eSource for College Transitions Collection, Vol. 2: The First-Year Seminar

VOLUME 2: THE FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR

CO LL ECTION

VOLUME TWO:

THE FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR

CONTENTS Editor’s Note ……………………………………………………….

2

The State of First-Year Program Assessment: Recent Evidence From the 2017 NSFYE ……………………………………………………….

3 An Assessment of First-Year Seminar Modality and Academic and Social Belongingness ……………………………………………………….

7

The Impact of a Team of Undergraduate TAs in a First-Year Seminar ……………………………………………………….

10

Self-Directed Learning to Support PartTime FYS Instructors: A Proposed Model ……………………………………………………….

Published by: National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition University of South Carolina 1728 College Street, Columbia, SC 29208 www.sc.edu/fye The First-Year Experience® is a service mark of the University of South Carolina. A license may be granted upon written request to use the term “The First-Year Experience.” This license is not transferable without written approval of the University of South Carolina.

PUBLICATIONS STAFF Tracey A Glaessgen Emily Shreve

12

Guest E-Source Editors

Rico Reed

Managing Editor

Increasing FYS Quality Through Greater Curricular Flexibility ……………………………………………………….

15

References ……………………………………………………….

18

Stephanie McFerrin Graphic Designer

Jennifer Keup

Executive Director

eSource for College Transitions Collection, Vol. 2: The First-Year Seminar

EDITOR’S NOTE Tracey Glaessgen, Associate Director, Center for Academic Success and Transition/Director, First-Year Programs, Missouri State University Emily Shreve, Associate Director of Academic Transitions, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Transition has been on our minds. Throughout the past year, higher education professionals and the students with whom we work have had to navigate shifting public health policies and the return to more in-person instruction, services, and events, all while considering big questions surrounding the future of online learning, virtual services, and work from home flexibility. For that reason, the first-year seminar (FYS), a class designed specifically to support the process of transition, demands our attention and offers opportunities for reinvestment and redesign.

As one of the American Association of Colleges and Universities’ high-impact practices, the first-year seminar serves an important function in transitioning students into higher education and welcoming them to particular institutions.

In this curated edition of E-Source for College Transitions, we highlight five articles that explore what makes the first-year seminar high impact, even in times of change. Throughout the pieces, you’ll find a common emphasis on the necessity of regular assessment and on the community-building elements that connect students to their campus communities. In particular, these articles emphasize the value of peer leaders in the classroom and of empowering FYS instructors to teach with confidence.

To begin, Dallin George Young’s “The State of First-Year Program Assessment: Recent Evidence from the 2017 NSFYE” reinforces the importance of assessing first-year initiatives along with sharing highlights from the National Survey on the First-Year Experience, in particular frequency of assessment. Continuing with the theme of assessment is “An Assessment of First-Year Modality and Academic and Social Belongingness” by Deborah Smith and Miyanna Clements-Williamson in which they consider the difference among students’ sense of social and academic belongingness and four different modalities of course offerings. Exploring the impact of a team approach in first-year seminars by utilizing a faculty member, undergraduate teaching assistants, and peer mentors, as an instructional method is the focus of Shelley Judge, William Santella, Wylie Greeson, Juda Culp, Christa Craven, and Mazvita Chikomo’s “The Impact of a First-Year Team of Undergraduate TA’s in a FirstYear Seminar.” Realizing that many institutions hire part-time instructors to teach the first-year seminar and the need to offer self-directed learning as a result for both students and instructors is the topic of Lydia Laucella’s “SelfDirected Learning to Support Part-Time FYS Instructors: A Proposed Model.”

Finally, this E-Source for College Transitions closes with Daniel Friedman and Sandy Greene’s “Increasing the First-Year Seminar Quality Through Greater Curricular Flexibility” and their discussion on striking an appropriate balance between consistency with such a high enrollment course yet encouraging instructional flexibility which allows for instructors to be innovative to meet the needs of their students.

Dr. Tracey Glaessgen

Within higher education, first-year seminars have served as the hallmark for the first-year experience as students are transitioning into the collegiate culture. Whether it’s devising new and creative approaches to assessment, teaching, and even faculty and student self-directed learning, we hope that you will glean some useful insights from this curated edition to apply to your university’s first-year seminar.

Dr. Emily Shreve

page 2

THE STATE OF FIRSTYEAR PROGRAM ASSESSMENT: RECENT EVIDENCE FROM THE 2017 NSFYE Dallin George Young, Assistant Director for Research, Grants, and Assessment, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina The first-year experience (FYE) has been put forward as a philosophy and movement for improving first-year student transitions for most of the past four decades (Hankin & Gardner, 1996; Upcraft & Gardner, 1989) and represents a comprehensive, coordinated, and wide-reaching effort designed to support student success (Hankin & Gardner, 1996; Upcraft & Gardner, 1989; Young & Keup, 2019). Although the philosophy behind the FYE concept requires a broad approach to new-student success, research shows that it is not enough for colleges and universities to simply increase the array of educational offerings aimed at these students. Indeed, the FYE is not necessarily improved by the number of programs, but by the level of coordination and integration across them. Because first-year student success is not easily localized or specific to one functional area on campus (Young & Keup, 2019), FYE efforts must include a cohesive, comprehensive, and campuswide mix of curricular and cocurricular initiatives (Greenfield, Keup, & Gardner, 2013; Hankin & Gardner, 1996; Upcraft & Gardner, 1989).

Assessment is also critical to the success of any FYE enterprise. As Kuh (2010) noted, only through thoughtful implementation and continual evaluation will high-impact practices, such as those that comprise a FYE, realize their full potential. Intentional design depends on information that allows for targeting of first-year efforts as well as ongoing improvement.

This article focuses on assessment of first-year initiatives, and specifically on providing insight gathered through the 2017 administration of the National Survey on the First-Year Experience (NSFYE). A brief description of the survey precedes a presentation of data on the frequency of assessment and the formats of assessment practices of selected first-year initiatives.

2017 National Survey on the First-Year Experience: Creating and Coordinating Structures to Support Student Success by Dallin George Young (Ed.), Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina.

Available in July 2019.

June 2022 | page 3

eSource for College Transitions Collection, Vol. 2: The First-Year Seminar

2017 National Survey on the FirstYear Experience The 2017 NSFYE sought to gather information on overall institutional attention to the first year, as well as common first-year programs including academic advising, orientation, common readings, early-alert programs, first-year seminars, learning communities, and residential programs. The questionnaire sought information common to each of these seven first-year initiatives, including students served, perceived value, and assessment. An additional set of questions about assessment was asked of institutions that indicated offering first-year seminars, first-year advising, and preterm (new-student) orientation. The 2017 NSFYE asked more indepth questions about these initiatives because of their longevity in the scholarly practice discussion and their greater degree of professionalization, as evidenced by the presence of professional organizations (i.e., the National Resource Center, NODA, NACADA) representing these activities. In addition to asking whether these first-year initiatives were assessed, the survey asked respondents to indicate the formats used to carry out any assessment activity.

Findings related to general questions on assessment and those on assessment of specific first-year initiatives follow.

Assessment of First-Year Programs

by Frequency Figure 1 shows the frequency that institutions offering certain first-year programs reported assessing those programs within the past four academic years. First-year seminars (62.7%) and preterm orientation (54.1%) were the only programs in which more than half of respondents with these programs reported recent assessment. However, it is notable that when I don’t know responses were removed, that group includes first-year residential programs and learning communities as well. The least frequently reported

assessed first-year initiatives were common-reading (27.5%) and early-alert programs (31.1%).

There were some comparative differences in reported levels of assessment by institutional characteristic. For example, two-year institutions more frequently reported assessing early alert, while four-year schools were more likely to report assessing common readings and first-year seminars. Additionally, public institutions more frequently reported assessing first-year academic advising, first-year seminars, learning communities, orientation, and residential programs.

Two-year institutions more frequently reported assessing early alert, while fouryear schools were more likely to report assessing common readings and first-year seminars.

Figure 1. Percentage of institutions reporting assessment of selected first-year programs since Fall 2013. CR = common reading (n = 182); EA = early-alert systems (n = 383); FYA = first-year academic advising (n = 387); FYS = first-year seminars (n = 366); LC = learning communities (n = 227); OR = pre-term orientation (n = 375); RES = residential programs or initiatives (n = 240). page 4

Assessment of First-Year Programs

by Format

followed by nearly a third of respondents who indicated carrying out a program review (32.9%).

Figure 2 displays the frequency that colleges and universities in the sample reported using specific formats to assess first-year seminars, pre-term orientation, and first-year academic advising. Individually, the most common formats for institutions that had assessed first-year seminars were course evaluations (81.1%), analysis of institutional data (72.2%), and direct assessment of learning outcomes (63.4%). For orientation, respondents most frequently indicated the use of a survey instrument (73.1%) by a large margin, more than doubling the number of schools that reported using analysis of institutional data (36.3%) and direct assessment of learning outcomes (36.3%). Finally, nearly two thirds of colleges and universities reported analysis of institutional data (68.5%) and use of a survey instrument (66.4%) to assess first-year advising efforts,

These results point to at least two noteworthy patterns. First, there were substantial comparative differences in the frequency that respondents indicated the use of formats of assessment by first-year program. Institutions that recently assessed their firstyear seminars reported using five of the nine types of assessment referred to in the survey at greater frequency than the other two.

This, combined with the results reported in Figure 1, suggests that at the institutions represented in the sample, first-year seminars are not only being assessed more frequently, but also using a greater variety of formats.

Discussion

Figure 2. Percentage of institutions reporting type of assessment conducted. FYS = first-year seminars (n = 227); OR = pre-term orientation (n = 201); FYA = first-year academic advising (n = 149).

June 2022 | page 5

eSource for College Transitions Collection, Vol. 2: The First-Year Seminar Secondly, there are formats that, while used with varying frequency relative to one another, are among the most common for the three first-year programs on which the NSFYE gathered data.

Analysis of institutional data was among the top three assessment formats for all three programs. In addition, direct assessment of learning outcomes and use of survey instruments were in the top three responses of at least two of these programs. Under the collaborative ideal of the FYE philosophy, these represent potential opportunities to engage in coordinated assessment practices. Even though an individual program might have its own priorities and salient questions to consider, similar formats allow offices to thoughtfully discuss how the data collected could be fed into a similar stream for cross-functional assessment of broader institutional goals for the first year.

Assessment of FYE programs is an important piece toward ensuring the effectiveness of these offerings individually and collectively.

We repeat the sentiments of Kuh (2010), who highlighted first-year experiences as high-impact educational practices: “Only when they are implemented well and continually evaluated ... will we realize their considerable potential” (p. xiii).

Related Articles in E-Source Padgett, R. D. (2011). Emerging evidence from the 2009 National Survey of First-Year Seminars. 9(1), 18-19.

Young, D. G. (2013). Research spotlight: National evidence of the Assessment of First-Year Seminars: How and how much? 11(1), 18-19.

Even though an individual program might have its own priorities and salient questions to consider, similar formats allow offices to thoughtfully discuss how the data collected could be fed into a similar stream for cross-functional assessment.

This article was originally published in July 2019.

page 6

AN ASSESSMENT OF FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR MODALITY AND ACADEMIC AND SOCIAL BELONGINGNESS Deborah Smith, Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies, Dept. of Interdisciplinary Studies, Kennesaw State University Miyanna Clements-Williamson, Student, Kennesaw State University Kennesaw State University, a large, public, R2 university in the Southeastern United States, has a long-standing three-credit hour, free elective, first-year seminar (FYS) course which met the institution’s previous first-year curriculum requirement. The FYS faculty were housed in an academic department devoted solely to first-year and students in transition. Over the course of an academic year, an ad-hoc committee of several full-time FYS faculty met to discuss possible course revisions. One proposed course update was to revise the course learning outcomes, which primarily focused on skills and knowledge acquisition. In order to align with current literature (Shook & Keup, 2012; Strayhorn, 2018) and best practices (e.g., near-peer mentoring and positive student/ faculty interactions), the faculty deemed emphasizing students’ sense of belongingness should be a primary course learning outcome.

Furthermore, they agreed it was essential to focus on two aspects of belongingness – social and academic.

universities suffer multiple negative consequences when students do not persist to graduation.

Belongingness Overview

Assessing Sense of Belonging by Course Modality in FYS

Social belongingness concerns a human need for connectedness while academic belongingness involves feeling successful and capable in one’s endeavors (Strayhorn, 2018). Both constructs are related to student attrition (Pittman & Richmond, 2008; Strayhorn, 2018) and as thirty percent of college students do not progress from their first to second year of college (Schneider, 2010), it is important to continue to explore why first-year college retention is so low. Ranging from a lifetime of reduced earnings to a loss in perceived college prestige, students and

Study Purpose While the general effectiveness of FYS has been well researched, the literature is less robust in its comparisons of FYS modalities (e.g., course meeting formats such as hybrid, online, or in-person) and their effectiveness in meeting course learning outcomes. Additionally, while the literature thoroughly discusses the importance of belongingness, there are not studies in which belongingness and the modality of the FYS are considered together. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess how effective the various FYS course modalities were in helping students achieve academic and social belonging. The data gathered was then used to inform course redesign.

The FYS compared were four sections the lead author (hereafter referred to as I) taught in the previous academic year and included classes that met (a) twice a week in person (one as a stand-alone seminar and one embedded in a learning community); (b) fully online (asynchronous); and (c) in person 34% of the time and online the remaining 66% (hybrid format). Other than the difference that students in the learning community went through an application and selection

June 2022 | page 7

eSource for College Transitions Collection, Vol. 2: The First-Year Seminar process, there were no other differences between the students in the four classes. All students in the three non-learning community sections chose to take the elective FYS. The students in the learning community section chose to be in the program, which included the FYS as one of the two required courses. All four classes contained identical assignments, readings, activities, and resources related to belongingness. Assignment examples were (a) attending campus events and writing follow-up reflections; (b) completing a career research project; (c) developing an academic plan; and (d) reading and responding to blogs about belongingness written by former Kennesaw State University first-year students. The assignments either introduced students to campus resources which support their academic success or helped them connect socially with peers and envision themselves as part of the campus community.

Students were invited to participate in the study and given the same questionnaire at the beginning and end of the semester. The questionnaire was comprised of demographic, Likert scale, and open-ended questions about students’ understanding and sense of academic and social belongingness. The students were also asked to identify campus resources that could help them with improving their academic and social belongingness. The response rate was 71% on the pre-test (n=95) and 72% on the post-test (n=90; A few students dropped the course. Thus, while the n is lower on the post-test the response percentage was higher). In both the pre- and post-test, comparable sample sizes were spread across each of the four sections. An analysis of the students’ self-ratings and open-ended question responses on the pre- and post-tests did not reveal differences between the four groups on academic belongingness levels but did on social belongingness levels (detailed below).

Figure 1. Ranking of Social Belongingness Levels by Class Modality.

page 8

Academic Belongingness Findings Students in all four sections rated themselves higher in their understanding of the general academic system and in academic belonging at the end of the semester than at the beginning of the semester. Their open-ended definitions of academic belongingness for themselves were also more robust at the end of the semester than at the beginning of the semester. For example, pre-test definitions of academic belongingness were generally very brief (e.g., good grades or not failing). Post-test definitions, however, had evolved to include statements about academic abilities and knowing the university cared about student success. Students also identified many more academic resources in the post-test than they did in the pre-test.

Social Belongingness Findings There was a slight improvement between the pre- and post-test responses in all four groups’ ratings of the degree to which they felt they socially belonged at the university. Students in the section that met twice a week in person, and was also a part of a learning community, rated themselves higher than their peers in the other sections on social belongingness. This finding is in congruence with other research which reports on the added benefits of embedding a FYS in a learning community, as opposed to offering it as a stand-alone course (Swing, 2004). Conversely, students in the fully online, asynchronous, standalone section rated themselves the lowest on social belongingness and showed the least improvement from the pre- to post-test among the four groups. The fully online students made comments such as “I’m never on campus so I feel disconnected” and “I don’t feel like this school is for me.” Among their peers, they were also the group least aware of resources available to help them develop a sense of social

belongingness. Figure 1 depicts the social belongingness study findings.

End-of-course evaluations indicated the students appreciated and enjoyed the videos and video feedback.

Course Revisions

Third, I added two peer leaders to the course (peer leaders had previously been utilized only in sections that met in person). The peer leaders had taken FYS and were participating in a Student Affairs leadership program through which they received ongoing training and development. The peer leaders were not paid and were charged with helping first-year students connect to and engage with the university (i.e., social belongingness). Each peer leader had a group of approximately ten students with whom they regularly kept in touch.

Built into the course were two assignments the first-year students discussed with their peer leader – one related to campus engagement and one about developing a growth mindset. The peer leaders also (a) made an introduction on the course introduction discussion board and responded to their small group of students’ introductory posts; (b) posted announcements of interest to students; and (c) created/posted videos that provided a student perspective on various course topics.

Responses from two reflective assignments confirmed the students greatly valued their peer leader. While the first-year students welcomed academic success tips from their peer leader, they were most thankful for the myriad of ways their peer leader helped them better understand and connect to their university.

Over the course of a semester, all four modalities of the FYS were successful in fostering academic belongingness. However, since professors were rarely mentioned as an academic resource, I will be incorporating an assignment in my future FYS which will require students to attend professor office hours in one of their other courses.

As mentioned in the findings, online students had the lowest levels of social belongingness. Feedback from end of course evaluations also pointed towards high levels of isolation in online students. As noted in Korstange et al.’s (2020) article, online FYEs are a new reality that are increasingly being offered. Accordingly, my initial FYS course revisions were centered on enhancing social belongingness in online sections.

I made three adaptations to my most recently taught fully online, asynchronous section of FYS (which was the only modality of the FYS I taught that semester). Since students in the other FYS modalities offered in previous semesters commented on the benefits of being able to consistently connect with me face-to-face, I attempted to create a similar connection with my online students. First, I added weekly module videos to the course. Besides introducing module objectives and assignments, the goal of the videos was for students to regularly see my face, hear my voice, and perhaps connect with me on a more personal level. The videos were short, informal, and filmed in a variety of settings so as to potentially provide a sense of connection for students (e.g. on the campus green or at a local, popular hiking trail). Students were invited to identify where the videos were filmed and share their own story or picture about the locations. Second, to increase faculty-student connectivity, I occasionally provided audio or video feedback, instead of only written comments on assignments.

Conclusion This study revealed some distinct differences in social sense of belonging between the four course modalities. It is important for FYS faculty to be aware of these differences so they can design their courses and employ pedagogical strategies that will most enhance their students’ social belongingness levels. My recent course revisions offer a starting point. As the global pandemic continues and multiple aspects of our students’ lives take place online, helping them feel less isolated and more connected to their collegiate community is essential.

This article was originally published in December 2021.

June 2022 | page 9

eSource for College Transitions Collection, Vol. 2: The First-Year Seminar

THE IMPACT OF A TEAM OF UNDERGRADUATE TAs IN A FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR Shelley Judge, William Santella, Wylie Greeson, Juda Culp, Christa Craven, & Mazvita Chikomo College of Wooster

The Issue Institutions of every size enroll new undergraduates in first-year seminar (FYS) courses to aid the transition to college. FYS courses have varied approaches: some are discipline-specific introductions, others support acclimatization to college life, and still others prefer a hybrid approach. Research on the positive impact of FYS is well documented (Goodman and Pascarella, 2006), and recent work focuses on the impact of upperclassmen as peer leaders in FYS courses (Zhang, 2017). Zhang (2017) reports that upperclass mentors positively affect academic achievement, campus involvement, and persistence of FYS students. These types of studies underscore the importance of peer role models in FYS classrooms.

At The College of Wooster (OH), FYS is an interdisciplinary writingintensive course that develops critical thinking skills and serves as a platform for successful academic advising and college integration.

Faculty focus on content-knowledge and social adaptability in small class sizes (~15 students) because FYS is critical to student retention at Wooster, a residential, private, liberal arts college with an enrollment of ~2000 undergraduates. The college is best known for its senior capstone experience, required of all graduates since 1947, so FYS is important as the writing and research foundation for future scaffolding in individual departments. Most FYS sections (~35-40/year) at Wooster use one undergraduate teaching assistant (UTA), and some use a peer mentor, an upperclass student formally trained at the college in academic advising.

Our purpose is to outline how discipline content, transition advice, classroom community, and mentoring was achieved in a remote FYS during fall 2020. We incorporated more UTAs than usual (3) plus an academic peer mentor. This team approach increased interactions with students and provided flexibility during mentoring. Both building community and establishing credibility were integral to our geospatial-themed FYS course. To accomplish this, conversations in FYS often strayed outside the boundaries of disciplinary topics. This can stretch faculty who are accustomed to

page 10

bringing their discipline-specific knowledge and pedagogy into the classroom. Relatedly, it can be puzzling for students to listen to and implement faculty-based suggestions from adults whom they do not view as role models. To mitigate this, UTAs became invaluable to our FYS approach, serving as upperclass mentors.

The UTA Program At Wooster, UTAs are full-time students enrolled in an experiential learning course, Teaching Apprenticeship. FYS faculty with UTAs also oversee the Teaching Apprenticeship course, which is graded and worth 1.00 credits (3 contact hours/week). For some UTAs this counts as one of their four semester courses; for others it is an overload.

Because they are full-time students, UTAs do not pay extra tuition, nor are they paid. UTAs gain experience with course design, pedagogical decisions, and classroom/office hour situations. Faculty teaching FYS not only support and encourage their first-year students, but they also simultaneously mentor individual UTAs, providing formative feedback when needed.

Importance of UTAs A faculty-UTA team can create a strong alliance and sense of community in the classroom. One objective in FYS isto encourage academic communication based on a framework of trust and respect that would be a springboard to learning content. To do this, we use clear FYS program learning objectives that encompassed both disciplinespecific critical thinking and advising/integration goals. Referring to these learning objectives throughout FYS helped students become aware of common responsibilities and the course trajectory. The UTAs were excellent role models in messaging both content knowledge and academic advising. Sometimes, faculty can lose relevancy as role models due to age, lack of social connection, or demographic differences, but they can adapt through new pedagogies, energy, and humor. Upperclass mentors in the classroom in strong alliance with faculty work to bridge new collegians to academic life.

Team Composition During fall 2020, I (SJudge) used three UTAs and one peer mentor in a remote FYS section. Three UTAs attended each class session and were selected to improve the student-to-UTA ratio (5:1) so that small group discussions each had a mentor. Each UTA had previous geospatial coursework, so they helped with content knowledge and software.

One UTA had served earlier as a Wooster Course Design Assistant (CDA) for my FYS planning during summer 2020. Launched by our Dean for Faculty Development (CCraven), the CDA program had undergraduates assist faculty with course design “pivots” due to the pandemic. The remaining two UTAs in my FYS brought valuable experiences in a range of co- and extra-curricular activities on campus.

Every few weeks our team collaborated with a peer mentor assigned to our class. Wooster’s Office of Advising, Planning, and Experiential Learning (APEX) hires and trains upperclass students in techniques the support positive college transitions. Our peer mentor attended FYS discussions focused on academic advising but also excelled at one-onone meetings with students outside of class. Because the roles of UTAs and peer mentors did overlap, students were able to select compatible role models.

Building Community Faculty often relinquish some control when encouraging a climate of mutual respect, kindness, civility, and support in the classroom.

A significant strategy used to foster community in our FYS was the UTA-peer mentor team because they modeled college behavior to 15 first-year students—eight on campus and seven participating remotely from Georgia, Ohio, South Korea, Spain, Sudan, and Ukraine. The UTAs enriched FYS by participating in class discussions, helping teach geospatial concepts, and meeting one-on-one with students for academic and personal support. UTAs also were responsible for “TA Moments,” time on Fridays devoted to life as new collegians. FYS students responded positively to the UTAs, always asking many questions. The cadre of upperclass mentors fielded those questions with grace and ease. They advocated for the same student success strategies as the faculty, telling students to eat right, get enough sleep, exercise regularly, and take good notes. Where faculty might have been met with overt eyerolls, the UTAs were able to initiate credible, meaningful conversations.

Assessment and Impact Improving the student-to-UTA ratio was a priority to improve individual attention in the classroom and to promote student integration. This priority paid dividends by the end of the semester because we fostered effective and cordial communication among all students. FYS became a welcoming entry point into a community built around academic inquiry.

The payoffs were tangible for everyone involved, class participation was notably high, and the students learned the academic and social expectations of Wooster courses. In addition, because the FYS team supplied academic assistance and focused on improving individual student writing in a respectful mentoring environment, new students obtained the foundation for their four-year college career.

At the end of the semester, student perception of UTA impact was assessed in a survey. Students rated ten statements on a five-point scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” and then answered openended questions about the role of each UTA. Survey results illustrate the positive influence UTAs had on students. Over 90% of students thought the UTAs helped them adjust to college, improved class discussions,

treated them with respect, and acted with enthusiasm during class sessions. Between 75-80% of students felt the UTAs helped with writing, technical skills, and academic success. The UTAs were role models for our maturing collegians.

In a post-semester assessment reflection, the UTAs reported they felt confident, prepared, and relaxed while carrying out their FYS duties during the semester. The only “pressure” seemed internal: to provide the proper advice to students and to ensure their advice did not conflict with others on the FYS team. One UTA said, “As UTAs, we’re just students. The reason why we were so effective was because we didn’t have the same limitations and were not vastly older than the first-year students.” UTAs provided insights on things that faculty could not, such as social events and dorm life. They overcame faculty limitations, allowing faculty to focus on disciplinary expertise, pedagogical knowledge, and the occasional nugget of advice from life experiences.

Future Implications An FYS program should continually improve based on assessment results and classroom experiences. From assessment results, our FYS core value of building a congenial and respectful academic community is a characteristic that future FYS sections must embrace.

Academic achievement and social integration within the community led to increased student retention, an outcome important to institutions. There also are ingredients for building community that must persist. UTAs will be viewed as role models, so they should demographically represent the student body. The UTA team needs to complement one another so that diverse perspectives are added to our FYS academic environment. However, to build camaraderie within the classroom, there must be team cohesion between the faculty and the UTAs. Whether the UTAs are from the faculty’s home department or another department across campus, primary consideration should be the quality, honesty, respect, and ease of interactions between the faculty and UTA team because students will respond constructively to agreement and purpose in the classroom.

Future iterations of this FYS will see modifications, based on assessment data; however, the format will be in-person instead of hybrid. While the same student-to-UTA ratio will be a priority to encourage small group mentoring, the formation of micro-FYS communities that pair one UTA with several students would foster deeper academic and social connections for the first-year students. An increase in teambuilding activities at the beginning of the semester and punctuated throughout is needed to enhance communication. Finally, faculty will select at least one of the three UTAs from outside of the home department to expand academic discourse. Students in FYS often do not yet know their majors, so it is important that they interact with UTAs from diverse perspectives because that will prepare them for the discipline communities the FYS students will enter as they embark on their college careers.

This article was originally published in April 2021.

June 2022 | page 11

eSource for College Transitions Collection, Vol. 2: The First-Year Seminar

SELF-DIRECTED LEARNING TO SUPPORT PART-TIME FYE INSTRUCTORS: A PROPOSED MODEL Lydia Laucella, Assistant Director for the Center of Innovative Teaching, Assistant Professor of Education and Instructional Design, Reinhardt University First-year seminars (FYS) set the foundation for students to take ownership of their learning in college. A sampling of literature puts scholarly focus on the importance of developing self-directed learning (SDL) practices for both students and teachers (Garrison, 1997; Grow, 1991; Loyens, Magda, & Rikers, 2008; Silén & Uhlin, 2008), the benefits of which position students to develop an understanding of their strengths and weaknesses as learners. In turn, this understanding helps students focus their learning and helps teachers target their instruction. Most first-year students, however, are more familiar with direct instruction content delivery or teacher-centered pedagogies than with SDL behaviors. As SDL is typically a new approach for students, faculty modeling of these behaviors becomes imperative in helping students succeed in FYS and other first-year courses.

Even as the ability to translate SDL behaviors into everyday classroom practice grows in importance, colleges increasingly rely on adjunct faculty to teach first-year courses. As an example, in Fall 2018, Kennesaw State University (KSU) offered 145 FYS sections, according to Nirmal Trivedi, director of the First-Year and Transition Studies Department (N. Trivedi, personal communication, n.d.). Roughly 32% of those were taught by adjunct faculty members, with another 4% taught by instructors who worked full-time in other departments.

Although these part-time faculty hold valuable real-world knowledge, they often are not provided adequate teacher training, so they can lack pedagogical expertise necessary to develop SDL behaviors in first-year students.

Supporting Part-time Faculty Garrison (1997) defines SDL as “an approach where learners are motivated to assume personal responsibility and collaborative control of the cognitive [selfmonitoring] and contextual [self-management] processes in constructing and confirming meaningful and worthwhile learning outcomes” (p. 18). Garrison suggests that self-monitoring and self-management are represented by a student’s ability to set learning goals and become responsible for creating personal meaning. In a first-year classroom, students demonstrating SDL are likely to seek help after observing gaps in their learning and monitor their progress in collaboration with their instructor or classmates.

Drawing on my own experiences as a part-time instructor of education in KSU’s First-Year and Transition Studies Department and on Shea, Li, and

page 12

This model can be applied to instructional activities that support learning and content delivery, while guiding students toward engagement in SDL practices.

Pickett’s (2006) direct-instruction feedback loop, I developed a Model of Faculty Modeling-SDL, which can be used to support part-time FYS instructors. The model (see Figure 1) includes three stages, or steps, that instructors can implement at various points during the semester: (a) Faculty Modeling of I Do, Structured We Do, and You Do. This model can be applied to instructional activities that support learning and content delivery, while guiding students toward engagement in SDL practices.

One example is the Real World activity, in which the instructor provides structure with a mini-lesson on FYS content (e.g., motivation, goal setting). After the lesson, the instructor plays a song (or two) to the class and completes a free-write on how their chosen music relates to the FYS content. Then, students are asked to choose their own songs and complete the activity as it pertains to them. The activity ends with students sharing their songs and free-writing with one another.

Figure 1. Proposed Model of Faculty Modeling-SDL.

Faculty Modeling of I Do: Setting the Instructional Tone and Setting a Baseline for SDL The first step in this model is Faculty Modeling of I Do, which sets the instructional tone as well as a baseline for SDL and features learning opportunities that require participation in and recognition of SDL behaviors. Carefully crafted, interactive and collaborative activities, including icebreakers (e.g., the Human Machine, the Fallout Shelter), Think–Pair–Share, and team-building exercises, can help students identify the instructional tone of the class. Such targeted activities can make clear the need for students to think critically about their own decision making while also instilling the idea that they drive conversations and learning experiences in the course. This idea sanctions students to “assume personal responsibility” for their learning outcomes (Garrison, 1997, p. 18).

After setting the instructional tone, a class should establish a baseline for SDL understanding. For first-year students engaging in SDL, it is imperative to reflect on how their prior learning experiences impact their current ones, and how college expectations differ from those past experiences. Think–Pair–Share requires students to reflect on previous learning experiences in juxtaposition with college expectations, and students often discover that they share many common learning experiences defined by teacher-centered pedagogies. Allowing students to reflect on the prior learning experiences with others allows them to build a conversation around these events. This, in turn, leads to a new dialogue and a baseline understanding of expectations for SDL practices in college. It also enables students to engage in collaborative control of cognitive self-monitoring (Garrison, 1997).

The Next Stage: Structured We Do The next step of the model is Structured We Do, composed of short, structured SDL activities that complement FYS content delivery.

Since these targeted activities focus on developing SDL practices with the premise that learning stems from intrinsic motivation, assignments should not be collected at the end of the lesson.

Rather, they should be assessed as either a participation grade or as a compilation of work that students include in a portfolio graded at the semester midpoint or endpoint. Faculty should consider student accountability by providing a rubric for completing these activities. Such reflective and interactive exercises can ignite student motivation, allowing for “constructing and confirming meaningful and worthwhile learning outcomes” (Garrison, 1997, p.

18) and eventually leading to SDL practices.

The Final Stage: You Do After repeated practice and reflection on what students have learned through the targeted Structured We Do activities comes the opportunity to progress toward full SDL practices: You Do. Because we have gradually built up to SDL practices, students should be ready to replicate these learning behaviors. In my FYS sections for Fall 2018, I asked students to demonstrate SDL practices through their final project. Students should have ample creative space and time to complete the project, and they are encouraged to do so with minimal intervention by the instructor. Afterward, it is useful for students to reflect on their experiences engaging in SDL behaviors. Following is an excerpt from a student who demonstrated self-monitoring by acknowledging both her growth as a learner and the need to develop better communication and time management skills to complete the project: On my own, I have learned to time-manage in order to effectively complete my projects or role in a project. I found that communication is key in order to understand each other’s responsibilities in order to get tasks done.

Meeting up will also help in finding out how each [party] is progressing as deadlines approach.

June 2022 | page 13

eSource for College Transitions Collection, Vol. 2: The First-Year Seminar Another student demonstrated self-management, wherein he recognized the value of collaboration and idea exploration through completing the final project and achieving his groups’ learning outcomes. He also realized the importance of planning and organization for future tasks: In future assignments, I would come up with a plan ahead of time to know when we would do what, and when. I feel that would possibly give us a better run at it, if we could space out and plan what we would do each day so that we would not run out of ideas. I also feel that the natural compatibility we had as a group worked well, so that we could shoot out ideas and work on the assignment while also enjoying ourselves and not feeling bored or washed out.

course-specific activities similar to those mentioned previously, institutions can provide a pedagogical approach to developing SDL behaviors. The model, which incorporates Shea and colleagues’ (2006) I Do, We Do, You Do structure, can also be applied to other first-year courses.

Related Articles in E-Source Cuseo, J. (2009). The first-year seminar: A vehicle for promoting the instructional development of college faculty. 7(2), 4-5, 8.

Maldonado, E. (2006). Optimizing the role of adjunct faculty: Campus strategies that work. 4(2), 4-6.

Next Steps As institutions continue to rely more on part-time faculty to teach first-year students, instructors must instill confidence in those students to look inward for their learning experiences. Providing safe, interactive experiences for engaging in SDL behaviors requires faculty modeling. The benefit of the proposed Model of Faculty Modeling-SDL is that it can support part-time faculty who work with these students. Through faculty modeling in application with

Allowing students to reflect on the prior learning experiences with others allows them to build a conversation around these events. This, in turn, leads to a new dialogue ... .

page 14

This article was originally published in July 2019.

INCREASING FYS QUALITY THROUGH GREATER CURRICULAR FLEXIBILITY Daniel B. Friedman, Director, University 101 Programs Sandy Greene, Program Coordinator, University 101 Programs University of South Carolina The University of South Carolina’s hallmark first-year seminar, University 101 (UNIV 101), is an extended orientation course that strives to help new students successfully transition to college, academically and personally. In Fall 2018, 4,500 students were enrolled in 245 sections, taught by 223 instructors. With a course offering of this size, it is critical to strike the appropriate balance between consistency across sections and flexibility for instructors.

In their classic work on college curriculum development, Stark and Lattuca (1997) suggested that course curricula or academic plans contain several elements, including the purpose, content, sequence, instructional processes, instructional resources, and evaluation, as well as the ability to adjust the plan. When navigating multiple section offerings of a first-year seminar, a key decision academic leaders have to make is how much flexibility to give instructors in these areas within their courses.

Some first-year seminars use a standard syllabus for all sections that prescribes not only the outcomes to be achieved, but also the topics to be covered, when they are to be covered, and the assignments to measure what is learned. While our university wants students to have a consistent experience across sections, we recognize the limitations of overly prescribing an academic plan. Though greater restrictions may yield consistency, they may also result in a student experience that is consistently average. In an effort to push classes past average and toward exceptional, we favor flexibility for instructors over consistency across sections.

The course has three broad goals with 10 learning outcomes (see Figure 1). Each section has an enrollment limit of 19 students and is co-taught by a faculty or staff member and an upper-division peer leader. While instructors must develop their course around the same 10 learning outcomes, they can select their own content, sequencing, and assignments, as long as they meet those outcomes. We do use a common textbook to help apply some degree of consistency, but instructors can choose the chapters most relevant for their course design and student needs.

This approach has proven successful, as improvements on overall course effectiveness over time indicate (see Figure 1). This construct, from the FirstYear Seminar Assessment, a national benchmarking instrument, evaluates the degree that students report the course (a) included interesting subject matter, (b) contributed to their ability to succeed academically, (c) contributed to their ability

The content, topics, and methods used to achieve outcomes should be tailored to the needs of the students in a given section and to the strengths and expertise of the instructor.

With such a large enrollment, one size will not fit all.

June 2022 | page 15

eSource for College Transitions Collection, Vol. 2: The First-Year Seminar to adjust to the college social environment, (d) covered topics important to the student, and (e) is one to recommend to other first-year students.

The assessment is administered online to UNIV 101 students at the end of the fall semester. Questions let students indicate their perceptions of the course and their learning, using a 7-point Likert scale (where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree).

that have been most successful. UNIV 101 staff interview the topperforming instructors for each learning outcome (using both direct and indirect measures of learning) to determine why their approaches were successful. Those strategies (ranging from lesson plans to specific activities) are then shared with instructors through faculty development events and instructor support materials (Friedman, 2012).

For example, each instructor receives the Faculty Resource Manual

Figure 1. Overall UNIV 101 course effectiveness by year, 2008-2017.

UNIV 101 has several reasons for giving instructors flexibility to build their own syllabus and course plan. First, we believe each course is only as good as the person teaching, and that person is only as good as their interest and investment in what they are doing. Allowing instructors flexibility to tailor course material to their interests and expertise promotes creativity, innovation, and an excitement for teaching. While consistency is nice, a “course in a can” model that is overly prescriptive can stifle creativity and diminish instructor enthusiasm. For students to be excited to learn and participate fully in the course, instructors must be excited to teach.

Second, if we required instructors to follow a standard syllabus, it would imply that there is only one right way to teach the course—and that we know what that way is. Both assumptions are improbable.

Giving instructors autonomy in determining lesson plans and content, if coupled with assessment and faculty development, allows for innovation.

With this in mind, assessment guides all areas of UNIV 101 faculty development. In addition to occasional direct assessment, the firstyear seminar uses two indirect assessment tools. The End-of-Course Evaluation assesses student perceptions of the course, while the First-Year Seminar Assessment measures student perceptions of their learning. While UNIV 101 acknowledges the limitations of using assessment based primarily on students’ perceptions, the results of these instruments guide faculty development in three main ways.

First, they provide helpful feedback to individual instructors and can serve as a coaching tool. Second, the results not only highlight how well the course is working (University of South Carolina, n.d.-a) but also help to determine why by identifying teaching strategies

page 16

(University of South Carolina, n.d.-b), a guide on “how to design, manage, and teach a first-year seminar and evaluate student work.”

This manual is updated annually by UNIV 101 staff and includes lesson plans, resources, and information about the course learning outcomes (see Figure 2). Using the strategies described, instructors can select the methods and topics best suited for their students. In this way, instructor flexibility leads to resource sharing, thus fostering innovation and improvement.

The third reason such flexibility is important relates to the diverse needs of learners. While instructor excitement and enthusiasm are important, the experience is not about what gets instructors excited, but about meeting students’ needs. As noted in the UNIV 101 course requirements (University of South Carolina, n.d.-c), the broad nature of these outcomes signifies that no one approach may be appropriate for all students. The content, topics, and methods used to achieve outcomes should be tailored to the needs of the students in a given section and to the strengths and expertise of the instructor. With such a large enrollment, one size will not fit all. Instructors can gauge their students’ needs through a variety of methods: • Journals. When assigning journals, instructors can either ask specific, open-ended prompts or allow students to free-write. Both ways allow students to reflect on and write about their experiences and can give instructors valuable insight into students’ needs.

Since journals are informal and are only shared between student and instructor, students are more likely to disclose openly.

• Check-ins. Along with helping to build community at the beginning of class, check-ins are a helpful way for instructors to

gauge how students are doing. Instructors can use a variety of prompts to facilitate a check-in (e.g., asking students to share the high or low moments of their week, asking them to use a hashtag to describe their week). Such activities often highlight the needs of individual students as well as those of the class as a whole. When individuals share this information, instructors can also see other students in the classroom agreeing, either verbally or through body language.

• Syllabus quizzes. Giving a syllabus quiz at the beginning of the semester measures students’ understanding of the syllabus and can serve as a needs assessment. When instructors ask openended questions (e.g., “Why are you taking this course?”, “Which topics are you most excited to discuss?”), students’ answers can give valuable insight into what they would like to learn or experience throughout the semester.

• One-on-one meetings. Meeting one on one allows instructors to get to know students on an individual level and to dive deeper using follow-up questions. Additionally, as students grow more

comfortable through these meetings, they are more likely to share their experiences, successes, and challenges.

Finding Appropriate Balance While providing autonomy to instructors to develop their own course and lessons, the university is careful not to let them teach whatever they want. We will not mitigate course integrity and efficacy by sacrificing what students need to learn to accommodate what faculty want to teach. We have found that a set of broad common learning outcomes and course requirements makes for a suitable compromise between flexibility for instructors and consistency across sections, with the idea that the UNIV 101 course provides an opportunity for outcomes to be achieved rather than simply topics to be covered.

Related Articles in E-Source Bledsoe, R. (2014, October). The student-faculty connection: Establishing relationships in the first-year seminar. 12(1), 14-16.

Haug-Belvin, T., & Baranovic, K. (2017, December). Faculty see benefits of teaching first-year seminar. 15(1), 5.

UNIV 101 Course Goals and Learning Outcomes I. Foster academic success As a result of this course, students will • adapt and apply appropriate academic strategies to their courses and learning experiences; • identify and apply strategies to effectively manage time and priorities; and • identify relevant academic policies, processes, and resources related to their academic success and timely attainment of degree requirements.

II. Discover and connect with the University of South Carolina As a result of this course, students will • identify and use appropriate campus resources and engage in opportunities that contribute to their learning within and beyond the classroom; • develop positive relationships with peers, staff, and faculty; and • describe the history, purpose, and traditions of the University of South Carolina.

III. Promote personal development, well-being, and social responsibility As a result of this course, students will • clarify their values and identity and articulate how these shape their perspectives and relationships with people who are similar to and different from themselves, • explore the tenets of the Carolinian Creed, • examine and develop strategies that promote well-being and explain how wellness impacts their academic and personal success, and • initiate a process toward attaining personal and professional goals and articulate potential pathways to employability.

Figure 2. Course goals, learning outcomes emphasized in University 101.

This article was originally published in March 2019.

June 2022 | page 17

eSource for College Transitions Collection, Vol. 2: The First-Year Seminar

VOLUME TWO:

THE FIRST-YEAR SEMINAR

REFERENCES Friedman, D. (2012). The first-year seminar: Designing, implementing, and assessing courses to support student learning and success: Vol. V. Assessing the first-year seminar. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Garrison, D. R. (1997). Self-directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48(1), 18-33.

Goodman, K. & Pascarella, E. T. (2006). First-year seminars increase persistence and retention: A summary of the evidence from How College Affects Students. Peer Review, 8(3), 26-28.

Greenfield, G. M., Keup, J. R., & Gardner, J. N. (2013). Developing and sustaining successful first-year programs: A guide for practitioners. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Grow, G. O. (1991). Teaching learners to be self-directed. Adult Education Quarterly, 41(3), 125-149.

Hankin, J. N., & Gardner, J. N. (1996). The freshman year experience: A philosophy for higher education in the new millennium. In J. N. Hankin (Ed.), The community college: Opportunity and access for America’s first-year students (Monograph No. 19, pp. 1-10). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Korstange, R.,Hall, J., Holcomb, J., & Jackson, J. (2020). The online First-Year Experience: Defining and illustrating a new reality. Adult Learning, 31(3), 95-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159519892680 Kuh, G. D. (2010). High-impact practices: Retrospective and prospective. In J. E. Brownell & L. E. Swaner, Five high-impact practices: Research on learning outcomes, completion, and quality (pp. v-xiii). Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Loyens, S. M. M., Magda, J., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2008). Self-directed learning in problem-based learning and its relationships with self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 411-427.

Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and psychological adjustment during the transition to college. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(4), 343-361. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.4.343-362 Schneider, M. (2010, October). Finishing the first lap: The cost of first-year student attrition in America’s four-year colleges and universities. American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/AIR_Schneider_Finishing_ the_First_Lap_Oct101.pdf Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully online and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(3), 175-190.

page 18

Shook, J. L, & Keup, J. R. (2012). The benefits of peer leader programs: An overview from the literature. New Directions for Higher Education, 157, 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20002 Silén, C., & Uhlin, L. (2008). Self-directed learning—a learning issue for students and faculty! Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 461-475.

Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Strayhorn, T.L. (2018). College students’ sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all students (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315297293 Swing, R. (2004). The improved learning outcomes of linked versus stand-alone first-year seminars. In J. M. Henscheid (Ed.), Integrating the first-year experience: The role of learning communities in first-year seminars (Monograph No. 39, pp.

9-16). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

University of South Carolina. (n.d.-a). University 101’s impact on academic success & persistence. Retrieved from https:// sc.edu/about/offices_and_divisions/university_101/research_and_assessment/impact/index.php University of South Carolina. (n.d.-b). Instructor development. Retrieved from https://sc.edu/about/offices_and_divisions/ university_101/instructors/instructor_professional_development/ University of South Carolina. (n.d.-c). University 101 requirements. Retrieved from https://sc.edu/about/offices_and_ divisions/university_101/courses/university_101_requirements/index.php Upcraft, M. L., & Gardner, J. N. (Eds.). (1989). The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Young, D. G., & Keup, J. R. (2019). Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) first-year experience cross-functional team framework. Fort Collins, CO: Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education.

Zhang, L. (2017). Student involvement as a mediator of the relationship of peer leaders in first-year seminars to academic achievement and persistence [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South Carolina.

June 2022 | page 19