First Year Seminars Effectiveness in Developing Competencies in Critical Thinking Learning Objectives Between Bridge and Non-Bridge Students at the University of Wyoming Brett Ralston and Alexander Simon University of Wyoming Undergraduate FYS Research HP 4990 Instructor: Janel Seeley May 5th, 2019 Introduction First year seminar courses have been adopted in over 80 percent of universities with the hopes that they can increase student retention and success in higher education. These courses are aimed at giving students a chance to learn about the university, the courses in their specific major, utilizing campus resources, understanding university policies, and pursuing their hobbies and interests (Jaijairam, 2016). These courses were designed in an attempt to achieve a significantly lower drop-out rate for students, as only about 60 percent of students graduate with their degree after six years (NCES, 2018). Many different teaching styles are available depending on what university you’re attending, as there is no set-in-stone model for these courses. Betsy Barefoot, a researcher who has studied much about first year students and seminars, has made a list of these styles, which are shown in figure 1 below. Type of FYS Description Extended Orientation Primarily focused on extending a typical orientation at a college to better adjust students to college life Academic Seminars with Generally A course focused on teaching university learning Uniform Academic Content Across objectives and skills that are taught generally the Sections same across all seminars Academic Seminars on Various Topics A course focused on teaching university learning objectives and skills that are taught potentially through a thematic lens Pre-Professional Seminars A course focused on major specific or career choice skills Basic Study Skill Seminars A course focused on basic study skills that are mainly used for underprepared students, or those that might need more help integrating in to college. Fig 1. The five types of First Year Seminar courses based on Betsy Barefoot’s work (2002) With the intent of increasing student success, student integration, and retention in their institution, the University of Wyoming has begun a push towards requiring FYS courses as an integral part of their curriculum. Due to this push, these courses found their way into the 2015 University Studies Program (USP) requirements. The type of first year seminar that is employed at the university is an academic seminar, available in a variety of forms. These courses attempt to “provide skills and ideologies important for success as a student and lifelong learner” (University of Wyoming, 2015). Within the university there are two tiers of FYS courses. The first is available to any student and designed as any other similar course. The second of these types are Bridge FYS courses, designed for students within the Bridge program—students at-risk for dropping out based upon pre-college factors such as GPA, SAT, ACT, and first-generation status. Bridge began as a program in the 1970s to help students who are nontraditional transition from high school to college. Today Bridge programs are utilized to ensure academic success, with some programs enforcing strict class taking and involvement within the school. The University Bridge program provides a first-year seminar course that is tailored to underprepared students, or those whom do not meet admission guidelines to the university. Those admission guidelines are as follows: An ACT score of 21 or higher, a GPA of 3.0 or higher, an SAT score of 1060 or higher, and the completion of a High School degree. Figure 2 shows the percent of students in the Bridge program that joined below admission guidelines compared with students who are not in the Bridge program at the University of Wyoming within the 2018 academic school year. Percent of Students Meeting University Admission Guidelines in Bridge and Non-Bridge Programs 96.11% 97.73% 69.70% 61.90% Less Than Univesity 38.10% 30.30% Admissions Guidelines Greater Than University Admission Guidelines 3.89% 2.27% Bridge High Non-Bridge Bridge ACT/ Non-Bridge School GPA High School SAT ACT/SAT GPA Fig 2. Data collected from our study showing the percent differences in students in the Bridge program here at the University of Wyoming that are below university admissions guidelines compared to non-Bridge program students (Bridge N = 84, non-Bridge N = 180) Bridge program seminars provide a classroom that has fewer students, which allows more attention from the professor, more help integrating to their new environment, and a peer mentor that is in the class helping students with course material. At the University of Wyoming it is described within the USPs that all first year seminars must meet the standard of teaching the six learning objectives that are aimed at critical thinking, those objectives being: Students will be able to… 1. Access diverse information through focused research, active discussion, and collaboration with peers. Percent of Students 2. Separate facts from inferences and relevant from irrelevant information, and explain the limitations of information. 3. Evaluate the credibility, accuracy, and reliability of conclusions drawn from information. 4. Recognize and synthesize multiple perspectives to develop innovative viewpoints. 5. Analyze one’s own and others’ assumptions and evaluate the relevance of contexts when presenting a position. 6. Communicate ideas in writing using appropriate documentation. These learning objectives are what this research is aimed towards. More specifically, how learning objective competencies differ between Bridge program and non-Bridge program students . Because Bridge program students are at higher risk for dropping out of college, these students should be getting more help integrating within the university in order to increase their academic opportunity. Bridge program first year seminars provide a perfect cohort to compare to with typical students at the university of Wyoming. This research will help guide change that needs to be made—if any—to introductory first year seminar courses at the University of Wyoming. Question How effectively do Bridge vs non-Bridge students meet the FYS core competencies in the required six learning objectives? Hypotheses Ho - Learning objectives and outcomes of the FYS curriculum affects competencies equally amongst the Bridge FYS and non-Bridge FYS. Showing that the learning objectives are helpful to all students despite risk or competency levels already obtained entering college. Ha – The FYS curriculum will affect student’s learning objective competencies more, as the risk of first-year failure increases and level of learning objective competency decreases. Supporting that students who are already at-risk, and who have less experience with learning objective outcomes, need the current FYS curriculum more than other groups of first-year students. Literature Review Over the course of the past several decades research has been conducted on the negatives and positives of First Year Seminars. The first of many examples is a study done by Goodman and Pascarella in 2006, wherein students who took FYS courses had higher retention rates than students who abstained. The initial goal of the study was to quantify differences in outcomes utilizing prior studies specific to First Year Seminars. When looking at an analysis of forty different studies the authors estimated that there is a 5-15% increase, on average, of students who will go on to graduate from University due to their participation in FYS courses. Of paramount importance, however, are confounding variables that contribute to the success of a student; things like grade point average, commitment to education, educational attainment of parents, and other pre-college factors. When these factors are accounted for the retention rates go down compared to prior estimates (Goodman, K., & Pascarella, E. T., 2006). This could mean that individual students, with similar pre-college factors, could need separate learning objectives compared to students matched by a different pre-college factor, in order to have a more effective FYS experience. Examples of this idea already exist, things like Bridge programs where specific programming is used to encourage the success of at-risk students. This can include things like learning how to take notes, transitioning from high school, budgeting, and many other variables on a per-program basis. This same philosophy can be undertaken when designing first year seminar courses. Often these classes will be designed in a way to increase retention, focusing on teaching, as well as how to succeed in college. Another similar study looked at different retention outcomes using regression modeling to gain statistically significant values. They found a similar pattern of about 7% increase retention rate at a 1-year mark (Hendel D., 2007). In addition to this, a study done regionally looked at 14,000 students in a school located in the rocky mountain region, it found a similar correlation between successful completions of FYS courses and persistence (Jenkins-Guarnieri, M., Horne M., Wallis A., Rings J., & Vaughan, A., 2015). By looking at various groups of students and their rate of persistence they were able to quantify the effectiveness. It is important to note however, that a known limiting factor to these two studies was scope of time. Both measured success as either 1-year retention or 1-semester retention, which is not as noteworthy as 2-4-year retention rates. Studies which are longer term are always going to be preferable as their data will help universities conclude which programs will lead to the highest graduation rates among students. Most studies on FYS only look at retention rates of students and first year success, without any measurement of the students’ perceived growth—leaving a hole within the literature. As stated before, there are many studies looking specifically at retention rates and FYS. But also, of importance are their effects on grades, since GPA impacts a student's academic standing and ultimately whether or not they remain in their institution. A study looked at the positive effects of FYS courses effects on both grades and retention. The study found that variables that reflect procedural knowledge are highly predictive of successful academic performance; specifically, those attributed with superior study habits, help-seeking behavior, learning strategies, and time management skills (Permzadian, V., & Credé, M., 2016). The study also mentions the importance of flexibility and maintaining a wide variety of FYS courses, allowing for variation rather than a one size fits all solution. Which comes back to the idea presented earlier that students with similar matched factors—such as being a first-generation student—may require a FYS that is tailored to the matched pre-college factors such as the above mention procedural knowledge. This is a goal of Bridge FYS. To group together students that are at higher risk of dropping out because of pre-college factors, and give them a more guided and helpful introductory course to better their chances of academic success. It is important to make sure they are working just as well or better, at increasing learning objective competencies, than the non-Bridge FYS alternative. Thus, studies which look into the effectiveness of FYS courses overall must be considered when discussing this topic. One of the largest cross-sectional studies done on FYS courses and their impacts on students looked at over 20,000 across institutions in the United States. Individual students’ personal intent to stay with the university was one measurement of noted success from this study that was attributed to First Year Seminars. They looked at many factors such as race, grades, campus involvement, etc. as well as conducted a survey that examined the affect to which FYS involvement got students involved on campus, involved in other courses, campus policies, and peer engagement (Porter & Swing, 2006). Courses which focused on health education and learning skills specifically seemed to correlate with an increased intent to persist, with anywhere from a 14% to 16% positive difference (2006). A similar study that was done around the region of the University of Wyoming, looked at 14,000 students and found a similar correlation between successful completions of FYS courses and persistence (Jenkins-Guarnieri, M., Horne M., Wallis A., Rings J., & Vaughan, A., 2015) The individual factors of these courses are important to understand. Collectively they may look the same, but the specific factors, which made these courses effective, must be examined and replicated. With university and higher education institutions adding FYS courses into their curriculums, it is valuable to look at examples of specific FYS courses and their benefits to students. According to a meta-analysis done in 2016 on FYS and the improvements of grades and retention in higher education, the biggest factors of degree completion are 1st year persistence and GPA after the first year. Persistence in this context is being used to describe remaining in school a year more than projected. The 1st year persistence is of greater importance as 70% of those students who persisted then go on to complete a degree (Permzadian, V., & Credé, M., 2016). Meaning the greater number of students a university can get to persist through their first year, the greater the number of accomplished degrees. If a Bridge program is able to adequately increase the percent of at-risk students who persist the first year then it would very valuable to a four-year institution. It should be important to not only evaluate how much FYS courses increase learning objective competency at the University of Wyoming, but also how well those competencies influence persistence rates between Bridge and non-Bridge students. Persistence is important because staying with a university one more year instead of dropping out the same year, isn’t much of a noteworthy measurement considering that persistence encourages profit. When institutions only measure the length of time remained in the school, rather than perceived competencies or other data, they cheapen their legitimacy. The perverse profit motive of learning institutions is served when persistence is the key measurement. The Permzadian and Credé paper is important for another reason because of the critiques of FYS courses it provides. They stated in this report that “on average FYS courses have low levels of effectiveness of retaining students, teaching school objectives, and academic success”. The researchers, after analyzing data from FYS seminar types and courses across the nation, have supported that FYS courses will be the most effective if they are an extended orientation type of class, adjustment focused, taught by a professor, target all incoming freshman, not just underprepared, and is a class that is not linked to a learning community (Permzadian, V., & Credé, M., 2016). They found that FYS courses that employ these methods have greater impact on the students. Likely, because of the theories by Porter and Swings’(2006) work, supporting a curriculum focused on: student wellness, interactions with faculty, and a sense of belonging, contribute greatly to a student’s success more than an academic focus or learning objectives (2006). Permzadian, V., & Credé information is valuable as it is a counterargument to our hypothesis that Bridge programs will be more useful for at-risk students than for non-Bridge students. Universities have begun to integrate these focused curriculums and have taken on the development of many individualized disciplinary courses that fit into major-specific roles. This would limit the cross-linked community that Permzadian and Credé’s evidence supports as limiting to student success. For example, a major-specific FYS study on an “Exploring Biology” course focused on increasing the academic success of Biology majors in their introduction to biology. The courses goals were to introduce core biological concepts, not specific content. It was an active learning course and was designed to develop study skills, critical thinking, extracurricular involvement, knowledge of resources on campus, and to instill a sense of self- belonging (Wienhold, C. J., & Branchaw, J., 2018). The study found that students had a 3.7% greater chance of passing introductory biology than those students who did not take the “Exploring Biology” major specific FYS (Wienhold, C. J., & Branchaw, J., 2018), and it also supports that the practices of campus engagement, faculty, and developing a sense of belonging impacts student success during the first year. Similarly, to the biology FYS more major-specific courses that impact a select group of students are shown in two different studies that look at an introduction to nursing FYS, and a music business major FYS. Both were designed and aimed at increasing persistence and learning outcomes in their degree. The study on the introduction to nursing course found that in the first- year 84.4 percent of the 222 students in the pre-nursing track stayed on track, and of those 56 percent said it was because of the FYS they took (Mennenga, H. A., & Tschetter, L., 2013). Similar, to the biology FYS, the course was focused on study skills, success strategies, campus engagement, planning, and belonging. Another major-specific course that measured student satisfaction was a music business FYS. The students who took the course stated that it was “unhelpful and pointless” (Schneller, B., & Wacholtz, L. E., 2018). This study also showed however that students who took this FYS were more confident in their career choices, better able to express their passions for their careers, and felt like they had a grander sense of belonging in comparison to those who did not take the music business FYS (Schneller, B., & Wacholtz, L. E., 2018). Again, the literature shows that these FYS courses that are made for select groups of individuals, when focused on transitionary practices, belonging, and wellbeing of the student, can actually increase student success in a university setting. In order to focus on whether or not Bridge FYS courses are effective or worthwhile, it is important to look at research on Bridge programs and the results yielded from those studies. There are a number of Bridge course studies which look into the effectiveness of these programs for at-risk students. The first of these studies discusses the issues of relative graduation rates compared to other countries, and a growing fear among universities in the United States that they’re not doing enough as educators (Douglas & Attewell, 2014). Utilizing data from a multitude of community colleges and 4-year universities the study found that students who attended a Bridge program are 10 percentage points more likely to finish their degree within a 6- year time frame. For black and Hispanic individuals this effect was even higher at 12 percent. A separate study also confirmed this effect, specifically in regard to African-American individuals. (Bir B., Myrick M., 2015). The primary variable in this study was whether or not the student had attended a summer Bridge program or not. Individually this study only shows higher rates of graduation for students who attended entire summer Bridge programs, and although this doesn’t necessarily entail a Bridge FYS course, it comes with similar—if not the exact same—learning objectives and targets as the Bridge FYS courses within our own study. Summer Bridge program effectiveness, on persistence and performance, can be examined through a study done by Cabrera, Miner, and Milem. It looked at University of Arizona’s New Start Summer Program on the 1st-year retention and grades of students. Utilizing data spanning from 1993 to 2009 the researchers were able to find a positive impact on individuals whom attended the program. (Cabrera, Miner, & Milem, 2013). The implications of this research also point to the importance of programs for at-risk individuals and the help they can receive from a simple summer program. Columbia University did similar research, but instead of measuring performance on a point scale the researchers looked at student writing skills (McCurrie M. K., 2009). The measurement was done through a survey and had no regression modeling done after the fact. However, the students did respond on average with higher levels of writing competencies. Which goes along with almost all other research on this specific topic. Overall with Bridge programs there is much research to be done when it comes to FYS courses designed around Bridge programs. The many summer Bridge programs may not offer FYS courses within them, and the ones that do, do not measure it or its effectiveness at teaching the learning objectives. That’s why this research is so important; it’s one of the only projects looking at specifically Bridge First Year Seminars and how they compare to the average after controlling for some pre-college factors. Methods The original survey design was done via panel, with instructors, students, and other faculty weighing-in on what should be asked and how. After the initial survey design was edited and peer-reviewed the second survey design was done as a way of checking up on progress the students had made over the semester. To measure this progress six questions were produced regarding the efficiency of learning objectives. These questions were then given a one to five Likert scale rating and used as a primary measurement of success. Setting Our study focuses on the effectiveness of first year seminars and how they compare to those taken by Bridge students. The survey was given in a large four-year university with less selective enrollment located in the midwestern United States. However, for our study we specifically looked at the effects of Bridge First Year Seminars when compared to other non- Bridge First Year Seminars. Participants Nine hundred and thirty-four surveys were given originally, with only two hundred and eighty-three post-surveys taken. In this study only paired pre- and post- surveys were utilized in analysis, eliminating six hundred and fifty-one submissions. The cohort was paired through student identification numbers. Another thirteen were taken out due to missing or duplicate information. After this two groups were made for comparative analysis, non-Bridge (183) and Bridge students (87). Most respondents to our collective data were women (58.7%) and of the entire group first generation students comprised 25% of the total number of participants. DATA Sources Two surveys were given in-person, one at the beginning of the term (20 items), and the other towards the end of the semester (21 items). These surveys were then collected and organized into varying datasets. Available were nine hundred and thirty four submissions in the pre-survey and two hundred and eighty three within the post, creating a pre/post cohort of two hundred and eighty three, which were utilized in this research. Results The data collected on the University of Wyoming’s first year seminars do show an increase, for all students who participated in the survey, in competency of the first-year learning objectives described in the 2015 USPs for first year seminars as shown in figure 3. Overall Increase In Learning Objective Competencies Amongst All Students 4.20 4.00 3.80 3.60 3.40 3.20 Both Pre- and Post- Learning Objectives Fig. 3 This table shows the pre- and then post- average competencies recorded for all six learning objectives with the “P” representing the post- data. They each have an increase by around 0.3 except Average Competency Recorded access, which has an increase of about 0.4. A paired two-tailed T-test was done on all of the data and the increases were found to be statistically significant (α = 0.05) However, when samples are separated in to Bridge program and non-Bridge programs the data suggests that the increase is about 3% less for Bridge program students than for non-Bridge program students overall as shown in figure 4. Average Increase of Learning Objective Competency for Non-Bridge Program and Bridge Program Students 14.60%* 10.47%* 10.57%* 10.07%* 9.47%* 9.54%* 9.32%* 8.91%* 7.82%* 7.18% 7.26%* 6.15% 5.57% 4.82% Non-Bridge Bridge Learning Objectives Fig 4. This chart shows the average increase in competencies amongst Bridge program and non-Bridge program students with each of the six learning objectives. The,“*”, means that the percent difference was found to be significantly significant (α = 0.05). Linear regression analysis of high school GPAs affects on University of Wyoming GPA of Bridge program students and non-Bridge program students were shown to be a very large Percent Increase predictor of a higher UW GPA after one semester, shown in figure 5. While UW GPA does not seem to be affected at all by the post competencies of students, which can be seen in figure 6. High School GPA's Affect on UW GPA of non-Bridge Students Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 2.87796 0.11140 25.836 < 2e-16 *** UWGPA 0.25097 0.03239 7.747 7.3e-13 *** High School GPA's Affect on UW GPA of Bridge Students Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 2.76180 0.14878 18.563 <2e-16 *** UWGPA 0.15045 0.05755 2.614 0.0108 * Fig 5. This table shows the significant positive correlation that high school GPA has on the University of Wyoming GPA after the first semester and completion of their first year seminar, both with statistically significant p-values. With a lower p-value representing a stronger correlation between the two variables. Affects of Post- Class Learning Objective Competencies on UW GPA for Non-Bridge Students Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 2.61005 0.32577 8.012 1.72e-13 *** AccessP -0.01298 0.10393 -0.125 0.901 SeparateP 0.11042 0.10149 1.088 0.278 EvaluateP 0.08759 0.09474 0.925 0.357 AnalyzeP -0.15637 0.10362 -1.509 0.133 RecognizeP 0.09638 0.11166 0.863 0.389 CommunicateP 0.06223 0.08969 0.694 0.489 Affects of Post- Class Learning Objective Competencies on UW GPA for Bridge Students Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|) (Intercept) 2.84636 0.49657 5.732 2.39e-07 *** AccessP -0.03585 0.27047 -0.133 0.895 SeparateP -0.01254 0.28927 -0.043 0.966 EvaluateP -0.27578 0.27989 -0.985 0.328 AnalyzeP -0.03723 0.32992 -0.113 0.910 RecognizeP 0.06811 0.23461 0.290 0.772 CommunicateP 0.19865 0.22323 0.890 0.377 Fig 6. This table shows no correlation between the post- learning objective competencies and the University of Wyoming GPA after one semester and completion of the first year seminar. With a smaller p-value representing a stronger correlation between the two variables. Discussion/Conclusion The data collected allow us to reject our null hypothesis of first year seminars affecting students equally, despite the risk of dropout. Figure 4 shows that first year seminars for students who are at higher risk for dropping out are less positively impacted by the first year seminar curriculum. However, our alternative hypothesis of first year seminars impacting at-risk students learning objective competencies more positively than not at-risk students can not be supported by this data either. This data seems to suggest first year seminar programs specifically targeted towards students at higher risk for dropping out of college—like Bridge program students—are less effective at increasing the students competencies of the learning objectives than they are for students who participate in the normal first year seminar. This supports Permzadian and Crede’s work, which states that first year seminars should not be separated by students who are less prepared than others, but instead they should be intermixed with all types of students from all preparedness levels (Permzadian, V., & Credé, M., 2016). This data also shows that students who are not as prepared for university level education are not getting an equivalent increase in the learning objectives. This is important as the university believes these learning objectives are important to critical thinking and success within college. Bridge programs provide extra benefits to their students by having smaller class sizes and focusing on skills such as accessing databases, and presenting information, if the extra attention and detail aren’t providing at least equivalent outcomes the allocation of resources comes into question. This fact could also mean that the university is not doing enough for their at-risk students. Another interesting finding from this research is that the linear regression models suggest that the learning objectives have no effect on university GPA, while high school GPA is a strong positive predictor. This is important when analyzing the purpose of the University of Wyoming’s first year seminar courses and the impacts they are supposed to be having on students. Since university GPA is what acts as a standard measure of success and these learning objectives are being taught because they are supposed to increase success, then it should be expected to see a positive correlation within GPA and learning objective competencies—something not observed within our study. This could support Permzadian & Crede’s, and Porter & Swing’s work, both of which are in favor of learning communities, student inclusion/campus engagement, and adjustment to college lifestyles based first year seminars instead of academic skills-based ones (Porter & Swing, 2006 and Permzadian, V., & Credé, M., 2016). It is important to recognize however, that this research did not look at other types of first year seminars which are not academically focused—as none exist without the strict guidance of the learning objectives. It is important for the university of Wyoming to further study the effects of—and change—the 2015 USP first year seminar learning objectives in order to achieve an introductory course that can contribute to student success. The increase in student’s competencies between both groups should also be discussed. The factors for why these increased, and the actual percent they increased amongst students could be contributed to many factors besides the first-year seminars. A few reasons this could be are—but not limited to—as follows: first-year courses that teach similar material, student peer groups, competency level achieved in high school, and student’s ability to find and acquire help. Because all of these possible confounding variables may exist it is very hard to say that first year seminars actually are directly and positively impacting the competencies of the six learning objectives. Limitations The largest limitation to this study has to do with the design of our survey. The pre- and post- survey were both designed with questions that varied slightly and some were even completely different. This can skew data as different questions can invoke different responses. Because of this, this research did not look at the qualitative answers from the pre- and post- surveys, but instead focused on the quantitative competencies recorded, but even these responses have their limitations. The competencies were recorded using a five-point Likert scale. These could have been done on a seven or nine point scale to increase accuracy of the learning objective competencies reported by students. Which leads to another limitation—self-reporting. Looking at student’s pre-college factors to predict a learning objective competency require very tedious researching techniques, so we had to allow students to self report how competent they thought they were at the six listed learning objectives. The last major limitation to this study would be the little use of advanced statistics to acquire results. Only two tailed paired t-tests and linear regression modeling were used to acquire our results. Further Research This study should be replicated with another group of Bridge program students and non- Bridge program students to test the reproducibility of these results. As well as this, a better- designed survey with qualitative questions that ask the same questions in both surveys, and gathers demographic information should be created Demographic information would be important as it allows you to account for more variables that could be confounding, as well as, give you a data set more representative of a larger or different populations. It could also be important to look at other first year courses and what they teach to understand where the increases in the six learning competencies come from. Insight also on whether or not the six learning objectives are even linked to student success would be valuable as well. Discovering this would require a longer cohort study that followed Bridge and non-Bridge students to see if competencies increase throughout the years and if they are correlated with individual students GPAs. If possible research into success of different themes of the first year seminars provided at the university would be interesting in an attempt to discover what teaching practices work best at increasing student success. Conclusion This data on first year seminars at the university of Wyoming on Bridge program and non-Bridge program students does not support first year seminars being more effective for at-risk students. It also does not support that the learning objectives taught in these courses have any effect on student GPA in college. Further research must be done in order to create an introductory course that is contributing to student success for at-risk and not at-risk students. It seems as if the University of Wyoming’s first year seminars for at-risk, and even not at-risk students, are not as effective as they should be, and this problem needs to be addressed. References Bir, B., & Myrick, M. (2015). Summer Bridge's effects on college student success. Journal of Developmental Education, 39(1), 22. Cabrera, N. L., Miner, D. D., & Milem, J. F. (2013). Can a Summer Bridge Program Impact First-Year Persistence and Performance?: A Case Study of the New Start Summer Program. Research in Higher Education,54(5), 481-498. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9286-7 Douglas, D., & Attewell, P. (2014). The Bridge and the Troll Underneath: Summer Bridge Programs and Degree Completion. American Journal of Education,121(1), 87-109. doi:10.1086/677959 Goodman, K., & Pascarella, E. T. (2006). First-Year Seminars Increase Persistence and Retention: A Summary of the Evidence from How College Affects Students. Peer Review,8(3), 26-28. doi:10.3102/0034654315584955 Hendel, D. D. (2007). Efficacy of Participating in a First-Year Seminar on Student Satisfaction and Retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice,8(4), 413-423. doi:10.2190/g5k7-3529-4x22-8236 Jaijairam, P. (2016). First-Year Seminar (FYS)—The Advantages That This Course Offers. Journal of Education and Learning,5(2), 15. doi:10.5539/jel.v5n2p15 Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Horne, M. M., Wallis, A. L., Rings, J. A., & Vaughan, A. L. (2015). Quantitative Evaluation of A First Year Seminar Program. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 16(4), 593-606. doi:10.2190/cs.16.4.f McCurrie, M. K. (2009). Measuring success in summer Bridge programs: Retention efforts and basic writing. Journal of Basic Writing, 28, 28–49. Mennenga, H. A., & Tschetter, L. (2013). Using a First-Year Seminar to Introduce Nursing. Nurse Educator,38(5), 218-222. doi:10.1097/nne.0b013e3182a0e5d0 NCES. (2018). The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many education questions (National Center for Education Statistics). Retrieved May 1, 2019, from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40 Permzadian, V., & Credé, M. (2016). Do First-Year Seminars Improve College Grades and Retention? A Quantitative Review of Their Overall Effectiveness and an Examination of Moderators of Effectiveness. Review of Educational Research,86(1), 277-316. doi:10.3102/0034654315584955 Pittendrigh, A. & Borkowski, J. & Swinford, S. & Plumb, C. (2016). Knowledge and Community: The Effect of a First-Year Seminar on Student Persistence. The Journal of General Education 65(1), 48-65. Penn State University Press. Retrieved March 15, 2019, from Project MUSE database. Porter, S. R., & Swing, R. L. (2006). Understanding How First-year Seminars Affect Persistence. Research in Higher Education,47(1), 89-109. doi:10.1007/s11162-005-8153- 6 Schneller, B., & Wacholtz, L. E. (2018). Assessing Professional and Liberal Learning in the First-Year Seminar at Belmont University: A Pilot Pairing to Increase Value in Liberal and Professional Education. Assessment Update,30(3), 4-13. doi:10.1002/au.30133 Ted M. Brimeyer, April M. Schueths, & William L. Smith. (2014). Who Benefits form Honors: An Empirical Analysis of Honors and Non-Honors Students’ Backgrounds, Academcics, and Behaviors. Journal of the National Collegiate Honors Council,69-83. Wienhold, C. J., & Branchaw, J. (2018). Exploring Biology: A Vision and Change Disciplinary First-Year Seminar Improves Academic Performance in Introductory Biology. CBE—Life Sciences Education,17(2). doi:10.1187/cbe.17-08-0158