University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Supporting the transition and academic success of transfer students at a large research university

(USC Thesis Other)

Supporting the transition and academic success of transfer students at a large research university

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content SUPPORTING THE TRANSITION AND ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF TRANSFER STUDENTS AT A LARGE RESEARCH UNIVERSITY by Heather Cartagena 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 December 2023 Copyright 2023 Heather Cartagena ii The Committee for Heather Cartagena certifies the approval of this Dissertation Gene Bickers Helena Seli Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair Rossier School of Education University of Southern California 2023 iii Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my husband and family. To my husband, Tony, for always believing in me and being my biggest champion. Your love has been the making of my life! I look forward to spending more time together now that this is done! To my dad, Gary, who I lost far too early in my life but as my first and most devoted cheerleader gave me confidence in my own abilities and ambition to keep setting and raising the bar. To my mom, Kathy, who has taught me strength and resilience and to persevere in pursuit of your dreams. You have always supported my many endeavors while also trusting me to strike my own path. Love you, Mamala! And to my sister Merisa and my brother Jeffrey, whose college journeys as successful transfer students helped to inspire this study. So proud of you both! iv Acknowledgements This dissertation could not have been completed without the collaboration and support of my mentors and colleagues, and the student participants. I would like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Pat Tobey, Dr. Helena Seli, and Dr. Gene Bickers whose mentorship, support, and encouragement has been invaluable. I could not have asked for a better committee! I also wish to thank Dr. Dennis Hocevar whose guidance provided a focused light in the dark tunnel of voluminous data analysis. I greatly appreciate Dr. Frankie Santos Laanan who graciously allowed me to use the L-TSQ for this study. Special thanks to my academic advisor, Jordan Brown Silva for always checking in and encouraging me on this long journey! I am extremely grateful to the registrar, the director of the office of institutional research, and the data stewards at the study site for their assistance and consideration. My sincere thanks to the academic advising community who kindly passed along the invitation to prospective study participants. And finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the transfer students who participated in this study. Their willingness to respond to a (very long) survey and to take the time to share details of their experiences made this study possible. v Table of Contents Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii List of Appendix Tables............................................................................................................... viii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... xi Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1 Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2 Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 5 Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 10 Significance of the Problem .............................................................................................. 13 Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 13 Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 14 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 15 Who Are Transfer Students? ............................................................................................. 16 Transfer Types .................................................................................................................. 17 The Transfer Experience ................................................................................................... 18 The Role of the Senior Institution ..................................................................................... 28 Transition Theory.............................................................................................................. 31 Literature Limitations ....................................................................................................... 32 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 35 Implications....................................................................................................................... 36 Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 37 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 37 Research Design................................................................................................................ 38 Key Concepts .................................................................................................................... 39 Population and Sample ..................................................................................................... 41 Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 41 vi Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 45 Validity and Reliability ..................................................................................................... 46 Study Variables ................................................................................................................. 47 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 49 Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 51 Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 54 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 55 Results and Findings for Research Question 1 ................................................................. 68 Summary of Research Question 1..................................................................................... 82 Results and Findings for Research Question 2 ................................................................. 83 Summary of Research Question 2..................................................................................... 88 Results and Findings for Research Question 3 ................................................................. 88 Summary of Research Question 3..................................................................................... 97 Results for Research Question 4 ....................................................................................... 97 Summary of Research Question 4................................................................................... 105 COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts ........................................................................................ 105 Summary of COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts ................................................................... 110 Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 111 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 111 Findings........................................................................................................................... 112 Implications for Practice ................................................................................................. 122 Future Research .............................................................................................................. 128 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 129 References ................................................................................................................................... 130 Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 136 Appendix A: Study Information ..................................................................................... 136 Appendix B: Study Invitation ......................................................................................... 138 Appendix C: Survey Instrument ..................................................................................... 139 Appendix D: Supplemental Tables ................................................................................. 157 Appendix E: Permission to Use L-TSQ Items ................................................................ 170 vii List of Tables Table 1: L-TSQ Constructs Used .................................................................................................. 43 Table 2: Participant Self-Reported Characteristics ....................................................................... 59 Table 3: Place of Residency .......................................................................................................... 61 Table 4: How Transfer Students Think of Themselves ................................................................ 63 Table 5: Academic Characteristics of Participants ....................................................................... 66 Table 6: Degree Aspirations of Participants ................................................................................. 68 Table 7: Expected Time to Degree After Transfer ....................................................................... 68 Table 8: Course Learning Behaviors ............................................................................................ 73 Table 9: Transfer Stigma .............................................................................................................. 78 Table 10: Number of Learning Support Resources ...................................................................... 90 Table 11: Number of Academic Services ..................................................................................... 91 Table 12: Number of Student Services ......................................................................................... 91 Table 13: Number of Wellness Resources .................................................................................... 92 Table 14: Number of Transfer Student Resources ........................................................................ 93 Table 15: Pearson Correlations of University GPA with Personal Characteristics and Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 101 Table 16: Pearson Correlations of University GPA with Previous College Experiences........... 103 Table 17: Pearson Correlations of University GPA with University Experiences ..................... 104 Table 18: Remote Instruction Experience ................................................................................... 106 viii List of Appendix Tables Table D1: One-way Commute Time to the University ............................................................... 157 Table D2: Employment Status During Most Recent Term at the University ............................. 157 Table D3: Time Spent Working .................................................................................................. 157 Table D4: First Term at University ............................................................................................. 158 Table D5: First Term in College ................................................................................................. 158 Table D6: Recent Enrollment History of Participants ................................................................ 158 Table D7: Financial Mediators of Decision to Transfer ............................................................. 159 Table D8: Orientation Satisfaction ............................................................................................. 159 Table D9: Transfer Credit Loss - Units Completed Minus Units Accepted ............................... 159 Table D10: Learning and Study Skills Preparation .................................................................... 160 Table D11: Transfer Student Perceptions of Faculty .................................................................. 160 Table D12: General Perceptions of the University ..................................................................... 161 Table D13: Adjustment Processes .............................................................................................. 162 Table D14: Perceived Problems.................................................................................................. 163 Table D15: Previous College Advising Experiences .................................................................. 163 Table D16: Learning Support Resource Awareness ................................................................... 164 Table D17: Academic Services Awareness ................................................................................ 164 Table D18: Student Services Awareness .................................................................................... 165 Table D19: Wellness Resource Awareness ................................................................................ 165 Table D20: Transfer Student Resource Awareness .................................................................... 166 Table D21: University GPA and Ethnicity ................................................................................. 166 Table D22: Coping Styles – When Faced with a Problem or Difficult Situation at School ....... 167 ix Table D23: Study Habits, Academic Attitudes, and Goal Orientation ....................................... 168 Table D24: Enrollment During Period of Remote Instruction.................................................... 169 Table D25: COVID-19 Effects on University Resource Use ..................................................... 169 Table D26: COVID-19 Effects on University Experiences ........................................................ 169 x List of Figures Figure 1: Transition Theory and Study Elements ......................................................................... 40 Figure 2: Conceptual Model for Research Question 4 .................................................................. 47 Figure 3: Hours per Week Spent Working a Job for Pay ............................................................. 62 xi Abstract Transferring is a common experience for college students. Students at two-year community colleges are more likely to be from diverse demographic backgrounds, and universities offering transfer admission fulfill the promise of access to higher education for these students. However, four-year universities must be responsive to the needs and challenges of transfer students to support their success. Using Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) as a theoretical framework, this study explored the experiences of transfer students at a highly selective four-year research institution. The foundation for the online study questionnaire was the Laanan-Transfer Student Questionnaire (L-TSQ) (Laanan et al., 2010; Moser, 2012). Given the study’s timing, items were added to the questionnaire which asked participants about potential impacts of COVID-19 restrictions. Data from the questionnaire was matched with students’ academic records and analyzed using statistical methods as well as qualitative review of open-ended responses. It was found that most transfer students experience transfer shock and find the social adjustment to the campus community most challenging. Transfer students largely felt it useful to meet with their academic advisor, but maintained a limited view of the kind of assistance that could be gained through advising. Transfer students also had a general lack of awareness of campus resources, identifying just 23% on average of 56 resources listed. Numerous variables were compared with university GPA using means comparisons and correlational statistics. Several variables related to personal characteristics and demographics, previous college experiences, and university experiences were found to have significant relationships with university GPA. Keywords: college transfer students, transfer shock, transition theory, student adjustment, academic success, student support 1 Chapter One: Overview of the Study Given the rising admissions standards and escalating cost of attending a four-year university, beginning one’s undergraduate degree at a community college can be an attractive financial alternative and necessary step for students who are not admitted to the university of their choice as freshmen. Nowhere is this truer than in California, where college admissions is its own “season” with the perennial problem of vastly more qualified applicants than spots available at the most desired universities (Watanabe, 2021). The resulting heap of rejections forces college-bound students to accept, with considerably less enthusiasm, offers of admission from a second-choice or backup institution, thus creating conditions that are primed for seeking transfer. Over the years, many families also have turned to two-year community colleges to ease the financial burden of sending their children to college. As Amy Argetsinger (2004) reported in the Washington Post, even more well-qualified students choose to begin their studies at community colleges, rather than contend with the “soaring costs and oversize classes” of universities (p. A1). The transfer function continues to play a critical role in providing the opportunity of higher education to all members of our society. With the expanding global economy and the cultural immersion in technology, it is widely held that a college degree has become a necessary credential for success. A few generations before now, a similar view was held of the high school diploma and college was only for professionals and the affluent. For decades, the junior or community college has brought vocational, continuing, and postsecondary education to the masses. The multiplying number of applications to top-ranked universities each year has forced many institutions to become more selective, inevitably driving potential students to begin their studies elsewhere in the hopes of building an academic record worthy of transfer. 2 But will there be a place for all the would-be transfer students at their desired institution and are they prepared for the academic rigor at a highly selective university? Advisors at four- year schools have historically viewed transfer students as less prepared and less able to adjust to an upper-division academic environment (Mahon & Dannells, 1998). Are the receiving institutions providing the necessary resources to support the successful transition of transfer students? Students at two-year community colleges are more likely to be from more diverse demographic backgrounds (often both first-generation and low-income), and many universities actively recruit students from surrounding community colleges. In the transfer experience, the ideal plan is to transfer to a four-year institution after attending a less expensive community college for one to two years. But transfer students may be older than the typical college-age student and are likely trying to juggle multiple demands such as work, family, and financial obligations compared to their non-transfer counterparts. Are there characteristics of transfer college students that influence their academic success at a university? What factors help transfer students have a successful transition and perform academically in the university environment? What factors put transfer students at risk for poor performance? What resources and services provided by the institution are most effective in supporting a successful transition to the senior institution? To promote the success of transfer students, universities should be sensitive to the needs of these diverse students and make efforts to provide resources and support for them. Background of the Problem The term “transfer shock” is credited to John Hills (1965), who reviewed 24 studies from 1928 to 1964 on the performance of two-year college students after transfer to a four-year college. Hills concluded that transfer students can expect “an appreciable drop” in GPA upon transfer that may be recovered to some extent. Transfer students can also expect that grades will 3 be lower than non-transfer students, and that graduation will be slower and less likely than it is for non-transfers. Hills went on to assert that transfer students in “quantitative” subjects would have more difficulty in transitioning as well as students transferring to a “major state university.” Hills suggested that students who choose to begin at or who are limited to enrolling at the junior college may be inherently different than those who begin at the senior institution and recommended an examination of junior college faculty and facilities. At the time that Hills performed his analysis, the landscape of higher education had shifted and was on a path of rapid expansion of institutions and enrollments. More than half a century later, transfer students still face similar obstacles in the transition to a senior institution. Subsequent literature regarding the academic success of community college students after they transfer to a university is somewhat mixed. Most studies find that students do experience “transfer shock”; that is, the precipitous drop in GPA upon transfer from a two-year school to a four-year university (Keely & House, 1993; Laanan, 2001). Whether this drop is significant and how well transfer students are able to stabilize their GPA in subsequent terms varies. What constitutes transfer shock can also vary. Some studies define transfer shock as the difference between the student’s transfer GPA and their GPA at the four-year university, while others compare the university GPAs of transfer students with those of non-transfer or ‘native’ students who began at the university as freshmen. The differing results may also be confounded by not evaluating fields of study separately. The selectivity and size of the four-year universities where students transfer may also influence the severity of transfer shock. According to NCES data (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021), since Hills wrote his analysis of the transfer student in 1965, fall enrollment in colleges and universities has grown by more than 25 million students, peaking at 29.5 million students in the 2010-2011 4 academic year and gradually declining to 26 million students attending over 5800 institutions in the 2019-2020 academic year (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). A surge of enrollment in the early 1970s increased the proportion of students attending two-year schools from approximately 20% to nearly 40%, where it remained for 30 years. This surge was most substantial in the matter of first-time freshmen, where the enrollment in two-year colleges surpassed that of four-year institutions until the mid-1980s, peaking at nearly 55% in 1981 before settling into the current roughly 70% to 30% split in favor of the four-year schools. Trends have shown that the overall enrollment of first-time college students in America who attend community colleges has been in decline the past decade with nearly 45.6% of first- time college goers attending two-year institutions in 2011 dropping to 31.9% in 2021 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). The declining trend in two-year college initial enrollments may be attributed to the general “enrollment crisis” faced by many institutions of higher education over the past several years. Since 2011, the total for first-time college student enrollments has decreased by 16%, and while initial enrollments in four-year institutions have recovered and even recently surpassed their totals from 2011, first-time student enrollments at two-year colleges have continued to decline and were 41% lower in 2021 compared with 2011 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). During the same timeframe though, the number and percentage of students transferring into four-year institutions has remained relatively stable at between 32-34% of all new students at four-year institutions Fall 2011 through Fall 2021 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). These trends indicate that while community college may remain a viable transfer pathway for financial and other reasons, transfers between four-year institutions are becoming more common. 5 In California, higher education is a huge enterprise. As of 2021, there are 449 two-year and four-year institutions of higher education in the State of California eligible to award federal student aid. These include three large public systems (116 California Community Colleges, 23 California State University campuses, and 9 University of California campuses) and more than 150 private institutions. Nine universities in California, both private and public, are routinely named in the top 50 of the annual U.S. News and World Report Best National University Rankings, accounting for nearly 20% of the top tier list. NCES reports show that in the fall of 2019, California schools accounted for 14.2% of all undergraduate enrollment at degree-granting institutions and 23.3% of nationwide two-year college enrollments (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). Two-year colleges currently account for 50% of the state’s total enrollment in higher education (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). With so many potential transfer students, universities in California (both public and private) must be aware of the challenges of integrating transfer students into their institutions. Statement of the Problem Two-thirds of all undergraduates who earn a bachelor’s degree have enrolled in more than one institution in order to graduate (Shapiro et al., 2016). Nationwide, many highly selective, top-ranked institutions admit little to no transfer students. The site for this study will be referred to as Large Research University (LRU). LRU is a large, highly selective, top-ranked, research university in California. Based on fall 2020 enrollments, LRU is in the top 40 among the 120 largest degree-granting colleges or universities, each of which enrolls more than 27,000 undergraduate students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). As a highly ranked institution, LRU is uniquely comprised, with transfer students making up a substantial percentage of the undergraduate student population. The Fall 2021 entering class at LRU 6 included 1,353 transfer students, representing nearly one-third of the undergraduate students starting at LRU in that semester. Overall, transfer students make up more than 20% of the total undergraduate population of LRU. In general, LRU has a considerably larger population of transfer students compared to its self-selected comparison institutions, which are other top- ranked research institutions. At LRU’s comparison institutions, transfer students comprise just 2% of the incoming undergraduate students on average (U.S. News & World Report, 2022). On the university’s website, the mission statement of LRU stresses acceptance and inclusivity, and states that the institution welcomes students and scholars from every background while also noting LRU’s global scope. 1 The mission statement further highlights the strengths of the university community and LRU’s commitment of support to all members of the extended university community including students, alumni, faculty, and staff. While transfer students are not mentioned specifically in the mission statement, they are acknowledged in the University’s documentation submitted to the Accrediting Commission for Schools, Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) as part of recent re-accreditation reviews. Re-accreditation reports available on the university’s website reaffirm the University’s commitment to transfer students and mark the current practice of admitting a large portion of transfer students among the undergraduate population as a point of pride for the University both academically and socially. 2 The re-accreditation report also mentions the University’s desire to achieve parity in resources and academic success regardless of whether students enroll as freshmen or transfers. The 1 The current mission statement was adopted in the 1990s. Full citation details are not included as they would reveal the organization’s identity. 2 Re-accreditation reports include the Self-Study Report and the Educational Effectiveness Review prepared within the past 15 years. Full citation details are not included as they would reveal the organization’s identity. 7 University’s most recent self-study report for re-accreditation similarly calls out a commitment to transfer students as being among select groups of students where LRU hopes to improve experiential equity. Admitting a large number of transfer students also contributes to the overall diversity of the student body at the University since transfer students are often first-generation, low income, and/or belonging to an ethnic minority. Despite the large numbers of transfer students at LRU, these students do not have dedicated resources at the University and often do not succeed at the same level as students who enter LRU as freshmen. Some indicators of this lack of success are grade point average (GPA) and graduation rates. LRU transfer students disproportionately experience academic struggles; having lower GPAs and being 60% more likely to be on academic probation compared with their counterparts admitted as freshmen. Even though over 40% of transfer students transfer to LRU with “junior standing,” two years from admission only about 20% will have graduated. 3 In addition to the academic disparities, transfer students have repeatedly reported feeling marginalized and have voiced the desire for resources that address the unique needs of transfer students at LRU. Historically, transfer students have not had a designated office for programming or services at LRU. The de-centralized structure of the university has put the burden of serving transfer students within each individual school or academic unit. However, without any clear objectives or guidance from central administration, programming and services aimed specifically at transfer students are uneven at best, and often non-existent. In the 2008- 2009 academic year, focus groups and interviews were conducted with LRU transfer students which found that transfer students were experiencing difficulties in academic adjustment, social 3 Information on the academic standing and retention rates of transfer students was taken from internal LRU data and reports. Full citation details are not included as they would reveal the organization’s identity. 8 adjustment, and other general challenges. 4 In Fall 2015, a survey administered to LRU transfer students once again noted that transfer students experience issues of academic and social adjustment, particularly problems with transfer credits and advising, as well as difficulties with housing, commuting, and needs for physical space to study and/or relax between classes. 5 Despite these results there continues to be no programs and services that address transfer student issues regarding community building via dedicated physical space and availability of transfer- specific opportunities and resources. Laanan (1996), Rhine et al. (2000), and Zamani (2001) made several suggestions for four-year universities and community colleges to enhance the transition of transfer students to the senior institution. One of these suggestions is to identify potential transfer students at the community college early and let them know about admissions standards and procedures (Rhine, et al.). Admission staff at LRU, both from a central department and in individual schools, make regular trips to the surrounding community colleges for this purpose. It is not uncommon for transfer students to maintain contact with LRU admissions staff for a full year prior to transfer. Laanan proposed increasing exposure to the four-year university and campus life prior to transfer, letting potential students meet with staff and faculty. At LRU, potential transfer students are invited to participate in Transfer Days which take place on-campus at LRU and provide workshops regarding various degree requirements, application procedures, and when possible, feedback from current students and demonstrations in classrooms. 4 A presentation and data summary for this transfer student research project was available internally at the university. The project was funded by a grant from a private foundation. Full citation details are not included as they would reveal the organization’s identity. 5 The dataset and results summary for this transfer student survey was available internally at the university. The project was sponsored by the University’s Division of Student Affairs. Full citation details are not included as they would reveal the organization’s identity. 9 Another recommendation was to maintain articulation agreements with community colleges and assist transfer students in selecting their transfer courses to maximize general education and major prerequisite credits at the senior institution (Rhine et al., 2000; Zamani, 2001). LRU’s Articulation Office maintains articulation agreements with all California Community Colleges and several local four-year universities which are available online. The agreements are updated periodically and detail all courses which will be accepted for credit, identifying direct equivalencies to LRU courses as well as general education requirements. Also available online is a Transfer Planning Guide which points out the specific courses at each potential California transfer institution that satisfy the prerequisites and the overall criteria required for admission to specific schools and programs at LRU. Rhine and colleagues (2000) also advocate warning community college students about the possibility of a drop in GPA after transfer. It is uncertain if this occurs at each community college. However, once students have been accepted to LRU, they are encouraged to meet individually with an academic advisor and to attend one of the summer orientation sessions for transfer students. The orientation program provides information about resources at the university, a financial aid workshop, and sessions with the student’s major department for information, advisement, and course registration. Rhine et al. (2000) also suggested that transfer students meet with academic advisors at least once each semester, both at the community college before transfer and at the university after transfer. While advisement at the community college varies, all new admits to LRU are required to meet with an advisor at least once each semester for their first year of enrollment, or until they have completed a minimum of 24 units at LRU. Some departments mandate advising every semester, but this varies according to staffing resources and priorities across the schools in 10 the university. The students’ ability to register for the coming term is restricted until they have met with an academic advisor. The advisors provide information about the coming semester’s courses, the total remaining degree requirements, resources for academic support, and referrals for co-curricular programs. One of the few strategies noted by Laanan (1996) that is not a central program at LRU is a peer mentoring program for transfer students. Individual departments and schools may coordinate their own transfer peer mentoring program, but there is no requirement for such a service at the university level. Despite all these efforts, transfer students often state they are overwhelmed, and may perform lower academically than their non-transfer counterparts. What factors help transfer students succeed and perform in the academic environment of a highly selective research university? How can the institution assist students in making a smoother transition? What role do academic advisors play in the transition and support of transfer students? Purpose of the Study This study explored the experiences of transfer students at LRU and transfer students’ perceptions related to institutional supports using Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) as a theoretical framework. This study aimed to learn more about how transfer students describe their experience and how or if they use the existing resources on campus. In addition, this study examined academic performance, as measured by GPA. The academic performance of transfer students was compared with student characteristics, student experiences at their previous college(s), and their experiences at LRU to identify significant factors which support a transfer student’s transition to and success at LRU. 11 Theoretical Framework Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) provides a theoretical framework for understanding the process by which an individual adjusts to change. Transition Theory is a model that identifies different aspects that influence an individual’s adaptation during a transition. The theory defines a transition as “any event, or non-event, that results in changed relationships, routines, assumptions, and roles” (Goodman et al., 2006, p. 33). The transition to college for both new freshmen and transfer students is a major event which often requires many changes in behaviors, activities, and relationships. The contributing areas of Transition Theory are the individual’s perception of the transition, the characteristics of the environment (both pre-transition and post-transition), and the characteristics of the individual. Updates to Transition Theory have further refined the model for transition by defining three phases of approaching transitions, taking stock of coping resources, and taking charge (Schlossberg et al., 1995). More recent refinements to Transition Theory describe the transition process as occurring in stages of moving in, moving through, and moving out (Anderson et al., 2012). In ascertaining coping resources, Transition Theory outlines potential liabilities and assets in four categories, known as the 4 S’s, which are Situation, Self, Support, and Strategies. Each category has multiple aspects that could influence the individual’s ability to navigate the transition. According to Schlossberg’s Transition Theory, the balance between assets (positives) and liabilities (negatives) is thought to impact how difficult a given transition will be for the person (Schlossberg et al., 1995). Components of the 4 S’s were examined using the research questions for the study. 12 Research Questions Transfer student experiences were explored relative to three main areas: a) perceptions of the transition to the University; b) interactions with academic advisors; and c) awareness and use of resources provided by the University. Transfer student performance was analyzed for significance with relation to three main components: a) student personal and demographic characteristics, b) previous college experiences, and c) LRU experiences. The research questions for this study were: 1. What influences transfer students’ transition to the University? a. How do undergraduate transfer students characterize their experiences during their transition to the University? b. What are the common issues and challenges faced by undergraduate transfer students upon matriculation at the University? 2. What is the nature of transfer students’ experiences with academic advising? a. What is the quality of transfer students’ interactions with academic advisors? b. What are transfer students’ perceptions of their interactions with academic advisors? 3. How do transfer students at the University identify and utilize academic support services and other opportunities provided by the institution? 4. What factors influence academic success in transfer students? a. Is there a relationship between student personal and demographic characteristics and academic performance in transfer students? b. Is there a relationship between previous college experiences and academic performance in transfer students? 13 c. Is there a relationship between university experiences and academic performance in transfer students? Significance of the Problem Universities must respect the economical, practical, and often unavoidable choice of students to attend two-year institutions to begin their college studies. For an institution committed to admitting a large population of transfer students, the trends among transfer students will affect the overall success and retention rates of the entire university. Transfer students often symbolize an expansion of access and equity in higher education, but their unique needs can be overlooked as they are typically expected to integrate themselves into the existing population of continuing students who began at the institution as freshmen. If specific factors can be found that contribute to or hinder transfer students’ success, then the university will be better equipped to develop interventions that fill gaps in the needs of the students or remove obstacles that prevent successful navigation of the institution. With a better understanding of transfer students’ experiences at LRU and the current condition of institutional support for their academic success, potential deficits in institutional supports can be addressed. Despite previous information indicating that transfer students at LRU need additional support and services, the assumption persists that existing university resources are adequate to meet the needs of all students. This study aimed to learn more about how transfer students describe and use the existing resources on campus to better understand their experiences at LRU and the current condition of institutional support for their academic success. Definition of Terms Large Research University, LRU, or the University. These terms are used to refer to the study site. 14 Non-transfer students. Students who began at LRU as first-time freshmen. This term is used instead of the traditional and potentially pejorative phrase “native students.” Senior institution. The four-year college or university that receives and enrolls transfer students from community colleges. Transfer shock. The decline in GPA upon transfer from a community college to a four- year university. Transfer students. Students who applied to LRU and enrolled as transfer students with credits completed at another college after high school graduation. This requires a minimum of 30 transferable units. Organization of the Study Chapter One of the study has presented the overview of the study, the background of the problem, the statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, the research questions to be answered, the significance of the study, the limitations and delimitations, and the definitions of terms. Chapter Two is a review of relevant literature. It addresses topics regarding the characteristics of transfer students, different elements of transfer students’ experiences, theoretical framework, and literature limitations. Chapter Three presents the methodology used in the study, including the research design; population and sampling procedure; and the instruments and their selection or development, together with information on validity and reliability. The chapter goes on to describe the procedures for data collection and the plan for data analysis. Chapter Four presents the results of the study including participant characteristics, and statistical results and qualitative analysis for each research question. Chapter Five summarizes the study findings, discusses conclusions, and makes recommendations for further research and practice. 15 Chapter Two: Review of the Literature For decades, the junior or community college has brought the opportunity of higher, continuing, and vocational education to virtually anyone willing to enroll. The mission and objectives of community colleges are complex and diverse, but a primary goal is to prepare students for transfer to senior institutions. Admission to senior institutions continues to become more selective, and the cost of attending a senior institution continues to rise. For many new or returning college students, community college is the only place to start on the path to reaching their educational goals. According to data for the fall 2019 from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), two-year colleges account for over 31.5% of all undergraduate enrollments and 36% of first-time freshmen enrollments. In terms of enrollment, California has the largest system of community colleges and universities in the nation. NCES data shows that California schools account for 14.2% of all undergraduate enrollments and 13.3% of first-time college enrollments in the United States. It is not surprising then to learn that 19 schools in California make the list of the top 120 largest degree-granting colleges and universities, comprising nearly one-sixth of the list. And, since nearly half of the state’s enrollment is at two-year colleges, it is no surprise that 5 of these 19 California schools are two-year colleges (National Center for Education Statistics, 2021). With such large numbers of enrolled students, the transfer issue is hugely magnified in California. The idea of “transfer shock” is certainly not new. While Hills (1965) is credited with giving the trend its name, the dilemma is at least as old as the earliest study in his review, which was in 1928. In the almost sixty years since Hills advised of the difficulties of college transfer, the role of the two-year college in bolstering access to higher education has been examined from 16 nearly every conceivable angle. But in that time, studies have consistently shown that transfer students as a whole can still expect to do worse upon transfer (Diaz, 1992; Jaggars et al., 2023). A drop in GPA may be inevitable since it is typical that only the best achieving two-year college students are eligible for transfer. Some regression towards the mean GPA of the ‘new’ population of the senior institution is to be expected. But what should be prevented is a GPA plunge to a level that is significantly lower than that of the average continuing non-transfer student at the senior institution. This chapter describes the typical transfer student profile, including demographics information and enrollment behavior. Next it examines research findings related to features of the transfer student experience, including pathways to transfer, the transfer process, academic performance after transfer, social adjustment and integration, and institutional interventions. Additionally, the theoretical framework for transition theory is outlined as part of this literature review. Lastly, limitations of the existing literature are discussed. Who Are Transfer Students? Community college students are often considered to be older and more likely to be from an ethnic minority. NCES figures for fall 2019 do show that, nationally speaking, a higher percentage of non-traditional age students (25 years or older) attend two-year colleges (32.6%) in comparison with students enrolled at four-year colleges (21.6%). This is a national average, and the proportion of non-traditional age students can vary from institution to institution. Most of the studies reviewed here did not provide specific data which compared the distribution of age between transfer and non-transfer students. When this data was present, significantly higher percentages of non-traditional age students were found among the transfer population (Carlan & Byxbe, 2000). 17 NCES figures also show that, nationally, 52.4% of students in two-year colleges come from ethnic minorities compared with 27.8% of students in four-year colleges. This indicates that two-year students are more diverse than four-year students across the United States. Enrollments in California are significantly more diverse than the national percentages. In fact, in California, ‘minority’ students make up the majority of enrollments, over 68%! California far exceeds (by more than double) the national percentages of Hispanic and Asian student enrollments. These numbers support the claim of Eggleston and Laanan (2001), who reported that larger populations of racial and ethnic minorities and international students attend community colleges. This aligns with the expectation that community colleges serve a larger proportion of underrepresented populations. Transfer Types Transfer students have traditionally been defined as community college students who transfer to a four-year institution (either with or without an Associate’s degree), and much of the literature is focused on this description of the progression of transfer students. However, college student patterns of enrollment reveal additional transfer pathways. Taylor and Jain (2017) noted that the literature lacks “a comprehensive typology” of transfer types. Their review of the literature found eight types of transfer: vertical transfer (the traditional two-year to four-year), lateral or horizontal transfer (two-year to two-year, or four-year to four-year), reverse transfer (four-year to two-year), reverse credit transfer (four-year to two-year for the purpose of earning an Associate’s degree), swirlers and alternating enrollees (attending more than two institutions to transfer or transferring from and to community colleges), concurrent enrollees (attending more than one institution at the same time), duel enrollment (completion of college-level courses during high school), and transient (nondegree seeking enrollment to transfer credit back to home 18 institution) (Taylor & Jain, 2017). While each transfer pathway has its own challenges, students are often classed together as “transfers” once they reach the receiving institution regardless of their enrollment journey. The Transfer Experience Accessibility to Senior Institutions Community colleges enroll students from underserved groups in significant numbers, including students of color, first-generation, and low income, and are more accessible both for cost and geographic proximity (Handel & Williams, 2012). While transfer preparation remains a primary mission, the expanding mission of community colleges for vocational and other training and the complexity of the transfer process has contributed to the stagnation of transfer rates nationally. As Handel and Williams (2012) note in their report for the College Board, a complicating factor in the relationship between community colleges and senior institutions is that they are in direct competition for first-year students and their differing academic cultures create barriers for students attempting to navigate between the two systems. A study by the U.S. Department of Education reported the national rate of successful transfer as 36% when students who began at community colleges completed at least ten units, based on data from 1992 high school graduates (Adelman, 2004). The study also showed that a high percentage of 1992 high school graduates who had earned a Bachelor’s degree (60%) attended more than one institution as an undergraduate, and one out of five (20%) who started at a four-year college earned their degree from an institution other than the one where they began. These figures may include incidental (transient) enrollment at the community college, but nonetheless give credence to claims of the prevalence of transfer and demonstrate the difficulty community college students may experience in ultimately achieving a degree from a senior 19 institution. Other evaluations of transfer enrollment have found a wider gap with as much as 80% of community college students intending to earn a Bachelor’s degree and just 22-23% ultimately transferring (Handel & Williams, 2012; Taylor & Jain, 2017; Zamani, 2001). Additionally, community college students are far less likely to transfer to a highly selective institution. In examining the Fall 2007 cohort of more than 700,000 first-time community college students using data from the National Student Clearinghouse, Jenkins and Fink (2016) noted that just 17% of students who ultimately transferred were enrolled at very selective institutions. Enrollment Patterns Attending two institutions averages 59 months to a Bachelor’s degree versus 51 months for one institution (67 months for three or more institutions), which demonstrates that transfer students overall will take longer to graduate (National Center for Education Statistics, 2003). The average non-transfer student takes slightly longer than the conventionally expected four years (by three months), but transfer students can expect to spend about one additional academic year (eight months) to attain a degree. What is unclear in the data provided by the NCES or most of the research about transfer students is exactly how much of this time is spent at the community college and how much at the senior institution. While students are often categorized in a study as being above or below an arbitrary level of transfer unit completion, studies for this review did not report data regarding the average number of units and/or semesters completed prior to transfer. This data was potentially available in several studies, but perhaps insignificant and not worth mentioning. Obvious reasons for the additional time towards a degree when transferring may be part- time enrollment (completing courses at a slower rate) or a lack of articulation of community 20 college coursework to the senior institution creating additional requirements to be completed upon transfer. In addition to part-time enrollment, gaps in enrollment where students “stop-in” or “stop-out” of institutions on their way to transfer may also contribute to the extended time-to- degree (Adelman, 2004; Handel & Williams, 2012). Credit Loss Should potential transfer students successfully reach a senior institution, they are likely to lose some of their completed college credits during the process. In a large study of more than 16,000 transcripts conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics, students lost an average of 13 credits when transferring between institutions, with some students granted no credit at their new institution (Simone, 2014). Evidence suggests that public institutions accept more transfer credits than private institutions (Handel & Williams, 2012; Simone, 2014). However, even when credits are accepted, they may not be applied to requirements needed for advanced standing in a specific major (Jenkins & Fink, 2015). Taylor and Jain (2017) identified credit loss and inadequate articulation as critical dimensions of “ineffective” transfer pathways, stressing that “loss of credit means that students likely need to repeat classes, attend school longer, and spend more money on tuition” all of which can negatively affect degree outcomes (p. 278). Transfer Shock and Recovery Transfer shock is a popular subject of research, with as many methods of approach to the problem as there are researchers interested in the phenomenon. The foremost problem in reviewing studies of transfer shock is the variability of results. The studies reviewed offer as many questions as they do insights to understanding the true nature of transfer student success. 21 In their broad study of transfer shock, Hughes and Graham (1992) cited the conflicting results of previous research on transfer shock – some studies show a significant decrease in GPA, some show a significant decrease that eventually goes away, some show only a minor decrease, and still others show no difference at all. In a meta-analysis of 62 transfer shock studies from 1927 to 1990, which reported differences between pre-transfer and first semester post-transfer GPAs, Diaz (1992) found that 49 of the studies (79%) showed transfer shock. However, in 33 of these studies (67%) transfer students were able to recover at least part, if not all, of the GPA decline in subsequent semesters. More recent research exploring the transfer process has continued to note that students’ grade point averages typically drop at their new institution (Chrystal et al., 2013; Clausen & Wessel, 2015; Jaggars et al., 2023; Townsend, 2008). Focus groups with transfer students found that there were multiple factors that contributed to this drop, including adjusting to more rigorous academic requirements (Chrystal et al., 2013; Townsend, 2008). Multiple studies have looked for predictive factors of transfer students’ GPA at the senior institution. Of the nearly 40 variables tested by Hughes and Graham (1992) on 267 transfer students to a major research university in the Midwest, only attendance at the community college (number of classes missed each term) had a significant relationship with first semester performance at the senior institution – there was no significant difference for age, ethnicity, parent’s education, or financial support. Their results also showed that 42% of transfer students were on academic probation (less than 2.0 GPA) or had withdrawn after the first term. A similar study by the same authors (Graham & Hughes, 1994), found that transfer students with an Associate’s degree performed better at the senior institution than those who had not, and there was a positive correlation between transfer GPA and the university GPA. These findings also 22 indicated that students living in the residence hall had lower GPAs than students living off- campus or those who commuted, and interaction with faculty at the community college was also a predictor of GPA at the senior institution. Once again, age and ethnicity, as well as gender showed no significant influence in academic performance at the senior institution (Graham & Hughes, 1994). Another inquiry of transfer student success at a Southern university yielded different results. Here, Carlan and Byxbe (2000) reviewed the transcript records of 487 transfer students and found that lower division or transfer GPA and college of major were predictors of the senior institution GPA. Again, gender and number of units transferred were not significant predictors, but in contrast with Graham and Hughes, receipt of an Associate’s degree was also insignificant (Carlan & Byxbe, 2000). A much earlier study found the same link between transfer GPA and senior institution GPA, with no differences for age, gender, or marital status (Phlegar et al., 1981). Looking at students from a state university in Kentucky, Best and Gehring (1993) found a positive correlation between number of transfer units completed and senior institution GPA when students were categorized dichotomously into those with 60 or more units and those with less than 60 units. Transfer students with 60 or more units performed better academically than transfer students with less than 60 units and were comparable to continuing non-transfer juniors in GPA (Best and Gehring, 1993). In Illinois, Keeley and House (1993) observed higher senior institution GPAs for junior standing transfer students as opposed to sophomore standing transfers, which supports other findings related to benefits of transferring with more units. However, in contrast with most other studies, Keeley and House found age, gender, ethnicity, and the completion of an Associate’s 23 degree to be significantly related to GPA, where females did better than males, older students did better than younger students, Whites did better than minorities, and those with an Associate’s degree outperformed those without. Their study also stated that commuter students performed better than on-campus residents. This finding supports other research by Graham and Hughes (1994) but appears counterintuitive to the perception that increased involvement on-campus fosters greater success in the university setting. In a large study of 1,857 transfer students in Indiana, Clausen and Wessel (2015) found previous institution GPA, age, and previous institution type to be significantly related to GPA, with older students having higher GPAs than younger students and lateral/horizontal transfer students earning lower GPAs than traditional vertical transfer students. Their results for gender in predicting GPA were not significant, similar to Carlan and Byxbe (2000), but contrary to Keeley and House (1993). Using a different approach to study transfer transition issues in Massachusetts, Berger and Malaney (2003) used student satisfaction as their index of student success. In this model of satisfaction, older and white transfer students were more likely to be satisfied with their experiences at the senior institution than younger or minority students. Being involved at the senior institution was associated with higher levels of satisfaction, but not academic outcomes, and community college involvement did not predict satisfaction at the senior institution (Berger and Malaney, 2003). When transfer shock is measured by GPA, many studies have shown that the initial shock wears off and students are able to recover part or all of the GPA deficit (Diaz, 1992). Studying college students in North Carolina, Glass and Harrington (2002) followed transfer and non- transfer students from 1998 and 1999 over a two-year period. For the 1998 group, transfer 24 students began with lower GPAs from the community college than the senior institution GPA of continuing non-transfers but were able to equal non-transfer student performance by graduation. For the 1999 group, transfer students were able to perform at the same level as non-transfers and had actually performed better than non-transfers at the time of graduation (Glass & Harrington, 2002). Even in a single senior institution, the results of cohorts from one year to the next produced noticeably different results. Overall, the only reliable predictor of GPA at the senior institution appears to be the GPA at the previous transfer institution. The predictive value of age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, and transfer type on GPA at the senior institution are inconsistent. Retention and Graduation In addition to GPA, and oft times in place of it, studies also examine the rate of graduation among transfer students. Glass and Harrington (2002) found that in general transfer students had higher rates of drop out and were less likely to graduate than non-transfer students. In relation to transfer shock, Jaggers et al. (2023) found that students with greater drops in GPA in the first term were significantly more likely to leave the university, although the effect was reversed for those who “bounced back” in the second term. In their study in Kentucky, Best and Gehring (1993) found that students with 60 or more transfer units graduated in higher rates than those with less than 60 transfer units, but non- transfers graduated more frequently than either transfer group. Eimers and Mullen’s (1997) study in Missouri found a similar correlation between number of transfer units and graduation rates but still found that one-third of transfer students ultimately drop out of the senior institution. In that study, higher transfer GPAs and being White or Asian also increased graduation rates, while receipt of an Associate’s degree, gender, academic discipline, and the 25 type of transfer institution (two-year or four-year) made no difference in the graduation rates of transfers (Eimers and Mullen, 1997). And in Indiana, Clausen and Wessel (2015) found that age, gender, transfer type, and college of study had significant relationships with transfer students’ 6- year graduation rates, with older students, women, horizontal (or lateral) transfers, and students enrolled in the colleges for science and technology, communication and media, or teacher education more likely to graduate. Zamani (2001) also identified residential status as a predictor of graduation, where residential students were 43% more likely to persist and complete degree requirements than commuter students. In examining 5,742 transfer students attending a public university, Daddona et al. (2022) also found that vertical transfer students had an increased probability of graduating compared with lateral transfer students. Their study examined the impact on graduation of swirling students and while there was no significant relationship between number of institutions and graduation rate, they discovered a parabolic relationship between number of transfer credits and graduation. As the number of transfer credits increased, so did a transfer student’s likelihood of graduating, until the threshold of 105 units was reached beyond which transfer students’ graduation was significantly lower (Daddona et al., 2022). The studies which correlated number of transfer units with graduation did not indicate the extent of credit loss students experienced upon transfer. Reviewing credits accepted in vertical transfer, Jenkins and Fink (2015) noted that community college students who had most of their credits accepted in transfer were significantly more likely to earn a bachelor’s degree compared with students who were granted credit for less than half of their previously completed credits. Most research seems to focus on GPA as the most important student outcome, but persistence to 26 graduation is certainly crucial to many senior institutions in determining the success of their students. Social Transition and Integration Related to academic struggles, transfer students often reveal that they also struggle socially. The relationship between grades and involvement is unsurprising; Tinto's (1993) student engagement model noted clear connections between social and academic engagement and the combined impact on student success and retention. Lack of community at the new institution went hand-in-hand with poor academic performance for transfer students in multiple studies (Chrystal et al., 2013; Townley et al., 2013; Townsend, 2008). Townley et al. (2013) concluded that the sense of community at the post transfer institution was more critical than the sense of community at the previous school. Creating connections for students – to other students, to student organizations, to faculty, and to the university at large – has been found to be critical to student engagement and success (Chrystal et al., 2013; Jefferson et al., 2014; Townley et al., 2013). Unfortunately, this integration is often complicated by stigmas associated with being a transfer student which can negatively affect how transfer students feel they are perceived by faculty, staff, and other students and hinder their sense of belonging (Cheung, et al., 2020; Lopez & Jones, 2017). Effect of Student’s Major In the process of conducting this review, it was apparent that a majority of studies treat transfer students as a homogeneous group. Several studies seem to conclude that transfer shock does not exist, even though the researchers evaluated all transfers as one group regardless of major. It is logical to assume that some fields of study are more challenging than others. It would therefore follow that students experiencing transfer shock in a certain discipline may be 27 obscured by the ‘normal’ performance of those in less demanding disciplines when evaluated as a single group. Several studies focused on transfer shock in a single field of study, typically focusing on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics) majors. However, few studies have examined the variability of transfer shock across majors or fields of study. Using majors grouped into four broad areas – Fine Arts and Humanities (art, music, theater, English, foreign language, history, religious studies), Mathematics and Sciences (mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics), Social Sciences (economics, government, psychology, sociology), and Professions (business, education, journalism) – Cejda et al. (1998) examined transfer shock isolated by field of study over a seven-year period at a very small, private liberal arts college in the Midwest. Their results showed that students in Fine Arts and Humanities, and Social Sciences actually experienced GPA increases after transfer, while students studying Mathematics and Sciences and the Professions experienced declines in GPA after transfer. In this study, only the GPA decline in Mathematics and Sciences (-.272) was statistically significant (Cejda et al., 1998). However, in an earlier published study, Cejda (1997) made a similar analysis of transfer students over a four-year period with Business and Education majors separated, instead of included together as majors in the Professions. The results were similar except that Business majors alone, when separated from other profession majors, experienced a statistically significant decline of 0.342 in mean GPA, and a decline in GPA for 75% of the students in the Business major sample, while Education majors experienced almost no GPA change (Cejda, 1997). Neither study investigated differences in academic performance between transfer students and non-transfer students. However, these studies illustrate the importance of assessing fields of study separately when looking at transfer shock. In both cases, the cumulative transfer 28 shock across all majors was somewhat unremarkable but became acutely pronounced when examining specific majors. Carlan and Byxbe (2000) noted that the college of major for students was a significant predictor of GPA, with business administration and science students suffering a drop in GPA upon transfer that was nearly double compared with other schools. These colleges of major also had the lowest GPAs among non-transfer students, but the transfer students still performed lower than their non-transfer counterparts (Carlan & Byxbe, 2000). More recently, Clausen and Wessel (2015) observed a statistically significant relationship with GPA for just one of their colleges (applied sciences and technology). While they did not examine individual majors, their findings contradicted earlier studies in that transfer students in the applied sciences and technology actually earned higher GPAs after transfer. The Role of the Senior Institution Since 1986, the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) has created and modified standards of professional practice for colleges and universities. In addition to General Standards, CAS has also developed sets of 50 functional area standards which have their own context for guiding principles beyond the CAS General Standards. Transfer Student Programs and Services were added as a CAS functional area for the 8 th edition released in 2012. The CAS Standards and Guidelines state that the mission of Transfer Student Programs and Services (TSPS) is to “aid in the successful transfer, persistence, and graduation of transfer students. To accomplish the mission, TSPS must facilitate seamless pathways among and within institutions to support transfer students at all stages of their transitions” (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2023, p. 1020). Some of the CAS guiding principles for TSPS include providing informal transcript evaluations prior to transfer students 29 accepting their offer of admission, advising regarding admission and orientation processes, and dedicated staff to serve as the main contact for transfer students and their families. Additional recommended services are “early-alert systems, intrusive advising, academic support, transfer- year seminars and student success courses, peer mentoring, and other transition services” (p. 1020). Despite the blueprint provided by CAS for transfer student services, many institutions still tend to rely on existing institutional resources developed for freshmen-admitted students to serve transfer students. Tobolowsky and Cox (2012) examined institutional response to transfer students through interviews with 17 “institutional agents” chosen for their proximity to working with transfer students or transfer policies. They found that the diversity of transfer students (the very quality often sought after by institutions) was seen by administrators as a complication in addressing the needs of the students who cited the variation among transfer students in ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, age, and even levels of credit hours as creating multiple simultaneous needs for individual students that they found challenging to address. Participants in the study indicated that they desired to do more for transfer students but felt constrained by institutional structures and policies, and most had a limited view of transfer students’ needs focusing on course registration while overlooking necessary social adjustments (Tobolowsky & Cox, 2012). Studies have emphasized the importance of institutional agents (such as academic advisors) to support the successful transition of transfer students and assist them in navigating the complexities of the new institution (Dowd et al., 2013; Jefferson et al., 2014; Lazarowicz & McGill, 2022). Connections with faculty also played a significant role in developing a sense of belonging for transfer students (Chrystal et al., 2013; Dowd et al., 2013; Eggleston & Laanan, 30 2001; Laanan et al., 2011). Chrystal et al. also stressed the importance of institutional strategies to ensure transfer students are aware of and engage with campus resources. Several of the articles that were reviewed suggested institutional programs that could assist transfer students in the transition to their new institution. Seminars, particularly those that last a full semester or longer, have been found to improve academic outcomes for both freshmen and transfer students (Gardner, 2001; Jefferson, et al., 2014). Studies have also found that college-transition programs (like mandatory orientation) boost performance (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Tinto, 2006). Mentoring programs have also been suggested to support the success of transfer students (Jefferson et al., 2014; Laanan, 1996). And Zamani (2001) highlighted the benefits of establishing a transfer center to address the challenges and needs of transfer students. Beyond programs and services designed to ease the transition of transfer students, more practical resources provided by the senior institution such as housing and financial aid have also been observed to be challenging amongst transfer students (Eggleston & Laanan, 2001). Utter and DeAngelo (2015) identified campus housing as an important component in the social transition of lateral transfer students. However, campus housing is often not a priority for transfer students. Tobolowsky and Cox (2012) reported that housing spaces previously designated for transfer students were reallocated to first-year students as soon as space became constrained. Townsend (2008) found that transfer students experienced frustration with the financial aid process at the senior institution, largely due to uncertainty about how much aid they would receive. Dowd et al. (2013) found that deficits in financial aid led some students to decide to enroll in a less expensive college while others found additional ways to make up the difference such as working full-time, paying with credit cards, or using payment plan options. Daddona et al. (2022) noted that transfer students with a high number of transfer credits may be at risk of 31 exhausting their financial aid eligibility before they are able to graduate, particularly if those transfer credits are not accepted and applied at the senior institution. Handel and Williams (2012) observed that transfer students are often the last to be “packaged” for financial aid, often receiving more loans and less grant aid. Transition Theory In considering a student’s application, admission, orientation, and enrollment as a transfer, an applicable student development theory is Nancy Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981). Schlossberg’s theory has its roots in counseling psychology. The fundamental precept of transition theory is that individuals are often coping with transitions triggered by events or nonevents that result in changes to the person’s life, such as changed relationships or routines (Evans, et al., 2010). Transfer students are experiencing transitions in the form of events such as orientation and class attendance at the new institution, or nonevents such as not receiving credit for transfer courses taken elsewhere. These events and nonevents require the student to cope with the transition. The role of the institution and academic advisor is to support the student through the phases of moving in, moving through, and moving out of the various transitions they may be facing. The individual also brings potential assets and/or liabilities that influence their ability to cope with the transition. Transition Theory identifies factors in four areas: Situation, Self, Support, and Strategies (Anderson et al., 2012). Situation refers to the timing, duration, and trigger of the event, the individual’s previous experiences with a similar transition, and concurrent stress. Self refers to personal and demographic characteristics such as age, gender and socioeconomic status but also psychological resources, commitment and values, and beliefs and resiliency. Support refers to intimate relationships, family groups, friends, communities, and 32 institutions. Strategies refers to coping responses to the transition which may be aimed at modifying the situation, controlling the meaning of the problem, or managing stress. Literature Limitations Although a relative abundance of research has been devoted to transfer shock and the transition of transfer students, there are too many different approaches to the classification of transfer shock, defining the critical elements of transition, and what constitutes success at the senior institution such that confusion is inevitable. Adding to the uncertainty is the inconsistent nature of results. In some studies, particular factors such as age, ethnicity, gender, or earning an Associate’s degree are significant, while other studies show no correlation for these variables. Additionally, studies differ in measured outcomes. Transfer student success is most often defined as GPA, but plenty of research examines retention and graduation rates as the desired student outcomes, while still others investigate the students’ attitudes and level of satisfaction. Each researcher may have compelling motives for selecting one outcome over another, but this further muddles the comparability of results. In their review of research frameworks and models applied to the study of transfer, Brinkley-Etzkorn and Cherry (2022) identified 19 different theoretical frameworks and conceptual models applied over five phases since the 1960s. They subsequently grouped each research approach into three broad categories: student-focused, institution-focused, and integrated models which attempt to incorporate both student and institutional components. Definitions of Transfer Shock One fundamental quandary of transfer shock research is an apparent lack of agreement about how to measure transfer student achievement and the best frame of reference for comparison. The simplest definition of transfer shock involves information regarding the 33 transfer student only, comparing the pre-transfer GPA at the two-year college with the post- transfer GPA at the senior institution. Yet many studies contrast the transfer student’s GPA with that of non-transfer students at the senior institution and may or may not examine the change in GPA from pre-transfer to post-transfer. Also, when comparing with non-transfer students, studies may or may not separate non-transfer students by class standing, comparing transfer students with all continuing non-transfers. Influence of Institutional Characteristics In her review of 62 studies in transfer shock, Diaz (1992) noted that nearly all of the data came from state universities so a comparison of different types of senior institutions could not be made. Most of the studies in this review also came from large state universities. The results of these studies should be interpreted with caution for applications to other institutions. Although most large universities may seem similar, there are fundamental distinctions between identifying factors – public or private, selective or open, etc. The use of public funds for state-run institutions often translates into higher expectations of accountability where such data must be made available to the state’s constituents. And, as previously noted, many of the most selective universities in the country are often under private control and allow very few transfers. COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts Since the COVID-19 global pandemic is still very recent (and in many ways still ongoing), research on the long-term impacts to higher education and student outcomes are just beginning. Initial studies have largely focused on pedagogical approaches, including perspectives on online teaching, and the benefits and challenges of teaching and learning using digital technologies. Previous research on how colleges and universities respond to natural disasters may provide a foundation for understanding the impact of the recent pandemic. 34 Writing at the time of devastating hurricanes in the Gulf States, Schuh and Laanan (2006) identified several key areas of potential disruption during emergency situations, from personal safety and wellness support to coordination of auxiliary services and operational contingencies. Research of the effects on student experiences during the pandemic are preliminary at this time with most focusing on case studies and small sample interviews. Recently emerging studies are beginning to examine the long-term impacts of the educational conditions created by the COVID-19 pandemic on student success. Sholes et al. (2023) reviewed aspects of the academic impact of COVID-19 and potential best practices of institutions. They note that while online instruction is likely the best option for long-term disruptions, it is often viewed as being of lower quality. Certain communities and groups of students may have been impacted by the pandemic greater than others, and stress was identified as the leading barrier for academic success. Sholes et al. propose several best practices in the areas of student support (holistic advising, embedded tutoring, and fostering a sense of community); student guidance (long-term academic planning and simplifying the transfer process); student motivation (career coaching and scholarship or tuition incentives); and student resiliency (helping students develop self- efficacy in time management and online learning). In a small case study of 27 transfer STEM students as part of a larger longitudinal study, Thiry et al. (2023) found that the ability to build and maintain social capital was particularly vulnerable to the type of disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Transfer STEM students in the study reported difficulties in making connections with peers and campus resources. Their results show that “students’ social capital, in the form of peer networks and caring institutional agents, was vital to their successful adjustment at the university and continued progress during the pandemic” (p. 17). As we continue to move out of and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, a growing body of research is 35 expected in the coming years to understand the full magnitude of the effect of the pandemic on higher education institutions and the student experience. Conclusions Most studies confirm the presence of transfer shock, but there are no consistent links between transfer shock and student experience or demographic characteristics such as age, gender, ethnicity, transfer units, receipt of an Associate’s degree, and level of campus involvement. Older transfer students often perform better than younger transfer students, but this is not always the case. A higher number of transfer units at times can predict an increase in GPA at the senior institution and an Associate’s degree occasionally improves the likelihood of increased academic performance. The only consistent result appears to be with the predictive value of transfer GPA. The issue of these changeable results may come from widely differing research methods, but other factors may also influence these outcomes. Many researchers assume that the transfer population is homogenous. Their studies often lump all transfer students together looking at cumulative effects while ignoring the full dynamics and variations of the transfer experience. At most, these studies distinguish between transfers from two-year colleges versus transfers from four-year colleges, or isolate transfer students who have completed a certain level of units or an Associate’s degree. While these distinctions are helpful, the majority of studies continue to disregard the role of a student’s chosen field of study and the institutional characteristics that influence the extent of transfer shock and transition difficulty students encounter upon transfer to a senior institution. The assumption that all majors and all senior institutions are created equal often results in differing magnitudes of the transfer shock phenomenon. 36 Implications Senior institutions admit transfer students for a variety of reasons. Admitting transfers is practical since 100% retention of incoming freshmen cannot be achieved, particularly at larger institutions. It is in the student’s and the institution’s best interest to help those admitted to the university, either as freshmen or as transfers, succeed academically and ultimately graduate. Of course, not everyone can achieve a 4.0 GPA, but there should not be significant differences between the transfer and non-transfer groups of students. It appears obvious that the subject of a student’s major and the nature of the senior institution can influence the degree of transfer shock, although little attention has been given to these factors. When majors or fields of study are analyzed separately for transfer shock, initial data shows that business majors fare worse upon transfer along with students in mathematics, sciences, and engineering (Carlan & Byxbe, 2000, Cejda, 1997; Cejda et al., 1998). These majors are largely more technical and quantitative and are typically Bachelor of Science programs with a greater number of major requirements compared to their arts and humanities, and social science, Bachelor of Arts counterparts. Examination of individual programs or fields of study may yield additional acuity to the problem. Very little is known about the impact of the type, control, selectivity, and size of a senior institution on transfer student success. Since most studies focus on just one senior institution, comparisons from study to study can be challenging. It seems likely, however, that having a research-oriented versus liberal arts focus, being private versus public in control, having selective versus open admissions policies, or being a large versus a small institution will have an effect on the experiences of students, both transfer and non-transfer. Additional research of institutional characteristics could provide more stable predictors of transfer student success. 37 Chapter Three: Methodology The study’s purpose was to understand transfer student experiences and evaluate the influences on academic outcomes for transfer students at a highly selective research university. Prior research indicates that transfer students have lower GPAs, higher attrition rates, and are more likely to end up on academic probation compared with non-transfer students (Laanan, 1996). By admitting transfer students, universities are inherently invested in the success of transfer students and are obligated to provide the necessary resources and support to facilitate that success. Multiple studies reviewed the unique needs of transfer students, particularly during their transition to a new university; the present study was a continuation of those studies. This chapter outlines the methodology for this study, research design, research questions, sampling procedure and population, instrumentation, and procedures for data collection and analysis. Research Questions 1. What influences transfer students’ transition to the University? a. How do undergraduate transfer students characterize their experiences during their transition to the University? b. What are the common issues and challenges faced by undergraduate transfer students upon matriculation at the University? 2. What is the nature of transfer students’ experiences with academic advising? a. What is the quality of transfer students’ interactions with academic advisors? b. What are transfer students’ perceptions of their interactions with academic advisors? 3. How do transfer students at the University identify and utilize academic support services and other opportunities provided by the institution? 38 4. What factors influence academic success in transfer students? a. Is there a relationship between student personal and demographic characteristics and academic performance in transfer students? b. Is there a relationship between previous college experiences and academic performance in transfer students? c. Is there a relationship between university experiences and academic performance in transfer students? Research Design This study examined the experiences of transfer students at a Large Research University (LRU), including their transition to the University, their interactions with academic advisors, and their awareness of various support resources at the University. The study addressed whether certain factors contribute to any differences in academic performance, specifically GPA, among transfer students. Comparison variables were examined in three categories a) student personal and demographic characteristics, b) previous college experiences, and c) university experiences. The study was conducted using an online survey combined with student transcript data and the resulting analysis was quantitative, correlational, and qualitative. Approximately 1400 new incoming transfer students enroll each fall at LRU, representing nearly one-third of all new undergraduate students starting at LRU each fall. Overall, transfer students make up approximately one-quarter of all undergraduate students at the University. Transfer students are accepted into all schools and programs at the University. However, there are very few resources and services at the University that are dedicated to the specific needs of transfer students. The significant number of transfer students in a wide range of programs contributed to the decision to select LRU as the study site. The relative absence of transfer- 39 dedicated services likewise contributed to the decision to conduct the study at LRU with the interest of learning how transfer students use general support services and resources. Given the size of the transfer student population at LRU, an online survey and recruitment via email were determined to be the most practical methods to conduct the study. Other reasons for choosing an online survey include the minimal cost, the convenience for participants, and the ease of data compilation. Additionally, the number of variables and the length of the questionnaire made using online methods the most pragmatic. The survey instrument for this study was primarily based on the Laanan-Transfer Students’ Questionnaire (L-TSQ) combined with additional site-specific and academic advising- focused questions. Students identified as recently enrolled transfer students at the University were invited to complete an online questionnaire. The questionnaire included a FERPA release, and contained items regarding the student’s age, ethnicity, gender, commuting time to school, employment, academic advising interactions, experiences at their previous college(s) and the University. Additionally, official student records containing transfer units and GPA, as well as university units and GPA were obtained for each authorized participant from LRU’s transcript records. Key Concepts Essential concepts for this study are based on the 4 S’s of Schlossberg’s Transition Theory, which are Situation, Self, Support, and Strategies. Figure 1 shows the alignment of the 4 S’s with elements of the study. Situation refers to the conditions and features of the transitional event. For this study, the transitional event is the student’s transfer to LRU from another institution and the related adjustments to environment and circumstances. These included prior college experiences, reasons for transferring, and concurrent stress of perceived difficulties. Self 40 refers to personal and demographic characteristics of the individual as well as their internal psychological resources for coping with the transition. Related variables and constructs included age, gender, ethnicity, family income, educational goals, academic attitudes, adjustment processes, and general perceptions. Support refers to external social support in the form of intimate relationships, family units, networks of friends, and institutions and communities. For the purposes of this study, the focus was on institutions and communities relative to interactions with university support services and academic advising. Strategies refers to methods and reactions for coping with the transition. For this study these included coping styles, study habits, and approaches to seeking support through academic advising and other existing institutional resources. Figure 1 Transition Theory and Study Elements Situation • Transferring to the University • Previous College Experiences • Event Circumstances • Concurrent Stress Self • Personal Characteristics & Demographics • Psychological Resources • Attitudes & Views Strategies • Coping Responses • Study Approaches • Help seeking action/inaction Support • Campus Community • Institutional Services & Resources • Orientation Program • Academic Advising 41 Population and Sample The participants for this study were not selected randomly and were limited to those who received and acted upon the request for information. The population for the study included all recent transfer students who had been enrolled at LRU any time between Fall 2019 and Spring 2022. These specific years were selected to ensure that there was an adequate number of potential participants in the sample, that potential participants had completed at least one semester at LRU on which to base their responses, and that potential participants were the most current both to be able to contact them and to obtain data on recent experiences. The exact number of transfer students matching the study population criteria was not directly available but is approximately 5,000 based on information provided by the LRU Registrar, data in LRU’s publicly available common data set, and data reported by LRU to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) of the Department of Education. The estimated total transfer student population at LRU represents approximately 25% of the total undergraduate student population at LRU. Generalization of the results is limited to undergraduate programs at universities similar to LRU. Instrumentation The variables in this study were measured using an online survey instrument. Survey items were primarily derived from the Laanan-Transfer Student’s Questionnaire (L-TSQ), modified to exclude areas not germane to the research questions and incorporate institution- specific, demographic, academic record, and academic advising questions. The L-TSQ was first developed in 1998 with 304 items based on student development theories and previously established student experience questionnaires (Laanan, 1998). The L-TSQ is organized in three main sections: social demographics; community college experiences; and university experiences. 42 Since 1998, Laanan and other researchers have identified at least 26 constructs using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis which have firmly establish the validity and reliability of L- TSQ item scales (Cheung et al., 2020; Laanan, 2004; Laanan et al., 2010; Lopez & Jones, 2017; Moser, 2012; Young & Litzler, 2013). Using a revised L-TSQ (Laanan et al., 2010; Moser, 2012), more than 280 survey items were considered for use in this study. Several L-TSQ constructs and their associated survey items were excluded from use based on their lack of relevance to the research questions or theoretical framework. For the remaining constructs, some survey items were excluded to limit the length of the overall survey or where previously conducted factor analysis resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient lower than 0.61. Table 1 shows the constructs from the L-TSQ used in this study, including alpha reliabilities for each scale using the results of the current study. This study largely duplicated results of construct validity for the previously developed L-TSQ factors, except in the case of academic adjustment and psychological adjustment. These two constructs had less reliability than previous studies. Also somewhat less reliable were the constructs for perceptions and engagement in the transfer process and financial mediators to the decision to transfer. This difference may be due to a reduction in the number of survey items for each construct compared with previous studies. Results for these constructs are included in the data analysis but should be interpreted with caution. The L-TSQ also includes questions about student demographic characteristics such as age, ethnicity, parents’ education level, and family household income. 43 Table 1 L-TSQ Constructs Used Construct/Factor Count of Survey Items Cronbach’s Alpha Pre-transfer experiences Academic counseling 4 .846 Experiences with general courses 4 .849 Course learning 4 .844 Transfer Center 4 .904 Transfer Capital Perceptions of the transfer process 4 .668 Financial mediators 3 .639 Learning and study skills 10 .899 Adjustment process: academic 4 .546 Adjustment process: psychological 3 .553 Adjustment process: social 3 .832 Coping style: active 3 .845 Coping style: avoidance 4 .747 Coping style: emotional 2 .711 Coping style: social 3 .758 University experiences Academic advising 3 .712 Orientation experiences 3 .925 Course learning at the university 6 .786 Stigma as a transfer student 3 .845 Perceptions of the university 6 .816 Perceptions of faculty 3 .828 Satisfaction with the university 16 .906 Items from the L-TSQ were augmented with several questions from the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) project. As part of a longitudinal study, the TRUCCS questionnaire was successfully administered to more than 5,000 students in the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) in 2001 (Hagedorn & Maxwell, 2002). Many of the 230 items in the TRUCCS questionnaire overlapped with items already included from the L-TSQ. The TRUCCS questionnaire items included in this study consisted of 44 additional student demographics, perceived obstacles, goal orientation, academic attitudes, and study habits. To measure transfer students’ knowledge and use of institutional support resources, items were included specifically for this study and site which had been adapted from previous surveys of LRU transfer students administered by the University’s Division of Student Affairs in 2008 and 2015. Additional questions were included in the online survey to address transfer students’ experiences with academic advising at the university. Lastly, supplementary survey items were crafted acknowledging potential variations in the students’ experiences related to the COVID-19 global pandemic and the resulting widespread implementation of remote instruction. The amalgamated questionnaire for the study had several types of questions: multiple choice, Likert scale, select all that apply, numerical entry, and open text response. The final study survey contained 294 items in 74 questions and seven sections (Appendix C). The first section of the survey included an introduction and overview of the study with questions related to the participant’s academic background and enrollment history. The second section of the survey asked participants about their previous college experiences and thinking back to the time they were preparing to transfer to the University. In this section, the L-TSQ items often referred specifically to “community college” experiences, but as transfer from other four-year institutions is relatively common at LRU, each of these items was adjusted to “prior college(s)” rather than “community college.” The third section of the survey asked participants about their transition to the university. The fourth section of the survey asked participants about their familiarity with various institutional support resources. The fifth section of the survey asked students about their experiences with academic advising at the University as well as their coping responses when faced with a problem or difficult situation. The sixth section asked participants about their university experiences including their general perceptions, adjustment 45 processes, and overall satisfaction. The last section of the survey asked participants for additional information about their perspectives as a transfer student as well as additional personal characteristics and demographics. Participants who completed the full survey had the opportunity to provide their contact information to be entered into a gift card raffle. Data Collection The study utilized a combined dataset of survey responses and student transcript records. The site-modified L-TSQ was entered into Qualtrics with items organized according to the sections previously described. Nearly all survey items were formatted to request a response before continuing with the survey. A limited number of items in the first section of the survey were formatted to require a response before being able to continue with the survey. These items were: consent to participate in the study, first term at LRU, academic unit, and major program. Site protocols prohibited direct access to contact potential study participants. Instead, requests for participation were sent via 16 advising offices at LRU. The initial study participation recruitment request was sent to advising offices in mid- October 2022. The message to advising offices included text for the email invitation to send to potential participants (Appendix B), a separately attached study information sheet (Appendix A), and instructions for the criteria to use in identifying the intended study population within LRU’s advising systems. The requested criteria were: • Application type: transfer • Enrolled term: Fall 2019 or Spring 2020 or Fall 2020 or Spring 2021 or Fall 2021 or Spring 2022 • Current enrollment status: enrolled or not enrolled 46 Using the requested criteria, 16 advising offices were asked to forward the study invitation and study information sheet via email. Immediately following the first recruitment request, six advising offices replied that the message had been forwarded as directed. In early November 2022, a reminder request was sent via email to three advising offices whose programs enroll a large number of transfer students but who had not responded to the initial request. Two of these offices subsequently forwarded the study invitation as requested. Four other departments were determined to have very few or no transfer students in their programs and were excluded from further outreach. A final recruitment reminder was sent to the twelve remaining advising offices in early December 2022. The final reminder included an updated recruitment message notifying potential participants that the survey would close by mid-December 2022. Four advising offices replied confirming that the reminder message had been forwarded. It is not known if the final reminder was forwarded by the other advising offices. Participants were asked to provide their student record number on each questionnaire to be matched with LRU transcript data. Matching student transcript data regarding the student’s transfer institutions and transfer GPA as well as University units and GPA were obtained through the LRU Registrar. University GPA was used to assess academic success. After collection, all data was input into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Validity and Reliability As with any descriptive, correlational study, the results cannot be used to make any statement of causal relationships. Threats to validity stem from the reliance on voluntary and honest responses from students. There may be fundamental differences between respondents to the questionnaire and other non-respondents in the transfer student population. However, it is expected that all variables are relatively stable and therefore reliable. 47 Threats to reliability and validity may come about through the use of the study-designed questionnaire. The questionnaire as a whole has not been tested for reliability and validity. The items were scaled, providing fixed categorical responses, which provided a suitable level of objectivity in the scoring. Even without prior testing, confidence is high that the survey instrument may be used in additional studies and will produce comparable results since a majority of the items have been used successfully in multiple prior studies. Study Variables Survey items were included for their relevance to the study variables. In turn, each study variable was related to a research question and aligned with the theoretical framework. The first three research questions were expository and therefore generated largely descriptive results. The fourth and final research question was correlational and used a dependent outcome variable. Figure 2 shows the conceptual model for the data analysis. Figure 2 Conceptual Model for Research Question 4 Academic Outcome Personal Characteristics Previous College Experiences University Experiences 48 Outcome Variable The main outcome variable for this study was University GPA. Participants were asked to provide their current GPA as part of the survey, and this information was verified by official university records for students who provided a valid student record number and agreed to the release of their transcripts for use in the study. For correlational and mean comparison data analysis, only the GPA value from the University’s official records was used. University GPA was chosen for its feasibility as a widely understood concept and for its predictive value for student success and retention. Comparison Variables A large number of comparison variables were analyzed for this study. Close consideration was given to the size of the sample when conducting correlation and mean comparison analysis. Due to the assumption of normal distribution and homogeneity of variance inherent in certain statistical procedures, the importance of each category and variable was carefully weighed before including results from small sample groups (less than 10). The comparison variables were organized in three categories. The first category encompassed various personal characteristics including age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, disability, parental educational attainment, parental income, employment status, housing type, and financial aid status, as well as several derived constructs including coping style, study habits, academic attitudes, and goal orientation. The second category encompassed various previous college factors and experiences including transfer institution type, transfer units, transfer GPA, use of a transfer center, attainment of an Associate’s degree, time spent on campus, and time spent studying, as well as several derived constructs including transfer process, prior college advising, prior course experiences, prior course learning, and academic preparation. The third category 49 encompassed various University factors and experiences including academic unit, discipline of major, orientation experiences, first semester GPA, time to degree, assigned academic advisor, and frequency of advising, as well as several derived constructs including course learning, perceptions of faculty, institutional resource awareness, adjustment processes, general perceptions, and overall satisfaction. Data Analysis Prior to performing statistical and qualitative analysis, the data was reviewed and prepared. Raw survey data was examined for anomalies and to determine if any cases were to be excluded from the results. As the survey was rather lengthy, some respondents did not complete the whole survey. Consequently, 25% of included cases contained non-responses to one or more survey items. When an item response was missing, those cases were not included in the analysis. After cleaning the survey data and determining the included cases, the survey data was matched with existing student transcript data obtained from the LRU Registrar and merged to create the full study dataset. The study dataset was further processed using SPSS software. This processing included transforming data to generate variables, reverse coding of scaled items for specific variables, defining multiple response sets, counting values within cases, and computing construct variables using factor analysis. As several survey items were open-ended and pertained to qualitative aspects of the research questions, the study dataset was also analyzed using NVivo software. A priori coding categories and concepts had been previously developed based on the theoretical framework. Primary codes included Transition, Situation, Self, Support, Strategies, and Academic Advising. Additional subcodes for emergent concepts were identified during review of open-ended responses. 50 A detailed plan was created to document data processing and outline the analysis related to each research question. In the research design, each survey item was matched to a variable, and each variable was aligned to the research questions. Once the data processing and data analysis plan were completed, descriptive statistics of participants including demographic characteristics and academic background information were generated. To answer the first research question regarding transfer students’ transition to the University, descriptive statistics were generated for several variables using SPSS, including frequency tables and means. Relevant variables included orientation experiences, course academic preparation, learning experiences, perceptions of faculty, adjustment processes, transfer stigma, perceived difficulties, and first semester GPA. Additional variables were evaluated using qualitative coding of open-ended response items. These included what respondents had shared regarding their decision to transfer, what may have helped in their transition to the university, and what advice they would have for other transfer students. To answer the second research question regarding transfer students’ academic advising experiences, descriptive statistics were generated for several variables using SPSS, including frequency tables and means. Additional analysis was performed to review how certain variables may have differed according to academic unit or major discipline. Relevant variables included previous college advising, assigned or preferred advisor, advising frequency, comfort seeking advising, and satisfaction with advising. Additional variables were evaluated using qualitative coding of open-ended response items. These included what respondents had shared regarding the kind of assistance they receive from academic advising, and how their advisor had been most helpful and least helpful. 51 To answer the third research question regarding transfer students’ awareness of university resources, descriptive statistics were generated for several variables using SPSS, including frequency tables and means. Relevant variables included learning support, academic services, student services, wellness resources, and transfer student resources. Each variable contained multiple items corresponding to services at the University which were evaluated as multiple response sets using counted values within cases. Additional variables were evaluated using qualitative coding of open-ended response items. These included what respondents had shared regarding how they learned about campus resources when first arriving at the University, how they sought assistance when dealing with academic difficulties, and what additional resources they would like the University to provide for transfer students. To answer the fourth and final research question regarding influences various factors may have on academic performance, statistical functions were performed in SPSS to produce correlational coefficients (Pearson’s r) for continuous data and mean comparisons using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or independent means t-test for categorical data. The comparison variables were organized into three groups: demographic and personal characteristics, previous college experiences, and university experiences. The outcome variable used to assess academic performance for each analysis was University GPA. Limitations and Delimitations This study has several limitations. The primary data collection included external elements that could not be controlled. Participant recruitment relied on third parties (academic advising offices) to forward the study invitation to the intended study population which could not always be confirmed. While this method was mostly successful, one school did not respond to the email requests and subsequently this school and its relatively large proportion of transfer 52 students are not represented in the data results. The participants were not selected randomly and were limited to those who wished to respond to the request to participate in the study. Only transfer students who were enrolled at LRU during any term between Fall 2019 and Spring 2022 were included in the study. As the primary data collection used a survey instrument, the willingness, interest, and ability of individuals to respond to all questions, to respond thoughtfully and accurately, and to respond in the given timeframe could not be controlled. This limitation is critical to the study as any lack of engagement from respondents could affect the outcome of the study. The survey used was a very long instrument which also may have affected participants willingness to complete the survey. This study focused on self-reported student demographic information and attitudes, and transcript records. It is assumed that all participants were honest in their questionnaire responses. It is also assumed that the student’s views and opinions on these subjects are stable and do not change significantly during their time at LRU. Another limitation of the current study was the reliability of certain constructs used. This study largely confirmed construct reliability from previous administrations of the L-TSQ, however four constructs had less scale reliability compared with previous studies. An analysis of nonrespondents in the intended study population was not conducted. Accordingly, this study is limited in that it only provides information about students who chose to respond, and potential bias in the results compared with non-respondents was not determined. Generalization of the results is limited to undergraduates at a university similar to LRU. An additional external element that could not be controlled and may have potentially impacted the study results concerns the timing of the study. This study was conducted in the last 53 few months of 2022 during the ongoing COVID-19 global pandemic. Participants of the study were likely to have attended college at the study site or another institution during the height of the pandemic when colleges and universities around the world were operating remotely. As such, the participants of this study have attended college under extraordinary circumstances which may have unknown influences on their overall experiences as shared in their responses for this study. The study questionnaire was modified to include several items regarding the possible impact of COVID-19 pandemic conditions on participants’ college experiences in an effort to minimize this limitation. 54 Chapter Four: Results The purpose of this study was to understand more about the experiences of transfer students at a highly selective research university and to explore factors that may influence their success at the university. This chapter reviews the data collected from the survey instrument and includes information about the data collection and analysis, descriptive characteristics of study participants, and the results of the study organized according to the study research questions. The primary data source for this study was an online survey covering multiple aspects of transfer students’ experiences including their previous college experiences, transition to the university, institutional support, academic advising, course learning, study habits, and overall satisfaction. The survey contained various item types including categorical, Likert scale, and open-ended. Survey responses were collected using Qualtrics. Some respondents did not complete the entire survey. Partial responses were included in the data analysis. However, mean substitution of missing values was not utilized. Where applicable, missing items are noted in data tables. Only valid values of survey items were used for factor analysis and analysis of comparison and outcome variables. Factor analysis (or dimension reduction) was performed using the survey items for several constructs developed by previous researchers from the Laanan Transfer Students’ Questionnaire (L-TSQ) (Laanan et al., 2010; Moser, 2012) and the Transfer and Retention of Urban Community College Students (TRUCCS) Project (Hagedorn & Maxwell, 2002). The majority of items selected from the L-TSQ and used for factor analysis in this study had a factor loading score (Cronbach’s alpha) of at least 0.70, with a range from 0.61 to 0.93. Additional factor loading analysis was not performed specifically for this study. Corresponding data from student transcripts was provided by the University for respondents who authorized a release of their student records for use in the study. Analysis of 55 quantitative information from both the survey and student transcripts was performed using SPSS software. This analysis included descriptive statistics (frequency and mean), factor analysis (calculated mean of multiple items), bivariate analysis (Pearson correlation coefficient), and mean comparisons (ANOVA and independent t-test). Several items on the survey asked participants for open-ended responses. Qualitative analysis was performed with the aid of NVivo software. A priori coding categories and concepts had been previously developed based on the theoretical framework. Additional subcodes for emergent concepts were identified during review of open-ended responses. Summarized analyses and direct quotations from participants were used to provide the qualitative findings of this study. Participants The population for the study included all recent transfer students at Large Research University (LRU) who had been enrolled at the University in any term between Fall 2019 and Spring 2022. The exact number of transfer students matching the criteria was not available but is approximately 5,000 based on information available in the University’s common data set and Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) reporting. This represents approximately 25% of the total undergraduate student population at the University. A total of 145 participants attempted the online survey. Of these 97 participants completed the full survey, one completed 87% of the survey, 17 completed 35-64% of the survey, 16 completed 18-22% of the survey, and 14 completed less than 10% of the survey. The 14 participants who completed less than 10% of the survey and one additional participant who completed the full survey in less than three minutes were excluded from analysis. 56 Of the 130 respondents included in the data analysis, 127 provided their student identification number to grant release of their student records for the purposes of this study. Two of the student numbers could not be matched with a known student record at the University. The University Registrar provided student transcript information for the remaining 125 participants. The transcript information provided included total university units attempted, total university units earned, cumulative university GPA, total transfer units attempted, total transfer units accepted, cumulative transfer GPA, and transfer institutions. Demographics Table 2 summarizes the demographics of the 130 transfer student participants based on their responses to the survey. Several of the personal demographic items were toward the end of the survey, therefore participants with partial responses were not shown these items and are listed as “Missing” in Table 2. The mean age of respondents (n=95) was 21.5 with 95.8% aged 19-24, which is within the “traditional” age of college students. An open-ended gender identity item was included on the survey rather than limited gender categories. A total of 93 participants responded to this item. Entries counted as Female/Woman included female, woman, cis female, and she/her. Entries counted as Male/Man included male, male identifying, and he/him. Other entries included agender, genderqueer, trans, and nonbinary. The female/woman category accounted for 59.1% of respondents, with 36.6% identifying as male/man, and 4.3% with other gender identities. The percentage of female/women participants was higher than the overall student population at the University which is estimated to be 52%. In terms of race/ethnicity, the survey asked participants to identify their ethnic background based on the U.S. federal classifications. A total of 95 participants responded to this 57 item. The ethnicities reported were: Asian, 37.9%; White (non-Hispanic), 35.8%; Hispanic or Latino/a, 15.8%; Other, 12.6%; African American or Black, 6.3%; Native American or Alaskan Native, 4.2%; and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 1.1%. Additionally, 10.0% of respondents selected more than one ethnicity. Participants were asked if they had any identified barriers to educational access and participation, such as a physical impairment or learning disability. A total of 83 participants responded to this item. More than one-quarter of respondents reported having a barrier to their educational access and participation (25.3%). The most selected issues were Attention Deficit (Hyperactivity) Disorder (13.3%) and Psychological/Psychiatric (13.3%). About half of those with an identified barrier also selected more than one (12%). Two-thirds of responding participants (n=93) reported that their father had at least a Bachelor’s degree (66.7%), and just over half reported the same of their mothers (53.8%). An additional 9.7% of fathers and 16.2% of mothers had some college or an Associate’s degree from a two-year college. Fathers were more likely to have a graduate degree (33.3%) than mothers (25.8%). Mothers were more likely to have a high school degree or less (29.0%) than fathers (23.7%). Consistent with the reporting of parents’ education level, 31 participants (23.8%) self- identified as a first-generation college student. Respondents who indicated their best estimate of their parent’s total household income (n=95) were most likely to select $150,000 or more (29.5%). The next largest income level groups were those earning $20,000 to $39,999 (16.8%) and those earning $100,000 to $149,999 (15.8%). Slightly fewer reported an income level of $60,000 to $79,999 (13.7%). A smaller percentage (6.3%) was reported for each of the remaining income levels of $80,000 to $99,999, $40,000 to $59,999, and less than $20,000. Additionally, 5.3% of respondents indicated that 58 they were financially independent, consistent with respondents whose age was reported as 25 or older (4.2%). In addition to identifying as a first-generation college student, respondents were asked to identify if they belonged to other specific populations. None of the respondents identified as current or former foster youth. However, seven respondents identified as an international student, 15 identified as members of a Greek fraternity or sorority, two identified as student athletes, and one identified as a veteran or member of an armed forces ROTC. 59 Table 2 Participant Self-Reported Characteristics Variable n Total % Valid % Age 19-20 21 16.2 22.1 21-24 70 53.8 73.7 25-30 3 2.3 3.1 34 1 0.8 1.1 Missing 35 26.9 Gender Identity Female/Woman 55 42.3 59.1 Male/Man 34 26.2 36.6 Other 4 3.1 4.3 Missing 37 28.5 Marital Status Married 6 4.6 6.3 Never Married 89 68.5 93.7 Missing 35 26.9 Ethnic Background African American or Black 6 4.6 6.3 Asian 36 27.7 37.9 Hispanic or Latino/a 15 11.5 15.8 Native American or Alaskan Native 4 3.1 4.2 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 1 0.8 1.1 White (non-Hispanic) 34 26.2 35.8 Other 12 9.2 12.6 More than one selected 13 10.0 13.7 Missing 35 25.9 Barriers to educational access and participation AD(H)D 11 8.5 13.3 ASD Related 2 1.5 2.4 Blind/Low Vision 0 0.0 0.0 DHH 0 0.0 0.0 Learning disability 3 2.3 3.6 Medical 6 4.6 7.2 Musculoskeletal/Mobility 1 0.8 1.2 Psychological/Psychiatric 11 8.5 13.3 Speech 0 0.0 0.0 TBI/ABI 0 0.0 0.0 No disabilities 62 46.9 74.7 More than one selected 10 7.7 12.0 Missing 47 36.2 60 Table 2 (Continued) Variable n Total % Valid % Mother’s education level Elementary school or less 2 1.5 2.2 Some high school 6 4.6 6.5 High school graduate 19 14.6 20.4 Some college 9 6.9 9.7 Associate degree from two-year college 6 4.6 6.5 Bachelor’s degree 25 19.2 26.9 Some graduate school 1 0.8 1.1 Graduate degree 24 18.5 25.8 Don’t know 1 0.8 1.1 Missing 37 28.5 Father’s education level Elementary school or less 1 0.8 1.1 Some high school 5 3.8 5.4 High school graduate 16 12.3 17.2 Some college 6 4.6 6.5 Associate degree from two-year college 3 2.3 3.2 Bachelor’s degree 25 19.2 26.9 Some graduate school 2 1.5 2.2 Graduate degree 31 23.8 33.3 Don’t know 4 3.1 4.3 Missing 37 28.5 Parents’ annual income Independent student 5 3.8 5.3 Less than $20,000 6 4.6 6.3 $20,000 to $39,999 16 12.3 16.8 $40,000 to $59,999 6 4.6 6.3 $60,000 to $79,999 13 10.0 13.7 $80,000 to $99,999 6 4.6 6.3 $100,000 to $149,999 15 11.5 15.8 $150,000 or more 28 21.5 29.5 Missing 35 26.9 First Generation College Student 31 21.4 International Student 7 4.8 Member of Greek Fraternity or Sorority 15 10.3 Student Athlete 2 1.4 Armed Forces ROTC or Veteran 1 0.7 61 Table 3 Place of Residency Survey Item Before Remote Instruction (n=82) During Remote Instruction (n=103) After Remote Instruction (n=106) n % n % n % Residence hall or other university housing 24 29.3 4 3.9 10 9.4 Fraternity or sorority house 1 1.2 1 1.0 4 3.8 Private apartment or room within walking distance of the university 16 19.5 13 12.6 54 50.9 House, apartment, etc. (not walking distance from campus) 1 1.2 11 10.7 19 17.9 With parents or relatives 40 48.8 74 71.8 18 17.0 Given the unique timing of the study, several questions in the survey acknowledged the changing nature of certain aspects of the students’ educational experiences during the recent global pandemic. A key attribute of the traditional college experience is the physical learning community formed by individuals gathering to share their studies on a college campus. However, from March 2020 through September 2021, many colleges and universities, including LRU, conducted courses and instruction exclusively through virtual delivery methods. An effect of this transition is shown in the place of residence before, during, and after remote instruction as reported by the study participants shown in Table 3. Before the transition to remote instruction, 50% of respondents (n=82) lived in a residence hall, fraternity or sorority house, or a location within walking distance from campus. This percentage dropped to 17.5% for respondents (n=103) during remote instruction. The percentage of respondents living with parents or relatives increased from 48.8% to 71.8% during remote instruction. After the return to in-person instruction, the percentage of respondents (n=106) living with parents or relatives dropped to 17.0%. After the return to in-person instruction, respondents were most likely (50.9%) to live in non-university housing within walking distance from campus. 62 The time spent working at a job for pay changed once student participants had transferred and enrolled at the University. When enrolled in their previous college, 43.9% of respondents (n=114) reported not having a job, while 39.4% reported working part-time and 16.6% reported working more than 20 hours per week. Once enrolled at the University, more students overall reported having a job (61.7%), but fewer students (6.5%) worked more than 20 hours per week. Figure 3 illustrates the shift to part-time work for participants once enrolled at the University. Consistent with most study participants being traditional college age and working part-time, 97.2% of respondents (n=107) identified solely as a student or as a student who is employed, rather than an employee or a parent who is going to college. Table 4 shows the primary identity of respondents relative to their current responsibilities as a student, employee, or parent. Figure 3 Hours per Week Spent Working a Job for Pay 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 None, I didn’t have a job 1 to 5 hours 6 to 10 hours 11 to 15 hours 16 to 20 hours 21 to 30 hours More than 30 hours Percent of Respondents Hours per Week Spent Working Previous College(s) University 63 Table 4 How Transfer Students Think of Themselves (N=107) Survey Item n % Primarily as a student who is employed 56 52.3 Primarily as an employee who is going to college 2 1.9 Primarily as a parent who is going to college 1 0.9 Solely as a student 48 44.9 Academic Background In exploring the support and success of transfer students, their academic background plays a key role in understanding the context of their experiences. Table 5 summarizes the academic information of the 130 transfer student participants based on their responses to the survey and corresponding information in their student records. Study participants transferred to LRU from both two-year and four-year institutions, with 26.9% having attended both types of institutions before transferring. More than one-third of respondents (34.7%) had transferred from an institution in another state or country. Nearly three-quarters (73.1%) had attended just one institution prior to transferring, although 1.5% had attended four or more institutions including one respondent who attended a total of six previous institutions. The average number of prior institutions attended was 1.77. The majority of respondents (72.3%) had not earned an Associate’s degree prior to transfer. Nearly half of study participants (46.2%) had previously applied to the University as a freshman. Study participants were from nine of the academic units at the University. With one exception, the schools and programs not represented in the study have little to no transfer students and therefore were less likely to have any participation in the study. However, the business and accounting school has a significant population of transfer students and was not represented in the study. More than half of the respondents (53.8%) came from the College of 64 Letters and Sciences, which is the largest academic unit on campus with more than 30 academic departments. The University offers a wide selection of major programs of study. The respondents had 57 different majors with 31 of those coming from the College of Letters and Sciences. The organization of majors at the university is simultaneously broad and specialized. In addition to the broadly organized College of Letters and Sciences which administers numerous majors across the humanities, social sciences, and natural and physical sciences, there are additional schools and programs with specialized majors in engineering, professional studies, and the arts. Rather than reporting on individual major programs of study, half of which were represented by only one respondent, major programs were re-classified according to the underlying discipline. In addition to the school-affiliation of the student’s program, this re-classification groups students in programs that are similar thematically and may overlap across schools at the University. From this grouping, 43.8% of participants were from the Social Sciences, 35.4% were from Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), 11.5% were from Humanities, 8.5% were from Art and Architecture, and 0.8% were Undeclared. Just 9.2% of respondents indicated they had a second major, while 39.2% indicated they had one or more minors. Five respondents had both a second major and a minor. Regarding choice of major, 81.5% of participants were pursuing the same or a related major discipline compared with their studies at previous institutions. When asked about their choice of major, respondents (n=120) were most likely to state that they decided on their current program of study due to interest or passion for the subject with several mentioning it was something they enjoyed or “always loved.” The next most common reason for choosing their 65 current major was as preparation for a specific career path, including preparation for additional graduate or professional study beyond their undergraduate degree. Most participants (94.6%) were currently enrolled at LRU at the time of the survey during the Fall 2022 semester. Five participants (3.8%) had graduated from the University, and two participants (1.5%) were on a leave of absence with plans to return to LRU in a later term. A majority of participants (73.8%) had transferred to the University in Fall 2020 or Fall 2021. A similar number of participants (72.8%) had begun college in Fall 2019 or Fall 2020, with 5.4% beginning college Fall 2016 or before. From corresponding university transcript data, the study participants were shown to have a mean Transfer GPA of 3.77 with a range from 2.83 to 4.00, and the average number of units accepted in transfer was 51.8 with a range from 9 to 80. Through Fall 2022 at the University, the study participants had a mean GPA of 3.50 with a range from 2.09 to 4.00, and the average number of units earned at LRU was 59.67 with a range from 28 to 116. 66 Table 5 Academic Characteristics of Participants Variable n % Transfer Type 2-year 93 71.5 4-year 69 53.1 Both 35 26.9 Missing 1 0.8 Transfer Institution Locations In-State 100 76.9 Out-of-State 37 28.5 International 8 6.2 Online 1 0.8 More than one location 21 16.1 Number of Institutions Attended 1 73 73.1 2 30 20.0 3 14 5.4 4 or more 12 1.5 Has associate’s degree Yes 24 18.5 No 94 72.3 Missing 12 9.2 Applied to university as a freshman Yes 60 46.2 No 58 44.6 Missing 12 9.2 College Architecture 2 1.5 Cinema 9 6.9 Letters & Sciences 70 53.8 Communication 13 10.0 Engineering 23 17.7 Gerontology 4 3.1 Medicine 1 0.8 Public Policy 7 5.4 Undecided 1 0.8 67 Table 5 (Continued) Variable n % Primary Major Discipline Arts and Architecture 11 8.5 Humanities 15 11.5 Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) 46 35.4 Social Sciences 57 43.8 Undeclared 1 0.8 Second major 12 9.2 Minor(s) One minor 48 36.9 Two minors 3 2.3 Was your primary major your intended at your previous institution Yes 65 50.0 No, but it is related 41 31.5 No, and it is not related 24 18.5 Fall 2022 Enrollment Status Enrolled at LRU 123 94.6 Graduated from LRU 5 3.8 Leave of Absence 2 1.5 To understand the context of transfer student enrollment, their degree aspirations and expected time to degree are also important factors. Table 6 shows the degree aspirations of participants (n=107) and indicates their highest level of degree intended both at LRU and in their lifetime. Several participants (19.6%) intend to continue at LRU for a Master’s degree, but the majority (75.7%) plan to attain only the Bachelor's degree for their current program at LRU. However, nearly all of the respondents (93.5%) did indicate their intention for pursuing advanced degrees elsewhere within their lifetime. Table 7 shows the expected time to degree for participants (n=130). LRU requires that 50% of the units required for graduation be completed at the University. Therefore, the minimum timeframe for graduation of transfer students is two 68 years or four semesters. However, only 13.1% of participants expect to graduate within four semesters. The average time reported to graduate as a transfer student was 5.81 semesters, which would typically require three years of enrollment at the University. The majority of participants (67.7%) indicated they expected to take five or six semesters to graduate, and 19.2% indicated they would require a fourth year or beyond to graduate. Table 6 Degree Aspirations of Participants (N=107) Degree Level Highest degree intended at LRU Highest degree intended in lifetime n % n % Bachelor’s (BA, BFA, BS, etc.) 81 75.7 7 6.5 Master’s (MA, MEd, MFT, MS, etc.) 21 19.6 40 37.4 Doctorate (PhD, PsyD, EdD, etc.) 3 2.3 32 29.9 Medical (MD, DDS, DO, or DVM) 2 1.9 12 11.2 Law (JD or LLB) 0 0.0 14 13.1 Combined Degree (MD+PhD) 0 0.0 2 1.9 Table 7 Expected Time to Degree After Transfer (N=130) Semesters n % 4 17 13.1 5-6 88 67.7 7-8 23 17.7 9 or more 2 1.5 Results and Findings for Research Question 1 The first research question for this study focused on elements of transfer students’ initial enrollment at the University. The variables for Research Question 1 were evaluated using both closed-ended and open-ended response items. This research question was separated into two areas. Research Question 1a explored transfer students’ experiences during their transition to the 69 University. Corresponding to question 1a, the survey instrument included items regarding transfer students’ decision to transfer (open-ended), their experiences at orientation programs, their academic experiences, and their adjustment processes, including what factors (if any) influenced the success of their transition to the university (open-ended). Research Question 1b asked what common issues and challenges transfer students face upon matriculation to the University. Corresponding to question 1b, the survey instrument included items regarding transfer stigma, problems and obstacles, and what advice participants might have for other transfer students (open-ended). Decision to Transfer When asked about their decision to transfer in an open-ended question, respondents (n=104) often had multiple reasons for what made the University appealing to them and why they ultimately chose to transfer. Participants were most likely to state that they decided on attending the University due to its reputation and prestige, and this frequently included their major program also being cited as among the “best” in a specific field or references to the overall academic quality and rigor at the University. The location of the University was similarly mentioned with many citing that it was “close to home” although for one respondent it was attractive as an option for being “far away” from home. Several participants declared the University was their “dream school” and family was also mentioned often with a sibling, parent, or multiple family members having attended the University. Other themes that emerged highlighted the possibilities for networking and making connections, a vibrant student life and strong campus community, and in general the “better opportunities” compared with the respondents’ previous college. Overall, the information shared by respondents about their decision to transfer indicated high expectations for their educational experiences and campus 70 community interactions, with many conveying the attainment of a long-desired goal of attending the University. Multiple respondents also cited the availability of financial aid as a contributing factor to their decision to transfer in the open-ended responses. For closed-ended items inquiring about financial aid as a mediator to the decision to transfer, 70.1% of respondents (n=114) agreed or strongly agreed that they had made sure to know about available financial aid prior to transferring, 56.7% felt the amount of financial aid they received was adequate, and 54.9% indicated that the amount of financial aid received was a contributing factor in deciding to attend the University. Similarly, 78% of respondents (n=97) reported receiving some form of financial aid through loans, scholarships, and/or grants. Orientation Most respondents (72%) indicated they had attended orientation (n=107). However, for the majority of those (83.1%) the orientation was virtual rather than in-person on campus. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the University offered multiple on-campus one-day orientation programs for new transfer students during July for fall admits and during December and January for spring admits. All orientation programs for 2020 and 2021 were delivered virtually. In general, those who had participated in the orientation program of the University were most likely to report that they were only slightly satisfied (37.7%) with how well orientation prepared them for meeting the expectations of the University. Respondents were more likely to rate themselves as satisfied or extremely satisfied relative to the academic advising received during orientation (54.6%) and the helpfulness of the orientation program in facilitating their transition to the University (54.6%). However, these items also had notable amounts of respondents indicate they 71 were only slightly satisfied with orientation advising and the orientation program’s helpfulness at 31.2% and 30%, respectively. Academic Experiences According to the official transcript data provided by the University’s Registrar, the transfer student participants of the study arrived at the University with an average of 51.8 transferred units and an average transfer GPA of 3.77 with the middle 50% ranging from 3.64 to 3.93. The average number of units attempted was slightly higher at 62.1 units, indicating that transfer students experienced a credit loss of 10.3 units on average. The University limits the total number of units accepted in transfer which can explain much of the resulting credit loss. However, even students under this limit had credit denied. The reasons for credit denial are not indicated in the data but the most common reasons are low passing grades and coursework deemed to be not at the “college level.” The amount of credit loss ranged from 1 unit to 113 units with 31.2% of students receiving credit for all of their attempted transfer units. Related to various areas of learning and study skills, respondents (n=113) were most likely to agree or strongly agree that their previous college experiences had provided the necessary academic preparation for the University environment. They were most confident in problem-solving skills (84.1%), reading skills (82.3%), writing skills (82.3%), and time management skills (77.9%), and least confident in research skills (69.9%), computer skills (69%), and test-taking skills (66.3%). Transfer Shock The average first-semester GPA reported by respondents (n=92) was 3.55 with the middle 50% ranging from 3.36 to 3.80. While not a precipitous drop, the initial University GPA of respondents averaged 0.22 lower than their transfer GPA pointing to a mild transfer shock 72 effect overall. However, individual changes in GPA varied greatly from 1.72 points lower to 0.34 higher. Overall, 61.1% of respondents (n=90) experienced some level of transfer shock with an initial drop in GPA of 0.10 points or more. Another 22.2% experienced little to no change in GPA (±0.09), and 16.7% earned a GPA that was higher by 0.10 points or more. Course Learning Experiences Study participants were asked about their course learning activities at both their previous college(s) and the university. The results for respondents who answered both sets of course learning survey items (n=97) are shown in Table 8. Compared with their course learning experiences at their previous college(s), respondents were slightly more likely to try to see how different facts and ideas fit together and think about practical applications of course material in their university classes. However, respondents were somewhat less likely to take detailed notes in class or participate in class discussions at the university compared to their previous college experiences. At the university, 10% of overall participation in class discussions shifted from very often to occasionally compared to course learning behaviors at the respondent’s previous college(s). Similarly, roughly 8% overall responses for detailed notetaking during class shifted from very often to often and occasionally. Additionally, 92.7% of respondents (n=97) indicated that they worked on a paper or project where they had to integrate ideas from various sources often or very often, and 78.4% indicated that they tried to explain course material to another student or friend often or very often related to courses taken at the university. 73 Table 8 Course Learning Behaviors (N=97) Survey item Previous College(s) University Change in n % n % % Took detailed notes in class Never 3 3.1 2 2.1 -1 Occasionally 14 14.4 17 17.5 3.1 Often 25 25.8 31 32.0 6.2 Very Often 55 56.7 47 48.5 -8.2 Participated in class discussions Never 3 3.1 4 4.1 1 Occasionally 11 11.3 20 20.6 9.3 Often 32 33.0 32 33.0 0 Very Often 51 52.6 41 42.3 -10.3 Tried to see how different facts and ideas fit together Never 2 2.1 0 0.0 -2.1 Occasionally 11 11.3 9 9.3 -2 Often 36 37.1 40 41.2 4.1 Very Often 48 49.5 48 49.5 - Thought about practical applications of the material Never 1 1.0 0 0.0 -1 Occasionally 18 18.5 16 16.5 -2 Often 34 35.0 37 38.1 3.1 Very Often 44 45.3 44 45.4 0.1 Transfer Student Perceptions of Faculty The online survey included closed-ended items asking transfer student participants about their perceptions of faculty at the University. Most respondents (n=97) agreed or strongly agreed that faculty at the University are interested in the academic development of undergraduates (85.5%), are accessible to students (85.6%), and are easy to approach (79.4%). Very few respondents (1% to 4%) strongly disagreed with the survey item statements related to faculty interactions. 74 General Perceptions In addition to perceptions about faculty, transfer student participants were asked about their general perceptions of different aspects of the university. The respondents (n=97) almost universally agreed or strongly agreed that the University is an intellectually stimulating and exciting place to be (92.8%) and that courses they had taken were interesting and worthwhile (91.8%). However, 93.8% of respondents also agreed or strongly agreed that students have to take the initiative if they expect to benefit from all the University has to offer. Although to a lesser extent, respondents also largely agreed or strongly agreed that the University supports transfer students academically, professionally, and personally (71.1%) and that student services were responsive to students (71.1%). Overall, most respondents would choose to go to the University again (89.7%) and would recommend to other transfer students to come to the University (84.5%). Adjustment Processes The online survey contained a series of closed-ended items asking transfer student participants about their adjustment processes to the University in three areas: academic, psychological, and social. Each construct had three items that were used to calculate scores for factor analysis. Each construct was scored on a 4-point scale. Some items were reversed coded to align the scaling of each item such that a higher score would indicate a more successful adjustment. In addition to items asking respondents to rate their agreement with academic, psychological, and social adjustment statements, they were also asked an open-ended question about what factors may have contributed to their successful (or unsuccessful) transition to the University. A total of 89 participants responded to the open-ended item. 75 For the academic adjustment items, respondents (n=96) were most likely to agree or strongly agree that adjusting to the academic standards or expectations was easy (64.6%), and yet a similar proportion (66.3%) indicated they experienced a dip in grades during their first term at the University. Overall, the mean score for the academic adjustment construct was 2.57 with a standard deviation of 0.67 indicating moderate success on average in adjusting to the University academically. In the open-ended responses, several respondents mentioned academic elements that contributed to their successful transition. The most common responses in this area mentioned engaged or caring professors, utilizing faculty office hours, and having accurate articulation of transfer credits. Respondents were not likely to mention negative aspects of the academic adjustment, but the few that did mentioned frustration with having to “repeat” general education requirements, and a lack of flexibility in requirements or room to explore outside their major department. For the psychological adjustment items, respondents (n=96) were most likely to agree or strongly agree that it was easy to find their way around campus (89.6%). However, a significant proportion (71.9%) indicated they experienced an increase in their level of stress when starting at the University. Overall, the mean score for the psychological adjustment construct was 2.66 with a standard deviation of 0.55 indicating moderate success on average in adjusting to the University psychologically. In the open-ended responses, no themes emerged in the area of psychological adjustment. However, there were responses which individually mentioned that it takes time to adjust or to find your place at the University. There was some indication that some students may struggle to navigate the University with one respondent writing, “I know I should take advantage of more resources such as office hours, but sometimes I feel so far behind I don't even know what to ask.” 76 For the social adjustment items, results were mixed. Respondents (n=96) were equally likely to agree or disagree that adjusting to the social environment or making friends at the University had been easy. Overall, the mean score for the social adjustment construct was 2.47 with a standard deviation of 0.82 indicating less success on average in adjusting to the University socially with wider variation among participants. In the open-ended responses, respondents most often mentioned social elements in relation to their successful transition. Respondents were four times more likely to share social factors compared with academic and psychological themes combined. The most common responses about the social aspects of a successful transition mentioned joining student clubs and organizations or meeting people and making friends, especially other transfer students. Many indicated that finding a “community” on campus was integral for support and managing stress. Several also mentioned that they were able to arrive at the University with existing friends either because they already had friends who were attending the University, had met other students through transfer programs provided by the University, and/or had friends at their previous college(s) that transferred to the University around the same time. Respondents were less likely to mention negative aspects of the social adjustment, but there were some respondents who indicated difficulties with fitting in socially at the University due to non-transfers already having formed their own groups and a competitive culture among students, including “rigorous” clubs that are not easy to join. In addition to the academic, psychological, and social adjustment responses, they were a few other themes that emerged from the open-ended responses. Several respondents mentioned their family as a key support system, including either living at home or having family nearby. A few also mentioned moving near campus or already living near campus as a factor that helped smooth their transition to the University. Institutional support also emerged as a theme in 77 assisting transfer students’ adjustment to the University through the programs, courses, and instructors at the student’s previous college(s), support from advisors and counselors both at the previous college and at the University, as well as seeking out services and “just using all of the resources as much as possible” at the University. Transfer Stigma The online survey contained items asking transfer student participants about the extent to which they felt any stigma for being a transfer student at the University. The transfer stigma construct had three closed-ended items that were used to calculate scores for factor analysis. The construct was scored on a 4-point scale with a higher score indicating higher transfer stigma. Overall, the mean score for the transfer stigma construct was 2.26 with a standard deviation of 0.82 indicating mild transfer stigma on average with relatively wide variation among participants. Table 9 shows the results of each individual survey item exploring transfer stigma among faculty, other students, and generally at the University. Respondents (n=97) were less likely to agree or strongly agree (22.7%) that faculty underestimated their abilities due to being a transfer student. However, about 40% of respondents did agree or strongly agree that other students underestimated their abilities because they were a transfer student, and that overall there is a stigma at the University for being a transfer student. No significant differences were found when comparing transfer stigma with academic school. However, results from a one-way ANOVA indicated a significant difference in transfer stigma across different academic disciplines [F(4, 92) = 2.51, p = .04]. Transfer students in STEM and Humanities fields had higher mean scores for transfer stigma compared with students in Social Sciences or the Arts and Architecture. 78 Table 9 Transfer Stigma (N=97) Survey Item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree n % n % n % n % Because I was a “transfer student” most faculty tend to underestimate my abilities 28 28.9 47 48.5 10 10.3 12 12.4 There is a stigma at the University among students for having started at another college 22 22.7 37 38.1 21 21.6 17 17.5 Because I am a “transfer student” most students tend to underestimate my abilities 19 19.6 39 40.2 23 23.7 16 16.5 Challenges and Obstacles To explore possible challenges or obstacles in pursuing their education at the University, study participants were asked to rate a series of items based on how much of a problem they perceived each would be. The potential obstacles or problems primarily included logistical items related to attending college such as transportation, housing, course scheduling, and non-academic responsibilities. Respondents (n=93) most often indicated that paying for college (44.7%), housing (33.4%), parking (26.9%), job-related responsibilities (26.9%) and scheduling classes (24.5%) were large or very large problems to address. For items marked as large or very large problems, respondents (n=52) were asked to elaborate in an open-ended response item why each area is a problem. Respondents who provided additional details about the problem of paying for college most often expressed the University is “too expensive” and that their financial aid from the University was inadequate, including several who indicated the amount of their aid had decreased from year-to-year. Related to the cost and insufficient aid, respondents shared that finding funding sources to pay 79 the balance not covered by financial aid has caused continued stress and anxiety, with a few also sharing their concerns about their future earnings and ability to pay back large student loans. Respondents who provided additional details about the problem of housing and parking similarly emphasized the high expense for both in the open-ended item. Regarding housing issues, themes that emerged largely centered around a lack of campus housing for transfer students and the lack of affordable housing off campus. Although housing was identified as one of the more significant problems for transfer students, as the University does not directly offer housing to transfer students there were twice as many responses about parking than housing. Respondents described parking at the University as expensive, limited, and “terrible” with a lack of nearby off-campus parking as well. Access to parking structures for evening classes or events was also cited by a few respondents as contributing to the difficulties of being a transfer commuter student. While job responsibilities were identified as a problem for more than one quarter of respondents, only a handful of respondents provided additional details about this issue in the open-ended item. Responses spoke of having to “juggle” responsibilities and having to work to pay for college and/or support their family. One respondent summed up the challenge this way: “It’s a difficult balancing act and a financial sacrifice, but I’m hoping it’ll be a worthwhile investment.” Related to issues scheduling classes, respondents indicated technical issues with University systems, but also difficulties specific to transfer students. In general, respondents shared that the online registration system crashes frequently and courses they need fill up too quickly making it difficult each term to get the courses needed to fulfill their remaining graduation requirements. Some indicated that as transfer students, their registration priority is 80 later than non-transfers taking the same courses and that transfer credits were not recognized in the University’s registration system as prerequisites for subsequent courses, leading to delays in course registration each term. Advice for Other Transfer Students Based on their experiences, transfer student study participants were asked an open-ended question about what advice they would give to new transfer students about how to succeed at the University. The most prominent themes that emerged from this question (n=90) were to find community, take initiative, connect with faculty, and utilize campus resources. Additional emergent themes were to make sure courses articulate prior to applying for transfer, study harder, and try not to get overwhelmed or intimidated. Despite paying for college, job responsibilities, housing, and parking being identified as problems while attending the University, there was very little advice recommended by respondents on these topics. Respondents instead focused more on advice relative to the academic, psychological, and social transitions at the University suggesting that respondents felt these adjustments were more essential to success than finding resolution to more logistical issues. Regarding academics, respondents most often recommended that new transfer students engage with their professors, specifically through asking questions and going to office hours. One respondent shared the potential benefits of connecting with faculty: “Make sure to connect with your professors at office hours. They are willing to help with your courses, research, and finding internships.” Also relative to academics, several respondents asserted that new transfer students would need to “work harder” or “study more” at the University to maintain the same level of academic success they had at their previous college. 81 Regarding psychological adjustments, respondents very often recommended that new transfer students “take initiative” to explore their surroundings, “put yourself out there,” and be open to new opportunities. This was somewhat tempered by advice from several respondents suggesting that new transfer students should not feel overwhelmed or intimidated, but rather to find focus and a healthy balance between classes and other activities. As one respondent shared, “be very intent with how you spend your time and learn time management skills above everything else.” The advice against feeling intimidated was strongly related to affirmations that transfer students belong and deserve to be at the University and included references to overcoming “imposter syndrome.” As one respondent counseled: “Keep your head up. Imposter syndrome is real but you deserve to be here because you worked hard. Continue doing so and you should be fine.” Regarding social transitions, respondents most often recommended that new transfer students find their community on campus, with many suggesting this be accomplished through joining student clubs and organizations. Connecting with people who share similar interests and creating a support network were cited as benefits for joining a campus community. More detailed advice about finding community from respondents advocated joining lots of clubs and “seeing what sticks,” with several adding that there were enough options for all interests and that this should be done early on. A few mentioned joining a particular transfer student organization. Some also encouraged new transfer students to “do everything” and attend as many events and social activities as possible. Aside from themes related to academic, psychological, and social adjustments to the University, another emerging theme urged new transfer students to “ask for help” and use all the campus resources available. This was primarily shared as general advice as most did not name 82 specific resources or services. Several respondents phrased the advice as “don’t be afraid to ask for help.” Others appealed to new students to “take advantage of the resources available” and to “take all the help you can get.” As one respondent encapsulated this sentiment: “Please use campus resources. The majority of people are more than happy to help. All you need to do is ask.” Summary of Research Question 1 Research Question 1 sought to understand more about what influences transfer students transition to the University including how transfer students characterize their initial university experiences as well as the common issues and challenges they face upon matriculation to the university. Both closed-ended and open-ended survey items were used to assess Research Question 1. Participants largely described their decision to transfer as a positive circumstance which was highly desired. Results indicated that participants had been successful at their previous college and felt adequately prepared for transfer to the University. Concurrent stressors to participants’ transition to the University were paying for college and finding affordable housing and parking. Overall, participants had moderate success with academic and psychological adjustments, but found social adjustments more difficult upon joining the University. Participants’ largely felt supported by their faculty and the university in general, but still felt a level of stigma for being a transfer student from other students at the university. For participants who attended orientation, the program was most likely to be virtual due to most participants being onboarded to the University during 2020 and 2021. Results regarding the effectiveness of the orientation programs was mixed. Results indicated that some course learning behaviors changed once participants transferred to the University. Participants indicated that finding community and a support system were key to a successful transition for themselves 83 and in their advice to other transfer students. Overall, participants would choose to transfer again and felt the decision was beneficial but identified several ongoing challenges with successfully integrating into the University. Results and Findings for Research Question 2 The second research question for this study focused on transfer students’ experiences with academic advising. The variables for Research Question 2 were evaluated using both closed-ended and open-ended response items. This research question was separated into two areas. Research Question 2a explored the quality of transfer students’ interactions with academic advisors. Corresponding to question 2a, the survey instrument included items regarding transfer students’ assigned advisor, frequency of advising, and satisfaction with advising. Research Question 2b explored transfer students’ perceptions of academic advising. Corresponding to question 2b, the survey instrument included items regarding the usefulness of advising at the participants’ previous college, the reasons they meet with an advisor at the University (open- ended), their level of comfort with seeking academic advising assistance, and the helpfulness of their University advisors (open-ended). Previous College Advising To understand transfer students’ conception and potential expectations of academic advising, several items on the study survey asked participants about their experiences with academic advising at their prior college(s). More than 60% of respondents (n=114) agreed or strongly agreed that information received from previous academic counselors was helpful in the transfer process and that academic counselors aided them in taking the correct courses to meet requirements of potential transfer institutions. A large proportion of respondents (72.8%) also agreed or strongly agreed that they had discussed their transfer plans with an academic 84 counselor. However, respondents were somewhat less likely to agree or strongly agree (57.1%) that they had met with an academic counselor “on a regular basis.” Overall, the majority of transfer student respondents appeared to have had experiences with academic advising that may have formed the basis of their expectations for advising at the University. University Advising Experiences Consistent with the University practice of advising according to assigned caseload, 93.8% of respondents (n=97) reported having an assigned academic advisor for their major. When asked to name their advisor, just three respondents answered that they did not know, with one of those saying they had “too many to count” indicating there had been frequent changes to their advisor. Respondents were asked about the frequency of their advising in different ways and at different points in the survey. A little more than half of respondents (n=97) agreed or strongly agreed that they met with their academic advisor on a regular basis. A higher percentage (65.9%) indicated they talked with an advisor from their major often or very often. However, when asked more specifically about how frequently they met with or contacted their academic advisor, 94.8% of respondents indicated they were in contact with their academic advisor once a semester or more. No significant differences were found when comparing advising frequency with academic school or discipline. Study participants were asked an open-ended question regarding the type of assistance and resources they received from their academic advisor. Nearly every response (n=90) for this item was related to aspects of course scheduling including selecting classes for the upcoming term, course clearance or authorizations, long-term course planning, and monitoring overall progress to degree. An ongoing campuswide retention initiative at LRU requires all continuing students to have an active long-term course plan which details the required and/or recommended 85 courses that the student should enroll in term-by-term in order to graduate in a timely manner. The course plan requirement is applied to all undergraduates including transfer students. While course scheduling and planning was universally identified as the primary service received through academic advising, several responses indicated more specifically that tracking completion of degree requirements was all they “need” from their advisor. However, some respondents provided additional detail indicating a more multifaceted relationship with their advisor. Aside from course scheduling, other themes that emerged were related to resource referrals and post-graduation planning. Respondents reported asking for help and receiving resources for financial aid and tutoring and other academic support. They also reported getting referrals for various opportunities including campus events, community engagement, volunteer programs, scholarships, research, internships, and networking. Regarding post-graduation advising, respondents reported getting assistance regarding future career possibilities, the University’s early admission Master’s programs, and other graduate school information including pre-medical advising. As one respondent shared about their advisor, Sara: Sara helps me adjust my course plan to accommodate my work and class schedule each semester. She helps me plan accordingly to continue receiving my financial aid benefits so that I can continue pursuing my education. She tells me about scholarships and internships that are available and might benefit me personally as well as sending out loads of valuable information for different things. Sara is the best! A small number of respondents indicated that they received little to no help from their academic advisor, including two who stated that their current advisor was too new to have provided any meaningful assistance. 86 When asked to rate their satisfaction with the academic advising in their major department, 69.1% of respondents (n=94) were somewhat satisfied or extremely satisfied. A small number of respondents (4.3%) indicated that they were extremely dissatisfied with the advising in their major. Overall, the mean score for satisfaction was 3.77 on a 5-point scale. No significant differences were found when comparing advising satisfaction with academic school or discipline. However, satisfaction with academic advising in the major was positively correlated with advising frequency, r(92) = .48, p < .01, and advising comfort r(92) = .56, p < .01. Perceptions of Advising In exploring transfer students’ view of academic advising, study participants were asked to rate how comfortable they were going to their academic advisor for assistance. Respondents (n=114) to a large extent (77.3%) indicated that they were somewhat comfortable or very comfortable seeking assistance from their academic advisor. A small number of respondents (5.3%) indicated that they were not at all comfortable going to their advisor for assistance. Overall, the mean score for comfort with academic advising was 3.28 on a 4-point scale. No significant differences were found when comparing advising comfort with academic school or discipline. To learn more about how transfer students perceive academic advising, study participants were asked two open-ended questions regarding the most helpful and least helpful thing their academic advisor had done for them. Aligned with the predominant response for most common advising topics, respondents (n= 91) were most likely to provide an example related to course scheduling, course planning, and degree progress monitoring as the most helpful thing their advisor has done for them. Once again, the long-term course plan featured prominently in the 87 responses, with many stating simply “created my course plan.” A few secondary themes that emerged as most helpful included assistance in changing majors or adding a minor, referrals to resources and assistance navigating university websites and systems, and just “being responsive” to emails and questions. Similar to the rate of responses that were either dissatisfied or uncomfortable with their advising, 4 respondents answered that “nothing” their advisor had done was helpful, with one sharing that “everything I thought was helpful turned out to be extremely harmful to my degree progress.” Fewer respondents (n=81) answered the survey item asking about the least helpful thing their academic advisor had done for them, and more than half (55.5%) did not provide an example in their response. Instead, these respondents mostly answered “N/A” for not applicable with others entering “none” or “nothing” and several stating that “all has been helpful.” Where respondents did share a least helpful example, themes emerged around both a lack of guidance and availability. Regarding a lack of guidance, some respondents shared that they had received wrong or incomplete information about courses, resources, and programs, while others indicated that their advisor was unable or unwilling to answer their questions and instead sent them to other advisors or offices. Regarding a lack of availability, several respondents noted that their advisor was “slow in replying to emails” and/or had limited appointment openings. As with responses to other open-ended questions regarding academic advising, a handful of respondents continued to mention that their advisor had changed multiple times which prevented them from providing more detailed information about their advising experiences. As one respondent shared: “the least helpful thing I would say would probably be when I had to switch my counselor which isn’t a specific problem to them but the connection and understanding that I built with my first counselor was lost.” 88 Summary of Research Question 2 Research Question 2 sought to understand more about the nature of transfer students’ interactions with academic advisors including the quality of those interactions and transfer students’ perceptions of academic advising. Both closed-ended and open-ended survey items were used to assess Research Question 2. Most participants had consulted with academic advisors at their previous college to plan their transfer to the University, however they also reported that they had not met with advisors very frequently. In accordance with University advising practices, most participants reported having an assigned academic advisor for their major whom they had contact with at least once a semester. The majority of participants felt comfortable seeking assistance from their academic advisors. Participants indicated that the support most often received from academic advisors was related to course planning and degree progress. Overall, participants were satisfied with the academic advising in their major, but more than one quarter of participants indicated that they were in some way not satisfied with the academic advising in their major, either responding neutrally (13.8%) or dissatisfied (12.8%) with another smaller group (4.3%) indicating that they were extremely dissatisfied with advising. No distinct patterns were observed for dissatisfaction with specific majors, departments, schools, or individual academic advisors. Results and Findings for Research Question 3 The third research question for this study focused on how transfer students learn about and use various support services and resources at the University. The variables for Research Question 3 were evaluated using both closed-ended and open-ended response items. Survey items corresponding to Research Question 3 explored transfer students’ awareness and/or use of university offices and resources in the following areas: learning support, academic services, 89 student services, wellness resources, and transfer student resources. The survey instrument included items regarding transfer students’ recognition of specific offices and programs in each resource area. For some programs and services offered at LRU, a generic name is used in the accompanying data tables (Appendix D). Additional open-ended survey items asked participants to share details about how they learned about resources when they first transferred to the university, and how they sought support and resources during a time of academic difficulty they may have experienced. Resource Awareness Participants were presented with lists of campus resources and asked to identify if they were aware of or had used any of the 56 offices, programs, or services shown. These lists included 12 learning support resources, 14 academic services, 18 student services, 9 wellness resources, and 3 transfer student resources. Overall, respondents (n=99) acknowledged an average of 12.8 resources, with the middle 50% ranging from 7 to 17. This average represents 22.8% of the resources appearing in the survey. Learning Support Resources Study participants were shown a list of 12 learning support resources including professor office hours, LRU libraries, and both campuswide and department-specific learning support centers and tutoring services. Table 10 shows the number of learning support resources respondents indicated being aware of or having used. On average, respondents (n=99) identified approximately 3 learning support resources (24.5%). The most commonly identified items were professors/TA office hours (79.8%), libraries (66.0%), and the writing center (42.6%). Students were least likely to acknowledge services for English language support or several department- 90 specific resources, however this may be expected for respondents not in the programs associated with these services. Table 10 Number of Learning Support Resources (N=99) Resources Checked n % 0 5 5.1 1-2 46 46.4 3-5 34 34.3 6 or more 14 14.2 Academic Services Study participants were shown a list of 14 academic services including academic advising in the major as well as several specialized advising offices, registrar and academic records services, and petition services. Table 11 shows the number of academic services respondents indicated being aware of or having used. On average, respondents (n=99) identified approximately 3 academic services (20.8%). The most commonly identified items were academic advising in the major (93.7%), transfer credit services (45.3%), the registrar services center (32.6%), and the office of study abroad (26.3%). Students were least likely to acknowledge specialized advising services for undecided or exploratory students, student athletes, academic probation, pre-grad, pre-law, and pre-health. This lack of recognition may be due to lack of participant membership in those student populations and therefore not in need of these services. However, many of these services are campuswide and there are efforts to make students aware of them through regular campus communication and outreach. 91 Table 11 Number of Academic Services (N=99) Resources Checked n % 0 4 4.0 1-2 50 50.5 3-5 33 33.3 6 or more 12 12.1 Student Services Study participants were shown a list of 17 student services including campus activities, various cultural and identity centers, the career center, and financial aid. Table 12 shows the number of student services respondents indicated being aware of or having used. On average, respondents (n=99) identified approximately 4 student services (22.9%). The most commonly identified items were financial aid (71.1%), the career center (68.9%), the first-generation student center (35.6%), and the Asian Pacific American student affairs center (32.2%). Students were least likely to acknowledge the office of community expectations and centers for international and undocumented students. Table 12 Number of Student Services (N=99) Resources Checked n % 0 9 9.1 1-2 43 43.4 3-5 30 30.3 6 or more 17 17.2 Wellness Resources Study participants were shown a list of nine wellness resources including basic needs services, counseling and mental health services, and the campus recreation center. Table 13 92 shows the number of wellness resources respondents indicated being aware of or having used. On average, respondents (n=99) identified 2.5 wellness resources (27.8%). The most commonly identified items were the campus recreation center (72%), counseling and mental health services (56.1%), the student health center (50%), mindfulness services and programs (35.4%), and confidential advocate services (31.7%). Students were least likely to acknowledge occupational therapy services and student concern reporting, a program which allows students to express concern for a fellow student with the option of remaining anonymous. Table 13 Number of Wellness Resources (N=99) Resources Checked n % 0 17 17.2 1-2 40 40.4 3-5 33 33.3 6 or more 9 9.1 Transfer Student Resources Study participants were shown a list of three transfer student resources including the transfer student handbook, transfer student assembly, and online modules for transfer students. Table 14 shows the number of transfer student resources respondents indicated being aware of or having used. On average, respondents (n=99) identified 0.55 transfer student resources (18.3%). The most commonly identified items were the transfer student handbook (67.5%) and the transfer student assembly (60%). Transfer students indicated they were largely not aware of the online modules developed for transfer students (7.5%). Most notably, more than half of respondents (59.6%) appeared to be unaware of any of the transfer student resources shown. 93 Table 14 Number of Transfer Student Resources (N=99) Resources Checked n % 0 59 59.6 1 29 29.3 2 8 8.1 3 3 3.0 Learning About Resources Study participants were asked an open-ended question regarding how they found out about services and resources when they first arrived at the University. Respondents (n=88) often identified multiple methods for learning about resources. The predominant methods shared by respondents were doing their own research, emails, and through other students. Pertaining to individual research, respondents indicated that they discovered resources on their own by “googling it”, using social media, or searching through the University website. Pertaining to emails, most respondents did not elaborate on the nature of the emails they had received providing information about campus support and resources. It is therefore unclear if the emails were sent from campuswide administration, from their advisor or academic unit, or from a specific service or program. For respondents who initially learned about campus resources from other students, some had asked others directly while most indicated that they learned through “word of mouth.” Two secondary themes for learning about resources were through academic advisors and the orientation program. As a tertiary theme, several respondents also mentioned professors as a source of support information, with a few citing the syllabus as the way this was communicated by their professors. While most respondents indicated that they were able to locate services as needed by searching up the information themselves or following up on information sent via email, several 94 shared that they had not learned about campus resources. As one participant answered, “I did not find out about most of the resources until right now lol.” Finding Help Another open-ended item on the study survey asked participants to think back to a time when they were struggling in a class to share how they got assistance and which people at the University may have been a resource for them. Respondents (n=87) predominantly answered that they had sought assistance from their professor, typically by going to office hours. Participants described meeting one-on-one with their instructor and/or teaching assistant to get clarification about the material specific to the course in question. This was most often mentioned without reference to other campus support services external to the course. For at least one respondent, this was due to the specialized nature of their academic program: I often sought the assistance of my Professors or peers. My major is unique in that broader University resources will not understand the difficulty and hardships of studio life and the requirements of my program. Secondarily, respondents answered that they asked classmates for help. However, to a similar extent, respondents shared that they did not receive help and tried to work through it themselves. Many of these respondents wrote of struggling and “toughing things out” alone due to a lack of available support for their situation. As one respondent shared, “nobody could help me. There was no tutoring offered and the professor advised me to drop the class.” Another respondent explained: I was struggling in organic chemistry and I still am. The resources for that are very minimal to my knowledge. I know that there is tutoring for things like math and English. I’m not aware of help for science classes. 95 To a lesser degree, multiple respondents named academic advisors as a source of help or mentioned use of the math center or supplemental instruction sessions. Additionally, several respondents answered that they had not struggled with their coursework and therefore did not seek assistance. Resource Suggestions Aside from the resources presented for review on the survey, study participants were asked in an open-ended question what additional resources they would like the University to provide to address the specific needs of transfer students. Respondents (n=72) were most likely to answer “N/A” with a few noting that there were “so many” resources already. However, the remaining respondents had a variety of suggestions. The principal themes that emerged regarding transfer student resources were transfer peer groups and better outreach and communication to transfer students about existing resources. The types of transfer groups proposed included peer mentorship, school-specific transfer student organizations, a transfer co- ed fraternity, and transfer support groups. Some felt that existing groups could be more active. As one respondent shared: “transfer groups! They send us into the wild as if we will find everything on our own. Y'all should make a list of clubs that are transfer based.” The main characteristic of the proposed transfer groups revolved around finding community as well as having social events which is consistent with the respondents remarks about the most challenging aspect of their transition to the University and their advice for other new transfer students. One respondent described the need for school or major-specific connections among transfer students: More connection or social activity with Transfer students with similar major can help transfer students to connect better. As a transfer student, social adjustment has been 96 tough. Thus, creating these social events will better enable the students to make friends at [LRU]. Regarding improved outreach and communication to transfer students about existing resources, respondents felt the existing resources were likely adequate but were potentially underutilized due to a lack of awareness among transfer students. As one respondent shared: “I think [LRU] does a wonderful job providing resources to transfer students, the barrier is that transfer students have a difficult time initially reaching out to or finding these resources when they need them.” While many respondents indicated that email was a prominent source of support information, respondents also shared that “resources can be lost in the plethora of emails” sent by the University. Suggestions for better communication of available resources included “a mandatory post-transfer advisement resource,” resource training for orientation leaders, a designated point of contact for transfer students, and “a compiled list of all these resources.” A number of minor themes also emerged from this item including suggestions for more financial aid and scholarships for transfer students, campus housing availability for transfer students, help with navigating the Learning Management System (LMS), and access to “transfer specialist” advising. Several respondents again highlighted the challenges of paying for college and securing housing. A few respondents found using the LMS challenging as it was not the same as their previous institution and they felt resources were lacking to help get them up to speed navigating the platform to access course materials and assignments. Regarding specialized advising for transfer students, several respondents felt that their academic advisor did not always understand their needs and that they did not receive adequate support in requesting additional transfer credit or in monitoring their progress towards the degree. 97 Summary of Research Question 3 Research Question 3 sought to understand more about how transfer students identify and utilize academic support services and other resources and opportunities provided by the University. Both closed-ended and open-ended survey items were used to assess Research Question 3. Overall, participants were aware of 20-25% of the services listed in each resource category. They were least likely to recognize resources specific for transfer students with nearly 60% indicating they were not aware of any of the three resources listed. Participants were most likely to go to office hours of their professor or teaching assistant when faced with academic challenges. Participants who sought help reported that they primarily found potential resources at the University by themselves through searching online or asking other students, while others reported not seeking help and instead trying to figure things out on their own. Results for Research Question 4 The fourth and final research question for this study focused on factors which may have influenced the academic success of transfer students at the University. University GPA was used to measure academic success. This research question was separated into three areas. Research Question 4a explored the influence of transfer students’ demographic and personal characteristics on their academic success at the University. Corresponding to question 4a, survey instrument items including age, gender, ethnicity, family income, employment, housing type, study habits, coping responses, and academic attitudes were compared with University GPA. Research Question 4b explored the influence of transfer students’ previous college experiences on their academic success at the University. Corresponding to question 4b, survey instrument items and transcript information including transfer institution type, transfer GPA, transfer units, prior academic advising, prior course experiences, academic preparation, and use of a transfer 98 center were compared with University GPA. Research Question 4c explored the influence of transfer students’ university experiences on their academic success at the University. Corresponding to question 4c, survey instrument items including orientation experiences, adjustment processes, course experiences, awareness of support and resources, academic advising, general perceptions and satisfaction, academic unit, degree type, and discipline of the major were compared with University GPA. Personal Characteristics and Demographics A variety of personal characteristics and demographics were compared with University GPA to determine if any significant relationship existed using t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and bivariate correlation (Pearson’s r) according to the type of data being compared. No significant difference or correlation for University GPA was found with age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, first-generation status, employment status, hours spent working, housing type, parents’ education, or degree aspirations among study participants. Several other variables of personal characteristics were found to have a significant relationship with University GPA. An independent samples t-test showed a significant difference in University GPA between study participants who are receiving some type of financial aid (M=3.47, SD=0.38) and those who are not receiving financial aid (M=3.65, SD=0.21); t(91)=-2.01, p = .02. Results from a one-way ANOVA of family income also indicated a significant difference in University GPA among different income levels [F(7, 85) = 2.82, p = .01]. Significant correlations for additional personal characteristics and demographics are shown in Table 15. One-way commute time to campus was positively correlated with University GPA, indicating that students who had a longer commute to campus had a higher GPA on average. Participants who reported their commute time as more than 30 minutes one way had a 99 mean University GPA of 3.66, while those with a commute time of 15 minutes or less had a mean University GPA of 3.50. Additional correlations were found for several personal characteristics including educational barriers or disabilities, coping style, and personal perceptions and views. Having educational barriers such as a physical impairment or learning difficulty was negatively correlated with University GPA. Additionally, an independent samples t-test showed a significant difference in University GPA between study participants who reported having an educational barrier (M=3.41, SD=0.51) and those who indicated they had no disabilities (M=3.53, SD=0.29); t(79)=-1.27, p = .01. A series of survey items evaluated participants’ coping styles when faced with a problem or difficult situation at school. Four coping styles were assessed using dimension reduction methods. Active coping style items were associated with making plans and adjusting strategies. Avoidance coping style items were associated with ignoring the situation and reducing effort. Emotional coping style items were associated with an increase of emotional distress and expression. Social coping style items were associated with sharing and discussing with others. Also shown in Table 15, active and social coping styles were positively correlated with University GPA, while an avoidance coping style was negatively correlated with University GPA. No significant correlation was found between the emotional coping style and University GPA. Another series of survey items estimated participants’ perceptions and views in an academic setting. Three areas were assessed using dimension reduction methods. Survey items related to study habits included perceptions of course assignment completion and exam preparation. Survey items related to academic attitudes included views on the nature of learning 100 and college grades. Survey items related to goal orientation included views on commitment and values in working towards goal achievement. Participants’ perceptions and views of their study habits, academic attitudes, and goal orientation were all positively correlated with University GPA (see Table 15). 101 Table 15 Pearson Correlations of University GPA with Personal Characteristics and Demographics Variable n M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. University GPA 125 3.50 0.36 .21* -.21* .26* -.35* .22* .24* .28** .23* 2. One-way Commute Time 105 19.14 19.9 -- .13 -.02 .07 -.04 .04 .11 -.03 3. Educational Barriers 99 0.34 0.76 -- -.09 .10 -.11 -.09 .21* .00 4. Coping style: Active 97 3.39 0.59 -- -.52** .29** .40** .27** .33** 5. Coping style: Avoidance 97 2.03 0.68 -- -.18 -.64** -.34** -.24* 6. Coping style: Social 97 2.84 0.70 -- .06 .26* .23* 7. Study Habits 95 3.04 0.59 -- .25* .29** 8. Academic Attitudes 95 3.06 0.42 -- .32** 9. Goal Orientation 95 3.28 0.43 -- * p < .05. ** p < .01. 102 Previous College Experiences Several previous college experience variables were compared with University GPA to determine if any significant relationship existed using t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and bivariate correlation (Pearson’s r) according to the type of data being compared. No significant difference or correlation for University GPA was found with transfer type, transfer units, prior college advising, time spent on campus at previous college, time spent studying at previous college, use of transfer center at previous college, or earning an Associate’s degree. Significant correlations for additional previous college experience variables are shown in Table 16. Transfer GPA had a positive correlation with University GPA. A series of survey items evaluated different aspects of participants’ experiences at their previous college. These constructs were assessed using dimension reduction methods. Transfer process items on the survey were related to the participants’ engagement in the planning for their transfer to the University including researching information and visiting the University prior to applying for transfer. General course experience items on the survey were related to how well courses at the participants’ previous college prepared them for academics at the University. Course learning items on the survey were related to class participation and other learning activities at the participants’ previous college. Learning and study skills items on the survey related to how well they felt their previous college experiences had prepared them for the University through developing skills in different areas such as reading, research, and time management. Positive correlations were found for University GPA with the previous college experience constructs for transfer process engagement, general course experiences, course learning, and learning and study skills development. However, the Cronbach alpha for the transfer process construct (.668) 103 indicated limited scale reliability and therefore the results for this factor should be interpreted with caution. Table 16 Pearson Correlations of University GPA with Previous College Experiences Variable n M SD 2 3 4 5 6 1. University GPA 125 3.50 .37 .26** .23* .27** .33** .19* 2. Transfer GPA 125 3.77 .21 -- .06 .01 .01 -.10 3. Transfer Process 114 2.78 .67 -- .38* .25** .27** 4. Course Experiences 114 2.87 .71 -- .52** .58** 5. Course Learning 114 3.33 .65 -- .45** 6. Learning and Study Skills 113 3.04 .61 -- * p < .05. ** p < .01. University Experiences A variety of University experience variables were compared with University GPA to determine if any significant relationship existed using t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and bivariate correlation (Pearson’s r) according to the type of data being compared. No significant difference or correlation for University GPA was found with being a freshman applicant to the University, academic unit, degree type, major discipline, having a second major, having a minor, orientation experiences, expected time to degree, university course learning, perceptions of faculty, general perceptions of the university, overall college satisfaction, obstacles or problems while attending college, being enrolled during remote instruction, use of extended pass/no pass grading option during remote instruction, knowledge or use of institutional resources, or advising experiences. Significant correlations for additional University experience variables are shown in Table 17. First semester GPA and University units had positive correlations with overall University GPA. This indicates that the first term GPA can be predictive of a transfer student’s academic 104 performance in subsequent terms, but also that a transfer student’s University GPA tends to improve as they accumulate units at the University. Initial change in GPA upon transfer was negatively correlated with University GPA. GPA change was based on the difference between a participant’s transfer GPA and first semester GPA at the University. This negative correlation indicates that as the size of GPA change (or transfer shock) increased, the overall University GPA decreased. A series of survey items evaluated different aspects of participants’ experiences at the University. These constructs were assessed using dimension reduction methods. Academic adjustment process items on the survey were related to the participants’ perceptions of how well they transitioned to the academic standards and expectations of the University. Academic adjustment scores were positively correlated with University GPA, however the Cronbach alpha for this construct (.546) indicated less scale reliability and therefore the results should be interpreted with caution. Transfer stigma items on the survey were related to participants’ perceptions of being viewed unfavorably by others at the University because they were a transfer student. Transfer stigma scores were negatively correlated with University GPA. Table 17 Pearson Correlations of University GPA with University Experiences Variable n M SD 2 3 4 5 6 1. University GPA 125 3.50 .37 .22* .72** -.60** .52** -.21* 2. University Units 125 59.67 20.37 -- .15 -.14 .35** -.08 3. First Semester GPA 92 3.55 0.39 -- -.89** .43** -.09 4. GPA Change 90 0.24 0.35 -- -.40** .04 5. Academic Adjustment 96 2.58 0.67 -- -.32** 6. Transfer Stigma 97 2.26 0.86 -- * p < .05. ** p < .01. 105 Summary of Research Question 4 Research Question 4 sought to assess potential relationships between multiple comparison variables and transfer students’ University GPA. Comparison variables were grouped into three areas: personal characteristics and demographics, previous college experiences, and university experiences. Of the personal characteristics and demographic comparison variables, family income, financial aid status, commute time, disability status (educational barriers), coping style, study habits, goal orientation, and academic attitudes were all found to have a significant relationship with University GPA. Of the comparison variables related to previous college experiences, transfer GPA, engagement in transfer processes, prior course experiences, prior course learning, and learning and study skills developed at the previous college were all found to have a significant relationship with University GPA. Of the comparison variables related to university experiences, first semester GPA change, academic adjustment, and transfer stigma were found to have a significant relationship with University GPA. COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts This study was conducted during an historic time. The student participants have experienced college in a very different manner than what they had originally experienced or expected prior to the COVID-19 global pandemic. At the time the study was being proposed, the COVID-19 pandemic was just beginning to be tracked within the United States and the exponential growth of infections resulted in rapidly accelerating measures to contain the outbreak. This ultimately caused the “lockdown” of all major colleges and universities within the state of California, including LRU, which lasted for 18 months from mid-March 2020 to mid- September 2021. Items in the study survey were added to acknowledge the educational 106 environment and potential impacts of the unique circumstances of the past few years. These items were limited to understanding how COVID-19 conditions may have affected transfer students’ access to resources and overall academic experiences. Table 18 shows participants’ experiences with remote instruction and the expanded use of pass/no pass grading during the height of the pandemic. Nearly all study participants had been enrolled during the widespread use of remote instruction in the Spring 2020, Fall 2020, and Spring 2021 semesters, although about half of the participants were enrolled in another institution during this time. Roughly half of the study participants made use of the temporary relaxation of rules regarding the amount and type of courses that may be completed as pass/no pass and counted towards degree requirements. Respondents who indicated that they were enrolled at the University during the transition to remote instruction were asked follow-up questions in several areas on the survey about potential impacts or challenges from studying virtually. The initial follow-up question asked respondents to rate the extent to which COVID- 19 conditions had affected their access, activities, and perceptions. Respondents who indicated that COVID-19 conditions had affected them somewhat or to a great extent were asked to provide additional details in an open-ended question. Table 18 Remote Instruction Experience (N=130) Variable n % Enrolled During Remote Instruction Yes 125 96.2 No 5 3.8 Used Extended Pass/No Pass Grading Option Yes 66 50.8 No 64 49.2 107 Access to Resources When asked how the transition to remote instruction affected the use of university resources, study participants (N=95) were most likely to report that COVID-19 conditions impacted their access to resources a little or not at all. For those that indicated COVID-19 conditions impacted their access to resources somewhat or to a great extent, the transition to remote instruction was more disruptive to learning support (32.6%) and wellness resources (22.0%) than academic services (15.8%) and student services (11.6%). Respondents (N=27) who provided additional details about how remote operations impacted their access and use of learning support services were most likely to cite that attending the university virtually on Zoom was harder for several reasons which made them less likely to seek help. Several respondents shared that studying remotely required extra effort and created an increase in overall mental load. Challenges included difficulty in communicating effectively with faculty, a general absence of information and availability for learning support resources, low student participation, and an overall lack of motivation. One respondent described their inability to get support during remote instruction: in fact no one was there. as a result I fell behind what is now years. I so wish there would have been someone to help me. I failed. which is really weird for me because prior to [LRU] I had a 4.0... and now that we are in person again I am receiving A's... it was legit being forced to attend remote that forced me to unlearn all the study skills I had spent 20 years learning. Respondents (N=17) who provided additional details about how remote operations impacted their access and use of wellness resources most often shared that many of these services (such as the recreation center) are only available in person, so they simply did not have 108 access remotely. As one respondent shared: “can’t go to gym remotely.” Aside from a lack of access to physical facilities, others also indicated both a greater need for counseling and therapy during remote instruction with a decrease in availability. As one respondent summarized: “It felt like the barrier of access for these resources was raised to a great extent when school was virtual, likely because of the high demand and few people working.” Fewer respondents (N=11) shared details about COVID-19 pandemic impacts on access and use of academic services. The primary theme for those that did comment was again a general lack of availability and access implying that many departments were not able to provide the same level of services while operating remotely. As one respondent shared: “I don’t think people truly was able to transfer their services online.” Another respondent highlighted the benefits of returning to campus: “Simply being on campus is extremely important. Having the opportunity to physically explore my options and resources instead of being glued to the screen was a major benefit.” A small number of respondents (N=8) shared about COVID-19 pandemic impacts on access and use of student services. These respondents indicated that they used student services less, expressing the importance of being in person and that engaging with the services was less “efficient” online. As one respondent shared: “it was hard not being in person and feeling disconnected from my friends and people at [LRU] in general.” Course Learning and Participation When asked how the transition to remote instruction affected their course learning and participation at the University, study participants (N=92) were most likely to report that COVID- 19 pandemic conditions impacted their behaviors a little or not at all. However, 32.6% indicated that COVID-19 pandemic conditions impacted their course learning behaviors somewhat or to a 109 great extent. Respondents (N=28) who provided additional details about how remote operations impacted their course learning and participation were most likely to cite the difficulty in interacting with others with several remarking that there was simply less discussion during remote instruction with some courses being delivered entirely asynchronously. As one respondent shared: “it’s also difficult to participate in as many meaningful discussions via Zoom, professors tend to just lecture more, and it’s less of an immersive experience all together.” Additionally, several respondents indicated a general lack of motivation to engage in virtual classes with some sharing this was owing to distractions that caused their attention to drift away from the course meeting. As one respondent shared: “it was very difficult to stay motivated when I couldn’t be with other students or professors and get the same face to face instruction and help that I was used to getting.” Perceptions and Satisfaction When asked how the transition to remote instruction affected their general perceptions of and overall satisfaction with the University, study participants were most likely to report that COVID-19 pandemic conditions impacted their perceptions and satisfaction a little or not at all. However, 16.3% of respondents (N=92) indicated that COVID-19 pandemic conditions impacted their general perceptions of the University somewhat or to a great extent. Respondents (N=12) who provided additional details about how remote operations impacted their general perceptions of the university cited a lack of support with the transition both as new transfers and in the remote environment. Some also expressed dissatisfaction with the cost of tuition which continued to increase “despite a lower quality of education” while courses remained remote. The experience was lonesome and impersonal, as one respondent summarized: “half of my entire 110 college experience had been online and off campus. Taking classes online isolated me from [LRU] and I feel as if my life was being determined by a robot and a screen.” Additionally, 22.3% of respondents (N=90) indicated that COVID-19 pandemic conditions impacted their overall satisfaction with the University somewhat or to a great extent. Respondents (N=17) who provided additional details about how remote operations impacted their overall satisfaction cited the difficulty in connecting with the campus community during remote instruction. As transfer students, participants already expected to spend less time at the University and several shared a feeling of missing out on opportunities due to being remote. As one respondent shared: The year that we transitioned to remote instruction was my first year at [LRU] and also my junior year, so when we were in-person for the 2021-2022 academic year, I felt like I was already at a disadvantage only having 1 year left to experience the "on-campus" life of [LRU], which was very disappointing. Summary of COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts Given the timing of this study, items were added to the survey instrument to allow participants to share how the educational conditions of the past few years may have impacted their college experiences. Overall, participants indicated that studying remotely during the height of the pandemic had little or no effect on their access to resources, course learning behaviors, general perceptions, and overall satisfaction with the University. For those indicating that studying remotely had an effect on their experiences, the common themes which emerged were decreased access and engagement both in class and with campus resources, as well as increased difficulty in successfully connecting with others and feeling part of the campus community. 111 Chapter Five: Discussion Transferring between colleges is a common experience with two-thirds of college graduates in the United States attending more than one institution to earn their degree. As the state with the most colleges and universities, California institutions must be familiar with and adequately respond to the challenges transfer students face as they transition to a new college. The purpose of this survey-based study was to gain insight into the experiences of transfer students at a large research university (LRU) including their interaction with academic advising and institutional resources. Additionally, this study investigated factors with potential influence on academic achievement. Using Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) as a guiding framework and the Laanan- Transfer Student Questionnaire (L-TSQ) (1998) as the foundation for the study instrument, a survey was developed to answer the study’s research questions. Each item on the survey was aligned with a study variable or construct. Each variable or construct was in turn aligned with the research questions and elements of the theoretical framework. Members of the study population were invited via email to participate in the study by completing the online survey. A total of 130 participants were included in the data analysis. Research Questions 1. What influences transfer students’ transition to the University? a. How do undergraduate transfer students characterize their experiences during their transition to the University? b. What are the common issues and challenges faced by undergraduate transfer students upon matriculation at the University? 2. What is the nature of transfer students’ experiences with academic advising? 112 a. What is the quality of transfer students’ interactions with academic advisors? b. What are transfer students’ perceptions of their interactions with academic advisors? 3. How do transfer students at the University identify and utilize academic support services and other opportunities provided by the institution? 4. What factors influence academic success in transfer students? a. Is there a relationship between student personal and demographic characteristics and academic performance in transfer students? b. Is there a relationship between previous college experiences and academic performance in transfer students? c. Is there a relationship between university experiences and academic performance in transfer students? Findings The overall findings of this study indicate that transfer shock continues in the 21 st Century and is present in transfer students at Large Research University (LRU). The experiences of individual transfer students vary, but common elements and themes emerged from this study regarding the transition to the University, experiences with academic advising, knowledge and use of institutional resources, and significant influences on academic performance. Research Question 1 Applying the tenets of Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) this research question evaluated elements related to all of the 4 S’s for coping with transition: Situation, Self, Support, and Strategies. Situation elements included the timing and control of the transition (participants’ decision to transfer), previous experiences with a similar transition (participants’ experiences at 113 their previous college), and concurrent stress (financial mediators and perceived problems). Study elements related to Self included psychological resources (participants’ adjustment processes). Support elements included the campus community (participant’s perceptions of faculty, transfer stigma, and the university in general) and institutional services (orientation programs). Study elements related to Strategies included study habits (course learning behaviors) and coping responses (participants’ description of what help their transition and advice for new transfer students). Overall, participants indicated that if they could start over again, they would still choose to transfer to the University, but several challenges were identified with successfully transitioning into the University. Transfer students at LRU had mostly transferred from two-year colleges (vertical transfer) but had also transferred from other four-year institutions (lateral or horizontal transfer) or had attended both two-year and four-year colleges before transferring to the University (possible reverse transfers and swirlers). They were highly motivated to join the university and intentionally sought to transfer due to specific programs of study offered and the University’s reputation as highly ranked for the quality of its academics and opportunities for community and networking. Due to the competitiveness of transfer admissions at the University, transfer students are generally highly qualified, and results of the study indicate they feel adequately prepared to meet the demands of the University’s expectations. Even so, most transfer students still reported experiencing “transfer shock,” an abrupt drop in GPA in the first term after transferring. This finding is consistent with multiple previous studies which also confirmed the presence of transfer shock among new transfer students (Carlan & Byxbe, 2000; Clausen & Wessel, 2015; Diaz, 1992; Graham & Hughes, 1994; Hills, 1965; Jaggars et al., 2023; Laanan, 2001; Rhine et al., 2000). 114 Many transfer students called LRU their “dream” school, but the reality of “fitting in” often proved challenging. Transfer students at LRU found the social adjustment and integration more difficult than academic or psychological adjustments and felt they would benefit from transfer groups coordinated by the University rather than being left to organize on their own. Transfer students were most likely to state that “finding community” had been the component that contributed most to their successful (or unsuccessful) transition to the University. The importance of integrating into the community at the senior institution has been highlighted by previous research (Chrystal et al., 2013; Townley et al., 2013; Townsend, 2008). One possible hindrance to transfer students’ ability to find community may be the level of stigma they feel at the University for being transfer students. This study found that transfer students were nearly twice as likely to feel stigmatized and undervalued by other students than by faculty for having started at another college. Another impediment to social adjustments may also be the lack of housing (on campus or nearby campus) for transfer students. This study found that housing and parking are significant problems for transfer students at LRU. Campus housing is not provided for transfer students and while many lived close enough to commute to campus within 15 minutes, finding affordable housing was a stressor for transfer students and having to commute to campus may limit transfer students’ ability to participate in campus events and activities outside of class. While studies of transfer students often include information about their housing and commuting situation, the impact of housing on transfer student experiences has not been studied extensively. However, one such study looking at housing as a means of supporting the social integration of lateral transfer students found that students felt stressed and overwhelmed by the process of securing housing with many unable to build social connections and ultimately left feeling isolated and disconnected (Utter & DeAngelo, 2015). 115 Research Question 2 Applying the tenets of Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) this research question evaluated elements related to two of the 4 S’s for coping with transition: Situation and Support. Situation elements included previous experiences with a similar transition (participants’ experiences with academic advising at their previous college). Support elements included institutional resources and services (participant’s experiences with academic advising at the University). Overall, participants indicated they were satisfied with the academic advising in their major, however the percentage of those who were neutral, dissatisfied, or extremely dissatisfied was concerning (30.9%). Transfer students largely have helpful interactions with academic advising but hold a limited view of the kind of assistance academic advisors can provide. As suggested by Rhine et al. (2000), nearly all LRU transfer students reported that they met with their academic advisor at least once a semester. Providing course planning was seen as the “most helpful” thing their advisor had done. At the University, a “course plan” is not just enrollment guidance for the next semester. There is a longstanding campuswide initiative to provide up-to-date, long-term course planning for all students that details the courses and requirements needed term-by-term and the most optimal path through a given curriculum to graduation. These course plans provide a comprehensive view of a student’s time at the University which the transfer students who participated found useful. However, having been provided with this comprehensive “road map” to graduation and perhaps primed by their experiences with academic advising at their previous college, transfer students mostly did not seek advising at the University for topics beyond course planning and progress toward degree. 116 For those that did engage with advising beyond course mapping, they were most likely to be connected to resources for support and opportunities and guidance regarding Master’s degree programs or other post-graduation possibilities. The University espouses a commitment to developmental advising rather than prescriptive advising, but it appears that transfer students are not benefiting from all that advising can offer. This may be due to their conception of academic advising based on experiences at their previous college. Lazarowicz and McGill (2022) identified academic advisors as primary agents of support for transfer students. Their study results described pre-transfer advising being mainly transactional and focused on course registration. When describing post-transfer advising, some transfer students continued to view academic advising as transactional while some recognized the value of building a relationship with their academic advisor as an agent of more meaningful and personal support. Research Question 3 Applying the tenets of Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) this research question evaluated elements related to one of the 4 S’s for coping with transition: Support. Support elements focused on institutional services (participants’ awareness of learning support, academic services, student services, wellness resources, and transfer student resources). Overall, participants were aware of just 22.8% of the 56 services listed across the five resource categories. While some of the resources presented in the survey serve specific populations, several campuswide services were largely unknown to transfer students. For learning support resources, less than 25% of participants were aware of the campus learning support center and supplemental instruction sessions. Supplemental instruction is chiefly offered for common course sequences in math and science, including organic chemistry which one respondent had indicated they were struggling with, but incorrectly stated that help was “very minimal” and they 117 were “not aware of help for science classes.” For academic services, less than half of participants were aware of articulation services for transfer credit evaluation, and less than 15% were aware of campuswide specialized academic advising for pre-health, pre-law or pre-grad. For student services, participants were largely unaware of various cultural and identity centers on campus (<25%). For wellness resources, a little more than half of participants indicated they were aware of the counseling and mental health services available on campus, and less than 25% were aware of basic needs services provided by the University. Despite the general lack of awareness of many campus resources, the most surprising finding in this area was the extent to which transfer students were unaware of the very resources developed especially for them. The list presented to participants was short (just three items), but less than 30% of participants were able to identify even one of the three. Despite their limited awareness of available services, transfer students mostly felt the University provided enough resources. However, many struggled to find the appropriate resources when they needed them. When faced with academic difficulty, transfer students primarily relied on faculty office hours. Consultation with faculty and teaching assistants is a critical component to understanding individual course expectations and grading standards, but additional campus services are available to tutor students regarding specific course content and help students understand and monitor their own learning processes. The main way that participants learned about resources on campus was by searching them up themselves online, from emails, or through word of mouth from other students. To a lesser extent, participants learned of campus resources during orientation or from their academic advisor. Given the gap in awareness and use of campus resources, these methods seem ineffective in adequately informing transfer students of the resources available to them. Since all of the resources shown in the 118 survey are included in the cost of attendance, it behooves students to take full advantage of the support provided. The existing resources provided by the University may be sufficient to meet the needs of transfer students, but not knowing where to ask for help often leaves them to figure things out on their own. This finding is consistent with other studies which found that transfer students underused campus support services and may be unaware of resources, even those developed specifically to ease their transition to the university (Chrystal et al., 2013; Eggleston & Laanan, 2001). Chrystal et al. emphasized the importance of developing strategies for connecting transfer students to resources to address the lack of awareness. Research Question 4 Applying the tenets of Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) this research question evaluated elements related to all of the 4 S’s for coping with transition: Situation, Self, Support, and Strategies. Situation elements included the timing and control of the transition (time to degree, prior application as a freshman), the previous experiences with a similar transition (previous college experiences with course learning, GPA, and academic preparation), event circumstances (transfer process, housing situation, commute time, employment status), and concurrent stress (financial mediators, perceived obstacles or problems). Study elements related to Self included personal characteristics and demographics (age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, parents’ education, family income, financial aid status, disability status), psychological resources (participants’ adjustment processes), and motivation and values (academic attitudes and goal orientation). Support elements included the campus community (perceptions of faculty, transfer stigma, perceptions and satisfaction with the university in general) and institutional services (orientation programs, learning support, academic services, student services, wellness resources, 119 transfer student resources, and academic advising). Study elements related to Strategies included approaches to learning (course participation behaviors, study habits) and coping responses (active, avoidance, emotional, social). Several variables related to transfer students’ previous college experiences were significantly correlated with University GPA. As found in several other studies (Carlan & Byxbe, 2000; Clausen & Wessel, 2015; Graham & Hughes, 1994; Lopez & Jones, 2017; Phlegar et al. 1981), students’ transfer GPA was significantly and positively correlated with University GPA. Associated variables of previous college experiences including course experiences, course learning, and learning and study skills were also found to have a significant positive relationship with University GPA. Successful prior experiences and academic preparation serves as situational assets for the transition to the University. Additionally, transfer students’ engagement with the transfer process also had a significant correlation with University GPA, a result previously noted by Berger and Maloney (2003). Aside from previous college experiences, transfer students’ one-way commute time also had a positive correlation with University GPA. Somewhat counterintuitively but confirming the previous results of Graham and Hughes (1994), students living farther from campus had higher University GPAs. Conventional demographic variables of age, gender, and ethnicity did not have a significant relationship with University GPA similar to some prior studies (Graham & Hughes, 1994; Phlegar et al., 1981) but contradictory to others (Keely & House, 1993). Differences in mean GPA between ethnicities were observed, but some groups contained small sample numbers and the differences were not statistically significant. University GPA was found to have a significant relationship with family income level. However, the relationship between GPA and family income level was not linear. Participants who selected the highest and lowest income 120 ranges had the highest GPAs, and those who selected the second and third highest income levels had the lowest GPAs. Financial Aid status also had a significant relationship with University GPA with those receiving any type of aid (grant, scholarship, or loan) having lower GPAs then those not receiving aid. Nearly 80% of participants indicated they were receiving some form of financial aid. Disability status was another factor that had a significant relationship with University GPA, with those who indicated they had a barrier to educational access having lower GPAs than those with no identified barrier. Additionally, the number of disabilities indicated was negatively correlated to University GPA. The study survey did not ask participants if they had approved accommodations related to their disability consequently the effectiveness of using such services was not evaluated. Academic adjustment, academic attitudes, and goal orientation also had positive significant correlations with University GPA. These areas of psychological resources and motivation and values appear to serve as additional assets within individual students that contribute to their successful academic transition. First semester GPA at the University and the degree of transfer shock were correlated with overall University GPA. A significant positive correlation was also found with University units, implying that as transfer students continue their studies at LRU, they are likely to recover from the initial transfer shock. Number of terms enrolled and the precise level of recovery were not evaluated, but this finding is generally consistent with previous studies (Diaz, 1992; Glass & Harrington, 2002). In terms of support provided by the institution, only the transfer students’ estimation of the level of transfer stigma present at the University had a significant negative correlation with University GPA. This demonstrates the importance of a sense of belonging to the successful transition and academic performance of transfer students at the University. 121 For coping responses to the transfer transition, active and social coping styles as well as study habits were positively correlated with University GPA while the avoidance coping style was negatively correlated with University GPA. Academically successful transfer students are more likely to take action and seek help from others when faced with difficulties. These results emphasize the importance of effective coping strategies and approaches to learning for a successful transition to the university. COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts Schuh and Laanan (2006) described the cascading effects on college students of “forced transitions” due to natural disasters and other events. They detail and discuss several key areas of potential disruption during emergency situations including communication with students and their families, housing and food services, academic advising, course enrollment, financial issues, campus employment for students, and counseling support (Schuh & Laanan, 2006). At the start of the emergency situation and as the event progresses, students will have many questions and institutions must quickly coordinate responses to student needs while making critical decisions across the organization as the situation evolves. Are students safe? Can students stay in housing? Will classes continue and if so, in what format? Schuh and Laanan advocate for flexibility and creativity with a focus on reducing stress for students in response to unexpected events. Nearly all of the study participants were enrolled during Fall 2020 and Spring 2021 when most institutions in the United States were operating remotely with about half enrolled at LRU during that time. The majority of participants indicated that attending the University virtually had little or no effect on their use of campus resources, course learning experiences, and general perceptions and satisfaction with the University. However, nearly one third of participants 122 experienced disruptions due to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown conditions somewhat or to a great extent in their use of learning support resources and in their course learning and participation. Participants found services less effective online, often coupled with a lack of availability. And they found it difficult to participate in class discussions, stay focused during class meetings, and connect with classmates through Zoom. Similarly, participants shared in open-ended response items that attending the University remotely made their social transition more difficult owing to the inadequacies of the virtual environment to meet people and build meaningful relationships. These results are consistent with an early study of COVID-19 pandemic impacts on transfer student experiences. In a small study of transfer students in STEM programs, Thiry et al. (2023) also found that transfer students struggled to engage and learn effectively in online courses, experienced a lack of peer connection, and had difficulty navigating campus services due to decreased accessibility during the pandemic. Implications for Practice The results of this study have several practical implications. Transfer student experiences are multifaceted, and this study confirmed that transfer students continue to face challenges in successfully transitioning to the University. This section contains recommendations to further support transfer students. Dedicated Resources LRU has a sizeable enrollment of transfer students yet does not currently have dedicated staff or facilities to serve transfer student needs. A small amount of space and coordination may go a long way to ensuring the successful integration of transfer students at the University. Zamani (2001) noted the benefits of installing a transfer center to address transfer student needs and facilitate a smooth transition. Transfer student participants in this study noted issues with 123 finding a community and often indicated a desire to meet other transfer students. Allocating space for transfer students to gather and also to have a space to relax or study between classes would alleviate some of the stress adjusting to the University and signal that transfer students are a priority at LRU. As part of dedicated resources for transfer students, some study participants requested that transfer specialist advising be offered by the University. Some transfer students felt that their advisor did not understand their problems as a transfer student such that they subsequently received incomplete, inaccurate, or belated information. Specialist staff with knowledge and skills related to the policies and procedures as well as the needs of transfer students may be embedded in a transfer center or designated within academic units. Berger & Malaney (2003) stress the need for faculty and advisors working with transfer students to be well versed in transfer policies, articulation agreements, and program requirements in order to effectively guide students. Improved Communication of Campus Resources Similar to Chrystal et al. (2013) this study found that transfer students were largely unaware of the various campus resources available, including and especially those resources intended specifically for transfer students. To address this gap in awareness, improved communication of resources to transfer students is needed. Efforts must be made to directly engage transfer students with programs and services at the University, particularly academic support services to alleviate transfer shock. Due to their shortened timeline at the University, transfer students have less time to learn about and effectively use campus resources. Many student participants indicated they learned about resource via email, but also that important information is often lost in a sea of emails. More effective mechanisms for engaging transfer 124 students with campus resources during orientation, academic advising, or other programs is needed. Jefferson et al. (2014) shared their development of a transition seminar for transfer students which included campus resource information. Study participants recommended better training for orientation leaders and a compiled list of resources in one place online, which could benefit all new students at the University. Transfer Groups This study discovered that transfer students found the social adjustment to the University most challenging. In their own transition, and in their advice to new transfer students, study participants emphasized the importance of finding community at the University in order to build a support system and ease the stress of the transition. Rather than leave organizing to the students themselves, study participants requested the creation of transfer groups supported by the University. Such groups may have social events or more informal but regular support meetings. As one respondent suggested: I am not sure if something like this already exists at [LRU], but I think a casual support group where transfer students could meet once a week to talk with other transfers about their experiences would be super helpful. I think one of the hardest things about being a transfer was feeling like an imposter on campus from not attending [LRU] since freshman year "like everyone else"; however, as I got to know more people, I realized that a large population of [LRU] students are transfers. So I think having a regularly meeting support group would be a great way for transfers to connect and have people to talk to about their unique yet uncommon [sic] experiences. A formalized peer-to-peer mentoring program was also requested where current transfer students would be matched with newly enrolled transfer students, perhaps based on departments, 125 to serve as a resource to help new transfer students become acclimated to the University. Given the size of the transfer student population at LRU, leveraging other students to serve as mentors would alleviate concerns about scaling staff and other resources to meet this need. Housing A student housing crisis is growing across California, not just at LRU. Even campuses identifying as “residential” do not house 100% of students, but an increasing number of students are requesting housing directly from their college. A recent Los Angeles Time article highlighted this issue, estimating that 417,000 students at California’s public institutions lack “stable places to sleep.” The only answer appears to be more beds. However, multiple barriers to addressing this issue must be overcome including delays in state funding, increased costs for construction, and litigation from local groups surrounding college campuses intent on blocking new construction in their neighborhoods (Watanabe, 2023). As a result, students are making decisions about where to go to school based on housing cost and availability. Study results show that housing is also a source of stress for transfer students at LRU. Second only to paying for college, more than half of the study participants identified housing as being a problem and potential obstacle while pursuing their studies. As one respondent summed it up: “Finding an affordable housing without compromising too much with location was tough. Many apartments that are at an affordable prices were both very far from campus and located in a dangerous region.” While most transfer students indicated they lived within 15 minutes of campus, many expressed a desire to experience campus housing and felt the University had an obligation to assist students with housing resources. More assistance is needed both in offering campus housing to transfer students and providing resources to assist with housing placements in the vicinity of campus. 126 Agency and Engagement As a significant proportion of the student population at the University, addressing the needs of transfer students should be a priority. Many transfer students feel they are overlooked by the University. They wish to be acknowledged and to have their voices heard. As one respondent shared: To have a stronger say in the university. Transfer students are one of the last people to get housing on campus. Students in general do not have a lot of power in terms of causing change in the university. The voices of the staff are much more powerful than the students. Sometimes the student voices need to be heard too. Transfer students and their needs are diverse and multidimensional. Creating channels for communication, input, and feedback will help identify the pain points for transfer students so that campus administrators may work to address systemic barriers and procedural pitfalls. Transfer students have concerns about housing, parking, financial aid, how transfer credit is evaluated, the availability of academic support, access to mental health resources, and finding community at the University. They deserve a seat at the table whenever these issues are discussed to illuminate the unique ways in which transfer students are affected by campus decisions and to have a forum to advocate for themselves. Implementation of Recommendations In the absence of existing resources and organizational structures, an institution will need to start at the beginning to develop and implement programs and services for transfer students. The recently updated 2023 Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) General Standards and Transfer Student Programs and Services (TSPS) functional area standards and guidelines are a good place to start. CAS standards for various functional areas 127 are rooted in five guiding principles: students and their environments; advocation for diverse, equitable and inclusive communities; organization, leadership, and human resources; ethical considerations; and learning-conducive structures, resources, and systems. The extensive standards and objectives for TSPS are contextualized according to these guiding principles. The standards can appear daunting but provide a clear roadmap to developing this functional area across the University. For institutions finding it difficult to know where to start, CAS also offers Self-Assessment guides for each functional area. Using a seven-step process, an institution can evaluate the current state of their programs and services, identify discrepancies, and generate an action plan. Critical elements for the success of Transfer Student Programs and Services are developing a mission statement and goals, having a strategic plan for transfer student program design and implementation, allocating necessary resources, and committing to a continuous cycle of assessment. Without intentional, deliberate efforts to create a more welcoming and inclusive culture for transfer students, they will continue to be left struggling on their own. The very act of having a campuswide discussion regarding transfer students can communicate the priority of this group of students. As Tobolowsky and Cox (2012) concluded: If institutions adjust their focus to more clearly include transfer students, the institutions will likely also adjust their allocation of resources accordingly. By raising the profile of transfer students, an institution subtly encourages its agents (faculty and staff) to increase the amount of time, energy, money, and other resources earmarked for the facilitation of transfer student success. Such reallocation would have a direct effect on transfer student experiences simply by allowing the institution to do what it already does, but better. Perhaps more important for the longterm success of the institution and its transfer students, the reallocation of focus and resources would allow the university to reexamine 128 and revise any institutionalized policies and practices that limit its ability to meet the needs of this important, and sizable student population. (p. 408) Future Research The purpose of this study was to better understand the experiences of transfer students at a large research university. While the results of this study provided valuable insights of the needs of this population, additional research is needed to further explore different aspects of transfer students’ experiences. If recommendations are acted upon, additional research would be needed regarding the effectiveness of measures taken to address the issues identified here. Furthermore, this study contained many variables and analysis of the data was limited based on the current research questions. Additional analysis and comparisons within this data are possible. For example, University GPA was used to measure the academic success of participants in this study, however other definitions of student success such as satisfaction, retention and graduation, or academic and social adjustment could be evaluated. Also, further confirmatory analysis of transfer student capital constructs from the L-TSQ should be conducted as this study failed to corroborate the reliability of some of the established constructs perhaps due to changes in the general transfer student population and/or selection of individual survey items for each construct. Other aspects of the transfer student experience should also be researched including sense of belonging at the institution, experiences with academic probation or academic integrity, and perceptions of campus culture. Study participants were asked if there was anything not asked on the survey that they would like to share about their experiences. These responses also provided several suggestions for potential future research including the level of support provided for transfer students facing mental health challenges, the impact of campus safety on transfer student 129 experiences, the effects of campus “drinking culture,” more in-depth exploration of how transfer students are able to build community, and how intersectional identities contribute to positive or negative experiences at the University. Conclusions The transfer students at LRU are highly motivated and come to the University with a considerable amount of preparation. However, they experience challenges transitioning to the University including credit loss, transfer shock and unsatisfactory social adjustment. They often struggle to find community at the University and feel left on their own. Academic advising provides useful support to transfer students about long-term course planning and degree progress monitoring. Additional support from advising is available, but transfer students appear to hold a limited view of the kind of assistance offered through advising. Similarly, transfer students are often unaware of or underutilize campus services, particularly those limited resources that have been developed specifically for transfer students. In examining influences on transfer students’ academic performance, the only institutional factor found to correlate with University GPA was the extent to which transfer students feel stigmatized at the University for being a transfer. Institutions that continue to admit transfer students must invest in their success by providing the requisite funding, facilities, staffing, and services to support their transition and academic success at the University. It is not enough to assume that an admissions letter and a financial aid package are sufficient to meet transfer students’ needs. While an offer of admission fulfills a promise of access, it does not guarantee inclusion or equity. It is necessary to have a strategic plan including clear objectives, dedicated resources, and a commitment to explicitly prioritize the success of transfer students. LRU is the “dream” school for many transfer students and the University has a duty to make that dream a reality. 130 References Adelman, C. (2004). Principal indicators of student academic histories in postsecondary education, 1972-2000. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Education. Anderson, M. L., Goodman, J., & Schlossberg, N. K. (2012). Counseling adults in transition linking Schlossberg’s theory with practice in a diverse world (4th ed.). Springer Publishing Company. Argetsinger, A. (2004, March 16). 2-Year schools no longer 2nd choice: More teenagers opt for community colleges for cost and pace. The Washington Post, pp. A1, A10. Berger, J. B., & Malaney, G. D. (2003). Assessing the transition of transfer students from community colleges to a university. NASPA Journal, 40(4). https://doi.org/10.2202/0027- 6014.1277 Best, G. A., & Gehring, D. D. (1993). The academic performance of community college transfer students at a major state university in Kentucky. Community College Review, 21(2), 32– 41. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155219302100205 Brinkley-Etzkorn, K. & Cherry, L. (2022). A lens for transfer: A history of theoretical frameworks and conceptual models applied to the student of transfer students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 24(1), 99-125. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1521025120902064 Carlan, P. E., & Byxbe, F. R. (2000). Community colleges under the microscope: An analysis of performance predictors for native and transfer students. Community College Review, 28(2), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155210002800202 Cejda, B. D. (1997). An examination of transfer shock in academic disciplines. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 21(3), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1066892970210301 Cejda, B. D., Kaylor, A. J., & Rewey, K. L. (1998). Transfer shock in an academic discipline: The relationship between students’ majors and their academic performance. Community College Review, 26(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155219802600301 Cheung, K., Ng, J., Tsang, H., Pang, K. K. L., Wan, C. L. J., & Moser, K. (2020). Factors affecting direct and transfer entrants’ active coping and satisfaction with the university. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(8), 2803–. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082803 Chrystal, L. L., Gansemer-Topf, A., & Laanan, F. S. (2013). Assessing students' transition from community college to a four-year institution. Journal of Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, 3(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5325/jasseinsteffe.3.1.0001 131 Clausen, C. & Wessel, R. (2015). Transfer shock: Predicting academic success after transition. The Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 23(1), 15-27 https://doi.org/10.24926/ jcotr.v23i1.2897 Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2023). CAS professional standards for higher education (11 th ed.). Author. Daddona, M. F., Harris, C. L., Mondie-Milner, C., & Goodson, J. (2022). The impact of student swirling and transfer credit hours on earning a bachelor’s degree. College and University, 97(1), 10-21. Diaz, P. E. (1992). Effects of transfer on academic performance of community college students at the four-year institution. Community Junior College Research Quarterly of Research and Practice, 16(3), 279-291. Dowd, A. C., Pak, J. H., & Bensimon, E. M. (2013). The role of institutional agents in promoting transfer access. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21, 15–. https://doi.org/ 10.14507/epaa.v21n15.2013 Eggleston, L. E. & Laanan, F. S. (2001). Making the transition to the senior institution. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2001(114), 87-97. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.23 Eimers, M., & Mullen, R. (1997). Transfer Students: Who Are They and How Successful Are They at the University of Missouri? College and University: the Journal of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars, 72(3), 9-19. Engle, J. & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving Beyond Access: College Success for Low-Income, First- Generation Students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Gardner, J. N. (2001). Focusing on the first-year student. Priorities, Number 17. Glass, Jr., J. C. & Harrington, A. R. (2002). Academic performance of community college transfer students and “native” students at a large state university. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(5), 415-430. https://doi.org/10.1080/02776770290041774 Goodman, J., Schlossberg, N. K., & Anderson, M. L. (2006). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practices with theory (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing Company. Graham, S. W. & Hughes, J. C. (1994). Moving down the road: Community college students' academic performance at the university. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 18(5), 449-464. 132 Hagedorn, L. S. & Maxwell, B. (2002). Research on urban community college transfer and retention: The Los Angeles TRUCCS project. (ED464662). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed. gov/fulltext/ED464662.pdf Handel, S. J. & Williams, R. A. (2012). The promise of the transfer pathway: Opportunity and challenge for community college students seeking the baccalaureate degree. College Board Advocacy & Policy Center. (ED541969) ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED541969.pdf Hills, J. R. (1965). Transfer shock: The academic performance of the junior college transfer. The Journal of Experimental Education, 33(3), 201-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973. 1965.11010875 Hughes, J. A. & Graham, S. W. (1992). Academic performance and background characteristics among community college transfer students. Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice, 16(1), 35-46. Jaggers, S. S., Rivera, M. D., & Buelow, M. T. (2023). Transfer shock and resilience: How transfer-related GPA drop and rebound predict student departure from a flagship university campus. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice 152102512311638–. https://doi.org/10.1177/15210251231163837 Jefferson, G. D., Steadman, S., & Laier, J. E. (2014). Addressing Transfer Student Transition. Paper presented at ASEE Southeast Section Conference, Macon, Georgia. http://asee.cs. southern.edu/proceedings/ASEE2014/Papers2014/4/129.pdf Jenkins, D. & Fink, J. (2015). What we know about transfer. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. Jenkins, D. & Fink, J. (2016). Tracking transfer: New measures of institutional and state effectiveness in helping community college students attain bachelor’s degrees. Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University. (ED563499). ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED563499.pdf Keeley, E. J. & House, J. D. (1993, May). Transfer shock revisited: A longitudinal study of transfer academic performance. Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Chicago, IL. King, M. C. (2005). Developmental academic advising. NACADA Clearinghouse of Academic Advising Resources. http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View- Articles/Developmental-Academic-Advising.aspx Laanan, F. S. (1996). Making the transition: Understanding the adjustment process of community college transfer students. Community College Review, 23(4), 69-84. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/009155219602300407 133 Laanan, F. S. (1998). Beyond transfer shock: A study of students’ college experiences and adjustment processes at UCLA. [Doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Los Angeles; ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. Laanan, F. S. (2001). Transfer student adjustment. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2001(114), 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.16 Laanan, F. S. (2004). Studying transfer students: Part I: Instrument design and implications. Community College Journal of Research Practice, 28, 331-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10668920490424050 Laanan, F. S., Starobin, S. S., & Eggleston, L. E. (2010). Adjustment of community college students at a four-year university: Role and relevance of transfer student capital for student retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 12(2), 175–209. https://doi.org/10.2190/CS.12.2.d Lazarowicz, T. & McGill, C. M. (2022). Agents of support for community college transfer students: A qualitative study. NACADA Journal, 42(1), 35-52. https://doi.org/10.12930/ NACADA-20-34 Lopez, C., & Jones, S. J. (2017). Examination of factors that predict academic adjustment and success of community college transfer students in STEM at 4-year institutions. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 41(3), 168–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2016.1168328 Mahon, P. G. & Dannells, M. (1998). Advisors’ attitudes regarding transfer students. NACADA Journal, 18(2), 33-39. Moser, K. M. (2012). Redefining transfer student success: Transfer capital and the Laanan- transfer students’ questionnaire (L-TSQ) revisited. [Doctoral dissertation]. Iowa State University Digital Repository. Phlegar, A. G., Andrew, L. D., & McLaughlin, G. W. (1981). Explaining the academic performance of community college students who transfer to a senior institution. Research in Higher Education,15(2), 99-108. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00979591 Rhine, T. J., Milligan, D. M., & Nelson, L. R. (2000). Alleviating transfer shock: Creating an environment for more successful transfer students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 24(6), 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920050137228 Schlossberg, N. K. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaptation to transition. The Counseling Psychologist, 9(2), 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/001100008100900202 Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice with theory (2nd ed.). Springer Publishing Company. 134 Schuh, J. H. & Laanan, F. S. (2006). Forced transitions: The impact of natural disasters and other events on college students. New Directions for Student Services (114), 93-102. https:// doi.org/10.1002/ss.210 Shapiro, D., Dundar, A., Wakhungu, P. K., Yuan, X., Nathan, A., & Hwang, Y. (2016). Time to degree: A national view of the time enrolled and elapsed for associate and bachelor’s degree earners (Signature report no. 11). (ED580231). National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED580231.pdf Simone, S. A. (2014). Transferability of postsecondary credit following student transfer or coenrollment (NCES 2014-163). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014163.pdf Taylor, J. L. & Jain, D. (2017). The multiple dimensions of transfer: Examining the transfer function in American higher education. Community College Review, 45(4), 273-292. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552117725177 Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2 nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student Retention 8 (1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.2190/4YNU-4TMB-22DJ-AN4W Tobolowsky, B. F., & Cox, B. E. (2012). Rationalizing neglect: An institutional response to transfer students. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 389-410. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00221546.2012.11777249 Townley, G., Katz, J., Wandersman, A., Skiles, B., Schillaci, M. J., Timmerman, B. E., & Mousseau, T. A. (2013). Exploring the role of sense of community in the undergraduate transfer student experience. Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3), 277-290. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21529 Townsend, B. K. (2008). “Feeling like a freshman again”: the transfer student transition. New Directions for Higher Education, 2008(144), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.327 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). The Condition of Education 2003 (National Center for Education Statistics 2003-067). https:// nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003067.pdf U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/ U.S. News & World Report. (2022). National Universities Rankings. https://premium.usnews. com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities Utter, M. & DeAngelo, L. (2015) Lateral transfer students: The role of housing in social integration and transition. The Journal of College and University Student Housing, 42(1). 178-193. 135 Watanabe, T. (2021, April 12). UC explains admissions decisions in a record application year of much heartbreak, some joy. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/ story/2021-04-12/covid-college-admissions-season-brings-rejection-heartbreak Watanabe, T. (2023, March 14). As California student housing crisis deepens, solutions face roadblocks at UC and elsewhere. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/california/ story/2023-03-14/fixing-californias-student-housing-crisis-faces-roadblocks Young, J. T. N., & Litzler, E. (2013). Confirmatory factor analysis of transfer student adjustment. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(11), 877–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2010.515514 Zamani, E. M. (2001). Institutional responses to barriers to the transfer process. New Directions for Community Colleges 30(2), 15-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.17 136 Appendix A: Study Information Transfer Student Success Participant Information Sheet You are invited to take part in a research study about the experiences of transfer students at [University]. Your participation is voluntary. Please review the information below about why the research is being done and what it would involve for you. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you. WHO I AM AND WHAT THIS STUDY IS ABOUT My name is Heather Cartagena and I am a candidate for the Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) degree at the USC Rossier School of Education. I am studying the experiences of transfer students at [University] in an effort to understand more about how transfer students manage their academic transition to [University]. The current study is being conducted to fulfill the dissertation requirements for the degree. WHY HAVE YOU BEEN INVITED TO TAKE PART? To learn more about transfer student experiences, I am reaching out to recent transfer students who were enrolled at [University] anytime Fall 2019 to Spring 2022. As such, you are an expert in the area being studied and may be able to provide insights regarding what it means to be a transfer student at [University]. WHAT WILL TAKING PART INVOLVE? If you decide to participate, you are asked to complete an online questionnaire that will take about 20-30 minutes to complete. The questionnaire will ask you to share information about your experiences before and after transferring to [University]. If you are unable to complete the survey in one sitting, you may save your progress and resume the questionnaire at a later time from the same device. As part of your participation, you will also be asked to authorize a limited FERPA release of your academic records for further analysis when matched with your survey responses. This release will authorize the researcher to receive your course enrollment history, program, and grade information from your University transcripts. IS THERE ANY COMPENSATION OR BENEFIT FOR PARTICIPATION? If you decide to participate, you may enter a gift card drawing at the end of the questionnaire. There will be multiple gift cards available in the drawing: one gift card of $200, four gift cards of $100, and up to 20 gift cards of $50. The drawing will be held at the end of the study and the winners notified via email. While there is no direct benefit to participants, information obtained from the survey will be made available to administrators at the University and could potentially influence campus policy and resources. However, the current study to learn about the experiences of current transfer students is being completed to fulfill the dissertation requirement in the Ed.D. degree program and may not be able to address or resolve issues that are shared in responses to survey items. CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE 137 WILL TAKING PART BE CONFIDENTIAL? Your responses will remain private and confidential. While non-anonymized data in the form of survey responses and transcript records will be collected and retained as part of the research process, pseudonyms will be used in any information written up or shared to maintain anonymity of participants. However, please be aware that in the event that information is shared which indicates there may be a serious risk of harm or danger to either the participant or another individual (e.g. physical, emotional or sexual abuse, concerns for child protection, rape, self-harm, suicidal intent or criminal activity), then I would be required to break confidentiality as a mandatory reporter in the State of California. HOW WILL INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE BE RECORDED, STORED AND PROTECTED? The members of the research team and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. Data from survey responses will be retained solely by the researcher and stored on password-protected and/or access-controlled drives. When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used. Any data shared with others will have all identifying information removed and will be aggregated or use pseudonyms. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY? This study will be used primarily to complete the dissertation requirements for the Ed.D. degree. Findings may also be presented to [University] administrators. WHO SHOULD YOU CONTACT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION? If you have any questions about this study, please contact: Heather Cartagena Ed.D. Candidate USC Rossier School of Education hmj@usc.edu If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu. THANK YOU! 138 Appendix B: Study Invitation Subject Line: Transfer Student Survey - Invitation to Participate Dear [University] Transfer Student, I would like to invite you to take part in a research study about the experiences of transfer students at [University]. My name is Heather Cartagena and I am a candidate for the Doctor of Education (Ed.D) degree at the University of Southern California (USC) Rossier School of Education. This survey is a component of my doctoral dissertation and is being conducted under the supervision of faculty member Patricia Tobey at the USC Rossier School of Education. To learn more about transfer student experiences, I am reaching out to recent transfer students who were enrolled at [University] anytime Fall 2019 to Spring 2022 to participate in an online survey. As a current or recent [University] transfer student, you are an expert in the area being studied and may be able to provide insights regarding what it means to be a transfer student at [University]. Participation is completely voluntary, and you are under no obligation to participate. If you decide to participate, you are asked to complete the online questionnaire at the link below. The survey will take about 20-30 minutes to complete. If you are unable to complete the survey in one sitting, you may save your progress and resume the questionnaire later. Survey participants who provide their name and email will be entered into a drawing for gift cards of $50, $100, or $200. The drawing will be held at the end of the study and the winners notified via email. Additional information is provided in the attached Study Information Sheet. Should you have any questions about participating, please contact me at hmj@usc.edu [Qualtrics Survey Link] Thank you, Heather Cartagena Ed.D. Candidate USC Rossier School of Education hmj@usc.edu USC Institutional Review Board (IRB) Authorization UP-20-01422 139 Appendix C: Survey Instrument Section 1: Introduction/Background Study Information You are invited to take part in a research study about the experiences of transfer students at the [University]. The purpose of this survey is to understand more about what factors have an impact on the success of transfer students at the University. Participation is voluntary and you may withdraw your participation at any time. Please review the Study Information Sheet before continuing 01 Study Information Acknowledgment By selecting this box, I agree to participate in the study FERPA Release For the purpose of this study, it would be helpful to examine records pertaining to your academic program and course enrollment information along with your responses to this survey. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) provides that educational institutions may not release confidential information about a student without the student's consent. By providing your Student ID below, you authorize the research team to obtain the records of course registration, final course grades, and other records directly pertaining to your academic experiences at the [University]. This permission is valid only for the purposes of the research described herein. 02 Student ID Number (without dashes) open Survey Overview The survey contains several sections each containing multiple items. Some questions will ask you to enter information, many will ask you to use a rating scale, and several will ask you to share in an open response format. Some items may ask you specifically about experiences during remote instruction if you were enrolled in college during that time. The survey is divided into the following sections: • Academic Background and Enrollment History • Transfer Institution Experiences • University Transition • Institutional Support • Academic Advising • University Experiences • Conclusion The survey is expected to take approximately 20-30 minutes to complete. You are able to pause and resume the survey later from the same device. Thank you for your participation! Survey questions will begin on the next page. – end of page 1 – Academic Background & Enrollment History This section asks you to provide information about your college enrollment and your academic programs of study. 140 03-01 During which semester did you transfer to and first attend [University]? Drill down of Term and Year 03-02 What is the first term that you attended college at any institution after completing high school? Drill down of Term and Year 03-03 Were you enrolled at any college institution during the widespread implementation of remote instruction from March 2020 through June 2021? Y/N – end of page 2 – 04 At which college institution were you enrolled during each semester listed below? [University]; Another Institution; Not Enrolled in College 04-01 Fall 2019 04-02 Spring 2020 04-03 Fall 2020 04-04 Spring 2021 04-05 Fall 2021 04-06 Spring 2022 05 Did you use the extended Pass/No Pass grading option offered during semesters of remote instruction? Y/N 06-01 Are you currently enrolled at [University] for Fall 2022? Y/N [If “No” to 06-01] 06-02 You indicated you are not currently enrolled at [University]. Please select the option below that best describes your current [University] student status: I have graduated from [University] I am on a leave of absence and plan to return to [University] in a later term I am enrolled or plan to enroll at another college or university I have no plans to continue my enrollment at any college or university [If “Yes” to 06-01, or “leave of absence” to 06-02, or “I have graduated” to 06-02] 06-03 In which term do you expect to graduate from [University]? Drill down of Term and Year 07 What is your primary Academic Unit and Major at the University? Drill down of Academic Unit and Major 07-01 Academic Unit 07-02 Major 08-01 Do you have any additional major(s) at [University]? Select all that apply 141 To select more than one option hold down Control (on a PC) or Command (on a Mac) when clicking. To deselect an option, hold down Control or Command and click on a selected option. I do not have any additional majors Major list 08-02 Do you have any minor(s) at [University]? Select all that apply To select more than one option hold down Control (on a PC) or Command (on a Mac) when clicking. To deselect an option, hold down Control or Command and click on a selected option. I do not have any minors Minor list 09 Was your current Primary Major at [University] your intended major at your previous institution? Yes No, but it is related No, and it is not related 10 How did you decide on your current major(s)? Open 11 Not including [University], how many other colleges or universities have you ever attended? 1, 2, 3, 4 or more – end of page 3 – 12 Which institutions did you attend? Please list the Name and Type of each institution you have attended. For type, please indicate whether the institution is a Community College, Vocational or Technical School, Art Institute, or 4-Year University Institution Name, Institution Type, Units Completed 12-01 Transfer Institution 1 12-02 Transfer Institution 2 [displayed based on response to 11] 12-03 Transfer Institution 3 [displayed based on response to 11] 12-04 Transfer Institution 4 [displayed based on response to 11] 12-05 Transfer Institution 5 [displayed based on response to 11] 13 How many total credit hours/units did you transfer to [University]? Number 14 Did you complete an Associate’s degree? Yes/No 15 What was your college GPA upon transferring to [University]? Number 142 16 Did you apply to [University] as a freshman? Yes/No – end of page 4 – Section 2: Transfer Experiences Transfer Institution Experiences The purpose of this section is to obtain information about your college experiences prior to your transfer to [University]. For each of the following items, please think back to the time when you were preparing to transfer from your previous institution(s). 17 Transfer Process These items pertain to your perceptions about the "transfer process" while you were enrolled at previous college(s). Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each statement. Likert – 4 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) 17-01 I researched various aspects of [University] to get a better understanding of the environment and academic expectations 17-02 I knew what to expect at [University] in terms of academics 17-03 I visited the [University] campus to learn where offices and departments were located. 17-04 I visited the admissions office at [University] 18 Academic Advising/Counseling Services The following items address your use of academic advising/counseling services at your previous college(s). Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each statement. Likert – 4 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) 18-01 Information received from academic counselor(s) was helpful in the transfer process. 18-02 I met with academic counselors on a regular basis. 18-03 I discussed my plans for transferring to another institution with an academic counselor 18-04 Academic counselors identified courses needed to meet the general education/major requirements of other institutions I was interested in attending 19 Course Learning The following questions address the various aspects of your prior college experience and courses taken at your previous college(s). For each item below, please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the statement. Likert – 4 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) 19-01 The courses demanded intensive writing assignments and projects 19-02 The courses prepared me for the academic standards at [University] 19-03 The courses prepared me for my major at [University] 19-04 The courses required extensive reading and writing 20 In your experience at your previous college(s), how often did you do each of the following? Likert – 4 (Never - Very Often) 17-01 Took detailed notes in class 17-02 Participated in class discussions 17-03 Tried to see how different facts and ideas fit together 17-04 Thought about practical applications of the material 143 21 About how many hours a week did you usually spend on the campus of your previous college(s), not counting time attending classes? Select one None 1 to 3 hours 4 to 6 hours 7 to 9 hours 10 to 12 hours more than 12 hours 22 About how many hours a week did you usually spend studying or preparing for your classes at your previous college(s)? Select one 1 to 5 hours 6 to 10 hours 11 to 15 hours 16 to 20 hours more than 20 hours 23 During your time at your previous college(s), about how many hours a week did you usually spend working on a job for pay? Select one None, I didn’t have a job 1 to 5 hours 6 to 10 hours 11 to 15 hours 16 to 20 hours 21 to 30 hours more than 30 hours 24 Learning and Study Skills To what extent do you agree or disagree that your academic experiences at your previous college(s) gave you the skills you needed to prepare you for the standards and academic rigor at [University]? Likert – 4 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) 24-01 Computer skills 24-02 Mathematical skills 24-03 Note-taking skills 24-04 Problem solving skills 24-05 Reading skills 24-06 Research skills 24-07 Speaking and oral presentation skills 24-08 Test-taking skills 24-09 Time management skills 24-10 Writing skills 144 25-01 Did your previous college have a Transfer Center? Yes/No [If “Yes” to 25-01] 25-02 Did you utilize the services of the Transfer Center at your previous college? Yes/No [If Yes to 22 and 23] 26 The following items address your use of Transfer Center services at your previous college. Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each statement. Likert – 4 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) 26-01 The Center staff was responsive to students’ needs and requests. 26-02 The Center sponsored information fairs/sessions for prospective transfer students. 26-03 The Center was helpful in providing valuable information about transferring. 27 Financial Mediators Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with each statement. Likert – 4 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) 27-01 Prior to transferring, I made sure I knew about the financial aid available to me as a transfer student 27-02 The amount of financial aid that I received at [University] was adequate 27-03 The amount of financial aid that I received was a contributing factor in my decision to attend [University] 28 Please share about your decision to transfer: why did you decide to come [University]? Open – end of page 5 – Section 3: University Transition University Transition The purpose of this section is to obtain information about your experiences during your transition to enrollment at [the University]. 29-01 Did you attend Transfer Orientation at [the University]? Yes/No [If “Yes” to 29-01] 29-02 Was your orientation program in-person or virtual Select one I attended [University] Orientation in-person on campus I attended [University] Orientation virtually [If Yes to 29-01] 30 Thinking about your experience with [University] Transfer Orientation, to what degree: Likert – 4 (Not at all satisfied - Extremely satisfied) 145 30-01 Did Transfer Orientation prepare you for meeting the expectations of [University]? 30-02 Were you satisfied with the academic advising you received at Transfer Orientation? 30-03 Was the orientation program helpful in facilitating your transition to [University]? 31 What is the highest academic degree that you intend to obtain at [University]? Select one Bachelor’s (BA, BFA, BS, etc.) Master’s (MA, MEd, MFT, MS, etc.) Doctorate (PhD, PsyD, EdD, etc.) Medical (MD, DDS, DO, or DVM) Law (JD or LLB) Other: 32 If there were no obstacles, what is the highest academic degree you would like to attain in your lifetime? Select one Bachelor’s (BA, BFA, BS, etc.) Master’s (MA, MEd, MFT, MS, etc.) Doctorate (PhD, PsyD, EdD, etc.) Medical (MD, DDS, DO, or DVM) Law (JD or LLB) Other: [If [University] or Another Institution selected for 04-01 Fall 2019 or 04-02 Spring 2020] 33-01 Please indicate your place of residence during the academic year before transitioning to remote instruction Select one Residence hall or other university housing Fraternity or sorority house Private apartment or room within walking distance of the university House, apartment, etc. (not walking distance from campus) With parents or relatives Other [If [University] or Another Institution selected for 04-01 Fall 2019 or 04-02 Spring 2020] 33-02 What was your commute to campus before transitioning to remote instruction? Enter total one-way commute time in minutes: Number [If “Yes” to 03-03] 34 Please indicate your place of residence during remote instruction Select one Residence hall or other university housing Fraternity or sorority house Private apartment or room within walking distance of the university House, apartment, etc. (not walking distance from campus) 146 With parents or relatives Other [If “Yes” to 03-03] 35 With whom did you live while attending college remotely? Select all that apply 35-01 With my parents or guardians 35-02 With my spouse or partner 35-03 With my children/stepchildren 35-04 With my sibling(s) 35-05 With other relatives 35-06 With a roommate(s) or a friend(s) 35-07 I live alone 35-08 Other [If [University] selected for 04-05 Fall 2021 or 04-06 Spring 2022] 36-01 Please indicate your place of residence during the academic year after returning to in-person instruction Select one Residence hall or other university housing Fraternity or sorority house Private apartment or room within walking distance of the university House, apartment, etc. (not walking distance from campus) With parents or relatives Other [If [University] selected for 04-05 Fall 2021 or 04-06 Spring 2022] 36-02 What was your commute to campus after returning to in-person instruction? Enter total one-way commute time in minutes: Number 37 During the most recent semester you were enrolled, about how many hours a week did you spend working at a job for pay? Select one None, I didn’t have a job 1 to 5 hours 6 to 10 hours 11 to 15 hours 16 to 20 hours 21 to 30 hours more than 30 hours 38 Which one of the following best describes your employment status at this time? Select one Employed full-time (including self-employed) Employed part-time (including self-employed) 147 Not employed but looking for work Not employed and not presently looking for work 39 How do or did you think of yourself while pursuing your degree? Select one Primarily as a student who is employed Primarily as an employee who is going to college Primarily as a parent who is going to college Solely as a student – end of page 6 – Section 4: Institutional Support University Services The purpose of this section is to obtain information about your familiarity with various offices, programs, and services at [University]. 40 I am aware of and/or have used the following LEARNING SUPPORT resources at [University]: Select all that apply 40-01 [English Language Learner Support] 40-02 [College of Letters and Sciences] Tutoring 40-03 Economics Tutoring Center 40-04 [Learning Center] 40-05 Language Center 40-06 Libraries 40-07 [Business School Academic Resources] 40-08 Math Center 40-09 Professor/TA Office Hours 40-10 Supplemental Instruction 40-11 [Engineering School Academic Resources] 40-12 Writing Center [If “Yes” to 03-03] 40-C How did the transition to remote instruction affect your use of LEARNING SUPPORT resources? Likert – 4 (Not at all - To a great extent) [If “Somewhat” or “To a great extent” to 40-C] 40-X You indicated that remote instruction affected your use of LEARNING SUPPORT resources. Please share details of how your use of these resources changed. Open 41 I am aware of and/or have used the following ACADEMIC SERVICES at [University]: Select all that apply 41-01 Academic Advising (in my major) 41-02 [Undecided/Undeclared Advising] 41-03 Office of Academic Integrity 41-04 [Academic Probation Advising] 148 41-05 Degree Progress Office 41-06 [Overseas Studies/Study Abroad Advising] 41-07 Petition Services 41-08 Pre-Health Advising Office 41-09 Pre-Grad Advising Services 41-10 Pre-Law Advising Services 41-11 [Registrar Services] 41-12 [Student-Athlete Advising and Services] 41-13 Transfer Credit Services (Articulation) 41-14 [University Advising Services] [If “Yes” to 03-03] 41-C How did the transition to remote instruction affect your use of ACADEMIC SERVICES resources? Likert – 4 (Not at all - To a great extent) [If “Somewhat” or “To a great extent” to 41-C] 41-X You indicated that remote instruction affected your use of ACADEMIC SERVICES. Please share details of how your use of these resources changed. Open 42 I am aware of and/or have used the following STUDENT SERVICES at [University]: Select all that apply 42-01 [Asian American Pacific Islander Student Affairs] 42-02 [Student Life / Campus Organizations Office] 42-03 Career Center 42-04 [African American Student Affairs] 42-05 [Student Development / Community Expectations Office] 42-06 Financial Aid 42-07 [First Generation Support Centerr] 42-08 [International Student Services] 42-09 [Latinx Student Affairs] 42-10 [LGBTQ+ Student Affairs] 42-11 Office of Religious Life 42-12 [Disability / Student Accessibility Services] 42-13 Student Equity and Inclusion Programs 42-14 Student Government Office Hours 42-15 [Student Conduct and Community Standards Office] 42-16 [Undocumented Resource Center] 42-17 Veterans Resource Center 42-18 Volunteer Center [If “Yes” to 03-03] 42-C How did the transition to remote instruction affected your use of STUDENT SERVICES? Likert – 4 (Not at all - To a great extent) [If “Somewhat” or “To a great extent” to 42-C] 42-X You indicated that remote instruction affected your use of STUDENT SERVICES. Please share details of how your use of these resources changed. Open 149 43 I am aware of and/or have used the following WELLNESS resources at [University]: Select all that apply 43-01 Campus Support & Intervention 43-02 Counseling & Mental Health Services 43-03 [Student Health Center] (General Health Services) 43-04 [Occupational Therapy Services] 43-05 [Recreation Center] 43-06 [Mindfulness at the University] 43-07 [Confidential Advocate Services] 43-08 Student Basic Needs 43-09 [Anonymous Concerns Reporting Service] [If “Yes” to 03-03] 43-C How did the transition to remote instruction affect your use of WELLNESS resources? Likert – 4 (Not at all - To a great extent) [If “Somewhat” or “To a great extent” to 43-C] 43-X You indicated that remote instruction affected your use of WELLNESS resources. Please share details of how your use of these resources changed. Open 44 I am aware of and/or have participated in the following TRANSFER STUDENT resources at [University]: Select all that apply 44-01 [University] Transfer Student Handbook 44-02 [Transfer Student Modules] 44-03 [Transfer Student Club] 45 Do you have an identified barrier to educational access and participation? Select all that apply 45-01 AD(H)D 45-02 ASD Related 45-03 Blind/Low Vision 45-04 DHH 45-05 Learning disability 45-06 Medical 45-07 Musculoskeletal/Mobility 45-08 Psychological/Psychiatric 45-09 Speech 45-10 TBI/ABI 45-11 Other 45-12 No disabilities 46 When you first arrived at [University], how did you find out about services/resources available to you? Open 150 47 Thinking back to a time over the last semester or year of your enrollment at [University], describe a time when you were struggling in a class: How did you get assistance? Were there particular people at the University who were resources for you? Open 48 Aside from the resources already available at [University] (as listed in the questions above), what additional resources would you like the University to provide that would address the specific needs of transfer students? Please list and explain. Open – end of page 7 – Section 5: Academic Advising Academic Advising The purpose of this section is to obtain information about your experiences with academic advising at [University]. 49-01 Do you have an assigned academic advisor in your major? Yes/No [If “Yes” to 49-01] 49-02 Who is your academic advisor? Open [If “No” to 49-01] 49-03 Which academic advisor (if any) do you prefer to meet with in your major department? Open 50 How frequently do you meet with or contact your academic advisor? Select one A few times each month About once a month Once a semester Once a year Not since orientation 51 How comfortable are you in going to your academic advisor for assistance? Likert – 4 (Not at all comfortable - Very comfortable) 52 What kind of assistance or resources do you receive from your academic advisor? Open 53 What is the most helpful thing your academic advisor has done for you? Open 54 What is the least helpful thing your advisor has done for you? Open 151 55 Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. When faced with a problem or difficult situation at school, typically: Likert – 4 (Strongly disagree - Strongly agree) 55-01 I make a plan of action 55-02 I try to come up with a strategy about what to do 55-03 I think hard about what steps to take to resolve the problem 55-04 I discuss my feelings with someone 55-05 I talk to someone about how I feel 55-06 I act as though it hasn't happened 55-07 I refuse to believe that it happened 55-08 I let my feelings out 55-09 I feel a lot of emotional distress and I find myself expressing these feelings 55-10 I get upset and let my emotions out 55-11 I skip class 55-12 I reduce the amount of effort I put into solving the problem – end of page 8 – Section 6: University Experiences University Experiences The purpose of this section is to obtain information about your overall experiences at [University]. 56 During your time at [University], about how often did you do each of the following? Likert – 4 (Never - Very Often) 56-01 Took detailed notes in class 56-02 Participated in class discussions 56-03 Tried to see how different facts and ideas fit together 56-04 Talked with an advisor from my major department regarding courses and major. 56-05 Thought about practical applications of the material 56-06 Worked on a paper or project where I had to integrate ideas from various sources 56-07 Tried to explain the material to another student or friend [If “Yes” to 03-03] 56-C How did the habits in the previous question change during remote instruction? Likert – 4 (Not at all - To a great extent) [If “Somewhat” or “To a great extent” to 56-C] 56-X You indicated that remote instruction affected your study and learning habits. Please share details of how this changed. Open 57 General Perceptions of the University The following are statements about your general perceptions, adjustment process, and opinion of your overall satisfaction at [University]. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree. Likert – 4 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) 57-01 Faculty are easy to approach. 152 57-02 Faculty tend to be accessible to students. 57-03 Professors are strongly interested in the academic development of undergraduates. 57-04 Because I was a “transfer student” most faculty tend to underestimate my abilities. 57-05 There is a stigma at [University] among students for having started at another college. 57-06 Because I am a “transfer student” most students tend to underestimate my abilities. 57-07 Student services are responsive to student needs 57-08 [University] supports transfer students academically, professionally, and personally. 57-09 If students expect to benefit from what [University] has to offer, they have to take the initiative. 57-10 I feel the courses I have taken have been interesting and worthwhile. 57-11 [University] is an intellectually stimulating and often exciting place to be. 57-12 I would recommend to other transfers to come to [University]. 57-13 If I could start over again, I still would go to [University]. [If “Yes” to 03-03] 57-C Did the transition to remote instruction affect your general perceptions of [University]? Likert – 4 (Not at all - To a great extent) [If “Somewhat” or “To a great extent” to 57-C] 57-X You indicated that remote instruction affected your general perceptions of [University]. Please share details of how this changed. Open 58 Adjustment Process Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Likert – 4 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) 58-01 Adjusting to the academic standards or expectations has been easy. 58-02 Adjustment to the social environment has been easy. 58-03 I often feel/felt overwhelmed by the size of the student body. 58-04 I am meeting (have met) as many people and making as many friends as I would like. 58-05 The large classes intimidate me. 58-06 It is easy to find my way around campus. 58-07 My level of stress increased when I started at [University]. 58-08 I experienced a dip in grades (GPA) during the first semester at [University]. 58-09 It is (was) easy to make friends at [University]. 58-10 I meet with academic advisors on a regular basis. 59 How large a problem is each of the following while getting your education at the University? Likert – 5 (Not a problem - Very large problem) 59-01 Parking 59-02 Transportation 59-03 Family responsibilities 59-04 Housing 59-05 Job-related responsibilities 59-06 Paying for college 59-07 Scheduling classes for next semester 59-08 Difficulty of classes 59-09 Understanding the English language 59-10 Reliable internet access 153 [If “Large problem” or “Very large program” to 59] 59-X You indicated one or more things to be a large or very large problem while getting your education at [University]. Please share details of why each particular area is a problem for you. Open 60 For the following items, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements Likert – 4 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) 60-01 I start to study at least 2 or 3 days prior to tests 60-02 I expect to do well and earn good grades in college 60-03 Understanding what is taught is important to me 60-04 I always complete homework assignments 60-05 I keep trying even when I am frustrated by a task 60-06 Learning can be judged best by the grade one gets 60-07 I frequently have difficulty meeting deadlines 60-08 I am very determined to reach my goals 60-09 I feel most satisfied when I work hard to achieve something 60-10 My family is more important than my career 60-11 Success in college is largely due to effort and how hard you try 60-12 I wait until the day before an assignment is due before starting it 61 What was your first semester GPA at [University]? Number 62 Overall College Satisfaction Please rate your satisfaction with each of the aspects of campus life at [University] listed below. Likert – 5 (Strongly disagree – Strongly agree) 62-01 Sense of belonging 62-02 Decision to transfer 62-03 Overall quality of instruction 62-04 Sense of community on campus 62-05 Academic Advising (in my major) 62-06 Career counseling 62-07 Student housing 62-08 Courses in your major field 62-09 Financial aid services 62-10 Amount of contact with faculty 62-11 Opportunities for community service 62-12 Job placement services for students 62-13 Class size 62-14 Interaction with other students 62-15 Ethnic/racial diversity of the faculty 62-16 Leadership opportunities 62-17 Overall college experience – end of page 9 – [If “Yes” to 03-03] 154 62-C Did the transition to remote instruction affect your overall satisfaction with [University]? Likert – 4 (Not at all - To a great extent) [If “Somewhat” or “To a great extent” to 57-C] 62-X You indicated that remote instruction affected your overall satisfaction with the University. Please share details of how this changed. Open Section 7: Conclusion Conclusion The purpose of this final section is to obtain additional information about your perspectives as a transfer student at [University], and also to obtain additional background and demographic information. 63 What factors helped you adjust to [University]? Please explain what factors contributed to your successful transfer (or unsuccessful transfer) to [University]. Feel free to include factors at both your previous college(s) and [University]. Open 64 If you could give new transfer students some advice about how to succeed at [University] what would it be? Open 65 What have we NOT asked that you would like us to know about your experiences at [University] or your previous college(s)? Open Additional Background and Demographics 66 Which of the following (if any) apply to you? Select all that apply 66-01 Current or Former Foster Youth 66-02 First Generation College Student (i.e., neither parent has earned a Bachelor's degree) 66-03 International Student 66-04 Member of Greek Fraternity or Sorority 66-05 Student-Athlete 66-06 Armed Forces ROTC or Veteran 67 What is the highest level of formal education obtained by your parents either in the U.S. or in another country? Select one for each parent Elementary school of less Some high school High school graduate Some college Associate degree from two-year college Bachelor’s degree Some graduate school Graduate degree 155 Don’t know 67-01 Mother 67-02 Father 68 What is your best estimate of your parents' total household income last year? Select one If you are independent check here Less than $20,000 $20,000 to $39,999 $40,000 to $59,999 $60,000 to $79,999 $80,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more 69 What is your current marital status? Married Widowed Divorced Separated Never Married 70 What is your gender identity? Open 71 Have you received any the following types of financial assistance? Select all that apply 71-01 Loan 71-02 Scholarship 71-03 Grant 72 What is your age? Open 73 What is your ethnic background according to the U.S. federal classifications below? (you may select more than one answer) 73-01 African American or Black 73-02 Asian 73-03 Hispanic or Latino/a 73-04 Native American or Alaskan Native 73-05 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 73-06 White (non-Hispanic) 73-07 Other 156 Gift Card Raffle Thank you for your time in completing this survey! If you wish to be entered into the gift card raffle for survey participants, please provide your contact information below. Drawing for gift cards will be held at the end of the study. Possible gift card amounts are $50, $100, or $200. 74 To be entered into the raffle for one of the gift cards, please enter your name and email: 74-01 First Name 74-02 Last Name 74-03 [University] Email – end of survey – We thank you for your time spent taking this survey. Your response has been recorded. 157 Appendix D: Supplemental Tables Table D1 One-way Commute Time to the University (N=102) Minutes n % 0-15 69 67.6 16-30 21 20.6 31+ 12 11.7 Table D2 Employment Status During Most Recent Term at the University (N=107) Survey Item n % Employed full-time (including self-employed) 4 3.7 Employed part-time (including self-employed) 61 57.0 Not employed, but looking for work 26 24.3 Not employed and not presently looking for work 16 15.0 Table D3 Time Spent Working Survey Item Previous College (n=114) University (n=107) n % n % None, I didn’t have a job 50 43.9 41 38.3 1 to 5 hours 8 7.0 11 10.3 6 to 10 hours 11 9.6 22 20.6 11 to 15 hours 16 14.0 13 12.1 16 to 20 hours 10 8.8 13 12.1 21 to 30 hours 16 14.0 4 3.7 More than 30 hours 3 2.6 3 2.8 158 Table D4 First Term at University (N=130) Term n % Spring 2017 1 0.8 Fall 2019 7 5.4 Spring 2020 5 3.8 Fall 2020 39 30.0 Spring 2021 10 7.7 Fall 2021 57 43.8 Spring 2022 11 8.5 Table D5 First Term in College (N=130) Term n % Fall 2016 or before 7 5.4 Fall 2017 6 4.7 Spring 2018 1 0.8 Fall 2018 19 14.7 Spring 2019 1 0.8 Fall 2019 59 45.7 Spring 2020 1 0.8 Fall 2020 35 27.1 Spring 2021 1 0.8 Table D6 Recent Enrollment History of Participants (N=130) Term University Another Institution Not Enrolled in College n % n % n % Fall 2019 9 6.9 83 63.8 38 29.2 Spring 2020 13 10.0 83 63.8 34 26.2 Fall 2020 51 39.2 76 58.5 3 2.3 Spring 2021 61 46.9 64 49.2 5 3.8 Fall 2021 118 90.8 8 6.2 4 3.1 Spring 2022 127 97.7 0 0.0 3 2.3 Fall 2022 123 94.6 0 0.0 7 5.4 159 Table D7 Financial Mediators of Decision to Transfer (N=114) Survey item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree n % n % n % n % Prior to transferring, I made sure I knew about the financial aid available to me as a transfer student 12 10.5 22 16.9 51 44.7 29 25.4 The amount of financial aid that I received at the University was adequate 36 31.9 13 11.5 42 37.2 22 19.5 The amount of financial aid that I received was a contributing factor in my decision to attend the University 25 22.1 26 23.0 29 25.7 33 29.2 Table D8 Orientation Satisfaction (N=77) Survey item Not at all satisfied Slightly satisfied Satisfied Extremely satisfied n % n % n % n % Did Transfer Orientation prepare you for meeting the expectation of the University 13 16.9 29 37.7 21 27.3 14 18.2 Were you satisfied with the academic advising you received at Transfer Orientation 11 14.3 24 31.2 27 35.1 15 19.5 Was the Transfer Orientation program helpful in facilitating your transition to the University 12 15.6 23 29.9 30 39.0 12 15.6 Table D9 Transfer Credit Loss - Units Completed Minus Units Accepted (N=125) Units n % 0 39 31.2 1-5 29 23.3 6-10 22 17.6 11-20 15 12.0 21 or more 20 16.0 160 Table D10 Learning and Study Skills Preparation (N=113) Survey Item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree n % n % n % n % Computer skills 9 8.0 26 23.0 51 45.1 27 23.9 Mathematical skills 7 6.2 23 20.4 51 45.1 32 28.3 Note-taking skills 4 3.5 24 21.2 48 42.5 37 32.7 Problem solving skills 2 1.8 16 14.2 53 46.9 42 37.2 Reading skills 1 0.9 19 16.8 51 45.1 42 37.2 Research skills 8 7.1 26 23.0 45 39.8 34 30.1 Speaking and oral presentation skills 9 8.0 22 19.5 39 34.5 43 38.1 Test-taking skills 7 6.2 31 27.4 38 33.6 37 32.7 Time management skills 5 4.4 20 17.7 47 41.6 41 36.3 Writing skills 1 0.9 19 16.8 50 44.2 43 38.1 Table D11 Transfer Student Perceptions of Faculty (N=97) Survey Item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree n % n % n % n % Faculty are easy to approach 3 3.1 17 17.5 51 52.6 26 26.8 Faculty tend to be accessible to students 1 1.0 13 13.4 54 55.7 29 29.9 Professors are strongly interested in the academic development of undergraduates 4 4.1 10 10.3 53 54.6 30 30.9 161 Table D12 General Perceptions of the University (N=97) Survey Item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree n % n % n % n % Student services are responsive to students 8 8.2 20 20.6 50 51.5 19 19.6 The University supports transfer students academically, professionally, and personally 6 6.2 24 24.7 41 42.3 26 26.8 If students expect to benefit from what the University has to offer, they have to take the initiative 0 0.0 6 6.2 39 40.2 52 53.6 I feel the courses I have taken have been interesting and worthwhile 2 2.1 6 6.2 47 48.5 42 43.3 The University is an intellectually stimulating and often exciting place to be 1 1.0 6 6.2 42 43.3 48 49.5 I would recommend to other transfers to come to the University 5 5.2 10 10.3 36 37.1 46 47.4 If I could start over again, I still would go to the University 3 3.1 7 7.2 33 34.0 54 55.7 162 Table D13 Adjustment Processes (N=96) Survey Item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree n % n % n % n % Academic Adjusting to the academic standards or expectations has been easy 15 15.6 19 19.8 40 41.7 22 22.9 The large classes intimidate me * 19 19.8 48 50.0 22 22.9 7 7.3 I experienced a dip in grades (GPA) during the first semester at the University * 13 13.7 19 20.0 36 37.9 27 28.4 Psychological I often feel/felt overwhelmed by the size of the student body * 21 21.9 43 44.8 18 18.8 14 14.6 My level of stress increased when I started at the University * 3 3.1 24 25.0 40 41.7 29 30.2 It is easy to find my way around campus 3 3.1 7 7.3 50 52.1 36 37.5 Social Adjustment to the social environment has been easy 19 19.8 30 31.3 35 36.5 12 12.5 I am meeting (have met) as many people and making as many friends as I would like 18 18.8 24 25.0 35 36.5 19 19.8 It is (was) easy to make friends at the University. 17 17.9 32 33.7 36 37.9 10 105 * Item was reverse coded prior to scaling 163 Table D14 Perceived Problems (N=93) Survey Item Not a Problem Small problem Medium problem Large problem Very large problem n % n % n % n % n % Paying for college 17 18.1 8 8.5 27 28.7 11 11.7 31 33.0 Housing 21 22.6 18 19.4 23 24.7 14 15.1 17 18.3 Parking 36 38.7 9 9.7 23 24.7 13 14.0 12 12.9 Job-related responsibilities 28 30.1 15 16.1 25 26.9 13 14.0 12 12.9 Scheduling classes 14 14.9 23 24.5 34 36.2 14 14.9 9 9.6 Transportation 33 35.1 14 14.9 34 36.2 5 5.3 8 8.5 Difficulty of classes 14 14.9 19 20.2 44 46.8 11 11.7 6 6.4 Family responsibilities 32 34.0 18 19.1 32 34.0 8 8.5 4 4.3 Reliable internet access 46 49.5 23 24.7 14 15.1 7 7.5 3 3.2 Understanding the English language 83 88.3 2 2.1 6 6.4 1 1.1 2 2.1 Table D15 Previous College Advising Experiences (N=114) Survey Item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree n % n % n % n % I met with academic counselors on a regular basis 16 14.0 33 28.9 37 32.5 28 24.6 I discussed my plans for transferring to another institution with an academic counselor 15 13.2 16 14.0 49 43.0 34 29.8 Information received from academic counselor(s) was helpful in the transfer process 11 9.6 31 27.2 38 33.3 34 29.8 Academic Counselors identified courses needed to meet general education/ major requirements of other institutions I was interested in attending 22 19.3 21 18.4 40 35.1 31 27.2 164 Table D16 Learning Support Resource Awareness (N=94) Survey Item n % Professor/TA Office Hours 75 79.8 Libraries 62 66.0 Writing Center 40 42.6 Letters & Science College Tutoring 26 27.7 Supplemental Instruction 22 23.4 Learning Support Center 20 21.3 Math Center 18 19.1 Language Center 10 10.6 Engineering School Learning Support 7 7.4 Economics Tutoring Center 6 6.4 Business School Academic Resources 3 3.2 English Language Support 2 2.1 Table D17 Academic Services Awareness (N=99) Resources Checked n % Academic Advising (in my major) 89 93.7 Transfer Credit Services (Articulation) 43 45.3 Registrar Services Center 31 32.6 Office of Study Abroad 25 26.3 Petition Services 16 16.8 Advisor Connect Network 15 15.8 Office of Academic Integrity 14 14.7 Degree Progress Office 14 14.7 Pre-Health Advising 13 13.7 Pre-Law Advising 11 11.6 Pre-Grad Advising 7 7.4 Academic Probation Advising 4 4.2 Student Athlete Advising 4 4.2 Undecided/Exploration Advising 3 3.2 165 Table D18 Student Services Awareness (N=90) Resources Checked n % Financial Aid 64 71.1 Career Center 62 68.9 First-Generation Student Center 32 35.6 Asian Pacific American Student Affairs 29 32.2 LGBTQ+ Student Affairs 22 24.4 Student Inclusion Programs 21 23.3 Office of Campus Activities 21 23.3 Disability Services Center 18 20.0 Religious Life 17 18.9 Black African American Student Affairs 17 18.9 Latinx Chicanx Student Affairs 16 17.8 Student Judicial Affairs 15 16.7 Student Government Office Hours 12 13.3 Volunteer Center 11 13.3 Veterans Resource Center 9 10.0 International Student Services 8 8.9 Undocumented Student Resource Center 7 7.8 Office of Community Expectations 4 4.4 Table D19 Wellness Resource Awareness (N=82) Resources Checked n % Campus Recreation Center 59 72.0 Counseling and Mental Health Services 46 56.1 Student Health Center 41 50.0 Mindfulness Services and Programs 29 35.4 Confidential Advocate Services 26 31.7 Student Support and Intervention 18 22.0 Basic Needs Services 18 22.0 Student Concern Reporting 7 8.5 Occupational Therapy Student Services 5 6.1 166 Table D20 Transfer Student Resource Awareness (N=40) Resources Checked n % Transfer Student Handbook 27 67.5 Transfer Student Assembly 24 60.0 Transfer Student Online Modules 3 7.5 Table D21 University GPA and Ethnicity Ethnicity n M SD African American or Black 6 3.15 0.55 Asian 34 3.58 0.29 Hispanic or Latino/a 14 3.46 0.36 Native American or Alaskan Native 3 3.77 0.21 White (non-Hispanic) 27 3.49 0.38 Other 9 3.47 0.27 Total 93 3.50 0.36 167 Table D22 Coping Styles – When Faced with a Problem or Difficult Situation at School (N=97) Survey Item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree n % n % n % n % Active I make a plan of action 3 3.1 6 6.2 44 45.4 44 45.4 I try to come up with a strategy about what to do 1 1.0 2 2.1 45 46.4 49 50.5 I think hard about what steps to take to resolve the problem 2 2.1 7 7.2 41 42.3 47 48.5 Avoidance I act as though it hasn’t happened 28 28.9 37 38.1 22 22.7 10 10.3 I refuse to believe that it happened 44 45.4 40 41.2 8 8.2 5 5.2 I skip class 30 30.9 33 34.0 27 27.8 7 7.2 I reduce the amount of effort I put into solving the problem 24 24.7 46 47.4 16 16.5 11 11.3 Emotional I feel a lot of emotional distress and I find myself expressing these feelings 6 6.2 31 32.0 44 45.4 16 16.5 I get upset and let my emotions out 12 12.4 39 40.2 36 37.1 10 10.3 Social I discuss my feelings with someone 7 7.2 19 19.6 42 43.3 29 29.9 I talk to someone about how I feel 7 7.2 19 19.6 45 46.4 26 26.8 I let my feelings out 6 6.2 38 39.2 39 40.2 14 14.4 168 Table D23 Study Habits, Academic Attitudes, and Goal Orientation (N=95) Survey Item Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree n % n % n % n % Study Habits I start to study at least 2 or 3 days prior to tests 4 4.2 13 13.7 52 54.7 26 27.4 I always complete homework assignments 0 0.0 8 8.4 35 36.8 52 54.7 I frequently have difficulty meeting deadlines * 26 27.4 38 40.0 23 24.2 8 8.4 I wait until the day before an assignment is due before starting it * 25 26.3 37 38.9 20 21.1 13 13.7 Academic Attitudes I expect to do well and earn good grades in college 0 0.0 6 6.3 47 49.5 42 44.2 Understanding what is taught is important to me 1 1.1 4 4.2 48 50.5 42 44.2 Learning can be judged best by the grade one gets * 37 38.9 34 35.8 18 18.9 6 6.3 Success in college is largely due to effort and how hard you try 2 2.1 15 15.8 45 47.4 33 34.7 Goal Orientation I keep trying even with I am frustrated by a task 1 1.1 7 7.4 49 51.6 38 40.0 I am very determined to reach my goals 0 0.0 6 6.3 31 32.6 58 61.1 I feel most satisfied with I work hard to achieve something 2 2.1 5 5.3 41 43.2 47 49.5 My family is more important than my career 4 4.2 25 26.3 43 45.3 23 24.2 * Item was reverse coded prior to scaling 169 Table D24 Enrollment During Period of Remote Instruction (N=130) Term University Another Institution Not Enrolled n % n % n % Spring 2020 13 10.0 83 63.8 34 26.2 Fall 2020 51 39.2 76 58.5 3 2.3 Spring 2021 61 46.9 64 49.2 5 3.8 Table D25 COVID-19 Effects on University Resource Use (N=95) Survey Item Not at all A little Somewhat To a great extent n % n % n % n % How did the transition to remote instruction affect your use of: Learning Support Resources 35 36.8 29 30.5 15 15.8 16 16.8 Academic Services 47 49.5 33 34.7 10 10.5 5 5.3 Student Services 49 51.6 35 36.8 5 5.3 6 6.3 Wellness Resources 48 52.7 23 25.3 7 7.7 13 14.3 Table D26 COVID-19 Effects on University Experiences (N=92) Survey Item Not at all A little Somewhat To a great extent n % n % n % n % Course learning and participation 27 29.3 35 38.0 16 17.4 14 15.2 General perceptions of the University 46 50.0 31 33.7 5 5.4 10 10.9 Overall satisfaction with the University 39 43.3 31 34.4 6 6.7 14 15.6 170 Appendix E: Permission to Use L-TSQ Items From: Laanan, Frankie <laanan@ua.edu> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 8:27 AM To: Heather Cartagena <hmcartag@uci.edu> Cc: hmj@usc.edu; Laanan, Frankie <laanan@ua.edu> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Request to use L-TSQ items Dear Heather, Greetings from Alabama! I hope this email finds you well. I apologize for the delay in responding to your email. Thank you for contacting me about your dissertation research. I am very excited to learn about your interest in using the L-TSQ. Please use this email correspondence as confirmation of my approval for you to use survey items from the L-TSQ. I recommend that you review the original L-TSQ (Laanan, 1998) and the revised L-TSQ used by my former doctoral advisees (Dimitra Jackson and Kristin Moser). Let me know if you are able to access their PhD dissertations from Iowa State. Please keep me posted on your research. I look forward to learning update. In the meantime, if I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to contact me. I wish you continued success on your doctoral journey. Take care and please stay healthy and safe. Regards, Frankie Frankie Santos Laanan Department Head and Professor Educational Leadership, Policy, and Technology Studies The University of Alabama 301C Graves Hall | Box 870302 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Phone: 205.348.5811 | Email: laanan@ua.edu Homepage | College of Education | Higher Education Administration

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Transferring is a common experience for college students. Students at two-year community colleges are more likely to be from diverse demographic backgrounds, and universities offering transfer admission fulfill the promise of access to higher education for these students. However, four-year universities must be responsive to the needs and challenges of transfer students to support their success. Using Schlossberg’s Transition Theory (1981) as a theoretical framework, this study explored the experiences of transfer students at a highly selective four-year research institution. The foundation for the online study questionnaire was the Laanan-Transfer Student Questionnaire (L-TSQ) (Laanan et al., 2010; Moser, 2012). Given the study’s timing, items were added to the questionnaire which asked participants about potential impacts of COVID-19 restrictions. Data from the questionnaire was matched with students’ academic records and analyzed using statistical methods as well as qualitative review of open-ended responses. It was found that most transfer students experience transfer shock and find the social adjustment to the campus community most challenging. Transfer students largely felt it useful to meet with their academic advisor, but maintained a limited view of the kind of assistance that could be gained through advising. Transfer students also had a general lack of awareness of campus resources, identifying just 23% on average of 56 resources listed. Numerous variables were compared with university GPA using means comparisons and correlational statistics. Several variables related to personal characteristics and demographics, previous college experiences, and university experiences were found to have significant relationships with university GPA.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

“Ask a lot of questions and hope you meet the right people”: a case study analyzing the transition experience of community college transfer students involved in the transfer program at a selectiv...

PDF

Oppression of remedial reading community college students and their academic success rates: student perspectives of the unquantified challenges faced

PDF

Relationships between a community college student’s sense of belonging and student services engagement with completion of transfer gateway courses and persistence

PDF

Academic advisement practices and policies in support of Black community college students with the goal of transfer

PDF

Applying Schlossberg’s transition theory to the student veteran transfer experience at the University of Southern California: a qualitative case study

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

The lived experiences of Hispanic students with disabilities transitioning to higher education

PDF

Exploring the academic success of black male former student-athletes and their experiences with academic support upon re-entry to college

PDF

Transfer supports equity: a quantitative investigation into the academic performance of transfer students

PDF

Échale ganas: the transition experiences of first-generation Latinx students and their parents to college

PDF

Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion

PDF

The influence of technology support on student retention

PDF

The academic integration and retention of Latino community college transfer students at a highly selective private four-year institution

PDF

A pathway to success: experiences of first-generation minority students in academic jeopardy

PDF

Testimonios of part-time enrolled Latina students: the challenges and experiences at a Hispanic-serving California community college

PDF

First-generation, low-income Latina students and cultural capital: a case study for academic advisors

PDF

Native Hawaiian student success in the first-year: the impact of college programs and practices

PDF

Institutional support of FGLI undergraduates’ sense of belonging and persistence

PDF

Asian critical theory: Southeast Asian transfer student experiences at a predominantly White institution

PDF

Examining perspectives of academic autonomy in community college students: a quantitative study

Asset Metadata

Creator Cartagena, Heather (author)

Core Title Supporting the transition and academic success of transfer students at a large research university

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 09/13/2023

Defense Date 09/07/2023

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

Tag academic success,college transfer students,OAI-PMH Harvest,student adjustment,student support,transfer shock,transition theory

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Bickers, Gene (committee member), Seli, Helena (committee member)

Creator Email heather.cartagena@gmail.com,hmj@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113340373

Unique identifier UC113340373

Identifier etd-CartagenaH-12380.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-CartagenaH-12380.pdf

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Cartagena, Heather

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230913-usctheses-batch-1097 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu