MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W155461889

Making the Most of a Small Midwestern University: The Case of Transfer Students.

2009· article· en· W155461889 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joan Flynn Fee, Sandra Prolman, Jay Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege student journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyHigher educationQualitative researchFocus groupQuarter (Canadian coin)Mathematics educationSemi-structured interviewMedical educationClass (philosophy)PedagogySociologySocial science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there is a substantial literature on factors that encourage college students' success, Light's 2001 Harvard study, Making the Most of College, represents the largest qualitative study in a highly quantitative gathering. There is little qualitative research on college-student success, especially that of transfer students. To discover how well Light's findings generalize, this research investigates a very different case, that of transfer students in a small, regional teaching university. The researchers use focus groups, individual interviews, and field notes to gather data from just under 100 seniors, a quarter of the senior class. While the research confirms many of Light's findings, some findings differ (reasons for attending, attitudes toward employment, motivation for success, college-university transition); and others nuance Light's work. ********** Although there is a substantial literature on the factors that encourage college students' success (e.g., Berger, 2002; Terenzini, Pascarella, & Blimling, 1999), Light's 2001 Harvard study, Making the Most of College, represents the largest qualitative study in a highly quantitative gathering. It also offers perhaps the richest basket of practical suggestions for both students and faculty. Based on 10 years of research and over 1,000 in-depth student interviews, the research describes the educational environment that promotes academic and personal success for students in a highly-selective, private university. After having presented his findings at a wide range of universities, Light speculates that the findings apply broadly, to different types of colleges across the country. Two of the researchers presented the highlights of Light's findings to faculty gathered at a small Midwestern teaching university for a brown-bag lunch on innovative teaching practices. Members of the audience wondered how those findings might apply to their university, so different from Harvard's. The Midwestern university varied from Harvard in size, entrance requirements, likelihood that a student's parents attended college, level of diversity, proportion of residential students, and regional rather than national character. Also, in 2004, the 300 transfer students entering the Midwestern university from community and other colleges roughly equaled the number of entering freshman, while Harvard enrolled only 75 transfer students, fewer than 5% of the over 1600 freshmen (Zhou, 2004). Since in the U.S. 46% of college students initially take the community-college route (Boggs, 2005), attitudes of transfer students toward college success seemed particularly important for study. The purpose of this research, then, was to examine the degree to which certain factors that spelled academic and personal success for students in a large, highly-selective research university generalized to transfer students in a small, regional teaching university. In essence, the research examined students with characteristics dissimilar from those at Harvard, who were studying in a different environment, to determine common findings, and distinctions. While this research could not replicate Light's 10-year effort, it focused on three areas of investigation: academic, employment, and extra-curricular experiences, noting where success factors matched and where they did not. Review of the Literature In the extensive literature addressing issues related to college students and their success, success was defined in a variety of ways, from cognitive growth, to psychosocial growth, to persistence in college; and the factors studied varied from academic involvement (Terenzini & Springer, 1995), to comprehensive out-of-class involvement (Terenzini, Pascarella & Blimling, 1999), to social life (Astin, 1993), to interactions with faculty (Graham & Gisi, 2000), to place of residence (Inman & Pascarella, 1998), to athletics (Pascarella & Truckenmiller, 1999), to employment (Dundes & Marx, 2006; Canabal, 1998). …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0330.011
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0030.011
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCollege student journalSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207