Counseling
Center
University
of Maryland
College
Park, MD
Transfer
student hassles:
Investigation
and remediation
Alice A.
Mitchell
William
E. Sedlacek
Research
Report #11-94
Computer time was provided by the Computer Science Center,
University of Maryland at College Park. The data discussed were gathered in
cooperation with the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Dr. Katherine
Pedro Beardsley, Assistant Dean.
COUNSELING
CENTER
UNIVERSITY
OF MARYLAND
COLLEGE
PARK, MARYLAND
Transfer
student hassles:
Investigation
and remediation
Alice A.
Mitchell and William E. Sedlacek
Summary
The college experience is not without strain for most
students. Transfer students may experience particular discomfort in the process
of migrating from one institution to another.
As part of an ongoing program evaluation, the academic
dean of the university's social science college wished to learn more about the
academic service experiences of students within that unit. Junior students were
selected because they could be surveyed during one academic year and
appropriate service changes could be made before the all-important senior
year. The responses of native and transfer students were compared throughout
the investigation. The hassles of junior native and transfer students enrolled
in two majors, government and criminal justice were examined.
Transfer and native students showed significant
differences on college advising questions. The three highest hassles for transfer
students were (1) determining which advisor is appropriate for particular
questions, (2) receiving adequate information about sources of scholarships,
and (3) learning which courses will count toward requirements. The three lowest
hassles reported by transfer students were (1) getting information about
appropriate procedures for applying for graduation, (2) finding out the
procedure to change one's major, and (3) getting unofficial copies of one's
transcript.
Unique concerns of the transfer population were compared
with reported hassles. A comprehensive institutional response was suggested.
Introduction
The college experience is not without strain for most
students. Students in recent years report higher levels of stress than their
predecessors (Koplik & Devito, 1986; Mayes & McConatha, 1982). Transfer
students may experience particular discomfort in the process of migrating from
one institution to another. Because negative stress may hinder transfer student
outcomes, a better understanding of stress can assist university administrators
in improving the undergraduate experience. Transfer Students
Transfer students are a unique clientele in higher
education. The movement from two to four-year institutions increasingly
serves as an pipeline for students from underrepresented racial and socio-economic
groups (Carter & Wilson, 1994).
Various phases in the transfer process have been examined,
from matriculation, to expectations about the receiving institution, to
achievement once there, through retention, and ultimately to graduation. In
matriculation, parental encouragement, having a mother with high educational
aspirations, and having high occupational goals increased the probability of
transferring from a two-year to a four-year college (Velez &
Javalgi, 1987).
Particular emphasis might be placed on strategies to
increase the transfer rate for students of color (Herndon & Leon, 1986).
For example, Native American student representation in
2
higher education, which continues to be minimal, might
well be improved by improved transfer rates from tribal colleges, many of which
are community colleges on the reservation (Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, 1989).
Expectations about the receiving institution can play an
important role in the transfer transition. Incongruence can exist between the
expectations of entering junior college transfer students and the environment
perceived by native (already enrolled) students.
These expectations may be a function of
"newness" rather than of transfer. A later study by Zultowski and Catron
(1976) showed that incoming freshmen and transfer students had similar
expectations of the college environment. Expectations formed before the end of
the first semester at a new institution were related to actual performance at
the end of the first year (Holahan, Curran, & Kelley, 1982). Other
contributions to expectations included perceptions of the demands of the
university (Holahan, et al., 1982), grades at last college, grades expected at
the university, and type of previous college (Holahan & Kelley, 1978).
Miville and Sedlacek (in press) found a conflicting
pattern of similarity and dissimilarity between freshmen and transfer students.
Among the areas of difference were transfer students' significantly higher
interest in counseling for both educational/vocational and emotional/social
concerns.
Once enrolled, transfer students may achieve academically
at
3
lower levels than native students (Durio, Helmick, &
Slover, 1982) although there may not be significant differences in degree
completion rates (Holahan, Green, & Kelley; 1983). Persistence of transfer
students was related to their intent to return, academic performance, academic
satisfaction, academic integration, and perceptions of the practical value of
the academic program (Johnson, 1987).
Hassles Research
Stress research has moved from critical life events to a
focus on daily annoyances. Holmes and Rahe (1967) examined critical life
events, measuring them through the Social Readjustment Rating Scale.
This conceptualization came under criticism for its
inability to accommodate the individually-determined salience of each
event (Rabkin & Struening, 1976). This "your stress is not my
stress" criticism spurred revisions in the model.
Stress research then moved from life events to daily
"hassles", defined as "familiar daily stresses... often taken
for granted because they seem relatively unimportant compared with major life
events." (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 311). The authors argued that individual
appraisal defined the salience and severity of the event.
Appraisal-informed hassles research of recent years
added "uplifts" as an implied counterbalance (Kanner, Coyne,
Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981). Another recent conceptual addition to hassles
research was centrality, the identification of those hassles or
4
categories of hassles which reflect important ongoing
themes in a person's life (Gruen, Folkman, & Lazarus, 1988).
Contemporary hassles research then, focuses on (1)
proximal, rather than distal measures of stress (Rowlinson & Felner, 1988),
(2) participant-determined severity or centrality of the source of
stress, and (3) uplifts as a potential counterbalance.
Stress/Hassles Measures
Stress assessments appear to measure one of two areas: (1)
life events or (2) daily annoyances. The Life Events survey (LES, Sarason,
Johnson, & Siegel, 1978) was based on the life events research of Holmes
and Rahe (1967). The Lazarus research led to the Hassles Scale (HS), and later,
the Brief College Student Hassles Scale (BCSHS; Blankstein, Flett, &
Koledin, 1991). All instruments came under criticism.
HS criticism (Dohrenwend, Dohrenwend, Dodson, &
Shrout, 1984) alleged confounding between frequency and intensity. LES suffered
from the same weakness as the Holmes and Rahe (1967) measure, that is, use of a
priority/severity ratings.
The BCSHS was a refinement of the HS. Items on the BCSHS
reflected hassles experienced by college students (academic, social, and
financial concerns), rather than the hassles (with spouse, job security) described
on the HS. While the instrument was certainly well-tailored to its
college population and psychometrically acceptable, the present study
investigated academic hassles within a particular college of the university.
The experience and insights of previous authors were used to
5
develop a locally-germane survey instrument.
Method
The research was conducted at a large, public university
in the Middle Atlantic region. The institution is predominantly White, with
undergraduates comprising approximately 74% of enrolled students.
As part of an ongoing program evaluation, the academic
dean of the university's social sciences college wished to learn more about the
academic service experiences of students within that unit. Junior students were
selected because they could be surveyed during one academic year and
appropriate service changes could be made before the all-important senior
year.
A large proportion of the students at the university were
transfer students. The responses of native and transfer students were compared
throughout the investigation. The hassles of junior native and transfer
students enrolled in two majors, government and criminal justice were examined.
Instrument
Focus groups of students identified several hassles
encountered by students. Similar to those on the BCSHS, these included
difficulties with academic advising, academic records and registration,
finances, and departmental concerns. With these broad areas in mind, a
preliminary draft instrument was developed and reviewed by administrative and
student staff. Their evaluation informed revision of the survey instrument.
6
Survey
The resulting survey included 31 five-point Likert
scale evaluation items, detailed in Table One. A short demographic section
sought information concerning the participant's gender, major, race, and status
on entry (freshman, transfer). Survey questions sought evaluative responses in
four categories: (1) college advising [14 items], (2) registration [7 items],
(3) finances [2 items], and (4) departmental advising [8 items].
Insert Table 1 about here
The survey was mailed to all junior students majoring in
criminal justice or government and politics (N = 584). Mail and telephone
followup resulted in a return of 342 useable surveys (58%) .
Data analysis
A reliability analysis of survey responses yielded an
overall alpha of .91. Alphas for sections of the survey were: (1) college
advising, .87; (2) registration, .82, (3) finances, .58 „ and (4) department
advising, .81.
Responses were summed for each section to yield four
scores. Mean responses per section were compared between freshmen and transfer
students. Separate T-tests were run for each of the four subsections of
the survey. In each instance, responses from native and transfer students were
compared and significance evaluated after a Bonferroni correction to the alpha
(.05 divided
7
by 4 = .0125). Responses are summarized in Table Two.
Insert Table 2 about here
An analysis of responses concerning advising showed
significant differences in the hassles experienced by freshmen and transfer
students (F = 1.69, alpha < .05), with transfer students more troubled by
advising difficulties at the college level. Supporting Miville and Sedlacek's
(in press) finding, transfer students were not always different from freshmen.
In each of the remaining three categories, registration, finances, and
department advising, the responses of freshmen and transfer students were not
significantly different.
Examination of response means in Table Three showed that
the three highest hassles for transfer students were (1) determining which
advisor is appropriate for particular questions [mean = 2.95, s.d. = 1.81; 8%
indicated that the question did not apply to them], (2) receiving adequate
information about sources of scholarships [mean = 2.86, s.d. = 1.885; 16% 'does
not apply'], and (3) learning which courses will count toward requirements
[mean = 2.715, s.d. = 1.50; .6% 'does not apply']. Transfer students must be
vigilant about the transfer of credits earned elsewhere while continuing
progress toward degree completion. This concern may be reflected in locating
the appropriate person who can most accurately advise the student on courses
which will continue that progress. Concern about scholarship information
8
may follow from the pipeline of under-represented
socio-economic groups from two to four-year institutions.
The three lowest hassles reported by transfer students
were (1) getting information about appropriate procedures for applying for
graduation [mean = 1.29, s.d. = 1.58; 46% of students indicated that the
question did not apply to them], (2) finding out the procedure to change one's
major [mean = 1.57, s.d. _ 1.66, 36% of students indicated 'does not apply'],
and (3) getting unofficial copies of one's transcript [mean = 1.52, s.d. =
1.35; 15% 'does not apply']. All students in this study were of junior status,
and thus were some distance from graduation. Having successfully completed the
administrative aspects of transferring into the institution, they may have less
need to change their major or to receive additional copies of their transcript.
insert Table 3 about here
Discussion
Transfer and native students showed significant
differences on college advising questions. This may point toward both the
greater complexity of transfer student needs in college advising and their
higher expectations of service providers at this institutional level.
Transfer students bring with them a greater degree of
academic diversity in preparatory courses and curricula. In
9
addition, fulltime jobs and family responsibilities can
more frequently occupy the time of a transfer student than that of a native
student, offering more competition for their time from outside the university
(Miville & Sedlacek, in press). Thus greater academic complexity, coupled
with less time in which to resolve administrative disparities can leave
transfer students frustrated when their expectations of smooth institutional
change are thwarted. Greater responsiveness to students as consumers may be
warranted.
The hassles survey included a closing question seeking
general comments about academic hassles that the student might have
encountered. These comments were transcribed verbatim and anonymously, then
shared with the assistant dean of the college in question. Shortly thereafter,
a new series of training sessions were instituted on academic advising as well
as other steps to further improve service to students. This type of
responsiveness may increase retention of transfer students in the years to
come.
The needs of transfer students might be addressed not only
in the departments and colleges but also on a comprehensive institutional
level, much like that advocated for commuter students by Jacoby (1989). Miville
and Sedlacek (in press) suggest alternate forms of intervention such as mail or
telephone, as well as weekend scheduling of events to meet the needs of
transfer students. With the advent of electronic communication and distance
learning technologies, some of the
10
more routine administrative needs of transfer student may
be more quickly serviced remotely.
The stress of being a transfer student may be attributed
in part to daily administrative hassles. By their complexity and diversity,
transfer students may be more susceptible to these difficulties. By their
experience and consumer-oriented wariness, transfer students may have
higher expectations of the receiving institution than do native students. A
comprehensive institutional response to transfer students may bring with it a
higher level of service for all students.
References
Blankstein, K. R. , Flett, G. L., & Koledin, S.
(1991). The Brief College Student Hassles Scale: Development, validation, and
relation with pessimism. Journal of College Student Development, 32(3),
258-264.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
(1989). Tribal colleges: Shaping the future of Native America.
Princeton, NJ: Author.
Carter, D. J. & Wilson, R. (1994). Twelfth annual
status report 1993: Minorities in higher education Washington, DC: American
Council on Education.
Dohrenwend, B. S., Dohrenwend, B. P., Dodson, M., &
Shrout, P. W. (1984). Symptoms, hassles, social supports and life events: The
problem of confounded measures. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 93, 222-230.
Durio, H. F., Helmick, C. K, & Slover, J. T. (1982) A
comparison of aptitude and achievement between transfer engineering students
and students entering engineering as freshmen at a major university. Education
Research Quarterly, 7(2), 4250.
Gruen, R. J., Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R. S. (1988).
Centrality and individual differences in the meaning of daily hassles. Journal
of Personality, 56(4), 743-762.
Herndon, S., & Leon, D. (1986). Strategies to improve
the transfer rate of minority students. Journal of College Student Personnel,
27(4), 366-367.
Holahan, C. K., Curran, L. T., & Kelley, H. P. (1982).
The formation of student performance expectancies: The relationship of student
perceptions and social comparisons. Journal of College Student Personnel,
23(6), 497-502.
Holahan, C. K., Green, J. L., & Kelley, H. P. (1983).
A 6-year longitudinal analysis of transfer student performance and
retention. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24(4), 305310.
Holahan, C. K, & Kelley, H. P. (1978). The
relationship of characteristics of entering transfer students and their
previous colleges to their attitudes and performance. Educational Research
Quarterly, 3(1), 58-66.
Holmes, T. H. & Rahe, R. H.. (1967). The social
readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11,
213218.
Jacoby, B. (1993). The student-as-commuter:
Developing a comprehensive institutional response. ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 7. Washington, D.C.: School of Education and Human
Development, The George Washington University.
Johnson, H. T. (1987). Academic factors that affect
transfer student persistence. Journal of College Student Personnel,
28(4), 323-329.
Kanner, A. D., Coyne, J. C., Schaefer, C., & Lazarus,
R. S. (1981). Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: Daily hassles and
uplifts versus major life events. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1),
1-38.
Koplik, E., K. & Devito, A. J. (1986). Problems of
freshmen: Comparison of classes of 1976 and 1986. Journal of College Student
Personnel, 27, 124-131.
Lazarus, R. S. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress,
appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Mayes, A. N. & McConatha, J. (1982). Surveying
students needs: A means of evaluating student services. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 23, 473-476.
Miville, M. L. & Sedlacek, W. E. (in press). Transfer
students and freshmen: Similarities and differences. NASPA (National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators) Journal.
Rabkin, J. G. & Struening, E. L. (1976). Life events,
stress, and illness. Science, 194, 1013-1020.
Rowlinson, R. T. & Felner, R. D. (1988). Major life
events, hassles, and adaptation in adolescence: Confounding in the
conceptualization and measurement of life stress and adjustment revisited. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(3), 432-444.
Sarason, I. G., Jonson, J. H., & Siegel, J. M. (1978).
Development of the life experiences survey. Journal of Clinical and
Consulting Psychology, 46, 932-946.
Velez, W. & Javalgi, R. G. (1987). Two-year
college to four-year college: The likelihood of transfer. American
Journal of Education, 96(1), 81-94.
Zultowski, W. H. & Catron, D. W. (1976). High
expectations among transfer student and college freshmen: A further analysis of
the transfer myth. Journal of College Student Personnel, 17 (2) , 123-126.
Table 1
Hassles survey questions
Students were asked to indicate the degree to which the
following items were a hassle:
College advising
1. Being able to
schedule an appointment with my advisor within about a week's wait.
2. Finding out the
procedure to change my major.
3. Going through the
procedure to change my major.
4. Finding out the
procedure to complete a drop/add form.
5. Getting the
appropriate people to sign/stamp my drop/add form.
6. Determining which advisor (peer advisor, professional
advisor, graduate student advisor, department advisor) is appropriate for
particular questions.
7. The hours during
which college advising office are open.
8. Getting
unofficial copies of my transcript.
9. Having the
College part of my audit complete.
10. Getting accurate
answers to my advising questions through a phone call to the College office.
11. Getting my
questions handled quickly when I visit the College office at [location].
12. Having my
questions understood at the [college location].
13. Getting accurate
answers to my questions at the [college location].
14. Locating written
information about deadlines for College procedures.
Registration
1. Determining if a course is closed.
2. Determining the correct procedures for wait-list
check-in.
3. Determining if a course is cancelled.
16
4. Getting corrections
made to my transcript.
5. The hours during
which the records and registration office is open.
6. Getting
information about appropriate procedures for applying for graduation.
7. Receiving
sufficient information to enable me to register through [automated registration
via telephone call].
Finances
1. Receiving
adequate notice about administrative fees, such as transcript fees, graduation
fees, etc.
Receiving adequate information about College sources of
scholarships.
Departmental advising
1. Determining the
appropriate procedure to oversubscribe a course.
2. The hours the
department advising office is open.
3. Having the
department part of my audit completed.
4. Learning about
changes to the degree program I am pursuing.
5. The accuracy of
advising information I receive about my major.
6. Finding the
advising hours of my academic advisor.
7. Obtaining
information about careers that have been pursued by graduates from my major.
8. Learning which
courses will count toward requirements.
Table 2
|
Table 2: Means (*) and Standard Deviations by
Survey Subsection (Higher Scores indicate Higher Hassles) |
||||||
|
|
Transfers |
Natives |
|
|
||
|
|
Mean |
S.D. |
Mean |
S.D. |
F. sig. |
|
|
College Advising |
28.74 |
14.56 |
26.46 |
11.2 |
1.69 |
** |
|
Registration |
13.1 |
7.17 |
12.86 |
7.61 |
1.13 |
|
|
Finances |
4.84 |
2.85 |
4.97 |
3 |
1.11 |
|
|
Dept. Advising |
17.63 |
8.24 |
17.22 |
8.34 |
1.03 |
|
Scores within each survey subsection could range from:
College advising: 14 to
70
Registration : 7 to 35
Finances : 2 to
10
Dept. advising : 8 to 40
Low scores indicated that the area did not present much
hassle to the student. Each individual question was to be answered using a five-point
Likert scale.
Significant at alpha = .05, two-tailed
|
Table 3: Means, standard deviations, and 'does not
apply' [DNA] percentages by item |
|||||||
|
|
Transfers |
Natives |
|
||||
|
|
Mean |
s.d. |
DNA |
Mean |
s.d. |
DNA |
|
|
College Advising |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Schedule advisor appt. |
2.05 |
1.6 |
5.8 |
1.69 |
1.26 |
9.4 |
|
|
2. Find proced. Change
major |
1.51 |
1.67 |
35.5 |
1.56 |
1.29 |
25.3 |
|
|
3. Do change major |
1.56 |
1.8 |
38.4 |
1.64 |
1.59 |
28.2 |
|
|
4. Find proceed. Drop/add |
1.71 |
1.34 |
8.7 |
1.39 |
0.78 |
4.1 |
|
|
5. Getting drop/add signed |
2.53 |
1.67 |
8.7 |
2.4 |
1.47 |
7.1 |
|
|
6. Which advisor to ask |
2.95 |
1.8 |
7.6 |
2.75 |
1.54 |
6.5 |
|
|
7. Hours when office open |
2.19 |
1.38 |
1.7 |
1.99 |
1.3 |
3.5 |
|
|
8. get unoffic. Transcript |
1.52 |
1.35 |
15.1 |
1.45 |
0.99 |
9.4 |
|
|
9. Get college audit |
1.8 |
1.78 |
25.6 |
1.72 |
2 |
30.6 |
|
|
10. Answers via phone |
2.73 |
1.9 |
15.7 |
2.26 |
1.96 |
21.2 |
|
|
11. Questions handled
quickly |
2.05 |
1.48 |
9.9 |
1.89 |
1.47 |
14.7 |
|
|
12. Questions understood |
1.94 |
1.45 |
9.9 |
1.62 |
1.23 |
13.5 |
|
|
13. Accurate answers |
1.95 |
1.33 |
10.5 |
1.75 |
1.4 |
14.1 |
|
|
14. Get deadlines |
2.27 |
1.53 |
9.3 |
2.38 |
1.67 |
11.8 |
|
|
Registration |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Know if course closed |
2.35 |
1.35 |
1.2 |
2.24 |
1.52 |
0.6 |
|
|
2. Find proced. For wait
list |
2.13 |
1.38 |
5.8 |
1.82 |
1.13 |
1.8 |
|
|
3. Know if course is
cancelled |
2.05 |
1.56 |
15.1 |
2.14 |
1.57 |
11.2 |
|
|
4. Corrections to
transcript |
1.95 |
1.8 |
32.6 |
1.69 |
1.94 |
38.2 |
|
|
5. Hours of records office |
1.68 |
1.12 |
4.7 |
1.53 |
1.15 |
10.6 |
|
|
6. Get grad. Proced. Info. |
1.29 |
1.58 |
45.9 |
1.68 |
2.25 |
45.3 |
|
|
7. Info. To reg. Via phone |
1.66 |
1.37 |
11.6 |
1.77 |
1.28 |
4.7 |
|
|
Finances |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Info. About fees |
1.98 |
1.5 |
12.2 |
1.84 |
1.63 |
22.9 |
|
|
2. Info. About
scholarships |
2.86 |
1.89 |
16.3 |
3.13 |
1.9 |
16.5 |
|
|
Dept. Advising |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Find proced. To
oversubs. |
1.98 |
1.61 |
22.7 |
2.27 |
1.58 |
12.9 |
|
|
2. Advising office hours |
1.91 |
1.38 |
4.7 |
1.84 |
1.25 |
5.9 |
|
|
3. Dept. audit |
1.61 |
1.68 |
27.3 |
1.79 |
2.15 |
28.8 |
|
|
4. Learning program
changes |
2.31 |
1.55 |
11 |
2.25 |
1.51 |
12.4 |
|
|
5. Accuracy of advising
info |
2.62 |
1.51 |
1.2 |
2.31 |
1.45 |
4.1 |
|
|
6. Find advising hours |
2 |
1.37 |
4.7 |
1.94 |
1.47 |
10 |
|
|
7. Get career info. |
2.5 |
1.77 |
16.3 |
2.65 |
1.81 |
15.3 |
|
|
8. Learn which courses
count |
2.72 |
1.5 |
0.6 |
2.18 |
1.24 |
1.2 |
|