A typology of students’ enculturation during the first year at University

Abstract (148/150) The first year of studying has been extensively researched in order to better understand the transition into Higher Education (HE) as well as the phenomena of student performance, retention, and drop out. Although research points to the importance of the socio-cultural dimension of first-year experiences, surprisingly little is known about the actual processes through which students integrate into the socio-cultural context of HE. To address this research gap, an interview study was conducted with 15 first-year university students. The analysis revealed distinctive transition processes into HE that were developed into a typology with four transition types. Interestingly, students who tended to be more critically reflective about their studies were in danger of having a rougher transition than less critically reflective counterparts. For the former, it is essential to develop social relationships that tie them to their studies while the latter manage study-related challenges by simply working through them.

Keywords student transition, enculturation, drop out, retention

1.

Theoretical Framework (595/600) The first year of studying has been extensively researched applying different theoretical

lenses to better understand the transition into Higher Education (HE) as well as the phenomena of student performance, retention, and drop out (Allen, 1999; Bruning, 2002; DeShields Jr, Kara, & Kaynak, 2005; Tinto, 1998). Research shows that students’ experience in this initial phase of their studies is of prime importance for their further development in HE (Briggs, Clark, & Hall, 2012; Leese, 2010). Accordingly, previous research has identified various personal variables influencing the successful transition into HE, the most prominent being cognitive ability, academic selfefficacy, anxiety, and student motivation (Busato, Prins, Elshouta, & Hamaker, 2000; DeBerard, Spielmans, & Julka, 2004; McKenzie & Schweitzer, 2001; Robbins et al., 2004). For instance, motivational constructs such as student goals, intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to study, and interest have been studied extensively (Mikkonen, Ruohoniemi, & LindblomYlänne, 2013; Maarten, Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci, 2006). A meta-analysis by Robbins, Lauver, Le et al. (2004) found students’ academic self-efficacy and achievement motivation to be the most important predictors of academic success. As a second approach to the topic, college effectiveness studies have investigated which contextual factors in HE environments motivate students to engage in educationally meaningful activities (Bruning, 2002; Hu & Kuh, 2002; Hu, McCormick, & Gonyea, 2012; Kezar & Kinzie, 2006; Krause & Coates, 2008; Kuh, Cruce, Shoup, & Kinzie, 2008). Such engagement can be supported through intellectual stimulation, as well as through social involvement and behavioural activation (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Thirdly, HE has been conceptualized as social communities or cultures with specific norms, values, and procedures. It has been shown that during the first year, the individual student’s ability or failure to adapt to the new socio-cultural environment is an important predicator for academic success (Brooman & Darwent, 2013; Tinto, 1993, 1998). More

specifically, as put forward by Venuleo, Mossi, and Salvatore (2014), the specific educational subculture students adhere to is an important predictor for retention or drop out after the first year of studying. Irrespective of their individual characteristics, students belonging to a peer group where studying and the university was regarded as useless and uncomfortable had a significantly higher risk of dropping out of HE than students belonging to a subculture with more positive attitudes. Although research points to the importance of the socio-cultural dimension of first-year experiences (Brooman & Darwent, 2013; Tinto, 1998; Venuleo, et al., 2014), surprisingly little is known about the actual processes through which students integrate into the sociocultural context of HE (Christie, Munro, & Fisher, 2004; Christie, Tett, Cree, Hounsell, & McCune, 2008). What shapes students’ perceptions of the first-year in HE? How significant are academic and non-academic aspects of the study experiences for different students? To get a better understanding of how students find their place in HE, the interrelations between students’ individual characteristics (such as motivations, attitudes towards studying, and selfefficacy) and the sociocultural contexts, they are immersed in, need closer investigation. Socio-cultural theory assumes that constructs such as motivation or attitudes are result from a dynamic interaction between personal perceptions and the social and material contexts a person is immersed in (Cole & Wertsch, 1996; McInerney & van Etten, 2002). With our qualitative study, we contribute to this research gap and thus, to the literature on the transition into HE in two ways. First, we apply a socio-cultural rather than a variablecentred approach to investigate why some students manage a smoother transition into HE than others. Second, we develop a typology of transition modes based on our empirical investigation of first-year students at a Swiss university.

2.

Method and Sample (394/400)

3.1 Sample The research was conducted as a longitudinal interview study with 15 beginning students at the University X. The purposefully sampled interviewees (Patton, 2002) should be representative of the first-year cohort with regard to nationality and familial background (academic vs. non-academic). Regarding gender, women were slightly overrepresented because at this university they suffer a higher drop-out rate than males. All 1300 first-year students were informed about the research project during an introductory course. Students interested in participating applied via e-mail. Their names were sent to the student administration who selected 15 students best matching the sampling criteria.

3.2 Qualitative instrument and data collection The interviews followed a structured interview guide, inspired by the theoretical considerations outlined above. Important topics were students’ current motivation and attitudes towards studying as well as their self-efficacy concerning their studies. To account for the socio-cultural approach, the interviewees were asked to list specific experiences since the beginning of their study, respectively since the last interview that motivated or demotivated them, influenced their valuation of the university, and caused feelings of efficacy or anxiety. Interviewees were prompted to narrate freely about their experiences. In total, five interviews were conducted with each participant, with the first interview lasting 45 to 75 minutes and the follow-ups lasting 20 to 45 minutes. One female interviewee left the sample after the second interview leaving 14 complete data sets. Two of the authors and two additional researchers conducted the interviews, with each participant being interviewed by at least two different interviewers to avoid biases in the interview process.

3.3 Data analysis All 72 interviews were transcribed verbatim. For data analysis, each interview was coded, using the Atlas.ti software. Analyses were conducted as a combination of deductive and inductive coding: First, a list of codes was developed including the constructs underlying the interviews. After a first round of coding, this list was supplemented with codes representing the (social and material) contextual factors that influenced students’ first-year experience. Within each interview, sections were coded by two researchers in order to determine intercoder-reliability (IR). During the second round of coding (with the final codebook), adequate IR values were achieved (>.70). Each student was analyzed as an individual case in order to associate personal developments with specific perceptions of the study context (e.g. positive or negative valuations of the quality of teaching or the social climate among students).

3. Results (285/300 excl. table) The case-based analysis of the students revealed distinctive transition processes into HE that were developed into a typology. A first distinction criterion is the nature of the “involvedness” of the students with the socio-cultural context of the first year. For the first group, their motivation to study as well as their attitude depended heavily on how involved they perceived themselves with the sociocultural context they met at university. These students reflected heavily on how they “fit into” the study environment and their whole study-related well-being (encompassing motivation, attitudes and self-efficacy) depended how positive this fit was perceived. In contrast, the second group were much more detached from the immediate socio-cultural context of the university. For those students, their perceived fit with the university context had no strong effect on their study-related well-being. They showed a rather rational stance towards studying, e.g. drawing motivation and self-efficacy from subject-related interest or extrinsic

rewards and basing their attitudes towards studying on the quality of the instruction (course size, qualification of lecturers etc.). As a result, we defined two poles within the “involvedness” dimension: “social-belongingness orientation” and “rational-gratifications orientation”. The second dimension within the typology is the general attitude towards the study environment with “positive” and “negative” as the two highly aggregated poles. Combining these dimensions we could identify four transition types within the sample (see table 1 for more details).

**** insert table 1 above here ****

Interestingly, we found that students who tend to be more critically reflective about their studies are in danger of having a rougher transition than less critically reflective students. For the former, it is essential to develop functioning social relationships that tie them to their studies while the latter tend to manage study-related challenges by simply working through them.

Table 1. Transition typology Involvedness Rational-gratifications orientation Type 1

positive

General attitude

negative

Social-belongingness orientation Type 2

- Little critical reflection about study goals & contents - Accepts any demand by the university concerning content, intellectual demands & assessment => reactive study behaviour - Appreciative of structural support (student services, easy course materials) & quality of instruction - Little reflection & involvement in in social community of students; motivated by comparison (e.g. grades) with peers

- Perception to fit well into the social community of students - Situational reflection & critique of content, intellectual demands & assessment - Appreciative of intellectual challenges & quality of instruction - Strong social involvement; peers perceived as supportive in mastering academic and emotional challenges; averse to social comparison

Relatively smooth transition; “work-hard” attitude combined with high self-efficacy

Transition depends on individual academic capabilities & effort, social integration smoothens transition

Type 3

Type 4

- Undifferentiated negative attitude about studying - Academic challenges caused by e.g. lack of intellectual capabilities, ineffective learning strategies, … - Little social involvement; demotivation and anxiety resulting from intense social comparison with peers

- Perception to fit badly into the social community of students - Constant and critical reflection on content, intellectual demands & assessment - Little social involvement; deliberate distance to peers; averse to social comparison

Rough transition; risk of dropping out because of lacking academic capabilities

Potentially rough transition; risk of dropping out because of missing academic motivation & belongingness