Helping Sophomores Succeed

Understanding and Improving the Second Year Experience

Mary Stuart Hunter, Barbara F. Tobolowsky, John N. Gardner, Scott E. Evenbeck, Jerry A. Pattengale, Molly Schaller, Laurie A. Schreiner

• Publisher: Jossey-Bass
• Year: 2009
• ISBN:
  9780470538524
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Higher Education

Helping Sophomores Succeed offers an in-depth, comprehensive understanding of the common challenges that arise in a student's second year of college. Sponsored by the University of South Carolina's National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience® and Students in Transition, this groundbreaking book offers an examination of second-year student success and satisfaction using both quantitative and qualitative measures from national research findings. Helping Sophomores Succeed serves as a foundation for designing programs and services for the second-year student population that will help to promote retention, academic and career development, and personal transition and growth. Praise for Helping Sophomores Succeed "Lost, lonely, stressed, pressured, unsupported, frequently indecisive, and invisible, many sophomores fall off the radar of campus educators at a time when they may most be seeking purpose, meaning, direction, intellectual challenge, and intellectual capacity building. The fine scholars who focused educators on the first-year and senior transitions have done it again?a magnificent book to focus on the sophomore year!"
?Susan R. Komives, College Student Personnel Program, University of Maryland "For years, student-centered institutions have front-loaded resources to promote student success in the first college year. This volume is rich with instructive ideas for how to sustain this important work in the second year of college."
?George D. Kuh, Chancellor's Professor and director, Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research "A pioneering work, this brilliant text explores in practical and meaningful ways the all but neglected sophomore-year experience, when students face critical choices about their major, their profession, their life purpose."
?Betty L. Siegel, president emeritus, Kennesaw State University? "All members of the campus community?faculty, student affairs educators, staff, and students?will benefit from learning about the unique challenges of the second college year. The book provides research and best practices to help educators and students craft an integrated, comprehensive approach to helping second-year students succeed."
?Marcia Baxter Magolda, distinguished professor, Educational Leadership, Miami University The National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience® and Students in Transition supports and advances efforts to improve student learning and transitions into and through higher education by providing opportunities for the exchange of practical, theory-based information and ideas.

PART ONE

FOUNDATIONS

What is the sophomore-year experience? Who are second-year students and what are their issues and concerns? Does the second-year experience differ dramatically from the first? Is there actually a sophomore slump? These were some of the initial questions that guided the development of this book and are addressed in Part One.

As we enter this relatively new territory, it is critical that we begin with a solid foundation based on prior research and theory. By building on what is already known we can make deeper meaning of the information in the subsequent sections of the book. In Chapter One, Molly A. Schaller explores the unique experiences of different subpopulations of second-year students and their specific needs and challenges. In Chapter Two, Kirsten Kennedy and M. Lee Upcraft review the limited research that has been done to date on this special population and investigate the existence of the sophomore slump. Laurie A. Schreiner shares the findings from one of the few studies conducted with sophomores from 26 public and private four-year institutions in Chapter Three. Molly A. Schaller in Chapter Four offers a theoretical grounding to sophomore development.

CHAPTER ONE

UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT OF THE SECOND YEAR OF COLLEGE

Molly A. Schaller

What is the rationale for a focus on sophomores? Is the sophomore-year experience different from any other college year? Clearly the authors and editors of this book argue that the sophomore year, whether defined by credit hours or the actual second year of college, is a unique and important developmental period when students are examining their life purpose. The sophomore year is a time for turning inward and for exploring how one fits into college life and the world at large. Gardner, Pattengale, and Schreiner (2000) assert that the most compelling reason for attending to sophomores is the possibility of students dropping out during or after their second year. They also contend that prolonged indecisiveness, poor academic course selection, low levels of academic and cocurricular engagement and integration, behavioral problems, and increased time to degree completion all can manifest themselves in the sophomore year.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine how the structure of the college experience affects sophomores in a unique way; it emphasizes the relationship between the institution and the student by looking at issues of persistence, engagement, satisfaction, and major choice, including academic self-efficacy and motivation.

The Development of Sophomore Programs

Questions focused on the second-year experience have not been raised broadly in higher education. In fact, limited literature, even descriptive research, exists regarding the sophomore year. This lack may be due to the fact that research strategies on four-year institutions have focused on the magnitude of change seen in college students over the entire four years of the college experience, thus research designs often call for measurements in the first and senior years of college. The diverse enrollment patterns at community colleges, which may range from one term to many years, complicates research further. Therefore, an empirically based understanding of the second college year remains illusive. (For more information on available research, see Chapter Two.)

Although research is sparse, sophomore-year programs do exist throughout the country in focused academic programs, which support sophomore students in specific majors or from specific service areas such as residence life, student leadership development, career development, or even campus ministry. However, more comprehensive programs, across academic divisions or beyond single offices, are few and far between. Liberal arts colleges seem to have been the first to respond specifically to the needs of second-year students. Beloit College’s sophomore-year experience program is one of the first of its kind in providing a unified program for sophomores, which focuses on the academic and social integration of sophomore students. Colgate University, Colorado College, and others have followed in the development of sophomore-year experience programs that involve multiple departments and, therefore, offer a more comprehensive approach. These institutions recognize that sophomore students have unique needs that are not being served, perhaps because these students tend to be placed in cohorts, beginning the college experience together and moving as a class to the sophomore year.

Do sophomores at liberal arts colleges differ from those at other types of institutions or are faculty and student affairs professionals at smaller institutions more likely to be in relationships with students that allow them to notice when students have concerns? The reality is likely much more complex than this simple question; however, the underlying question remains: What are the issues that our students face at various times during their academic experience? How do we find ways to notice and respond to these issues as they arise? Issues of persistence, academic success, student engagement, and satisfaction when coupled with the unique developmental experience of many sophomores make for a complex time in college life.

The First-Year Experience Sets the Stage

The first-year experience movement, which began in the late 1970s (Hunter, 2006), in many ways has set the stage for the questions we ask about the sophomore year. First-year programs were developed to support students in making the transition from high school to college by focusing on the academic and social transitions that new students negotiate (Tinto, 1987). In many ways, these programs are designed to bridge the gap between the K-12 experience and the postsecondary experience. Higher education has designed transition programs for the first year of college because this connection is not provided in high school (McDonough, 2004).

Programs and initiatives designed to address first-year issues are now commonplace. In a national survey of curricular first-year programs, researchers found that 96 percent of institutions had a new student orientation program, 89 percent offered first-year English classes with 25 or fewer students, 62 percent offered faculty development programs on teaching first-year students, more than 60 percent of institutions collect and report midterm grades for first-year students, 80 percent of four-year and 62 percent of two-year institutions offer first-year seminars (Barefoot, 2005). As institutions across the country identify programs that support first-year students, those approaches quickly become identifiable as best practices. Relatively new initiatives in higher education, such as learning communities, Supplemental Instruction, or service-learning programs are found in more than one quarter of institutions (Barefoot, 2005). However, Barefoot asserts, many of the programs that exist throughout the country do so without a coherent, purposeful strategy. On many campuses, first-year programs are not intentionally woven into the fabric of campus life or the curriculum.

The student experience of the first year remains a key focus and rightly so. Numerous theories and models have provided a framework for understanding the experience of college students and have assisted in focusing institutional attention on key areas (Bean & Metzner, 1985; Cabrera, Castaneda, Nora, & Hengstler, 1992; Tinto, 1975, 1987). Academic preparation, financial burdens, academic and social integration, involvement, faculty contact, time away from campus, institutional commitment, and other factors have been identified and studied. However, there is no reason to believe that students who survive the first year of college are suddenly successful in their second year.

Implications for the Second Year

Students’ experiences during the first year of college have been transformed on many campuses. In reaction to the enrollment boom that followed World War II, first-year students were often warehoused in massive, impersonal classes with little additional support. Today, first-year students may still have some large classes but they may also have access to faculty in first-year seminars, first-year interest groups, and learning communities. Students were once left on their own to respond to the academic rigors of college. Today, institutions provide tutoring, Supplemental Instruction, developmental coursework, and other supports (Barefoot, 2005). First-year orientation, welcome week activities, and the other programmatic additions make the first-year experience a time filled with structure and opportunity.

What then, is the experience of those students who return for the second year of college? One of the unintentional consequences of enhanced first-year initiatives may be a sense of abandonment in the sophomore year (Flanagan, 1991; Schreiner & Pattengale, 2000). Although first-year experience programs are pervasive (Barefoot), few of these initiatives extend to the second year (Gahagan & Hunter, 2006). This fact alone is not a reason to develop second-year programs, but it does provide a powerful argument for truly comprehensive institutional responses across academic years that are related to the developmental and academic needs of students.

One challenge facing institutions is that there is little known about how sophomores may differ from first-year students. Although the literature on the first-year experience is extensive, major gaps exist with regard to persistence beyond the first year (Nora, Barlow, & Crisp, 2005). Furthermore, Graunke and Woosley (2005) warn that we need to be cautious in applying what is known about first-year students to students in other years, because student issues vary dramatically during particular college years. Their text identifies the complex differences that exist between the two years and how those differences affect students in unique ways during this time.

Retention and Persistence

In an examination of students beginning college in the 1995-1996 academic year, Berkner, He, and Forrest (2002) found only 51 percent of students who began at four-year institutions successfully completed a degree within six years at their original institution. When transfer students are included, the six-year graduation rate rises to 58 percent. While first- to second-year retention is followed closely, there is less attention paid to retention beyond the first year. For students who intend to complete a four-year degree, at least as many students leave after the second year as do the first year (Berkner et al., 2002).

Why do students drop out? In their meta-analysis of research of four-year college student performance and persistence, Robbins and others (2004) concluded that factors such as academic self-efficacy, academic goals, and academic skills are the most salient factors once students have attended college. Although precollege academic markers, such as high school grade point average and scores on standardized tests, remain important in predicting retention to the sophomore year, academic success in the first year (Allen, Robbins, Casillas & Oh, 2008) is most likely to predict persistence beyond the second year.

In the second year of college, first-generation students face the highest risk for departure (Ishitani, 2006). Risk factors include enrolling part-time, delaying entry, not having a regular high school diploma, having children, being a single parent, being financially independent, and working full time (Berkner et al., 2002). First-generation students who delay entry are 81 percent more likely to depart in the second year.

Braxton, Hirschy, and McClendon (2004) revised Tinto’s student departure theory and in the process identified 16 propositions to consider when examining departure from commuter institutions. While many of the propositions are related tangentially to the sophomore year of college, others may be of primary concern to persisting students. Ongoing accumulation of debt or the evaluation of the worth of continued enrollment, motivation to make steady progress toward degree completion, students’ ability and need for control in daily life, general self-efficacy, affiliation needs, participation in learning communities, and academic integration may have an impact on the persistence of students during or after the sophomore year.

Student Issues in the Sophomore Year

Tinto (1987) suggests that the decision to persist is a series of recommitments to personal goals that are mediated by factors both internal and external to the institution. Though first-year initiatives frequently have academic and social integration as a goal, it is a mistake to suggest that such integration is fully achieved within the first year. This section examines the issues that contribute to students’ academic and social integration in the sophomore year of college. When considering academic integration, issues such as major selection, academic self-efficacy, career development, connections with faculty, motivation, and financial viability each play a role in the sophomore experience.

The Major and Academic Self-Efficacy

Most four-year institutions require that students select a major near or at the end of the second year of college. Whereas some programs and institutions emphasize earlier major selection, only 8 percent of colleges require students to select a major upon entry (Barefoot, 2005). Thirty-six percent of liberal arts institutions do not allow first-year students to officially declare a major, and more than half of all institutions report allowing students to declare a major but do not force or strongly encourage students to declare in their first year (Barefoot, 2005). As students accumulate credit hours, coursework selection is increasingly directed by one’s interests and majors. As students explore academic interests, they evaluate their ability to be successful in their major(s) of interest.

Academic self-efficacy is best defined as the self-evaluation of one’s ability or chance for success or both in the academic environment (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Robbins et al., 2004). Academic self-efficacy beliefs are a poor predictor of academic success in the first semester of college but are a good predictor at the end of the first year (Gore, 2006). This suggests that as students gain awareness of the college setting and of their own abilities in this setting, academic self-efficacy is based upon more accurate understanding of one’s abilities. The impact of having a strong belief in one’s ability to succeed is clear. Academic self-efficacy remains the best psychosocial predictor of grade point average (Robbins et al., 2004). It has been found to moderate the effect of stressors on perceived stress (Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). However, academic self-efficacy may be of concern in the sophomore year for those students who have faced difficult academic challenges in the first year, for those who have not been selected into majors of their choice, or for those who decide to change academic focus areas from their college entry plans. There is some evidence that academic self-efficacy can be increased by enrollment in a study skills course (Boysen & McGuire, 2005). Programs that help to build student’s academic self-efficacy and study skills are often focused on first-year students as they make the transition into college. However, as students begin to narrow options for their majors or enroll in more challenging courses, the connection between course selection, major selection, and one’s sense of success becomes clearer.

The selection of the major is a complex process requiring students to have the academic ability for the specific coursework, awareness and understanding of available options, and decision-making skills particularly in balancing interests with future career or life goals. Galotti (1999) found that between winter of the first year and winter of the second year, the number of major alternatives under consideration by students dropped. Declaring a major requires that sophomores have an attachment and commitment to ideas, interests, and a group of faculty members at a time when they may well be continuing to separate from their original plans and family (Margolis, 1989). In the community college setting, over 50 percent of enrolled students are in terminal occupational programs (Townsend & Wilson, 2006). Students enrolled in occupational programs or professional schools may find major changes particularly difficult as they accumulate credit hours.

The positive impact of being decided or clear about one’s major cannot be understated. Sophomores with higher degree of certainty in their major had higher grade point averages (Graunke & Woosley, 2005). Some research indicates that undecided students have lower academic performance and lower persistence rates than those who are decided (Leppel, 2001). Therefore, even though we cannot posit categorically that undecided students will have lower persistence rates, this must be considered on an individual institutional basis. Reverse transfer, or transferring from a four-year to a two-year institution, may be more likely for those second-year students who do not select a major (Hillman, Lum, & Hossler, 2008).

Career Development

A great deal has been written about the impact of prolonged adolescence on college students (Howe & Strauss, 2000). One concern is that students are not prepared to make decisions about a career direction during the college...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• THE JOSSEY-BASS HIGHER AND ADULT EDUCATION SERIES
• List of Tables
• Table of Exhibits
• Acknowledgements
• AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS
• Introduction
• PART ONE - FOUNDATIONS
• PART TWO - APPROACHES FOR ENGAGING SECOND-YEAR STUDENTS
• PART THREE - CAMPUS PRACTICE AND IMPLICATIONS
• APPENDIX A - SUMMARY OF HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES IN PRIVATE ...
• APPENDIX B - THE SOPHOMORE STUDENT SUCCESS INITIATIVE: QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION ...
• APPENDIX C - PRINCIPLES OF GOOD ASSESSMENT
• REFERENCES
• NAMES INDEX
• SUBJECT INDEX