Transcript The Segmented Assimilation of Transfer Students: An

The Power of Striving on Transfer
Policies and Approaches
BARBARA TOBOLOWSKY, RHONDA
MCCLELLAN, AND BRAD COX
FORT WORTH
JANUARY 2012
Rationale/ Literature Review
 Rankings vs access
 Transfer students:
 Are less likely to complete
 Experience Transfer Shock (Hills, 1965)
 Are frustrated (Dennis, Calvillo, & Gonzalez, 2008)
 Are challenged by new system (Townsend, 2008)
 Perceived as “less capable” (Owens, 2010) and “anonymous”
(Townsend & Wilson, 2006)
 Information matters
What is a striving institution?
 Marketing itself as “on the move”
 Increasing its research profile
 Expanding programs for gifted students
 Increasing admissions selectivity to improve student
quality
 Allocating funds to support these efforts rather than
instruction (O’Meara,2007, p. 131)
Theoretical Framework
 Segmented Assimilation Theory (Portes & Zhou,
1993)




Background characteristics (e.g., SES, educational
preparation)
Government policies (federal, state, and institutional policies)
“Receptivity of the native population” (p. 275) (e.g., Would
more transfer students on a campus affect transition?)
Family structure (e.g., financial and emotional resources)
Research Questions
 What are the organizational approaches and policies
in terms of transfer students at a traditional fouryear campus and a four-year commuter campus with
a majority of transfer students?
 How do the transfer policies and programs at a
commuter research university compare with a more
traditional residential research university?
 How does state policy inform institutional transfer
policy?
Research Questions (Con’t)
 Are there any other institutional factors that might
affect the institution’s policies and practices?
Method
 Qualitative study
 Interviewed faculty and administrators who work
with transfer students at two institutions that are
located in two states
 Purposeful and snowball sampling
Sites
 Traditional U - Flagship campus
 4, 500 Freshmen/1, 100 Transfer Students (2005-2006)
 Transfer students less successful when compared with
students with similar number of credits
 Striving
 Six interviews with administrative personnel
 Transfer U - Commuter campus in a system
 2,800 Freshmen/4,300 Transfer Students(2010-2011)
 Transfer students graduate at lower rate than native students
 Striving
 Five interviews with administrative personnel
Method (con’t)
 Transcribed interviews
 Open coding
 Compared our interpretations and discussed points
of disagreement
Findings
 State policies
 Focus on transfers
Traditional U state – transfer to four-year is part of higher
education mission
 Transfer U state – transfer is goal, but not mission. Striving
missions supported by policy


Websites
Traditional U state – detailed state website for transfer students
to see course equivalencies and steps to transfer
 Transfer U state – limited state website, voluntary participation in
common course numbering, students sent to individual schools’
websites for more information

Findings
 Definitional Challenges of transfers (Traditional
U/Transfer U)


Hard to define/conflation with commuters
Aware of struggles
Findings (con’t)
 Institutional Policies/Programs (Traditional
U/Transfer U)


Rolling admissions
Orientation
 Institutional Culture
 Transfer students not priority
Conclusions/Implications
Although organizational representatives see need:
 Lack of definition complicates support
 Striving is more powerful incentive
 Segmented transition theory will be helpful lens with
student data – What has their experience been and
how does that compare with organizational
representatives’ perceptions?
Thank you
 Barbara Tobolowsky ([email protected])