the cognitive and affective components were the primary focus.

Figure 1. Appleton’s Types of Student Engagement.

Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L, & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.

(38)

25 Cognitive Student Engagement

According to Appleton, Christenson, and Furlong (2008) cognitive student engagement is defined as “perceived relevance of schoolwork, personal goals, and autonomy, value of learning and success in school.” Additionally, Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly., (2006) stated that cognitive engagement was “considered less observable and gauged with more internal indicators, including self-regulation, relevance of school-work to future endeavors, value of learning, personal goals and autonomy as indicators of cognitive engagement…” (p. 372). Affective Student Engagement

Affective engagement is commonly defined as “feelings of identification or belonging, and relationships with teachers and peers” (Appleton, Christenson, Kim, & Reschly., 2006, p. 249). According to Shephard (2008), “the affective domain is about our values, attitudes, and behaviours” (p. 88). In a study by Beard, Clegg, and Smith (2007), it was stated that “one of the purposes in

rethinking studentship from the perspective of a fully embodied, affective, human self is to attempt to understand the processes which foster or inhibit learning” (p. 236). Affective engagement is often promoted and attained through education-based experiential learning such as community service and service learning.

Experiential Learning

John Dewey (1925/1984) stated, “in order to be able to attribute a meaning to concepts, one must be able to apply them to existence” (p. 5). In 1938, Dewey would identify what he coined as the “theory of experience” which

(39)

later developed into experiential learning. According to Beaudin and Quick (1995), Dewey “emphasizes that there must be a relationship between

experience and education. Dewey stresses that there is to be a having which is the contact with the events of life and a knowing which is the interpretation of the events” (p. 2).

According to Kolb and Kolb (2005):

experiential learning theory draws on the work of prominent 20th century scholars who gave experience a central role in their theories of human learning and development…to develop a holistic model of the experiential learning process and a multilinear model of adult development. (p. 194) Kolb used this definition and developed a “Cycle of Experiential Learning” (see Figure 2). According to the Center for Teacher Learning at University of Texas at Austin (2015), the cycle includes these four steps:

• Experience: As a member of a team, students engage in hands-on experiments related to a research project, each situation providing a new experience.

• Reflection: Students reflect on their experience with peers,

mentors, and research educators. Jointly, they make sense of what happened and note inconsistencies between the experience and their previous understanding.

• Conceptualize: Reflection may lead students to develop a new idea or modify an existing concept; in addition, they may participate

(40)

in a seminar with exposure to additional project-related concepts that may further clarify implications for action.

• Test: Students return to their project to apply the new and/or refined knowledge in the research environment to see what happens.

Figure 2. Kolb’s Cycle of Experiential Learning.

Center for Teacher Learning at University of Texas at Austin (2015). Retrieved from: http://ctl.utexas.edu/teaching/engagement/experientiallearning/defined.

(41)

This learning technique is used throughout multiple study areas and at many levels of education, both inside and outside of the classroom. Even though there are more ways for experiential learning to occur, two important modalities and recently coined high impact practices are service learning and internship activities. Through this style of learning students are able to achieve more from their studies overall. According to the Association for Experiential Learning, experiential learning is “a philosophy that informs many methodologies in which educators purposefully engage with learners in direct experience and focused reflection in order to increase knowledge, develop skills, clarify values, and develop people's capacity to contribute to their communities.”

High Impact Practices

An increasing number of researchers (Wawrzynski & Baldwin, 2014; Keeling, 2006; Kuh, 2005, 2008) are suggesting that if higher education professionals want to increase retention they need to expand their focus to include the entire learning experience. The term “college success” no longer only refers to the obtainment of a diploma, it now expands to also include the level of preparation of a student (Kuh, 2008b). Success is based on readiness, knowledge and capabilities that a graduate carries with them. To help further this expanded definition of success, high impact practices have been identified.

According to the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), high impact practices (HIPs) are defined as:

(42)

techniques and designs for teaching and learning that have proven to be beneficial for student engagement and successful learning among

students from many backgrounds. Through intentional program design and advanced pedagogy, these types of practices can enhance student learning and work to narrow gaps in achievement across student

populations. (2015)

Students don’t always see the connection between the academic and the cocurricular experiences and how they can benefit each other (Wawrzynaki & Baldwin, 2014). But this is where students can benefit if educators guide and show them how HIPs can actually increase their academic performances. “High impact educational practices are tools educators can employ strategically to link diverse and often disjointed elements of the collegiate experience” (Wawrzynaki & Baldwin, 2014, p. 56).

According to a report by O’Neill (2010), in order for an activity to be considered a HIP it must comply with six common elements. Those elements include (pp. 4-5):

• They are effortful

• They help students build substantive relationships • They help students engage across differences • They provide students with rich feedback

• They help students apply and test what they are learning in new situations

(43)

• They provide opportunities for students to reflect on the people they are becoming

Based on these six elements there have been 10 HIPs identified, including: “first-year seminars and experiences, common intellectual experiences, learning communities, writing-intensive courses, collaborative assignments and projects, undergraduate research, diversity/global learning, service learning, community-based learning, internships, and capstone courses and projects” Kuh (2008a). According to Kuh (2008b), there are five reasons or explanations as to why HIPs are effective with students. First, HIPs require a deepened student investment and students have to put forth more effort. Second, HIPs place students in situations in which they have to interact with each other and faculty. Third, participating in one or more HIPs exposes students to more diversity. Fourth, students receive frequent feedback on their progress. Finally, HIPs provide students with opportunities to learn how things differ from the “real world” and not strictly on campus.

For the general student population, participation in HIPs have shown multiple positive effects, such as “improvement in retention, persistence to

degree, and post graduation attainment” (Kelly, 2011, p. 7). In a study conducted by California State University, Northridge (Huber, 2010) it was found that

participation in two or more of these high impact practices had a positive impact on student success. For example, grade point averages were higher and time to completion was lower. However, despite research proving the great benefits,

(44)

getting students to participate in two HIPs is far from reality. Even though HIPs are experiential for students, the activities are a lot of work and take up a lot of a student’s time (Kelly, 2011).

A longitudinal study conducted by Kilgo, Ezell, Sheets, and Pascarella (2014), sought to “estimate the effect of participation in the 10 “high-impact” educational practices” (p. 509). It was found that of 4,198 students from 17 institutions through a pretest/posttest design, “the implication for high-impact practices on student development and learning are far-reaching, as depicted within the literature and the current study” (Kilgo, Ezell, Sheets, and Pascarella (2014, p. 523).

As previously referenced, in the recently published 2015-2020 Strategic Plan (2015) the sample university used HIP participation as a method of

measuring and increasing student success. It is the goal of the sample university for all undergraduate students to participate in a minimum of three HIPs by

graduation. As of June 2014 at the sample university, 66% of the seniors had participated in HIPs. Of those students, 28% participated in one HIP, 19% participated in two, 11% participated in three, and less than 7% participated in four or more. Unfortunately, these statistics did not distinguish between traditional versus non-traditional (transfer) students.

High Impact Practices and Transfer Students

In a recent quantitative study, the results of the STEM Student Success Literacy Survey (SSSL) collected from 15 community colleges in Iowa were used

(45)

to determine if student engagement matters with transfer students (Myers, Starobin, Chen, Baul, & Kollasch, 2015). Through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis four engagement constructs emerged. Those constructs are: “transfer engagement, faculty engagement on coursework,

faculty/staff encouragement/assistance, and peer engagement” (Myers, Starobin, Chen, Baul, & Kollasch, 2015, p. 344). All of these constructs are in accordance with the outcomes and purposes of HIPs.

In a second study by Gilardi and Guglielmetti (2011), engagement styles and impact on attrition of non-traditional students were observed. The

explorative study was “aimed at analyzing the relationship between the university experience in the first year and continuation of studies in the second year, with special reference to non-traditional students” (p. 33). Interviews were conducted across 95 universities with a sample of 228 students. Data were analyzed using a hierarchical step-wise logistic regression, and it was shown that non-traditional transfer students who invest “time in developing non-classroom relationships and in making use of all opportunities available in the university environment [had a] higher probability of continuing their studies” (Gilardi & Guglielmetti, 2011, pp. 46-47).

However, not all studies reveal consistent access for transfer students. In a study by Davies and Casey (1999), focus groups were used to compare

student life at community colleges with that at four-year universities. There were 11 total groups that consisted on six to eight students each, and they met for a

(46)

period of two weeks for two hours each time. All of the groups were asked the same six questions and their responses were analyzed using qualitative coding. The results revealed that there was a lack of faculty involvement and interaction, and the students found it difficult to connect with their peers. The Davies and Casey (1999) study further supports the need for resources and attention to be directed at HIPs for transfer students.

Even though the majority of researchers have shown that student engagement and social integration have positive impacts on the retention and attainment of students (Wawrzynski & Baldwin, 2014; Keeling, 2006; Kuh, 2005, 2008) there have been very few studies to examine the implications of HIPs on transfer students. It has been documented that transfer students are among one of the groups who have the lowest levels of HIP participation rates (Kuh, 2008a). Of the transfer students that do participate in HIPs, it has been found that there are two foci for their involvement: service learning (43%) and internships (43%) (Kuh, 2008a). For the purposes of this study these two HIPs were the primary focus. Tinto (1998) stated that “there are many different pathways to integration, that involvement or integration may take place inside and/or outside of the

classroom” (p. 2). Service Learning

According to the Learn and Serve America National Service Learning Clearinghouse (2015), service learning is defined as a “teaching

(47)

instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic

responsibility, and strengthen communities.” In addition, Brownell & Swaner (2009), found that:

service learning participants demonstrate gains in moral reasoning, in their sense of social and civic responsibility, in the development of social justice orientation, and an increased commitment to pursuing a service-oriented career. They are also more able to apply class learning to real-world situations. (p. 27)

Service learning has been adopted over time as both a means for community engagement and high impact practices among many institutional types and at multiple levels (Felten & Clayton, 2011).

In a study conducted by Astin, Vogelgesang, Ikeda, and Yee (2000), they found that:

Service participation shows significant positive effects on all 11 outcome measures: academic performance (GPA, writing skills, critical thinking skills), values (commitment to activism and to promoting racial

understanding), self-efficacy, leadership (leadership activities, self-rated leadership ability, interpersonal skills), choice of a service career, and plans to participate in service after college. (p. ii)

Ehrlich (1996) also provided the following general framework, “service-learning is the various pedagogies that link community service and academic study so that each strengthens the other” (p. xi).

(48)

Furthermore, multiple researchers have also developed key elements necessary to create and further promote service learning. For example, in the article, How to Create a Successful Service-Learning Project or Program (2010), the author identified knowing your institution’s history of service-learning and creating a vision of what success will look like (p. 3) as essential components. And in the article, How to Build a Service-Learning Program that Lasts (2004), another critical element identified was to integrate the program with your institutions mission (p. 6).

In further support of the evidence above, a study by Bringle and Hatcher (2000), took a look at the institutionalization of service learning. Questionnaires were distributed to two groups who attended specific meetings. There were a total of 179 respondents, and the findings determined that it is essential for service-learning to be part of the campus infrastructure. As with any of the other HIPs, the more resources and support that these activities receive the more likely they are to benefit the students.

Researchers have also provided empirical data that shows participation in service learning has positive outcomes for students, the institution, and the community (Ash, Clayton, and Atkinson, 2005; Felten & Clayton, 2011; Ehrlich, 1996; Astin, et al., 2006). In a study conducted by Kuh (2008a), 46% of the overall seniors and 43% of senior transfer students participated in service learning practices at some point in their college career. However, as with many

(49)

areas involving transfer student success, there is an extremely limited amount of research relating transfer students and service learning participation.

Internships

According to the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) (2015), internship is defined as:

a form of experiential learning that integrates knowledge and theory learned in the classroom with practical application and skills development in a professional setting. Internships give students the opportunity to gain valuable applied experience and make connections in professional fields they are considering for career paths; and give employers the opportunity to guide and evaluate talent.

Kuh (2008b) also stated that internships provide students with direct experience in working in a field of their choice with professionals available for guidance. In a study by Gault, Redington, and Schlager (2000), it was found that “internships provide students (and faculty) with a means of bridging the gap between career expectations developed in the classroom and the reality of employment in the real world” (p. 52). In addition, Keller (2012), reported similar results. “When internships are done well, they are like other high-impact educational practices that help students build relationships and engage across differences creating a sense of community” (Keller, 2012).

In the phenomenological study conducted by Keller (2012), internships were further reviewed as a HIP. Interviews were conducted on 19 undergraduate

(50)

students, and the results were developed using open coding. The data revealed that “internships connected the classroom to career by providing students with opportunities to contribute in meaningful ways” (Keller, 2012, p. 70). Overall, “internships done well developed the competencies of students, produced career-related crystallization, generated capital, and build confidence” (Keller, 2012, p. 98).

According to O’Neill (2010), internships are in-line with other HIPs when it is:

intentionally organized as an activity that leads to particular learning

outcomes; when students apply what they have learned in courses to work experiences, reflect on these experiences, and receive feedback that helps them to improve; when students build mentoring relationships with supervisors, faculty, and peers; when students are exposed to differences across people and in ways of thinking; and when students are asked to use their experiences to clarify their values, interests, and personal goals—including, in this case, their values, interests, and goals related to careers. (p. 5)

However, all internships are not all created equally, and according to O’Neill (2010), for an internship to be a HIP “everyone—faculty, advisors, career development professionals, and employers— must agree to help students set and fulfill explicit learning and career development goals for internships” (p.8).

(51)

Even though there are multiple positive outcomes for students who participate in internships, the participation rates are still lacking. Similar to the results found when observing internships, the statistics for service learning among college seniors and transfer students are not that far off. According to Kuh (2008a), 53% of the overall seniors and 43% of senior transfer students participated in internships.

Current Surveys and Instruments Being Used National Survey of Student Engagement

The prominent instrument that has been developed over the past few years that is promoting the concept of student engagement is the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). George Kuh created the NSSE due to the lack of adequate instruments to accurately measure elements of student engagement. Kuh’s main goal was to “assess the extent to which

undergraduates are engaged in educational practices that have been linked to high levels of learning and development” (NSSE, 2014). This survey evaluates five benchmarks: “level of academic challenge, enriching educational

experiences, active and collaborative learning, supportive campus environment, and student–faculty interaction” (NSSE, 2014). These five benchmarks correlate directly to activities that are termed high impact practices.

In 2014, over 700 universities and over 400,000 students participated in the NSSE nationwide (NSSE, 2014). According to Chen, et al. (2009), more than 1,300 colleges and universities have utilized the data collected since 2000. In

(52)

addition, the campuses that have retrieved the data that were generated will not only benefit from the general information, but will ultimately benefit from within-institution data as well. Such data will yield more relatable and actionable results, especially when drilled down into specific demographics (Chen, et al, 2009).

With the development of such tools as the NSSE and its growing validity, it is hopeful that new policies and procedures will come to fruition and spur

necessary changes. Ideally, the data gathered from the NSSE will provide enough evidence to the campus administrators to inspire change at the institutional level.

When it comes down to transfer students, despite evidence that HIPs are beneficial, the NSSE revealed that transfer students are less involved in four of the five benchmarks listed above (Kuh, 2003). Kuh (2003), states that in reviewing the results for a NSSE reports, of the over 600 four-year universities, 40% of all senior respondents to the NSSE identified themselves as transfer students, and of those transfer students there were very few schools in which they performed as well as the traditional students.

Community College Survey of Student Engagement

Similar to the NSSE, the Community College Survey of Student

Engagement (CCSSE) measures the level of engagement on the campus of 2-year institutions. According to the CCSSE (2015) official website:

(53)

Extensive research has identified good educational practices that are directly related to retention and other desired student outcomes. The Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) builds on this research and asks students about their college experiences — how they spend their time; what they feel they have gained from their classes; how they assess their relationships and interactions with faculty,

counselors, and peers; what kinds of work they are challenged to do; how the college supports their learning; and so on.

The correlation between the two surveys, NSSE and CCSSE, could offer some insight to educators in the attempt to get transfer students more involved in HIPs at 4-year institutions. According to Townsend and Wilson (2006), “understanding the institutional perceptions of community college students prior to transfer to particular institutions may provide information useful to four-year institutions during the recruitment process as well as after the students have transferred” (p. 451).

One example of how the data gathered from the CCSSE is beneficial to educational institutions is seen in a study conducted by Price and Tovar (2014). In the study CCCSE data from 261 institutions, which equated to 162,394

students, were utilized to determine if there was a correlation between student engagement and graduation rates. Through a bivariate correlation analysis it was found that indeed student engagement was correlated to a significant degree with graduation rates (Price & Tovar, 2014).

(54)

With the endless possibilities of the reports that can be complied with data from both the NSSE and the CCSSE, it is critical to define the measures that student engagement is based upon. According to Hatch (2012), “it is important now to investigate more closely the detailed structural and programmatic

contexts of engagement in order to bring them to scale” (p. 910). These surveys and consequential studies have started conversations over the last decade that have led to the development of factors and elements defined as high impact practices (Hatch, 2012).

Additionally, researchers have begun to expand the traditional form and dissemination of the NSSE. In a study by Ahlfedlt, Mehta and Sellnow (2005), the following question was addressed: “Can a simple instrument be developed from the original NSSE survey to measure the level of student engagement in individual classes and compare the results with related questions on the NSSE survey of universities?” The researchers discovered that reliability and

correlations were significant among the modified survey and the full version of the NSSE.

Experiential Learning Survey

The Experiential Learning Survey (ELS) was developed by a group of researchers and was based on “previous work from the experiential learning literature” (Clem, Mennicke, & Beasley, 2013, p. 494). The ELS is based on “four pedagogical principles that help outline the components of experiential education or curriculum: authenticity, active learning, drawing on student experience, and

(55)

connecting that experience to future opportunity” (Clem, Mennicke, & Beasley, 2013, p. 494).

Summary

Overall, the studies reviewed above lack answers to the questions posed in this research project. Through conducting the literature review, there is a clear absence of concrete information on the possible implications of HIPs among the transfer student population. In comparison, there is an abundance of information and research to support the positive impact of HIP participation on first-time or traditional students. Pascarella (2006) identified 10 directions for future research for how college affects students. One particular direction is to “extend and

expand inquiry on previously ignored students and institutions” (Pascarella (2006, p. 513). The purpose of this study fully encompassed this direction. The primary focus of this study was to describe the experiences at the university for transfer students that engage the experiential learning activities of service

learning and/or internships at a four-year public Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the Inland Empire.

(56)

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to describe the experiences at a university for transfer students who engaged in the experiential learning activities of service learning and/or internships at a four-year public Hispanic Serving Institution (HSI) in the Inland Empire. National research revealed only 25.3% of students

transferring with an associate degree to a university received their bachelor’s degree, compared to 43.5% of those who entered without one (University of Southern California, 2011). Multiple studies reviewed demonstrated the benefits of student engagement and experiential learning activities within the traditional student population; the present study was a continuation of those studies among the transfer student population. Chapter three outlines the research design, research questions and hypotheses, research setting, research sample, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis.

Research Design

This study was a causal comparative mixed-methods design to explore transfer students’ experiences at a four-year HSI in the Inland Empire.

Comparative analyses were conducted to explore differences between transfer students who engaged in service learning and/or internship activities and those transfer students who did not. The limitations of a causal comparative design