A Survey of Former GC Students
by
Cathrine Wambach, Jennifer Hatfield, Mike Merabella and Jennifer Franko
General College Office of Research and Evaluation
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
October, 2001
download
in PDF format
Executive Summary
The mission of the General College of the University of Minnesota is to prepare underprepared students for transfer to degree granting colleges of the university. The GC curriculum and student services have evolved in directions that have promoted increased transfer rates. While objective measures of success such as retention and transfer rates are improving, understanding the student experience in the college is important to continuing improvements. The purpose of this survey was to gather the opinions of students who have recently transferred from GC to other U of M colleges about various components of the GC curriculum and support services. A second purpose was to assess students’ confidence in their academic skills. A final purpose was to gain insight into what students perceive to be barriers to graduation from the U of M.
The survey was sent by e-mail to 1329 students who entered GC between 1995 and 2000 and later transferred to another U of M college. The response rate was 425, 32%. A sample of 100 non-respondents was selected to receive a paper copy of the survey. Of that group, 16 responded. Compared to non-respondents, the respondents were more likely to be female and white.
The survey found low levels of dissatisfaction with GC courses and advising. Most students, 74%, said they would enroll again in GC. Students who said they would not enroll again had negative attitudes towards many aspects of their GC experience, while students who would enroll again had positive attitudes toward their experiences. Most students, 78%, reported feeling stigmatized by the low opinion their peers held of GC.
In evaluating the extent to which GC helped them achieve academic goals, students were most likely to report that GC helped them appreciate diversity, meet new people and make a good transfer and major decision. They were less likely to report that GC helped them acquire academic skills in reading, mathematics and oral communication. Students reported that they liked many features of GC such as the mid-term grade reports, small classes, frequent contact with advisors and emphasis on cultural diversity. Students also reported high confidence in their current academic skills, and few perceived barriers to graduation. Comments on students’ best and worst experiences focused primarily on good and bad experiences with individual courses and advisors and on university and college policies.
While the survey suggests that students who transfer from GC were equipped to succeed after transfer, the survey also suggested some areas for continued attention. The first area is the continued presence of negative attitudes toward GC and GC students among other U of M students. This is a long-standing issue that deserves continued attention. Second, the curriculum seems to challenge some students more than others and this phenomenon deserves more investigation. Third, issues surrounding use of Appleby Hall deserve continued discussion.
Introduction
The General College (GC) at the University of Minnesota was founded in 1932 to provide an alternative to baccalaureate degree programs for students who are not preparing for professional school, but “who carry on most of the world’s business” (Moen, 1983). Initially the college was conceived of as a Junior College that awarded Associate degrees. Over the years, GC has been reshaped to fit the changing needs of Minnesotans. Today, the college is focused on the preparation of underprepared students for transfer to schools and colleges housed within the University as well as other institutions of higher education. According to the GC mission statement, the college:
provides a strong connection to the University community for students seeking to develop their academic potential . . . provides an environment for a diverse population of students, faculty, and staff and seeks to encourage multicultural perspectives in activities . . . enrolls and prepares for admission to University degree programs, students who require special preparation because of personal circumstances or previous education . . . serves those students who can best benefit from their early integration into the University and who are willing to direct their energies to a rigorous baccalaureate education (General College Mission).
Preparation for successful transfer to degree granting colleges is the core mission of GC. In order to be eligible for transfer, GC students must complete at least 24 credits with a C average. Some U of M colleges require more credits and higher grades for admission. Since the mid-1990s, the rate of transfer for GC students has been about 58% (Hatfield, 2001). Research suggests that GC students who transfer to degree granting colleges within the University complete degrees at the same rate as other transfer students (Wambach & delMas, 1996). In 1995, Wambach and Woods surveyed the GC transfers within the University to determine students’ opinions of how well GC prepared them for their current coursework. Students were also asked to evaluate aspects of the GC curriculum and advising services. While the majority of respondents in this study were happy with the experiences they had in GC, about 20% expressed dissatisfaction with their GC experience. One of the themes that emerged from the dissatisfied group was their belief that their GC courses were not challenging enough. In order to further explore this topic, GC third quarter freshmen were asked to compare the level of challenge in their GC courses to the courses they took in high school (Wambach, Thatcher & Woods, 1996). This survey found that most GC students believed their GC courses were more challenging than their high school courses. The experience of higher challenge was greatest for students from urban high schools and smallest for students from suburban high schools. Responses to the survey suggested that the college curriculum was fulfilling its goal of addressing the needs of students who had not been exposed to a rigorous, college preparation curriculum in high school.
Since the mid-1990s, the GC curriculum and support services have continued to evolve. The size of the curriculum has been reduced and teaching strategies designed to both challenge and support students have been more fully implemented. Advising services have focused on the transfer process and institutional mechanisms that promote transfer have been implemented. In addition, as the other freshmen admitting colleges at the U of M have raised their admissions standards, the GC student body has changed to include more students who were previously admitted to degree granting colleges creating an even more academically diverse student group.
The purpose of the present study was to gather the opinions of recent GC alumni about various components of the GC program and gain some insight into the self-perceptions of this group. A second purpose of the study was to gain insight into what students consider current barriers to their continued progress towards graduation from the University of Minnesota.
Method
All students who entered GC sometime between 1995 and 2000 and were enrolled in classes in another college at the University of Minnesota at the time of the study were identified as possible participants. However, students who had requested that information about their addresses be suppressed were excluded from the subject pool. Out of a total of 1,329 potential subjects, 425 participated in the study, a response rate of 32%.
The characteristics of respondents were compared to those of non-respondents to test the assumption that the respondents were a representative sample of the population. Respondents and non-respondents were compared on sex, ethnicity, year of first enrollment, current college of enrollment, type of high school, cumulative GPA, GPA while in GC, and credits completed in GC. There was a significant difference between the groups on sex, with the respondents more likely to be female (54.2%) rather than male (45.8%), and the non-respondents more likely to be male (52%) rather than female (48%), Pearson Chi-Square (1) = 4.59, p. = .033. There was also a significant difference between the groups on ethnicity, Pearson Chi-Square (1) = 4.48, p. = .03. Students of color were underrepresented among respondents (23.8%) and over represented among non-respondents (29.4%). White students were over represented among respondents (76.2%) and under represented among non-respondents (70.6%). There were no significant differences between the groups on other variables.
The population of transferred students represented 16 different collegiate units. Sixty-two percent (825) were enrolled in the College of Liberal Arts, 7.2% (96) were enrolled in the College of Education and Human Development, 6.6% (87) were enrolled in the College of Human Ecology, 5.5% (73) were enrolled in the Institute of Technology, and 5.4% (72) were enrolled in the College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Science. In order to examine the communities of origin for the transferred student population, we classified high schools as urban (Minneapolis and St. Paul, public), suburban (Twin Cities suburbs), non-Metro (outside the Twin Cities Metropolitan area), private, and non-Minnesota. The suburban group was the largest at 49.4%, followed by non-Metro, 16.3%, non-Minnesota, 15.9%, urban, 10.2%, and private, 7.6%. Since the suburban group was large, we further divided it into four geographic areas, northwest, northeast, southeast and southwest. The southwest suburban group was twice as large as the other groups with 284 students, 21.5% of the total transferred student group. For more detail on the rates of transfer for students by high school see Hatfield, 2001.
One survey was used for the present study (Appendix A). Items for the survey were selected based on a number of procedures. Members of the GC Executive Council, Curriculum Committee and Admissions and Advancement Committee were consulted about topics for the survey. A focus group of former GC students responded to a draft of the questionnaire as did former GC students now serving as teaching assistants. This allowed for multiple perspectives on what topics should be assessed by the survey.
E-mails were sent to all potential participants announcing the study. A copy of the e-mails used to recruit participants for the present study is in Appendix B. The initial e-mail asked students to participate in the study by going to a web address and filling out the survey, which was on-line. Students were asked to enter their university identification number as part of the survey. Those who filled out a survey within the first 14 days and provided their student id number were entered into a lottery for a University of Minnesota Bookstore gift certificate worth $100. After 14 days had passed, a second e-mail was sent to those students who had not yet responded to the survey. A gift certificate for $50 was offered for those who filled out the survey in the next 7 days.
Three weeks after the initial e-mail was sent out, 100 people were selected at random from among those who did not respond to the e-mail survey. They were sent a paper copy of the survey and a postage-paid, pre-addressed, envelope to their home mailing address. Sixteen people filled out the paper copy of the survey. This resulted in an overall response rate of 16% for the paper version of the survey. Data from the on-line survey was automatically entered into a database, while responses from the paper copies of the survey were entered into the same database by hand.
Results of the study were analyzed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics of overall responses to each item are presented below. In addition, comparisons between several groups of interest to General College were made using chi-square statistics to test for proportionate differences between groups. Significance level was set at .01 because the large number of comparisons generated by the analysis increased the risk of random error.
The first set of comparisons was between students who were generally positive about their GC experience and those who were generally negative. The groups were identified on question 13 of the survey, which asked students if they would enroll again in GC. Those who responded that they either definitely or probably would not choose to enroll in GC again given the options they had available to them when they first enrolled were put in the “not enroll again” group (n = 109), while those who stated that they would definitely enroll again were put in the “enroll again” group (n = 94). These groups were comparable in size, which increases the reliability of comparisons between them. In addition to comparing the responses of these two groups on survey items, the academic characteristics of the groups were compared. The groups were found to be comparable in overall grade point average, credits completed and high school rank. The only significant difference between the groups’ academic characteristics was on ACT test scores where the average composite score for the enroll again group was 20.9 and the average score for the not enroll again group was 21.4 (p. < .001).
Since GC serves students who eventually transfer to a wide variety of programs, groups were created to represent the current majors of the respondents. The various majors were categorized into seven groups. These groups were (1) business and applied economics, (2) fine arts, design, and architecture, (3) social sciences, speech, and communications, (4) IT science, engineering, and math, (5) education, (6) health, life, and other sciences, and (7) humanities, journalism, tech writing, and language arts. Since a component of the GC mission is to address the educational needs of urban students of color (SOC), the responses of this group were compared to those of non-SOCs. The SOC group included students who identified themselves as African American, Hispanic, Asian and American Indian. Table 1 presents the ethic background of the participants.
Table 1: Ethnicity of the respondents
|
Ethnicity |
Proportion of respondents |
|
White |
76.2 |
|
Black |
6.6 |
|
Hispanic |
2.8 |
|
Asian |
9.7 |
|
American Indian |
1.2 |
|
Unknown |
3.5 |
Results
The first 18 survey items asked general questions about the students’ application process, their opinions of the advising and classes they had while in GC and their opinions of the advising and classes in their current college, as well as questions about some characteristics of GC.
Question 1 asked students if they applied directly to GC. 63.2% of the students who responded to this survey indicated they did not apply directly to GC. Of the remainder, 24.8% applied directly to GC and 12% could not remember how they applied. Question 2 asked students if they had applied to another four-year college. Most of the students were either accepted at another four-year college (42%) or did not apply to one (48.3). Only 9.4% of the students applied to another four-year school and were not accepted. Students in the not enroll again group were significantly more likely to report having been accepted at another four-year college (52.3%). Students of color were less likely to report being accepted by another four-year college (36.6%). Question 3 asked if the student was accepted by a community college. Nine percent of the respondents indicated that they had been accepted while 90% indicated they did not apply.
Question 4 asked students to rate the quality of their experience with the General College office staff. The majority of responses (81%) were positive. Among the students in the enroll again group there were no negative responses to this item. Among the students in the not enroll again group, 16% rated their interaction with staff as negative.
Table 2: How would you describe your interactions with staff in GC offices?
|
Proportion of respondents |
|
|
Very negative |
.9% |
|
Somewhat negative |
4.5% |
|
Neither negative or positive |
12.7% |
|
Somewhat positive |
37.3% |
|
Very positive |
44.3% |
The next four questions addressed the advising that students received while enrolled in GC as well as the advising they were currently receiving. Results for these questions are in Tables 3 - 6. Most respondents, 65%, indicated they were moderately or very satisfied with their GC advising. Fewer students, 45%, indicated they were moderately or very satisfied with their current advising. There were significant differences between the responses of the enroll again and not enroll again groups. About 40% of the not enroll again group expressed dissatisfaction with GC advising while only 4% of the enroll again group expressed dissatisfaction. There was no difference between the groups in their attitudes toward their current advising. Overall, 43% of the students indicated that they would be interested in receiving some of their current advising through GC. Students of color were significantly more likely to express an interest in receiving on-going advising in GC with 55% of the SOC group indicating they were interested in receiving some advising in GC verses 40.2% of the non-SOC group.
Table 3: How satisfied are you with the advising you received while in GC?
|
Proportion of respondents |
|
|
Very dissatisfied |
8.7% |
|
Dissatisfied |
9% |
|
Somewhat satisfied |
16.3% |
|
Moderately satisfied |
24.5% |
|
Very satisfied |
41% |
Table 4: How satisfied are you with the advising you are currently receiving?
|
Proportion of respondents |
|
|
Very dissatisfied |
5.4% |
|
Dissatisfied |
16% |
|
Somewhat satisfied |
34% |
|
Moderately satisfied |
25.5% |
|
Very satisfied |
18.6% |
Table 5: If you could still receive some on-going advising from your GC advisor, would you?
|
Proportion of respondents |
|
|
Definitely no |
18.6% |
|
Probably no |
17.9% |
|
Maybe |
19.3% |
|
Probably yes |
23.1% |
|
Definitely yes |
20.3% |
The final question in the advising set asked about the extent to which students felt informed about their major before they transferred. As can be seen in table 6, responses to this question were distributed across all responses categories, with only 37% of respondents stating they were well informed about their major before transfer.
Table 6: How well informed were you about your major before you transferred?
|
Proportion of respondents |
|
|
Not at all informed |
10.1% |
|
Slightly informed |
16.3% |
|
Somewhat informed |
35.6% |
|
Well informed |
27.6% |
|
Very well informed |
9.9% |
The next two questions asked students how satisfied they were with their GC courses and those they have taken since transfer. Results for these items are in Tables 7 and 8. About 12% of the respondents reported dissatisfaction with GC classes and about 2% reported dissatisfaction with courses in their present college (2%). Among students in the not enroll again group, 34% were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the GC courses they took, while only 1.1% of those in the enroll again group reported being dissatisfied and none reported they were very dissatisfied with the courses they took while at GC. There was also a tendency for students majoring in IT science and mathematics to be more dissatisfied with their GC courses (20% dissatisfied/very dissatisfied) than were students in other majors.
Table 7: How satisfied are you now with the GC courses you took?
|
Proportion of respondents |
|
|
Very dissatisfied |
3.3% |
|
Dissatisfied |
9.4% |
|
Somewhat satisfied |
20.8% |
|
Moderately satisfied |
37% |
|
Very satisfied |
29% |
Table 8: How satisfied are you with the non-GC courses you have taken since transferring?
|
Proportion of respondents |
|
|
Very dissatisfied |
.5% |
|
Dissatisfied |
1.9% |
|
Somewhat satisfied |
19.3% |
|
Moderately satisfied |
55.7% |
|
Very satisfied |
21.9% |
Question 11 asked students how similar their GC experiences were compared to their expectations about college. Forty-four percent of the students indicated that college was different or very different from what they expected, 25% thought it was somewhat the same and 31% thought it was close to or very much what they expected. The two enroll again groups’ responses to this item were significantly different. Among those students who stated they would enroll again, 32% reported that GC was different from what they expected college to be like, while 60% of the students from the not enroll again group thought GC was different Among the majors groups, the humanities majors were most likely to see college as different from what they expected (55%).
Question 12 asked students about the impact of non-GC students on their experiences in GC courses. Most respondents, 83%, indicated that non-GC students made no difference in their course experiences, while 13.4% believed the non-GC students enhanced their experience and 2.8% indicated that non-GC students detracted from their experience.
Table 9 presents students responses to Question 13, which asked students if they would enroll in GC again. Half of the respondents stated that they either probably or definitely would enroll again in GC given the options available when they originally entered GC. About a quarter of the respondents stated they would not enroll again and the other quarter was not sure. There were differences in students’ responses to this item depending on their current major. Those pursuing a degree in education were more likely than any other major group to say they probably or definitely would enroll again (78%). Those in fine arts, design, and architecture were the least likely to say they either probably or definitely would enroll again in GC (36%).
Table 9: Considering the options available to you when you entered GC, would you enroll again?
|
Proportion of respondents |
|
|
Definitely no |
13% |
|
Probably no |
12.7% |
|
Maybe |
23.8% |
|
Probably yes |
27.6% |
|
Definitely yes |
22.2% |
Question 14 asked students their opinion about how GC students are perceived by non-GC students. The majority, 78.5%, believed that GC was perceived negatively compared to other U of M colleges. About 17% of the respondents suggested that most non-GC students know little about GC and only 4.5% of respondents believed that GC is perceived positively or the same as other colleges. Students of color were less likely to report that GC was perceived negatively by other students (69% versus 82% for non SOCs) and more likely to state that other students knew little about GC (21% versus 15% for non SOCs).
Question 15 asked students their opinion about their GC peers. Results for this question are presented in Table 10. The responses indicate that students are more inclined to view many or most of the other GC students as taking their education seriously.
Table 10: In your estimation, what proportion of your GC classmates took their education seriously?
|
Proportion of respondents |
|
|
Very few |
2.6% |
|
Few |
12.5% |
|
Some |
31.4% |
|
Many |
38.2% |
|
Most |
14.6% |
The two enroll again groups responded differently to Question 15. Negative attitudes toward peers (responses of very few or few) were expressed by 34% of those who would not enroll again, and 6% of those who would enroll again. There were also differences in attitudes towards peers between students in the major groups. Students in education majors were the least likely (4%) to express negative attitudes toward peers and students in the humanities were the most likely (23%) to do so. Students of color were less likely to express negative attitudes toward peers (8%) than were non-SOCs (18%).
Table 11 presents the responses to Question 16, which asked students to rate the overall level of challenge they experienced in GC. The responses to this item were fairly normally distributed, with 61% of the respondents indicating they were at least moderately challenged. Large differences in responses to this item were observed between the enroll again and not enroll again groups. Of those who stated they would not enroll again, only 32% thought their academic experience at GC was at least moderately challenging compared to 93% of those who would enroll again.
Table 11: How challenging was your academic experience in GC?
|
Proportion of respondents |
|
|
Not at all challenging |
13.2% |
|
Somewhat challenging |
25% |
|
Moderately challenging |
31.6% |
|
Challenging |
27.4% |
|
Very challenging |
2.6% |
Differences also emerged when looking at the response to this item according to the major groups. Among students majoring in education, 82% felt at least moderately challenged academically while in GC. They were followed by students majoring in business or applied economics (76%), and students majoring in fine arts (71%). Among students majoring in humanities areas, only 45% felt least moderately challenged, followed by the IT science, engineering and math majors at 55%, social science majors at 57% and health science majors at 61%. Students of color were more likely (67%) to say they were challenged in GC than were non-SOCs (60%).
Question 16 asked students to rate the likelihood that they would graduate from the U of M and question 17 asked students about the likelihood that they would transfer to another college to complete their degree. The vast majority of respondents, 85%, were 100% certain they would graduate from the University of Minnesota. A slightly different number, 73% indicated zero probability of transferring to another college. Less than 4% indicated a 100% probability of transfer.
Table 12 summarizes responses to a set of questions asking students to rate the extent to which GC helped them achieve a variety of goals that are important to the GC mission. Respondents indicated that GC was helpful in many areas related to personal growth, such as helping people to make new friends and appreciate diversity. GC was rated less helpful in some academic areas such as becoming better at math or reading. There were significant differences between the responses of students in the enroll again and not enroll again groups for every question in this set. Those who stated they would not enroll again at GC were consistently and dramatically more negative, attributing far less credit to GC in helping them develop in various areas. Students of color were more positive than non-SOCs about the impact of GC on their reading and writing skills.
Table 12: Rate the extent to which your GC experience helped you achieve these goals
|
Not at all |
Very little |
Some-what |
Very much |
A great deal |
|
|
19. Clarify my educational goals |
10 |
13 |
36 |
30.1 |
10.9 |
|
20. Become a better reader |
22.6 |
22.2 |
33.3 |
14.6 |
7.1 |
|
21. Become a better writer |
11.8 |
12.7 |
30 |
29 |
16 |
|
22. Become better at oral communication |
20.8 |
18.6 |
34.4 |
18.9 |
7.1 |
|
23. Develop a better understanding of mathematics |
29.7 |
18.2 |
26.2 |
14.6 |
10.6 |
|
24. Develop better computer skills |
25.5 |
16 |
29 |
20 |
9 |
|
25. Become involved with college and university organizations and activities |
38 |
23.6 |
23.1 |
9.2 |
5.2 |
|
26. Appreciate diversity |
7.1 |
7.1 |
24.1 |
30.7 |
30.4 |
|
27. Learn to achieve in a variety of course structures |
10.8 |
11.3 |
33.5 |
28.3 |
15.6 |
|
28. Learn about careers |
17.7 |
20.8 |
28.3 |
21.2 |
10.8 |
|
29. Meet new people and make new friends |
7.3 |
11.3 |
29 |
32.5 |
19.3 |
|
30. Become a better test taker |
17.2 |
19.8 |
35.8 |
18.4 |
7.3 |
|
31. Understand myself better as a learner |
14.9 |
11.8 |
30.9 |
27.8 |
13.7 |
|
32. Understand the system and programs at the U of MN |
11.1 |
11.6 |
27.4 |
33 |
16 |
|
33. Make a good transfer and major decisions |
8 |
9.2 |
23.8 |
33.5 |
25.2 |
Results for questions 34 – 38 are presented in Table 13. These items asked respondents to rate GC courses using 5 standard course evaluation items routinely used to evaluate individual courses. Overall, the responses to these items were more positive than negative. As with the previous group of responses, those who stated they would not enroll again had significantly less positive responses than those who would enroll again.
Table 13: In retrospect, please rate the following as they apply to GC classes.
|
GC classes |
Very poor |
Exceptional |
|||
|
34. Overall teaching ability of the instructors |
.5 |
6.4 |
20 |
44.3 |
28.3 |
|
35. Instructors’ overall knowledge of the subject matter |
.5 |
1.7 |
16.7 |
47.2 |
33.3 |
|
36. Instructors’ overall respect and concern for students |
1.4 |
3.5 |
12.3 |
35.6 |
46.5 |
|
37. Overall physical environment of the classrooms |
2.6 |
8 |
25 |
40.3 |
23.1 |
|
38. Academic preparation for classes taken after transfer |
4.2 |
7.1 |
30.4 |
38.2 |
18.6 |
Questions 39-48 asked students to rate their liking for characteristics that are associated with GC. Results for these items are summarized in Table 14. All of these characteristics were rated much more positively than negatively. Students especially liked having small classes, receiving mid-term grade reports and the emphasis on cultural diversity. The least liked feature of GC was having courses that required a lot of writing.
Table 14: Rate the extent to which you liked the following characteristics of GC
|
Characteristic |
Did not like |
liked a little |
liked some |
moderately liked |
Liked a great deal |
Not applicable |
|
39. Frequent contact with advisors |
8.7 |
8 |
13 |
23.6 |
40.6 |
5.9 |
|
40. Small classes |
2.4 |
4.7 |
14.2 |
23.3 |
53.5 |
1.7 |
|
41. Having many classes in the same building |
17.2 |
8.3 |
16 |
17.2 |
39.4 |
1.2 |
|
42. Taking courses which require a lot of writing |
11.3 |
14.2 |
26.2 |
30 |
13 |
4.7 |
|
43. Use of instructional technology and multimedia by the instructors |
2.4 |
6.6 |
19.6 |
31.8 |
29 |
9.9 |
|
44. Opportunities to interact with other GC students |
6.4 |
7.8 |
22.2 |
29.7 |
29.5 |
4.2 |
|
45. Emphasis on cultural diversity |
5.2 |
5.2 |
15.6 |
28.5 |
40.3 |
4.5 |
|
46. Sensitivity to students with disabilities |
1.9 |
4.2 |
10.4 |
23.3 |
38 |
21.5 |
|
47. Access to tutoring in math and writing |
2.4 |
4.2 |
12 |
22.4 |
41.5 |
16.7 |
|
48. Receiving mid-term grade reports |
5 |
3.3 |
13.7 |
21.2 |
53.8 |
2.4 |
Consistent with the previous results, those who would not enroll again were more negative across all items. In this case, however, the differences were due mostly to the extremely positive ratings given to GC characteristics by students who said they would enroll again. The responses of the not enroll again group tended to still be positive, but less so than the enroll again group. Students of color were more positive than non-SOCs in their attitudes towards frequent contact with advisors, the use of instructional technology and multimedia, opportunities to interact with other GC students, and the emphasis on cultural diversity.
Results for questions 49-60, which asked respondents to assess their current skill level in various areas, are presented in Table 15. The majority of respondents rated themselves as high or very high on every skill except solving mathematical problems. Skills that were especially highly rated included reading, writing papers, working in groups, making presentations, using computers and choosing courses. There were no differences between the responses of the enroll and not enroll again groups to these items.
Some of the responses to these items differ according to major. For example, more than twice the percentage of respondents from the IT science, engineering, and math group rated their “solving mathematical problems” skill as very high compared to any other group. Students of color and non-SOCs responded similarly to the items except for test taking, where students of color expressed somewhat less confidence in their skills.
Table 15: How would you describe your current level of skill in each of the following areas?
|
Skills |
Very low |
Low |
Medium |
High |
Very high |
|
49. Reading |
.2 |
1.9 |
22.9 |
40.8 |
34 |
|
50. Taking tests |
.9 |
5.7 |
42.9 |
35.8 |
14.4 |
|
51. Writing papers |
.7 |
3.1 |
25.5 |
40.3 |
30.2 |
|
52. Solving mathematical problems |
5.2 |
16.3 |
40.3 |
21.5 |
16 |
|
53. Working in groups |
0 |
2.4 |
18.2 |
36.8 |
42.5 |
|
54. Making presentations in class |
2.4 |
7.8 |
22.6 |
39.4 |
27.4 |
|
55. Using computers for course work |
.2 |
.7 |
13.2 |
33 |
52.4 |
|
56. Using computers for communication |
.5 |
.5 |
11.1 |
29.7 |
57.8 |
|
57. Using the library |
1.2 |
7.8 |
25 |
34.7 |
31.1 |
|
58. Managing time |
1.4 |
11.1 |
30.9 |
34.2 |
22.2 |
|
59. Choosing courses, planning a program |
.7 |
2.6 |
19.8 |
37.3 |
39.4 |
|
60. Contacting faculty and staff |
.7 |
4.2 |
25.2 |
37 |
32.3 |
Questions 61-74 asked students to assess the degree to which various things might act as barriers to the completion of a degree at the University of Minnesota. Results for these items are reported in Table 16. The variable rated as most likely to interfere with graduation was the possible lack of access to desired and/or necessary classes. Not too far behind this was a lack of financial aid. Students of color were more likely than other students to report barriers to graduation. The barriers they identified included financial aid, access to courses and programs, problems passing classes, need to support children or family members, and personal problems.
Table 16: Below is a list of some items that could potentially be barriers to graduating. Please rate each item regarding the degree to which it may affect your graduating from the University of Minnesota.
|
Barrier |
Very low |
Low |
Medium |
High |
Very high |
|
61. Lack of financial aid |
39.4 |
19.8 |
20 |
11.6 |
8.3 |
|
62. Availability/access to desired major |
43.9 |
20.8 |
17.9 |
9 |
6.6 |
|
63. Access to desired and/or necessary classes |
29.5 |
22.2 |
22.2 |
14.6 |
10.4 |
|
64. Personal debt |
44.1 |
22.4 |
14.2 |
11.6 |
7.1 |
|
65. Transportation/parking issues |
47.2 |
20.8 |
15.1 |
9 |
7.1 |
|
66. Problems passing required classes |
48.6 |
26.7 |
16.5 |
4.2 |
3.1 |
|
67. Lack of study space |
50.7 |
25.2 |
14.6 |
6.4 |
2.4 |
|
68. Opportunities to work full time |
46.5 |
22.2 |
17.7 |
8 |
4.5 |
|
69. Need to support children or family members |
81.8 |
7.3 |
5.9 |
1.7 |
1.4 |
|
70. Health related issues |
76.2 |
11.3 |
6.8 |
2.6 |
1.7 |
|
71. Personal problems (not including family) |
53.3 |
22.4 |
13.2 |
6.1 |
2.8 |
|
72. College doesn’t fit current goals/lifestyle |
67.7 |
18.9 |
8.7 |
2.4 |
.9 |
|
73. Desire to pursue other educational opportunities |
63.2 |
16.3 |
12.3 |
5.7 |
1.2 |
|
74. Lack of accommodation for disabilities |
84 |
7.3 |
5.4 |
.9 |
.5 |
The final section of the survey asked students to describe their best and worst experience in GC. The full text of these responses, edited to remove individuals’ names and course numbers, are presented in Appendices F and G. These free response items were categorized independently by four GC staff members who then met and achieved consensus on the categories and the placement of each response. Statements were placed in up to four categories. Fourteen categories of response were identified for the best GC experience responses. The categories and numbers of statements in each category are presented in Table 17. The most common theme was positive comments about specific classes for example: “the movie class I took.” Second most frequent were positive comments about instructors such as this comment: “Science Professors gave me the confidence I needed to move on to CLA and then IT to further my education. They're really great professors.” Third most common were positive comments about advisors, for example: “My advisor was wonderful and helped me every step of the way.” Fourth most common were comments about making friends such as “Meeting new people with different cultural backgrounds.” Finally, the fifth most frequent comment concerned personal growth such as “I learned a lot of things about myself and what I was capable of doing.”
Responses to the question asking students to describe their worst experiences in GC are presented in Table 18. The most common responses in this category were negative comments about specific classes or instructors such as: “I had a science class taught by a graduate student who was not very helpful; I eventually dropped the course.”
Next most common were comments that were classified as other because they did not readily fit into any category or were actually positive comments such as this one: “There was nothing that was extremely bad at GC.” Third most common were comments suggesting that GC could have been more challenging such as: “I didn't feel that GC prepared me at all. I felt like I was still in high school.” In the fourth most common category of response, students expressed the opinion that they were viewed as inferior because they were a GC student: “The ignorance of non-GC students who would make negative comments about GC when they really didn’t know much about it.” Finally the fourth most common type of comment focused on student behavior in Appleby Hall such as “the smokers on the stairways” and “lack of quiet study space.”
Table 17. Themes for comments on best experiences in GC
|
Theme number |
Theme content |
Number of Comments |
|
1 |
The overall support, availability, open communication, and expertise of instructors (Personable teachers, lab and lecture instructor were passionate and knowledgeable on the subject). |
89 |
|
2 |
The overall support, availability, open communication, and expertise of advisers (Being able to just stop into my advisors office if I just had a quick question). |
62 |
|
3 |
Comments about specific classes and/or disciplines (I very much enjoyed the world history class that I took). |
95 |
|
4 |
Student viewed GC as a point of access to the University (The ability to get my foot in the door at the University). |
5 |
|
5 |
Student felt GC helped them transition from high school to the University, exposed them to the University (broad statements such GC is great and helped in some way). |
21 |
|
6 |
Social integration – meeting friends, developing various relationships, feeling part of a community. |
36 |
|
7 |
Developing academic skills and intellectual processes. Feeling as if GC prepared them for transfer (better reader, and writer). |
21 |
|
8 |
Personal growth, personal achievement, or metacognitive skills (I received really high grades, gain of self-awareness, Dean’s list, growth in individual attributes such as leadership. |
26 |
|
9 |
GC space use (class size, classes in same building). |
22 |
|
10 |
Instructional characteristics or instructional support (Taking a variety of classes, that aren't simply a Midterm/Final type of class, TA, Labs, ARC, MSRs). |
24 |
|
11 |
Diversity (exposure to various cultures, backgrounds). |
11 |
|
12 |
Items that stated transfer out or something similar (Transferring out). |
16 |
|
13 |
Other. |
21 |
|
14 |
General comments about student completing core requirements, LE requirements, etc. |
5 |
Table 18: Themes for comments on worst experiences in GC
|
Theme number |
Theme content |
Number of comments |
|
1 |
The GC curriculum was not challenging and/or didn’t prepare me for transfer |
34 |
|
2 |
Class(es) I took while in GC had little or no relevance after transfer. |
22 |
|
3 |
There was lack of class availability in the GC curriculum (i.e., couldn’t get into classes I needed). |
3 |
|
4 |
Comments about specific courses. |
68 |
|
5 |
University policies were perceived as unfair or barriers to academic progress/transfer. |
17 |
|
6 |
GC instructional policies were perceived as barriers to academic progress/transfer. |
13 |
|
7 |
GC advising policies were perceived as barriers to academic progress/transfer. |
6 |
|
8 |
Looked down upon or viewed as inferior because a GC student |
27 |
|
9 |
GC climate is similar to high school. |
19 |
|
10 |
Issues with the use of space, smoking in front of building, noisy hallways, uncomfortable rooms. |
22 |
|
11 |
Issues with peer climate. |
21 |
|
12 |
I felt my adviser was discouraging, negative, or inaccessible |
15 |
|
13 |
I felt my adviser lacked expertise or was not knowledgeable |
19 |
|
14 |
Comments about instructor behavior. |
23 |
|
15 |
Comments about instructor competency |
6 |
|
16 |
other |
57 |
Discussion
Results of the study suggest that, in general, former GC students have positive attitudes towards their GC experience. Students rated the courses and quality of instruction as good and were positive about important elements of the GC experience such as intensive advising and multiculturalism. In fact, the college’s emphasis on multiculturalism and diversity appears to be one of the features most appreciated by former GC students. Former GC students are confident about their current skills and confident that they will graduate from the U of M. There are, however, some areas of concern for the college.
The first area of concern is the strong belief that as GC students, they were viewed as inferiors by other university students. While the location of resources for less qualified students in a collegiate unit allows the college faculty and staff to pay attention to the needs of these learners, it also places students in the position of being labeled as deficient. Many GC students applied to and were accepted by other four-year colleges. Several students used the survey as an opportunity to challenge the admissions process that placed them in GC. They did not see themselves as deficient, and resent the universities decision to admit them to a unit that is stigmatized.
The second area of concern is the perception of 38% of the respondents that they were not very challenged in GC. This perception was particularly strong among students who reported they would not enroll again. One possible explanation for this finding is that as students admitted to GC have become better qualified, they are finding the curriculum less challenging. This possibility is supported by the finding that urban students of color, who were less likely to have experienced an intense college preparatory curriculum in high school, were more likely to report that the college’s curriculum was challenging. Another possibility is that freshmen in general do not find the first year of college very challenging. This question can be addressed by surveying university students who did not begin in GC. It is also possible that the stigma attached to GC, and the view of the larger community that GC is like high school, colors students perceptions of the curriculum and causes them to view it as easy. This question could be addressed by surveying non-GC students who enrolled in GC courses.
A third area of concern is that many students expressed the opinion that their GC experience did not meet their expectations for what college would be like. Since we know little about GC students’ expectations for college this is an area worthy of further investigation.
A fourth area of concern is that students expressed the opinion that GC courses did not help them develop their academic skills in some critical areas such as mathematics and reading. Complaints about university and college policies regarding mathematics course placement were common. Students’ frustration over having to repeat mathematics courses they took in high school and their poor performance in these courses is not a problem GC can solve alone. While fewer high school students are coming to the university without required preparation in mathematics, many of those who wish to continue their mathematics study find themselves repeating courses they took in high school. Awarding credit for these courses would alleviate much student frustration, but this solution is unlikely to be adopted at the U of M.
Students’ belief that their reading skills did not improve as a result of their GC experience may be influenced by two factors. First, GC does not have a formal reading program, so GC students are not taking reading courses. While there is reason to believe that students’ reading skills are improving as they read for their courses, these gains may not be salient to the students. Also, students may enter GC with strong confidence in their reading ability, and believe they have no need for improvement in this area. The finding that students of color were less likely to express strong confidence in their reading skills suggests that GC consider adding more support for the development of reading and study skills.
Finally, several students mentioned student and staff behaviors that they believe detract from the image of the college. For example, while many students like having their classes in Appleby Hall, many others believed that some GC classes should be located outside the building. Several students complained about noisy hallways and lack of quiet study space in the building. These issues will be ongoing while the U has important buildings off-line for remodeling. Finally, several students complained about the use of the front steps as a smoking area.
Despite these concerns, GC faculty and staff have much to celebrate. Former GC students are succeeding in the university, confident of their skills and committed to earning degrees. Looking back on their GC experience, most of the students who responded to the survey had positive attitudes towards the college and would choose to enter the university through GC if they had to make that choice again. It is clear from the responses that the qualities former GC students value are those that promote community; a responsive faculty and staff, a commitment to diversity and interaction with peers. These core values provide the foundation to build on as ongoing concerns are addressed.
References
General College, University of Minnesota. (n.d.). General College Mission. Retrieved
October 11, 2001, from http://www.gen.umn.edu/gc/mission.html
Hatfield, J. (2001). Rates of intra-university transfer for General College students.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, General College Office of Research and Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.gen.umn.edu/research/ore/transfer_rates.htm#I
Moen, N. W. (1983). General College: The open door through fifty years. General
College Newsletter, 30 (4) 1-15.
Wambach, C. & delMas, R. (1996 May). Protecting access for less qualified students at
a major research university. The Association for Institutional Research 36th Annual Forum, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Wambach, C., Thatcher, K. & Woods, M. (1996). Transition to college courses:
GeneralCollege students’ perceptions of the relationships between high school and college courses. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, General College Office of Research and Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.gen.umn.edu/research/institutional/coll_transition.html
Wambach, C. & Woods, M. (1995). College after transfer: A survey of the curricular
experiences of General College students who transfer within the University. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, General College Office of Research and Evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.gen.umn.edu/research/institutional/transfer_survey.html