Category Archives: first-year seminar

DO U FYE? Analysis of First-Year Experience Programs

Posted on by

fyeMuch of my professional career has been working with students in the first-year experience and transition to college. The word freshman first appeared in the English language in 1550 to describe a newcomer or novice in a field of work or business yet the origins of the first-year student can be traced to the twelfth century when young men converged in Bologna, Italy to study law (Dwyer, 1989). More than six centuries later, one of North America’s earliest universities, Harvard, instituted a system of counselors to attend to the transition from home to college for first-year students (Dwyer, p. 30) becoming the early basis for first-year programming at an American institution. This post provides a review of the history, mission, structure and current issues of freshmen or first-year experience programs as an administrative unit of the university.

History of First-Year Experience Programs

College orientation, or programming focused on the student adjustment to the new academic environment, is recognized as the precursor to first-year experience programs. Early programs grouped students by housing and assigned advisers to guide new students in their education quest. Johns Hopkins University had formed a system of faculty advisors by 1877 and Harvard University had a board of freshman advisors on record in 1889 (Gordon, 1989). First-year seminar courses were later added to the early orientation structure to more fully develop the first-year experience. A first-year course initiated at Boston University in 1888 is recognized as one of the first organized orientation courses while the first orientation course for credit originated at Reed College in 1911 (Gordon, 1989). More than 82 first-year courses were available by 1925-26 with topics ranging from adjustment to college, study skills, current events, citizenship, and reflective thinking. A third of all colleges and universities offered these courses in the 1930’s and by 1948 a survey reported that 43% of institutions had required orientation courses in the curriculum (Gordon, 1989). Faculty objections to course credit for non-academic orientation courses soon led to the downfall in their offering and fewer courses could be found on the college campuses of the middle to latter half of the 20th century.

The political unrest of the 1960’s and early 1970’s resulting in campus demonstrations and protests led to an even wider divide between students and universities. The University of South Carolina is credited with acknowledging this rift and initiating a plan to link students with the university in the first-year. This led to resurgence in the popularity of the first-year seminar and other first-year student programming (Saunders and Romm, 2008). In addition to addressing the needs of new direct from high school students, first-year programs also attended to the “new college student” as students transitioned from individuals of financial means to more adult, first-generation, and less-academically prepared students. Higher education professionals again “sought ways of helping freshmen make the transition from high school or work to the college environment” (Gordon, 1989, p. 188).

Throughout the 1980’s, first-year experience courses and programs grew and evolved as institutions gave consideration to the transition experience of a growing diverse student population. Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt & Associates (2005) reported that many of the DEEP (Documenting Effective Educational Practice) institutions are skilled at guiding transitions for student success in college and frequently require first-year experience courses or provide additional programs and activities that serve this function. First-year programs including summer orientation through seminar courses are now widely ingrained on the college and university campus and are promoted as important retention strategies common in the student transition to college.

Mission of First-Year Programs

First-year programming on most campuses originated from the topic of retention of students to the second year of college and persistence to graduation. Specific reasons are related to resources and the direct relationship between retention to enrollment and institutional income. (Crissman Ishler & Upcraft, 2005). With that in mind, most first-year program mission statements are framed around increasing academic performance and retention. Ball State, University of South Carolina, and Appalachian State are among those recognized as Institutions of Excellence in the First College Year (2009). Their first-year program mission statements reflect this retention theme.

Ball State University’s Freshman Connections mission is to accelerate the process for new students to learn and succeed at the university.  The program “seeks to deepen the contact new students have with faculty, staff, and fellow students in order to improve learning and persistence to graduation” (Ball State, 2008). Fostering academic success, helping students to discover and connect with the university, and preparing student for responsible lives are the tenets of the University of South Carolina’s first-year mission. They are applied as learning outcomes for helping new students make a successful transition, both academically and personally (University South Carolina, 2002). Appalachian State’s Watauga Community is “structured to develop students’ expertise in the skills to evaluate and integrate relevant and quality information from different knowledge sources through individual and collaborative processes” (Appalachian State, 2009). With focuses on connections and building community membership, each of these first-year mission goals strives to enhance retention.

Organization of First-Year Programs

Individuals throughout the campus community play a role in the first-year educational process, including faculty, administrators, staff members, and students. An institution’s faculty usually is responsible for delivering content material in the classroom, while student affairs educators provide learning experiences throughout the campus. Student affairs educators as opposed to faculty frequently take the lead for managing first-year programs and teach students “how to work in teams, manage time, have effective conversations, and make appropriate choices” (Benjamin, Earnest, Gruenewald, & Arthur, 2007, p. 16). The student affairs role is not for out of classroom entertainment, but to partner with students “to enhance their learning experiences both in and out of classrooms” (p. 23). Several distinct programs comprise the structure of first-year programs at most colleges and universities. These programs may be institutionally organized under the same umbrella or may operate independently, but collaboratively as tenets of the first-year campus experience. They are orientation, summer bridge programs, service programs, convocation, first-year seminar, common reading, residential experience and learning communities.

Orientation

Orientation programs are typically offered during the summer before the academic year allowing first-year students and their families an opportunity to meet departmental faculty and advisers, register for classes, and begin an exploration of the academic program. Participants may have an opportunity to stay overnight in a residence hall, complete placement assessment for proper course registration, and begin building relationships with other students in their area of study. It is common for parents and students to follow separate programming tracks during orientation to allow for students to begin building independent thinking and decision making skills in their academic choices. Additional orientation programs may take place immediately prior to the fall semester allowing for students who could not attend summer programs. Generally students participating in these later events will be international students or students who live some distance from the institution. Orientation programs that include experiential learning programs in the form of “welcome week” and student retreat activities are increasingly common (Benjamin et al. 2007).

Summer Bridge Programs

Summer Bridge programs are generally designed for special populations and may be administered solely by a campus summer programs office or in collaboration between academic and student affairs units. The primary goal of these programs is to promote college retention and improve completion rates by providing students with the academic and social tools needed to succeed in college prior to beginning the first college year (Garcia and Paz, 2009, p. 31). First-generation college students, historically underrepresented student populations, and students requiring academic support are frequently participants in these programs. Summer Bridge coursework often includes a college writing course and other academic electives to prepare and engage students in college academic work. Student affairs, advisors, faculty members and peer mentors collaborate to provide programming and build community among program participants.

Service Programs

Service programs introduce students to the local community and give new students a purpose and focus while helping them acclimate to their new environment. Service programs are often scheduled during welcome week prior to the semester. Participating students meet other new students, faculty, and staff and begin to connect and bond with their new home (Benjamin et al. 2007). Frequently these programs are designed to assist local school districts, human service agencies, or disadvantaged populations. The service projects allow new students to form and develop community teams and demonstrate leadership skills.

Convocation

Convocation, a formal academic presentation, includes activities unique to an institution that help connect students to the academic dimension of the college or university. It is an opportunity to officially welcome new students, issue academic encouragement and establish expectations for success at the institution. At Ohio State’s official convocation for new students, there are presentations from top administrators, a college processional, and features on the University’s history and traditions (The Ohio State University, 2009). Benjamin et al. (2007) describe convocation programs as important rituals for students that communicate to their new roles as official members of the community.

First-Year Seminar

First-Year seminar courses are a staple of first-year programs and can be flexible based on an institution’s needs and the population of students that they are trying to serve. Extended orientation seminars or transition courses will include topics of college survival, campus resources, study skills and introduction to learning. Academic seminars with uniform content may be focused on a theme or major discipline but will have structured topics similar to extended orientation seminars. The academic seminar will vary based on the department or home of the course and may include common reading. Pre-professional seminars are generally found when students are entering specific fields of study such as engineering, business or education and focus on required program areas and certifications. The basic study skills seminar is typically offered to students who may be underprepared for academic work and will offer successful student essentials such as note-taking, test-tasking, resources and reading skills (Saunders and Romm, 2008).

Common Reading

Many colleges assign new students common readings such as the program at Gustavus Adolphus College that has been in place since 2000. A committee of faculty, staff, and students select the book a year in advance. First-year students and their orientation leaders read and discuss the common book as part of the college’s orientation experience. The book is read during the summer, discussed during first-year orientation courses and again during an opportunity to meet the author of the book in the fall semester (Twiton, 2007). Common readings are often connected to a first-year experience program and form a basis for discussion in English classes or include discussion with professional staff or faculty members before the fall semester (Benjamin et al. 2007).

Residential Experiences

Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) state the relationship to living on campus and persistence to graduation remains positive and statistically significant even when compared with a variety of student demographics. Student affairs professionals can build on these findings by strengthening academic integration and developing living-learning environments that intentionally maximize opportunities for students (Benjamin et al. 2007). First-year experience programs that promote the on-campus living experience as opposed to commuting contribute to increased retention and student success.

Learning Communities

Learning communities are small groups of students who generally take one, two, or more courses together and may live in the same residence hall. They may take a variety of forms, including linked courses or themed courses. Grouping students based on academic interests, and increasing out of classroom experiences are common to learning community programs. Career exploration, introduction to university resources, peer mentoring, tutoring, and faculty mentoring are typical offerings found in learning community courses. The learning community initiatives that have emerged across the country over the last two decades demonstrate the potential that exists when academic and student affairs professionals partner for retention efforts (Benjamin et al. 2007).

Financial Support for First-Year Programs

Just more than half of institutions participating in 2006 National Survey of First-Year Seminars report housing seminar courses in the academic unit of the institution (Tobolowsky, 2008), while substantial numbers of first-year experience units including orientation, residence, and learning community programs are often administered from student affairs units which include student activities, dean of students, and academic success offices. Enrollment deposits, sometimes called admission acceptance fees are one source of orientation and first-year program funding. These fees, charged to enrolling students, support orientation staffing and programming in addition to other administrative services related to the matriculation of the student. Another source of revenue for first-year programs is the tuition dollars collected from for-credit seminar courses. These fees may be distributed directly as revenue to the unit offering the seminar course or in the form of resource allocation support, as in the case of student affairs units. More comprehensive first-year programs will frequently offer faculty buy-out options to departments to engage expert teaching faculty in the first-year program.

Evaluation of First-Year Programs

Substantial work in the evaluation of first-year programs is available to confirm that attention to students in the transition to and early semesters of the college experience provides positive impact on student retention. The National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition and the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education which grew from the Policy Center on the First Year of College, have each provided significant scholarly research and assessment of the initiatives geared toward first-year students. The Foundations of Excellence self-study outlined by the Gardner institute provides a comprehensive guide for any institution seeking to more closely examine their ability to positively affect students in the first college year.

Alexander and Gardner (2009) suggest that our next evaluation strategies for the first-year experience must be willing to closely examine the core or general education curriculum, the practice of large first-year lecture courses and the pattern of hiring part-time or adjunct faculty to teach in a majority of first-year courses. These areas have generally been exempt from the critical analysis of student retention impact. Until we can explore all areas of the first-year college student experience, we cannot truly expect to facilitate change and growth in retention.

Current Issues for First-Year Programs

As Alexander and Gardner (2009) suggest regarding assessment and evaluation, institutions must be willing to consider all intricacies of the first-college year. They note that many campuses suffer “retention fatigue” defined as a condition that spreads quickly when the conversation focuses not on what students learn and can do but on the minimal expectations that a single focus on retention may represent (p. 19). Any direction toward real reform in the first year must include and engage all university faculty, not just the administrators and programs coordinators frequently charged with the retention task (p. 19).

Also at issue is that better coordination and integration of programming must occur. It is time to make first-year programs an intentional, institution-wide strategy. Alexander and Gardner (2009) assert that the potential impact of the first-year experience would be far greater if programs were more integrated, less competitive, and less duplicative. Until institutions can be willing to commit to a central location of responsibility for retention and success in the first-college year, they will not be able achieve the full extent of student achievement.

Conclusion

First-year experience programs can achieve more depth, understanding, and improvement in student outcomes by moving assessment beyond the basic targets, engaging all faculty and staff, integrating and applying responsibility, and creating a clear structure for the first-year student. While programs are valuable and necessary, they are rarely sufficient to transform the first year. Change and reform in the first college year require a broad and supported campus action and assessment effort attending to all students. First-year experience programs and successful transitions to college lead to success for students and institutions.

 

References

Alexander, J. S. & Gardner, J. N. (2009). Beyond retention: A comprehensive approach to the first college year. About Campus, 14(4), p. 30-32. Retrieved from Wiley Interscience. DOI: 10.1002/abc.285

Appalachian State University (2009). Wautauga global community. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from http://wataugaglobal.appstate.edu/pagesmith/18

Ball State University (2008). Freshman connections. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from http://www.bsu.edu/freshmanconnections/definition/

Benjamin, M., Earnest, K., Gruenewald, D., Arthur, G. (2007). The first weeks of the first year. New Directions For Student Services, 128, p. 3-17. Retrieved from Wiley Interscience. DOI: 10.1002

Crissman Ishler, J. L. & Upcraft, M.L. (2005). The keys to first-year student persistence.

In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, and B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Dwyer, J. O. (1989). A historical look at the freshman year experience. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, and Associates (Eds.), The Freshman year experience: helping students survive and succeed in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Garcia, L. D. & Paz, C. C. (2009). Evaluation of summer bridge programs: Former students take stock. About Campus, 14(4), p. 30-32. Retrieved from Wiley Interscience. DOI: 10.1002

Gordon, V. N. (1989). Origins and purposes of the freshman seminar. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, and Associates (Eds.), The freshman year experience: helping students survive and succeed in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education (2009). Institutions of Excellence in the First College Year. Retrieved November 14, 2009 from http://www.jngi.org/foe-program/participating-institutions/

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J. Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (2005). Student success in college: creating conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How colleges affect students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Saunders, D. F. & Romm, J. (2008). An historical perspective on first-year seminars. In B. F. Tobolowsky & Associates, 2006 National Survey of First-Year Seminar: Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum (Monograph No. 51, pp. 1-4). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

The Ohio State University (2009). Welcome week. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from http://welcomeweek.osu.edu/

Twiton, A. (2007). Common Reading Programs in Higher Education. Retrieved November 14,   2009, from http://gustavus.edu/academics/library/Pubs/Lindell2007.html

University of South Carolina (2002). University 101 programs. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from http://sc.edu/univ101/aboutus/goals.html

 

#SAreads: Practicing Perceiving

Posted on by
If you are familiar with psychological type and the MBTI®, you may recognize that type theory explains the random behavior of people’s lives as actually quite orderly and patterned. This is due to basic methods used by individuals to take in information and make decisions.
The last letter of the 4-letter MBTI code highlights the process one uses in dealing with the outer world. Do you prefer to plan ahead and get things decided (Judging) or do you prefer to remain flexible and open to new options (Perceiving)? Not to be confused with organization, as either preference can be organized, the J or P Preference indicates how we interact in our outer life, whether structured and decided (J) or curious and open-ended (P).
Which option would you choose?
Do you prefer to:
  1. Arrange lunch plans, events, parties, etc., well in advance, or
  2. Be free to spend your day doing whatever looks like fun?
In Building Momentum: The Unconventional Strengths of Perceiving College Students, Meri Beckham explores the successful practices of Perceiving college students including unconstrained time and working at the last minute. These methods are cited as the opposite of ideal strategies promoted in college success and study skills texts.
If you work in academic success, retention, first-year programming, or are interested in helping students make effective transitions to college, grab the article and join us Friday at 1PM EST for this week’s discussion on #SAreads.

What is your 5-year plan?

Posted on by

Screen Shot 2013-10-27 at 6.19.17 PMHappy 5th Anniversary to the eighteen and life blog! Thank you for popping in now and again to see what is on my mind and for offering words of encouragement. As I think back over the last half decade, I smile to think of the new friends in my life and the completion of major projects.

For your reading pleasure, I have gathered a few articles that you may have missed over the last week.

University of Kentucky using student data analytics to improve retention rates.

SMU created this video on why to consider a grad program in higher ed. 

Interesting piece on class-sourcing as a teaching strategy.

A study showing that college faculty are increasingly using social media.

Brutalist architecture style on college campuses.

Twitter becoming more popular with teenagers.

PS. Also, wishing Happy 1/2 Birthday to my dear daughter!

YouTube This!

Posted on by

Love what Iowa boy Ashton “Chris” Kutcher had to say and think this will be good content for our first-year seminar.

This Ze Frank video will be good for goal setting and bucket list conversations with first year students.

One of my favorite videos for use in team building and MBTI presentations.

Another favorite, especially for peer mentor development.

Share your favorite video links in the comments. I am always looking for new content!

Type and Learning

Posted on by

My dissertation examines aspects of Myers-Briggs® preferences and academic success in the first college semester. I became fascinated by the topic when I noticed trends in student academic performance and Myers-Briggs preference in my programs and decided to give it a closer look.

For more information, check out this great resource from Vanderbilt’s Center for Teaching:  Learning Styles & Preferences.

What are your MBTI preferences?

Type, Worldview and Academic Success

Posted on by
Dilbert January 25, 2000

Dilbert January 25, 2000

This overview of research paradigms assembled by Laura Pasquini inspired me to share my own postpositivist worldview and the research shaping it. As a postpositivist, I search for context and believe that causes determine outcomes. Thus, when type assessments collected in my first-year seminar showed trends for population oversampling and type preferences relating to academic success, or the lack thereof, I had to do more digging.

Academic success in the first college semester is widely believed to affect the eventual success or graduation of the new college student.  The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® is not an identifier of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learning styles but is beneficial for assessment of learning preferences and processes rather than the learning behaviors of most learning style inventories (Jensen, 2003).  Jensen describes the MBTI® as the most comprehensive assessment of learning style assessments attributing to instrument norming, length of development time, and sixteen specific approaches to student learning.  He asserts that as the MBTI is a personality type assessment, and type is generally static, it is more useful than learning style assessments for measuring student behavior or performance which may fluctuate, dependent upon the learning experience.  As institution type and instructor type preferences can frequently differ from student type preferences, an understanding of type theory can assist educators and learners in goals of student success.

As students move toward campus integration they seek congruence and comfort in a campus culture.  Type theory and the MBTI can be helpful in moving students toward this goal.  Kalsbeek (1986, 2003) reported on the TRAILS tracking tool that aids university communities in reviewing MBTI data in comparison with available student data to provide a research base for retention strategies.  Students at a medium-size private university were administered the MBTI and consented to having their scores merged with ACT/SAT scores and other entry and demographic data sources.  Academic results, program of study and enrollment status of the students were tracked in subsequent semesters.  The tracking research found ACT/SAT scores as the best predictor of academic performance in the first semester but also revealed that Myers-Briggs preferences for Introversion, Perception and Intuition were found to be statistically significant in their influence on first semester grades.  Type data was also found to correlate with entering student profiles as to reasons for attending college, performance on college admission standardized tests and first-term academic achievement.  Each of these correlations is helpful to campus retention efforts by explaining possible shifts in college entry data and academic success.  As failure to find academic success is a major factor in student persistence, Kalsbeek (2003) emphasizes that the MBTI instrument is useful for academic success programs.  It can be used to identify special challenges for students, as a method for responding to students in need of academic support, and for “facilitating a good educational fit between the learner and the instructor,” (p. 109).

Jensen, G. H. (2003).  Learning styles. In J. A. Provost & S. Anchors (Eds.), Using the MBTI instrument in colleges and universities.  Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

Kalsbeek, D. H. (1986, June).  Linking learning style theory with retention research: The TRAILS project. Paper presented at the Association for Institutional Research forum, Orlando FL.

Kalsbeek, D. H. (2003).  Campus retention: The MBTI instrument in institutional self-studies.  In J. A. Provost & S. Anchors (Eds.), Using the MBTI instrument in colleges and universities (pp. 87-122).  Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type.

More Type Links in Student Success

Posted on by

I’ve got a problem. There are aspects of my personality that I can’t control. ~Bruce Banner

Much as student development theory helps us to understand differences in students served in higher education, understanding differences of psychological type in students may also enhance student success. The assessment of psychological type is based upon Carl Jung’s theory that human behavior is not random and that patterns of mental functions exist in the population. Following this conceptual foundation, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, MBTI™, has become the most widely used instrument for determining type preferences in business, personal coaching and on college campuses. It was developed by the mother-daughter team of Katherine Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers with the foundations of orientation and organization to the outer world as a framework to guide individuals through the constructive use of differences. The MBTI instrument asks a series of self-report forced-choice questions to define individual preference opposites for personal energy, taking in information, making decisions, and organizing one’s world. Based upon responses to these questions, an individual is assigned a type preference for each pair of opposites which when combined; create sixteen individual four-letter type codes.

There are four MBTI type dichotomies or opposite preferences and each has a different influence on learning. The word preference is used to refer to the innate tendency one has in each of the psychological dichotomies. The principle of preference is frequently illustrated in type facilitations by asking participants to write their signature with their non-dominant hand. Generally, participants will describe this exercise as awkward, uncomfortable or not a preferred activity, but one they are able to complete.  Each individual has a preference for daily functions, but is able to operate out of preference, as needed. The preference pairs include where a person gets their energy, categorized as Extraversion and Introversion; how an individual takes in information or Sensing and Intuiting; the decision-making process of Thinking and Feeling; and the orientation to and organization in the outer world of Judging and Perceiving. Individuals use each aspect of the personality pairs daily, but have a preference for one that is more comfortable or useful to the self.

Extraversion and Introversion. Extraversion and Introversion are expressions of where an individual gathers personal energy. Extraversion (E) is the energy that develops from engaging with people, objects and events. Externally expressing interests and interacting with others is invigorating for extraverts.  They learn best in situations that include movement, action and conversation and prefer to connect theories and facts with personal experience. Introversion (I) is a reflective, inward coordination with thoughts and ideas.  Introverts look internally for thoughts and energy. They think best in solitude and prefer advance notice before sharing or acting in a learning situation.

Sensing and Intuition. Sensing and Intuition are the functions for absorbing information. The Sensing (S) perception is the process of awareness and accumulating information through the physical senses. Sensing is a pragmatic function relying on details, sequenced lists, and consistency. Sensors learn best with sequential learning from concrete to abstract and tend to excel at memorization. The Intuitive (N) perception is future oriented and uses hunches and sees possibilities to provide explanations. Intuitive preference persons value patterns and abstract ideas and learn through imaginative tasks and theoretical topics with ease.

Thinking and Feeling. Thinking and Feeling are the decision-making or judgment processes of type. Thinking (T) is the objective decision-making process using standards and criteria to analyze information or situations to improve situations or performance. Thinking preference individuals are motivated in learning by logic and respect for their competence. The Feeling (F) decision-making preference is subjective and based upon personal values for accommodating harmony and the improvement of personal conditions for others. Individuals with Feeling preference are motivated in learning by personal encouragement, values and the human dimension of a topic or lesson.

Judging and Perceiving. Judging (J) is the process of engaging with the outer world preferring organization, structure, and a planned life. Those preferring Judgment tend to experience time in specific segments. They are driven to seek closure or finish tasks in those specific time periods. Judging preference learning thrives on task completion, structured learning and specific goals. The Perceiving (P) preference values autonomy, flexibility and spontaneity. They experience time as an uninterrupted flow and are open to new information as they experience and process. They prefer open learning environments that rely less on deadlines and structure.

Psychological type assessment can been helpful in allowing detection of interpersonal roadblocks and miscommunication related to type preferences, particularly for students in the transition from high school to college. Through intentional examination of type and how it relates to learning preferences, opportunities emerge for enabling students to understand more about themselves in this transition. Although the MBTI is not designed to be a predictor, examining type preference anomalies to enhance student services and resources may lead to increased student success and retention.

What is your type? Do you use the MBTI in your student success initiatives?

Type links in student success

Posted on by

I am currently exploring research directed toward identifying if Psychological Type preferences affect student success at a research university. My interest is in determining if there is correlation of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI) preferences as a gauge of academic success in college. This idea originates from my work as a type practitioner and instructor of a first-year seminar course. Through my annual lectures introducing the MBTI to link personal preferences and learning styles, I quickly detected that my student population was overrepresented in some type preferences in comparison to national samples. Additionally, I found a higher number of students with specific type preferences demonstrating academic difficulty in the first college year.

My personal experience with type is that early in my career, I began to detect interpersonal roadblocks and miscommunication, particularly in the workplace, related to what I later learned were my type preferences. As I further researched type and my own preferences, I began to see opportunities for enabling students to understand more about themselves in the transition to college. As I was already an experienced first-year seminar instructor, I sought academic training to become a type facilitator to add type education in my course. I began administering the introduction to MBTI in my first-year seminar class and to date have assessed the type preferences of more than 700 students in the seminar course during their first semester of college. My goal is to complete a longitudinal study of the academic success and graduation completion of students administered the MBTI in their first year to determine if students with specific type preferences have more academic difficulty in their path to a degree. Ideally, this information will provide early identification for students who may require enhanced programming to meet their academic needs.

Related to this research, I have found type awareness to be extremely helpful in my own relationships, work, and communications. Type has become a touchstone for me, a frame of reference that allows me to dissect and review difficult relationships, expectations, and communications that may occur with others. My knowledge and use of type has been therapeutic in allowing me to recognize that we don’t all interact, process information or produce decisions in similar manners. And our differences make us stronger.

New socks. Two socks. Whose socks?

Posted on by

There are some days that throw us off balance. How we react to those days is how we define ourselves.

We are in the midst of a One Week of Twitter assignment in our first-year seminar class. This is my favorite tweet of the week (so far).

May you wear no socks in the shower today.

(Go to) Class Investment

Posted on by

A student of mine missed class last week. After some checking, I found that a family emergency resulted in his missing at least two days of classes. And this was just the second week of the semester.

Lynn O’Shaughnessy discussed the phenomenon of students voluntarily missing class and featured the Skip Class Calculator on her blog. The calculator helps a student determine the cost of missing a class based upon class meetings per week, attendance history, and upcoming exams. A cursory glance at the Skip Class tool found one factor missing; the money invested in missing a class.

Running an estimate based on the full-time cost of attendance at our university, an in-state resident student invests $53 to attend an hour of class. For non-resident students, the amount increases to $86 an hour. Miss 10% of classes for a semester and a student can easily waste a grand or more.

At an institution where student loan debt at graduation is among the highest in the nation and as electronic course attendance systems become commonplace on college campuses, skipping class is pouring money down the drain.