..E. . 2&3 aw fimmfi 5.4....th he's...» a nun... I»: 31...... ... y} 43.“. r. <.......$;. ca... ...-3.. ”4.“. ‘ +3.”. .L. 13 4 t . g , cw Xi: “NWT 932...}.va I . firm“ 5” at». .1. 4¢vl . 1-K....u:..:.. ....«.........u.. ......511 2.7.1.9 93.? 2.2.2.3.". firm” .— 2 1.17%.)...»- 1:1.» ... ......FKJM 4.1.: .1 . :. .... . ”Isaiah. 9mg .3.” .-. . I. l.........«....u. . z .2; ....rmn. .22. 55...; .1,‘ ‘27 I- ....l.» A .. .¢l. .1. )1!" in! aim“ 6 i: ‘- Hl'.‘ . . . . .. . . 15.3; 1.4“, (11.: “l“;‘t~fi A um}? 50F DY &. 2;: alt 3? rt v . . . . _ . .a. . .4 . 1 . I. . .. . . . x. . .. . ‘ ..- . raAw.=¢, ....u... (w. .5... . .. .. ., 3..-“le .2“ fl n3... E55 2 2." .. $5.55.... .5325“ 5553.25.55. £§§§$§E£ .... . millilylyljllllmululIllllllnln L :T g 1 o _‘ ‘H . b..-_.:I:72.‘ t: :K 5“) U V Y T - . 41. "‘3," “"2." .4 ‘_ I A of} '(d; " "r 2130 This is to, certify that the thesis entitled A Study of the Academic Achievement and Graduation Rate of Transfer Students to Michigan State University from Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions presented by Kent Vernon Bulkley has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D . degree in Education Major professor fly ' 0-7 639 1 0 \ 11 880K BINDER! INC LYBDARY BlNDERS sfmsropr. “will“! ammm * If FSUNS' m \____ -_ ...-n—al—d ..A- LL. M's: A STUDY ( RATE U The 1; academic achi MiChigan Stat during the F. (1) If s achi (2) If t aChi IEgE (3) If 1 gre: as< ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND GRADUATION RATE OF TRANSFER STUDENTS TO MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FROM TWO-YEAR AND FOUR- YEAR INSTITUTIONS BY Kent Vernon Bulkley The purpose of this study was to examine the academic achievement of students who had transferred to Michigan State University. Students from both two-year and four-year institutions who were at the junior level during the Fall term of 1970 were examined to determine: (1) If students experience a change in their academic achievement after transfer to M.S.U.; (2) If transfer students compare favorably in academic achievement with native students in the same col- lege of enrollment; (3) If transfer students are as likely to make pro- gress towards graduation and actually graduate as often as native students; (4) If t well (5) If s tuti seme. fer : as M. The ”C approximately term credits POPUlation m were drawn. fiansferred t. L216 Student theY first en The a design was us on the basis thOmogeneit tograduation Hated as the t0 haVe rESul AS a WEre reached; Kent Vernon Bulkley (4) If transfers from two-year colleges perform as well as transfers from four-year colleges; and (5) If students who transfer to M.S.U. from insti- tutions using an academic calendar divided into semesters perform as well as students who trans- fer from colleges using the same academic calendar as M.S.U., i.e., the quarter system. The population selected for the study consisted of approximately 5,000 M.S.U. students who had completed 85 term credits of college or university work. From this population two systematically selected stratified samples were drawn. One sample consisted of 307 students who had transferred to M.S.U. The second sample consisted of 1,216 students who had been in attendance at M.S.U. since they first enrolled as freshmen. The analysis of variance for repeated measures design was used to test the hypotheses comparing groups on the basis of grade point average. The Chi-square test of homogeneity was used to compare groups on persistence to graduation. The .05 level of confidence was desig- nated as the level at which differences were considered to have resulted from factors other than chance. As a result of the study the following conclusions were reached: O‘ 0 Stud inst pric yea; tha; Stl ea] do St f0 re St ac St Si Kent Vernon Bulkley Students who transfer to M.S.U. from two-year institutions perform less well academically than prior to transfer. Transfer students from four- year institutions perform higher academically than prior to transfer. Students who transfer to M.S.U. and native M.S.U. students do not achieve academically at the same level when compared with one another in nine dif- ferent colleges. Students who transfer to M.S.U. do not graduate at a rate equal to native M.S.U. students. Students who transfer from four-year institutions earn higher grade point averages at M.S.U. than do students from two-year colleges. Students who transfer to M.S.U. from two-year and four-year institutions graduate at a comparable rate to one another. Students who transfer from colleges employing an academic calendar different from that used at M.S.U. earn grades comparable to those earned by students from schools using a calendar system similar to that used at M.S.U. A STUD‘ in Depar A STUDY OF THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND GRADUATION RATE OF TRANSFER STUDENTS TO MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FROM TWO-YEAR AND FOUR- YEAR INSTITUTIONS BY Kent Vernon Bulkley A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1974 Born: Place: Parents: Married: Children: Born: Place: Parents: Married: Children: Education: Employment: KENT VERNON BULKLEY February 24, 1941 Salt Lake City, Utah Arthur Vernon Bulkley June Alldredge Bulkley Karen Reid Bulkley Jared Reid Bulkley B.S., 1966, History/Political Science, Weber State College, Ogden, Utah M.Ed., 1968, Student Personnel Administration/ Higher Education, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado Ph.D., 1974, Administration in Higher Education/ Student Personnel, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 1966-1968, Residence Hall Head Advisor, Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 1968-1969, Assistant Director of Student Housing, South Dakota State Uni- versity, Brookings, South Dakota 1970-1972, Residence Hall Head Advisor, Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 1972-1973, Hall Director, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 1973 to present, Director of Student Life, University of Texas of the Permian Basin, Odessa, Texas ii Tt ation to t and encour tation: 8; Chairman c interest Patience, investiga doctOral and Dr. D A Mr. LYhn analysis ‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreci- ation to the following individuals for their assistance and encouragement during the preparation of this disser- tation: Special gratitude to Dr. Laurine Fitzgerald, Chairman of the graduate committee, for her personal interest in the author and his family and for her patience, constant encouragement and advice during this investigation. Appreciation to the other members of the doctoral committee, Dr. Van Johnson, Dr. J. G. Moore, and Dr. Donald Olmstead for valuable suggestions and continual cooperation. A special thank you to Mr. Steve Olejnik and Mr. Lynn Peltier for valuable assistance in deve10ping the research design and performing the statistical analysis. Appreciation to my parents whose continual interest in my education has been a constant inspiration. And above all, an eternal expression of appreci- ation and love to my wife, Karen, and my son, Jared, for the many sacrifices they have made so that this study could be completed. iii II. III SD Chapter I. THE PROBLEM . Need . . Purpose . Background Hypotheses TABLE OF CONTENTS Definition of Terms Used. .' . . Limitations Overview of the Study. . . . . II. SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE . . . Literature Related to the Growth of Two-Year Colleges and Expansion of the Transfer Process . . . Literature Related to the Reasons for Transfer Literature Related to "Transfer Shock" and "Recovery" . . . . . . Summary . Literature Transfer dents . Summary . Literature Two-Year Students Literature Students Related to a Comparison of Students with Native Stu- Related to a Comparison and Four-Year Transfer Related to a Comparison from Institutions with Varying Academic Calendars . . III. DESIGN. . . Population and Samples . . . . Methodology . . . . . . . . Hypotheses Category I . . . . . . . Category II . . . . . . . Category III. . . . . . . iv of 12 16 18 26 27 36 36 37 38 38 39 44 45 45 45 Chapter Ar SI; IV. ANALY An SUI V- 80mm Sui Fix Di: In} Re< APPENDICES Appendix A‘ Mean < YQa- Qua: Chapter Analysis of the Data . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . Analysis of the Results . . . Statistical Hypothesis Statistical Hypothesis Statistical Hypothesis Statistical Hypothesis Statistical Hypothesis Statistical Hypothesis O‘UlbWNI-J Summary of Results. . . . . V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the Problem . . . Findings and Conclusions. . . Discussion . . . . . . . Implications. . . . . . . Recommendations. . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. Mean G.P.A. and Standard Deviations Year for Transfer Students from Quarter and Semester Institutions REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . by Page 46 47 49 49 49 51 55 67 71 72 76 84 84 87 88 91 93 95 96 i I. 10. ll. 12. LI ST OF TABLES Summary of Transfer and Native Samples . . Transfer Students by College of Enrollment. Native Students by College of Enrollment . Transfers by Previous Institution and Type of Academic Calendar . . . . . . . Mean G.P.A. and Standard Deviations for Transfer Students from Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions . . . . . . Academic Difference Between Previous Per- formance and M.S.U. Achievement for Students from Two- and Four-Year Institutions. . . . . . . . . . Mean G.P.A. and Standard Deviations by College for Transfer and Native StUdentS O I O O O O O O O O 0 Academic Difference Between Transfer and Native Students by College of Enroll- ment 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Native Student Versus Transfer Student Gradu- ation Rates by Term Graduated . . . . Observed and Expected Values for Chi Square Comparisons of Graduation Rates for Transfer and Native Students . . . . Mean G.P.A. and Standard Deviations for Transfer Students from Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions . . . . . . Academic Differences Between Students from Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions . . vi Page 41 41 42 42 52 S4 56 62 64 66 68 70 Table II 14. 15. Mean . 16. Acader Qua 17. Summa: Table Page 13. Two-Year Versus Four-Year Transfer Student Graduation Rates by Term Graduated . . . 73 14. Observed and Expected Values for Chi Square Comparisons of Graduation Rates by Transfer Background . . . . . . . . 75 15. Mean G.P.A. and Standard Deviations for Students from Quarter and Semester Institutions . . . . . . . . . . 77 16. Academic Difference Between Students from Quarter and Semester Institutions . . . 79 17. Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . 80 vii Figure l. 10. 11. 12. LIST OF FIGURES Plot of Grade Point Average over Three Points in Time for Students from Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native dents in College of Human Ecology. Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native dents in College of Business . . Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native Stu? Stu- Stu— dents in College of Arts and Letters. . Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native dents in College of Engineering . Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native dents in College of Natural Science Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native dents in College of Social Science Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native dents in College of Education . .. Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native dents in College of Agriculture and Natural Resources . . . . . . Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native Stu- Stu- Stu- Stu- Stu- Stu- dents in College of Communication Arts . Plot of the Graduation Percentages by Term for Transfer and Native Students . Plot of Grade Point Average by Term for Students from Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions. . . . . . . . viii Page 53 57 57 58 58 59 59 60 60 61 65 69 Figure Page 13. Plot of the Graduation Percentages by Term for Students from Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . 74 14. Plot of Grade Point Average by Term for Stu- dents from Quarter and Semester Insti- tutions O O O O O O O O O O O O O 78 ix Colleges of the t1 primarilj and juni additior Possible t‘lthn ( entered who ent. a recen. the th Data frc 15 to 30 COlleges 3O‘32). ham and £3 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Need In recent years admissions officers in four-year colleges and universities have become increasingly aware of the transfer student. This concern has developed primarily as a result of the growing number of community and junior colleges with transfer-oriented programs. In addition, present-day affluence and mobility make it possible for many students to attend more than one insti- tution during the undergraduate experience. Just a decade ago only one first-time student entered a two-year college for every three new students who entered a four-year institution (36:1-34). However, a recent study revealed that first-time enrollment in the two types of institutions is now almost equal (38:10). Data from recent studies support the estimate that from 15 to 30% of the students entering community-junior colleges will transfer to a four-year institution (39: 30-32). In a 1969 survey of transfer admissions, Willing- ham and Findikyan (40) projected that in the 1970's there would institutiort hm four-ye‘ and Richards aiflssions \ whmiuniver upper-divis two-year co The is it a mir admlSSions is the fag” Student aru Merican A (39) dECri SCale. It is transf is tant 1 A1 there would be one transfer student entering four-year institutions for every three first-time freshmen enter- ing four-year colleges. In addition, Blocker, Plummer, and Richardson (2) projected the future of college admissions when they wrote: "The time is not far off when universities may find that the majority of their upper-division undergraduate students come to them from two-year colleges" (2:285). The college transfer phenomenon is not new nor is it a minor factor in most four-year institutions' admissions processes. The interesting paradox, however, is the fact that so little is known about the transfer student and his problems. In a 1972 report for the American Association for Higher Education, Willingham (39) decries the lack of research conducted on a national scale. It is surprising to find how little attention the transfer student receives in general discussion of college admissions. . . . How is one to explain the limited research interest in transfer admissions? It is certainly not because the topic is unimpor- tant (39:1-2). At Michigan State University the number of appli- cations from students seeking admission as transfers has grown from 3,787 in 1964 to 6,350 in 1972 (31). This is an increase of nearly 68% compared to an increase of only 8% in the number of applications from first-time freshmen during the same period (31). It is anticipated that of the undergraduate students enrolling at M.S.U. for the first time in the Fall of 1973, approximately 30% will be transfer students (19). Certainly, the transfer student has become a significant element in the M.S.U. student body. Michigan State University's traditional concern for the welfare of each student and his academic success is reflected in the Report of the Committee on Under- graduate Education (18). It is a tragic waste of scarce physical resources and human energy to admit a student who in a term's time, or at the close of a year, drOps out a failure. And the damage to that student's self-esteem ought surely to be avoided as often as possible (18:13). Concern as expressed above suggests the need for a close examination of each element of the student body. Only then can enlightened admission policies and academic programs be deve10ped. It is the purpose of this study to help provide information from which those policies and programs can be used. Purpose This study will examine the academic achievement of transfer students at Michigan State University. Spe- cifically, it will investigate transfer students who entered Michigan State University at the junior level during the Fall term of 1970 to determine: 1. Do transfer students experience a change in their academic achievement as reflected in their grade point average at Michigan State University? 2. Do transfer students compare favorably in academic achievement with native students at the same level and in the same college? 3. Are transfer students as likely to make progress towards graduation and actually graduate as are native students? 4. What is the relationship between transfer from a two-year or four-year institution and academic success at Michigan State University? 5. Do students who transfer to Michigan State Uni- versity from institutions using an academic calendar divided into semesters perform as well as students who transfer from colleges using the same academic calendar as M.S.U., i.e., the quarter system? Background In a 1965 article for the Journal of Experimental Education, John R. Hills (16) of the University system of Georgia reviewed a number of studies aimed at examining the academic performance of the junior college transfer student. His rational for such a review was based upon the need for high school counselors to have information available to assist them in counseling potential college students. Hills argued that the choice to attend a junior or community college as opposed to a four-year IL institution could not be made without knowing something about the academic experience of junior college students who transfer to four-year institutions. In Hills' review of more than 20 studies, he identified a phenomenon experienced by nearly all trans- fer students. This phenomenon, labeled as ”transfer shock" was characterized as "an appreciable drop in academic performance upon transfer" (16:202). Knoell and Medsker's (23) 1965 national study of transfer students also revealed the presence of a negative differential between the cumulative junior college grade point average and the average for the first term after transfer. The mean change of grade point average for the entire group studied was found to be minus 0.3. The greatest change of grade point average, minus 0.50, was recorded by students who transferred to major state uni- versities (24:83). In both the Hills review and the Knoell and Medsker study a second phenomenon was also observed. As a corol- lary to "transfer shock," a process of “recovery,” varying by the type of institution transferred to, was experienced by those students who persisted to graduation. This pro- cess of regaining the grade point average earned at the prior college began the second term following transfer and continued through graduation (16:209) (24:177). An studies di perform as addition, progress t comparable marized tr. Commur. the ba versit native (29:12 Ir to an inst Calendar 1 COllege is Students ,‘ COHEQGS ( gated. 14 time per“ will have of Studen 10n99r ti] Tl mange Of . endeavors an n Another important question about which many studies disagree is the assertion that transfer students perform as well academically as native students. In addition, it is often reported that transfer students progress towards graduation and actually graduate at comparable rates to native students. Medsker (29) sum- marized this position as follows: Community college transfer students at the end of the bacculaureate degree program at the Uni- versity are doing as well or better than the native students, based on grade point average (29:129). Information regarding the affect of transferring to an institution operating on a dissimilar academic calendar than that employed by a previously attended college is unavailable. The problems encountered by students who transfer to Michigan State University from colleges using the semester system has not been investi- gated. It has been suggested, however, that the shorter time period allowed for study under the quarter system will have a negative impact on the academic performance of students whose prior experience has been with the longer time period provided by the semester (32). This study, which examines the academic perfor- mance of transfer students at Michigan State University endeavors to explore the concepts of "transfer shock” and "recovery.“ It has also been designed to compare the achiev niadditio environmen Th6 Hypothe Student as juni point a in time prior t¢ M.S.U., G.P.A. W SLUdentg juniOrs the G.p in the : Compare. followi H % StUdent e jun natiVe e made and min ”1% Student from C0 aVerage earned college follOwi the achievement levels of transfer and native students. In addition, transfer students from varying academic environments are compared. Hypotheses The following hypotheses are examined: Hypothesis 1: Students who transfer to Michigan State University as juniors will experience a change in earned grade point average when compared over three (3) points in time. These points are defined as (1) G.P.A. prior to transfer, (2) G.P.A. of first term at M.S.U., and (3) M.S.U. second-year cumulative G.P.A. Hypothesis 2: Students who transfer to Michigan State University as juniors will earn G.P.A.'s which will differ from the G.P.A. of native students at the same level and in the same college of enrollment. G.P.A.'s will be compared for the first, third, and sixth terms following transfer. Hypgthesis 3: Students who transfer to Michigan State University at the junior level will graduate at a rate equal to native students at the same level. Comparisons will be made over a period extending between the fifth and ninth terms after transfer. Hypothesis 4: Students who transfer to Michigan State University from community-junior colleges will earn grade point averages which will equal the grade point averages earned by students who transfer from four-year colleges. G.P.A.'s will be compared over six terms following transfer. Hypol Stud« from to 5 Comp betw HYEQ Stud from on t aver by s empl term 'ac eal‘IlEd 9 Study th refer tc Hypothesis 5: Students who transfer to Michigan State University from two-year colleges will graduate at a rate equal to students who transfer from four-year institutions. Comparisons will be made over a period extending between the fifth and tenth terms after transfer. Hypothesis 6: Students who transfer to Michigan State University from institutions using an academic calendar based on the semester system will earn grade point averages which are equal to the G.P.A.'s earned by students who transfer to M.S.U. from colleges employing the quarter type academic calendar. Definition of Terms Used Academic Achievement.--Throughout the study the term ”academic achievement" is to be interpreted as earned grade point average. Cumulative Grade Point Averag§.--Throughout this study the term "cumulative grade point average“ shall refer to the average based on total credits carried and grade points earned over a designated number of terms. G.P.A.: Grade Point Averag§.--"Grade Point Average" is based upon the hours attempted, grades earned and honor points received. Grade points are assigned as follows: 4.5, 4.0, 3.5, 3.0, 2.5, 2.0, 1.5, 1.0, 005' 0.00 — J} —.J 'junior' ii following Na student" re Univers ity any other c One Year: When vaIYing fr‘ Re Junior.--As used in this investigation the term ”junior" is defined as the class standing achieved following completion of 85 term credits of college work. Native Student.--In this study the term "native student” refers to students who entered Michigan State University as freshmen and have not previously attended any other college or university. Quarter.--A "quarter" is, "one-fourth of a school year, where the year is divided into terms or sessions varying from 8 to 12 weeks" (10:323). Recovegy.--The term "recovery" shall refer to the process of regaining the grade point average earned prior to transfer. Semester.--A "semester" is, "half of an academic year, usually 16 to 18 weeks” (10:366). Transfer Shock.--In this study, "transfer shock" is defined as an appreciable drop in academic performance following transfer. Transfer Student.--The term "transfer student" is defined in this study as any student who is admitted to Michigan State University with advanced standing, having earned at least 85 term credits prior to transfer from another college or university whether in-state or out-of- state. 10 Transfer Track.--This term is defined as those curriculums of study at the community-junior college designed to provide transfer credit for admission to a baccalaureate degree granting institution of higher education. Limitations This study is limited to: (1) students who trans- ferred to Michigan State University with junior standing in Fall term 1970; (2) students who entered Michigan State University as freshmen and who had junior standing beginning Fall term 1970. No attempt was made to determine the amount of time a student spent working or involved in extracurricu- lar activities. In addition, place of residence, e.g. off-campus or on-campus, was not taken into account. Time spent in preparation for classes was not determined. It was not determined whether a student made use of campus resources, e.g. the counseling center, during the course of the study. High school performance as indicated by grade point average or test results was not taken into account. Factors such as attitude, socio economic status, race, marriage status, interests and motivation were not evaluated or controlled in this study. Th providing I Chapter I l outlining t study, and major hypo used and 1i In Chapter fer Process related to III present the design Specific h} an analysis COntainS a Clusions d: further re; 11 Overview of the Study The following is a brief overview of the study providing a description of the contents of each chapter. Chapter I has served as an introduction to the study by outlining the nature of the problem, the purpose of this study, and defining the need for such a study. Also, the major hypotheses to be examined, the definition of terms used and limitations of the study have been explained. In Chapter II, an overview of the expansion of the trans- fer process is presented. Current studies and reports related to this investigation are also reviewed. Chapter III presents a description of the papulation and sample, the design of the study, the methodology followed and the specific hypotheses investigated. Chapter IV contains an analysis and interpretation of the data. Chapter V contains a summary of the entire study as well as con- clusions drawn from the findings. Recommendations for further research are also presented. L abundant, academic four-Ema: vide Per t0 the r 0f the t of "tray: folloWir considel transfeJ transfe: four‘Y8; logiCal e nilmk CHAPTER II SURVEY OF RELATED LITERATURE Literature related to the community college is abundant. However, research designed to investigate the academic success of transfer students from both two- and four-year colleges is in short supply. In order to pro- vide perspective, an overview of the literature relating to the recent growth of two-year colleges and the expansion of the transfer process is presented first. A discussion of “transfer shock" and "recovery" is contained in a following section. The last two sections of this chapter consider comparisons of academic achievement between transfer and native students and a brief comparison of transfers from two-year colleges with transfers from four-year colleges. This review is presented in chrono- logical order, earliest information reported first. Literature Related to the Growth of Two- Year Colleges andrfixpansion of Efie Transfer Process The major factor contributing to the increase in the number of students transferring to four-year 12 13 institutions is the expansion of the community college concept. This uniquely American educational enterprise with its "transfer track" has become an important thorough- fare for students seeking entrance to four-year insti- tutions. Proia and Drysdale (34) reported that two-year colleges doubled in number between 1960 and 1970. In addition, they indicate, Enrollment in two-year colleges has increased from 500,000 students in 1960 to over two million in 1970. The projected enrollment and growth of the two-year colleges within the next five years is expected to exceed 1,200 in the number of colleges, and the enrollment will be in excess of 10 million students (34:iv). In 1970, Hostrop and Hermanson (17:13) reported in their book, Orientation To The Two-Year College, that, ”Nearly half of all students enrolled as freshmen and sophomores in institutions of higher education in the U.S. are enrolled in the two-year college.” Kintzer (21) maintains that the responsibility for lower-division education is rapidly shifting to the nation's community and junior colleges. In New York, the actual number of junior college graduates wanting to transfer to senior insti- tutions is likely to double by 1975. At present, (1970), the two-year colleges in New York's SUNY system have approximately sixty per cent of the systems total full-time student body. By fall of 1970 in California, over ninety per cent of all freshmen enrolled in public higher education systems were in the state's ninety-six community colleges. In Florida, where almost one hundred per cent of the population lives within commuting distance of a community college, two out of three begin in a two-year college (21:2). 14 The proportion of two-year college students that transfer to four-year institutions seems to be a matter of dispute. The Newman Report On Higher Education (33:59) states, ”Though two-thirds choose the transfer program, few enjoy, excel at, or persist in academic studies. Only a small per cent actually complete their course and trans- fer.“ In contrast, Proia and Drysdale (34:1), and Hostrop and Hermanson (17:13), indicate that between 25% and 33% of the two-year college students in transfer tracks even- tually transfer to a senior college or university. What- ever the reason for this inconsistency, it appears that the future holds an expanded role for two-year colleges in preparing the undergraduate student. In a candid observation Cosand (6) has written, In my view, the community college or technical institute will, by 1980, have accepted virtually the entire responsibility for providing the first two years of college work. By then, the four- year colleges and universities will primarily be concerned with upper-division and graduate work (6:139). Many writers have called attention to the need for expanded articulation efforts between two and four-year colleges and universities. Vroman (37:4), speaking of the growth of two-year colleges, states, "This relatively new development brings significant issues and problems to the senior colleges and universities.” More specifi- cally, Meskill (30), in expressing concern for admissions policies and practices, wrote in an article for the a 0). 15 Journal of the National Association of College Admission Counselors the following: Considering the rapid growth of community and junior colleges, along with the ever-increasing mobility of students throughout the country, it is more pressing than ever that all institutions of higher education give greater attention to improving admission procedures and designing special transfer programs that will enable this fast-growing transfer population to enjoy all the services necessary to ensure their academic success (30:23-24). Many national organizations, state agencies and individual institutions have been active in promoting articulation movements. Particularly in states such as California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan and New York have articulation efforts begun to deal with important problems facing students in the transition of moving from one institution to another. However, such commitment cannot be universally found. Kintzer (21:3) states, “Efforts to provide systematically for the transfer student have not kept pace with the tremendous increase of community college transfer enrollments." Speaking of institutional attitudes and practices, Willingham, referring to the findings of the Willingham and Findikyan (40) survey entitled Patterns of Admission for Transfer Students, reports the following: Some institutions are definitely in the ”transfer business,” but at many institutions freshmen admissions take clear Precedence over transfer admissions. For example, clear-cut recruiting of transfer students is still the exception. Their survey indicated that no more than one out 16 of four institutions encourages transfers in its publications, visits junior colleges to talk with prospective students, or prepares special written materials for transfers (39:21-22). Literature Related to the Reasons for Transfer In addition to reviewing the literature regarding the development of the transfer process, it is important to briefly examine the question of why students transfer. A study by Fox (7) relative to student attrition from the liberal arts college was made in 1966. Regard- ing students who transfer to other institutions, Fox reported that a wide variety of reasons were given for leaving the original school. The major reasons cited by students were: (1) general dissatisfaction with the pre- sent college, (2) financial considerations, and (3) aca- demic concerns, such as recent change in curriculum interests. Proia and Drysdale (34) suggest that societal factors influence students to transfer from one insti- tution of higher learning to another. Citing a ratio of one out of every five students transferring to another institution before finishing college, they maintain that the transfer process goes on not only between two-year and four-year colleges but also among the four-year colleges. The following are ten reasons they cite as those most often given by students who wish to transfer colleges: 17 (1) another college offers a specific area of study wanted as a major, (2) greater or less academic challenge, (3) where specialized skills or training may be found, (4) the distance an institution is from home, (5) financial problems, costs too high, (6) to a large university where admission to graduate school may be desired in the future, (7) seeking a different size school-~small or large, where student to teacher ratio differs, (8) to satisfy an adventurous spirit--may be seeking new climate or opportunity to travel, (9) cultural benefits of a given community, (10) move based on sports interests (34:2). In an article for Saturday Review, Chickering (5:48-54) refers to some transfer students as "misfits." He suggests that the premature departure of such misfits is necessary for their own personal growth and development. He perceived the transfer as one who has outgrown his need for a specific institution and who must move on to another, one which is more “developmentally powerful," providing greater latitude for growth. The recent Newman Report On Higher Education (33) presents an even different perspective on the transfer student: While student motivation is, and has always been, difficult to measure with any precision, there seems to be a steady increase in the number of those who are capable of successful college work, but have little sense of purpose in their studies. One aspect of this condition is the phenomenon of drifting from campus to campus, particularly within large State systems. This is not to say that all transfer students are "drifters,'I for clearly there are various personal and academic reasons that make a certain amount of transferring neces- sary and desirable. But what has begun to appear in recent years is a very different phenomenon indeed. 18 The report goes on to say, Our interviews with students who have transferred frequently indicate that many have little interest in any particular educational objective--either in learning to think or in education for the future. Their restlessness represents an academic version of the drifter, constantly seeking to be ”where the action is." Their focus is on enjoy- ment of their pattern of life as a present value, to be perpetuated as long as possible (33:5-6). Literature Related to "Transfer Shockf—and "Recovery" The concept of transfer shock, defined as an appreciable drop in performance upon transfer, was first introduced by John R. Hills (16) of the University System of Georgia. Writing in the Journal of Experimental Edu- cation, Hills reviewed more than 20 studies of the academic performance of the junior college transfer. According to Hills, ”the number of institutions included in the studies were well into the hundreds; the number of students, beyond tens of thousands." The studies covered a period of 35 years, from 1928 thru 1963. Regarding his findings pertinent to transfer shock, Hills reports in part: There were 46 sets of data relevant to the question of transfer shock. Of those, 44 revealed shock and two showed no shock. Clearly, it is a most prevalent occurrence that junior college transfer students suffer an appreciable loss in their level of grades when they transfer (16:209). Speaking of recovery he adds, Out of 38 sets of data in which a phenomenon like recovery from shock could be observed, 34 showed recovery and 4 showed none. Recovery to some 19 degree from transfer shock is about as prevalent as shock itself, though we did notice that the degree of recovery varies widely (16:209). Writing in The Fifpy-fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Grace V. Bird (I) examined a number of studies concerned with the performance of junior-college transfers in four-year col- leges and universities. One of the conclusions Bird reached from her review of these studies and from many others like them was that transfers ” . . . usually show a drop in their grade average in the first term after transfer but then recover that loss.” Some of the studies examined by Bird were also included in the later review made by Hills as reported above. In addition to the Hills and Bird reviews, many individual studies have been conducted which confirm the findings reported above. Hennessy (13) undertook a study at Michigan State University in 1960 comparing community-junior college students with regularly enrolled students. The major objective of his study was to determine how these two (groups of students compared in regard to selected aca- demic and personal characteristics. His sample of 173 community-junior college students included 137 males and 36 females. Hennessy's data reveal that the community-junior college students experienced a drOp i3) grade point average following transfer. The female 20 students showed a negative differential of -.51 while the males showed a negative differential of -.16 for the first term of enrollment at Michigan State University. There was, however, evidence of recovery during the next two terms as revealed by a spring term differential of only -.10 and -.03 for females and males respectively (13:38-39). After reviewing a study of 800 transfer students enrolled at UCLA in 1962, Kintzer (22) states that trans- fer shock and subsequent scholastic improvement are borne out. He reports that transfer students from California public junior colleges entered UCLA with a 2.85 grade point average. After one university semester the group grade point average had dropped to 2.35. However, by the end of the third semester the group had improved to a 2.63 average. The Office of Institutional Research at Michigan State University has conducted several studies to collect information and basic data regarding transfer students at M.S.U. Luker (27) conducted one such study of 272 new transfer students who entered M.S.U. in Fall 1961 as juniors from Michigan Community-Junior Colleges. Come paring the total prior grade point averages of the trans- fer students with their junior year total grade point averages at M.S.U., Luker reports the following: 21 Of those who completed all three terms, 71 (29.4%) made higher total grade point averages at M.S.U., 45 (18.7%) did about the same, and 125 (51.9%) achieved lower grade point averages. Of those who completed one or two terms of the three term period, three (9.7%) made higher, six (19.3%) about the same, and 22 (71.0%) lower grade point averages at M.S.U. than during their first two years. In total for all 272 students, 27.2 per cent did better, 18.8 per cent about the same, and 54.0 per cent less well than before they came to M.S.U. (27:11). In summarizing these findings, Luker stated, "A reasonable hypothesis is that this may be due to 'shock effect' as a result of transfer to M.S.U.” Further he adds, "Evidently, if there is a 'shock effect' connected with transfer, it is not limited to the first term following transfer to M.S.U.“ Lambe (25) conducted a study at Western Michigan University to determine whether community college students had been academically successful after transfer to that institution. His sample consisted of 311 students who transferred to Western Michigan in 1958 and 1959. His findings revealed that a substantial number of transfer students with a community college grade point average between 2.00 and 2.49 encountered difficulty in the first semester. However, the vast majority of these students steadily improved, earned acceptable averages and eventually obtained college degrees. writing in the Journal of the National Association of CollegeAdmission Counselors, Bucci (3) discussed the academic performance of transfer students from 22 community-junior colleges attending Rhode Island College. Comparing their performance at Rhode Island with earlier academic achievement at the two-year college he dis- covered ”A total of about 89% of transfers experienced a drOp in grade point average while 11 per cent performed as well or better than they did in junior college.“ Based on these findings at Rhode Island College, Bucci concluded that '7 out of 8 transfer students must accept the fact that they will not perform as well academically after transfer as they did at the two-year institution.” He further noted that female transfers outperformed men both at the two-year colleges and at Rhode Island College (3:10-11). As early as 1957 the need for information regard— ing articulation between two- and four-year colleges was recognized by such organizations as the Association of American Colleges and the American Association of Junior Colleges. A joint committee was appointed by these groups to study the transfer question and to make recom- mendations about ways to improve communications and facilitate the transfer process. In 1958 the American ‘Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions IOfficers was invited to appoint members to serve on the Joint Committee. As a result of the Joint Committee's work, the need for research on a national scale was recognized. 23 Accordingly, a request was made in 1960 to the Center for the Study of Higher Education to conduct research ” . . . on both the performance of transfer students from junior colleges in four-year institutions and the prevalence of various practices and policies affecting transfer stu- dents” (24:1). Subsequently, under the Sponsorship of the Center for the Study of Higher Education with support from the U.S. Office of Education, a national study entitled, Factors Affecting Performance of Transfer Students From Two- to Four-Year Colleges: With Impli- cations for Coordination and Articulation, was undertaken by Dr. Dorothy M. Knoell and Dr. Leland L. Medsker. The Knoell and Medsker (24) study is the largest single examination of the performance of transfer students at four-year institutions. A total of 7,243 junior college students who transferred in 1960 to 43 senior colleges in California, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington were included in the study. In preparation for the Knoell and Medsker study the findings of prior research on transfer student per- formance were reviewed. A brief summary of the findings related to “transfer shock” and "recovery“ follows: 1. The grade-point averages earned by junior col- lege transfer students for their first term after transfer are usually lower than their cumulative averages earned in the junior college. 24 2. The median grade-point average earned by transfer students usually increased in successive semes- ters after transfer, partly as a result of attrition on the part of less able students and partly as a result of the adjustment which follows the first-semester drOp in grade-point average (2432-3). In 1964 the first Knoell and Medsker study was completed and published. In light of the prior research noted above, their study confirmed the presence of "shock” and "recovery“ on a national level. There was a widespread tendency for the students' first-term average to drop below their cumulative junior college average. The average drop was 0.3 grade-point for the first term after transfer. The difference would have been considerably greater if the average earned in the last term before trans- fer had been compared, rather than the cumulative average, since most students showed steady improve- ment in grades during their first two years in the junior college (24:177). The above results led Knoell and Medsker to conclude, Grade-point differentials are one of the realities of university life which transfer students to these institutions should be prepared to accept at least during their first year after transfer (23:108). Spangler (35) found evidence of "transfer shock“ in a 1966 study of junior college students who transferred to Auburn University. The academic records of 626 junior college students who attended Auburn from Fall 1960, through Fall 1963 were examined. A grade differential of 0.44 below the cumulative average prior to transfer was noted for the first term at Auburn. Spangler noted that some I'recovery" did follow the sharp decline of 25 grade point averages experienced during the first term. However, this gradual rise in cumulative averages never reached the level achieved prior to transfer. Similar results were reported by Grover (11) in a study at the University of wyoming. Writing in College and University, he reported the following conclusions: 1. The wyoming community college student will, in general, earn lower grades after transferring to the University of Wyoming than he did at the Wyoming community college. 2. The mean grade average of the community college transfer students will rise gradually each semester they attend the University (11:208). The increased number of students transferring to _the University of Connecticut brought about a need to examine the institutional admission policy there. The undergraduate expansion of the student body was primarily at the junior year, or upper division. Burke (4) reported that new juniors came from three different groups which he labeled in the following manner: COMCOL--community college transfer students with a minimum of 40 credits. TRANSFERS--transfers, specifically not from the Regional Community Colleges of Connecti- cut, who have completed at least forty credits of transferable work prior to admission. BRANCHFERS--Students coming from the five freshmen- sophomore branches of the University with a minimum of forty credits (4:70-71). Because some members of the University community wished to alter the regulations pertaining to the admission of students in the categories above, a thorough investigation 26 into the performance of these students was undertaken. The results of this year-long study reveal some inter- esting comparisons. While each group has an acceptable mean average after a year--TRANSFERS having the highest and BRANCHFERS and COMCOLS being approximately at the same 1eve1--the shock-recovery pattern was by far most pronounced for the COMCOLS. Of those COMCOLS completing the first semester, 75 (86 per cent) declined from their previous cumulative, the mean change being -.73. Of those completing the second semester, 54 (63 per cent) improved their qpr (grade point average), the mean change being +.34. BRANCHFERS and TRANSFERS showed some signs of this pattern with more declines in the first semester and more improvements in the second, but not nearly to the degree experienced by the COMCOLS (4:73). Summarizing the above findings, Burke declared, ”The findings of this and other such research projects have many implications which, if employed, can increase our effectiveness in attacking the problems created by changing admissions criteria and changing sources of students" (4:78). Summary The many studies reviewed above identify clearly the phenomenon of ”transfer shock” and ”recovery.” These studies cover a period of over forty years and involve institutions of all sizes both public and private. How- ever, generalizations regarding these findings cannot be broadly applied. Knoell and Medsker offered the following caution: 27 . . . junior college students are transferring to many different types of four-year colleges, with different grading standards and with varying dif- ferentials. Most students will suffer some drop in grades in their first semester after transfer but the size of the drOp and the degree of improve- ment thereafter varies with the institution (23:108). Literature Related to a Comparison of Transfer Students With Native Students Controversy has existed for many years over the comparison of transfer students with their native counter- parts. Many have maintained that transfers perform equal to or better than native students at four-year institu- tions (25), (41), (20), (6), (30). Others claim that the transition after transfer is a difficult experience for most students and is often reflected in lower grade point averages. When compared to native students, it is argued, transfers perform at a significantly lower rate (28). (16), (23). (35). Another dimension of the same controversy is the question of persistence to graduation. Again there are advocates who favor native students over transfers and offer supporting evidence to back the claims. The following review of literature will examine both sides of the question. The first section will consider the literature favoring the transfer student. Evidence sup- porting the superiority of the native student will follow thereafter. 28 In a study of academic success and adjustment to university life, Lambe (25) examined 311 students who transferred to Western Michigan University in 1958 and 1959. A comparison was made between the transfer and native students to determine if any differences existed on the basis of grade point averages after transfer to Western. As a result of the study the following conclusions were drawn: As a group, transfers fall slightly below Western's native students in academic achievement. However, transfers with a community college G.P.A. of 2.00 or above did perform somewhat better than native students. In addition, Lambe noted the transfers with a G.P.A. above 2.49 achieved sound scholastic records and nearly all graduated. Writing in the Personnel and Guidance Journal, Young (41) discussed the academic achievement of transfer students at Pennsylvania State University. Among the con- clusions he reported was the following: The academic adjustment of the transfer group after one term was quite satisfactory. The term grade point average of 2.35 was approximately the same as the average for the native Penn State student body (41:63). However, Young did note that junior college transfers made a significantly poorer academic adjustment than other students who transferred to Penn State. Comparing native students at the University of Missouri with transfer students from junior colleges and transfers (20) four. scholasti compared native st) of four-ye level of t note, J oh;- ability, 3 Examinatio three grou In University aSSessed 1 U” report it does ix are fairlj The $1 trans to pr. some 1 Clear Seem Tecep 1nOrd C the COmmu 29 transfers from four-year colleges respectively, Johnson (20) found the record to favor the transfers. The scholastic achievement of junior college transfers compared favorably with the University of Missouri native student. The cumulative grade point average of four-year college transfers exceeded the achievement level of the University of Missouri natives. In a further note, Johnson reported that no significant difference in ability, as measured by the Ohio State Psychological Examination, was found to exist among the means of the three groups. In its report to the President of Michigan State University, the Committee on Undergraduate Education (18) assessed the status of transfer students at M.S.U. While the report does not compare transfer and native students, it does indicate that the chances of success for transfers are fairly good. The success of the community college student who transfers to Michigan State University is difficult to predict. In fact, the current evidence is in some ways contradictory. However, it does seem clear that at the present time transfer students seem to be experiencing at least as much difficulty as they were five years ago. It is also clear that, in spite of initial difficulties, most are evidently capable of completing a degree proqram within an acceptable span of time and without experiencing an inordinately high attrition rate (18:18). Cosand (6), in making a case for the future of the community college, refers to the record of transfer students in California. 30 How good are transfer students? Ca1ifornia--the pacesetting state for community colleges--provides a good measuring stick. Records at the University of California show that the transfer student from a two-year college does just as well as, or better than, his classmate who entered the university as a freshman (6:135). In a questionnaire survey of 300 institutions of higher education in the northeastern part of the United States, Meskill (30) sought to re-examine the findings of the Knoell and Medsker study. A total of 178 schools completed the questionnaire, of which 83% were private institutions and 17% were public. Results of the survey support the good potential and performance level of community-junior college transfer students. Noted for special significance were the responses which indicated the following: 1. Fifty-eight per cent of the public and 78% of the private institutions affirmed that transfer students' probable success in major fields of study was equal to or greater than native students. 2. Seventy per cent of public schools and 72% of the private institutions affirmed that transfers take the same number of terms to complete upper- division work as native students. 3. Seventy-five per cent of the students to transfer to public institutions and 82% of the transfers - .md h | . ' 31 to private colleges and universities demonstrated a high rate of persistence to the bachelor's degree (30:23-24). Evidence from the UCLA study (21:472) comparing transfer and native students is especially noteworthy. A group of 1,800 native students were contrasted with over 800 transfer students during their junior and senior years. While the first comparisons favored the natives, grade point differences diminished until the averages were nearly within one-tenth of a grade of each other. Kintzer calls attention to the fact that the transfer group was represented by many students that were ineligible for university admission because of inadequate high school grades. This note, he concludes, gives added support to the contention that the quality of California public junior colleges helps insure the success of their trans- fer students. At this point let us examine a representative sample of studies favoring the success levels of native students when compared to transfers. Mann (28) studied the academic success and per- sistency to graduation of both two- and four-year transfer students at the University of Oklahoma. The study was a comparison between native and transfer stu- dents with junior standing in the selected areas of education, business, arts and science, and engineering. 32 His analysis of the data was reflected in the following major conclusions: Native students at the University of Oklahoma achieved at a higher rate during their junior and senior years while transfers in both the two- and four-year groups achieved at a lower rate. In regard to persistency to graduation, a significant difference existed favoring the natives over both of the transfer groups. It should be noted, however, that many of the transfer students who did not persist to graduation achieved at a higher rate than the minimum required for graduation. In other words, withdrawal from the Uni- versity was probably not for academic reasons. In the Hills (16) review of literature discussed earlier, it was reported that 33 sets of data relevant to comparisons between native students and transfers were examined. A summary of these studies revealed that in 22 of them natives performed better than transfers. Four indicated that junior college transfers performed better, and seven indicated that both groups performed equally well. Regarding graduation, Hills states, ” . . . as a transfer, he will be less likely to survive to graduate from the four-year college than if he were a native, and it will probably take him longer than if he were a native" (16:209). Knoell and Medsker (23:6) also report that native students earned significantly higher grade-point averages 33 in the upper division when they were in direct competition with transfer students at the same institution. This was particularly true at major state universities and less so at teachers colleges. Comparisons on the basis of graduation showed that transfers took no longer to earn degrees than students who took all their work at a single institution. Related studies conducted by Spangler (35) at Auburn University and Grover (11) at the University of wyoming also show native students to be superior to transfers when compared on the basis of grade point average. However, in support of the Knoell and Medsker findings regarding graduation, Grover reported, A Wyoming community college student who transfers to the University of Wyoming after completing two years at the community college is more likely to achieve the goal of graduation than is a "native“ University of wyoming student of equal ability (11:208). The academic achievement of transfer students from selected Michigan community colleges was the focus of a recent study at Michigan State University. Hensen (14) examined 1,234 students who were admitted for enroll- ment during the Falls of 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968. A major purpose of the study was to determine if the quality of transfer students at M.S.U. was improving and how this improvement, if any, compared with the academic improvement for students who began at M.S.U. as freshmen. 34 From his findings, Hensen reported that the achievement levels of transfer students had not improved in recent years. He further reported that students who entered M.S.U. as freshmen earned higher G.P.A.'s than the community college transfer students and that the dif- ference between the two groups did not change significantly during the four periods examined. Regarding the question of graduation, two addi- tional studies involving Michigan college students should be noted. In 1967, Lorimer (26) conducted an investi- gation of 2,560 graduating seniors at Michigan State Uni- versity. Two of the areas in which she was interested were: (1) changes of major during the undergraduate years and (2) the number of terms needed to obtain a bachelor's degree for both those who began at Michigan State and those who transferred from other institutions. Among her findings she reported that about 80% of the transfer students graduated from the M.S.U. college into which they were first admitted. Only about 33% of the native students graduated from the M.S.U. college they first preferred as freshmen. Nearly 75% of all the graduates completed their degrees in 13 terms. However, there were a large number of transfer students who were included in the 25% that needed more than 13 terms to complete their degrees. 35 Hewitt (15), in 1970, attempted to determine the "efficiency toward completing degree requirements" by comparing transfer and native students at Western Michigan University. From the 1970 graduation lists containing 3,963 graduates earning bachelor's degrees, a total of 293 transfer students and 326 native students was selected for inclusion in the study. Comparisons were made on four variables: (1) Length of time to complete degree requirements; (2) Number of total terms enrolled; (3) Number of upper-division terms enrolled to complete degree requirements; and (4) Total number of semester units of credits regis- tered and paid for to complete degree require- ments. As a result of the comparisons Hewitt found: (1) that native students took less time to graduate, 4.27 years as compared to 4.92 years fOr the transfer students, (2) that transfer students enrolled in more terms to complete degree requirements than did native students, (3) that transfers spend more time completing their degrees once they reach junior status, and (4) it takes the transfer more credits on the average to complete degree requirements than it does native students (15:57-59). Based on the above findings, Hewitt concluded that for each of the comparisons the transfer student was less efficient than his native student counterpart. 36 Summary As was noted at the beginning of this section, the literature presents conflicting results of comparisons between transfer and native students. A sample of the studies reported in the literature has been reviewed. Generalizations regarding the findings would be risky at best. However, one of the major conclusions of the Knoell and Medsker study seems to summarize the problem very well. All or most junior college students could be successful in achieving their degree goals after transfer if they would select four-year insti- tutions afid major fields which are appropriate to their ability and prior achievement. In every state there is probably at least one four-year college in which each transfer student with a C average in junior college could succeed, if properly financed and motivated. However, a large number of students are transferring to an inappropriate institution, i.e., to a college in which they have a very low probability of success in earning satisfactory grades and thus achieving their baccalaureate degree objectives (23:105). Literature Related tofiHComparison of Two-Year and Four-Year Transfer Students Very little can be found in the literature regard- ing comparisons between transfer students from two-year and four-year colleges. The reasons for this scarcity of information are only conjecture. However, the need for such comparisons continues to increase with the growth of the transfer process. Three studies could be located that made reference to comparisons between transfer students from two-year and four-year colleges. Mann (28) at the University of 37 Oklahoma and Johnson (20) at the University of Missouri both reported on such comparisons in their studies which were cited earlier. The results of both investigations indicate that transfers from junior colleges compare very favorably in academic achievement with transfer students from four-year colleges. However, Young (41) reported that transfers from two-year colleges performed less well than other students who transferred to Penn State. Literature Related to a Comparison of Students from Institutions with 'VarYIngiAcademic Calendars The author was unable to locate any literature or information contrasting the academic performance of trans- fer students from institutions employing varying academic calendars. It appears that little, if anything, has ever been reported in regard to this subject. CHAPTER III DESIGN This chapter contains a definition of the popu- lation and samples, a description of the methodology, a restatement of the hypotheses and an explanation of the statistical analysis used. Population and Samples The population selected for this study consisted of students at Michigan State University. Official Uni- versity records maintained by the M.S.U. Registrar's Office were the source of all data. Only students who were at junior class standing at the beginning of Fall term 1970, having completed 85 term credits of college or university work, were included in the population. As a result, the total population numbered approximately 5,000 students. From the above described population, two syste- matically selected stratified samples (8:206) were drawn. One sample consisted of students who had transferred at the junior level to Michigan State University from two- and four-year colleges, both in-state and out-of—state. 38 h»- 39 There were approximately 925 such students. On the basis of Michigan State University student number, a computer selection of every third student was drawn for inclusion in the ”transfer" research sample. This resulted in a sample size of 307 students. A second sample was also drawn from the original population. This sample consisted of Michigan State Uni- versity juniors who had been in attendance at M.S.U. since they first enrolled as freshmen. There were approximately 4,000 native students included in this group. Again a systematic selection based on M.S.U. student number was made to identify every third student for inclusion in the "native” research sample. As a result of this final selection a sample of 1,325 students was identified. Methodology Following their selection, students from the native sample were blocked into groups as determined by college of enrollment. Transfer students were also blocked into groups by college of enrollment. After this blocking, the native sample was matched to the col- 1eges represented in the sample of transfer students. As a result of this match, 109 native students were identified as being enrolled in a college for which no transfer students were represented. These colleges included the three Residential Colleges and University 40 College. In order to achieve the objectives of the study, it was deemed necessary to exclude these 109 students from further consideration. Therefore, a total number of 1,216 students were included in the native sample. Additional blocking of transfer students was done according to the type of previous college attended, i.e. two-year or four-year. Transfer students were also grouped on the basis of attendance at a college or uni- versity using a quarter or semester type of academic calendar. Demographic data describing both samples are presented in Tables 1 through 4. In summary, the samples were drawn from a popu- lation of approximately 5,000 Michigan State University juniors who were enrolled during Fall term of 1970. The native research sample consisted of 1,216 students. There were 307 students included in the transfer research sample. Both natives and transfers were blocked accord- ing to college of enrollment. In addition, transfers were grouped according to previous attendance at a two- or four-year college and by type of academic calendar used at the previous college attended. The primary data used for comparisons of academic achievement were the grade point average (G.P.A.). This G.P.A. was based upon the hours attempted, grades earned and honor points received. Grade point averages for each student in both samples were obtained from the 41 Table 1 Summary of Transfer and Native Samples Transfer Native Year (N) (N) Total 1970 307 1216 1523 Table 2 Transfer Students by College of Enrollment College of Enrollment Total % Agriculture and Natural Resources 31 .10 Arts and Letters 45 .15 Business 41 .13 Communication Arts 15 .05 Education 48 .16 Engineering 22 .07 Human Ecology 16 .05 Human Medicine 3 .01 Natural Science 27 .09 Social Science 59 .19 307 42 Table 3 Native Students by College of Enrollment College of Enrollment Total % Agriculture and Natural Resources 58 .05 Arts and Letters 150 .12_ Business 129 .11 Communication Arts 88 .07 Education 180 .15 Engineering 85 .07 Human Ecology 66 .05 Human Medicine 12 .01 Natural Science 177 .15 Social Science _311 .22 1216 Transfers by Previous Institution and Type of Table 4 Academic Cal endar Quarter Semester Institution (N) (N) Total Two-Year 54 169 223 Four-Year HQ 54 84 84 223 307 43 official records maintained by the Office of the Registrar, Michigan State University. The points in time for which G.P.A.'s were identified for each student in the native sample were Fall term, 1970, Spring term 1971 and Spring term 1972. Native students' cumulative G.P.A.'s as of Spring term 1970 and Spring term 1972 were also obtained. Means and standard deviations were computed for each term G.P.A. and the cumulative grade point averages. These means and standard deviations are presented in Chapter IV. Term G.P.A.'s for each student in the transfer sample were identified for Fall, Winter and Spring, 1970- 1971 and Fall, Winter and Spring, 1971-1972. Cumulative grade point averages earned at the previous institution attended and earned after six terms at M.S.U. were also obtained. Means and standard deviations were computed for each term G.P.A. and each of the cumulative G.P.A.'s. These means and standard deviations are reported in Chapter IV. For comparative purposes, term G.P.A.'s and M.S.U. Spring term, 1972 cumulative grade point averages were computed for each student in both samples according to college of enrollment. It was also necessary to compute both term and cumulative G.P.A.'s for each student in the transfer sample according to type of previous institution attended and type of academic calendar employed at 44 previous institution attended. Tables summarizing these data_are presented in Chapter IV. Additional comparisons between the two samples were made on the basis of persistency to graduation. Beginning with the fifth term of the study (Winter, 1972), graduation figures were obtained through ten terms of enrollment at Michigan State University, ending with the Spring, 1972 Commencement. These data are reported in Tables 9 and 13 of Chapter IV. Hypotheses The research hypotheses of this study were initially presented in Chapter I. These hypotheses are grouped into three general categories. The first cate- gory relates to the hypothesis regarding transfer shock and recovery. The second category relates to comparisons of academic achievement between transfer and native stu- dents. Category three deals with the hypotheses com- paring the achievement levels of transfer students as related to the independent variables of previous attendance at a two- or four-year college, and previous attendance at a college using a quarter or semester type academic calendar. The hypotheses in each of these categories have been transformed into null or operational form and are presented below. They have been numbered to cor- respond with the original research hypotheses. 45 Category I Null Hypothesis 1: Students who transfer to Michigan State University as juniors will experience no change in earned grade point average when compared to academic achievement prior to transfer. Category II Null Hypothesis 2: Students who transfer to Michigan State University as juniors will earn grade point averages which will not differ from the G.P.A.'s of native students at the same level and in the same college of enroll- ment. Null Hypothesis 3: Students who transfer to Michigan State University at the junior level will not differ in graduation rate from native students at the same level. Category III Null Hypothesis 4: Students who transfer to Michigan State University from community-junior colleges will earn grade point averages which will not differ from the grade point averages earned by students who transfer to M.S.U. from four-year colleges. Null Hypothesis 5: Students who transfer to Michigan State University from two-year colleges will not differ in graduation rate when compared to students who transfer to M.S.U. from four-year institutions. 46 Null Hypothesis 6: Students who transfer to Michigan State University from institutions using an academic calendar based on the semester system will earn grade point averages which will not differ from the G.P.A. earned by students who transfer to M.S.U. from colleges employ- ing the quarter type academic calendar. Analysis of the Data The analyses of the data were carried out by first computing the means and standard deviation for each of the groups described in research hypotheses numbers 1, 2, 4 and 6. This was done for each term of the study on the variable of grade point average. Frequency tables showing the rate of graduation for each of the groups described in research hypotheses numbers 3 and 5 were also developed. These tables provide information regarding the number of students in each group who graduated during the terms reported in the study. The data on academic achievement, as represented by grade point average, was analyzed by means of the analysis of variance, repeated measures design as pre- sented in Hays (12:455-456). This design requires an observation in each testing period for each individual considered. As a result, the number of subjects con- sidered in the grade point average comparisons was smaller than the total number used in the original research samples. This analysis was conducted for research hypotheses numbers 1, 2, 4 and 6. The .05 level 47 of confidence was designated as the level at which dif- ferences were considered as having resulted from factors other than chance. Where significant differences were found, the Tukey technique (9:388, 397-398) for post hoc comparisons was administered to identify the source of these differences. Comparisons to determine significant differences on the variable of graduation were made by the Chi-square test of homogeneity (12:578-592). This statistical method was used to test research hypotheses numbers 3 and 5. The .05 level of confidence was also used for testing these hypotheses. The Michigan State University Control Data Cor- poration 6500 computer was used to conduct the tests of statistical significance. Summary The purpose of this study was to investigate the academic performance of transfer students at Michigan State University. Two stratified samples were drawn from the population of M.S.U. students at the junior level in Fall term 1970. One sample consisted of 307 transfer students. The secondpsample consisted of 1,216 native students. Both samples were blocked according to M.S.U. college of enrollment. In addition, transfers were grouped according to prior attendance at 48 a two- or four-year college and prior attendance at a college or university using an academic calendar based on quarters or semesters. The analysis of variance repeated measures design was used to test the hypotheses comparing groups on the basis of grade point average. The chi-square test of homogeneity was the statistical method used to compare graduation rates. Statistical significance was accepted at the .05 level. Results and discussion of the statis- tical comparisons are described in Chapter IV. “K CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This study had a primary purpose of examining the academic performance of transfer students enrolled at Michigan State University. Specifically, the concepts of "transfer shock” and "recovery" as defined in Chapter I were explored. Also, achievement levels of transfer and native students were compared. Comparisons were also made between transfer students from varying academic environments. This chapter reports the findings related to the above stated purposes. Analysis of the Results For the analysis of the data each of the research lrypotheses presented in Chapter I were transformed into tflxe null or statistical form. Each of the statistical hYpotheses are numbered according to the order of their Presentation in Chapter I. S~1‘-‘-atistical Hypothesis 1 This hypothesis was formulated to gain evidence relative to the concepts of ”transfer shock" and 49 50 ”recovery” as defined in Chapter I. The grade point average of academic work completed prior to transfer to Michigan State University was compared with the post transfer G.P.A. to determine if any change occurred. Comparisons were based on G.P.A. earned during (1) the first term following transfer and (2) the cumulative G.P.A. of the second year following transfer. In Chapter I a change in G.P.A. over time was hypothesized. The null hypothesis tested for this comparison was: Null Hypothesis 1: Students who transfer to Michigan State University as juniors will experience no change in earned grade point average when compared to academic achievement prior to transfer. The means and standard deviations on the variable of grade point average were computed for the two transfer student groups. The result of these computations revealed tflhat transfers from a two-year college had a higher G.P.A. pxrior to transfer (2.81) than did the students from four- Year institutions (2.72). However, the first term following transfer produced lower grade point averages for the group from two-year schools (2.73) than for the StJJdents from four-year colleges (2.98). The cumulative aV’erage of the second year after transfer also found thfia transfer students from four-year schools performing at (a.higher level, 2.71 compared to 2.57 for the two-year transfer group. A comparison of standard deviations 51 between the groups showed very little difference. These data are presented in Table 5. The interaction is plotted in Figure l. The analysis of variance summary for Hypothesis 1 is presented in Table 6. The F-values are significant at the .01 level of confidence. Htatistical Hypothesis 2 The grade point average of students who had trans- ferred to Michigan State University and of juniors who had been at M.S.U. since they were freshmen were compared on the basis of college of enrollment. This comparison was made to determine if achievement differences of stu- dents in a given college could be traced to previous academic background. The following null hypothesis was tested to provide evidence for this comparison: Null Hypothesis 2: Students who transfer to Michigan State University as juniors will earn grade point averages which will not differ from the G.P.A.'s of native stu- dents at the same level and in the same college of enrollment. Grade point average means and standard deviations were computed for both the native and transfer students bY' college of enrollment. The results failed to reveal any clear-cut pattern of achievement favoring one group or ‘the other. Comparisons between the groups over nine different colleges found transfers achieving at a higher l(“rel than natives in the College of Human Ecology. 52 Table 5 Mean G.P.A. and Standard Deviations for Transfer Students from Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions Previous Fall Second Year G.P.A. 1970 Cumulative Four-Year N = 56 Mean 2.72 2.98 2.71 5.0. .66 .56 .72 Two-Year N = 158 Mean 2.81 2.73 2.57 8.0. .47 .72 .63 53 3.00 2.90 2.80 Four- Year a: 2.70 an; 2.60 go: 2 50 Two-Year 0 O 2.00 1.00 . Fall Second Year Prev1ous 1970 Cumulative Fig. l.--Plot of Grade Point Average over Three Points in Time for Students from Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions. 54 ucmoamaemam madmoaumaumum t b~.o «Ne mo.mHH Hum x z ado. «Hm.v m~.H N mq.m H x 2 «Ho. v ama.am~ mm.vm ~ hm.moa ASS mousmmoz mm.o mam o~.vh Hum .m.z mm.o Hm.o H Hm.o AHV coausuaumeH mo some Ho>oq mumsom Eoomoum mmumsom vaguenecmam osam>um com: «o mooumoo mo sow oomsom chADsuwumcH umowlusom one nose Eoum mucoosum How ucmso>owso< .D.m.z one oocosHOMHom usow>oum coosuom oocouommwo oasmomod w «Hana 55 However, native students performed better than transfers in the Colleges of Business, Natural Science, Social Science and Agriculture-—Natural Resources. There were mixed results in the Colleges of Arts and Letters, Edu- cation, Engineering and Communication Arts. Standard deviations did not vary significantly between the two groups. These data are presented in Table 7. The inter- action is plotted in Figures 2 - 10. The analysis of variance summary for the testing of null Hypothesis 2 is presented in Table 8. The F- values for Hypothesis 2 reveal several significant effects. The most important effect is the three-way interaction of group, college and term in producing dif- ferences in grade point average. These results show that all three factors affect the grade point average of transfer and native students. In addition, transfer and native students achieved at different levels in each college across the three time periods examined. Statistical Hypothesis 3 The Graduation rate of students who had trans- ferred to Michigan State University and of juniors who had been at M.S.U. since they were freshmen was compared to determine if there was a difference in persistency to graduation. This evidence was needed for research Hypothesis 3 (Chapter I) which stated that transfers . A) 56 mo.a Hm.N an. Hm.~ em. Hm.~ we I c o>fiumz Hm.H mm.~ mm. mo.m on. mm.~ «H u a “someone muud sowumoflasssou .m ms. mn.~ hm. Noam em. ~m.~ mv n : o>wumz an. mo.~ mm. mm.~ mm. Hm.~ NN I c Houmcmua moou30mom Hausumz osm ououasowumd .m wH.H mo.~ mm.a sm.~ mm. vm.~ wwa I : o>wusz mm.a av.~ mm. oa.m no. ~H.m mN I c Howmcsua Godunosom .5 am. Hm.~ on. mm.m mm. Hm.~ cow I a o>aumz mm. mn.~ mu. m>.~ mm. mo.~ me I c hammocks oocowom Hmfloom .w ms. mm.~ om. Ho.m ms. mn.m mva u : o>wumz vH.H mm.H om. mn.~ mm. sv.m vH u c Hommcmue mocoflom Honouoz .m mm. mm.m on. Ho.m om. mn.~ up I : o>Huoz we. om.m «m. vm.~ No. vm.N NH u : nommcmua mcauoocamcm .v mm. mm.~ mm. mm.~ me. mm.~ had I c o>wusz vm. nh.m mm. no.m vm. mm.m an I c ummmcoue muouuoq oco muud .m Ho. mm.~ mo. mn.~ em. vm.m mod I c o>wuoz mm. ow.~ mm. mm.~ Hm. ~w.~ on n c Hommcmua mmocfimsm .N am. Hm.~ we. mo.m em. mm.~ mm I : o>wumz Ho.a mm.m av. Hm.m ov. mm.m ma u c nommcmua mmoHoom cossm .H CO.“ .(OQOU OQOm .(Omou OQOm I‘Omou «a. acauam as. mcauam on. Hana mucoosum o>ausz one noumcoua new omoaaoo an acowuua>oo ousocnum one a canoe .<.m.U Gnu: 57 o4 ———— O\\ 320 New c . 2.8 . 8:: Native 2 . ’ 0 0 Fall '70 Spring '71 Spring '72 Fig. 2.--Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native Students in College of Human Ecology. 3.2 3.0 ' . g‘é 2.8 —-~.____~_____fiar H_=Nat1ve g:- 2'6 ‘ ———————— . ...... w Transfer 2.4 2.2 2.0 Fall '70 Spring '71 Spring '72 Fig. 3.--Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native Students in College of Business. S8 . .——-"'""-"\\\ Native I “R...“ 5‘5 - ‘° Transfer 09m 2 - ' (.9 Fall ' 70 Spring '71 Spring '72 Fig. 4.--Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native Students in College of Arts and Letters. 3.0 an? 2.8 /"“ - ---. Transfer [6 o o ’r’ . . £3 . V” Native 2.4 2.0 Fall '70 Spring '71 Spring '72 Fig. 5.--Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native Students in College of Engineering. Mean G.P.A. 59 'f’IIa/,,e-””’*“_‘_~I““‘~———w Native ’ a. r 0" \ \\ Transfer Fall '70 Spring '71 Spring '72 Fig. 6.--Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native Students in College of Natural Science. 3. 3. 54' - Q). SCH . ‘92. 2.2 2.0 .flfif’f”,,,~»-r’*—r _Native —-- ------- 'Transfer -- .“ — Fall '70 Spring '71 Spring '72 Fig. 7.--Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native Students in College of Social Science. Mean G.P.A. Mean G.P.A. 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 60 \ \ . \ O/ \ "Transfer Fall '70 Spring '71 Spring '72 Fig. 8.--Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native Students in College of Education. ’r’/’,,’-””’J.~““*--__~_.Native ’v—OO ——-— . Transfer .~‘ -.—..—' Fall '70 Spring '71 Spring '72 Fig. 9.--Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native Students in College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 61 ' Native 0 Zfi:\ 3 ' / / \ o I’ \ O 0” \\ as - \, pa: 2-4 Transfer 0 Fall '70 Spring '71 Spring '72 Fig. 10.--Plot of G.P.A. for Transfer and Native Students in College of Communication Arts. 62 unmoamacmam adamuaumaumum a. ne.o NvNN 45.nmoa o x sums «mo. ~5.H Hm.o ea mm.~a a x o x.o «Ho. em.a ~m.o ea ~5.¢H a x u «so. v ma.m ms.~ N ev.m a x u .m.z mv.a pe.o m em.H Ase some mm.o HNHH ma.moaa o x mum .Ho. v mm.m mm.~ m eH.o~ o x o .m.z om.m e~.m a e~.m loo asouo .Ho. v mm.~ em.~ a mo.m~ loo mmmaaou usmwwwmmmwm ooam>lm ommwmm mfiomwwmmoo moumsom «0 sum oousom usufiaaoucm mo omoaaoo an mucoosum o>wumz oco Hommcona coo3uom monouomuaa owEoomod m manna 63 would graduate at a rate equal to native students at the same level. These data were gained by testing the following null hypothesis: Null Hypothesis 3: Students who transfer to Michigan State University at the junior level will not differ in graduation rate from native students at the same level. Beginning with the fifth term of the study (Winter, 1972), graduation figures were obtained through nine terms of enrollment at Michigan State University, ending with the Spring, 1973 Commencement. The results of these comparisons showed a difference of graduation rates with higher percentages favoring the native M.S.U. students. These data are presented in Table 9 and plotted in Figure 11. The Chi-square test of homogeneity summary for the testing of null Hypothesis 3 is presented in Table 10. These results indicate that there is a statistically sig- nificant difference between the rate of graduation for transfer and native students. More natives graduated early (5% native, 2% transfer), more natives graduated on time (46% native, 31% transfer), and more natives graduated during the period of the study (75% natives, 68% transfer). Also, of the students who graduated, only 32% of the natives failed to graduate on time. More than half (51%) of the transfers did not graduate on time. 64 mmm am an woa wed mam mm m mom «N am on mm em 5 pom u c Hommcmua wmn we we mm wad woe mm m mam mm me no mma oom mm mama u : m>wumz Hobos mead mnma mnma msma whoa Nnma mcflumm noucwz Hash seesaw mcflumw Houcwz ooumsomuo Enos mo moumm coauosomuo ucoooum Hommcmus msmuo> unmosum o>fiumz a manna 65 .mucoosum o>wumz oas Houmcmua How Enos an mommucoouom cowumsomuw on» no uonII.HH .mwh msma mnma Nsaa whoa mcflumm Houses Hash museum o>Humz Mommcmne «baa mnma msfinmm nous“: oo. mo. ca. ma. 8. ma . w: e 3 cm. 1.u a 3 mm. o. ov. me. om. 66 monmowmanmnm mo Ho>oH Ho.o .4. ONHH mom Nam no.HH hm m.va em bmm mm n imm.c mx we m.~a an mmm me hm om m.m~ mm m.oma oHH.mm I i x on dance moNH n. HOMWGMHB b.mm mm U>Humz swoon .mxo .moo mhma mnflnmm .mxo .moo .mno .mxo .mxo .mno mnma saunas tha Hash mead nonfinm tha Hounw3 munoonum obwusz one nommnona now mouom nowuonosuo mo mnOmeooEou oumnom wno now monao> oouoomxm o4 manna one oo>uomno 67 Statistical Hypothesis 4 This hypothesis was formulated to obtain evidence on the fourth research hypothesis (Chapter I) which stated that transfer students from two-year college backgrounds would earn grade point averages equal to transfer stu- dents from four-year colleges. The grade point averages for both groups over six terms following transfer to M.S.U. were compared to gain evidence for this hypothesis. The null hypothesis tested relative to this comparison was 3 Null Hypothesis 4: Students who transfer to Michigan State University from community-junior colleges will earn grade point averages which will not differ from the grade point averages earned by students who transfer to M.S.U. from four-year colleges. The means and standard deviations were computed for the two-year college transfers and the corresponding four-year transfer group. The results showed a difference between the means of the two groups with the four-year transfers being favored by a higher mean G.P.A. (2.83 compared to 2.65). The results are presented in Table 11. The interaction is plotted in Figure 12. The analysis of variance summary for the testing of Hypothesis 4 is presented in Table 12, page 70. The F-values for Hypothesis 4 were significant at the .05 level of confidence. No interaction effects were 68 mo.H am.a mm. on. on. Nb. .Q.m oe.~ ma.~ me.~ mm.~ me.~ mk.~ new: mmn u c Hmowlosa Hm. mm.a on. as. we. em. .n.m mm.~ mm.m mm.~ oo.m mm.~ mm.~ cams em u c noowlnsom mnma mead Head Head Huma onma mnflumm Hounwz Hash onwumm nounwz Hash mnoflunuwumnH Hmowlnnom one Hmowlosa Eonm munoonum Hommnmna MOM mnowpow>oa onmonmum one .¢.m.o nmoz AH manna 69 .mnowunufiumnu Hoowlnnom one Hoowloza Eonm munoonum now Enos an mmmuo>< unwom oomuu mo uonII.NH .mam tha tha abma Head Head chad mnfiumm nounflz Hash mnflnmm Hounwz Hash o.~ H.~ ~.~ m.m v.N .DW ”a m.~ Wu 2\_\ / w.~ I nmowuoze .I h.m m.~ m.N umowuunom o.m 7O unmannaemam mnnmoaumaumum. on.o vmv cw.om~ Hum x N x 9 m2 hm.a 0H.H. N 0N.N w x a x H mz vH.H om.o N om.H M x B mm.o VNv om.m>N . Huma mz mH.H hh.o N vm.a B x H emo. ma.h mw.v N om.m “EV Enos mm.o NHN Nm.mMH Hum x N mz nv.o Hm.o a Hm.o M x H .mo. Hm.mn ma.~n a me.~n inc new» om.H NHN oo.mam Hum «mo. na.m mn.h H mn.> noHunuflu%WW yo mama unmwmwmmmam onam>lm oMMMWm monmwwwmmo mwwmwwm oounom unowunuaumnH noowlunom one Hmoulose Eonm munoonum noosuom moonoHoMMNn owfioooon NH manna 71 identified. These results indicate that transfer students from four-year institutions achieve higher academically than their counterparts from two-year colleges. In addition, the analysis revealed at the same level of confidence (.05), that both groups achieved significantly higher in the first year of the study. Winter term of the second year was the most difficult for each of the groups. Statistical Hypothesis 5 The graduation rate of students who had trans- ferred to Michigan State University from two-year colleges was compared to the rate of graduation attained by M.S.U. transfer students from four-year institutions. This comparison was made to determine if there was any dif- ference in the graduation rate of transfer students as related to the type of institution from which they trans- ferred. The null hypothesis tested to obtain evidence relative to this hypothesis was: Null Hypothesis 5: Students who transfer to Michigan State University from two-year colleges will not differ in graduation rate when compared to students who transfer to M.S.U. from four-year institutions. As was the case in the earlier comparison of graduation rates, data were obtained for the above com- parisons beginning with the fifth term of the study. 72 This procedure was followed in an attempt to include those students in the study who may have graduated earlier than at the end of the normal six terms following transfer. The results of these comparisons revealed that both groups of transfer students graduated at approximately the same rate. Early graduation was achieved by 2% of the students in each of the groups. Thirty per cent of the four-year transfers graduated at the end of the normal six terms following transfer. Thirty-one per cent of the two-year transfers graduated at the end of six terms. The data for these comparisons are presented in Table 13. The rate of graduation is plotted in Figure 13. The chi- square test of homogeneity summary for null Hypothesis 5 is presented in Table 14. The slight difference in graduation rate was found to be not significant at the .05 level of confidence. Htatistical Hypothesis 6 Transfer students to M.S.U. from institutions using the quarter system and from colleges using the semester system were compared on the variable of M.S.U. grade point average. This analysis was performed to determine if there was a relationship between the type of academic calendar used at the previous institution attended and achievement at Michigan State University. The null hypothesis tested to gain evidence relative to this hypothesis was: 73 mo. mo. mo. mo. 0H. Hm. No. w va oN NH ON MN mm m mNN n n nmowuose ow. mo. mo. NH. HH. om. No. w vm v v 0H m mm N om u n nmmwlnnom Hmuos man mhmH Nan thH NsmH Nan mnHumm HounH3 HHmm HoEEnm manmm HounH3 ooumnomno Enos an moumm nOHunnomuo unoonum nommnmua Hmowlunom mnmuo> Hoowloza MH OHQMB 74 .mnOHunuHumnH Hmowlunom onm noounosa Eonm munoo loam now Enos an monounoouom noHumnomno on» no HOHmII.mH .mHm man man thH Nan NsmH thH mnHHmm HounHz HHmm umEEdm mnHumm nounHz umomlusom co. mo. Hmowlosa OH. S.a . an mH P we 8. nu a 3 P mN. om. mm. 75 monoonmnoo mo Ho>oH mo. onoaon no no unMOHMHanm noz oouoanmoollmz« m no nn u Amm V «x mz« nNm N n Nx mom em Hm om mm em a nmuon vmn m.en om e.mn an m.- om n.mm mm o.mm mm ~.m m nmmnuozs em m.m e m.m e we on m.m m v.e~ mm m.n N nmmnunsom .mxo .moo ..mxo .moo .mxo .moo .mxo .moo .mxm .mno .mxo .moo Hence msmH msmH thH Nan Nan thH mnnnmm nounnz HHmm nonsnm manmm nounHz onnonmxomm nommnmna an mouom nOHnmnomno mo mnOmHnomEou onmnom Hnu nOM monHm> oonoomxm one oo>nomoo vH oHQoB 76 Null Hypothesis 6: Students who transfer to Michigan State University from institutions using an academic calendar based on the quarter system will earn grade point averages which will not differ from the G.P.A. earned by stu- dents who transfer to M.S.U. from colleges employing the semester type academic calendar. Grade point average means and standard deviations were computed for both groups of transfer students by type of academic calendar used at the previous insti- tutions attended. These data are presented in Table 15 and plotted in Figure 14. The analysis of variance summary for Hypothesis 6 is presented in Table 16. The results indicate that no statistical difference in grade point average exists between transfers from schools using the quarter or semester academic calendar. Both groups of students obtained the same mean G.P.A. for the first year of the study (2.80). However, students from semester calendar backgrounds earned slightly higher G.P.A.'s during the second year (2.62) compared to 2.55. (See Appendix A.) The difference between the two, however, is not statisti- cally significant. No interaction effects were identified. Summary of Results Presented below is a brief summary of the results discussed in this chapter. Also, presented in Table 17 are each of the null hypotheses tested and a statement of rejection or nonrejection. 77 mm. mN.H mm. on. on. mo. .Q.m mo.N ov.N NN.N mm.N mn.N mn.N nmoz hmH u z nonmmewm vo.H MN.H vm. No. Nb. ms. .o.m Ho.N ve.N Ho.N Hm.N mo.N Nm.N nooz em I z nonnono NmmH Nan Han HhmH Han osmH manmm nonnHz HHmm manmm nounHz HHmm mnoHunqumnH nonmmEom one nounono Eonm mnnoonum now mnOHnMH>oQ onmonmum one .n.m.w new: mH UHQMB Ill) fit-’3) . 78 .mnoHunnHumnH nounmno Eonw mnnoonum now Enos mo omono>< nnHom ooono mo uonII.vH Nan Nan HhmH Han Han osmH mnnnmm nounHz HHmm mnnnmm nounHS HHom HH noon H noon \o/ \ nonnono \.\ O\ nonmoEom I. noumoEom ono omflm oo.o oo.H oo.N 0H.N om.N om.N ov.~ om.N ow.N on.N om.N om.N oo.m oH.m S.'V'd°9 ueew J 79 unoonHanm wHHMOHumHuoum k oo.o «No oo.ooN m u m x n x a .m.z on. mn.o N oN.o n x e x m .m.z mn.n oo.o N oo.H n x a mo.o «No oo.ooN m u m x a .m.z no.o mooyo N ooo.o a x m «no. v .nn.» mo.o N om.o “so anon oo.o NnN No.omn m u m x n .m.z oo. oN.o n oN.o n x m «no. v .oo.on oo.Nn n oo.Nn inc new» oo.H NnN om.on m u m .m.z mn.o oN.o n oN.o Ame smumnm anon unowwwwmmnm onHo>|m .m.z .m.o .w.m oonnom mGOHHDUflUMGH HQUmQEOW USN HOUHMHHO EOHN mficmofium C003H0m TOGOHQMMHQ OHEGUMOC mH oHnoB 80 Table 17 Summary of Results Null Hypotheses Statement of Rejection or Nonrejection 1. Students who transfer to Michigan State University as juniors will experience no change in earned grade point average when compared to academic achievement prior to transfer. Students who transfer to Michigan State University as juniors will earn grade point averages which will not differ from the G.P.A.'s of native students at the same level and in the same college of enrollment. Students who transfer to Michigan State University at the junior level will not differ in graduation rate from native students at the same level. Students who transfer to Michigan State University from community- junior colleges will earn grade point averages which will not differ from the grade point averages earned by students who transfer to M.S.U. from four-year colleges. Students who transfer to Michigan State University from two-year colleges will not differ in gradu- ation rate when compared to stu- dents who transfer to M.S.U. from four-year institutions. Students who transfer to Michigan State University from institutions using an academic calendar based on the semester system will earn grade point averages which will not differ from the G.P.A. earned by students who transfer to M.S.U. from colleges employing the quarter type academic calendar. Rejection Rejection Rejection Rejection Nonrejection Nonrejection 81 The results of testing statistical Hypothesis 1 revealed that "transfer shock" was not a factor in the case of students from four-year institutions. However, students from two-year colleges appear to have experienced "transfer shock” as demonstrated by their M.S.U. academic achievement. There was no indication that academic "recovery” as defined in Chapter I was experienced by the two-year transfer students. In fact, the data reveal that for transfers from two-year colleges, mean grade point average continued to drOp through the end of the second year following transfer. The analysis of data pertaining to null Hypothesis 2 regarding academic differences between transfer and native students in the same college of enrollment showed significant differences. In the comparisons over nine colleges, transfers performed at a higher level than natives in only one college. Natives performed better in four colleges. There were mixed results in comparisons of achievement in the four remaining colleges. The variation of differences was a result of a three-way interaction effect of group, college and term. The results of testing statistical Hypothesis 3 showed there were significant differences between native and transfer students in the rate of graduation. More native students graduated early or on time than did 82 transfers. In addition, a higher percentage of natives graduated during the course of the study than did trans- fer students. Null Hypothesis 4 compared transfer students at M.S.U. from two- and four-year colleges on the variable of grade point average. This comparison was made over the period of six terms or two years following transfer. The results indicated significantly higher grade point averages earned by the four-year transfer students. Both groups performed better during the first year of the study than in the second year. Winter term of the second year was the most difficult for both groups. Interestingly enough, this was the only term in which two-year transfers out performed the four-year students. The graduation rates of students from two-year and four-year institutions were compared in the testing of null Hypothesis 5. The results indicated that stu- dents from both groups graduated at nearly the same rate. A slightly higher percentage of two-year transfers actually graduated, but the difference was found not to be statistically significant. The results of testing null Hypothesis 6 showed no significant difference in the grade point average earned by transfers from quarter or semester academic calendars. Identical cumulative G.P.A.'s were earned by both groups during the first year of the study. Transfers 83 from semester calendar backgrounds performed slightly better than students from quarter calendar backgrounds during the second year of the study. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter contains a summary of the problem, a presentation of the conclusions reached, a review of the findings and recommendations for future research. Summary of the Problem The purpose of this study was to examine the aca- demic achievement of transfer students at Michigan State University. Students from both two-year and four-year institutions who were at the junior level during the Fall term of 1970 were examined to determine: (1) If students experience a change in their academic achievement after transfer to M.S.U.; (2) If transfers compare favorably in academic achieve- ment with native students in the same college; (3) If transfer students are as likely to make pro- gress towards graduation and actually graduate as often as native students; 84 85 (4) If transfers from two-year colleges perform as well as transfers from four-year colleges; and (5) If students who transfer to M.S.U. from insti- tutions using an academic calendar divided into semesters perform as well as students who trans- fer from colleges using the same academic calen- dar as M.S.U., i.e., the quarter system? Previous literature and research report that students transferring to four-year institutions often experience a drop in their grade point average following transfer (1, 3, 13, 23, 27). This negative differential between the previous cumulative grade point average and the G.P.A. earned at the four-year institution has been labeled "transfer shock" (16). In addition, a process of "recovery," i.e.. regaining the grade point average earned at the prior college has been observed in many studies (16, 24, 25). Disagreement prevails in the literature over the question of academic equality when comparing transfer and native students on scholastic achievement. Many studies assert that native students perform better than their transfer counterparts (28, 16, 23, 35). Others claim that transfers perform equal to or better than natives at four-year institutions (6, 20, 25, 30, 41). 86 An extension of the same controversy is the question of persistency to graduation. Again, both sides have their advocates (15, 25, 26, 30). Regarding comparisons between transfer students from two- and four-year institutions very little has been reported. Three studies reviewed earlier provide incon- sistent findings on the question (20, 28, 41). Research comparing academic achievement at a common institution of students who had transferred from colleges employing different academic calendars could not be found. It appears that very little has been done in the study of this question. The population selected for the study consisted of approximately 5,000 M.S.U. students who had completed 85 term credits of college or university work. From this population two systematically selected stratified samples were drawn. One sample consisted of 307 students who had transferred to M.S.U. from two- and four-year institutions, both instate and out-of-state. The second sample con- sisted of 1,216 students who had been in attendance at M.S.U. since they first enrolled as freshmen. This group was labeled the "native" research sample. Students from both the transfer and native samples were divided into groups according to college of enrollment. Additional grouping of transfer students was done according to the type of previous college 87 attended, i.e., two-year or four-year. Transfers were also divided into groups as determined by previous attendance at a college using a quarter or semester type of academic calendar. The analysis of variance for repeated measures design was used to test the hypotheses comparing groups on the basis of grade point average. These comparisons were made for native versus transfer students and between transfer students from two- and four-year institutions. The Chi-square test of homogeneity was used to compare persistence to graduation. These comparisons were also made between transfer and native students and between transfer students from two-year and four-year insti- tutions. The .05 level of confidence was designated as the level at which differences were considered to have resulted from factors other than chance. Findings and Conclusions Within the limits of this study the following conclusions seem justified: 1. Students who transfer to Michigan State Uni- versity from two-year institutions perform less well academically than prior to transfer. Transfer students from four-year institutions perform higher academically than prior to transfer. 88 2. Students who transfer to Michigan State University and native M.S.U. students do not achieve aca- demically at the same level when compared with one another in nine different colleges of enrollment. 3. Students who transfer to Michigan State University do not graduate at a rate equal to native M.S.U. students. 4. Students who transfer from four-year institutions earn higher grade point averages at Michigan State University than do students who transfer from two—year colleges. 5. Students who transfer to Michigan State University from two-year and four-year institutions graduate at a comparable rate to one another. 6. Students who transfer from colleges employing the quarter system earn grade point averages at M.S.U. that are comparable to the grades earned by students from schools using a semester academic calendar. Discussion The concepts of ”transfer shock" and "recovery" as defined and discussed in Chapters I and II do not hold true for all students who transfer to Michigan State University. Students who transferred from four-year institutions performed at a higher level at M.S.U. than 89 at their previous college in five of the six terms of the study. Students from two-year colleges obtained a grade point average equal to or higher than their previous G.P.A. in only one of the six terms of the study. There was no evidence that students from two-year colleges experienced academic "recovery" during the period of the study. The above conclusions were reached as a result of the rejection of null Hypothesis 1. Transfer and native students did not perform equally well when compared to one another in the same college of enrollment. The investigation revealed that transfers obtained higher grade point averages than native students in only one college. Native students consistently earned higher G.P.A.'s than transfer stu- dents in four colleges. In four additional colleges mixed results were discovered where neither group per- formed higher than the other across all the terms examined in the study. These findings led to the rejection of null Hypothesis 2. Persistence to graduation was found to be higher among native M.S.U. students than for transfer students. The study revealed that a higher percentage of native M.S.U. students graduated early or on time than students who had transferred. In addition, a higher percentage of native students graduated during the study. It also was discovered that a proportionately larger number of 90 transfer students required an extra year of study to com- plete graduation requirements. This significant dif- ference in graduation rate resulted in the rejection of null Hypothesis 3. The investigation revealed that students from two-year colleges earned higher grade point averages prior to transfer than did students from four-year institutions. However, following transfer to M.S.U. students from two- year colleges earned lower grade point averages than the four-year transfer group in five out of six terms examined. Both groups of transfer students performed at a lower level during their second year at Michigan State. It was during the winter term of the second year that the students from two-year colleges out-performed the trans- fers from four-year schools. The above findings led to the rejection of null Hypothesis 4. Comparisons between students from two-year and four-year institutions on the variable of graduation pro- vided support for null Hypothesis 5. No statistical dif- ference in graduation rate between the two groups was discovered. Students from both groups graduated at similar rates during each term of the study. The small difference between the groups in the total percentage of students who graduated was not significant at the .05 level of confidence. 91 Students transferring to M.S.U. from colleges using the semester type academic calendar were compared with students from schools using the quarter system academic calendar. It was hypothesized in Chapter I that the shorter academic calendar provided for by the quarter system would adversely influence the academic achievement of students from semester backgrounds. The result of testing this hypothesis, however, failed to give support for this assertion. Both groups of students obtained the same grade point average during the first year of the study. Students from semester institutions earned slightly higher grades than students from quarter schools during the study's second year. This difference, however, proved not to be statistically significant. As a result, null Hypothesis 6 was supported. Implications During the course of the study some insight was gained for which there were no statistical tests to verify but which seem to be worth mentioning. 1. Knowing that transfer students from two-year institutions did not perform as well as students from four-year schools, the question must be raised as to how this may have influenced the comparisons between transfer students and the native student group. 92 It is not known whether an urban or rural com- munity college background is related to academic achievement. However, it is believed by the author that achievement levels obtained by stu- dents from urban two-year colleges may not be as high following transfer as that earned by stu- dents from nonurban two-year colleges. Much has been written about the special problems encountered by minority students in institutions of higher education. This study was not designed to identify minority students but it is believed that a significant number of minority students in any one group could have influenced the study's outcome. Particularly could this be true if a large number of minority students were found to be part of the two-year transfer group. On the basis of this study, the merit of special advising or counseling for transfer students seems warranted. The student group from two-year colleges did experience ”transfer shock." Fur- thermore, "recovery” of G.P.A. to the level earned prior to transfer did not occur. It is believed by the author that the impact of transfer could be softened through special orientation and counseling programs. 93 Recommendations During the course of this investigation it became apparent that additional research relative to the topic of transfer student achievement was needed. Some sug- gestions are: l. A study should be made of transfer students who are experiencing academic difficulty to determine their college of enrollment, major area of study and institution from which they transferred. This study, or a similar one, should be conducted at other institutions to determine if these results correspond to those found at other universities. A study of transfer students should be made with a special concern for the influence of attrition on students from two-year and four-year institutions. The relationship of socioeconomic status of a transfer student's family and his academic achievement after transfer should be explored. A study should be conducted to examine the academic success of students transferring from specific institutions to M.S.U. in selected college majors. A study should be made of transfer students by college of major to determine the relationship between choice of major and rate of graduation. 7. 94 A study should be made to explore the relation- ship of minority ethnic background and academic achievement following transfer. The influence on academic achievement of partici- pation in extra-curricular activities and employ- ment for transfer students should be investigated. The relationship between transfer student per- ception of institutional environmental press and academic achievement should be studied. APPENDICES APPENDIX A MEAN G.P.A. AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BY YEAR FOR TRANSFER STUDENTS FROM QUARTER AND SEMESTER INSTITUTIONS APPENDIX A MEAN G.P.A. AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS BY YEAR FOR TRANSFER STUDENTS FROM QUARTER AND SEMESTER INSTITUTIONS Academic Year Two-Year Average 1970 - 1971 * 1971 - 1972 Quarter N = 57 Mean 2.80 2.55 2.67 S.D. .69 1.03 .86 Semester N = 157 Mean 2.80 2.62 2.71 S.D. .69 1.07 .88 95 REFERENCES REFERENCES Bird, G. V. Preparation for advanced study. The Public Junior College, Fifty-fifth Yearbook-3f the National Society for the Study of Education, Vol. 55, Part 1. Blocker, C. D., Plummer, R. H., & Richardson, R. C. The two-year college; Agocial synthesig. EngIewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1965. Bucci, F. A. Academic performance of transfer stu- dents from two-year colleges. Journal of the Association of College Admissions Counselors, 1; (1). Burke, B. H. Changing needs in transfer admissions: Build policy from the data. College and Uni- versity, 1973, fig (2). Chickering, A. The best colleges have the least effect. Saturday Review, 1971, H4 (3). Cosand, J. P. The community college in 1980. In A. C. Eurich (Ed.), Campus 1980. New York: Delucorte Press, 1968. Fox, D. Presentation of attrition study. :22 Liberal Arts College's Responsibility for the Individual Student. New York: Columbia Uni- versity, 1966. Garrett, H. E., & Woodworth, R. S. Statistics in psychology and education. New York: Longmans, .Green and Company, 1958. Glass, G. V., & Stanley, J. C. Hpatistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-HalI, Inc., 1970. 96 lo. 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 97 Good, C. V. Dictionary of education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.,11945. Grover, A. L. A comparative study of Wyoming com- munity college students who transferred to the University of Wyoming. College and University, 1967, 13 (2). Hays, W. L. Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Inc., 1963. Hennessy, F. J. A comparison of selected academic and personal characteristics of regularly enrolled and community-junior college transfer students at Michigan State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960. Hensen, R. E. A study of the academic success of transfer students to Michigan State University from selected Michigan community colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Hewitt, C. F. Efficiency toward completing bachelor degree requirements at Western Michigan University: A study comparing two-year college transfer stu- dents and native students earning bachelor degrees in 1970. College and University, 1972, fig (1). Hills, J. R. Transfer shock: The academic perfor- mance of the junior college transfer. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1965, H; (3). Hostrop, R. W., & Hermanson, R. H. Orientation to the two-year colle e. Homewood, III.: Learning Systems Company, I 0. Improving_undergraduate education. Report of the Committee on Undergraduate Education, Michigan State University, 1967. Interview with Dr. Richard Hensen, Associate Director. Office of Admissions and Scholarships, Michigan State University, April, 1973. Johnson, R. E. A study of the scholastic achievement of junior college transfer students at the Uni- versity of Missouri. Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, University of Missouri, 1965. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 98 Kintzer, F. C. Nationwide pilot study on articu- lation. Los Angeles: ERICK Clearinghouse for Junior Colleges, 1970. Kintzer, F. C. What university and college admission officers should know about two-year colleges. College and University, 1967, fig (4). Knoell, D. M., & Medsker, L. L. Articulation between two-year and four-year colleges. University of Ca1ifornia: Center for the Study of Higher Edu- cation, 1964. Knoell, D. M., & Medsker, L. L. Factors affecting performance of transfer students from two- to four-year colleges: With implications fOr coordination and articuIation. UniVersity of California: Center for theStudy of Higher Edu- cation, 1964. Lambe, C. W. Academic success and adjustment to university life of community college students transferring to Western Michigan University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1964. Lorimer, M. F. An analysis of the transcripts of a sample of seniors graduated from Michigan State University, June, 1967. Part One: A summary of information. Office of Institutional Research. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1968. Luker, L. J. The transfer student at M.S.U. East Lansing: Office of Institutional Research, Michigan State University, 1962. (Mimeographed.) Mann, M. The academic achievement of transfer stu- dents at the University of Oklahoma. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, 1963. Medsker, L. L. The junior colle e: Progress and ros ect. New York: Mchaw Hill Book Company Inc., I960. Meskill, V. P. Transfer student performance and admissions policies and practices for transfers. National Association of College Admission Coun- seIors dournal, lg (2). 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 99 Official Records, Office of Admissions and Scholarship. Michigan State University. Opinion expressed by Mr. Duncan Sargent, Assistant Director. Office of Admissions and Scholarships, Michigan State University, April, 1973. The_Newman report on higher education. Washington, D.C.: United States Office of Education, 1971. Proia, N. C., & Drysdale, B. J. Barron's handbook of college transfer information. New Yofk: Barron's Educational Series, Inc., 1971. Spangler, B. B. A study of the academic success of junior college students who transferred to Auburn University from Fall, 1960, through Fall, 1963. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auburn Uni- versity, 1966. United States Office of Education. 0 enin (Fall) enrollment in higher education, 1950: Institu- tional data. Washington, DIC.: Governmentngint- ing Office, 1960. Vroman, C. Problems and issues confronting the admissions community. College Admissions Policies for the 1970's. New York: College Entrance Examinatioanard, 1968. Wade, G. H. Qpening Fall enrollment in higher edu- cation, 197017 Report on preliminary survey. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970. Willingham, W. W. The No. 2 access problemi' Trans- fer to the upper division. Washington, D.C.: American AssoéiatiOn fOr Higher Education, 1972. Willingham, W. W., & Findikyan, N. Patterns of Hdmission for transfer studenpg. New YorK: College Entrance Examihation Board, 1969. Young, W. Admission of the transfer student. Per- sonnel and Guidance Journal, 1964, 1;. HICHI an STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES )lHI(“I“)(IN)("I“)W)(I))HIHWIHIHHI 31293100192867