University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The development of a comprehensive first-year experience program for the University of Southern California: Using an innovation GAP analysis model

(USC Thesis Other)

The development of a comprehensive first-year experience program for the University of Southern California: Using an innovation GAP analysis model

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 1
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE
PROGRAM FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA:
USING AN INNOVATION GAP ANALYSIS MODEL
by
Thomas Patrick Studdert
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2013
Copyright 2013 Thomas Patrick Studdert
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 2
Dedication
The completion of a doctoral dissertation is an accomplishment not only for me
but for my entire family as well. I dedicate this experience and this accomplishment to
the two most important women in my life, both of whom instilled in me the value of
education from the time I was a child.
First and foremost, I would like to dedicate this to my mother, Judith Anne Ivan.
There is no one in my world more important than my mom, who taught me that educa-
tion is not only the key to success but also the only thing we can truly own that can
never be taken away from us. My mom is and will always be the rock in my life. She
held my hand the on the 1st day of first grade, and she held my hand as I moved into my
residence hall during my 1st year of college. She set the bar high and helped me achieve
it; however, she was always there when something did not go as planned. She was
president of the Parent–Teacher Association (PTA) when I was in elementary school,
and she worked day and night to help make sure that I could attend a private high
school. Prior to my enrollment at Arizona State University, she walked across the
campus to help make sure that I could qualify for in-state tuition. She was there when I
got my first job out of college and helped me pack up the U-Haul®. She is the one I call
when I reach a milestone and whenever I have a setback. She comforts me when I cry
and high-fives me when I am successful. She never let me forget that what I am doing
is important, even when she had no idea what it was that I was doing. My mom inspires
me every single day. I love her more than words can say.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 3
Secondly, I dedicate this to my grandmother, Mary Lou Mohan Hargraves. Not
only was she my grandmother, but she was also my fifth-grade teacher. She let me
decorate the classroom and put up bulletin boards. When she retired, she gave me all of
her school supplies. She took me to the teacher supply school and let me have one thing
every year. She took me to basketball practice and always had time for an ice cream
cone afterwards. She was the consummate educator, both to me and the countless
students she taught over the years. She was the backbone of our family. Although she
passed away when I was a freshman in high school, I know that she looks down on me
with love and pride as I conclude this educational journey. I am also sure that she is
waiting to guide me into the next one. My grandmother inspired me to be a teacher. I
am sure that she knew that one day I would be walking across that stage. I love her.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 4
Acknowledgments
A dissertation process is not just a single person’s accomplishment. It is the col-
lective work of many individuals over several years. My journey started in August of
2010. The first person I must thank is Dr. Amy Johnson, Associate Vice President of
Student Affairs and Dean of Students at Eastern Washington University. She was my
supervisor when I started and would not let me put off the earning of this degree any
longer. She helped to make sure that I was successful, both in class and in my job. She
has always stood by me, and I look to her as not only my former supervisor but also my
mentor and colleague in the field of higher education.
Second, I must thank and acknowledge my chair, Dr. Kenneth Yates. I was so
excited to be a part of his dissertation group but had no idea how great it would truly be
working with him. His willingness to meet, think through, change, innovate, and chal-
lenge has been the reason that I have enjoyed this process. I told him once that I was a
“school nerd,” and I hope that I have proved that to him. I have loved every minute of
this process—even the editing. I thank him from the bottom of my heart for helping me
to be successful. I would also like to thank Dr. Robert Rueda for being a member of my
dissertation committee. I remember my very first class, EDUC 525, where I was scared
to death. He helped make that class—and the program—one that I will always remem-
ber. I am thrilled that I had the opportunity to learn from him in ways that I could never
imagine.
Third, it is with both thanks but admiration that I acknowledge Dr. Denzil Suite,
my third committee member and Associate Vice President for Student Affairs at USC.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 5
He is such a great man. I am so thankful that he took this project on, but even more
thankful that he is someone whom I can call a mentor and colleague. He is a major
reason that I love USC and love what I do, and I am glad to know that he is in my
corner. His wisdom and ability to guide and teach are the hallmark of who he is, and I
am glad that he is a part of my professional career.
There are many individuals at USC whom I need to thank as well, for without
them, I would not have been able to take on this project. Thanks go to Dr. Steve Lamy,
Vice Dean of the USC Dornsife College; Dr. Michael L. Jackson, Vice President for
Student Affairs; and the team in the Orientation Programs office, including Chrissy
Roth-Francis, Scott Flanary, Melissa Turk, and all of our students. They all make
coming to work a joy. It is not just a job to me, but truly a passion. I would also like to
thank the members of my cohort, including Sergio Canal, Vivian Choi, Mercedes
Gomez, and Letitia Bradley. They have been there since day 1, and I am so thankful
that they all said hello on that 1st day.
Finally, to my closest friends who accompanied me on this journey—Markisha
Lea, Dave Wahls, Jaimie Hoffman Russell, Kristi Rodriguez, and Jake Binder: I could
not ask for a better group of best friends. Their willingness to be there for me, be
patient with me, and most of all, inspire me made my dreams come true.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 6
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
Acknowledgments 4
List of Tables 10
List of Figures 11
Abstract 12
Chapter 1: Introduction 13
Background of the Problem 13
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 16
Understanding the Problem 18
Importance of the Study 21
Chapter 2: Literature Review 23
College Student Retention and Persistence to Graduation 24
Theoretical Foundation of College Student Retention 25
Tinto’s Theory of Student Departure 25
Bean’s Student Attrition Model 29
Astin’s Input–Environment–Outcomes Model 29
Causes of Student Dropout 30
Keys to Student Retention and Persistence 31
Today’s 1st-Year Students 33
Characteristics of 1st-Year Students 33
Generational Theory and the Millennial Generation 37
High School to College Transition and Readiness 40
Today’s College Faculty 42
Characteristics of College Faculty 42
Attitudes and Values of College Faculty 43
Freshman Success and Institutional Responsibilities 45
Institutional Responsibilities 46
College and University 1st-Year Interventions 48
The First-Year Experience 51
Theoretical Foundations of FYE Programs 52
Critical Components of a FYE Program 55
Evidence of Effective FYE Programs 58
Summary and Conclusion 59
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 7
Chapter 3: Methodology 61
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 61
Framework for the Study 62
Step 1: Operationalization of the Goal 64
Step 2: Current Performance 65
Step 3: Performance Gap 67
Step 4: Assumed Causes of the Performance Gap 67
Step 5: Assumed Causes of the Performance Gap 74
Sample and Population 75
Instrumentation 78
Data Collection Procedures 79
Data Analysis 80
Research Question 1: Critical Components for FYE Program
Program Implementation 81
Research Question 2: Data Analysis of Gaps in Knowledge/
Skills, Motivation, and Organizational Culture 81
Chapter 4: Results 84
Demographic Data 85
Report of the Findings 86
Research Question 1 86
Research Question 2 86
Research Question 3 97
Research Question 4 104
Reliability of Findings 111
Comparison of Knowledge and Skills, Motivation, and Organizational
Culture Results 111
Analysis of the Question Type Combinations 112
Statistical Analysis of the Comparison of Knowledge and Skills,
Motivation, and Organizational Culture Results 117
Composition of a Comprehensive and Centralized FYE Program 118
Research Question 5 118
Chapter 5: Solutions 120
Knowledge and Skills Gap Solutions 123
Factual Knowledge Gaps 124
Conceptual Knowledge Gaps 125
Procedural Knowledge Gaps 126
Metacognitive Knowledge Gaps 126
Knowledge and Skills Solution Recommendations 127
Factual Knowledge Solutions 127
Conceptual Knowledge Solutions 128
Procedural Knowledge Solutions 129
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 8
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions 130
Knowledge and Skills Solutions for Critical Gaps 130
Knowledge and Skills Recommendations for Implementation 132
Orientation: Program to Help Students Transition to a New
Setting 132
Parent and Family Programs: Programs to Engage Parents With
the University 133
Service-Learning: Service Integrated Into the Curriculum 133
Student Living Environments: Residence Halls Designed to
Facilitate Student and Faculty Interactions 133
SI: Peer-Assisted Support in Targeted Courses 134
Targeted Population Services: Services for Specific Student
Groups 134
Motivation Gap Solutions 135
Motivation Solution Recommendations 136
Intrinsic Interest 137
Cost Value 137
Utility Value 138
Motivation Solutions for Critical Gaps 139
Organizational Culture and Support Gap Solutions 141
Organizational Culture and Support Solution Recommendations 141
Work Processes 142
Material Resources 144
Organizational Culture and Support Solutions for Critical Gaps 147
Organizational Culture and Support Recommendations for
Implementation 149
Academic Advising: Process to Help Students Clarify Goals 149
Campus Programming: Programs and Activities, Including
Social, Multicultural, Volunteer, and Diversity, That Engage
Students Socially 150
Campus Recreation: Fitness, Intramurals, and Club Sports 150
Career Services: Career Planning, Placement, Training, and
Assessment 150
Common Reading: Students Reading the Same Book Followed
by Discussion Groups 151
First-Year Seminars: Courses Designed to Teach Student
Survival and Success Techniques 151
Learning Communities: Clusters of Courses Around a Theme 152
Mentoring: Faculty Support of Student Needs in and out of the
Classroom 152
Student Counseling: Counseling on Issues Related to College
Transition and Early Adulthood 152
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 9
Tutoring: One-on-One or Group Pairings to Help Students With
Course Content 153
Wellness Programs: Promotion of Health and Education 153
Summary 154
Chapter 6: Implementation and Recommendations 155
Operationalization 157
Faculty-Perceived Gaps 158
Solutions to Perceived Gaps and Implementation Plan 159
Analysis of Framework 160
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 160
Recommendations and Implications 162
Evaluation 163
Level 1: Participants Reactions During Implementation 163
Level 2: Increase in Knowledge and Change in Attitudes During
Implementation 164
Level 3: Transfer of Learning and Change in Behavior 165
Level 4: Measurement of FYE Program on Retention 166
Limitations of Study 167
Future Research 169
Conclusion 172
References 175
Appendices
Appendix A: FYE Components and Descriptions 195
Appendix B: Faculty Survey 197
Appendix C: Interview Protocol and Questions 203
Appendix D: Demographic Breakdown of Survey Participants 206
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 10
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Culture Regarding a First-Year Experience (FYE)
Program 76
Table 2: Priority Ranking of the Critical Components of a First-Year
Experience Program, as Perceived by the faculty of the University
of California Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences:
Ascending Order by Mean of Ranking 87
Table 3: Knowledge and Skills Questions: Means and Standard Deviations
(in Descending Order by Mean) 92
Table 4: Motivation Questions: Means and Standard Deviations (in
Descending Order by Mean) 101
Table 5: Organizational Culture and Support Questions: Means and
Standard Deviations (in Descending Order by Mean) 107
Table 6: Comparison of Means for Each Critical Element of a First-Year
Experience Program 113
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 11
List of Figures
Figure 1: Gap analysis model 64
Figure 2: Critical components of a First-Year Experience university program 66
Figure D1: Titles of survey respondents 206
Figure D2: Length of time (in years) of respondents’ higher education
teaching experience 206
Figure D3: Length of time (in years) of respondents’ teaching experience at
the University of Southern California 207
Figure D4: Concentration area of respondents 207
Figure D5: Number of courses taught by respondents in an average semester 208
Figure D6: Previous involvement by respondents in First-Year Experience
programs 208
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 12
Abstract
Using an innovation adaptation of the gap analysis approach of Richard Clark and Fred
Estes, the collegiate First-Year Experience (FYE) consisting of comprehensive and
intentional curricular and co-curricular initiatives was examined. Conceptualization
and operationalization of the goal for a FYE program was based on three student devel-
opment theories centering on student departure decisions, including Vincent Tinto’s
student integration model, Alexander Astin’s input-environment-output model, and
John Bean’s student attrition model. The purpose of this study was to examine how
faculty members in the University of Southern California’s Dornsife College can best
implement a comprehensive FYE program. Using mixed methods, faculty members
were asked to prioritize the critical elements of an FYE program and rate their knowl-
edge and skills, motivation, and organizational needs to create a program. Using de-
scriptive and correlational statistics, the survey results, along with interview coding,
indicated that faculty perceived that they lacked knowledge and organizational support
in the creation of the individual FYE elements and a comprehensive program. The
results led to an analysis of the largest gaps for each construct, which were then specifi-
cally addressed for recommended solutions. This study begins to aid in understanding
the complex issues of collegiate 1st-year students’ success and how faculty members
can help bridge the gap.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 13
Chapter 1
Introduction
Background of the Problem
According to the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) in 2011, approximately 35% of students in any college or
university would leave higher education without completing either a 2- or a 4-year
degree program. Understanding student departure is central to understanding retention
and persistence in higher education. Participation in higher education is voluntary; and
while the decision to remain or leave college is individual, institutional practices and
policies do affect rates of student retention (Bean & Eaton, 2001). As a result, institu-
tions are far from helpless in determining retention practices that can attract or repel
students.
Statement of the Problem
The University of Southern California (USC), a 4-year, private, research-
extensive institution, located in Los Angeles, California, currently enrolls slightly over
37,000 students. In the fall of 2010, 2,972 were first-time, 1st-year students represent-
ing 1,397 high schools, with 11% coming from outside of the United States. They were
top students from various high schools and college preparatories from across the United
States and the world. According to the USC (2010b) Freshman Student Profile and Ad-
mission Information from 2010, the mean grade point average (GPA) was 3.7 on a 4.0
scale, and the average Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) score placed this group near
the top of all colleges across the nation. USC saw these students as well prepared and
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 14
ready to take on the challenges of the 1st year, both in and out of the classroom. The
problem lay in the fact that USC does not teach or assist 1st-year students how to be
successful in the collegiate environment. Students are just expected to know how to do
it.
Although the overall USC 6-year retention rate is 88.9%, the freshman-to-
sophomore retention rate is 95% (USC, 2010a). With such a high return rate of 1st-year
students, the institution as a whole, both administration and faculty, does not see 1st-
year student success as a problem. There is a feeling at USC that incoming students are
extremely intelligent and therefore do not require a centralized support system typically
seen at other colleges and universities across the nation. However, further examination
of the 1st-year student retention rate reveals that 5% of students are still leaving the
institution during their 1st year; and, according to USC Assistant Registrar F. Chang
(personal communication, December 15, 2011), almost 5% of 1st-year students are on
academic probation following just 1 semester at USC. A closer look reveals another 5%
of students are hovering just above academic probation, with a GPA between a 2.0 and
2.5 after their 1st semester (P. Tobey, USC Associate Dean of Student Affairs, personal
communication, December 15, 2011). When added together, the current rate of institu-
tional departure approaches 10%. As such, it would appear that these students needed
institutional support from the beginning to be successful at the collegiate level—some-
thing currently not being provided.
In his position as Director of Student Orientation Programs in the Student
Affairs Division, this researcher is aware that 1st-year success programs at USC are
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 15
fractionalized and decentralized, often making it challenging for students to discover the
resources available to them. Each academic unit designs initiatives and hosts programs
to help 1st-year students navigate the university. Examples include the popular Fresh-
man Seminars program hosted in the Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences, as
well as the First-Year Investigations (FYI) program designed to match new students
with faculty mentors. The Marshall School of Business places incoming students into
cohorts in the 1st year with assigned academic advisors who host activities and events
designed to engage students outside of the classroom. The Viterbi School of Engineer-
ing implemented a First-Year Experience (FYE) program that provides support, re-
sources, and programs to prepare students to fully experience the university and the
school. In addition, there are support services available through the many departments
within the Division of Student Affairs. Orientation Programs designs summer programs
to introduce students to the academic expectations and student services available at
USC. The Center for Academic Support provides tutoring services and mentoring
programs, including the Structured Curriculum Program for students identified through
the admission process as needing more hands-on assistance to be successful. Under-
graduate Programs, a department under the Provost, has bridge programs to help at-risk
students make a successful transition. These are just a sampling of the initiatives and
support systems designed to assist 1st-year students be successful at USC.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 16
Purpose of the Study
At USC, 1st-year success is divided among the various academic and student
service units. The underlying problem of 1st-year student success at USC stems from
an organizational philosophy that incoming students do not need to be taught how to
transition from high school to college. As a result, many problems occur. Policies are
created that do not allow for the creation of 1st-year success programs. Faculty mem-
bers who teach predominantly 1st-year student classes are not taught how to assist 1st-
year students with their unique needs. In addition, the organization as a whole does not
have a system-wide approach with respect to how to service 1st-year students. Examin-
ing the problem of the decentralization of 1st-year success helps address the larger and
more complex issue of how to assist 1st-year students to be successful both in and out
of the classroom, ultimately leading to greater retention, higher grades, fewer students
on academic probation, and the student’s sense of connection to USC as a whole.
Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine how faculty members in the USC
Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences, who work with 1st-year students at
USC, can best implement a FYE program that examines 1st-year students’ success
through a comprehensive lens that would include orientation, advising, First-Year Semi-
nars, supplemental instruction, developmental instruction, learning communities, living-
learning environments, faculty development, and other support services. The rationale
for choosing faculty members in the USC Dornsife College is that the Dornsife College
is the home of the general education curriculum, the Freshman Seminar courses, the
writing program, and the FYI courses. Most of these programs are either tailored to 1st-
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 17
year students or are specifically for 1st-year students. In order to create and assess the
quality of programs developed during the 1st year through a comprehensive FYE
program, an analysis and assessment process must be completed. Specifically, this
study focused on five questions:
1. What do faculty members in the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and
Sciences deem to be the priority for implementing the components of a comprehensive
FYE program?
2. Do USC Dornsife faculty members who teach 1st-year student classes at
USC have knowledge of the academic and social needs of 1st-year students to assist
with their success, both in and out of the classroom?
3. Are USC Dornsife faculty members motivated to create and implement a
comprehensive FYE program and its components?
4. Does the organizational culture of USC support USC Dornsife faculty
members in the creation and implementation of a comprehensive program, specifically
in light of the unique structure and decentralization that is the model of USC?
5. What are the potential solutions to address the gaps in faculty knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve the successful implementa-
tion of a comprehensive FYE program, and how could stakeholders evaluate it when
implemented?
This mixed-method (qualitative and quantitative) study utilized the gap analysis
model provided by Clark and Estes (2008) and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four levels of
evaluation in order to identify the goals, indicators, and assessment methods to
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 18
determine whether USC faculty would be able to successfully implement a centralized
FYE. Resources from the National Center for the First-Year Experience and Council for
Advancement of Standards (CAS) provided additional frameworks for this analysis.
The use of freshman persistence models across the United States were utilized to show-
case how USC faculty members can adopt a model appropriate to their student demo-
graphics. Retention theories posited by Vincent Tinto, Ernest Pascarella and Patrick
Terenzini, John Bean, and Alexander Astin served as the backdrop for understanding
student persistence in higher education. In addition, an understanding of organizational
culture provided by Kezar (2006) and Schein (1992) will allow for a more thorough
understanding of the role organizational culture plays in achieving collaboration.
Understanding the Problem
According to the USDOE, NCES (2011), the projected college enrollment for
2011–2012 was 19.7 million students (USDOE, 2011). However staggering this num-
ber is, the same study also indicated that only 3.4 million degrees would be awarded
during the same year. Student retention has become a challenging problem for the
higher education community. According to Lau (2003), “an effective program of
student retention must be implemented to increase the retention of qualified students”
(p. 126). To increase student success, retention, and persistence, it is essential for
colleges and universities to focus on students’ 1st year. Attention to the 1st year of
college is not a new phenomenon. The release of Involvement in Learning: Realizing
the Potential for American Undergraduate Education, sponsored by the National Insti-
tute of Education in 1984 (as cited in Hunter, 2006), focused attention on the FYE for
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 19
the first time on a national level (Hunter, 2006). The research on student persistence
reveals that the largest portion of student departure occurs during the 1st year and prior
to the 2nd year (Ishler & Upcraft, 2005). Tinto (1993) described the process of drop-
ping out and voluntary withdrawal by positing that students enter college with various
characteristics that directly influence student departure decisions as well as individual
commitments to the institution. These characteristics include family background,
individual attributes, and precollege educational experiences (Braxton, Sullivan, &
Johnson, 1997).
Tinto (1993) viewed retention as a longitudinal process involving a complex
series of interactions between (a) the student, along with his or her background charac-
teristics, and (b) the environment, with experiences on campus being paramount to
persistence. Students must achieve an element of both academic and social integration
within the fabric of the institution, whereby if all other factors are equal, “the greater the
student’s level of social and academic integration, the more likely he or she is to con-
tinue at that particular institution” (Pascarella & Chapman, 1983, p. 25). According to
Tinto (1982), the inability to adapt to the new environment often causes students to
withdraw from school during or after the 1st year or to perform at a lower academic
level than expected. Gardner (1986) argued that attention must be directed to students’
needs as they adapt and adjust to their new environments. As a result, institutions of
higher education have changed the way in which they deal with 1st-year students.
There is overwhelming evidence that student success is largely determined by
experiences during the 1st year (Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985). First-year student
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 20
success is defined as progress toward fulfilling educational and personal goals including
developing academic and intellectual competence, establishing and maintaining inter-
personal relationships, developing an identity, deciding on a career and lifestyle, main-
taining personal health and wellness, and developing an integrated philosophy of life
(Upcraft, 1984). Created over the last 30 years, much of what now constitutes the FYE
in higher education programs in the United States are programs and activities designed
to increase student-to-student interaction, increase faculty-to-student interaction, in-
crease student involvement and time on campus, link the curriculum and the cocurricu-
lum, increase academic expectations and levels of academic engagement, and assist
students who have insufficient academic preparation for college (Barefoot, 2000).
Upcraft and Gardner (1989) identified 10 beliefs about the FYE necessary for
institutions to help 1st-year students be successful. These include (a) an institutional
obligation to support and enhance the 1st year; (b) the need for institutions to intention-
ally help 1st-year students to achieve academic and personal goals; (c) helping students
to get involved, particularly through interaction between students and other members of
the community; (d) taking into account the diversity of 1st-year students; (e) involving
faculty; (f) treating 1st-year students with dignity and respect; (g) creating deliberate
goals for 1st-year students; (h) having an institutional commitment to enhancing 1st-
year student success, and (I) utilizing the Freshman Seminar to enhance student success.
The term First-Year Experience describes a “comprehensive and intentional ap-
proach to the first college year” (Hunter, 2006, p. 6). It comprises both curricular and
cocurricular initiatives and is far more than a single event, program, or course.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 21
Programs and initiatives commonly considered to be part of an institution’s FYE
activities include recruitment and admission efforts, new student orientation and wel-
come week activities, rituals and traditions, common reading programs, First-Year
Seminars, academic advising, academic support centers, supplemental instruction,
undergraduate research initiatives, learning communities, service learning, and resi-
dence education initiatives (Hunter, 2006). FYE programs are often designed to support
the institutional goal of student retention and persistence with respect to the completion
of educational goals as a key indicator of student satisfaction and success (Levitz, Noel,
& Richter, 1999). First-year interventions have grown dramatically over the last 2
decades, with approximately 95% of American 4-year institutions having some type of
FYE program (Jamelske, 2008). These programs are often created to improve the GPA
of 1st-year students, engage students in the social and academic fabric of the institution,
improve student success, and increase student commitment to the university (Myers,
2003).
Importance of the Study
The USC is a top-tier institution of higher education focused on providing
students with an education that focuses on both breadth and depth of studies. A focus
on the development of a comprehensive FYE program, spearheaded by the faculty,
should allow USC to focus on the retention of the forgotten students. In addition, this
study should provide a framework for like institutions that seek to develop such a
program and to garner support of the faculty in doing so. The study should help to
answer the question of how educators at colleges and universities can develop programs
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 22
and services for 1st-year students through the lens of how faculty members view such
success both in and out of the classroom. This researcher sought to showcase the insti-
tutional responsibilities for the success of 1st-year students and the importance that
faculty members play in their success. He also sought to define the critical components
of FYE program and how those programs are linked to retention and persistence to
graduation.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 23
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Retention and persistence to graduation is of the utmost importance for colleges
and universities. Admission profiles, college rankings, selectivity, and even the credit
rating are based, in part, on the percentage of students who return from year to year.
Historically, the freshman-to-sophomore retention rate serves as a focal point for col-
leges and universities, as the greatest attrition occurs between the freshman and sopho-
more years (Murtaugh, Burns, & Schuster, 1999). The greatest changes in students take
place during the freshman year, and colleges and universities must address this situation
by setting up institutional support systems to help students develop a connection to the
academic, intellectual, and social fabric of the institution (Theophilides, Terenzini, &
Lorang, 1984).
The focus of this chapter is to review the current literature in the field of student
retention and FYE programming that promotes student retention and persistence toward
graduation. The theoretical constructs and backgrounds of student retention will be
presented, along with the causes and implications of student dropout. Following that,
characteristics of 1st-year college students and the millennial generation will be pro-
vided to allow for a better understanding of the type of students enrolled in colleges
today. In addition, information on the traits of faculty members who teach at colleges
and universities will be presented to showcase the various teaching pedagogies and
roles that faculty play in the creation of learning environments that support student
retention and persistence. Next, attention will be given to how institutions define
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 24
freshman success and the responsibilities of the institutions to create a climate condu-
cive for success. A comprehensive review of current programs and practices that exist
on a national scale will be described, followed by an in-depth review of what a FYE
program on a college campus is and the critical components that are most traditionally
included in a comprehensive FYE program.
College Student Retention and Persistence to Graduation
According to Tinto (2006), the subject of student retention and attrition is one of
the most widely studied areas in higher education. Colleges and universities forever
focus on these rates as ways to increase their national and international profiles among
college-going students and their families. Since the 1980s, American higher education
institutions have experienced problems in retaining students, thereby resulting in greater
financial losses, lower graduation rates for the institution, and negatively impacting how
stakeholders view the college or university (Lau, 2003). The study of student retention
is not a new phenomenon, although how it is perceived by college officials has trans-
formed over time. When the issue of student retention first appeared some 50 years ago,
student attrition was viewed through a psychology lens, often referring to a lack of
student’s attributes, skills, and motivation. Students failed, not institutions (Tinto,
2006). Over time, that view has changed as the research on student retention has also
changed. A shift began in the 1970s when the view of student retention began to take
account of the role of the environment, or college, in student departure (Spady, 1970;
Tinto 2006). This shift ushered in the age of involvement where institutions and re-
searchers reinforced the importance of student contact or involvement with respect to a
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 25
variety of student outcomes, including retention (Tinto, 2006). As a result, the early
practice of retention focused on the 1st year of college, especially the transition to
college. Since that time, the study and practice of student retention have undergone
many changes, specifically with an enhancement of the understanding of students from
different backgrounds and how institutional differences can impact retention and attri-
tion (Tinto, 2006).
Theoretical Foundation of College Student Retention
The study of student retention has been grounded in both research and theoreti-
cal constructs over time. Although several theories have been advanced to explain
college persistence, the three theories that provide a framework for departure decisions
are Astin’s (1993) input–environment–output model, Bean’s (1980) student attrition
model, and Tinto’s (1987) student integration model.
Tinto’s Theory of Student Departure
In brief, the model put forth by Tinto (1975) views attrition as a longitudinal
process involving a complex series of interactions between the student and the environ-
ment of the college or university (Terenzini & Pascarella, 1980). Tinto (1987, 1993)
posited that students enter college with various characteristics and that those character-
istics directly influence student departure decisions as well as individual commitments
to the institution. These characteristics include family background, individual attrib-
utes, and precollege educational experiences (Braxton et al., 1997). The foundation of
Tinto’s (1987, 1993) work was based on the work of cultural anthropologist Van Gen-
nep (1909/1960). In addition, to overcome the limitation of understanding the internal
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 26
processes of interactions, he utilized Durkheim’s (1951) work regarding suicide to
understand voluntary withdrawal (Melguizo, 2011). Tinto (1987, 1993) built on their
work to describe the process of dropping out, which includes elements of separation,
transition, and incorporation.
The longitudinal process of student persistence; therefore, student departure is
comprised of several distinct stages through which new students pass during the course
of their college careers (Tinto, 1988). The stages of student departure are tied to the
work of Van Gennep (1909/1960), who focused on the movement of individuals from
membership in one group to membership in another (Tinto, 1988). In essence, this is
the foundation of the start of a college career. Incoming students are leaving member-
ships in past associations, including schools, organizations, and even family structures,
to join a new membership in the college environment. This factor is particularly true for
students moving out of the family home for the first time into university housing. Van
Gennep argued that the process of transmission of relationships between groups is
marked by three stages, referred to as separation, transition, and incorporation (Tinto,
1988). The three stages are important for student satisfaction and, ultimately, persis-
tence toward graduation. Each student must undergo all three stages, and each marks a
point where a student may drop out if he or she is unable to successfully navigate the
stage.
According to Tinto (1988), the first stage, separation, involves the separation of
an individual from his or her past associations and is characterized by a decline in
interactions with members of the original group. In terms of a college student’s career,
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 27
separation requires new students to disassociate themselves from membership in past
communities, most typically high school and place of residence. The second stage,
transition, is a period in which the person begins to interact in new ways with the mem-
bers of the new group (Tinto, 1988). It is during this stage that individuals come to gain
the knowledge and skills required for performance in the new group. Students in this
stage begin to acquire the norms and patterns of behavior appropriate to integrate into
the new communities of the college. Students in this stage have not yet established the
personal bonds and are neither bound strongly to the past nor firmly tied to the future.
The transition stage is often marked by the moving onto campus and establishing new
peer relationships, joining student clubs and organizations, and developing new struc-
tures to integrate into the academic and social communities of the college or university.
Students are often feeling out the new community of the college, perhaps unlearning
previous norms to learn new ones. The third and last stage, incorporation, refers to the
taking on of new patterns of interactions with members of the new group while engag-
ing with the new group with competent membership (Tinto, 1988). College students
struggling in this stage are not finding and adopting norms of the new college setting
and establishing competent membership in the social and intellectual communities of
university life (Tinto, 1988). It is often the final stage that, if unsuccessful navigating,
resulting in the departure of the student from the college of university.
There is disagreement with Tinto’s stages of student departure and his use of
Van Gennep’s (1909/1960) stages to explain student persistence and departure. Ac-
cording to Tierney (1992), Tinto has misinterpreted the notions of ritual and has created
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 28
a theoretical construct that holds potentially harmful consequences for racial and ethnic
minorities. The social integrationist theory borrows an anthropological term, ritual, yet
utilizes the term outside of the scope of its cultural foundations and meanings (Tierney,
1992). Tinto’s (1987) notion is that new students in college must undergo a form of
cultural suicide, making a clean break from the communities and cultures in which they
were raised and assimilate into the dominant culture of the college. Tinto (1987) has
assumed that student departure is a universal concept rather than a cultural one. Absent
from his analysis is any discussion about the cultural formation of groups (Tierney,
1992). The model raises both theoretical and practical concerns because it assumes that
members of all cultures transition the same way. Tinto (1987) misinterpreted Van Gen-
nep’s model by stating that students must give up one culture in order to assimilate into
a new one. This brings up issues of culture and community (Tierney, 1999). Tierney
(1992, 1999) asserts that expecting college students to sever ties with their traditional
cultural traditions places a burden on nontraditional students to assimilate.
The research of Tinto (1988) reinforces the notion that different forms of institu-
tional actions for student retention must “be carefully timed to meet the changing situa-
tions and needs of students as they attempt to progress along the path to college
completion” (p. 451). The incidence of student leaving is highest in the 1st year of
college (Cope & Hannah, 1975). Studies have shown that student departure during the
1st year is not solely isolated to the first 6 weeks but that the first 6 months of college
are an especially important time period in student persistence in completing the 1st year
(Daubman, Williams, Johnson, & Crump, 1985). Tinto (1987, 1993) argued that
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 29
students must achieve an element of both academic and social integration within the
institution. All other factors being equal, “the greater the student’s level of social and
academic integration, the more likely he or she is to continue at that particular institu-
tion” (Pascarella & Chapman, 1983, p. 25).
Bean’s Student Attrition Model
The second theoretical construct for student retention, developed by Bean
(1980), argues that student attrition is analogous to turnover in work organizations and
stresses the importance of behavioral intentions as predictors of persistence behavior
(Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992). The student attrition model presumes
that behavioral intentions are shaped by a process where “beliefs shape attitudes, and,
attitudes, in turn, shape behavioral intents” (Cabrera et al., 1992, p. 145). Unlike
Tinto’s (1988) model, Bean’s model emphasizes the role played by factors external to
the institution impacting attitudes and decisions. The research on the model suggests
that intent to persist, attitudes, institutional fit, and external factors (e.g., family ap-
proval, finances, etc.) exert the greatest influences on retention (Cabrera et al., 1992).
Astin’s Input–Environment–Outcomes Model
In addition to the models of Tinto (1988) and Bean (1980), Astin’s (1993)
input–environment–outcomes model is often cited to explain that student success is a
function of who students were before the entered college and what happened to them
after they enrolled. Astin’s model establishes that students enter college with a pre-
established set of characteristics and that the environmental variables such as institu-
tional characteristics, peer group norms, faculty teaching methods and values, curricu-
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 30
lum, financial aid, student involvement, place of residence, and decisions about major
field of study impact the outcome and development of a student and play a pivotal role
in the student’s decision to stay in or leave college.
Causes of Student Dropout
The freshman year represents a stressful transition for college students (Lu,
1994). While most students cope with a complex new role and achieve academic
success, other students are less able to manage this transition and decide to leave their
college or university during or at the end of their freshman year (DeBerard, Spielmans,
& Julka, 2004). There is a relationship between college academic achievement and
retention, with students who perform higher in the classroom persisting in their college
career to a greater degree than students who achieve at a lower level (Kirby & Sharpe,
2001; McGrath & Braunstein, 1997; Ryland, Riordan, & Brack, 1994). Research con-
sistently indicates that college students who drop out usually do so by the time they
finish their 1st year (Noel et al., 1985). There are several reasons why college freshmen
do not return for their sophomore year (Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora,
1996). Some students choose to leave for reasons beyond the institution’s control, such
a lack of finances, poor institutional fit, a change in academic or career goals, or other
personal circumstances (Lau, 2003). These are often the most difficult for a college or
university to mitigate because they are often only known after the student has departed.
Many students leave because the institution has failed to provide and/or create an envi-
ronment, both in and out of the classroom, which is conducive to the student’s learning
and educational needs (Lau, 2003). Often faculty and student service professionals miss
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 31
key signs from students and fail to provide them with adequate interventions and re-
sources to keep the student at the institution. Some students with a lack of basic funda-
mental skills, especially in mathematics and writing, find it difficult to cope with the
course workload (Lau, 2003). Many freshman students lack the motivation to do well in
school and do not understand the importance of education or do not know how to apply
classroom-learned theories to real-life problems (Lau, 2003).
Finally, freshman students also are many times overwhelmed with the transition
from high school to college life and become stressed by the dramatic changes in their
lives that complicate their desire to finish their 1st year of college (Lau, 2003). The
final rationale links back to Tinto’s (1987, 1993) theory that students who are unable to
transition and reach the stage of incorporation are not able to fully integrate within their
new environment. While there are many drop-out gauges available to colleges and
university officials, academic achievement, measured by grades, is among the most
revealing indicators of students’ successful adjustment to the intellectual demands of
college study. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) argued that grade performance is a
“critical predictor of persistence and educational attainment” (p. 618).
Keys to Student Retention and Persistence
While student retention and persistence rates are often a key reports for colleges
and universities, it is critical that higher education administrators must “help students
adjust to their new learning and living environments, and ensure that the institution is
accommodating to the student’s needs, interests, and learning styles” (Lau, 2003, p.
128). There are several critical keys to 1st-year student persistence and institutional
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 32
factors that have an impact on the student’s learning process, which are likely to result
in a higher student retention rate (Lau, 2003). Academic administrators can increase the
retention rate by ensuring that services (e.g., funding in the form of financial aid, aca-
demic support programs such as learning centers and freshman year programs, exposure
to diversity and multiculturalism, physical facilities such as study rooms and career
centers) are available to incoming 1st-year students (Lau, 2003; Ishler & Upcraft, 2005).
Administrators are not alone in solving the complex retention puzzle. Members
of the faculty at each college or university play a crucial and critical role in promoting
student educational growth (Lau, 2003). Faculty can help maintain a positive learning
environment by emphasizing teaching and learning as a dynamic process, incorporating
multimedia technology to enrich classroom teaching and learning, increasing the use of
both cooperative and collaborative learning, and by providing continuous interactions
between students and faculty academic advisors (Lau, 2003; Ishler & Upcraft, 2005).
Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) argued that faculty’s in- and out-of-class contact with
their students has a profound influence on student learning. Faculty and administrators
must work side by side to provide an environment that promotes academic success and
integration into the community of scholars for each student.
Retention is a complicated construct and a challenging problem for the academic
community (Lau, 2003). Virtually every program, person, and procedure on campus has
the potential to have an impact on students. The problem is that when everyone is re-
sponsible, no one is responsible; and when no one is responsible, nothing gets done.
The job of freshman retention must be a long-term approach solidified under a key
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 33
person or department (Levitz et al., 1999). Because the greatest changes in students
take place during the freshman year, colleges and universities must address this fact by
setting up institutional support systems to help students develop a connection to the
academic, intellectual, and social fabric of the institution (Theophilides et al., 1984).
This process, in turn, will serve to address the changing needs of 1st-year students while
simultaneously addressing their persistence toward degree completion.
Today’s 1st-Year Students
College students throughout time have taken on various characteristics and traits
that emulate the generation to which they were born. Each generation brings new
students with different needs and challenges than the previous one. This is no different
with the students who currently attend U.S. colleges and universities. In addition, it is
difficult to pinpoint or provide a demographic profile of today’s students, particularly
those who are 1st-year students, as the profile is in constant flux (Ishler, 2005). To
understand the relevance of intervention programs to help 1st-year students be success-
ful and persist to their sophomore year, it is important to get a glimpse of what the
typical 1st-year student looks like on an average college campus. Additionally, it is
important to review generational theory as it relates to how the generation of current
college students is shaped.
Characteristics of 1st-Year Students
A snapshot of the 1st-year students who entered 4-year colleges in 2010 shows
that the largest group of students were Caucasian (72.7%) followed by African Ameri-
can/Black (11.5%). Latino students represented the third largest group (10.8%), with
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 34
Asian American students fourth (8.5%; “A Profile,” 2011). The number of racial and
ethnic groups in colleges and universities has grown dramatically over the last 25 years
and reflects the changing demographics of the nation as a whole (Ishler, 2005). Census
data shows the greatest changes are and will continue to be increases in Latino and
Asian American students, resulting in a college enrollment increase by 2015 of over 1.6
million students, of which 80% will be non-White (Roach, 2001).
Another significant statistic that continues to impact universities is the continued
increase in foreign-born students studying in the United States. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau (2010), the number of international students in U.S. colleges and univer-
sities has increased every year since 1995 and, at 691,000, was a 200% increase since
1980. The United States is currently by far the largest host country to international
students (Altbach, 2004), with the majority of international students coming from India,
China, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. In addition to racial, ethnic, and country-of-
origin changes, there has been a significant shift in the age demographics of college and
university students since 1985, with the number of older students growing more rapidly
than the number of younger students (USDOE, NCES, 1999). Fewer than 1 in 6 of all
current undergraduate students fit the traditional age stereotype of the American college
student. Gender balances are also changing the culture of colleges and universities.
According to Woodard, Love, and Komives (2000), the number of women students
attending college equaled that of men students in 1979 for the first time and, since then,
the number of women students has continued to grow. Today, women represent 56% of
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 35
students in higher education (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2003) and tend to graduate
at higher rates than men do (Woodard et al., 2000).
Finally, the profile of this year’s freshman indicates 20.6% 1st-year students are
1st-generation students, representing a growth trend over the past decade (Ishler, 2005).
First-generation students are defined as “those whose parents’ highest level of education
is a high school diploma or less” (Ishler, 2005, p. 22). First-generation students are less
likely to be enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs, often choosing associate degree
programs or certificate programs at 2-year colleges (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998).
Demographic shifts are not the only changes in 1st-year students that impact colleges
and universities. First-year students, primarily comprised of the millennial generation,
are more likely to differ from previous generations on a wide spectrum of political,
socioeconomic, and cultural issues. According to the Cooperative Institutional Re-
search Program’s (CIRP) freshman survey published by the UCLA Higher Education
Research Institute saw several “high-water marks” in the attitude shifts of incoming 1st-
year students (“A Profile,” 2011). The most significant of these relates to attitudes
towards academics and academic achievement. More 1st-year students than ever re-
ported having above-average academic achievement and a drive to achieve (Ashburn,
2011). The CIRP survey results showed that over 60% of incoming 1st-year students
had plans to attend graduate school (“A Profile,” 2011), with the largest fields of study
being business, health professions, biological sciences, and engineering. Incoming 1st-
year students reported various approaches to learning that aided them in their studies in
the year preceding college enrollment, including taking notes during class (66.5%),
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 36
making logical arguments to support opinions (57.8%), working in groups on assign-
ments (54.6%), and seeking feedback on academic work (47.3%; “A Profile,” 2011).
Students today have placed a high value on education and understand the need for
preparation for college work.
While students entering college today have a greater drive to succeed, according
to Upcraft and Stephens (2000), most of today’s incoming students require remediation
in basic reading, writing, and computational skills. The research tends to indicate a lack
between academic preparation and the ability for students to think critically, which is a
skill required of college freshman students. There is a disconnect between what col-
leges and universities require of students and what incoming students think is an impor-
tant part of the necessary preparation for attending college. Studies indicate only 21.9%
of students reported looking up research articles and resources and only 36.9% reported
evaluating the quality of reliability of research information (“A Profile,” 2011). These
skills, necessary to collegiate success, are often left to the college or university to teach.
As a result, many students experience sharp declines in their GPAs during their 1st year
when compared to their academic averages during their final year in high school
(Wintre et al., 2011). First-year undergraduate courses were reported by Wintre et al.
(2011) to have class averages of 65%, suggesting that more than half of the students
would have lower grades in college than in high school. The academic achievement of
1st-year students continues to be a source of retention issues for colleges and universi-
ties as students make the transition from high school work to college-level thinking,
reading, and writing.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 37
In addition to academic achievement, opinions of incoming students on a wide
array of social issues continue to change as the millennial student generation moves
through the collegiate experience. These include a stronger denouncement of racist and
sexist speech on campus (68.4%), the right for same-sex couples to have legal marital
status (64.9%), and the increased desire to legalize marijuana (45.6%; “This Year’s,”
2010). In addition, incoming students in 2010 reported strong beliefs that the federal
government was not doing enough to control pollution (78.2%), that global warming
should be a federal priority (63.1%), and that a national healthcare plan is needed to
cover everyone’s medical costs (61.3%). Academic achievement and a greater sense of
connection to the social structures of the world are important factors in shaping the col-
legiate experience for incoming students. They allow colleges and universities to better
understand how to shape academic programs, resources, and services in light of the
changing shifts in attitudes and academic preparation of students.
Generational Theory and the Millennial Generation
However, a snapshot of the current students on college campuses provides just
that—a snapshot. It must be taken as a part of a larger picture that includes an under-
standing of the concept of generation and generational theory. Generational theory
describes birth cohorts in a cyclical view of history based on repeating generational
archetypes, each with its own biography that tells the story of how the personality of the
generation is shaped and how the personality shapes other generations (Coomes &
DeBard, 2004). At the root of generational theory is an examination of history into
seasonal cycles lasting approximately 90 years, further divided into four “turnings” that
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 38
are approximately 22 years long (Strauss & Howe, 1991). There are four types of gen-
erations: prophet/idealist, nomad/reactive, hero/civic, and artist/adaptive.
The millennial generation, a term coined by Strauss and Howe (1991), describes
the cohort of individuals born between 1982 and 2000, who are distinct from their
parents of the “Baby Boom” generations as well as their immediate predecessors, Gen-
eration X. Millennial students are the largest cohort, or generation, in the nation’s
history, with census figures indicating some 100 million Americans born after 1981
(Yax, 2004). By 2012, it is estimated that millennials will represent 13.2 million stu-
dents, an increase of over 93% since 1992. Howe and Strauss (2000) identify seven key
traits that serve as a framework for understanding the millennial student, including
special, sheltered, confident, team-oriented, conventional, pressured, and achieving.
Drawing from generational theory, Strauss and Howe (1991) argue the millennial gen-
eration is a hero, or civic generation, characterized by being born during an unraveling
and spending their rising adult years during a crisis. This understanding of the millen-
nial generation furthers the understanding of the complex makeup of students on college
campuses nationwide and the relationship to academics. The strategies brought into the
classroom and campus life to engage the members of Generation X, the previous gener-
ation, will need to be reevaluated in light of the new generational personality that has
arrived on campus. What was true for the previous generation will not be true of the
generation of students that now comprise the undergraduate population, thereby forcing
colleges and universities to adjust (Howe & Strauss, 2003).
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 39
There are a number of behaviors that are different in statistically significant
ways and will impact all of society, including academe. Millennial students expect a
much greater array of product and service selectivity with a desire of ultimate consumer
control. As a result, colleges will be required to increase the learning options and edu-
cational services. Additionally, millennial students expect personalization and custom-
ization features to meet their changing needs, interests, and tastes, thus requiring
colleges to provide personalized and continuous monitoring while intervening as
necessary. Finally, millennial students prefer flexibility, options, and are practical with
a results-oriented approach. This issue will require colleges to change teaching and
delivery systems, enable multitasking, utilize creative technology in instruction, and
provide alternatives to the lock-step credit hour and semester systems (Sweeney, 2006).
The research on the changing demographics and attitudes of millennial college
students stresses the importance of tailoring programs to meet the needs of students as
they enter the college or university. Current programmatic efforts at institutions must
take into account these trends. Most importantly, institutions must allocate resources to
the FYE in an effort to improve student academic outcomes and retention (Jamelske,
2008). Millennial students are hard working and have been socialized to be successful.
They have engaged in numerous academic, extracurricular, and service pursuits and
have been taught to be generous and practical (Elam, Stratton, & Gibson, 2007). First-
year millennial students are exceedingly close to their parents, are over-reliant on com-
munications technology, and have stunted interpersonal skills (Elam et al., 2007).
These students often lack the skills necessary to be critical thinkers and to demonstrate
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 40
self-reflection (Murray, 1997). Some predict that members of this generation will be
more obedient with respect to university faculty and administrators, looking to them for
guidance and support. University administrators must be prepared to display authorita-
tive expertise while investing in outcomes (Murray, 1997). Millennial students are
often coined as rule followers and are less distrustful of policies, procedures, and proc-
esses than the earlier cohorts (Lancaster & Stillman, 2002; Murray, 1997). As a result,
policies and procedures must be carefully prepared and regularly reexamined to main-
tain such trust (Brownstein, 2000). Finally, millennial students are described as confi-
dent and optimistic about the future, often being called the next greatest generation
(Howe & Strauss, 2000). While in college, university faculty and administrators must
work to provide these students with the education and experience, along with the sup-
port systems, to pursue their interests in social welfare and social institutions (Brown-
stein, 2000).
High School to College Transition and Readiness
College readiness is defined by American College Testing (2007) as “the level
of preparation a student needs to enroll and succeed—without remediation—in a credit-
bearing general education course at 2-year or 4-year institution, trade school, or techni-
cal school” (p. 5). Many high school graduates fall short of being prepared to be suc-
cessful in postsecondary education (Moore et al., 2010). Even though college prepara-
tion is a part of most high school curricula, many students who apply for admission to
colleges and universities still must take remedial courses because they are not ade-
quately prepared (Education Trust, 2001). Essentially, students are not ready. Green
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 41
and Forester (2003) stated that “more than half of the students who do graduate from
high school, and more than two thirds of all the students who start high school, do not
graduate with the minimal requirements needed to apply to a four-year college or univer-
sity” (p. 1). Remedial courses are often designed to assist students in improving skills
necessary for college-level work but not obtained during high school. Approximately
40% of traditional undergraduate students take at least one remedial course (Attewell,
Lavin, Domina, & Levey, 2006). Research indicates that students who take at least one
remedial course are not as likely to graduate with a bachelor’s degree as those students
who do not need to take remedial courses (Adelman, 1999, 2004).
A compelling explanation for the observed drop in freshman retention and com-
pletion toward graduation is a compositional shift in the preparation of students attend-
ing college. More students with weaker preparation are being induced to attend college
(Bound, Lovenheim, & Turner, 2010). The shift in the preparation of students entering
college accounts for about a third of the observed decline in retention and completion
rates (Bound et al., 2010). Programs and support services must be enacted by institu-
tions to assist at-risk students so that they can receive extra help as they need. Accord-
ing to Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2006), programs include those stan-
dard in a comprehensive FYE program, including “orientation, transition courses and
First-Year Seminars, learning communities, intrusive advising, tutoring, supplemental
instruction, peer tutoring, study groups and summer bridge programs, study skills work-
shops, mentoring and student support groups, and student–faculty research” (p. 57).
Continuous dialogue between high schools and higher education institutions may assist
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 42
schools in defining their programs and instructional goals (Conley, 2007; Tierney,
2004).
Today’s College Faculty
There is no understanding of the importance of the role of faculty members in
the success of college students, particularly 1st-year college students. Faculty members
play an increasingly important role both in and out of the classroom. Faculty do matter,
and the behavior and attitudes of faculty members have a dramatic impact on student
learning and engagement (Umbach & Wawrzynksi, 2005). The term faculty member is
often utilized but is rarely defined. To understand the impact on student success, it is
important not only to understand the characteristics and traits of college faculty in
today’s world but also to understand their beliefs and attitudes in how undergraduate
education is shaped.
Characteristics of College Faculty
Taken as a collective, a majority of faculty members across the United States on
4-year college campuses are male, averaging approximately 61%. The largest group of
faculty members is between 55 and 59 years of age with a majority being given tenure
between 2001 and 2005. The largest departmental representation of faculty members
occurs in the humanities, specifically in English language and literature, followed
closely by the physical sciences, specifically mathematics and statistics. A majority of
faculty members are White/Caucasian, representing 88.6% of all faculty members
across the United States. The second largest ethnic group is Asian American/Asian,
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 43
representing 4.5%. Most faculty members are on 9- to 10-month contracts (74%) as
opposed to 11- to 12-month contracts (26%; DeAngelo et al., 2009).
Faculty members at institutions of higher education are generally concerned
about three major areas: teaching, research, and service. At most 4-year universities,
the primary activity faculty members is teaching, representing 83.4% of all faculty
members. In addition, 97.7% of respondents to the faculty survey conducted by the
Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) reported teaching as very important or
essential (as cited in DeAngelo et al., 2009). A majority of faculty members at 4-year
institutions are teaching two undergraduate courses per term with a majority of those
courses having between 11 and 20 students. Of interest, 56% of faculty members
reported teaching no general education classes, and 94.6% reported teaching no reme-
dial or development courses. This information is important because most undergradu-
ates will engage with faculty members primarily in the classroom, particularly for the
first time. In addition, De Angelo et al. (2009) reported that over 80% of faculty mem-
bers at 4-year institutions spent between 1 and 8 hours a week advising and counseling
students through both formal and informal methods and that 83.2% of faculty members
either strongly or somewhat strongly agreed that faculty members should be interested
in the personal problems of students .
Attitudes and Values of College Faculty
To truly understand the role and importance of faculty members on college
campuses, particularly at 4-year institutions, it is important to look beyond the demo-
graphic information. It is also necessary to understand their beliefs and attitudes. As a
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 44
part of the HERI’s annual faculty survey, faculty members were asked to identify goals
for undergraduate education. In the most recently published survey results from 2008,
faculty members ranked the development of critical thinking skills and discipline-
specific knowledge at the forefront (as cited in DeAngelo et al., 2009). Other top goals
included helping students evaluate the quality and reliability of information, developing
information literacy, and the ability to write effectively (DeAngelo et al., 2009). Conley
(2005) has identified a number of general behaviors and traits known as “habits of
mind” (p. 25) that are important to student success and learning. The HERI survey also
captured these data as they related to faculty practices to support success. Faculty most
frequently reported that they encouraged students to ask questions in class (94.6%),
supported their opinions with logical arguments (82.8%), and sought solutions to
problems (74.7%; De Angelo et al., 2009).
Beyond the classroom, faculty members have indicated that the connection
between colleges and local communities is an important part of the mission of higher
education (DeAngelo et al., 2009). Approximately 89% of faculty surveyed by HERI
either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that “colleges have a responsibility to work
with their surrounding communities to address local issues” (DeAngelo et al., 2009, p.
12). This finding suggests that faculty feel that the actions of the college, including
faculty and students, should bring about societal change. This is important in consider-
ing how faculty members work with students to shape the curriculum and cocurriculum.
Finally, of interest is that faculty members at all types of institutions rate the
promotion of intellectual development of students as the highest priority for colleges
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 45
and universities, with the second most prevalent priority being to enhance the institu-
tion’s national image. The priorities of student development and student success out of
the classroom were ranked as the lowest priorities by college faculty (DeAngelo et al.,
2009). However, Umbach and Wawrzynski (2005) argued that “the impact that a
faculty member can have on the student experience can be seen in and out of the class-
room” (p. 176). Faculty members play a critical role in the collegiate experience; and if
faculty members are actively involved in the educational practices of students, the
students are more likely to be active participants in their learning and have greater gains
from their overall undergraduate experience (Umbach & Wawrzynksi, 2005).
Freshman Success and Institutional Responsibilities
Upcraft and Gardner (1989) defined freshman success as making progress
toward fulfilling both educational and personal goals by succeeding academically,
developing interpersonal support systems, defining identity, committing to career and
lifestyle choices, managing health and wellness, and developing a clear sense of purpose
that guides behavior. While a component of freshman success is making good grades
and persisting toward the sophomore year, it is more than just how well a student does
in the classroom. Freshman success is making a successful transition from high school
to college and ultimately persisting to graduation (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005).
Lizzio (2006) identified five senses of success that can be applied to successful
life transitions and specifically to student transition into higher education. The frame-
work conceptualizes student success in five domains: academic culture, sense of con-
nectedness, sense of capability, sense of purpose, and sense of resourcefulness. The
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 46
first of these is capability. Students’ success depends on their sense of capability.
Students who are better prepared for university study have greater early academic
success and persist with their studies. In addition, students’ success depends on their
sense of connectedness. They are more likely to be successful learners and effective
colleagues if they are connected to one another as well as the fabric of the college or
university. Third, students’ success depends on their sense of purpose, which includes
disciplinary engagement, vocational direction, and personal development. Students’
success also depends on their sense of resourcefulness and how to proactively manage
the challenges of their whole university experience. Finally, students’ success depends
on their sense of the academic culture and their appreciation of the core values and
ethical principles of the university (Lizzio, 2006).
Student success is more than just measuring student retention. Although retain-
ing students is important, the primary objective of the collegiate experience is learning,
both in and out of the classroom. Institutions must develop specific objectives for
student achievement and determine their own definition of student success (Barefoot,
2000).
Institutional Responsibilities
Institutions of higher education have a responsibility to the student to take
student success seriously. Colleges and universities must move beyond the provision of
“add-on” services and “establish those educational conditions within the institution that
promote the success of all, not just some, students” (Tinto, 2005, p. 1). The research
points to six conditions within institutions that are supportive of student success: (a)
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 47
commitment, (b) expectations, (c) support, (d) feedback, (e) involvement, and (f)
learning (Tinto, 2005). The first of these is institutional commitment. Colleges and
universities must be committed to the goal of increasing student success and then invest
in the resources, incentives, and rewards to enhance success. Without total commitment
on the part of the institution, including faculty, staff, and administration, there can be no
advancement toward student success both in and out of the classroom. Second, student
success requires high expectations, which can be expressed through both formal and
informal advising. It is important to construct educational settings that require students
to perform. Third, the research points to three types of support, also a condition for
student success: academic, social, and financial. Students must be connected to the
learning environment and provided with supplemental instruction in order to be suc-
cessful in the classroom. Monitoring and feedback must be provided by the institution
to the student in order for the student to be successful. These include an assessment of
learning, early warning systems, as well as classroom assessment techniques and the use
of learning portfolios (Tinto, 2005).
Research shows that the more a student is involved in the fabric of the univer-
sity, the more likely the student will succeed (Astin, 1993). Students must be provided
with opportunities to connect to all forms of involvement: in the classrooms and labora-
tories, in smaller places of engagement, and in membership-based groups (Tinto, 2005).
Finally, and most importantly, institutions must foster a learning environment so that
students can be actively involved in their learning, which subsequently leads to a greater
likelihood of staying and graduating (Tinto, 2005). Taken together, these elements must
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 48
be present in an institutional setting, mission, and core values in order for students to be
successful. While a significant amount of demand should be placed on the student,
there must also be a significant amount of responsibility placed on the institution. If the
college or university does not provide an environment conducive to success through the
conditions of commitment, expectations, support, feedback, involvement, and learning,
then the college cannot expect the student to be successful.
College and University 1st-Year Interventions
Research indicates that programs designed to target 1st-year students increase
their likelihood of success during that year and their chances for persistence toward
graduation (Bureau & Romrey, 1994). Over the past 15 years, there has been a height-
ened focus on improving the 1st year. However, neither the magnitude nor the number
of programs and services is the same at all institutions (Barefoot, 2005). In the fall of
2000, the Policy Center on the First Year of College undertook the first-ever compre-
hensive national survey of the 1st year, with the intention of learning the ways in which
institutions of higher education either intentionally or unintentionally structure and
organize the 1st year (Barefoot, 2005). The National Survey of First-Year Practices,
comprised of a Web-based instrument, was given to a random sample of 621 institutions
stratified by Carnegie classification. Responses were received from 323 chief academic
officers or surrogates and 291 student affairs officers or surrogates (Barefoot, 2005).
Several practices were identified by institutions as 1st-year programs or inter-
ventions, including new student orientation, classroom curriculum revisions, faculty
preparation and a changing reward structure, developmental education, mid-term grade
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 49
reporting, and academic advising as central components and services offered to improve
the 1st year. The survey also found additional academic and curricular structures most
commonly used include First-Year Seminars, learning communities, 1st-year classes in
residence halls, service-learning courses, supplemental instruction, early alert systems,
student support services (SSS), and distance education courses. Institutions that have
implemented a 1st-year intervention program most likely have some combination of
services and resources for students. The survey indicated that 42.5% of institutions
surveyed placed the responsibility for the 1st-year curriculum on the chief academic
officer; however, in some cases as size increases, the responsibility is relegated to
academic deans, department chairs, and faculty. Slightly less than one half (48%) of
institutions that responded designated someone in charge of the cocurricular experi-
ences, which were most likely assigned to one individual or office, typically within a
division of Student Affairs. Only 6% of respondents indicated a director of a 1st-year
programs office as specifically in charge of the cocurricular initiatives (Barefoot, 2005).
In addition to the programs and services offered above, which are standard
services as a part of a FYE program, many institutions have identified college retention
programs outside of the standard FYE model (Myers, 2003). SSS programs, also
referred to as TRIO programs, are federally funded college retention and success pro-
grams and serve as a benchmark for all other programs. SSS programs operate against
specific, measurable outcomes and objectives and are accountable to the USDOE.
Services offered under the SSS or TRIO programs include pre-1st-year academic and
social preparation, an intrusive advising process throughout the 1st year, and group
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 50
services that extend service hours and build cohesion among a cohort of participating
students while focusing on a very structured 1st year for students in the program (Myers,
2003). Additionally, many colleges and universities have adopted mentoring programs,
typically defined as a relationship between an experienced and a less experienced
person, which allow 1st-year students to receive encouragement and support as they
develop habits and attitudes that lead to academic and personal success (Myers, 2003).
Mentoring can often take the form of peer relationships where senior students are con-
tributors and partners in the community building process (Wilson, 2009).
A successful 1st-year program on many campuses, known as summer bridge
programs, are often offered for high-risk, low-income, and minority students and are
quickly becoming an established part of the effort to recruit and retain students in higher
education (Ackermann, 1991). These programs enable students to “get a head start on
building academic skills, especially in English and Math” (Myers, 2003, p. 17). Sum-
mer bridge programs can reduce the readiness gap and assist at-risk students in enhanc-
ing their success, improving their retention, and increasing completion rates (Jones,
Albrecht, Minix, & Weissenburger, 2009). An additional 1st-year intervention is the
Culturally Conscious Program, so named because of its intent to increase the number of
ethnic minorities in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
fields; these programs emphasize writing, counseling, and mentoring (Myers, 2003).
Colleges and universities that have adopted strategies to impact the retention of 1st-year
students operate under the assumption of “front-loading,” where services are provided
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 51
early in the 1st year to achieve desired results of student persistence, academic success,
transfer, and graduation (Myers, 2003).
A comprehensive FYE program brings together components of all of the ser-
vices mentioned above for all students across disciplines, backgrounds, and achieve-
ment levels. Each of the aforementioned programs, as a sole activity, can be a part of
the FYE. Taken in totality, particularly from the viewpoint of strategic interventions
along a student’s 1st-year lifespan, the individual programs provide a framework for a
comprehensive FYE program. As stated by Noble, Flynn, Lee, and Hilton (2007), “to
increase retention, universities nationwide have implemented freshman experience
programs. These programs are designed to assist 1st-year students in their transition
from high school to college in hopes of enhancing their socialization and integration
into the college communities” (p. 40).
The First-Year Experience
First-year experience, often interchanged with freshman-year experience, is a
term describing a “comprehensive and intentional approach to the first college year”
(Hunter, 2006, p. 6). The FYE comprises both curricular and cocurricular initiatives
and is far more than a single event, program, or course. Programs and initiatives com-
monly considered a part of an institution’s FYE activities include recruitment and
admission efforts, new student orientation and welcome activities, rituals and traditions,
common reading programs, First-Year Seminars, academic advising, academic support
centers, supplemental instruction, undergraduate research opportunities, learning com-
munities, service learning, health and wellness programs, and residence education
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 52
activities (Hunter, 2006). The primary goal of a comprehensive FYE program is in-
creased student performance, persistence, and graduation by integrating students into
the university community both academically and socially (Goodman & Pascarella,
2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tobolowsky, Mamrick, & Cox, 2005). These FYE
programs have grown dramatically in the past 2 decades with approximately 95% of
U.S. 4-year institutions having some type of program (Jamelske, 2008).
Theoretical Foundations of FYE Programs
FYE programs are grounded in several theoretical constructs. The two theoreti-
cal models most often utilized to support the creation and existence of 1st-year pro-
grams are Astin’s input–environment–outcomes ecological model and Tinto’s theory of
student departure (Ishler & Upcraft, 2005). Astin’s (1993) ecological model stipulates
that academic and social satisfaction is a function of the extent to which students’
personal characteristics or traits fit with the academic and social environment at a par-
ticular college. When student characteristics do not align with the environment, stu-
dents can experience a sense of regret for selecting the college and subsequently leave
the institution. Tinto (1993) theorized that students enter a college or university with
characteristics and skills that impact their initial commitment to their education goals
and the institution. The commitment is increased or decreased depending on the quality
and quantity of academic and social experiences and how the student integrates within
those frameworks. While the theoretical frameworks do differ in many details, the basic
premise is the same:
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 53
If institutions are to challenge and support first-year students in their academic
success, they must focus on both the characteristics and experiences of their
students prior to going to college, as well as their experiences both inside and
outside the classroom once they are enrolled and how these variables interrelate.
(Ishler & Upcraft, 2005, p. 31)
In line with the theoretical models, efforts to improve freshman persistence must
focus on helping students make an academic, personal, and social transition to college.
Institutions must make the “freshman connection by devising programs that will help
students connect to the environment, make the transition to college, work toward their
goals in terms of academic major, degree, and career, and succeed in the classroom”
(Levitz & Noel, 1989, p. 71).
FYE programs are designed to help make the important connection, both aca-
demically and socially. The evidence suggests that students involved in an organized
institutional 1st-year intervention program report higher levels of satisfaction and
involvement in campus activities, achieve higher grades, and are more likely to be
retained and graduated (Jamelske, 2008). To increase retention, colleges and universi-
ties nationwide have implemented “freshman experience” programs designed to assist
1st-year students in their transition from high school to college “in hopes of enhancing
their socialization and integration into their college communities” (Noble et al., 2007, p.
40). Based on early research by Spady (1970, 1971) and Tinto (1975), these programs
are created on the premise that social and academic integration are critical influences on
student persistence (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1980). Such programs have been shown to
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 54
have a positive effect on the academic success, retention rate, and/or graduation rate of
freshman college students (Conner & Colton, 1999; Dale & Zych, 1996; Davis-
Underwood & Lee, 1994; Ting, Grand, & Plenert, 2000; Williford, Chapman, & Kahrig,
2000).
There are several studies that show the impact of FYE programs and their com-
ponents on the retention of 1st-year students to their sophomore year (Fidler & Moore,
1996; Hotchkiss, Moore, & Potts, 2006; Schnell & Doetkott, 2002–2003). These
studies concluded that the lowest dropout rates from freshman to sophomore year
occurred among students who participated in FYE programs (Jamelske, 2008). In his
study on the impact of FYE programs on student GPA and retention, Jamelske (2008)
found that the FYE program had a positive influence on student academic performance
after 1 year, as measured by cumulative GPA.
Although the majority of the research concludes that there is a positive influ-
ence, there are some examples of FYE programs having little or no benefit to students.
Potts, Shultz, and Foust (2003–2004) found no consistent positive effects on retention
or GPA for students participating in an FYE cohort. In addition, Crissman (2001-2002)
did not find any added positive influence on retention rates from linking the First-Year
Seminar with an English composition class at a small Northeastern liberal arts college.
In an analysis at a large urban research institution, Hendel (2006–2007) reported no
effect of First-Year Seminar participation on overall student satisfaction or 1-year reten-
tion. The programs mentioned above vary across institutions in significant ways despite
being referred to as FYE programs, and the institutions themselves also vary in many
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 55
ways; therefore positive/negative results from one study do not necessarily generalize to
all institutions (Jamelske, 2008).
Critical Components of a FYE Program
Critical components OF a comprehensive FYE program are found both in and
out of the classroom. A mingling of both components is necessary if an institution is to
focus on the greater goal of not only creating a centralized and comprehensive program
but also addressing the retention rate and success of 1st-year students.
Outside of the classroom. Out-of-the-classroom support for 1st-year students
begins with the establishment of a quality new student orientation program. Pascarella,
Terenzini, and Wolfle (1986) argued that orientation is designed to facilitate a success-
ful transition and integration into the new and unfamiliar academic and social setting of
the college or university. Their study indicated that orientation had a significant posi-
tive effect both on social integration during college and commitment to the school that
the student was attending. Following orientation programming, the establishment of
1st-year student living environments as well as the support within these environments
influence 1st-year students’ learning and academic success (Astin, 1993; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 1991). Astin (1993) argued that residential environments for 1st-year stu-
dents must provide quality student-to-student interactions, quality faculty-to-student
interactions, quality study environments, opportunities for social activism, opportunities
for social engagement between students, the promotion of diversity, and the promotion
of mentoring and tutoring connections between students.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 56
Besides new student orientation and residential programs that focus on success,
additional support services are necessary during the 1st year, including student coun-
seling services aimed at 1st-year students that deal with homesickness, parent and
family programs, academic difficulties, roommate relationships, sexual identity, and
others. Campus recreation programs; wellness programs; career development pro-
grams; and services for women, athletes, lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender (LGBT)
students, students with disabilities, and international students must also be a part of the
larger context of student support services (Schuh, 2005).
Inside the classroom. By far the largest research and core underpinning of
successful FYE programs is the First-Year Seminar, aimed at assisting students in their
academic and social development in their transition to college (Hunter & Linder, 2005).
While the specific content varies by institution, seminar courses share four major
content areas: introduction to college resources, making the transition to college, career
development, and life management (Stovall, 2000). These four areas are integrated
throughout the seminar and allow for students to share common experiences and gain
support not only from the instructor but also from one another. Studies done as early as
1975 show that students who enroll in FYE courses earn higher GPAs following the 1st
year, complete more credit hours, and return to the university at higher rates than stu-
dents who do not enroll in these types of courses (Silde & McReynolds, 2009). A
research study done by Silde and McReynolds (2009) at a university of comparable size
to USC support the hypothesis that these courses are effective tools for increasing the
success and development of students during their 1st year in college. The courses are
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 57
designed to support the overall success of freshman students, giving them the necessary
knowledge and skills to do well both in and out of the classroom. The overarching
purpose of a freshman success seminar is to help students become better assimilated
and engaged in college-level learning. There exists a significant positive relationship
between participation in a freshman success seminar course and integration into the
campus community along with a higher quality student experience (Keenan & Gabo-
vitch, 1995).
In addition to freshman success seminars, other classroom support initiatives are
crucial to a successful comprehensive FYE program. The first of these is supplemental
instruction (SI), or peer-assisted academic support programs. These support programs
must be implemented to reduce high rates of attrition, increase the level of student per-
formance in difficult classes, and increase the graduation rate (Martin & Hurley, 2005).
Most often, these SI activities are in conjunction with difficult 1st-year courses that are
often prerequisite classes for continued studies in specific disciplines.
A second classroom support program is through academic advising. Academic
advising is perhaps one of the central ways in which a student interacts with his or her
institution. A quality 1st-year advising program must fit the student population and, for
4-year institutions, should be a hybrid between (a) faculty advising, where faculty
members provide advising related to a program of study; and (b) staff advising, where
full-time counselors provide advising related to academic policies and registration pro-
cedures (King & Kerr, 2005). Third, not only do learning communities, or clusters of
courses around a curricular theme that students take together, strengthen and enrich
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 58
students’ connections to one another, their faculty, and the subject but they also chal-
lenge students to redefine their educational goals in a broader sense (Laufgraben, 2005).
Learning communities allow for shared student experiences, the formation of self-
supporting associations for students to give one another academic and social support
and to create bonds both in and out of the classroom (Tinto, 2004). Finally, service-
learning is also a central core of a comprehensive FYE program. Service-learning is
defined as the location of service within the curriculum, the insistence that service expe-
riences reinforce course objectives, and enhancing a sense of civic responsibility
(Zlotkowski, 2005). Taken together, these support initiatives that assist students with
their curricular studies can enable 1st-year students to be successful in the classroom.
Evidence of Effective FYE Programs
While all the components of a 1st-year program are essential, the way in which a
university or college constructs the 1st-year program is equally important. Comprehen-
sive and centralized FYE programs have proven to be more effective than those that are
decentralized and fractured. Centralized support services for 1st-year students, or those
provided under a single administrative unit, are more effective than decentralized
programs, and institutions offering a centralized and comprehensive FYE program are
more likely to be successful than those in which a decentralized program is offered. A
study performed by Boylan, Bliss, and Bonham (1997) indicated that students partici-
pating in a centralized FYE program had higher 1st-year GPAs and higher cumulative
GPAs at both 4-year and 2-year institutions. A prime example of a centralized program
is at Prairie View A&M University in Texas, where the administration developed
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 59
Panther Learning and Community Experience (PLACE), a program designed to provide
holistic, centralized student support services for students during their freshman year
with the goals of academic enhancement, effective advisement, and a structured aca-
demically focused residential environment (Raab & Adam, 2005). This program was
successful both statistically and anecdotally in improving the retention rate, increasing
enrollment, fostering greater participation in the university community, and decreasing
the number of students on academic probation during the 1st year.
Another example is at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, the
goal for their comprehensive FYE program, known as Principles of Undergraduate
Learning (PUL), was for students to realize from the start that they are “engaged in a
coherent program intentionally designed and optimally scaffolded for their needs, not a
jumble of courses and requirements” (Evenback & Hamilton, 2006, p. 18). The results
indicated that 1st-year students were receiving exposure to new and innovative peda-
gogies in the classroom and the formation of a community that made their learning their
own. Research and examples show that how a college or university designs the FYE
program can have direct links to how successful students are both in and out of the
classroom.
Summary and Conclusion
Retention is a hallmark of how colleges and universities are evaluated, and
nowhere is that more evident than the freshman-to-sophomore retention rate. Research
points out that the 1st to 2nd year is arguably the most challenging for students in
transition and, simultaneously, the greatest challenge for faculty. Millennial students
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 60
bring with them a host of opportunities and challenges, and understanding the unique
characteristics of this group of students will only enable faculty members to engage
them in their own academic and social success. There are many methods, both central-
ized and decentralized, that are utilized on college campuses. Some focus on the need
to engage students before their arrival. Some place the support systems within various
programs and departments. Some centralize them under an umbrella FYE program with
support from faculty and central administration. The centralized and comprehensive
programs bring together both in- and out-of-classroom experiences to help all students,
regardless of academic program or major, to meet the demands of university life.
While there is evidence that suggests sometimes that these programs do not
achieve the ultimate goal of higher GPAs or stronger connections, there is overwhelm-
ing evidence that, if done correctly and strategically, these centralized programs impact
the retention of students and increase the persistence to graduation rate. Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to determine if comprehensive and centralized program at the
USC would be viable based on the knowledge, skills, and values of faculty members in
the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 61
Chapter 3
Methodology
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine how faculty members in the USC
Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences, who work with 1st-year students at
USC, can best implement a FYE program that examines 1st-year student success
through a comprehensive lens that would include orientation, advising, First-Year
Seminars, SI, developmental instruction, learning communities, living–learning envi-
ronments, faculty development, and other support services. The rationale for choosing
faculty members in the USC Dornsife College is that the Dornsife College is home to
the general education curriculum, the Freshman Seminar courses, the writing program,
and the FYI courses. Most of these programs either are tailored to 1st-year students or
are specifically for 1st-year students. In order to create and assess the quality of pro-
grams developed during the 1st year through a comprehensive FYE program, an analy-
sis and assessment process must be completed. Specifically, this study focused on the
following questions:
1. What do faculty members in the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and
Sciences deem to be the priority for implementing the components of a comprehensive
FYE program?
2. Do USC Dornsife faculty members who teach 1st-year student classes at
USC have knowledge of the academic and social needs of 1st-year students to assist
with their success, both in and out of the classroom?
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 62
3. Are USC Dornsife faculty members motivated to create and implement a
comprehensive FYE program and its components?
4. Does the organizational culture of USC support USC Dornsife faculty
members in the creation and implementation of a comprehensive program, specifically
in light of the unique structure and decentralization that is the model of USC?
5. What are the potential solutions to address the gaps in faculty knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve the successful implementa-
tion of a comprehensive FYE program, and how could stakeholders evaluate it when
implemented?
This mixed-method (qualitative and quantitative) study utilized the gap analysis
model provided by Clark and Estes (2008) and Kirkpatrick’s (2006) four levels of
evaluation to identify the goals, indicators, and assessment methods to determine
whether USC faculty will be able to successfully implement a centralized FYE program.
Resources from the National Center for the First-Year Experience and the CAS pro-
vided additional frameworks for this analysis.
Framework for the Study
In order to examine whether faculty members in USC Dornsife have knowledge
of 1st-year student developmental issues, an understanding of critical components of a
comprehensive FYE program, are motivated to create such a program, and feel that
there is culture of support for such a program, it is important to look at a variety of
factors. In order to do so, the innovation gap analysis model provided by Clark and
Estes (2008) was used. This model provided the organization a context in which to
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 63
examine the root causes of gaps in existing services, programs, and outcomes. These
root causes were segmented into gaps in the knowledge and skills of those implement-
ing a service, their motivation to implement programs, and whether they valued such an
implementation, the culture of the organization, and whether the culture provides a
sense of support for either implementing programs and solutions or closing the gaps.
Following an in-depth examination of the root causes, the model offers an opportunity
to identify solutions embedded under the umbrellas of knowledge, motivation, and
organization culture. The solutions can then be applied and an assessment of the solu-
tions can be performed to determine whether effective progress is being made and the
gap is being closed (Clark & Estes, 2008). The innovation model, which assumes a
100% gap, allows organizations to achieve goals by proposing changes to existing
programs, services, and resources to close the gaps in question.
Organized around eight steps, the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) is
designed to achieve performance-related goals. The first step in the model, an examina-
tion of the goals inherent in a FYE programing, is pivotal. Understanding the global,
intermediate, and performance goals of USC and freshman retention is the first step in
identifying any issues related to knowledge acquisition, retention, and transfer. Follow-
ing a detailed understanding of the goals, it will be important to compare these goals
with the standard and determine the gaps. This process will look at current FYE
programs, the critical components that impact student retention, and whether those are
applicable to faculty who would implement a FYE program at the USC. The next step
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 64
in the model focuses on the measurement of the gap between the actual performance
and the desired performance while conducting a cost-benefit analysis (see Figure 1).
Step 1: Operationalization of the Goal
The central goal of this study was to determine which critical components of a
comprehensive FYE program the faculty members in the USC Dornsife College consid-
ered the priority for implementation. In a broader context, examining the services that
USC offers to 1st-year students allowed for a comprehensive review of retention prac-
tices and should ultimately lead to a more comprehensive plan to assist students in
being successful both in and out of the classroom. For the purposes of this study, the
faculty members themselves operationalized the term First-Year Experience by
Figure 1. Gap analysis model. Adapted from Turning Research Into Results, by
R. E. Clark and F. Estes, 2008, Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 65
providing their input on the most critical components based on current institutional
practices and the wide-ranging literature available on the topics of retention and FYE
programming. Faculty members were provided, through a survey, a list of standard
FYE components and were asked to rate each component in terms of how critical they
viewed the importance of that component for USC’s 1st-year students.
The list of FYE components is lengthy depending on what literature one reviews
to determine what should be included. Existing research and current practices show that
critical components are found both in and out of the classroom. The critical compo-
nents for the USC Dornsife College faculty to review are found in Figure 2.
The faculty members in USC Dornsife were presented with this listing, along
with descriptions of what the components entailed, and then asked to rank the priority
for implementation in the development of a comprehensive program for USC’s 1st-year
students. The determination of what components the faculty members found to be the
priority for implementation should help define a timeline for putting into practice the
solutions to address the gaps. (See Appendix A for the listing of FYE components and
descriptions.
Step 2: Current Performance
USC currently implements many of the critical components, including (a) new
student orientation, (b) 1st-year student living environments, (c) student counseling
services, (d) parent and family programs, (e) campus recreation programs, (f) career
development programs, (g) services for special populations, (h) campus programming,
(I) mentoring, (j) SI, and (k) service-learning programs. However, these programs are
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 66
decentralized and managed by several different administrative and academic areas
across the university. Several of the components, including 1st-year student academic
advising, tutoring, parent and family programs, and career development programs are
duplicated in many of the academic schools and departments. Faculty and staff from
across the university, often unaware of programs and services outside their own unit, are
employed to carry out many of the critical elements of a FYE program. Some faculty
and staff members often lack the specialized knowledge required to assist 1st-year
students and lack knowledge of the principles of retention and persistence. There is no
Co-curricular components Curricular components
• New student orientation • First-Year Seminar
• First-year student living environment • Supplemental instruction
• Parent and family programs • First-year student academic advising
• Campus recreation programs • Learning communities
• Career development programs • Service-learning programs
• Special population services (e.g., women, ath-
letes, students with disabilities, international
students)
• Tutoring (subject specific)
• Common reading programs
• Campus programming (social activism, social
engagement, diversity)
• Mentoring (faculty and student)
Figure 2. Critical components of a First-Year Experience university program.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 67
central location for 1st-year students to receive referrals and support; and with many of
the critical components decentralized and duplicated in almost every academic unit,
students are often lost or receive multiple answers when inquiring about the services
needed for their success.
Step 3: Performance Gap
While many of the critical components are available to 1st-year students, USC
has no comprehensive or centralized FYE program, thus creating a 100% gap for imple-
mentation.
Step 4: Assumed Causes of the Performance Gap
Focusing on increasing knowledge, motivation, and skills are the keys to success
in today’s world economy (Clark & Estes, 2008). “It is essential that change result from
systematic analysis of the causes of performance gaps and be accompanied by necessary
knowledge and skill changes and accompanying motivational adjustments” (Clark &
Estes, 2008, p. 4). The gap analysis framework allows researchers to diagnose the
human causes behind gaps, but in many instances gaps are assumed and never validated.
Human nature tends to be solution oriented, and one often presumes to know the causes.
Therefore, individuals, teams, and organizations often focus on immediate solutions and
omit causes for gaps in organizations. As such, an investigation into the causes of
performance gaps should include three components: learning, motivation, and organiza-
tional culture theory; informal interviews with stakeholders; and a review of the litera-
ture on the topic in question. This exercise must be done as a primary step if one is to
then validate the assumed causes of a gap.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 68
Learning theory. In a gap analysis, it is first necessary to determine whether
individuals know how to achieve set performance goals in order to close a gap. Individ-
uals are often unaware of their own lack of knowledge and skills. According to Rueda
(2010), in looking for causes for knowledge gaps, the following questions must be
examined:
1. Are participants not using past experiences to help them achieve goals?
2. Do participants miss relevant past experiences but possess related expertise?
3. Are participants missing experience and related experience even with the
presence of a routine procedure?
4. Are participants able to anticipate or solve novel or future challenges? (p.
22)
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) described four levels of knowledge—factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive—as well as six levels of the cognitive
process: remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create. To classify the
knowledge of USC Dornsife faculty members in the creation of a comprehensive FYE
program, it is first imperative to determine the types of knowledge they need in order to
attain the performance objectives. The taxonomy presented by Anderson and Krath-
wohl provided a useful tool in assessing where the faculty members were prior to the
start of any program implementation. It should allow researchers and programmatic
designers to understand the kind of knowledge of faculty members (both what they have
and what will be necessary), as well as their learning processes in order to achieve the
goal of the FYE program. It was assumed through previous work with faculty members
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 69
that many would lack the factual knowledge of what a FYE program is as well as
procedural knowledge of how to create one for USC. From a procedural standpoint,
faculty members most likely did not have the understanding of the steps necessary to
create a comprehensive FYE program and the fundamental components necessary to
serve as building blocks. In addition, although faculty members were trained in the
theories of their disciplines, it was expected that many would lack the conceptual
knowledge of theories and models related to college student retention and the FYE.
Finally, although faculty members are clearly aware of how they learn within the
context of their field of study, it is important for them to develop strategies to improve
their learning in the field of 1st-year success if they are to be instrumental in executing
and constructing an appropriate program specific for USC. Metacognitive learning is
essential for faculty members in order for them to be aware of how they learn and how
to control their learning as related to their motivation for creating a FYE program.
Motivation theory. According to Mayer (2011), motivation is an internal state
that maintains goal-directed behavior. To assess the motivational factors of USC
Dornsife faculty in the creation of a comprehensive FYE program, there were several
conceptions or principles that were assumed, including interest and value as well as
self-efficacy and competence. Value/Interest “refers to the importance once attaches to
a task” (Rueda, 2012, p. 42). The higher an individual values an activity, the more
likely it is that person will engage in it. According to the National Research Council
(2004), values are most influential in starting an activity. Self-efficacy refers to personal
beliefs about one’s ability to be successful in tasks (Bandura, 1977). Competence
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 70
beliefs refer to the beliefs that one has about one’s abilities, or how well one expects to
do on a task (Rueda, 2012). The important principle, according to Rueda (2011), is that
“individuals with higher self-efficacy, greater belief in their own competence, and
higher expectancies for positive outcomes will be more motivated to engage in, persist
at, and work hard at a task or activity” (p. 41).
Organizational culture theory. Bess and Dee (2008) argued that most defini-
tions of culture incorporate shared values, beliefs, expectations, and assumptions that
guide behavior in a complex social system. Schein (1992) defined culture as a pattern
of assumptions invented, discovered, or developed by a group. These assumptions
allow the group to cope with problems and work well enough to be considered valid
while being taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel.
Alternatively, Neumann (1995), drawing on the work of Geertz (1973), defined culture
as “a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms through which the
members of a community communicate, perpetuate, and develop their knowledge and
attitudes towards life” (p. 60).
Understanding culture and the ability to impact cultural change helps members
of the higher education community to work together to resolve conflict, move systems
forward, and strengthen the collegiate environment. Kezar (2006) published a set of
recommendations for change agents interested in creating a support mechanism for
collaboration. College and university leadership should follow these guidelines: (a)
reviewing the mission of the institution and the departments while understanding the
campus philosophy, (b) building new networks between departments, (c) rethinking
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 71
traditional structures, (d) revising computing and accounting systems, (e) altering
rewards structures, (f) modeling collaboration, (g) building collaboration into strategic
documents, (h) utilizing announcements and speeches to seek collaboration, (I) promot-
ing collaborative values, and (j) having sessions on the importance of collaboration.
To assess the organizational culture barriers of USC Dornsife faculty in the
creation of a comprehensive FYE program, there are several principles that are
assumed, including a lack of collaboration; how the leaders respond to critical incidents;
the way in which the leadership role model and coach; how they have designed the
physical campus through the new master plan; and the formal statements of individuals
such as the president, provost, and vice president for student affairs. In addition, the
lack of collaboration, which Kezar (2006) argued that most institutions of higher educa-
tion are not structured to support collaborative approaches to learning, research, and
functioning. This barrier is an assumed cause of why USC does not have a
comprehensive FYE program that serves all students, across all disciplines. In review-
ing the culture of USC, including an artifact analysis, one discovers that while students
are mentioned in policy documents, they are only briefly mentioned in favor of other
central components of the university, including research, global and community partner-
ships, and alumni. There is not an emphasis on the success of students either in or out
of the classroom. The organizational culture is one categorized as premier and world
leading but does not include the steps for how to do that.
Schein (1992) discussed how an organization must periodically go through re-
organization so that leaders can embed their assumptions into the culture of the
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 72
organization. Kezar (2006) supported this notion by stating that “the structure will need
to be changed in order to create integrating mechanisms” (p. 810).
Stakeholder interviews. Understanding why USC does not have a comprehen-
sive FYE program is made obvious to any new staff member at USC during the 1st year
of employment. The employment of a school-centric model is a significant cause, and
this becomes evident almost immediately. One can see how the individual academic
schools have been encouraged to create a sense of identity and competition with other
schools within the university. Students will say they go to USC but often refer to them-
selves as Dornsife students or Marshall students, or any of the other schools on campus,
before stating that they are at USC. When one speaks with staff members who work in
an academic unit, there is a sense of pride for the unit but sometimes not the institution
as a whole. This situation has led to the creation of smaller FYE activities and pro-
grams within the schools that tend to serve only students within those particular disci-
plines.
Casual conversations and formal meetings with staff members across the Divi-
sion of Student Affairs demonstrate that past attempts at the creation of a comprehen-
sive FYE program have often met with resistance because faculty members did not see
it as relevant. A key ingredient, the First-Year Seminar course, has often been rejected
by faculty as not being academic enough for the rigors of a USC education, or unneces-
sary due to the intellectual talent of the incoming students. These conversations have
been occurring for many years and continue to occur each year as the university bal-
ances the need to be seen as a premier academic institution while also continuing to
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 73
increase retention and graduation rates. In addition, informal conversations with faculty
members have indicated that they do not have the skill set to implement a FYE program,
as they are not trained in how to deliver student success programs but rather trained in
their specific discipline. The difficulty there lies in the fact that faculty at USC drive the
decision-making process and need to understand both how to build a program and the
program’s value in order for it to get off the ground.
Literature review. A review of the literature on FYE programs and freshman
retention indicated that retention and persistence to graduation is of the upmost impor-
tance for colleges and universities. The challenge is how college and university admin-
istrators view retention. Until recently, the study and practice of student retention did
not include an understanding of students from different backgrounds, how involvement
with institutions was paramount for student success, and how institutional differences
could impact retention and attrition (Tinto, 2006). In examining how to create an ap-
propriate FYE program, the challenge of how to define a 1st-year student is ever evolv-
ing. Ishler (2005) argued that the demographic profile of today’s 1st-year student is in
constant flux, making it more and more challenging to develop a comprehensive pro-
gram that might become out of date every 4 years. Students today are more likely to
differ from previous generations on a wide spectrum of issues that impact how to
develop academic and social programming that helps students find a fit at a particular
institution and to be successful both in and out of the classroom. In addition, the traits
of a millennial student, as defined by Howe and Strauss (2000) and Sweeney (2006),
make the process of creating a program difficult.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 74
Tinto (2005) argued that institutions of higher education have a responsibility to
take student success seriously by collaborating across the fabric of the university. How-
ever, as Kezar (2006) pointed out, higher education institutions are not structured for
collaboration and faculty members are often not rewarded for being collaborative.
Faculty members are often not a part of the discussion in how to create supportive envi-
ronments outside of the classroom, and many are unaware of how to do so. Critical
components of a comprehensive FYE program are found both in and of the classroom
and must be mingled to successfully address 1st-year student success and ultimately 1st-
year student retention and persistence to graduation.
A summary of the sources of assumed causes categorized as knowledge/skills,
motivation, and organizational culture is found in Table 1.
Step 5: Validation of the Causes of the Performance Gap
Because the purpose of this study was to understand whether faculty members in
the USC Dornsife College had the knowledge and motivation to create a FYE program
as well as the support of the university as a whole, it was important to determine an
effective methodology that will help examine these objectives. Utilizing the assumed
causes presented in Table 1, this study employed a mixed methodology, utilizing both
quantitative and qualitative means in order to determine the performance barriers and to
offer a richer data set that could be triangulated. The gap analysis model (Clark &
Estes, 2008) served as a framework for the creation of a diagnostic tool and structured
interview to determine the knowledge, motivational, and organizational barriers that
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 75
existed for faculty members in developing and implementing a FYE program for stu-
dents at USC.
In addition to the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008), Kirkpatrick’s
(1998) four-level performance evaluation system allowed for an assessment of the FYE
including reactions, learning, transfer, and impact. According to Kirkpatrick (1998),
reactions included what participants think and feel about a new program. Learning is
defined as the resulting increase in knowledge or skills as well as a change in attitudes.
Transfer refers to the change in job behavior and the transference of knowledge, skills,
and/or attitudes; the results are the overall outcomes that are utilized to judge the effec-
tiveness of a new program or resource. The assessment of the process of developing,
designing, and implementing a 1st-year program by both faculty members and students
should be instrumental in the continued success and ultimate adoption of the FYE
program for the institution as a whole.
Sample and Population
In order to effectively determine the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
culture issues that surround the establish of a comprehensive FYE program, the sample
for this study was taken from the overall population of faculty members at USC. At the
time of this study, the total number of faculty members at USC was 5,286 with 3,392
being full-time and 1,825 being part-time. For the purpose of this study, the sample
selection focused on faculty members within the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts,
and Sciences who had taught classes traditionally aimed at first-time, 1st-year students
within the past 3 years or were scheduled to do so in the next year. Faculty member is
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 76
Table 1
Summary of Assumed Causes for Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Cul-
ture Regarding a First-Year Experience (FYE) Program
Causes and
sources
Knowledge and
skills Motivation
Organizational
Culture
Theory Factual knowledge of the
definition and com-
ponents of a FYE program
Procedural knowledge of
steps necessary to create a
FYE program
Conceptual knowledge of
theories and models of
student retention and the
FYE
Metacognitive knowledge
of awareness of how fac-
ulty members learn and
control their learning of
FYE programs and how
that links to motivation to
construct FYE programs
Faculty members not
having an interest and
not valuing a central-
ized and comprehen-
sive FYE program
Faculty members not
having the self-effi-
cacy or confidence in
their ability to build a
FYE program across
the various USC
schools
Collaboration across
schools and disciplines
not supported
Artifacts such as the
role, mission, and stra-
tegic plan not empha-
sizing student retention
through academic and
social integration
Leadership plans and
formal statements fo-
cusing on graduation
rates rather than fresh-
men retention rates
Interviews Faculty members not hav-
ing skill set to build a
FYE program
FYE components often
not seen as academic
but rather ancillary to
the academic mission
Faculty and students
school-centric, not uni-
versity focused
Smaller FYE programs
existing in schools
rather than a compre-
hensive program
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 77
Table 1 (continued)
Causes and
sources
Knowledge and
skills Motivation
Organizational
Culture
Literature
review
College and university
leaders unaware of
changing demographics of
students and how best to
assist them in and out of
the classroom
Faculty members not
rewarded for collabo-
ration—a necessary
component in the crea-
tion of a centralized
FYE program
Organizations not
structured for collabo-
ration
Faculty members not
part of discussion re-
garding out-of-
classroom experiences
defined as tenure track faculty members with the rank of professor, associate professor,
or assistant professor as well as writing instructors. First-year classes are defined as
classes specifically designed for 1st-year students or traditionally taught to 1st-year
students, including the first writing class and general education classes.
A survey was sent to all tenure track faculty members and writing program
instructors in the USC Dornsife College, but only responses from those who engaged in
teaching 1st-year students were utilized for the purpose of this study. As of March of
2012, there were 628 tenure track faculty members in USC Dornsife as well as all in-
structors in the USC Dornsife Writing Program. The reason for this particular sample
of faculty members was that many of the classes typically taken by 1st-year students are
housed within the USC Dornsife College, including the general education program
classes, the Freshman Seminar and FYI classes, and the lower-division writing class
that is commonly referred to as Writing 140. Because the general education curriculum
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 78
is part of every student’s required courses at USC, as is a lower-division writing class,
every USC student is provided instruction by at least one faculty member within the
USC Dornsife College and many within the 1st year.
Although there is a large number of faculty members in USC-Dornsife, one
challenge with administering a survey to faculty during the summer is achieving a
significant sample size for the study, particularly in light of the fact that faculty do not
always teach the same courses every semester. The results of the survey, including the
response rate, are presented in Chapter 4.
Instrumentation
Currently, there are no existing survey instruments that measure faculty knowl-
edge, motivation, and feelings of organizational support for the development of FYE
programs. Because the primary data were quantitative, a survey instrument had to be
created. This survey (see Appendix B), consisting of two parts and administered
through an online survey mechanism, was administered to the faculty members in USC-
Dornsife. It included standardized demographic information, including subject(s)
taught, length of time at USC, and the number of traditional 1st-year courses in the re-
spondent’s portfolio each semester. The first section of the survey primarily focused on
faculty’s prioritization of the implementation of the standard components of a FYE
program as defined by the research and literature. Respondents were asked to review
the definition of each component and then determine what he or she believed to be the
most critical for initial implementation. The components most often selected were
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 79
deemed as the most critical for initial implementation by USC-Dornsife faculty members.
The second section of the survey included items divided by the three major
causes of human performance (i.e., knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational
culture), based on the model developed by Clark and Estes (2008). The second section
included a sliding scale that asked faculty to self-assess their knowledge/skills, motiva-
tion, and perceptions of organizational support.
In addition to the survey and for the purposes of triangulation, the faculty mem-
bers who were invited to participate in the survey process were also invited to a one-on-
one interview to discuss their individual and unique perspectives on the FYE and the
potential creation of this program at USC. This qualitative data helped ensure a greater
breadth and depth to the survey results and provided a more personalized approach to
what faculty viewed as important in helping 1st-year students persist to their sophomore
year. The goal of an interview is “to allow us to enter into the other person’s perspec-
tive . . . to gather their stories” (Patton, 2002, pp. 340–341). The type of interview
method that was employed was the standardized open-ended interview with set ques-
tions that were consistent across each interviewee and were based on Clark and Estes’s
(2008) model. Although this method increased the challenge of flexibility, it also
provided for increased consistency among those being interviewed and allowed for an
easier analysis of the trends presented by the faculty members.
Data Collection Procedures
Data were collected in two time periods utilizing two different methods. A
survey was administered to USC-Dornsife faculty members to determine what compo-
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 80
nents of a FYE program were critical for implementation and then to determine how the
faculty members felt about their ability to effectively implement such a program based
on the real or perceived barriers of knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational
culture. All tenure track faculty members in the USC Dornsife College and all instruc-
tors in the USC Writing Program were sent the surveys via e-mail utilizing an the
Qualtrics© online survey tool. The survey was sent out twice, once as the initial invita-
tion and once as a reminder. The survey was made available on June 1, 2012, and
remained open until September of 2012. Once the data were retrieved, it was removed
from the Qualtrics© online survey tool and downloaded to the USC Student Affairs
secure server, where it was housed in order to protect the data.
In addition to the online survey, the same set of faculty members from USC
Dornsife were invited to participate in one-on-one interviews to help the researcher get
a sense of the underlying issues related to the creation of a FYE program. The inter-
views allowed for a more personal understanding of the barriers (knowledge/skills,
motivation, and organizational culture) unique to the faculty members being inter-
viewed. Five interviews of current faculty members took place between June and Sep-
tember 2012 and lasted approximately 30 minutes each (see Appendix C for the inter-
view protocol and questions).
Data Analysis
In order to effectively examine the gaps related to knowledge and skills, motiva-
tion, and organizational culture of faculty members in the USC Dornsife College as it
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 81
relates to the establishment and implementation of a FYE program, it was necessary to
examine the data in two separate methods.
Research Question 1: Critical Components for FYE Program Implementation
The first section of the quantitative survey helped in ascertaining what the
faculty members in the USC Dornsife College deemed to be the priority for implement-
ing the components of a comprehensive FYE program. The quantitative data from the
survey administered from June to September of 2012 were analyzed using the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), Version 10. The standard components of a FYE
program, along with the definitions of each component, were presented and faculty
members were asked to determine which component they deemed to be the priority for
implementation. Following data collection, frequency statistics were run to determine
the FYE components identified as the most central or most critical for implementation.
Those components most often selected of all those presented to faculty members were
deemed as the most critical for implementation by USC-Dornsife faculty members and
should help to determine the steps for creating a comprehensive FYE program at USC.
Research Question 2: Data Analysis of Gaps in Knowledge/Skills, Motivation, and
Organizational Culture
In order to determine how knowledge and skills influence faculty members in
the USC Dornsife College to create a comprehensive FYE program, the second section
of the survey included a sliding scale asking several questions related to the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational support of faculty members. Knowledge questions
included the academic and social needs of 1st-year students, retention models for 1st-
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 82
year students, the elements of a typical FYE program based on the literature, and skills
necessary to implement a FYE program. Motivation questions centered on interest and
value as well as self-efficacy and competence. Finally, organizational culture questions
focused on how collaborative faculty members were and whether the institutions sup-
ported collaborative efforts to create new programs and initiatives. Additionally, ques-
tions included how the institution, through artifacts and formal statements, supported or
did not support a focus on 1st-year students and their success both in and out of the
classroom. The data were collected and analyzed utilizing SPSS. First, a computation
of all knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture questions was made to deter-
mine a mean for the each variable. Then, correlation coefficients for each variable were
computed to determine whether a relationship existed between gaps in the other two
variables. This process produced two results for each variable. The first was whether
the variable being measured (knowledge, motivation, or organizational culture) was a
significant factor in creating a comprehensive FYE program. The second was how the
variable being measured related to the other two variables, if at all.
In addition to the survey, the individual interviews with faculty members in the
USC Dornsife College constituted a tool utilized to further understand the knowledge/
skills, motivation, and organizational barriers associated with the implementation of a
comprehensive FYE program at USC. Following the interviews, the data were coded
into the three categories of knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational barriers.
These categories helped to uncover trends and the barriers, both perceived and real, as
understood by the faculty members. The use of this categorization method should allow
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 83
for a generation of concepts to answer what was going on at the time of this study and
how best to solve the issue of an FYE implementation that will help address the prob-
lems associated with freshman retention and academic success.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 84
Chapter 4
Results
Academic success, retention, and persistence to graduation are important goals
for the students, the faculty, and the staff of USC. According to the USC strategic plan
(USC, Board of Trustees, 2011), it is the responsibility of the entire university to help
students succeed. First-year student achievement (and ultimately retention) is the first
step in achieving this goal. The purpose of this study was to examine how faculty
members in the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences, who work with
1st-year students at USC, can best implement a FYE program that examines 1st-year
student success through a comprehensive lens that would include orientation, advising,
First-Year Seminars, SI, developmental instruction, learning communities, living–
learning environments, faculty development, and other support services. The faculty of
USC provides the leadership that affects student achievement, and their support is
necessary to advance a FYE initiative. The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis process
model was used for the framework for this study.
Both quantitative and qualitative research methods, through the use of the FYE
Survey, descriptive statistics, and semistructured open interviews, captured data (a) to
aid in understanding faculty perceptions relating to the prioritization of the critical
components of a FYE program, as suggested by the literature; and (b) to identify and
measure the self-perceived causes of possible performance gaps in the creation of a FYE
program for USC. An analysis of the data from this study suggested the perceived gaps
in faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture that must be
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 85
closed in order to develop the program. Once the causes of the gaps are identified,
suggested solutions will be presented and discussed in Chapter 5.
Demographic Data
A quantitative survey was distributed to all 628 faculty members in the USC
Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences through e-mail between June and Sep-
tember 2012. Of the 628 surveys sent, 71 were completed, representing an 11% return
rate. Of the 71 returned, 64, or 10.2% were deemed acceptable by the standards pre-
sented in Chapter 3. To be acceptable, a survey must have been completed by a tenure-
track faculty member who taught at least one class traditionally aimed at 1st-year stu-
dents or had taught such a class within the last 3 years. The first section of the survey
contained demographic questions about the faculty member, including rank, number of
years of teaching experience, and classes that the faculty member taught aimed at 1st-
year students. (For a complete breakdown of the demographics, see Appendix D.)
In addition to the quantitative survey, five faculty members in the USC Dornsife
College were interviewed to gain a more in-depth understanding of the perceived causes
for the gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture. All five
faculty members who were interviewed taught at least one class in the General Educa-
tion program at the time of the study.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 86
Report of the Findings
Research Question 1
What do faculty members in the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and
Sciences deem to be the priority for implementing the components of a comprehensive
FYE program?
Faculty members in the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences,
through a quantitative survey of 17 critical elements, determined the priority for the
implementation of the components in the development of a FYE program at USC. The
faculty members were presented with the 17 critical elements defined by the literature
and asked to place each element in rank order, with 1 being the most critical and 17
being the least critical for implementation. The results of the survey did not necessarily
indicate that the lowest ranked element was not important in the mindset of the faculty
member, but rather that the highest ranked elements should be implemented first if a
FYE program is to be established and successful. The responses were then sorted by
means to identify the rank order, indicating which elements should be implemented
first, as perceived by the faculty members in USC-Dornsife. Descriptive statistics were
used to analyze the results and are shown in Table 2.
Research Question 2
Do USC-Dornsife faculty members who teach 1st-year student classes at USC
have knowledge of the academic and social needs of 1st-year students to assist with
their success, both in and out of the classroom?
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 87
Table 2
Priority Ranking of the Critical Components of a First-Year Experience Program, as
Perceived by the faculty of the University of California Dornsife College of Letters,
Arts, and Sciences: Ascending Order by Mean of Ranking
Critical component M SD Description
Mentoring 2.65 2.91 Faculty support of student needs in and
out of the classroom
Orientation 5.62 3.81 Program to help students transition to new
setting
Academic advising 5.98 5.01 Process to help students clarify goals
Common reading 7.00 4.76 Students reading the same book followed
by discussion groups
Campus programming 7.82 4.06 Student activities, volunteer programs,
diversity programs, and campus events
Student living environments 7.80 4.09 Residence halls designed to facilitate stu-
dent and faculty interactions
Tutoring 8.28 13.32 One-on-one or group pairings to help stu-
dents with course content
Learning communities 8.60 4.49 Clusters of courses around a theme
Targeted population services 9.00 4.07 Services for specific student groups
First-Year Seminars 9.31 4.49 Courses designed to teach student surviv-
al and success techniques
Student counseling 9.71 3.79 Counseling on issues related to college
transition and early adulthood
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 88
Table 2 (continued)
Critical component M SD Description
Service-learning 10.08 3.82 Service integrated into the curriculum
Career services 10.63 4.14 Career planning, placement, training, and
assessment
Campus recreation 10.98 3.82 Fitness, intramurals, club sports
Supplemental instruction 11.71 3.85 Peer-assisted support in targeted courses
Parent and family programs 13.65 3.67 Programs to engage parents with the uni-
versity
Wellness programs 14.26 3.62 Promotion of health and education
According to Mayer (2011), learning occurs when there is a change in knowl-
edge on the part of the learner. Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) described four levels,
or types, of knowledge: factual (basic elements), conceptual (concepts, theories, and
models), procedural (how to do something), and metacognitive (awareness of one’s own
knowledge). Gaps in knowledge can categorized by these four types of knowledge. To
better understand the knowledge and skills gaps, and the appropriate level of knowledge
where the gaps exist, faculty members in the USC Dornsife College were given an op-
portunity to participate in a survey and/or a semistructured interview. The qualitative
data in the form of interviews of five faculty members provided an overview of the
knowledge issues that faculty had with respect to the overall concept of a FYE program.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 89
The quantitative data allowed the researcher to explore additional and specific issues
related to faculty knowledge and skills of the critical elements of a FYE program.
Qualitative data. During the interview, faculty members were asked five open-
ended questions related to their knowledge of FYE programs, the individual critical
elements of a FYE program, and suggested elements for inclusion in a centralized and
comprehensive program. Four of the five faculty members were able to identify at least
four of the critical elements of a FYE program but, when further probed, were unable to
identify where the element was managed on campus. One faculty member spoke at
length about the General Education program, the course categories that all students
complete as a part of their USC degree, as if it were a part of a FYE program. Two of
the faculty members were involved with current FYE programs, including campus pro-
gramming activities and orientation programs, but similarly were unable to identify the
department or unit on campus with control of the program. Of interest, only one faculty
member spoke of mentoring 1st-year students as a central component of his position as
a faculty member, even though all five taught at least one class traditionally designed
for 1st-year students.
When asked about their thoughts about the specific and critical elements of a
FYE program existing at USC, two faculty members shared that they were disturbed
with the trend of “hand holding” of students. When asked a follow-up question about
what the faculty members viewed as hand holding, both interviewees discussed how the
university has gone to great lengths to provide service to help students succeed, almost
above and beyond what a university should be expected to do. In addition, both faculty
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 90
members discussed the growing participation of parents in the educational process of
students and how that is leading to a generation of “entitled” students.
As a final component of the knowledge section of interview questions, faculty
members were asked what elements to include as a part of a comprehensive FYE pro-
gram. It was not surprising that the elements were heavy on those that were curricular
based. Four of the five faculty members discussed the need for more classes designed
to engage 1st-year students in their academic careers; and two of the five shared the
need for more faculty engagement in programs that support the classroom experience,
particularly academic advising and orientation. One faculty member stated that she
“used to advise students every semester, but that has been taken away in favor of staff.”
As a result, this faculty member felt that faculty have been driven away from participat-
ing in the elements of a FYE program.
In sum, the interviews showed that faculty members had some basic knowledge
of the critical elements of a FYE program but lacked in-depth knowledge about what
they include and how they contribute to student success. In addition, while some faculty
members even participated in FYE programs, they did not know where or how these
programs were managed. There appeared to be a disconnect between what faculty
members assumed they knew and what they actually knew when asked additional
probing questions. The interviews of the faculty members also shed a light on the fact
that not only did they lack the factual knowledge of the critical elements of a FYE
program but also there was a lack of understanding about what is not a part of a tradi-
tional FYE program. Faculty members placed a heavy importance on classes and core
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 91
requirements and not the other elements that support students both in and out of the
classroom.
Quantitative data. In addition to the interviews, 64 surveys were completed by
USC-Dornsife faculty. The survey allowed for a more in-depth review of faculty atti-
tudes toward the individual critical elements of a FYE program. In the survey, faculty
members were asked one question about their knowledge and skills for each critical
element of a FYE program, utilizing a 4-point Likert scale, where 1 = Strongly Dis-
agree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, and 4 = Strongly Agree. The survey results were col-
lected around the means, or the average total of all the scores (Salkind, 2008). The gaps
were relative to the individual faculty member’s self-perceptions and did not represent
absolutes. The innovation gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) identified what
faculty members perceived to be necessary but not an actual measurement of their
knowledge and skills.
Table 3 provides the critical element, the means, and the standard deviation for
each question for the knowledge and skills survey items. As a matter of practicality, the
two lowest elements, as shown by the data, will be further examined. In the future, and
prior to any implementation of a FYE program, the administration of USC should ex-
amine the other elements to gain a better understanding of the knowledge gaps of
faculty members.
Knowledge and skills gap for parent and family programs. As seen in Table
3, the first gap was found with the critical element of parent and family programs, which
were defined for the faculty as programs to engage parents with the university. The
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 92
Table 3
Knowledge and Skills Questions: Means and Standard Deviations (in Descending
Order by Mean)
Critical component M SD
Mentoring 3.28 .629
Common reading 2.94 1.037
Campus recreation 2.88 .787
Targeted population services 2.69 .990
First-Year Seminars 2.58 .956
Campus programming 2.56 .908
Student counseling 2.56 .814
Service-learning 2.50 .816
Academic advising 2.45 .890
Wellness programs 2.39 .936
Career services 2.38 .701
Tutoring 2.36 .861
Learning communities 2.36 .851
Orientation 2.30 .749
Supplemental instruction 2.25 .797
Student living environments 2.23 .850
Parent and family programs 2.00 .756
Note. Bolding indicates lowest ranked items.
causes of this gap may have been dependent on the faculty member’s perceptions of
parents and family members and their involvement, or overinvolvement, with the uni-
versity. One faculty member interviewed shared a significant concern about how
“parents of today’s college students have taken an overactive role with their students
that is unprecedented in the history of higher education.” As parents of millennial
students continue to increase their level of involvement with the college or university
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 93
and there is a push to continue their involvement in groups such as Parents Associations
and Family Weekends, faculty members may not perceive the importance of parent and
family programs in the context of a university, let alone a FYE program (Mullendore,
Banahan, & Ramsey, 2005).
Utilizing the taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing for educational
objectives (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), a series of questions can be asked to address
the four categories of the knowledge dimension. These questions could be asked of
faculty members to help further identify the specific knowledge and skills gaps within
this dimension:
1. Factual knowledge (i.e., basic elements of FYE programming elements): Do
you know what a Parents Association is and what it does? Do you know the research
behind the relationships millennial students have with their parents and family mem-
bers?
2. Conceptual knowledge (i.e., concepts, theories, models, principles): Do you
know the student development theories associated with parental involvement? Do you
understand the student–parent–university relationship model for student success?
3. Procedural knowledge (i.e., how to do something, appropriate procedures):
Do you know how to build relationships with parents of their students? Do you have
knowledge of the criteria for determining when it is appropriate to involve parents and
family members?
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 94
4. Metacognitive knowledge (i.e., awareness of one’s own knowledge, strategic
knowledge): Do you know what it is like to be a parent of a college student? Are you
aware of your own interest relative to working with parents and family members?
The gap related to faculty’s knowledge of parent and family programs, as well as
the impact of parents and family members in the education of their student, indicated a
need for the knowledge and skills in the conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
areas to be most critical. The research indicates the important need for colleges and
universities to develop relationships with parents and families, not only for student
success but also for future fundraising opportunities for the college (Mullendore et al.,
2005). However, faculty lack not only a knowledge base for how to build productive
relationships with parents but also the knowledge of what it is to be a parent of a millen-
nial college student. Many faculty members simply do not have the skills necessary for
working with this group, and many do not feel it is pertinent to the work they do, which
is often centered on teaching and research.
Knowledge and skills gap for student living environments. The second gap,
as shown in Table 3, was found within the critical element of 1st-year student living
environments, defined for the faculty members as residence halls designed to facilitate
student and faculty interactions. Of interest, two of the faculty members who completed
the survey indicated previous involvement with FYE programs in the residence halls as
faculty masters, or faculty-in-residence. The survey question posed to faculty members
asked them to rate their knowledge of the purpose of 1st-year student living environ-
ments and the impact that they had on retention. The fact that many faculty members
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 95
may have never lived in a residence hall as an undergraduate student and may not have
had any interaction with the residential program at USC could have led to a lack of
understanding about the relationship among living environments, classroom success,
and retention. Prior to implementing solutions to address this issue, the following
questions may be asked to identify the cause of the gap:
1. Factual knowledge: Do you know what a residence hall is in comparison to
a dormitory on a college campus?
2. Conceptual knowledge: Do you know relevant theories as they relate to the
impact of 1st-year student living environments on student success, retention, and persis-
tence? Do you know the various types of 1st-year living environments?
3. Procedural knowledge: Do you know the criteria for determining how a
student is assigned to a residential college at USC? Do you know the criteria for deter-
mining faculty programming and activities in the residence halls?
4. Metacognitive knowledge: Are you aware of your own interest in living–
learning environments for 1st-year students? Do you know the types of residential
college programs that exist at USC?
At USC, almost 95% of students live in an on-campus residential college.
Students are encouraged and expected to live on campus and to integrate with the aca-
demic and social community of the university. Residential colleges have live-in faculty
members to support the academic community of the buildings, yet faculty members lack
the knowledge of even the most basic definition of what a residential college or 1st-year
living–learning environment is. Many faculty members are unaware of the activities
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 96
that exist on campus in the residence halls that are part of a larger academic integration
model supported by the USC administration. In addition, faculty members lack the
ability to explain how these living environments impact retention. Closing these gaps in
factual, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge is critical to successfully achieve a
broader knowledge base of this critical element.
Summary of knowledge and skills gaps. The results of both the interviews
and the surveys indicated a lack of knowledge on the part of faculty members in the
USC Dornsife College on what FYE is and what critical components make up a com-
prehensive FYE program. In both the interviews and the survey, faculty members
expressed a lack of knowledge in how to help 1st-year students adjust to the academic
and social requirements of the college and of being a new college student. In addition,
faculty members were unaware of the key elements of a FYE program, particularly as it
related to the components that typically occur out of the classroom. The results of the
interviews lend credibility to the argument that faculty members are primarily focused
on the curriculum and the imparting of knowledge in a classroom. The survey results
confirmed these data, with the lowest ranked items being co-curricular based (parent
and family programs, student living environments). Through the interviews, several
faculty members expressed concern over the continued influence of parents in the edu-
cational process; that concern was also confirmed with the surveys, as the FYE element
of parent and family programs was ranked last, with a mean score of only 2.00. Finally,
the results of the interviews and the survey demonstrated that faculty members felt that
there are already enough support systems on campus and that the university has gone
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 97
over and beyond to help students be successful—which has led to a sense of entitlement
on the part of the students.
Although there was significant correlation between the survey and the inter-
views, it is important to note a few differences that will require further inquiry before an
FYE program is launched at USC. The survey indicated mentoring as not only the
primary critical element on the part of the faculty but also the element where which
faculty members expressed having the most knowledge. However, only one faculty
member discussed mentoring as a critical element of FYE and a central component of
his position. Additionally, during the interview two faculty members discussed their
knowledge of programs that support the classroom experience; however, the survey
indicated that the knowledge of faculty members for programs outside the classroom
was the weakest.
In summary, there was significant overlap between the interviews and the survey
as it related to knowledge of the critical FYE elements. Continued follow-up and
research should be done with faculty members to better understand the deviations that
occurred, specifically with respect to curricular versus co-curricular involvement on the
part of faculty members.
Research Question 3
Are USC-Dornsife faculty members motivated to create and implement a com-
prehensive FYE program and its components?
Motivation is an “internal state that initiates and maintains goal directed behav-
ior” (Mayer, 2011, p. 39). It involves (a) active choice, or deciding to choose an
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 98
activity; (b) persistence, or commitment over time; and (c) effort, or the mental work to
generate new knowledge (Pintrich, Schunk, & Meese, 2008). Five concepts contribute
to motivation: interest and value, self-efficacy beliefs, attributions, goal orientation, and
one’s sense of social partnership (Mayer, 2011). Although collectively, the questions
asked of faculty members both during the interviews and on the survey showed a
stronger motivation than the other constructs of knowledge and organizational culture,
the measure of motivation was still low. The qualitative and quantitative data collected
demonstrated the largest gaps in interest and self-efficacy beliefs. Motivation based on
interest is the idea that one will work harder or care more when there is personal value
or interest (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Interest can exist in two dimensions: situational,
or context specific; and personal, or similar to a trait that is longer-lasting. Expectancy-
value theory states that motivation based on value can be intrinsic, extrinsic, attainment,
or cost driven and is based on the idea that one will work harder or care more when one
believes that his or her work will pay off (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Finally, motiva-
tion based on self-efficacy beliefs is the idea that individuals with higher self-efficacy,
or a greater belief in their own competence, will be more motivated to engage and work
hard at a task (Bandura, 1986).
Qualitative data. During the interviews, all five faculty members were pre-
sented with four open-ended questions under the umbrella of motivation. In this set of
questions, the faculty members were presented with the list of 17 FYE critical elements.
The questions allowed faculty members to discuss their interest in the creation and
support of a comprehensive FYE program as well as whether they had interest in
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 99
participating in a university-wide planning committee designed to create such a pro-
gram. All five of the faculty members stated that many of the critical elements were
important and valuable to students and to the university community. However, no
faculty member agreed that all 17 were important. Two of the five reiterated their belief
that parent and family programs were nonessential services to the university. When
pressed about the role of First-Year Seminars as success-oriented courses, three faculty
members expressed a desire to have that included in already established courses, such as
General Education courses or the current FYI courses currently a part of the USC
Dornsife College’s curriculum. Finally, of interest, all five faculty members noted that
they would be interested in being a part of a planning team that was responsible for the
creation of a comprehensive FYE program, if given the chance. One faculty member
stated, “Absolutely.” When pressed as to why, he responded that “if there is going to be
a centralized anything at USC, it must appeal to the teaching faculty before it will gain
any support.”
In sum, the qualitative data lent support to the idea that the faculty members in
the USC Dornsife College were motivated to help students but that there was an end
point to their motivation. Faculty members valued many of the elements of a FYE
program, but not all agreed on which components were absolutely critical for students’
success. In addition, the evidence from the interviews showed that many faculty mem-
bers valued only pieces of the critical elements, but not the entire element. When asked,
faculty members believed in the importance of FYE programs and that faculty should
play a role in the creation of such a program.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 100
Quantitative data. Similar to the knowledge and skills construct, faculty
members were able to answer questions in a survey under the motivation construct.
One motivation question, aimed at understanding faculty’s interest and self-efficacy
beliefs about the FYE program elements, was presented to the faculty for each of the
critical elements, for a total of 17 motivation questions. The same 4-point Likert scale
was utilized, asking faculty members to respond with Strongly Disagree, Disagree,
Agree, or Strongly Agree to each question. Table 4 provides the critical element, the
means, and the standard deviation for each question for the motivation survey items.
The gaps represent only the individual faculty member’s self-perceptions and do not
represent absolutes. The results show only what faculty members perceived, not an
actual measurement of their motivation. For the purposes of this study, the lowest two
elements, based on the means of the respondents to these items, will be discussed in
further detail; however, prior to any movement to create a comprehensive program, the
administration of USC should review all of the elements to gain a further understanding
of the motivation of faculty members.
Motivation gap for wellness programs. A review of Table 4 indicates that the
largest motivation gap was related to wellness programming. Faculty members were
told that wellness programs are activities that program health and well-being in all
facets of a student’s life, both in and out of the classroom. The statement posed to
faculty members, “I have a strong connection to wellness programs,” was rooted in the
intrinsic value of the critical element. Based on the low score of wellness programs,
one could infer a lack of value on the part of faculty members. Furthermore, it could
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 101
Table 4
Motivation Questions: Means and Standard Deviations (in Descending Order by
Mean)
Critical component M SD
Mentoring 3.42 .529
Tutoring 3.16 .623
Orientation 3.05 .677
Campus programming 3.02 .826
Common reading 2.95 .881
Student counseling 2.95 .700
Targeted population services 2.89 .779
Student living environments 2.88 .845
Campus recreation 2.77 .729
Academic advising 2.77 .886
Learning communities 2.66 .877
Service-learning 2.61 .704
First-Year Seminars 2.53 .942
Career services 2.50 .667
Supplemental instruction 2.34 .718
Parent and family programs 2.34 .840
Wellness programs 2.05 .862
Note. Bolding indicates lowest two items.
indicate that faculty members might not have seen this as a critical element for inclusion
in a comprehensive FYE program. Thus, faculty members may be less likely to choose
to incorporate wellness programming as a part of their overall teaching and understand-
ing of the FYE.
Motivation gap for parent and family programs. The second critical motiva-
tion gap for faculty members deals with the critical element of parent and family
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 102
member programming as a part of a FYE program. Faculty members were asked if they
believed that “parent and family programs are an important component of a college’s
retention program aimed at 1st-year students.” This question sought to determine
whether faculty members valued and placed importance on the concept of parent and
family involvement in the success of both the student and the university. Value is the
primary construct for choice (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Faculty members resisted the
incorporation of parents and family members in the life of the university and particu-
larly in anything related to instructional design. As USC continues to incorporate more
family programming through advancement and involvement opportunities, a gap in
motivation could create a power struggle among university administrators, university
faculty, and the relationship with parents and family members of the student body.
The gap in motivation for the interest and value of parent and family programs,
as indicated in Table 4, may also be connected to a lack of knowledge and skills. Parent
and family programs were rated the lowest of all elements in the knowledge and skills
dimension. Thus, one can infer that faculty members may not have had the confidence
in their ability to encourage parental involvement in the university or to participate in
programs directed at parents and family members; therefore, it is not unrealistic to
expect that their motivation would also be low in this regard.
Summary of motivation gaps. A review of the results of both the interviews
and the surveys demonstrated that faculty members in the USC Dornsife College had
stronger motivation, including interest and self-efficacy, in not only the creation of a
comprehensive FYE program but also the creation of many of the individual elements
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 103
of a FYE program. In both the interviews and the survey, faculty members indicated
valuing many of the elements, including many of the curricular components (mentoring,
advising) and several of the co-curricular components (tutoring, orientation). The
surveys and interviews also revealed that faculty members disagreed on which of the
elements are important and which are not important. These opinions were shown in
both the various responses in the interviews as to what is vital and in the large range of
the means (2.05 to 3.42) of the critical elements tested in the survey. Not surprisingly,
critical element of parent and family programs, which scored low on the knowledge and
skills construct, also scored low on the motivation construct and was discussed in the
interviews at multiple points as a nonessential element.
Similar to the knowledge and skills construct, the motivation construct showed
correlation between the survey and the interviews. However, one element, First-Year
Seminars, was discussed in the interviews as an important element to be folded into the
General Education program but scored relatively low on the survey (2.53). This dis-
crepancy could be a result of a lack of self-efficacy on the part of faculty members due
to their lack of belief in their own competence to teach skill sets often included in these
types of courses, including time management, test-taking strategies, and other issues
related to transition.
In sum, there was overlap between the interviews and the survey as related to the
motivation on the part of the faculty members to establish the critical FYE elements.
Further research should be done with faculty members to gain more insight into their
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 104
desire to create certain programs over others and how that would contribute to or curtail
the creation of a comprehensive FYE program.
Research Question 4
Does the organizational culture of USC support USC-Dornsife faculty members
in the creation and implementation of a comprehensive program, specifically in light of
the unique structure and decentralization that is the model of USC?
Gaps in organizational culture and support represent the third area of the gap
analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008). Culture incorporates shared philosophy or ideol-
ogy, or a “set of values, beliefs, expectations, and assumptions that guide behavior in a
social system” (Bess & Dee, 2008, p. 362). It is a pattern of basic assumptions that a
group has developed and integrated into its social structure (Schein, 1992). USC has
experienced a transformation in many areas since the start of the 21st century, including
changes in leadership, rankings, selectivity of student admissions at the undergraduate
and graduate levels, the retention of 1st-year students, and the graduation rate for the
university as a whole. These changes have impacted the cultural context of the univer-
sity dramatically, as there has been a mixing of the new and the old guard in faculty
positions. In 2011, the university adopted a new strategic vision and plan with the aim
to position USC as an elite, global university that is measured on both success and
reputation (USC, Board of Trustees, 2011).
Qualitative data. USC currently practices, in some form, all of the critical
components of a FYE program; however, there is no centralized FYE program. During
the interviews, faculty members were asked three questions to better understand the
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 105
gaps in organizational culture and support that existed at USC in the mindset of faculty
members who taught classes aimed at 1st-year students. These questions sought to
determine whether faculty members could describe the USC culture and whether that
culture allowed for faculty participation in programming aimed at 1st-year students.
Two of the faculty members interviewed described the culture as “competitive.” One
stated that “we pit schools and programs against one another in a constant drive to make
more money and become more elite.” All five faculty members struggled with the
question of describing the culture as it related to university-wide programs, even citing a
lack of knowledge about those types of programs. Four of the five faculty members did
say that USC provides opportunities to be engaged in programming directed toward 1st-
year students; but when probed, only one could list specific examples. Three of the
faculty members, when asked about the role that faculty members should play in the
creation of FYE programs, shared that faculty should have a relatively small role be-
cause their job is classroom teaching and they would not know how to develop such
support programs. All five faculty members expressed that when it comes to the shar-
ing of information about university-wide initiatives, the leadership of USC has failed to
involve faculty members until decisions have already been made. One faculty member
even stated that “there are so many redundancies that if they talked to faculty members,
we could help prevent it.”
The results of the faculty interviews showed a strong connection in the gap
between knowledge and organizational culture. It appeared that the culture of faculty
involvement and support had developed over time as a result of the lack of knowledge
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 106
and skills that faculty had in the realm of student success and retention programming,
particularly out of the classroom.
Quantitative data. Results of the survey indicated organizational culture and
support as the lowest overall grand means of all gaps and 11 of the individual critical
elements receiving the lowest means within the construct of organizational culture and
support. This finding indicated a perceived deficiency in the culture and support of
USC on the part of the faculty members who might be interested in the creation of a
centralized and comprehensive FYE program to aid in the success of students both in
and out of the classroom. Table 5 provides the critical element, means, and standard
deviation for each question for the organizational culture and support survey items.
Similar to both the knowledge and motivation dimension, the results showed only what
faculty members perceived—not an actual measurement of the organizational culture of
USC. For the purposes of this study, the lowest two elements will be discussed in
further detail; however, prior to any movement to create a comprehensive program, the
administration of USC should review all of the elements to gain a further understanding
of how faculty members perceive the organizational culture of USC.
Organizational gap for career services. As evidenced in Table 5, the lowest
mean was related to the critical element of career services, defined as career planning,
placement, training, and assessment. Faculty members were asked to determine
whether “career services offices, both at the center and in the academic units, work
closely with faculty members to help students link classwork to internships and job
placements.”
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 107
Table 5
Organizational Culture and Support Questions: Means and Standard Deviations (in
Descending Order by Mean)
Critical component M SD
Service-learning 2.81 .732
Targeted population services 2.78 .766
Student living environments 2.58 .662
Student counseling 2.53 .734
Orientation 2.52 .734
Mentoring 2.39 .769
Campus programming 2.34 .781
Supplemental instruction 2.27 .672
Academic advising 2.22 .701
First-Year Seminars 2.22 .826
Parent and family programs 2.19 .814
Tutoring 2.14 .814
Learning communities 2.11 .620
Campus recreation 2.05 .653
Wellness programs 2.02 .807
Common reading 1.92 .719
Career services 1.77 .611
Note. Bolding indicates lowest two elements.
This potential gap was related to many factors, including the understanding of
the role of career centers on college campuses. Career centers are service units that are
typically designed to assist both students and alumni with many different elements of
the career process, including exploration, internships, résumé and interviewing skills,
assessments, job placement, and career advice. The importance of career centers has
never been more magnified than with the current economic situation of the nation.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 108
Career center staff members are under enormous pressure to produce results that are
often seen as helping to validate the educational mission of the university (Dey & Real,
2010). For many students and parents, the objective of a college degree is job place-
ment. The role of career centers has undergone much change of late, shifting from pro-
viding advice, workshops, and career fairs to having to strategically partner with compa-
nies and businesses to help place students and alumni in jobs and careers (Dey & Real,
2010). For many students and parents, the objective of a college degree is job place-
ment. The role of career centers has undergone much change of late, shifting from pro-
viding advice, workshops, and career fairs to having to strategically partner with compa-
nies and businesses to help place students and alumni in jobs and careers (Dey & Real,
2010). As these shifts have happened, the partnerships with faculty members in the
classroom have become secondary to the partnerships with off-campus placements in
the private sector (C. Martellino, Associate Dean of Student Affairs and Executive Di-
rector of the USC Career Center, personal communication, October 12, 2012). This
potential organizational gap should be addressed to continue to connect classroom
learning and achievement with the long-term career goals of students. Career centers
and faculty have an obligation to close this gap to further the connection of the class-
room learning to the real world of work.
Organizational gap for common reading. The second critical element with a
low mean for organizational culture and support was a common reading program,
defined for faculty as incoming students reading the same book that would allow for
discussion groups and follow-up activities during their 1st year. Faculty members were
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 109
asked to evaluate whether “USC provides adequate organizational systems and struc-
tures to ensure that a common reading program for 1st-year students would be success-
ful.” The leadership of USC has resisted a common reading program for 1st-year
students in favor of other opportunities to connect faculty and students in small-group
meetings and activities. Part of the challenge of organizing a common reading program
stems from the size of the incoming 1st-year class, which numbers close to 3,000 each
fall. In addition, common reading programs require a tremendous commitment from
faculty members to prepare and lead discussion groups that are usually above and
beyond their current teaching and research responsibilities. Faculty members may have
perceived the complex nature of the university structure to be a barrier to the develop-
ment of a common reading program and may also have perceived the function to rest in
the hands of student service and student affairs professionals. Moreover, the size of the
1st-year class and the relative complexity of creating opportunities to connect faculty
and students in small-group activities may have created barriers in the mindsets of
faculty members who might even have an interest in the creation of a common reading
program. Of note, since 2011, the USC president has issued summer reading lists for
the entire USC community, and in 2012 there was a greater emphasis placed on encour-
aging incoming students to read at least one of the books on the president’s list. The
development of the president’s list may have been a result of a strong motivation on the
part of faculty to overcome organizational obstacles related to a common reading
program at USC.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 110
Summary of organizational culture and support gaps. Unlike the knowledge
and motivation dimensions, there was more deviation between the survey and the inter-
views within the organizational culture and support construct. In addition, there was
conflicting data presented under the organizational and support construct as it relates to
the knowledge and motivation constructs. In fact, several times, there seemed to be
conflicting data presented within the surveys or within the interviews themselves.
During the interviews, four of the five faculty members expressed that there are oppor-
tunities in which to engage in programming aimed at 1st-year students, but the surveys
indicated a lack of organizational support when it came to their involvement. This
discrepancy could be attributed to how faculty members are evaluated at USC. While
on one hand, there are plenty of opportunities to be engaged with FYE programming,
the support structure is not there. This problem was exemplified in comments made
during the interviews regarding the decentralization of the university. In addition to the
opportunities for engagement, faculty members expressed conflicting views regarding
their involvement in the creation of FYE programs. While faculty members expressed
interest, there was also a general feeling that they lacked the knowledge to do so and
that the organizational culture at USC was one where they were to be classroom teach-
ers and not program developers.
While there was contrasting information presented, there were also some key
agreements between the information gleaned from the interviews and the surveys.
Faculty felt strongly that USC is a competitive environment and that there are too many
redundancies that exist within the university. This information supports the need for
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 111
USC to create more comprehensive structures that support all students, including an
FYE program.
Reliability of Findings
The total number of respondents to the survey was 64. The grand means of each
of the 17 knowledge and skills questions, the 17 motivation questions, and the 17 orga-
nizational culture questions were calculated for Cronbach’s alpha. The purpose of
establishing the Cronbach’s alpha was to provide internal consistency reliability (Sal-
kind, 2008). Because there was no right or wrong answer to the survey questions,
establishing the Cronbach’s alpha helped to determine whether the set of survey items
were consistent with one another. The correlation coefficient indicates a very strong
relationship when the alpha is between 0.8 and 1.0 and a strong relationship when the
alpha is between 0.6 and 0.8. An alpha of 0.5 or lower should lead the researcher to
question the reliability of the items (Salkind, 2008). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
was .906 for knowledge and skills questions, .860 for motivation questions, and .874 for
organizational culture questions. This finding led to the conclusion that the reliability
of all questions was very strong and provided evidence that the questions utilized to
identify the gaps were consistent with one another.
Comparison of Knowledge and Skills, Motivation, and Organizational Culture
Results
An analysis of the means among the faculty’s survey responses for knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational culture and support provided further compari-
son, thus enabling focused solutions for each critical element of a FYE program. Table
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 112
6 represents the analysis of a comparison of the three constructs by FYE critical element
to determine significant differences in the means of knowledge and skills, motivation,
and organizational culture, as perceived by the faculty members. The greatest gap ap-
peared in the area of organizational culture and support. A grand means was obtained
for each of the question types of knowledge and skills (2.51), motivation (2.76), and
organizational culture (2.29).
Analysis of the Question Type Combinations
Table 6 provides an analysis of the gaps (question type) of the critical elements
of a FYE program. In general, the faculty members of USC Dornsife expressed stronger
motivation to create a FYE program, but with lower responses in the knowledge and
skills and organizational culture and support constructs. Following is an overview of
the most significant combinations of gap combinations as perceived by the faculty
members. Based on the data presented in Table 6, the following is an examination of
each FYE critical element and the relative gap compared to the other two dimensions.
Academic advising: Process to help students clarify goals. Motivation was
high (2.77) as well as the knowledge (2.45) of faculty members with regard to their
ability to describe effective academic advising. Faculty members indicated a need for
USC, as an organization, to support centralized academic advising.
Campus recreation: Fitness, intramurals, and club sports. Faculty members
perceived a high level of knowledge and motivation but a lack of opportunities afforded
by the institution to participate in campus recreation programs. This situation creates a
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 113
Table 6
Comparison of Means for Each Critical Element of a First-Year Experience Program
M e ans
___________________________________
Critical component Knowledge Motivation Organization Relative gap(s)
Academic advising 2.45 2.77 2.22 Organization
Campus programming 2.46 3.02 2.34 Organization
Campus recreation 2.88 2.77 2.05 Organization
Career services 2.38 2.50 1.77 Organization
Common reading 2.94 2.95 1.92 Organization
First-Year Seminars 2.58 2.53 2.22 Organization
Learning communities 2.36 2.66 2.11 Organization
Mentoring 3.28 3.42 2.39 Organization
Orientation 2.30 3.05 2.52 Knowledge
Parent and family programs 2.00 2.34 2.19 Knowledge
Service-learning 2.50 2.61 2.81 Knowledge
Student counseling 2.56 2.95 2.53 Organization
Student living environments 2.23 2.88 2.58 Knowledge
Supplemental instruction 2.25 2.34 2.27 Knowledge
Targeted population services 2.69 2.89 2.78 Knowledge
Tutoring 2.36 3.16 2.14 Organization
Wellness programs 2.39 2.05 2.02 Organization
Grand means 2.51 1.76 2.29
need for stronger organizational support for their participation in recreation programs
with students.
Campus programming: Programs and activities, including social, multicul-
tural, volunteer, and diversity, that engage students socially. Faculty members
expressed high levels of interest and value in support of campus programming, as well
as sufficient levels of knowledge about the activities in which students participate on
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 114
campus. However, faculty perceived a gap related to support to develop and/or partici-
pate in social programming outside of the classroom.
Career services: Career planning, placement, training, and assessment. The
motivation, or interest, was high (3.50) as well as the knowledge (2.38) of career ser-
vices offered; however, faculty perceived a significant gap in organizational support
(1.77) when it came to connecting class experiences to the job placement process.
Common reading: Students reading the same book followed by discussion
groups. Faculty members expressed a knowledge of how to create common reading
programs and motivation to do so, but there is a need to build organizational support for
such a program.
First-Year Seminars: Courses designed to teach survival and success tech-
niques. There is a need to build greater organizational support for First-Year Seminars
that focus on student success and survival rather than a curricular theme. Faculty
members indicated higher knowledge and motivation for this element.
Learning communities: Clusters of courses around a theme. Faculty per-
ceived the curriculum at USC not to support learning communities but expressed both
an interest in their development and an understanding of the concept.
Mentoring: Faculty support of student needs in and out of classroom. Not
surprisingly, faculty members ranked mentoring the highest in the knowledge and
motivation constructs but perceived there to be a disconnect in the support structure at
USC for the development of mentoring relationships with students.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 115
Orientation: Program to help students transition to new setting. The
finding here was interesting in that faculty members felt that there was organizational
support (2.52) and understood the value (3.05) of an orientation but lacked the proce-
dural knowledge (2.30) of how to put together an orientation program.
Parent and family programs: Programs to engage parents with the univer-
sity. This element ranked low in all three constructs, but particularly in knowledge and
organizational support. Faculty members lacked the factual knowledge of what parent
programming is supposed to accomplish and felt that the university did not provide the
right types of opportunities for interactions with faculty.
Service-learning: Service integrated into the curriculum. Although all three
constructs scored relatively similarly, the lowest construct and therefore the largest per-
ceived gap by the faculty members existed in the knowledge domain. Faculty members
lacked factual knowledge, indicating they were unable to define what service-learning is
at the university.
Student counseling: Counseling on issues related to college transition and
early adulthood. Faculty members indicated a stronger knowledge of, self-efficacy,
and value for student counseling but perceived a larger gap as it relates to organizational
support and culture. This could be a result of privacy laws prohibiting student counsel-
ing staff members from sharing information with a faculty member who has referred a
student.
Student living environments: Residence halls designed to facilitate student
and faculty interactions. The mean was low for knowledge and skills, as faculty
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 116
lacked factual knowledge related to the purpose of 1st-year student living environments;
however, the means increased in the constructs of organizational culture and motiva-
tion. The establishment of residential colleges at USC could have an impact on these
constructs.
Supplemental instruction: Peer-assisted support in targeted courses. In-
terestingly, faculty members expressed a low level of knowledge and skills and organi-
zational support when it came to creating an effective SI component to their course.
This finding could be a result of only 15 faculty members representing the natural
sciences, which typically offer or include SI.
Targeted student populations: Services for specific student groups. As USC
has developed more programs for women, student athletes, LGBT students, students
with disabilities, and international students, it is not surprising that faculty members feel
that there is a culture of support for specific students groups. However, there is still a
lack of knowledge on the part of faculty members with respect to the unique barriers
faced by these groups of students when coming to college.
Tutoring: One-on-one or group pairings to help students with course
content. Not surprising, faculty members expressed value in the concept of tutoring to
support students but did also express a low level of organizational support as it related
to university resources for tutoring services.
Wellness programs: Promotion of health and education. There is a need not
only to build organizational support for wellness programs but also to develop a sense
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 117
of interest and value on the part of faculty members in their support of and connection
to wellness programming at USC.
Statistical Analysis of the Comparison of Knowledge and Skills, Motivation,
and Organizational Culture Results
The grand means of each set of questions around the constructs of knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational culture was obtained to determine whether
there was a difference between the means of each construct. The means for knowledge
and skills was 2.51; for motivation, 2.76; and for organizational culture and support,
2.29. The strongest of the concepts was that of faculty motivation (2.76), followed by
faculty members’ perceptions of their knowledge and skills of FYE programs (2.51).
The faculty members perceived as lowest (2.29) the organizational culture and support
of USC in the establishment of a comprehensive FYE program and the individual
critical elements.
A one-sample t test was used to determine whether the means of the three
concepts of knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture were statistically signifi-
cant. A Bonferroni adjustment was used to account for an inflated Type I error rate
associated with multiple pairwise comparisons. The t value was 41.3. It was deter-
mined that there was no significant difference between the knowledge and organiza-
tional culture scales (p = .468); however, there was a significant difference between the
means of both the knowledge and motivation scales (p = .000) and between the motiva-
tion and organizational culture scales (p = .000).
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 118
The results of the data and the tests indicated that none of the constructs scored
high. Not one construct had a grand means above 3.00, indicating that there were gaps
in all three areas: knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture and
support. Faculty did perceive their motivation to be the strongest of the three areas but
felt that USC as an institution may not be ready to provide the support needed to help to
create a comprehensive FYE program. The findings from the one-sample t test indi-
cated that motivation, the construct in both scales with a statistical difference, might
drive the decision-making process for any FYE program implementation at USC.
Further research on all three constructs is needed to determine whether faculty members
are ready to support the closing of this gap.
Composition of a Comprehensive and Centralized FYE Program
Research Question 5
What are the potential solutions to address the gaps in faculty knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve the successful implementation
of a comprehensive FYE program, and how could stakeholders evaluate it when imple-
mented?
The critical elements of a comprehensive and centralized FYE program at USC
that would meet the challenges of faculty were derived from the research literature and
evidence obtained through the quantitative and qualitative measurements used to deter-
mine the root causes of the gaps. Solutions are presented within the framework of the
gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) that includes the constructs of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational culture and support gaps. Research literature in
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 119
the fields of FYE programming, student retention and persistence, and gap analysis
were reviewed to provide a theoretical foundation. The solutions and recommendations
for implementation and evaluation are presented and discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 120
Chapter 5
Solutions
Each year, USC enrolls 3,000 new 1st-year students, joining an undergraduate
class of almost 18,000 students. The newly established USC Strategic Plan (2011)
makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the entire university community to ensure
student success. However, at USC, 1st-year student success is often decentralized and
divided among the academic schools and various student service units. At USC, there is
a philosophy of collective responsibility; however, with no central oversight, there is a
lack of ownership to help students be successful, both in and out of the classroom. The
purpose of this study was to examine how faculty members in the USC Dornsife Col-
lege, who work with 1st-year students at USC, can best implement a FYE program that
examines 1st-year students’ success through a comprehensive lens. Specifically, this
study focused on five questions:
1. What do faculty members in the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and
Sciences deem to be the priority for implementing the components of a comprehensive
FYE program?
2. Do USC Dornsife faculty members who teach 1st-year student classes at
USC have knowledge of the academic and social needs of 1st-year students to assist
with their success, both in and out of the classroom?
3. Are USC Dornsife faculty members motivated to create and implement a
comprehensive FYE program and its components?
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 121
4. Does the organizational culture of USC support USC Dornsife faculty
members in the creation and implementation of a comprehensive program, specifically
in light of the unique structure and decentralization that is the model of USC?
5. What are the potential solutions to address the gaps in faculty knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve the successful implementa-
tion of a comprehensive FYE program, and how could stakeholders evaluate it when
implemented?
The structure of this chapter is based on the analysis of the first four research
questions. Questions were posed and data collected through the use of faculty inter-
views and a quantitative survey seeking to determine the answers to the first four re-
search questions. The first research question helped to gather insight into the prioritiza-
tion of the critical elements of a FYE program. This question enabled the researcher to
understand whether faculty members felt that there should be a certain order for the
implementation of the critical elements of a FYE program. If USC moves forward with
the establishment of a comprehensive FYE program, understanding the priority, from
the perspective of the faculty who teach 1st-year student classes, will be essential. The
second research question identified the self-perceived gaps in the faculty’s knowledge
and skills, and third research question examined the self-perceived gaps in the faculty’s
motivation to establish a comprehensive FYE program. The fourth research question
asks whether faculty felt that there was a culture of support at USC to create and imple-
ment a comprehensive FYE program.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 122
The final research question asks, “What are the potential solutions to address the
gaps in faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture to achieve
the successful implementation of a comprehensive FYE program, and how could stake-
holders evaluate it when implemented?” This question seeks to determine the potential
solutions that will address the gaps in faculty knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational culture to create a comprehensive and centralized FYE program and what
elements are the priority for inclusion in a FYE program at USC. The discussion of this
question focuses on the remaining steps in the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes,
2008). Scholarly research in the fields of student retention, FYE programming, college
faculty training, and organizational culture and collaboration provide research-based
solutions to close the gaps, make recommendations for the implementation of the solu-
tions, and provide a process for the evaluation and assessment of the solutions.
The governance of most colleges and universities is shared among a board of
trustees, the administration, and the faculty (Gaff, 2007). The American Association of
University Professors (AAUP) issued a statement on Government of Colleges and Uni-
versities in 1966 that asserted the faculty have primary authority over the academic area,
which includes the curriculum, standards of faculty competence, and standards of
student achievement. Because FYE programs encompass both curricular and cocurricu-
lar components, faculty engagement in the creation and implementation of a compre-
hensive FYE program is critical. Ultimately, it is the faculty members who will deter-
mine whether the opportunities that exist under the umbrella of an FYE program are
successful and supported by the university community. It is generally accepted that
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 123
faculty members should have primary authority over programs that impact student
learning in the academic arena (Gaff, 2007). Gaff (2007) called for colleges and univer-
sities to provide “academic leadership for important programs that transcend depart-
ments” (p. 9). In the context of this study and because of the organizational structure at
USC, a FYE program would be seen as an education program. Thus, faculty members
need the knowledge and skills as well as the motivation and organizational support to
create and implement a quality FYE program at USC.
The wider the range of options offered to faculty for contributing to the FYE, the greater
will be their sense of control or ownership of the process and the greater the likelihood
they will find an activity that represents a good fit. (Cuseo, 2008, p. 4)
Knowledge and Skills Gap Solutions
In order to effectively address the gaps in knowledge and skills, it is helpful to
turn to the learning and knowledge dimension proposed by Anderson and Krathwohl
(2001). Utilizing the matrix that includes the intersection of the four types of knowl-
edge with the six levels of cognitive processes (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), one can
plot the various ways in which someone actually knows something.
Learning is a change in knowledge that takes place within the learner, therefore,
changing the learner as well (Mayer, 2011). According to Mayer (2011) “learning is
caused by the learner’s experience in the environment” (p. 14). In order to design ap-
propriate solutions to the knowledge and skills gaps of the faculty members in USC
Dornsife, it is first necessary to identify the type of cognitive process that is needed to
meet the learning objective (Mayer, 2011). The solutions for gaps in knowledge and
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 124
skills must be appropriate to both the knowledge dimensions and the cognitive pro-
cesses. Using the matrix created by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) as a framework,
the following are the cognitive processes that will help guide the appropriate solutions
for the learning needed (Rueda, 2011) based on the faculty’s evaluation of their knowl-
edge and skills gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008):
1. Remember: recalling relevant knowledge from long-term memory.
2. Understand: constructing meaning from instruction.
3. Apply: utilization of a procedure in a specific situation.
4. Analyze: breaking something down into smaller parts and determining how
they are related to one another.
5. Evaluate: making judgments based on selected criteria or standards.
6. Create: making a new structure, pattern, or whole from distinct parts.
In addition, solutions for gaps in the learning and knowledge dimension, related to FYE
programming, will depend on the type of knowledge needed by the faculty members.
Factual Knowledge Gaps
The factual knowledge category encompasses the “basic elements that experts
use in communication about their academic discipline, understanding it, and organizing
it systematically” (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001, p. 45). In the context of this study, it
includes knowledge and understanding of the basic elements of FYE programming and
how those elements are organized in support of student success. Knowledge and skill
enhancement are required to close the gaps when individuals do not know how to
accomplish their performance goals or when future challenges will require unique
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 125
problem solving (Clark & Estes, 2008). Solutions for the first condition indicate a need
for additional information, job aids, or training, while solutions for the second condition
suggest a need for additional education about “why things happen and what causes them
to happen” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 59). While a faculty member may have expertise in
a subject or content area related to his or her discipline, in many instances he or she
lacks understanding of the basic elements of FYE programming and is unable to apply
basic definitions of FYE elements toward student success. Providing faculty members
with the knowledge of terms and elements associated with FYE programming and
retention, while giving them the basic concepts of 1st-year student success models will
help overcome a lack of factual knowledge on the part of the faculty members (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Conceptual Knowledge Gaps
Conceptual knowledge refers to knowing the interrelationship among the basic
elements within the larger context (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Gaps in conceptual
knowledge may be present until faculty members are able to recognize the relationship
between student development in and out of the classroom and the concept of 1st-year
student success and retention. Educating faculty members regarding the specific theo-
retical constructs that focus on student success and student development may prove to
be an effective solution for faculty lacking conceptual knowledge. Education is “any
situation in which people acquire conceptual, theoretical, and strategic knowledge and
skills” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 59). Because many faculty members do not have this
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 126
knowledge, the only way to equip them to handle the new information is with solid but
general conceptual and analytical knowledge through education (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Procedural Knowledge Gaps
Procedural knowledge is the “knowledge of how to do something” that ranges
from the fairly routine to the solving of novel problems (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001,
p. 52). Faculty members with gaps in procedural knowledge are unaware of how to
implement the critical elements of FYE programming into their work (e.g. mentoring,
tutoring, and SI for their courses). Faculty members need assistance in how to apply the
FYE critical elements and the methods for their establishment, both in and out of the
classroom. Solutions for gaps in procedural knowledge require training (Clark & Estes,
2008). Training provides the opportunity for faculty members to acquire the necessary
skills and apply those skills through guided practice and corrective feedback (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Metacognitive Knowledge Gaps
Metacognitive knowledge is an awareness of one’s own knowledge and includes
both knowing how one learns and knowing how to monitor and control one’s own
learning (Mayer, 2011). Metacognition plays a crucial role in learning by helping to
guide the learner’s cognitive processing of the new material that is to be learned (Mayer,
2011). Gaps in metacognitive knowledge on the part of faculty members may be a
result of not recognizing that while they have knowledge in their field or discipline, they
may not have knowledge about student development or retention. Faculty members
may also lack realistic knowledge of their capabilities to implement the FYE critical
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 127
elements due to overconfidence because of their prior education, background, or sense
of self. Solutions for gaps in metacognitive knowledge are rooted in information, edu-
cation, and ongoing training (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge and Skills Solution Recommendations
In order to close gaps in knowledge and skills of faculty members as it relates to
FYE programming, solutions must be driven from the theoretical constructs and litera-
ture that describe how solutions can close the gaps. Knowledge gaps require informa-
tion, job aids, training, and education in order to be closed (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Specific recommendations for implementation with the faculty of USC Dornsife to
close gaps in knowledge and skills are made.
Factual Knowledge Solutions
• Fink (1992) suggested employing colleges and universities to provide com-
prehensive professional orientation programs for new faculty members.
Orientation programs should include information on roles, responsibilities,
resources, and policies.
• Levinson-Rose and Menges (1981) suggested providing minicourses, or
self-contained instructional packages, for teachers that would include read-
ing, viewing films, and practical training with feedback to assist faculty
members in developing specific skills necessary to assist students both in
and out of the classroom.
• Bryant and Terborg (2008) recommended creating peer-mentoring programs
for new faculty members in order to share organizational knowledge beyond
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 128
the specific teaching and research discipline as a way to communicate infor-
mation relevant to new faculty members, as well as important shared values
of the institution.
Most organizations use formal orientation programs as a part of the training and
socialization process. These orientation programs are designed to introduce new em-
ployees to their job, the people in the larger organization, and a way to communicate
important information about the culture of the workplace (Klein & Weaver, 2000).
Implementing a new USC faculty orientation program that includes information, train-
ing, and education could prove to be successful in providing faculty members with the
basic knowledge of FYE programming and student retention.
Conceptual Knowledge Solutions
• Provide faculty members with research and scholarly articles related to the
impact of the 1st year on retention.
• Create a webinar on the theories related to student development to educate
faculty members on the theoretical constructs that help promote student
success in and out of the classroom.
• Offer education on new faculty orientation programs that enables faculty to
be knowledgeable about the programs and services of the university while
creating a sense of shared principles (Welch, 2002).
• Create workshops for faculty members to conceptualize how FYE program-
ming and student success fit within the larger structure of the success of their
department, unit, and the university.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 129
Procedural Knowledge Solutions
• Provide faculty members with training opportunities that allow for participa-
tion in already established FYE programs to observe methods and techniques
currently in use.
• Partner faculty members with student affairs professionals to provide feed-
back regarding classroom curriculum and how to establish more FYE class-
room programming.
• Create demonstrations for faculty members who teach in the general educa-
tion and writing programs that allow for hands-on practice within the critical
elements (e.g., orientation, mentoring, academic advising, and tutoring).
Training transfer should be utilized to the advantage of the institution to create
opportunities for faculty members to learn specific skills and techniques. All faculty
members were undergraduate students at one time and, in all likelihood, utilized one or
more of the resources at their college or university to help them be successful. Research
has demonstrated that new employees, or those being trained, are more likely to transfer
learned skills when their previous knowledge and practice on how to apply the new
knowledge is activated (Velada, Caetano, Michel, Lyons, & Kavanaugh, 2007). Lewis,
Lange, and Gillis (2005) showed through their research that individuals are most likely
to transfer learning because they are able to notice functional similarities and principles
across tasks. By activating the previous knowledge of the USC Dornsife faculty mem-
bers from when they were students themselves, the faculty members are more likely
able to apply that to their current setting as professors.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 130
Metacognitive Knowledge Solutions
• Provide faculty members with professional development workshops and
conferences that offer information and education about FYE programming
and the impact on college student success and retention.
• Create opportunities for faculty members to explore the intersection between
their discipline, their teaching methods, and their comprehension of 1st-year
student success.
Knowledge and Skills Solutions for Critical Gaps
The faculty of the USC Dornsife College identified one of the gaps in knowl-
edge and skills related to the FYE critical element of parent and family programs,
defined as activities to engage parents within the college or university. Solutions for
this gap rest within all four of the knowledge domains. Faculty members need to be
educated about what a Parents Association is and what it does. It may require the
faculty members to research or attend programs offered by the Parents Association or
Office of Parent Programs. In addition, faculty members should be taught student
development theories associated with parental involvement, thereby giving them con-
ceptual knowledge about the student–parent–university relationship. Faculty members
may need procedural knowledge and should be taught how to build relationships with
the parents of their students. Finally, to close this gap, faculty members need to become
aware of their own interest in working with parents, which calls for metacognitive
knowledge. Faculty members need to receive information about the role of parents in
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 131
the college in the form of orientation workshops (Fink, 1992) and the establishment of
minicourses or workshops (Levinson-Rose & Menges, 1981).
The second largest gap identified by the faculty was in regard to their knowledge
of student living environments, or residence halls designed to facilitate student learning
and student–faculty interaction. Although solutions to this gap cross all four knowledge
domains, the primary focus should be on establishing factual knowledge. Faculty
members, through trainings, should be educated about what a residence hall is in com-
parison to a dormitory on a college campus. Clear objectives and guided training that
includes giving faculty members correct terminology to use (i.e., residence hall or
residential colleges) will help close this gap (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001).
In an effort to close the gaps specific to the two lowest elements based on the
survey data, USC leadership may want to consider a comprehensive orientation for
faculty members that includes information on roles, responsibilities, resources, and
policies (Fink, 1992). Prior to the orientation, faculty should be administered a pretest
that measures their knowledge related to each critical element. The orientation or
training session can be tailored to close the gaps based on the data from the pretest and
can be designed to build the necessary skills relative to the cognitive processes (Ander-
son and Krathwohl, 2001). Posttest data will be provided by the engagement of faculty
members in the various elements, including parent and family programs and student
living environments.
In summary, solutions for the two lowest knowledge and skills gaps identified in
the second research question call for faculty members to be provided with training, job
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 132
aids, information, and continued education (Clark & Estes, 2008). Further solutions
should be generated for the additional critical elements prior to the establishment of a
comprehensive FYE program.
Knowledge and Skills Recommendations for Implementation
Based on the data presented in Table 6, of the 17 critical elements of an FYE
program, six received the lowest scores from the faculty within the knowledge and skills
construct: (a) orientation, (b) parent and family programs, (c) service-learning, (d)
student living environments, (e) SI, and (f) targeted population services. While further
inquiry should be done to understand the specific gaps associated with each of these
critical elements, a broad implementation plan can be presented immediately to help
close the gap associated with knowledge and skills for each of the elements. The plan
presented below, based on each critical element, helps in the implementation of a com-
prehensive FYE program when future solutions are determined based on a continued
analysis of the data.
Orientation: Program to Help Students Transition to a New Setting
Faculty members rarely need the procedural knowledge of how to put together
an orientation program at a university. They should be aware of what an orientation
program is and what purpose is served. As a result, faculty members should receive
basic information from staff responsible for orientation on what is included, what the
outcomes are, and what role they should play.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 133
Parent and Family Programs: Programs to Engage Parents With the University
Although all three constructs scores low, the knowledge scores the lowest. In
order to increase their conceptual knowledge, faculty members should receive addi-
tional training on what role a centralized parent and family program plays at the univer-
sity. To address this issue, the offices that work most closely with parents and families
should establish a reading list and provide faculty members with articles that connect
parent involvement with student success.
Service-Learning: Service Integrated Into the Curriculum
Faculty members lack factual knowledge and are unable to define the concept of
service-learning. This concept, which should be infused into the curriculum of 1st-year
students, should be defined at a centralized orientation program for faculty as a means
of communicating not only the definition but also the value placed upon service-
learning at USC.
Student Living Environments: Residence Halls Designed to Facilitate Student and
Faculty Interactions
Faculty members lack both the factual knowledge and the conceptual knowledge
relating to 1st-year living environments for students. In order to close this gap, faculty
should be trained on the connection between the classroom success of students and the
environment in which the students live. In addition, faculty members should be encour-
aged to participate in the structure of how the living environments (also called residen-
tial colleges at USC) are designed to support student success by helping them under-
stand the role that these residence halls can play in academic achievement.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 134
SI: Peer-Assisted Support in Targeted Courses
Faculty indicated a lack of procedural knowledge with this element. Faculty
members unaware of how to develop SI could shadow current faculty SI courses to
observe how to create and deliver an effective program. In addition, faculty members
should partner with professionals in student affairs who work in academic support areas
to best determine how to help students outside of the formal classroom.
Targeted Population Services: Services for Specific Student Groups
Faculty indicated a lack of factual and conceptual knowledge related to the
barriers faced by specific populations such as women, student athletes, LGBT students,
students with disabilities, and international students. To close this gap, faculty should
be required to participate in minicourses that help to teach the specific skills necessary
to assist these students. In addition, during the formal faculty orientation program,
various workshops could be presented that connect the theoretical constructs of stu-
dents’ success with the specific needs of these targeted populations.
To summarize, solutions for the six elements that scored the lowest in the
knowledge and skills construct identified by the faculty in the research survey call for a
variety of tools to provide them with information, job aids, training, and education
(Clark & Estes, 2008). While some of the tools are specific to the element and the
knowledge domain addressed, some tools are designed to achieve knowledge on a larger
scale about not only the elements of the FYE program but also the comprehensive
connection of FYE to student success and retention.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 135
Motivation Gap Solutions
Motivation is the “process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and
sustained (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2009, p. 4). Researchers have agreed that there
are three motivational indexes, or types of motivational processes, that factor into a
work environment: active choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Schunk et al., 2009). Active choice refers to the act of making a choice to pursue a goal
actively (Clark & Estes, 2008). Persistence refers to the commitment necessary to
pursue an activity over time in the face of distractions (Rueda, 2011). Finally, mental
effort, determined in large part by confidence, refers to the mental work needed to
“generate new learning and knowledge” (Rueda, 2011, p. 38).
In determining solutions to the motivation gaps of faculty members in USC
Dornsife for the creation of a comprehensive FYE program, several elements of motiva-
tion can be reviewed, including self-efficacy, value, and interest. The expectancy-value
theory of motivation (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000) can provide the most insight into rec-
ommendations to close the gaps when the motivation of faculty members is low. This
theory gets at the question, “Why should I do this task?” (Rueda, 2011, p. 42), and
includes four separate dimensions of task value: attainment or importance value, utility
value, intrinsic value, and cost value. Motivation can be both a product of expectancies
and valued outcomes and therefore can be altered through the changes in future expecta-
tions, values, and intrinsic outcomes (Staw, 1983). To determine the source of the
motivation gap and subsequently create solutions, solutions in all four dimensions
should be addressed:
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 136
• Attainment value. Building attainment value will increase the likelihood that
faculty members who participate in FYE programming will do it well. FYE
programming, based on the theoretical models, if done well, will contribute
to student success and retention.
• Utility value. Building utility value will help faculty members in their will-
ingness to work for the institutional goal of student success and retention if it
is linked to their work at USC and their research in their particular field or
discipline.
• Intrinsic value. Creating intrinsic value will connect the concept of FYE
programming and retention to that which is personally meaningful to the
faculty.
• Cost value. Building cost value for faculty members will help them under-
stand the value of their time and effort in creating FYE programming ele-
ments and a comprehensive program for USC students.
Motivation Solution Recommendations
Although motivation was the highest of the constructs for the faculty members
in USC Dornsife in relation to the programmatic elements of an FYE program, it was
still sufficiently low enough to warrant recommendations to close the motivation gap.
To close the motivation gap, it is recommended that solutions focus on creating interest
and value along all four dimensions, with special attention given to increasing intrinsic
interest, utility value, and cost value. To increase motivation, the following activities
are recommended:
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 137
Intrinsic Interest
• Modify the evaluation system for faculty to place heavier weight on service
to the institution, allowing for faculty members to participate in activities
designed to help students outside of the classroom.
• Create a pay-based reward structure for faculty who participate in FYE
programming. According to Staw (1983), studies have indicated that there is
a positive relationship between pay and intrinsic interest. A pay-based
reward structure could further develop a stronger interest on the part of the
faculty members that could result in a more sustained program over time.
• Connect the FYE programming elements to the research that faculty are
doing, allowing faculty members to see the important connection between
the success of students and the success of their role as professors on a col-
lege campus.
• Involve faculty members in the development of the FYE programming ele-
ments at USC that can create a personal connection to the programs and the
students.
Cost Value
• Allow faculty members to reduce their teaching loads by one class, and
allow them to choose a retention-based activity or program with which to be
affiliated.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 138
• Reward faculty members for their efforts in the creation of a comprehensive
FYE program by connecting their evaluation and tenure to the work done in
pursuit of helping the university achieve their retention goals.
• Provide the necessary resources to the faculty members via workshops,
online webinars, and group meetings to help them understand the connection
between FYE programming and student success in their classes.
Utility Value
• Provide opportunities for faculty members to immediately participate in the
critical elements of an FYE program (e.g., expansion of faculty masters in
the residential colleges, additional faculty involvement in academic advise-
ment and orientation, creation of First-Year Seminars for faculty members to
teach).
• Offer discussion groups and faculty forums to hear from students impacted
by the programs under the FYE umbrella.
• Create research teams that allow faculty to study the impact of the FYE
program on retention and student persistence.
To be motivated, faculty members must believe that “they can perform their
roles effectively as well as perceive some benefit from their performance” (Staw, 1983,
p. 307). To create a sense of importance, it will be necessary for the institution to
provide time, resources, and social support for faculty members, as well as a set of pay-
based rewards for participation and improvement. Participation in FYE programming
and the creation of a comprehensive FYE program at USC would undoubtedly fall
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 139
under service to the institution. However, university service is not often rewarded in a
tangible manner through pay, promotion, or status (Staw, 1983). “The common prob-
lem of inattention to service can sometimes be traced to the set of behaviors that have
been reinforced over time” (Staw, 1983, p. 306). To alter the motivational behavior of
faculty, it is first necessary to change the outcomes facing the faculty and then tie
rewards to those desired outcomes (Staw, 1983).
Motivation Solutions for Critical Gaps
Solutions for the two most critical motivation gaps identified in research ques-
tion 3 fall within the realm of interest value and utility value. The first critical gap was
associated with the FYE critical element of wellness programs, defined for the faculty
as programs and activities that promote health and well-being in the life of a student,
both in and out of the classroom. Faculty members were asked if they had a strong con-
nection to wellness programs, a statement rooted in the intrinsic value of the critical
element. Based on the low score, faculty members may choose not to incorporate
wellness programs or attitudes into either their curriculum or cocurriculum (Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000). Solutions to this gap should include creating a structure that rewards
faculty members for the inclusion of or participation in wellness programs, both in and
out of the classroom (Staw, 1983). In addition, the results of the survey suggested that
faculty members might not believe that wellness programs are a critical element of an
FYE program. USC should create opportunities to involve faculty members in wellness
programs that will allow for the creation of personal connections with students.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 140
The second motivational gap identified by the faculty members was within the
critical element of parent and family programs. Of interest, this element was also in the
lowest two within the knowledge domain, thus suggesting that the lack of motivation
might be a result of a lack of knowledge on the part of faculty members as to the pur-
pose of this critical element. Solutions to close this gap fall within the realm of utility
value, or “how useful one believes a task or activity is for achieving some future goal”
(Rueda, 2011, p. 42). Building utility value will help faculty members connect the
critical elements of an FYE program with the desired overall goal of student success and
retention. Recognizing the need to increase their understanding and education of the
purpose of parent and family programs may help build interest. Faculty members
should be given opportunities to participate in programs offered by the Parents Associa-
tion, including Family Weekend and Parent Council meetings. Gaps can be closed as
faculty members learn how parental influence on students can equal student success in
the classroom (Mullendore et al., 2005).
In sum, solutions for the two lowest motivation gaps identified in the third
research question call for USC to increase the interest and the value placed on FYE
programming by the faculty members (Clark & Estes, 2008). This can be done by
increasing choice and confidence on the part of the faculty members that they can be
successful (Clark & Estes, 2008). Further solutions should be generated for the addi-
tional critical elements prior to the establishment of a comprehensive FYE program.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 141
Organizational Culture and Support Gap Solutions
Culture, defined as “the behavioral patterns, concepts, values, ceremonies, and
rituals that take place in an organization” (Daft, 1983, p. 482), incorporates the idea of
shared philosophy or ideology, or a set of expectations and beliefs that guide behavior in
social systems (Bess & Dee, 2008). In academic organizations, culture can inform
stakeholders, both in and out of the college, about the values and goals of the institution
(Bess & Dee, 2008). The framework proposed by Schein (1992) suggests that culture
exists on three levels: artifacts, values, and basic assumptions. Artifacts include (a) the
physical environment, (b) the social environment, (c) technological output, (d) written
and spoken language, (e) overt behavior, and (f) symbols (Schein, 1992). Examples of
artifacts at USC include strategic plans, the mission statement, presidential speeches,
the campus master plan, the layout of the campus, the teaching processes utilized by
faculty members, ceremonies such as convocation and commencement, and the many
items that one can purchase in the bookstore that identify the university. Values, on the
other hand, are the inferences about how individuals feel toward particular things,
people, or actions; and assumptions are those “unconscious driving forces that collec-
tively guide behavior” (Schein, 1992, p. 370).
Organizational Culture and Support Solution Recommendations
An analysis of the quantitative survey and qualitative interviews indicates a low
level of support as it relates to organizational culture and behaviors. Of the three con-
structs measured, the mean of all the organizational support and culture questions was
the lowest (2.29); of the 17 elements measured, 10 had organizational means as the
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 142
lowest of the three constructs measured. This finding led the researcher to believe that
the feeling of organizational support by the faculty members in the USC Dornsife was
not only low but at a critical level as well. Organizational gaps can be viewed through a
lack of “efficient and effective organizational work processes and material resources
(Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 103). To solve organizational culture gaps, it is important to
not only to address the work processes and material resources but also to take into
account the specific culture of USC.
Work Processes
According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational goals are achieved by a
system of processes that work together and specify how people, materials, and equip-
ment link together to produce a desired result. The closing of the gap related to work
processes lies in the implementation of a comprehensive redesign of the way in which
higher education works. Kezar (2006) argued that organizations, particularly institu-
tions of higher education, must embrace a culture of collaborative work that will pro-
mote greater efficiency, effectiveness, and enhanced student learning. Collaboration
can be defined as a “process in which a group of autonomous stakeholders of an issue
domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures to act
or decide on issues related to that domain” (Wood & Gray, 1991, p. 140). The issue is
that institutions of higher education are not structured to support collaboration in their
approach to learning, research, and organizational functioning (Kezar, 2006). To
address the culture of collaboration, Kezar recommended the following solutions, which
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 143
also address how the faculty of USC can address the gaps in organizational culture
related to the establishment of a comprehensive FYE program at USC:
Mission and philosophy. The mission of USC, along with the strategic plans,
should address how faculty can collaborate across disciplines and divisions in the estab-
lishment of programs that directly impact 1st-year students’ success. The leadership of
USC should include language in the strategic documents that provide an environment
conducive to collaboration with all stakeholders, including faculty, staff, students,
parents, and external partners.
Campus networks. A campus network, defined as an alliance or set of relation-
ships to accomplish a goal, should be created to support a collaborative environment
(Kezar, 2006). USC should review the faculty–committee structure and evaluate
whether administrators and staff members who have expert knowledge in FYE pro-
gramming should be included on these committees to address collaboration across the
academic and student services lines. Networks can serve as opportunities to build
knowledge and energy while creating strong connections across the campus in support
of 1st-year student success (Kezar, 2006).
Integrating structures. Kezar (2006) recommended establishing a central unit
for collaboration that enhances structural systems across the campus, including account-
ing, computer, and budgetary systems. The creation of a centralized office for FYE that
includes both curricular and cocurricular elements and has both staff and faculty mem-
bers included in the department can create collaborative opportunities for assessment,
teaching, research, and delivery of a quality FYE program. While the delivery of FYE
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 144
programs at USC has been effective through the academic schools, the delivery of FYE
programs through a centralized office that focuses on teaching, research programming,
and assessment can contribute to retention and persistence of students in a way that has
not yet been explored or achieved.
Rewards. USC should examine the reward structure for faculty members
involved in services to the institution, particularly those who participate in FYE pro-
gram elements. Rewards are “critical to enabling collaborative work in higher educa-
tion” (Kezar, 2006, p. 822). Providing a reward structure for faculty to be involved in a
FYE program would allow faculty to spend time outside of their teaching and research
responsibilities. USC should look at small grants for faculty who assist in the creation
and delivery of FYE program elements. However, intrinsic rewards should be marketed
as a reason for participation, including aiding the university to create a strategic vision
and plan for how to retain more students, to assist them in their success in and out of the
classroom, and to help the university continue to climb in prestige.
Material Resources
Organizations must have supplies and equipment to achieve goals, and the
temptation to overlook the availability of tools and material supplies is a cause of per-
formance gaps (Clark & Estes, 2008). USC faculty must be provided with the organiza-
tional support of funding that can provide opportunities for increased FYE program-
ming and faculty involvement in the programs. In addition to funding, USC, as an insti-
tution, must provide the physical space for these programs, including environments for
centralized academic advising for 1st-year students, outdoor green and field spaces for
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 145
recreation, and classroom and lab space to support tutoring and SI. Providing faculty
members with these spaces outside of their offices can show students that attendance at
a faculty member’s office hours is not the only way to seek out mentorship and a con-
nection with a faculty member. Materials and resources are essential if a comprehen-
sive FYE program is to be created and successful. To that end, USC should take the
following actions:
• Invest in a physical space and create a centralized academic advising unit for
1st-year students. This would take advising out of the schools that focus on
the disciplines and allow for the hiring of academic advisors that can merge
both academic discipline and student resources when working with 1st-year
students.
• Allow faculty members to receive free memberships to the campus recre-
ation center so that they can participate in health and wellness activities with
students. In addition, USC should define specific field spaces for faculty
and students to come together for recreation activities.
• Update the technological environment and create opportunities for faculty
members to engage with students in shared platforms through the informa-
tion technology infrastructure. In addition, USC should examine providing
all faculty members and students with webcams as a part of their orientation
experience so to allow for “face-to-face” connections that meet students
where they are.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 146
Organizational culture is not easy to change. Organizations often suffer from
belief systems and expectations different from the people within the organization (Clark
& Estes, 2008). To align organizational culture with organizational behavior, Kezar
(2006) recommended the following realignment suggestions that support collaboration
and organizational change:
1. Review the mission and campus philosophy of the organization and find
ways to communicate this to all campus stakeholders.
2. Build campus networks that can build momentum for change.
3. Rethink structures and add new ones that support interdisciplinary pro-
grams.
4. Revise campus systems and processes to support collaboration.
5. Alter reward structures.
6. Have senior leadership publicly model collaboration.
7. Build collaboration into strategic plans, reports, and campus documents.
8. Capitalize on external pressures.
9. Promote the values of the organization and identify new ones that support
collaboration.
10. Create workshops and sessions to inform stakeholders about the culture of
collaboration on the campus.
Creating and promoting a sense of cultural support can help redefine the value
system for USC that enables faculty members to have a shared behavioral, emotional,
and cognitive connection to the university (Schein, 2004). Only the leadership of an
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 147
organization can create and change culture (Schein, 2004). It is imperative that if the
support and culture of USC is to change to create a sense of ownership by faculty
members in the success and retention of 1st-year students, then the president, the pro-
vost, and the leaders of the schools must act to make the change.
Organizational Culture and Support Solutions for Critical Gaps
Changing the organizational culture of a college campus comes from within by
the creation of a shared value of collaboration and support (Kezar, 2006). Solutions for
the two most critical organizational and support gaps fall within the realm of changing
the work processes of USC to support collaboration among faculty members, staff
members, and the administration. Collaboration is a process that allows various constit-
uent groups to engage in change through the utilization of shared norms, rules, and
structures (Wood & Gray, 1991). The two lowest gaps occurred in the FYE elements of
careers services and a common reading program. Currently, USC has a career services
program with offices in Student Affairs and the academic schools. Common reading
programs occur in certain academic programs but do not exist across the campus for all
incoming 1st-year students. Solutions for both of these elements lie in the need for
USC create a system of work processes that redesign how the organization of USC
works. Primarily, the essential task is creating the sense of collaboration by rethinking
structures and adding new ones that support interdisciplinary programs, as well as
revising campus systems and processes (Kezar, 2006). In order to do this, first, career
services operations should be centralized and removed from the specific academic
programs. Students, particularly during their 1st year, need guidance about multiple
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 148
careers and major fields, not just the ones specific to their current field of study. Stu-
dents change their majors sometimes multiple times during their college career (Pas-
carella & Terenzini, 2005). A centralized career services program allows students to
seek guidance and faculty members to know how to best work with career services in
the integration of career-based programming into the curriculum. Second, career
services should be staffed not just by career advisors but by faculty from different de-
partments. This situation would not only allow for collaboration between faculty and
staff but would also allow for collaboration among faculty of various disciplines. In
order to do this, a reward structure should be established to encourage more faculty to
be involved with this program (Kezar, 2006).
In the same way, common reading programs should be encouraged from the
institutional level and not the academic school level. A common reading program
should give all incoming students a shared experience and an opportunity to engage
with faculty members about the shared reading. Having students engaging with schol-
arly works and conversations with faculty members is an espoused value of USC, and a
common reading program allows for the continued promotion of this value (Kezar,
2006).
Solutions to the gaps in organizational culture and support might be the most
challenging, as they require a new way of thinking about how work to promote greater
efficiency, effectiveness, and enhanced student learning (Kezar, 2006).
In sum, solutions for the two lowest organizational culture and support gaps
identified in the fourth research question call for USC to align the goals of the
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 149
institution and the various subunits while embracing the need for organizational change
and collaboration (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kezar, 2006). Further solutions should be gen-
erated for the additional critical elements prior to the establishment of a comprehensive
FYE program.
Organizational Culture and Support Recommendations for Implementation
As shown in Table 6, of the 17 critical elements of an FYE program, 11 received
the lowest scores from the faculty within the organizational culture and support con-
struct: (a) academic advising, (b) campus programming, (c) campus recreation, (d)
career services, (e) common reading, (f) First-Year Seminars, (g) learning communities,
(h) mentoring, (I) student counseling, (j) tutoring, and (k) wellness programs. Because
organizational culture and support was the lowest mean of all the elements and had the
most number of elements scoring the lowest, it is important that continued research be
done to understand whether faculty issues lie with work processes, the provision of
material resources, or the alignment of organizational structures at USC. The following
implementation plan, while specific to each element with respect to the information
presented by the faculty in the survey responses and interviews, is broad enough to
examine the need to create a comprehensive FYE program at USC. The plan would
have to be refined based on specific solutions created for each critical element in a
future analysis.
Academic Advising: Process to Help Students Clarify Goals
To provide a centralized academic advising program for 1st-year students, USC
should invest in a physical space to house academic advisors. This merging of space
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 150
would allow the university to create a culture of collaboration among all advisors and
help create a sense of student success when working with students.
Campus Programming: Programs and Activities, Including Social, Multicultural,
Volunteer, and Diversity, That Engage Students Socially
Faculty noted issues with being supported for participating in social program-
ming outside of the classroom and, as a result, did not engage with students in these
activities. USC should evaluate the reward system and tenure process for faculty
members to include more weight given to service to the university, either through their
participation in cocurricular campus programs, advising student organizations, or
attending activities designed to engage students socially.
Campus Recreation: Fitness, Intramurals, and Club Sports
Of the three constructs measured, organizational support was significantly lower
than knowledge and motivation. Faculty members are not afforded the opportunity to
participate in campus recreation programs due to the fact that the USC recreation
programs are not free. USC should allow faculty members to receive free memberships
to the campus recreation center to allow them to participate in health and wellness
activities with students.
Career Services: Career Planning, Placement, Training, and Assessment
Faculty members expressed a significantly low level of support when it came to
being afforded the opportunity to work with the career services units to help them link
classwork to internships and job placement. In order to address this low level of sup-
port from the faculty, USC should examine the strategic plans and documents that
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 151
currently exist. These should be updated with language about collaboration among
academic disciplines and student service units to reflect the need to connect the curricu-
lum and the cocurriculum.
Common Reading: Students Reading the Same Book Followed by Discussion
Groups
Faculty members indicated that USC does not have adequate organizational
systems or structures in place to ensure that a common reading program would be suc-
cessful. The leadership of USC should address this issue by revising the campus sys-
tems and rewarding faculty members who participate in a common reading program.
First-Year Seminars: Courses Designed to Teach Student Survival and Success
Techniques
USC currently has a set of freshman seminars taught by faculty that are disci-
pline specific. However, there are no courses that are focused solely on student success
at the university and include elements of time management, study skills necessary in the
collegiate environment, or test-taking strategies. Senior leadership at USC has often
been against the creation of such courses, and faculty indicate a lack of support for these
types of courses. Faculty members must be given the opportunity to initiate a First-Year
Success Seminar and be given the materials necessary to do so. This type of course
should be incorporated into a centralized FYE support office that can help faculty
members understand how to create this office and provide them the necessary tools to
do it.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 152
Learning Communities: Clusters of Courses Around a Theme
Prior to 2010, USC had learning communities that were housed in the Dornsife
College. With the new leadership in the Dornsife College, these were eliminated.
Understandably, faculty members now feel a lack of support and do not believe that the
curriculum is designed in a way to support learning communities. Creating learning
communities can be done by integrating the curriculum with the elements and tenants of
FYE and providing faculty with a reward structure that will encourage their participa-
tion. Learning communities can foster enhanced student success and closer mentor
relationships if supported by USC leadership.
Mentoring: Faculty Support of Student Needs in and out of the Classroom
Faculty members perceived a disconnect in the support structure for the develop-
ment of mentoring relationships with students, although they felt that they had the
knowledge and motivation to develop these relationships. Faculty members must be
given the time and resources to develop relationships with students both in and out of
the classroom. In order to do so, mentoring opportunities should be outlined for faculty
members, and those who participate should be allowed a reduction in teaching loads to
ensure that students are receiving one-on-one faculty attention.
Student Counseling: Counseling on Issues Related to College Transition and Early
Adulthood
Although the three constructs of knowledge, motivation, and organizational
support measured were relatively similar, faculty did score organizational culture the
lowest, thus indicating a lack of support when referring students for additional
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 153
assistance. Student counseling services must reach out to faculty members more so as
to educate them about the services but also to help them understand their role in refer-
rals. Staff psychologists are bound by patient privacy issues, but some sort of protocol
should be developed to keep faculty members who do referrals educated about their
students.
Tutoring: One-on-One or Group Pairings to Help Students With Course Content
Faculty members expressed a value in the concept of tutoring but also expressed
low levels of organizational support specifically regarding resources. USC should
invest in more physical spaces for tutoring and coordinate additional technological
elements to provide more tutoring services to students who are not always on campus.
Tutoring does not always have to be in person but could be alternately be done through
chat sessions and new forms of social media.
Wellness Programs: Promotion of Health and Education
Wellness programs were rated low in both motivation and organizational sup-
port. To address the organizational support, faculty members must be given opportuni-
ties to engage with wellness programs and activities. Examples would include provid-
ing faculty with memberships to the campus recreation center, encouraging faculty
members who participate in wellness programs at their own gym to change to the one
located on campus, and allowing faculty members time to promote healthy lifestyles
through the delivery of their course content.
To summarize, solutions for the 11 elements that scored the lowest in the organi-
zational culture and support construct identified by the faculty in the research survey
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 154
call for a variety of tools to provide faculty members with changes in work processes,
additional material resources, and to create a culture of collaboration (Clark & Estes,
2008). While some of the tools are specific to the element and the organizational
culture domain addressed, some tools are designed to create a culture of student success
on a larger scale about not only the elements of the FYE program but also the compre-
hensive connection of FYE to student success and retention.
Summary
This chapter provided potential solutions for the causes of the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational culture gaps related to faculty involvement in the cre-
ation of a comprehensive FYE program at USC. The solutions were derived from the
research literature. The following chapter provides a synthesis of the results from the
research study and offers an assessment and evaluation plan of the proposed solutions.
In addition, a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, further
research required, and study limitations conclude the chapter.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 155
Chapter 6
Implementation and Recommendations
Not only has USC experienced tremendous growth over the last 20 years, but the
university has also witnessed a change in the types of students attending the institution.
These changing demographics have elevated the university to top-tier status and have
helped to solidify USC as an elite research institution. However, with such prominence
has come responsibility. While the freshman-to-sophomore retention rate remains at
95%, there is a group of students who depart from the university each year. In addition,
close to 10% of students either are on academic probation or are hovering right above
academic probation at the end of their 1st semester. In order to help prepare these
students for the rigor of collegiate work and to provide them with the tools necessary to
be successful in and out of the classroom, the leadership of USC, including the faculty,
must provide resources and services during the critical 1st year.
While institutions of higher education across the country have developed com-
prehensive First-Year Experience programs with varying means of accomplishment
(Barefoot, 2005), USC has services and resources fractionalized and decentralized
throughout the academic schools and departments. This decentralization often makes it
challenging for students to discover and utilize the resources available to them, particu-
larly during their 1st year when many do not know where to begin. USC students, no
matter what their background or previous schooling, need institutional support to be
successful at the collegiate level. The mission statement (USC, Board of Trustees,
1993) indicates that the “first priority as faculty and staff is the education of our
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 156
students, from freshmen to postdoctorals, through a broad array of academic, profes-
sional, extracurricular and athletic programs of the first rank” (p. 1). In order to accom-
plish this goal, a very clear understanding of the goal is imperative.
The gap analysis approach (Clark & Estes, 2008) lends itself well to the chal-
lenge of problem solving in educational institutions. The setting of goals; discovering
the gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture; and then determining
solutions to close the gaps can help institutions like USC to better fulfill the goals set
forth by the institution. The innovation gap analysis model applied in this study ad-
dressed the institutional goal of helping 1st-year students succeed and ultimately closing
the gap to achieve a 100% retention of 1st-year students. The model allowed the re-
searcher to identify the barriers that may prevent the goal from being achieved; to
analyze gaps in the constructs of knowledge, motivation, and organizational culture; to
create an implementation plan of solutions; and finally to present a process to assess and
evaluate for continuous improvement.
The focus of the study was on the faculty in the USC Dornsife College of Let-
ters, Arts, and Sciences. These faculty are most likely to interact with 1st-year students
through the general education program, which is housed in the Dornsife College.
Faculty are central to the educational experience of students. By using USC as a case
study, a better understanding of a process to assess faculty engagement in student reten-
tion and in the creation of program elements designed to achieve student success was
achieved. The findings from this study may be useful to other institutions of higher
education that are seeking to develop comprehensive FYE programs.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 157
Operationalization
The first piece of this study was to determine which critical components of a
comprehensive FYE program at USC faculty members in the USC Dornsife College
considered the priority for implementation. This process allowed the faculty members
to operationalize the term first-year experience by providing input on which of the
critical elements of an FYE program they deemed necessary for immediate enactment.
The faculty of USC Dornsife then identified the critical elements that they most valued
in the creation of a comprehensive FYE program for USC.
Using the gap analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), the second part of the
survey was constructed around the critical elements of a FYE program that the research
has shown to contribute to student retention. Faculty were asked questions to assess
their self-awareness and self-perceptions of the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational culture and support required to create a comprehensive FYE program. In
addition, five faculty members were selected at random to participate in an interview
that allowed the researcher to gain more information about the barriers present. Ques-
tions in the interview were also constructed around the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational culture and support constructs. Results of the survey and the interviews
led to an analysis of the largest gaps, both individually among the critical elements of an
FYE program and in the creation of a comprehensive program. Solutions were then
addressed for each element to create an implementation plan.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 158
Faculty-Perceived Gaps
Overall, the results of the survey and interviews showed that the faculty of USC
Dornsife perceived a lack of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational
culture specific to the various elements presented to them of a comprehensive FYE
program. However, further examination demonstrated greater gaps in both organiza-
tional culture and knowledge and skills. Faculty indicated that there is less of an organi-
zational culture around the idea of support programs for students and that, as faculty
members, they would not have support from the leadership to be involved in either the
individual critical elements or the creation of a comprehensive program. In addition, in
six of the 17 elements, faculty members’ perceptions indicated a lack of knowledge
about the elements or how to incorporate them into their classroom environment.
As an example, with respect to the FYE critical element of a common reading
program, faculty perceived that they had the practical skills needed to create a common
reading program, and they indicated a high level of value and interest in creating a
common reading program. However, they felt that the leadership of USC did not
support the creation of a common reading program and that the university, because of
the culture of decentralization, does not support the development of a common reading
program at this time.
Another example was found within the FYE critical element of orientation
programming. The results of both the survey and the qualitative interviews showed that
faculty members highly valued and placed importance on a successful orientation
program for incoming students and that the university supports a strong orientation
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 159
program. However, faculty acknowledged that their knowledge of what an orientation
program includes and how to build an effective orientation program did not have the
same strength, as represented by a low mean score on the survey and interview re-
sponses that indicated a lack of awareness of what orientation actually includes.
Solutions to Perceived Gaps and Implementation Plan
The solutions in the gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization
culture and support were presented in two ways. First, a broad range of solutions was
generated based on current research and literature that would support closing the gaps in
the three dimensions. Second, specific solutions were generated from the broad solu-
tions for the lowest two elements, as determined by the faculty members. Knowledge
and skills solutions were presented to address gaps in the factual, conceptual, proce-
dural, and metacognitive knowledge dimensions discussed by Anderson and Krathwohl
(2001). Organizational culture and support solutions were presented to address gaps in
work processes, material resources, and collaboration (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kezar,
2006). No solutions were presented for motivation, as no element had motivation as the
lowest scoring construct. Following the solutions, a broad implementation plan was
generated to help further close the gaps. The broad plan focused on each critical ele-
ment of an FYE program so as to suggest how to create a comprehensive FYE program
when further detailed analysis is conducted. Each critical element’s lowest scoring
construct was highlighted with implementation suggestions to address the gap for that
element. Six of the elements focused on knowledge and skills while eleven focused on
organizational culture and support.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 160
Analysis of Framework
This study called for the use of two major frameworks to address the perceived
gaps of faculty in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture and
support as they related to the creation of a comprehensive FYE program for USC. The
overarching framework of this study, within the realm of FYE and student retention,
was that of the National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition (2013). This included the key elements of FYE programs, the definitions of
student success, and the incorporation of the key elements on college campuses.
The second major framework was the gap analysis model for problem solving
(Clark & Estes, 2008). There are eight essential components of this model. First, a
process to identify the goal must be completed that can provide clear direction for the
organization. Second, the current reality of the situation must be analyzed to achieve
the third step, determining the gaps that exist. Fourth, assumed causes are determined
within the constructs of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture
and support that will lead to the measurement and the fifth step: the validation of the
causes of the gaps. Following the validation of the gaps, solutions based on literature
and research in learning, motivation, and organizational theory are identified, imple-
mented, and finally, evaluated.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
The gap analysis approach (Clark & Estes, 2008) has both advantages and dis-
advantages in educational problem solving. First and foremost, the single greatest
advantage is that it allows researchers and practitioners to link goals with solutions and
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 161
implementation strategies. The approach requires that solutions be based in research
and address closing gaps that are made evident in the constructs of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational culture and support.
Secondly, the gap analysis process can be adapted to various educational settings
and problem-solving situations. Although the creation of a large and comprehensive
FYE program, by necessity, include various stakeholders from around the university,
the approach can also be utilized in the establishment of smaller departmental goals and
individual goals for work teams.
Although the gap analysis model (Clark & Estes, 2008) has advantages, it also
has weaknesses associated with it. The most significant issue is time and resources. In
order for the approach to be the most effective, all stakeholders from an organization
should be included in the process. In determining how to create a comprehensive FYE
program at an institution like USC, all faculty, all administrators, all staff, and all
students should be involved. The approach also requires aligning institutional goals
with school goals, department goals, and individual work goals. In the case of FYE at
USC, such a full gap analysis process would require a lengthy time period and alloca-
tion of resources. The creation of survey instruments, interviews of stakeholders, and
document analysis processes would be necessary for all stakeholders to participate.
Data from multiple sources would be required to increase validity.
To determine whether a full gap analysis approach (Clark & Estes, 2008) would
be a worthwhile undertaking, a cost-benefit analysis should be performed, which would
include analyzing the time and resources available to conduct the process against the
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 162
value of the benefits that would be achieved from conducting the process. For USC, the
benefits would include higher levels of student success that could impact student reten-
tion, not just in the 1st year but in the following years of a student’s tenure at the institu-
tion. In addition, the creation of a comprehensive FYE program for students would be
an opportunity for the leadership of USC to say to students, both current and prospec-
tive, that the institution believes in their success both in and out of the classroom.
Recommendations and Implications
The study yielded recommended solutions to address the gaps in the knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational culture support of the faculty members in
USC Dornsife. These solutions have implications for practice. The most critical is that
faculty members must be engaged in the success of students in and out of the classroom
(Ishler & Upcraft, 2005). Faculty members must be more than just teachers. They must
be involved in the process of learning for all students in all types of areas. Moreover, if
an FYE program is to be successful, faculty members must participate in every element
(Hunter, 2006). They must be prepared with the knowledge and skills and the motiva-
tion to enact the important changes that can result in increased student success and
retention. In addition, they need the support from the leadership of USC, including
professional development, funding, and opportunities to be rewarded for their engage-
ment. Additional data are needed to identify and close potential gaps to address the
specific areas of knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational support, as show-
cased by this study. Conducting additional analysis, while broadening this study to
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 163
include all faculty across the institution who work with 1st-year students, will result in
further recommendations to help close the gaps.
Evaluation
The final step in the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008) is to evaluate
and assess the implementation plan in closing the gaps. In this innovation application of
the gap analysis model, the evaluation process is recommended for the future to deter-
mine the success of the creation of a comprehensive FYE program and the impact on
retention. The evaluation plan detailed below will help determine the effectiveness of
the FYE program once it has been created and implemented at USC. If faculty mem-
bers, particularly those who teach 1st-year courses, successfully increase their knowl-
edge and skills and motivation and if the university as a whole creates a culture of
support, then the FYE program should be successful and 1st-year students should be
retained at higher levels.
To evaluate and assess the effectiveness of the FYE program at USC, Kirk-
patrick’s (1998) four levels of evaluation could be used to determine the success of the
creation and implementation of the program. The four levels of evaluation are de-
scribed below, and a detailed assessment plan is recommended prior to the launch of the
FYE program at USC.
Level 1: Participants Reactions during Implementation
The first level of evaluation measures what participants think and feel about a
program and usually takes the shape of satisfaction surveys (Kirkpatrick, 1998). This
level measures motivational influences, such as interest, value, and self-efficacy, as well
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 164
as the attitudes displayed during the implementation phase. Questions during this
phase should include the following:
1. Do faculty members like the activities associated with the recommenda-
tions?
2. Do faculty members value the implementation activities?
3. Are faculty members interested in the critical components of the FYE?
Methods. After each workshop, webinar, or orientation session, feedback forms
should be utilized to allow faculty members to provide ongoing feedback using both
Likert scale and open-ended items. Successful implementation of the recommendations
will be indicated by positive feedback and a stronger connection to the FYE program.
Level 2: Increase in Knowledge and Change in Attitudes During Implementation
This evaluation level, occurring during the implementation and most often as a
knowledge demonstration or posttest, measures an increase in the knowledge and skills
of the faculty member and/or a change in the attitudes toward either the critical compo-
nents of a FYE program or a comprehensive FYE program at USC as a result of the
intervention. Questions during this phase should include the following:
1. Are faculty members able to describe the FYE critical components in more
detail?
2. Are the faculty members more motivated to implement the critical compo-
nents and/or a comprehensive FYE program?
Methods. USC should create faculty committees that monitor and assess the
knowledge of the faculty members during and immediately after the implementation
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 165
activities discussed in Chapter 5. If the implementation is successful, faculty members
should demonstrate increased awareness of the FYE critical components, be able to
articulate what they mean, and be able to incorporate them into the curriculum and
cocurriculum at USC.
Level 3: Transfer of Learning and Change in Behavior
This evaluation level measures whether there is a transfer of the knowledge,
skills, and motivation from the training (i.e., workshops) to workplace situations and
occurs through observations (Kirkpatrick, 1998). Questions during this phase should
include the following:
1. Do faculty members incorporate the critical components of an FYE program
into their work with students?
2. Do faculty members participate in both curricular and cocurricular FYE
activities associated with the overall program?
3. Are faculty members able to make appropriate and correct referrals for at-
risk students?
Methods. Several methods should be employed to determine whether faculty
members are able to transfer their learning to their roles as teachers and mentors. First,
USC should engage in a comprehensive observation system that observes faculty mem-
bers in the classrooms, their office hours, and their work with 1st-year students. These
observations should analyze whether faculty members can incorporate the language of
FYE and student success in their teaching styles and their work with individual stu-
dents. Secondly, a comprehensive review of course syllabi should occur to determine
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 166
whether faculty members are utilizing appropriate language and resources to encourage
1st-year student success. Third, a system of tracking should be developed to determine
whether faculty members are engaged in the critical components of an FYE program
both in and out of the classroom. Successful execution of the recommendations will be
reflected in greater participation by faculty members in the FYE program elements, as
well as an increased use of resources and services discussed with students who need
additional attention in the classroom.
Level 4: Measurement of FYE Program on Retention
This evaluation method will measure the final results (Kirkpatrick, 1998). Ulti-
mately, the global goal of the implementation of an FYE program is to successfully
increase student retention to 100% from the 1st year to the 2nd year, while simultane-
ously making sure that students are not on academic probation following the 1st year.
This level of evaluation will measure the impact of the FYE program on the retention
rate of 1st-year students as well as their academic progress toward graduation. Ques-
tions during this phase should include the following:
1. Has the FYE program contributed to retention?
2. Are 1st-year students more likely to use the FYE programs and services?
3. Has the percentage of students on academic probation gone down?
Methods. To determine whether the FYE program is successful, a multiyear
research project must be implemented immediately upon the launch of the program.
Data on student achievement and participation in the FYE elements should be gathered
and tracked to determine whether students who utilize the FYE program elements are
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 167
more likely to be retained and are successful in and out of the classroom. In addition,
faculty and students should be questioned at multiple points during the academic year to
obtain qualitative feedback on the program so that immediate adjustments can be made
for the benefit of the student. In the end, if faculty members and students are participat-
ing in the FYE program elements, if the retention rate of 1st-year students increases, and
if the number of 1st-year students on academic probation decreases, then the FYE
program will have proved to be a success.
As USC develops, implements, and assesses the effectiveness of both the FYE
program elements and the comprehensive FYE program, it is further recommended that
the university leadership work closely with the National Resource Center for the First-
Year Experience to collect both site-based data and benchmark data with comparison
colleges and universities. It is further recommended that USC employ site visits by
faculty and staff from peer institutions who have successfully developed an FYE pro-
gram to make recommendations for continued success. Finally, USC should utilize
empirical research to support any and all changes. Solutions to gaps in knowledge,
motivation, and organizational support may be better accepted by faculty members
across the various disciplines if rooted in empirical-based research (Clark & Estes,
2008).
Limitations of Study
There are several limitations to this study. It is important to note that the re-
searcher is currently the Director of Orientation Programs at USC. Because orientation
is a critical element of an FYE program and was ultimately measured in this study, the
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 168
potential for bias does exist. In an effort to reduce the bias, the researcher did not
indicate that he was the Director of Orientation Programs when asking for surveys or
during the interviews, and the interviews were structured in a way so as not to allow the
researcher to ask follow-up questions regarding any mention of orientation (either
positive or negative) by a faculty member.
Second, the survey items were generated by the researcher and were not tested
on any outside audiences for reliability prior to the launch of the survey for this study.
The survey and interview invitations were extended only to faculty members in the USC
Dornsife College of Letters, Arts, and Sciences. There are no comparable data to a
wider population outside of USC that could be used as a benchmark for the survey. In
addition, the faculty members from the other schools and departments within USC were
not asked to complete the survey or offered an opportunity to interview. The researcher
made the decision that the use of the Dornsife College was sufficient based on the
demographics and teaching assignments of those faculty members.
Third, this study was not benchmarked against similar or aspirational institutions
with respect to knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational culture and sup-
port. What appeared to be a lower scoring item (e.g., faculty perception of organiza-
tional culture and support) may actually be very high if compared to other institutions
with similar demographics and programs. The scores are relative only to the self-
perceptions of the faculty members in the USC Dornsife College who chose to partici-
pate in the study.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 169
Fourth, the decision of the researcher to employ the gap analysis model only to
tenure-track faculty members was also a limitation. USC employs many adjunct faculty
and instructors who might also have been quality participants for this study. In addition,
no staff members, administrators, or students were surveyed; and their perceptions of an
FYE program at USC could potentially change the direction in which the university
chooses to go when developing a comprehensive program. The responses of staff, ad-
ministrators, and students could potentially have had an impact on the knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational culture constructs. Staff members, particularly
those in Student Affairs, play major roles in current FYE programming at USC, and
students’ opinions of USC would impact organizational culture and support. Time and
resources precluded the option to include stakeholders from across the various demo-
graphics.
Finally, it should be noted that the decision to utilize only a survey and qualita-
tive interviews was a limitation. Additional qualitative measures, such as artifact and
document reviews, would strengthen the validity and reliability of this study.
Future Research
This research study has modeled a process of innovative problem solving, better
known as a gap analysis process, developed by Clark and Estes (2008) and later refined
by Rueda (2011). This process has identified the development of a comprehensive FYE
program as an organizational goal for USC to address 1st-year student retention, aca-
demic achievement, and persistence toward graduation. The researcher recommends a
number of areas for future research that should enable USC to achieve meaningful
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 170
results, including the utilization of a complete gap analysis process, benchmarking,
research design, program implementation sequencing and procedures, and a detailed
assessment plan.
First, a full gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008) of the goal of creating a
comprehensive FYE program that will impact student retention and academic achieve-
ment would include an analysis of all stakeholders: students, parents, staff, administra-
tors, and faculty from all disciplines throughout the university. Due to the time con-
straints, the current analysis focused solely on faculty members within the USC
Dornsife College to meet the goal. Understanding the perceptions of all stakeholders
would provide a clearer picture of the institutional challenges and barriers that exist in
the implementation of an FYE program and the critical elements.
In addition to a full gap analysis of all stakeholders, a benchmarking study of
peer and aspirational institutions that have developed or are in the process of developing
an FYE program would assist the faculty and administration of USC in better under-
standing the creation and implementation of a FYE program. A benchmarking study
would allow faculty and staff to see the impact of FYE programs on similar college
campuses. A benchmarking study would also allow for a determination of how faculty
members were utilized in the creation of a FYE program, as well as the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational culture and support gaps that existed and how those were
overcome.
For the purpose of this study, a survey was distributed to faculty members, and
then five faculty members were interviewed to triangulate the data. Further qualitative
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 171
research should be done in the form of document analysis, including a detailed review
and analysis of the university mission, strategic plan, and leadership statements regard-
ing student success. This would provide answers to questions such as: “What is the
philosophy of student achievement at USC? What does the administration view as the
necessary elements to student retention and achievement?” In addition, the same survey
and interviews should be conducted on faculty members outside of the USC Dornsife
College and seek to gain information from faculty members in the professional schools.
Additional research in program sequencing and implementation should be com-
pleted to better equip faculty and administrators with an effective timeline for launching
a comprehensive FYE program. Understanding this issue could answer questions such
as, “What do we do first? Where do we start?” Certain program elements already exist
at USC; however, they are decentralized across administrative units and schools. Many
elements that do not exist require a sequencing of launching in order to build upon one
another. For example, to establish an effective learning communities component, it is
first necessary to identify and establish effective mentoring programs and effective
First-Year Seminar programs. Prior to the implementation of a comprehensive FYE
program, USC administrators, faculty, and staff should research the priority for se-
quencing the various elements and develop effective procedures that will result in
stakeholder support.
Finally, a critical area for future research lies within the evaluation and assess-
ment of the individual program elements and the comprehensive FYE program. Be-
cause many of the program elements already exist in some form at USC, it will be
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 172
important to gather the evaluation and assessment data of these programs to obtain a
baseline for their success. In addition, USC has the retention and academic achieve-
ment figures dating back over the past 25 years. These data should allow USC to gain a
valuable understanding of demographic trends within the student population and to
factor out any outlier information. As the FYE program is designed in a more compre-
hensive way and launched to current and future 1st-year students, summative evaluation
data can be utilized to further address the gaps and provide more detailed solutions as
the plan is implemented.
Conclusion
In the past 15 years, USC could be described as transformational. It has trans-
formed itself into a world-class, elite, private institution serving the needs of students,
faculty, the community, and the world. The demographics of the students have shifted
over time; the typical student at USC is admitted with stronger test scores, higher
grades, and very different ambitions compared to the type of student admitted just 15
years ago. However, as the USC student has become higher achieving, the university
has become more rigorous. The expectations placed on students are higher than ever
before, and there is a desire to provide students with a quality undergraduate education
that rivals any college from around the world. With the rise of expectations also comes
the need to provide resources and services to students to help with their transition to
college or university life. It makes sense to frontload those services in the 1st year in
order to help students gain a better understanding of their new roles as scholars in an
academic community.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 173
This case study may be used as an example to inform USC and other institutions
of higher education on how to develop an effective FYE program model and set up
students up for success. It provides a process for the assessment of the knowledge and
motivation of faculty members who are instrumental in student success. In addition, it
measures the organizational culture and support that faculty members have in meeting
the demands of creating quality programs and services to assist students both in and out
of the classroom. The decision to use USC was intentional. USC has experienced very
significant growth and student achievement over the past 15 years and has risen in
college and university rankings at a rapid pace. USC has many of the FYE elements in
some form; the next step is reviewing those to determine how to create a comprehensive
program that will serve all students across academic lines. This process provided a
unique opportunity to examine the perceptions of faculty on program elements outside
of the classroom that can contribute to student success.
This study provided an opportunity to examine the gaps that existed across the
constructs of faculty knowledge, motivation, and organizational support so as to better
understand faculty perceptions with respect to providing standard FYE programs. It
allowed for an in-depth review of what it means to be a faculty member in today’s
college or university setting with competing demands but never forgetting the impor-
tance of the university goal of providing a quality undergraduate experience, both in and
out of the classroom. In addition, it allowed the researcher to present viable solutions
and recommendations to help close the identified gaps that might prevent USC from
developing a comprehensive FYE program that benefits student retention and
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 174
achievement. The barriers to creating the program lie across the spectrum and include
gaps in knowledge, motivation, and organizational support. Some of these are related to
the faculty members themselves and some to the nature of the organization.
Under the leadership of the current president and provost, USC is poised to be a
leader among leaders in a countless number of fields and research. One of the opportu-
nities lies in the field of student success. USC can and should focus on closing the
faculty gaps in knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational support and creat-
ing a plan to build a comprehensive FYE program that benefits the students and ulti-
mately the institution. If these areas are analyzed, addressed, and closed, they will not
become barriers to the long-term goal of achieving an institutional goal of being a world
leader in the development and delivery of undergraduate education. When the gap is
closed and an FYE program is successfully developed and launched, more students will
be successful, more students will be retained, and the quality of the university will
continue to rise.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 175
References
Ackermann, S. P. (1991). The benefits of summer bridge programs for underrepresented
and low-incoming students. College & University, 66, 201–208.
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns,
and improvement. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/Toolbox/toolbox.html
Adelman, C. (2004). Principal indicators of student academic histories in post-
secondary education, 1972-2000. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/
research/pubs/prinindicat/prinindicat.pdf
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Higher education crosses borders: Can the United States remain
the top destination for foreign students? Change, 36(2), 18–25.
American Association of University Professors. (1966). Statement on government of
colleges and universities. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/
policydocs/contents/governancestatement.htm
American College Testing. (2007). Rigor at risk: Reaffirming quality in the high
school core curriculum. Iowa, City, IA: Author.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York,
NY: Longman.
Ashburn, E. (2011, August 21). Students’ characteristics haven’t changed much, but
attitudes have. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle
.com/article/Characteristics-Havent-Changed/128608/
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 176
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence of college
readiness. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 886–924.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Barefoot, B. O. (2000). The first-year experience: Are we making it any better? About
Campus, 4(6),12-18.
Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Current institutional practice in the first year of college. In M. L.
Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot, (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the
first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 27–46).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropout and turnover. The synthesis and test of a causal model of
student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155–187.
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2001). The psychology underlying successful retention prac-
tices. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1), 73–89.
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university administration,
Vol. 1, The state of the system. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 177
Bound, J., Lovenheim, M. F., & Turner, S. (2010). Why have college complete rates
declined? A analysis of changing student preparation and collegiate resources.
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(3), 129–157.
Boylan, H. R., Bliss, L. B., & Bonham, B. S. (1997). Program components and their
relationship to student performance. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(3),
2–8.
Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A.V., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of
college student departure. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education handbook: Hand-
book of theory and research (pp. 107–164). New York, NY: Agathon Press.
Brownstein, A. (2000, October 13). The next great generation? Chronicle of Higher
Education, 47(7), A71-A72.
Bryant, S. E., & Terborg, J. R. (2008). Impact of peer mentor training on creating and
sharing organizational knowledge. Journal of Managerial Issues, 20(1), 11–29.
Bureau, C. A., & Romrey, J. D. (1994). A longitudinal study of retention and academic
performance of participants in freshman orientation course. Journal of College
Student Development, 45, 444–449.
Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence
between two theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 63,
143–164.
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2003). Chronicle of Higher Education [Special
almanac issue], 50(1).
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 178
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results. Charlotte, NC: Informa-
tion Age.
Conley, D. T. (2005). College knowledge: What it really takes for students to succeed
and what we can do to get them ready. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Conley, D. T. (2007). The challenge of college readiness. Educational Leadership,
64(7), 23–29.
Conner, U. J.,& Colton, G. M. (1999). Transition from high school to college: Con-
structing a Freshman Seminar to improve academic performance and student
retention. In S. Lipsky (Ed.), Selected proceedings from the annual conferences of
the Pennsylvania Association of Developmental Educators (pp. 20–25). Retrieved
from ERIC database. (ED428632)
Coomes, M. D., & DeBard, R. (2004). A generational approach to understanding stu-
dents. In M. D. Coomes & R. DeBard (Eds.), Serving the millennial generation (pp.
5–16). New Directions for Student Services Series, No. 106. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey- Bass.
Cope, R. G., & Hannah, W. (1975). Revolving college doors: The causes and conse-
quences of dropping out, stopping out, and transferring. New York, NY: Wiley.
Crissman, J. L. (2001–2002). The impact of clustering First-Year Seminars with Eng-
lish composition courses on new students’ retention rates. Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 3, 137–152.
Cuseo, J. (2008). Got faculty? Promoting faculty involvement in FYE programs and
initiatives. Esource for College Transitions, 6(2), 4–6.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 179
Daft, R. L. (1983). Organization, theory and design. St. Paul, MN: West.
Dale, P. M., & Zych, T. (1996). A successful college retention program. College Student
Journal, 30, 354–360.
Daubman, K. A., Williams, V. G., Johnson, D. H., & Crump, D. (1985). Time of with-
drawal and academic performance: Implications for withdrawal policies. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 26, 518–524.
Davis-Underwood, M., & Lee, J. (1994). An evaluation of the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte Freshman Seminar. Journal of College Student Development,
35, 491–492.
DeAngelo, L., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., Kelly, K. R., Santos, J. L., & Korn, W. S.
(2009). The American college teacher: National norms for the 2007-2008 HERI
faculty survey. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Los Angeles, Higher
Education Research Institute.
DeBerard, M. S., Spielmans, G. I., & Julka, D. L. (2004). Predictors of academic
achievement and retention among college freshman: A longitudinal study. College
Student Journal, 38(1), 66-80.
Dey, F., & Real, M. (2010). Emerging trends in university career services: Adaptation
of Casella’s career centers paradigm. National Association of Colleges and Em-
ployers Journal, 71(1), 31–35.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York, NY: Free Press.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 180
Education Trust. (2001). Youth at the crossroads: Facing high school and beyond.
Thinking K-16, 5(1). Retrieved from http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/
85897615-327E-4269-939A-4E14B96861BB/0/k16_winter01.pdf
Elam, C., Stratton, T., & Gibson, D. D. (2007). Welcoming a new generation to college:
The millennial students. Journal of College Admission, 195, 20–25.
Evenback, S., & Hamilton, S. (2006). From my course to our program: Collective re-
sponsibility for first-year student success. Peer Review, 8(3), 17–19.
Fidler, P. P., & Moore, P. S. (1996). A comparison of effects of campus residence and
Freshman Seminar attendance on freshman dropout rates. Journal of the Freshman
Year Experience, 8(2), 7–16.
Fink, L. D. (1992). Orientation programs for new faculty. New Directions for Teaching
and Learning, 1992(50), 39–49.
Gaff, J. G. (2007). What if the faculty really do assume responsibility for the educa-
tional program? Liberal Education, 93(4), 6–13.
Gardner, J. N. (1986). The freshman year experience. Journal of the American Associa-
tion of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 61, 261–274.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Goodman, K., & Pascarella, E. (2006). First-Year Seminars increase persistence and re-
tention: A summary of the evidence. Journal of the Association of American Col-
leges and Universities, 8(3), 26–28.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 181
Green, J. P., & Forester, G. (2003). Public high school graduation and college readi-
ness rates in the United States (Working Paper Number 3). New York, NY: Center
for Civic Innovation, The Manhattan Institute.
Hendel, D. D. (2006–2007). Efficacy of participating in a First-Year Seminar on student
satisfaction and retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory
and Practice, 8, 413–423.
Hotchkiss, J. L., Moore, R. E., & Potts, M. M. (2006). Freshman learning communities,
college performance and retention. Education Economics, 14, 197–210.
Howe, W., & Strauss, N. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New
York, NY: Vintage Books.
Howe, W., & Strauss, N. (2003). Millennials go to college: Strategies for a new genera-
tion on campus. Washington, DC: American Association of Collegiate Registrars
and Admission Officers.
Hunter, M. S. (2006). Fostering student learning and success through first-year pro-
grams. PeerReview, 8(3), 4–7.
Hunter, M. S. & Linder, C. W. (2005). First-Year Seminars. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N.
Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year stu-
dent: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 275–291). San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ishler, J. L. (2005). Today’s first-year students. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner & B. O.
Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for
improving the first year of college (pp. 15–26). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 182
Ishler, J. L., & Upcraft, M. L. (2005). The keys to first-year student persistence. In M. L.
Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the
first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 27–46).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jamelske, E. (2008). Measure the impact of a university first-year experience program
on student GPA and retention. Higher Education, 53, 373–391.
Jones, D. G., Albrecht, A. C., Minix, D. A., & Weissenburger, D. (2009, December).
Using summer bridge programs to enhance college readiness, improve student
retention, and increase completion rates. Paper presented to the Southern Associa-
tion of Colleges and Schools, Atlanta, GA.
Keenan, K., & Gabovitch, R. (1995, October). Evaluating the impact of a Freshman
Seminar program on student development and retention. Paper presented at the
annual conference of the North East Association for Institutional Research,
Burlington, VT.
Kezar, A. (2006). Redesigning for collaboration in learning initiatives: An examination
of four highly collaborative campuses. Journal of Higher Education, 77, 804–838.
King, M. C., & Kerr, T. J. (2005). Academic advising. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner,
& B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A
handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 320–338). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kirby, D., & Sharpe, D. (2001). Student attrition from Newfoundland and Labrador’s
public college. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 47, 353–368.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 183
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Barrett-Koehler.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006) Seven keys to unlock the four levels of evaluation. Perfor-
mance Improvement, 45(7), 5–8. doi:10.1002/pfi.2006.4930450702
Klein, H. J., & Weaver, N. A. (2000). The effectiveness of an organizational-level
orientation training program in the socialization of new hires. Personnel Psychol-
ogy, 53(1), 47–66.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What
matters to student success: A review of the literature. Retrieved from http://nces.ed
.gov/npec/papers/asp
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are, why
they clash, how to solve the generational puzzle at work. New York, NY: Harper
Business.
Lau, L. K. (2003). Institutional factors affecting student retention. Education, 124(1),
126–136.
Laufgraben, J. L. (2005). Learning communities. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, &
B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A hand-
book for improving the first year of college (pp. 371–387). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Levinson-Rose, J. & Menges, R. J. (1981). Improving college teaching: A critical
review of research. Review of Educational Research, 51, 403–434.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 184
Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (1989). Connecting students to institutions: Keys to retention and
success. In M. L. Upcraft & J. N. Gardner (Eds.), The freshman year experience
(pp. 65-81). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levitz, R. S., Noel, L., & Richter, B. J. (1999). Strategic moves for retention success.
New Directions for Higher Education, 1999(108), 31–49. doi:10.1002/he.10803
Lewis, K., Lange, D., & Gills, L. (2005). Transactive memory systems, learning, and
learning transfer. Organization Science, 16, 581–598.
Lizzio, A. (2006). Five senses of success: Designing effective orientation and engage-
ment processes. South Brisbane QLD, Australia: Griffith University.
Lu, L. (1994). University transition: major and minor stressors, personality characteris-
tics and mental health. Psychological Medicine, 24(1), 81–87.
Martin, D. C., & Hurley, M. (2005). Supplemental instruction. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N.
Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year stu-
dent: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 308–319). San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson.
McGrath, M., & Braunstein, A. (1997). The prediction of freshmen attrition: An exami-
nation of the importance of certain demographic, academic, financial, and social
factors. College Student Journal, 31, 396–408.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 185
Melguizo, T. (2011). A review of the theories developed to describe the process of
college persistence and attainment. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education hand-
book: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 395–424). New York, NY: Agathon
Press.
Moore, G. W., Slate, J. R., Edmonson, S. L., Combs, J. P., Bustamante, R., & Onwueg-
buzie, A. J. (2010). High school students and their lack of preparedness for college:
A statewide study. Education and Urban Society, 42, 817–838.
Mullendore, R. H., Banahan, L. A., & Ramsey, J. L. (2005). Developing a partnership
with today’s college parents. In K. Keepler, R. H. Mullendore, & A. Carey (Eds.),
Partnering with the parents of today’s college students (pp. 1–10). Washington,
DC: NASPA.
Murray, N. D. (1997) Welcome the future: The millennial generation. Journal of Career
Planning & Employment, 57(3), 36–42.
Murtaugh, P. A., Burns, L. D., Schuster, J. (1999). Predicting the retention of university
students. Research in Higher Education, 40, 355–371.
Myers, R. D. (2003). College success programs. Retrieved from http://www
.pathwaystocollege.net/pdf/CollegeSuccessPrograms.pdf
National Research Council. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students’
motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
(2013). About the Center. Retrieved from http://www.sc.edu/fye/center/index.html
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 186
Neumann, A. (1995). Context, cognition, and culture: A case analysis of collegiate
leadership and cultural change. American Educational Research Journal, 32,
251–279.
Noble, K., Flynn, N. T., Lee, J. D., & Hilton, D. (2007). Predicting successful college
experiences: Evidence from a first year retention program. Journal of College
Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 9, 39–60.
Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (1985). Increasing student retention: Effective pro-
grams and practices for reducing the dropout rate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Nunez, A. M. & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students: Undergradu-
ates whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Pascarella, E. T. & Chapman, D. W. (1983). Validation of a theoretical model of college
withdrawal: Interaction effects in a multi-institutional sample. Research in Higher
Education, 19(1), 25–48.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and volun-
tary dropout decisions from a theoretical model. Journal of Higher Education, 51,
60–75.
Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 187
Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Wolfle, L. M. (1986). Orientation to college and
freshman year persistence/withdrawal decisions. Journal of Higher Education, 57,
155–175.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pintrich, P. R., Schunk, D. H., & Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and applications (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Potts, G., Shultz, B., & Foust, J. (2003–2004). The effect of freshman cohort groups on
academic performance and retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Re-
search, Theory and Practice, 5, 385–395.
A profile of freshmen at 4-year colleges, fall 2010. (2011, August 21). Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/A-Profile-of-
Freshmen-at/128288/
Raab, L., & Adam, A. J. (2005). The university college model: A learning-centered ap-
proach to retention and remediation. New Directions for Institutional Research
2005(125), 87–106.
Roach, R. (2001). Is higher education ready for minority America? Black Issues in
Higher Education, 18(8), 29–31.
Rueda, R. (2010). Knowledge gaps: Assessing, diagnosing causes, and designing ef-
fective solutions [PowerPoint® presentation], University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, CA.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 188
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the
right solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Ryland, E. B., Riordan, R. J., & Brack, G. (1994). Selected characteristics of high-risk
students and their enrollment persistence. Journal of College Student Development,
35(1), 54–58.
Salkind, N. J. (2008). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schein E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schnell, C. A., & Doetkott, C. D. (2002–2003). First-Year Seminars produce long-term
impact. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 4,
377–391.
Schuh, J. H. (2005). Student support services. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O.
Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for
improving the first year of college (pp. 428–444). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L. (2009). Motivation in education: Theory,
research, and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Silde, M. W., & McReynolds, J. (2009). The freshman year experience: Student reten-
tion and student success. NASPA Journal, 46, 434–446.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 189
Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and
synthesis. Interchange, 1(1), 64–85.
Spady, W. G. (1971). Dropouts from higher education: Toward an empirical model.
Interchange (2)3, 38–62.
Staw, B. M. (1983). Motivation research versus the art of faculty management. The
Review of Higher Education, 6, 301–321.
Stovall, M. (2000). Using success courses for promoting persistence and completion.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 2000(112), 45–54.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (1991). Generations: The history of America’s future, 1584 to
2069. New York, NY: Morrow.
Sweeney, R. (2006). Millennial behaviors and demographics. Retrieved from http://
www.library.njit.edu/stafffolders/sweeney/Millennials/Millennial-Behaviors-
August 4-2006.doc
Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Toward the validation of Tinto’s model of
college student attrition: A review of recent studies. Research in Higher Education,
12, 271–282.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive develop-
ment. Research in Higher Education, 37, 1–22.
Theophilides, C., Terenzini, P. T., & Lorang, W. (1984). Relation between freshman-
year experience and perceived importance of four major educational goals. Re-
search in Higher Education, 20, 235–252.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 190
This year’s freshmen at 4-year colleges: Highlights of a survey. (2010, January 21).
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/This-
Years-Freshmen-at-4-Year/63672/
Tierney, W. G. (1992). An anthropological analysis of student participation in college.
Journal of Higher Education, 63, 603–618.
Tierney, W. G. (1999). Models of minority college-going and retention: Cultural integ-
rity versus cultural suicide. Journal of Negro Education, 68(1), 80–91.
Tierney, W. G. (2004). Academic triage: Challenges confronting college preparation
programs. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 950–962.
Ting, S. R., Grant, S. L., & Plenert, S. L. (2000). The excellence-commitment-and-
effective-learning (ExCEL) group: An integrated approach for first-year college
students’ success. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 353–360.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent
research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125.
Tinto, V. (1982). Defining dropout: A matter of perspective. New Directions for Insti-
tutional Research, 1982(36), 3–15.
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character
of student leaving. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 438–455.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
(2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 191
Tinto, V. (2004). Rethinking the first year of college. Retrieved from http://soeweb.syr
.edu/Faculty/Vtinto
Tinto, V. (2005, January 26). Taking student success seriously: Rethinking the first year
of college. Paper presented at the Ninth Annual Intercession Academic Affairs
Forum, Fullerton, CA.
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of
College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8, 1–19.
Tobolowsky, B. F., Mamrick, M., & Cox, B. E. (2005). The 2003 National Survey of
First-Year Seminars: Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum. Colum-
bia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year
Experience and Students in Transition.
Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college
faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46,
153–184.
University of Southern California. (2010a). Educational effectiveness review: To the
Western Association of Schools and Colleges. Retrieved from http://strategic.usc
.edu/USC%20EER%20-%20July%202010.pdf
University of Southern California. (2010b). University of Southern California freshman
profile and admission information 2010–2011. Retrieved from http://www.usc
.edu/admission/undergraduate/private/1011/FreshmanProfile2010
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 192
University of Southern California, Board of Trustees. (1993, February). The role and
mission of the University of Southern California. Retrieved from http://about.usc
.edu/files/2011/07/USCRole_and_Mission_Statement_1993.pdf
University of Southern California, Board of Trustees. (2011, December 7). USC strate-
gic vision: Matching deeds to ambition. Retrieved from http://strategic.usc.edu/
USC%20Strategic%20Vision%20Dec%202011.pdf
Upcraft, M. L. (1984). Orienting students to college. New Directions for Student Ser-
vices Series, No. 25. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M. L., & Gardner, J. N. (1989). A comprehensive approach to enhancing
freshman success. In M. L. Upcraft & J. N. Gardner (Eds.), The freshman year
experience (pp. 1–12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (Eds.). (2005). Challenging and
supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of col-
lege. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M. L., & Stephens, P. S. (2000). Academic advising and today’s changing
students. In V. N. Gordon, W. R. Habley (Eds.), First-year academic advising:
Patterns in the present, pathways to the future (pp. 141–146). Columbia, SC: Uni-
versity of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience
and Students in Transition.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). Table 282, Foreign (nonimmigrant) student enrollment in
college: 1980 to 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
2012/tables/12s0282.pdf
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 193
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Stu-
dents with disabilities in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Education.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Enroll-
ment and degrees conferred in degree seeking institutions. Available from http://
nces.ed.gov/quicktables/index.asp
Van Gennep, A. (1960). The rites of passage. (M. Vizedon & G. Caffee, Trans.). Chi-
cago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original worked publish 1909)
Velada, R., Caetano, A., Michel, J. W., Lyons, B. D., & Kavanagh, M. J. (2007). The
effects of training design, individual characteristics and work environment on
transfer of training. International Journal of Training and Development, 11, 282–
294.
Welch, G. F. (2002). A new faculty orientation program: Building a core of new faculty
to shape the future of the college. New Directions for Community Colleges,
2002(120), 11–16.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy value theory of motivation. Contempo-
rary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68–81.
Williford, A. M., Chapman, L. C., & Kahrig, T. (2000). The university experience
course: A longitudinal study of student performance, retention, and graduation.
Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 2, 327–340.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 194
Wilson, K. (2009, June). Success in first year. The impact of institutional, program-
matic and personal interventions on an effective and sustainable first-year student
experience. Keynote address presented at the 12th First Year in Higher Education
Conference, Brisbane, QLD, Australia. Retrieved from http://www.voced.edu.au/
content/ngv20932
Wintre, M. G., Dilouya, B., Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. W., Birnie-Lefcovitch, S., Poligy,
J., & Adams, G. (2011). Academic achievement in first-year university: Who
maintains their high school average? Higher Education, 62, 467–481.
Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 139-162.
Woodard, D. B., Love, P. & Komives, S. R. (2000). Leadership and management issues
for a new century. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yax, L. K. (2004). Projected population of the United States, by age and sex: 2000 to
2050. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Zlotkowski, E. (2005). Service-learning and the first-year student. In M. L. Upcraft,
J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year
student: A handbook for improving the first year of college (pp. 356–370). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 195
Appendix A
FYE Components and Descriptions
Academic Advising
Academic advising is a process which assists students in the clarification of their life
and career goals.
Campus Programming (social activism, social engagement, diversity)
Campus programming includes student activities, volunteer programs, multicultural and
diversity programs, and other events that connect students to the university, local, state,
and national community.
Common Reading Programs
Campus common reading programs are based on the idea that reading the same book
will bring people closer together as a community by creating common ground for
discussion.
First-Year Seminars
First-year seminars are seen as “extended orientations” that focus on student survival
and success techniques and contribute to a student’s learning about the institution, the
diversity within the campus communities, and the student’s sense of self and his or her
abilities.
First-Year Student Living Environments
First-year residence hall environments are designed to support and facilitate interactions
between students and other students, members of the faculty, and the campus commu-
nity.
Learning Communities
Learning communities are clusters of courses organized around a curricular theme.
Mentoring
Mentoring involves faculty being supportive of student needs and being approachable
both in and out of the classroom environment.
Orientation
A program designed to facilitate a successful transition and integration into the new and
unfamiliar academic and social setting.
Parent and Family Programs
Parent and family programs are services and resources designed to engage parents and
families with the university or college. Examples include Parent/Family Weekend
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 196
programs, Parent Associations, ongoing communication with parents and families (i.e.,
newsletters), and information resources that help parents and families understand the
transition of their student to the college or university.
Service-Learning
Service-learning is defined as the location of service within the curriculum.
Student Support Services: Campus Recreation
Campus recreation programs consist of fitness programs, intramural and club sports,
and outdoor recreation activities.
Student Support Services: Career Services
Career services offices provide several functions, including career planning and coun-
seling, job placement, career outreach programming, information support, professional
development and training, and assessment.
Student Support Services: Student Counseling
Student Counseling Services are designed to help 1st-year students with a host of issues
related to the transition to college and early adulthood.
Student Support Services: Targeted Population Services
Services and/or offices for targeted populations, including women, student athletes,
LGBT students, students with disabilities, and international students are often designed
to help students with unique challenges and/or barriers.
Student Support Services: Wellness Programs
Wellness programs are designed to promote health promotion and education around a
host of topics, including student health, alcohol and drug use/abuse, sexual assault and
identity, and so on.
Supplemental Instruction
SI is a peer-assisted academic support program where students in targeted courses are
invited to participate in small group, collaborative learning sessions led by an SI leader.
Tutoring
Tutoring programs are designed to pair up an upper-level undergraduate or graduate
student with 1st-year students, either one on one or in groups, to assist with understand-
ing course content.
(Prepared by Thomas Patrick Studdert.)
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 197
Appendix B
Faculty Survey
Section A—Demographic Information
1. What is your title?
Options include: Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Ad-
junct Professor, Visiting Professor, Instructor, Other
If Other, what is your title: [open field]
2. Are you a tenured or tenured-track professor?
Options include: Yes, No
3. How long have you been teaching in higher education?
Options include: 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years, 11+ years
4. How long have you been teaching at the University of Southern California?
Options include: 1-2 years, 3-5 years, 6-10 years, 11+ years
5. Please indicate the Academic School with which you most closely affiliate:
Options include: Dornsife College, Accounting, Architecture, Business,
Cinematic Arts, Communication & Journalism, Den-
tistry, Education, Engineering, Fine Arts, Gerontology,
Medicine, Music, Public Policy, Theatre
6. If you indicated Dornsife College, please indicate which concentration area your
courses are affiliated:
Options include: Humanities, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences
7. Are you a writing instructor affiliated with the USC writing program?
Options include: Yes, No
If yes, do you teach the lower-level writing course (120, 130, 140)?
Options include: Yes, No
8. In the past three years, have you taught a course that is a general education
course (categories 1 through 6)?
Options include: Yes, No
9. In the past three years, has any of your classes that you have taught been primar-
ily targeted at first-year students?
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 198
Options include: Yes, No
If No, Have any of your classes enrolled first-year students?
10. In an average semester, how many courses do you teach?
Options include: 1, 2, 3, 4
11. In an average semester, how many of the courses that you teach are courses
traditionally aimed at first-year students or have an in-class enrollment of 25%
or more first-year students?
Options include: 1, 2, 3, 4
12. Have you been involved in any of the USC first-year experience programs?
Options include: Yes, No
If yes, which ones? [blank field]
Section B—Prioritization of First-Year Experience Critical Components
Recognizing the complexity of a large, research-extensive university like USC, the
creation and implementation of the critical components of a comprehensive First-Year
Experience program will take time. While some of these programs exist in various
units, many are not currently comprehensive (i.e., serving all first-year students from a
centralized source). Based on the definitions provided in the first page of the survey,
please prioritize for implementation the critical components (1 being the most important
and 17 being the least important).
Academic Advising (process to help students clarify goals)
Campus Programming (student activities, volunteer programs, diversity programs, and
campus events)
Common Reading Programs (students reading the same book followed by discussion
groups)
First-Year Seminars (courses designed to teach student survival and success techniques)
First-Year Student Living Environments (residence halls designed to facilitate student
and faculty interactions)
Learning Communities (clusters of courses around a theme)
Mentoring (faculty support of student needs in and out of classroom)
Orientation (program to help students transition to new setting)
Parent and Family Programs (programs to engage parents with the university)
Service-Learning (service integrated into curriculum)
Student Support Services: Campus Recreation (fitness, intramurals, club sports)
Student Support Services: Career Services career planning, placement, training, assess-
ment)
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 199
Student Support Services: Student Counseling (counseling on issues related to college
transition and early adulthood)
Student Support Services: Targeted Population Services (services for specific student
groups)
Student Support Services: Wellness Programs (promotion of health and education)
Supplemental Instruction (peer-assisted support in targeted courses)
Tutoring (one-on-one or group pairings to help students with course content)
Section C—Knowledge/Skills, Motivation, and Organizational Culture
This section includes three questions for each critical component. The first question is
related to knowledge/skills. The second question is related to motivation. The third
question is related to organizational culture. All answers are on a Likert Scale (1 =
Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree).
Academic Advising (process to help students clarify goals)
1. I can describe what effective academic advising for first-year students looks
like.
2. A centralized first-year student academic advising system at USC would
make a valuable contribution to student success.
3. USC (as a whole) supports a centralized academic advising system for all
first-year students.
Campus Programming (student activities, volunteer programs, diversity programs, and
campus events)
1. I am aware of the various programs and activities at USC designed to engage
students outside the classroom.
2. Campus programming is important because it connects first-year students to
USC.
3. USC provides support for me to develop and/or participate in social pro-
gramming outside of the classroom.
Common Reading Programs (students reading the same book followed by discussion
groups)
1. I know how to lead discussion groups based on a common book assigned to
all incoming first-year students.
2. Common reading programs are valuable for first-year student success.
3. USC provides adequate organizational systems and structures to ensure that
a common reading program for first-year students would be successful.
First-Year Seminars (courses designed to teach student survival and success tech-
niques)
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 200
1. I know how to teach college resources that help students make a successful
transition to college.
2. It is my responsibility to ensure incoming students are successful both in and
out of the classroom.
3. USC supports having academic courses focused on student survival and
success at the university.
First-Year Student Living Environments (residence halls designed to facilitate
student and faculty interactions)
1. I can explain the purpose of first-year student living environments and their
impact on retention of first-year students.
2. First-year student living environments are an integral component to helping
students succeed both in and out of the classroom.
3. USC offers first-year living environments that create ample quality opportu-
nities for student-to-student and student-to-faculty interactions.
Learning Communities (clusters of courses around a theme)
1. I can describe the purpose of learning communities in a university/college
setting.
2. I am interested in the development of learning communities for first-year
students.
3. The curriculum for students at USC is designed in a way to support learning
communities.
Mentoring (faculty support of student needs in and out of classroom)
1. I have the knowledge and skills to be an effective mentor for an incoming
first-year student.
2. I see the value in faculty-student mentoring relationships and the retention
benefit of those relationships.
3. USC is structured in a way to support faculty having mentoring relationships
with individual first-year students.
Orientation (program to help students transition to new setting)
1. If asked, I could put together an orientation program for incoming first-year
students that meets university requirements for an effective orientation
program.
2. Orientation is an important component in the successful transition of stu-
dents from high school to college.
3. USC offers opportunities for my involvement in orientation programs.
Parent and Family Programs (programs to engage parents with the university)
1. I can describe the components of an effective centralized parent and family
program at a college or university.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 201
2. Parent and family programs are an important component of a college’s reten-
tion program aimed at first-year students.
3. USC provides ample opportunities for me to interact and engage with par-
ents and families of my students.
Service-Learning (service integrated into curriculum)
1. I can define service-learning in the context of a university setting.
2. Service-learning is an important component of a first-year student curricu-
lum.
3. USC supports service-learning initiatives.
Student Support Services: Campus Recreation (fitness, intramurals, club sports)
1. I know the difference between campus recreation programs and athletic
programs.
2. I believe campus recreation programs are an effective way to promote com-
munity development among students.
3. I am afforded opportunities to participate in campus recreation programs as a
member of the faculty at USC.
Student Support Services: Career Services (career planning, placement, training,
assessment)
1. I can list out the various services a Career Services office should provide to
students.
2. I am willing to participate in programs and services offered by Career Ser-
vices that assist first-year students.
3. Career Services works closely with me as a faculty member to help students
link classwork to internships and job placement.
Student Support Services: Student Counseling (Counseling on issues related to
college transition and early adulthood)
1. I can refer students to Student Counseling Services because I am aware of
the programs and services offered by the office of Student Counseling Ser-
vices.
2. The Student Counseling Services office is a benefit to students by helping
them overcome issues that can impact their learning.
3. I feel supported by Student Counseling Services when referring students to
them for additional assistance.
Student Support Services: Targeted Population Services (services for specific
student groups)
1. I understand the unique barriers that specific populations such as women,
student athletes, LGBT students, students with disabilities, and international
students face when coming to college during their first year.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 202
2. I believe that services for targeted populations are effective ways to help
students persist from their first to second year.
3. USC provides structured support for targeted populations including women,
student athletes, LGBT students, students with disabilities, and international
students.
Student Support Services: Wellness Programs (promotion of health and education)
1. I am aware of the university resources and services designed to promote
student health and wellness.
2. I have a strong connection to wellness programs.
3. USC provides various opportunities for me to engage with wellness pro-
grams and activities.
Supplemental Instruction (SI) (peer-assisted support in targeted courses)
1. If asked, I could easily include an SI component in a course I teach.
2. I am committed to the establishment of supplemental instruction for the
courses I teach.
3. USC provides support for faculty members to include supplemental instruc-
tion in my courses. Supplemental instruction is an important component of
the USC culture.
Tutoring (one-on-one or group pairings to help students with course content)
1. I know how to refer students to tutoring who need additional support.
2. Tutoring services are necessary to assist students who need additional sup-
port.
3. There are sufficient resources to develop a tutoring program for specific
courses.
(Prepared by Thomas Patrick Studdert.)
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 203
Appendix C
Interview Protocol and Questions
Introduction
As a doctoral student in the Ed.D. program at the University of Southern California, I
am studying the feasibility of the creation of a comprehensive First-Year Experience
program for USC. This study is for my dissertation. Your responses will be utilized in
conjunction with the data I have collected from a quantitative survey that seeks the
advice of faculty on how best to create such a program.
The information you share will be confidential. I will not be identifying you by name. I
would like to record the interview in order to have an accurate report of our conversa-
tion. Will that be OK?
Basic Qualifying Questions
1. Do you teach classes that enroll 1st-year students?
2. Do you have any experience working with 1st-year students outside of the
classroom?
First-Year Experience
1. The underlying theory about First-Year Experience programs (which in-
cludes orientation, residential programs, centralized advising, freshman
seminars, etc.) is that these programs assist with retention. Do you have
experience working with any of the first-year retention programs in your
role?
a. If yes, can you share with me your role?
b. If no, does your role as a faculty member afford you the opportunity to
have such experience?
General
1. I would like to set up a time to interview you with more specific questions
about the First-Year Experience programs at USC and your thoughts on how
to improve them. The interview will last approximately 30 minutes. Would
you be interested in participating?
2. Provide the interviewee with the list of critical components and ask him/her
to review them before the official interview.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 204
Interview Questions
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. As a reminder, the purpose of
this interview is to seek more in-depth advice from you, as a faculty member, on how
best USC could implement a comprehensive First-Year Experience program.
To quickly review, a First-Year Experience program is designed to promote student
success through a comprehensive lens that includes orientation, advising, First-Year
Seminars, supplemental instruction, learning communities, living-learning environ-
ments, and other support services. As a member of the faculty, your advice and exper-
tise is vital to strengthening services for 1st-year students.
General
1. Tell me about your role at USC. What interactions do you have with
students—both in and out of the classroom? What types of classes do you
teach (i.e., General Education, Writing, etc.)?
2. What is your experience working with 1st-year/freshman students outside of
the classroom?
Knowledge/Skills
1. How familiar are you with the current First-Year Experience programs/reten-
tion programs aimed at 1st-year students at USC? Are you involved with
any of them?
2. Based on the list of critical components, which ones do you think are the
most critical and important for implementation at USC?
3. Are you aware of how many First-Year Experience programs exist at USC
and that many of them are spread out across the various academic and stu-
dent service units? Do you think that students would be better served if the
First-Year Experience programs were centralized?
4. What do you think of the current First-Year Experience/retention programs
at USC? Do you think they are successful in helping students navigate the
university?
5. If you could design a First-Year Experience program, what elements would
you include?
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 205
Motivation
1. Overall, do you see the value in the creation of a comprehensive FYE pro-
gram that serves all students and is not housed in a specific academic unit?
2. A key ingredient of any FYE program is a First-Year Seminar. Do you teach
a freshman seminar at USC?
3. Do you support the creation of First-Year Seminars that are more “student
success and survival” than centered on a curricular theme? If yes, why? If
no, why not?
4. If given the opportunity, would you want to be included in any planning
discussions on how to create a comprehensive FYE program? If yes, what
would you hope to get out of it? If no, why not?
Organizational Culture
1. How would you describe the culture of USC as it relates to programs and
services that extend beyond specific academic units? Do you feel programs
that are university-wide are supported by students? By faculty? By the USC
leadership?
2. Do you think the culture of USC provides opportunities for members of the
faculty to be fully engaged in FYE programming (i.e., the critical compo-
nents)? If yes, how so? If no, why not?
3. What role, if any, do you think faculty members should play in the creation
of traditional FYE programs? What about a comprehensive program?
Closing
1. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your feelings
about FYE programs or 1st-year student success as a whole?
(Prepared by Thomas Patrick Studdert.)
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 206
Figure D1. Titles of survey respondents.
Figure D2. Length of time (in years) of respondents’ higher education
teaching experience.
Appendix D
Demographic Breakdown of Survey Participants
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 207
Figure D3. Length of time (in years) of respondents’ teaching experi-
ence at the University of Southern California.
Figure D4. Concentration area of respondents.
FIRST-YEAR EXPERIENCE PROGRAM AT USC 208
Figure D5. Number of courses taught by respondents in an average
semester
Figure D6. Previous involvement by respondents in First-Year Experi-
ence programs.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Using an innovation adaptation of the gap analysis approach of Richard Clark and Fred Estes, the collegiate First-Year Experience (FYE) consisting of comprehensive and intentional curricular and co-curricular initiatives was examined. Conceptualization and operationalization of the goal for a FYE program was based on 3 student development theories centering on student departure decisions, including Vincent Tinto’s student integration model, Alexander Astin’s input-environment-output model, and John Bean’s student attrition model. The purpose of this study was to examine how faculty members in the University of Southern California’s Dornsife College can best implement a comprehensive FYE program. Using mixed methods, faculty members were asked to prioritize the critical elements of an FYE program and rate their knowledge and skills, motivation, and organizational needs to create a program. Using descriptive and correlational statistics, the survey results, along with interview coding, indicated that faculty perceived that they lacked knowledge and organizational support in the creation of the individual FYE elements and a comprehensive program. The results led to an analysis of the largest gaps for each construct, which were then specifically addressed for recommended solutions. This study begins to aid in understanding the complex issues of collegiate 1st-year students’ success and how faculty members can help bridge the gap.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Examining the choice of business majors to participate in a short-term study abroad program using the gap analysis model

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readinesss gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on goals and parent involvement

PDF

A capstone project using the gap analysis model: closing the college readiness gap for Latino English language learners with a focus on college affordability and student grades

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of English learners in literacy at Sunshine Elementary School using the gap analysis model

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: teacher factors

PDF

An examination of tri-level collaboration around student achievement using the gap analysis approach: School site leadership factors

PDF

A gap analysis of course directors’ effective implementation of technology-enriched course designs: An innovation study

PDF

The use of gap analysis to increase student completion rates at Travelor Adult School

PDF

Creating a supportive climate to facilitate the transition for veteran students at the University of Southern California: a gap analysis

PDF

Increasing student performance on the Independent School Entrance Exam (ISEE) using the Gap Analysis approach

PDF

Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework

PDF

Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach

PDF

A capstone project: closing the achievement gap of english language learners at sunshine elementary school using the gap analysis model

PDF

An application of Clark and Estes' (2002) gap analysis model: closing knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps that prevent Glendale Unified School District students from accessing four-yea...

PDF

Examining faculty challenges to improve African Americans’ developmental English outcomes at an urban southern California community college using gap analysis model

PDF

Examining the adoption of electronic health records system in patient care and students’ education using the GAP analysis approach

PDF

Examining liberal arts colleges achievement of student learning outcomes for a global perspective: an innovation gap analysis study

PDF

International student recruitment at a public university in the Midwest: a gap analysis

PDF

Addressing first year Master of Social Work students' preparedness for field education: A gap analysis approach

PDF

Increasing parent involvement in social-emotional learning workshops in high school using the gap analysis approach

Asset Metadata

Creator Studdert, Thomas Patrick (author)

Core Title The development of a comprehensive first-year experience program for the University of Southern California: Using an innovation GAP analysis model

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/03/2013

Defense Date 02/11/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag college,first-year experience,OAI-PMH Harvest,retention,student,transition,University

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth A. (committee chair), Rueda, Robert (committee member), Suite, Denzil J. (committee member)

Creator Email studdert@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-230400

Unique identifier UC11295194

Identifier usctheses-c3-230400 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-StuddertTh-1505.pdf

Dmrecord 230400

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Studdert, Thomas Patrick

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA