the impact of orientation programs on new student engagement …bz... · 2021. 5. 25. ·...
TRANSCRIPT
1
THE IMPACT OF ORIENTATION PROGRAMS ON NEW STUDENT ENGAGEMENT AND TRANSITION
A thesis presented by
Jennifer L. Granger Sullivan
to The School of Education
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education
In the field of Education
College of Professional Studies Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts
April 7, 2021
2
COPYRIGHT © 2021
Jennifer L. Granger Sullivan
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
3
Abstract
The purpose of this IPA study was to understand how first-time, first-year traditional-aged residential
students made sense of the transition experience at a small private residential college in the Boston
area after participating in a 2-day overnight orientation program. Schlossberg’s transition theory served
as a theoretical framework for the study. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 rising
sophomores at a small private, 4-year college in the Boston, Massachusetts area. The transcripts were
carefully analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. Four findings resulted from the analytic
process: (a) orientation is a foundation for success; (b) orientation must meet student expectations and
goals; (c) orientation affirms a student’s enrollment decision; and (d) orientation influences persistence
and retention. These findings emerged in the context of Schlossberg’s transition theory and are
positioned within the existing literature. Recommendations for practice include the need for small
colleges and universities to (a) cohouse orientation and student activities to extend transition programs
throughout the academic year; (b) provide information about campus culture before and during the
orientation and transition processes; (c) provide access to tools and experiences for use during and after
orientation, and (d) establish ways to understand and support student happiness and emotional well-
being during the orientation and transition experiences.
Keywords: orientation, transition, retention, college student engagement, higher education,
sense of belonging, college student persistence, college student satisfaction, enrollment, small colleges,
small universities
4
Acknowledgments
This experience has been one of the hardest and rewarding of my life. I would not have been
able to get across the finish line without many fellow classmates, loved ones, and faculty at
Northeastern University. I want to thank my dissertation committee, including my advisor, Dr. Paula
Boyum, as well as Dr. Lynda Beltz, and Dr. Kathleen Manning, for their guidance and wisdom throughout
this process. Thank you to Dr. Joan Giblin for her support earlier in my dissertation journey. I want to
thank the students who participated in this study for openly sharing information about their orientation
experiences and for being an integral part of this journey.
Throughout my years in higher education, I have been fortunate to have mentors and role
models who have supported my work and believed in my growth. From my undergraduate days at the
University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, to my graduate school days at the University of Vermont, and
to my doctoral work at Northeastern University, I have benefited from various mentors, role models,
and higher education professionals who pushed me to be who I am today, believed in me, and
challenged me to grow as a person and educator. I want to thank the following for serving as mentors,
role models, and cheerleaders in my life: Lisa Evaneski, Dr. Deborah Hunter, Christopher Laib, Dr.
Michael Laliberte, Dr. Kathleen Manning, Dr. Joseph McNabb, and Dr. Robert J. Nash. I additionally want
to thank professional mentors and supporters throughout my time at Lasell University and with NODA:
Association for Orientation, Transition, and Retention in Higher Education. These include Dr. Michael B.
Alexander, Dr. C. Chad Argotsinger, Diane Austin, Dr. Brett Bruner, and David Hennessey. Furthermore, I
would like to thank my colleagues at work who encouraged me to go back to school and work full time:
Santina Antoshak, Kyle Benedict, Justin Bruce, Kailin DeLeo, Jay Henderson, Meaghan Lynch, and Sarah
Richardson. I also want to thank the countless students who have consistently cheered me on and
showed so much care in my doctoral work. I hope I have inspired many of them to continue to fight for
their educational and aspirational dreams.
5
I would be remiss if I did not thank the various Northeastern University classmates who made
virtual learning feel like a connected experience. From supporting each other through classes, to helping
each other through the dissertation process, to meeting via Zoom to check-in and complete data
analysis, I felt supported every step of the way. I want to specifically thank: Karen Albano, Timothy
Donahue, Amy Greenstein, Dr. Alicia LaJolla, Reggie Lewis, Dr. Crystel Maldonado, Dave Merry, Dr.
Camila Nardozzi, Dr. Michael Patterson, and Heidi Sabnani. Furthermore, I wish to thank Dr. Camila
Nardozzi for her targeted help, support, edits, and suggestions through my dissertation writing
experience. I also would like to thank multiple amazing friends in my life who have supported this
journey with laughter and love: Kacey Bush, Jen Donahue, Steph Hunt, Jen Hughes, Dr. Chris Purcell,
Deirdre Rakus, Jamie Uliana, and Stef Zopatti.
Additionally, the love and support of my family made this experience possible. To my parents,
John C. Granger and Nancy Pelkey Granger, and my brother, John P. Granger, who all believed in me and
pushed me to go back to school to earn my doctorate. As a first-generation college student, it has been
amazing to use my family’s values of hard work, dedication to education, and desire to strive for
greatness to reach my goals. I hope I have made my family proud and paved the way for other family
members to expand on their education. I also wish to thank my in-laws, Mike, Janet, Timothy, and
Gabrielle Sullivan, as well as my nieces and nephew, Genevieve, Vivienne, Evelyn, and Coleman. I cannot
thank all my loved ones enough for their continued support throughout this journey, and I look forward
to enjoying more family gatherings with the free time I will have.
Finally, to my husband Benjamin Sullivan, who pushed me to go back to school and who
believed in me when I experienced self-doubt. Thank you for the many hours when I sat in front of
articles, books, and my laptop while you made dinner and did everything else in between. Thank you for
making me feel like I could do this and for reminding me I can accomplish anything I set my mind to do.
6
Thank you for helping me create the time in my life to finish this degree without a complaint. I am so
very lucky to have you in my life. I honestly cannot thank you enough. I love you very much.
7
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................................... 11
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................................... 12
Significance of the Problem .................................................................................................................. 16
Research Problem and Question .......................................................................................................... 18
Definition of Key Terminology .............................................................................................................. 18
Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................................ 19
Rationale for Using Transition Theory ........................................................................................... 21
Critics of Schlossberg’s Transition Theory ..................................................................................... 22
Applying Schlossberg’s Transition Theory ..................................................................................... 23
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Chapter 2: Literature Review ...................................................................................................................... 25
New Student Orientation and Transition Programs ............................................................................. 28
Sense of Belonging and Connection .............................................................................................. 30
Student Engagement and Involvement ......................................................................................... 33
Student Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 34
Self-Efficacy and Self-Awareness ................................................................................................... 35
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 36
Retention Factors for New Students .................................................................................................... 37
Family Influence and Involvement ................................................................................................. 38
Orientation Sessions Designated for Parents ................................................................................ 39
Influence of Others ........................................................................................................................ 39
Community Support for New Students .......................................................................................... 41
8
Precollege Factors and Characteristics .......................................................................................... 42
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 43
New Student Financial Considerations ................................................................................................. 44
Financial Aid ................................................................................................................................... 46
Financial Implications of Student Retention .................................................................................. 47
Institutional Access and Opportunity ............................................................................................ 47
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 49
Summation ........................................................................................................................................... 49
Chapter 3: Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 52
Qualitative Research Approach ............................................................................................................ 52
Key Characteristics of IPA .............................................................................................................. 54
Participants .................................................................................................................................... 55
Procedures ..................................................................................................................................... 57
Data Collection ............................................................................................................................... 58
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 58
Criteria for Quality Qualitative Research ............................................................................................. 59
Ethical Considerations.................................................................................................................... 59
Credibility ....................................................................................................................................... 60
Transferability ................................................................................................................................ 60
Internal Audit ................................................................................................................................. 61
Self-Reflexivity and Transparency .................................................................................................. 61
Limitations ..................................................................................................................................... 63
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis ................................................................................................................ 64
Understanding the Impact of Overnight Orientation ........................................................................... 66
9
Helpful With an Effective Transition .............................................................................................. 66
Positive Student Experience .......................................................................................................... 68
Student Happiness ......................................................................................................................... 69
Expectations and Goals .................................................................................................................. 70
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 72
Sense of Belonging and Fit ................................................................................................................... 72
Connections Built at Orientation ................................................................................................... 73
Academic Interests Solidified at Orientation ................................................................................. 75
Comfort With Institutional Choice ................................................................................................. 77
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 78
Orientation Impact on Enrollment and Transition Experience ............................................................ 78
Importance of Orientation on the First Year ................................................................................. 79
Impact on Sophomore Year ........................................................................................................... 82
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 84
Orientation Influence on Persistence and Retention ........................................................................... 85
Impact of Orientation on Decision to Attend Institution ............................................................... 85
Orientation Critical to Student Success ......................................................................................... 87
Involvement and Engagement ....................................................................................................... 89
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 91
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 92
Chapter 5: Discussion and Implication for Practice .................................................................................... 95
Orientation is a Foundation for Success ............................................................................................... 96
Orientation Must Meet Student Expectations and Goals .................................................................... 98
Orientation Affirms Student Enrollment Decisions ............................................................................ 102
10
Orientation Influences Persistence and Retention ............................................................................ 105
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................... 108
Recommendations for Practice.................................................................................................... 110
Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................................................... 116
References ................................................................................................................................................ 121
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................ 148
Appendix B ................................................................................................................................................ 149
Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................ 151
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................................ 152
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................................ 154
Appendix F ................................................................................................................................................ 160
11
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Higher education orientation programs remain one of the most effective strategies for
promoting college student persistence and retention (Deggs, 2011). Orientation brings new students
and institutions together to recognize the individual and personal needs of students as they enter a new
environment (Mann, 1998). This is important because understanding each student’s individual needs
helps college and university administrators provide students with effective and positive interactions
within the college environment, ultimately increasing students’ intentions, goals, and commitments
(Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1990). The focus of this interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) study is to
understand how students’ participation in a 2-day overnight orientation contributes to their sense of
belonging and persistence through their first and second year. The results of this study will provide
additional information for the orientation, transition, and retention fields, which are important to
student affairs, enrollment, and orientation professionals in higher education.
Successful orientation, transition, and retention programs follow best practices and standards
set forth by the NODA: Association for Orientation, Transition, and Retention in Higher Education
(NODA). NODA, the preeminent professional association for orientation and transition programs in the
United States, provided sound definitions used for this study. Specifically, NODA (2012) defined
orientation as
thoughtful programs designed to facilitate the transition of new students to a higher education institution; prepare students for the institution’s educational opportunities and student responsibilities; initiate the integration of new students into the intellectual, cultural, and social climate of the institution; and support the family of the new student. Orientation programs take many forms and may include single or multiday programs,
orientation welcome weeks, or special interest and special population programs. These varied programs
may take place in person, during different times of the year, or online and may be followed by
workshops or other first-year seminars during the year (“NODA OTR Definitions,” 2012). Orientation
programs occur at various times within the academic calendar. The 2017 NODA databank showed
12
participating institutions offered orientation programs at different times for specific student
populations, with summer being the most popular time offered for all categories of students (“NODA
Databank Survey,” 2017).
The purpose of this IPA study was to understand how first-time, first-year traditional-aged
residential students made sense of the transition experience at a small private residential college in the
Boston area after participating in a 2-day overnight orientation program. The student experience is
defined by how the 2-day overnight orientation program supports the students’ transition, persistence,
and continued enrollment at the university. Chapter 1 introduces the study and presents the statement
of the problem, the significance of the problem, the research study questions, definitions of key
terminology, a discussion of the selected theoretical framework, and the research problem design.
Statement of the Problem
One-time orientation programs directly impact student persistence by offering structure for
student engagement, involvement, and overall success (Pascarella et al., 1986). Administrators design
orientation programs with intentionality and specificity to assist in the transition to college or university,
treating it as part of the broader experience of exiting high school and integrating into the college
environment. NODA (2012) defined transition as the “process students go through when entering a
particular institution of higher education” (para. 2). Retention can be defined as student progression
through higher education, focusing primarily on student persistence to graduation from that institution
or the achievement of personal, educational objectives (“NODA OTR Definitions,” 2012). Furthermore,
retention represents a measure of successful student transition that effective orientation programs and
other integration processes can facilitate (“NODA OTR Definitions,” 2012).
Attrition and retention of students is a long-time concern for colleges and universities (Astin,
1984, 1997; Boyd, et al., 2020; Caballero, 2020; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977, 1980;
Pascarella et al., 1986; Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1990, 1996, 1998). Common retention predictors include
13
grade point average, social and academic integration (Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1990), intellectual
development (Spady, 1970), institutional commitment (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977; Spady, 1970; Tinto,
1975, 1988, 1990, 2006), and finances (Bean, 1980, 1985). Student engagement and the learning
students experience through peer and faculty interactions can influence student persistence (Kuh et al.,
2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977, 1980). New student orientation programs facilitate a student’s
integration, transition, and socialization to the college and its community, including peers, staff, and
faculty (Pascarella et al., 1986). Summer orientation programs represent one of the most popular
transition approaches to college and university for new students, and these programs often include
social and academic integration components (Deggs, 2011; Tinto, 1993).
Retention and persistence data highlight the importance of orientation, transition, and retention
work and further research in these areas, all of which contributed to this study. The purpose of this IPA
study was to understand how first-time, first-year traditional-aged residential students made sense of
the transition experience at a small private residential college in the Boston area after participating in a
2-day overnight orientation program. Determining whether orientation student engagement can lower
attrition rates is imperative to higher education and for the selected small university in this study.
In 2013, the selected university reported a graduation rate of 57% and a 2015 cohort first-year
retention rate of 79.55%. The small university for this study set a goal of retaining 80% of their first-year
students. In 2014, 81% of students identified as first-time, full-time, degree-seeking students enrolled at
4-year institutions in the United States returned to their colleges and universities to begin their second
year. The 6-year graduation rate was 66% at private nonprofit institutions (U.S. Department of
Education, 2017).
In June 2019, the selected university hosted 417 first-time, first-year students at an overnight
summer orientation program. Eight of those students withdrew from the university by August 2019. Of
all these new students, 1.9 % withdrew and 98.1 % started their first semester at the university. The
14
purpose of this IPA study was to understand how these first-time, first-year traditional-aged residential
students made sense of the transition experience at the selected university after participating in a 2-day
overnight orientation program.
Through his study, O’Keeffe (2013) examined the risks, causes, and solutions to attrition and
retention issues by examining the factors and reasons for why students do not persist to graduation.
Precollege factors, such as family background, student goal commitment, and individual student
attributes, are all important contributors to student withdrawals from higher education and failure to
graduate (Walsh & Robinson Kurpius, 2016). Parental and familial factors also influence college students
before and during their transition to college. Parental and familial involvement is highest during the
initial commitment and enrollment phases, directly affecting student engagement, satisfaction, and
concerns and possibly leading to persistence problems. Precollege factors can also play a role in the
student orientation and transition experiences and satisfaction.
Institutional factors, including campus culture, academic policies, and student life objectives,
enhance the likelihood of positive student persistence outcomes (Caballero, 2020; Hossler et al., 2001).
These factors can truly impact a student’s quality of life on campus and, thus, their chances of
persistence. In their model of persistence, Kerby (2015) identified factors such as institutional culture
and institutional and financial climate, which focused on grade performance, intellectual development,
social integration, and institutional commitment. These factors are critical in examining student
retention and persistence, as they show areas where orientation administrators can focus to improve
student transition and encourage persistence. Students enter college with various characteristics,
predetermined factors, and different levels of commitment to the institution (Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1990).
Consequently, administrators and other staff must work during orientation to equip all students with
the same resources and institutional knowledge they need to successfully embark on their first year. In
his seminal work on student retention and persistence, Tinto (1975, 1988, 1990) identified several
15
characteristics influencing students’ ability to transition successfully through orientation to their first
year and beyond. To create a foundation for their college experience, summer orientation programs
often include social and academic components, which connect the student to their institution and
academic experience (Tinto, 1993). These programs are specifically designed to provide sound and
comprehensive assistance that ensures students have the resources needed to persist through their first
year (Mann, 1998).
Through targeted and strategic orientation programming, colleges and universities can address
and identify these types of predetermined factors that may impact a student’s readiness to commit,
attend, and persist at any college or university. Orientation represents the first step in a college
student’s transition process. Orientation plays a significant role in the transition and retention of college
students because it often represents the first impression, experience, or resource, and the first
encounter leaves an imprint. College students’ failure to persist is a problem, and orientation
programming can combat the issue. Orientation programs provide an opportunity to educate new first-
year students about the institution and how to be a successful college student while providing basic
tasks like housing, advising, course registration, dining services, and making friends.
Administrators focus orientation, transition, and retention efforts on student engagement,
interaction, success, and involvement. Student engagement with peers and faculty influences their
learning experiences and helps them persist and succeed (Jorgensen, et al., 2018; Kuh et al., 2005;
O’Keefe, 2013; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977, 1980, 2005). College and university leaders should get to
know who their new students are, including understanding their characteristics and the internal and
external factors that will influence their ability to persist through orientation, transition, and graduation.
Kerby (2015) identified five areas to keep in mind when working on orientation, transition, and
retention: external factors, precollege factors, internal factors, adaptation, and outcomes.
16
Administrators and other higher education professionals should consider these factors to help each
student integrate, transition, and connect to the campus.
This study will prove useful to higher education administrators and student affairs professionals
who work with orientation, transition, retention, student satisfaction, and student engagement because
the outcomes illuminate students’ perspectives on the topic. If administrators do not address student
attrition, institutions will face decreased enrollment, with implications of less revenue, negative campus
climate, and the threat of long-term issues including financial loss, problems retaining faculty and
administrators, and even closure. Speaking directly to students who participated in a 2-day overnight
orientation program will provide insight into how their participation in the program influenced their
sense of belonging, engagement, and integration into their campuses and how those factors contributed
to their ability to persist through the next year. Student voices can provide a powerful story to explain
how students experience the college transition. College administrators must hear these stories in the
current competitive environment where students have infinite choices.
Significance of the Problem
Student persistence, satisfaction, and engagement have been identified as significant issues in
need of attention from higher education professionals (Astin, 1984, 1997; Boyd, et al., 2020; Caballero,
2020; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977, 1980; Pascarella et al., 1986; Tinto, 1975, 1988,
1990, 1998). The purpose of this IPA study was to understand how first-time, first-year traditional-aged
residential students made sense of the transition experience at a small private residential college in the
Boston area after participating in a 2-day overnight orientation program. Sense of belonging during and
after orientation was an additional area of focus to show how a student’s feelings before college and
during the transition process influenced their persistence and retention.
The NODA maintains a databank of statistical information about orientation, transition,
retention programs, and office functions collected from NODA member-institutions every 3 to 5 years
17
(“NODA Databank Survey,” 2017). A review of data from various institutions evoked questions about
summer orientation programs that became the focus of this study. The 2017 databank survey conducted
by NODA included responses from 229 colleges and universities, with 65% of responses from public
institutions and 34% from private institutions (“NODA Databank Survey,” 2017). Out of 244 responding
institutions, most offered general orientation programs (97%), parent, family, and guest orientation
(84%), welcome week programs (70%), online orientation (37%), and extended camp programs (29%)
(“NODA Databank Survey 2017,” 2017).
Past literature and research have focused primarily on welcome weeks, outdoor orientation
programs, summer bridge programs, and first-year courses, which prompted the decision to focus this
study on a summer overnight orientation program (Bell et al., 2014; Bir & Myrick, 2015; Bradley, 2011;
Guarneri & Connolly, 2019; Hannah, 2018; Howard & Lathrop, 2016; Klatt & Ray, 2014; Nemelka et al.,
2017; Wathington, Prentlow & Barnett, 2016; Ribbe et al., 2016; Swift et al., 2019). Learning more about
whether summer overnight orientation programs could positively impact first-year student engagement,
transition, and persistence was important to higher education research. Understanding the factors
contributing to why and how first-year students who attended a 2-day overnight summer orientation
program succeeded would help improve future orientation, transition, and retention programming for
colleges and universities.
Understanding whether and how orientations lead to student satisfaction, persistence, and
engagement can help higher education administrators increase retention and graduation rates,
redistribute financial and personnel resources, improve campus climate and culture, understand at-risk
factors and communities, and grasp the long- and short-term benefits such programming. Orientation
can serve as a retention tool, and a summer orientation program represents the first opportunity to test
and solidify a student’s fit with an institution (Mann, 1998).
18
The purpose of this IPA study was to understand how first-time, first-year traditional-aged
residential students made sense of the transition experience at a small private residential college in the
Boston area after participating in a 2-day overnight orientation program. This research was conducted to
provide an impactful change in how student affairs and orientation professionals set priorities in many
areas on a college campus, from budget to staffing, to community.
Research Problem and Question
The purpose of this research problem and question are intended to provide a better
understanding of the connection between first-year student experiences and engagement and
participation in an overnight summer orientation program. Schlossberg’s transition theory, which was
formulated by Schlossberg et al. (1995) provided the lens for investigating the most meaningful and
connected experiences that contributed to a first-year student’s sense of belonging after attending a
summer overnight orientation program. The following research questions guided this IPA study:
RQ1. How do first-year college students understand their orientation experience, and what
impact do they perceive it had on their transition experience?
RQ2. How do the summer overnight orientation experiences contribute to a student’s sense
of belonging?
RQ3. How do first-year students define, develop, and make meaning of their sense of
belonging during the first year of college?
Definition of Key Terminology
The following terms and definitions were used during the course of this study.
• First-year student refers to a student enrolled in their first year of study for the first time at
a college or university.
19
• Integration is the time period beginning when a new student starts the college process and
becomes an engaged student that has institutional commitment. Integration involves both
academic, intellectual, emotional, and social factors (Tinto, 1975).
• Orientation serves as a consolidated means of providing information about the transition
from being an admitted student to being an enrolled student. Orientation provides social
interaction and engagement, information about campus services and program, academic
advising, and typically a first-semester course schedule. A summer overnight program
represents one type of orientation (“NODA OTR Definitions,” 2012).
• Persistence and retention both refer to a student’s ability to remain in school through the
completion of their first year and register for their second year at the same institution.
Persistence describes this phenomenon from the individual perspective; retention refers to
the college or university perspective (“NODA OTR Definitions,” 2012; Tinto, 1975).
• Residential student refers to a student who resides on a college campus.
• Sense of belonging involves the feeling of being accepted, valued, included, and encouraged.
These feelings contribute to positive life and classroom experiences with peers and faculty
(Masika & Jones, 2016; Thomas, 2013).
• Transition refers to a time period beginning when a student departs from one institution,
moves through an orientation process at another institution, and begins coursework at a
new school (“NODA OTR Definitions,” 2012).
Theoretical Framework
The notion of transition is familiar in many disciplines (Lenz, 2001) and can be defined as an
event or nonevent that results in a change in roles, assumptions, routines, and relationships
(Schlossberg et al., 1995). Transition theory as formulated by Schlossberg et al. (1995), includes several
different types of changes and events: (a) anticipated transitions, (b) unanticipated transitions, (c)
20
nonevents, (d) context, and (e) impact. An anticipated transition occurs with predictability; an
unanticipated transition, however, is not predictable or scheduled. Nonevents include transitions that
are expected but do not occur, and context refers to the relationship between the transition and the
setting where it takes place. Finally, impact is determined by how the transition alters an individual’s
daily life (Schlossberg et al., 1995).
Evans et al. (1998) referred to Schlossberg’s transition theory as an adult development theory
because it focuses on the transitions that adults experience throughout their life and the means by
which they cope and adjust to lead successful lives (Schlossberg et al., 1995). Schlossberg et al. (1995)
posited that an individual can understand the meaning of a life transition through its context, type, and
impact, as well as by how the individual experiencing it perceives and makes meaning of it. There is a
fair amount of research on college students and the transitions they go through during their college
experience in regard to persistence (Coertjens, et al., 2017; Grittin & Gilbert, 2015; Mucci-Ferris, et al.,
2020; Ryan, et al., 2011; Schlossberg, 2011). Transitions are a critical period for new student identity
development and for retaining students (Mucci-Ferri, et al., 2020). It is key to understand the student
perspective during times of transition and the support they will need (Mucci-Ferri, et al., 2020).
Schlossberg’s transition theory provides a framework to understand and study human development as
someone responds to events that trigger adaptation, changes, or losses (Yadusky, et al., 2020).
Moreover, Schlossberg et al. (1995) identified four major sets of factors, called the 4S variables,
that influence a person’s ability to cope with a transition: situation, self, support, and strategies.
Situation can include trigger, timing, control, role change, duration, previous experience with a similar
transition, concurrent stress, and assessment. Schlossberg et al. classified the factors considered
important in relation to the self into personal and demographic characteristics or psychological
resources. The third variable relates to social support, such as family units, networks of friends,
institutions, and communities. Schlossberg (1981, 1984) described the environments before and after a
21
transition as interpersonal support systems. Schlossberg et al. (1995) asserted transition strategies, or
coping responses, include modifying the situation, controlling the meaning of the problem, and
managing the stress in the aftermath of change. An advantage of the model defined by Schlossberg et al.
is that it can be used in many research areas and provides a solid foundation for studying transition
(Lenz, 2001). It is important to note that Schlossberg’s (1995) model has been modified with theoretical
revisions in 1995, 2006, and 2012. Furthermore, this section provides critiques of the model, the
rationale for choosing it as a framework for this study, and a description of how it applies to this study.
Rationale for Using Transition Theory
Strauss (1995) noted that theory can provide a model or road map to understanding why some
thing is the way it is or to clarify and explain an aspect of an idea. This study was an examination of the
2-day overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged, first-time first-year college students at a
small private institution and how it contributed to their sense of belonging and persistence through
their first and second years of school. Consequently, Schlossberg's transition theory was chosen as the
study’s theoretical framework. Through this framework, understanding was sought about how
participation in a summer orientation program could serve as a key point of transition for first-time,
first-year students and help them persist. The 4S variables (i.e., situation, self, support system, and
strategies) presented by Schlossberg (1995) were applied to understand how a major unanticipated or
anticipated life transition was navigated.
Within the theory, orientation (i.e., situation), the students’ experience (i.e., self, and social
support), and engagement (i.e., strategies) were the factors used to determine the most meaningful
experiences that contributed to students’ sense of belonging during a summer overnight orientation
program and their subsequent first semester. This transition theory was used to examine how the 2-day
overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged, first-time first-year college students at a small
22
private institution contributed to their sense of belonging and persistence through their first and second
years of school.
Critics of Schlossberg’s Transition Theory
Several theorists have highlighted competing theories to Schlossberg (1995). Kerby (2015)
expanded on retention experts, proposing a newer and updated retention model that includes common
retention predictors like grade point average. Other researchers’ models involve factors such as social
and academic integration (Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1990), intellectual development (Spady, 1970),
institutional commitment (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977, 1980; Spady, 1970; Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1990,
2006), and finances (Bean, 1980, 1985). Researchers like Kuh (2003, 2007), Kuh et al. (2005), Schuh and
Gansemer-Topf (2005), and Astin (1984, 1987, 1997) focused on student engagement and involvement,
which could have been another lens through which to view this research. Hausmann et al., (2007)
argued and concluded that sense of belonging could also be a focus of understanding transition and in
researching college student persistence. Unlike other models, however, Schlossberg’s transition theory
provides a clean framework for exploring a major life change, such as a college transition. Orientation
programming mirrors these factors and marks a key transition for first-year college students.
The limitations to using Schlossberg’s (1995) transition theory involve the lost potential of other
applicable theories. These include engagement theory, retention theory, and other student
development theories. Schlossberg’s transition theory could also be considered too broad or too
tentative and exploratory; it can be used for research but is subject to revisions (Lenz, 2001).
Schlossberg’s theory can be compared against other human and student development theories, like
Erikson’s (1956, 1963) stages of psychosocial development or Levinson’s (1986) theory of life structure.
All of these theories explore various angles of adulthood and the various stages and steps a student may
go through successfully or unsuccessfully. For this research, Schlossberg’s (1995) theory was ideal and
was used as a guide for this study that provided a framework based on transition coping factors.
23
Schlossberg’s theory is considered a student development theory and can be used in application with
orientation programs (Evans, et al., 1998).
Applying Schlossberg’s Transition Theory
Schlossberg’s transition theory was utilized for this study to illuminate the experience for new
first-time, first-year students. Student perceptions and experiences of their own transition into and
through the college environment were studied using this framework. The model allowed me to
understand the processes first-year students undergo as they move from reaction to an event (i.e.,
orientation) to incorporating the event into the college experience. This study was an examination of
the 2-day overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged, first-time first-year college students at a
small private institution and how it contributed to their sense of belonging and persistence through
their first and second years of school. The 4S variables (Schlossberg et al., 1995) were applied to help
answer the questions of who (i.e., which students), what (i.e., the event happening), and how (i.e., with
what support) the students coped through the transition to college. The 4S variables helped determine
what resources and discrepancies students experienced that impacted their perception of their
transition into a successfully matriculated student (Schlossberg et al., 1995). Use of transition theory
aided in understanding how a first-year college student’s orientation experience could shed light on
college student persistence, showcasing orientation programming’s role in the student experience.
Conclusion
Tinto (2006) confirmed that understanding the difficult work of creating institutional practice in
orientation, transition, and retention must improve. Students leave college before graduation for
complex and interrelated reasons (Fontana et al., 2006). This study will add student voices to how
orientation programs can influence the student experience and influence retention. This chapter
focused on the purpose of this study, the statement of the problem, significance of the study, the
research question, and the theoretical framework. Chapter 2 presents the existing research and practice
24
regarding orientation emphasizing orientations and their pre-enrollment factors, influences, and
programs.
25
Chapter 2: Literature Review
The purpose of this IPA study was to understand how first-time, first-year traditional-aged
residential students made sense of the transition experience at a small private residential college in the
Boston area after participating in a 2-day overnight orientation program. To do this, it was important to
gain insight into the connected experiences of the orientation and how those experiences contributed
to students’ sense of belonging during their first year of college. For the purposes of this study, new
students were defined and identified as first-time, first-year college students. In addition, although the
higher education experience has been challenged and transformed by the COVID-19 pandemic, this
research and the questions asked were based on the pre-pandemic experience. The COVID-19 pandemic
has impacted higher education in many ways and appears to have disrupted current and future
recruitment, orientation, transition, and retention efforts.
In this study, it was assumed that engagement begins with new student summer orientation.
Significant evidence has shown that orientation programs help retain students (Beal & Noel, 1979;
Boudreau & Kromrey, 1984; Deggs, 2011). The early days of school represent a critical time when
students choose to adapt to or reject a college campus. For this reason, most institutions invest in
orientation and transition programs (Mack, 2010). Harvard University and Boston College held the first
orientation programs in 1888 (Butts, 1971; Drake, 1966) These programs aimed to welcome new
students and families; provide information about campus and community policies, procedures,
expectations, and norms; and introduce new students to other students, staff, and faculty (Gardner,
1986; Hollins, 2009; Kuh & Love, 2000; Mack, 2010). Orientations can focus on community building in
addition to helping new students with the shift from high school to college, taking opportunities to make
friends, understanding campus resources, and appreciating the campus design and culture (Deggs, 2011;
Hollins, 2009; Kuh & Love, 2000). Orientation and transition are often informed by various student
26
development theories related to challenge and support (Sanford, 1962), social isolation (Tinto, 1975),
involvement (Astin, 1984), academic integration (Tinto, 1993), and retention (Tinto, 1975, 1993).
College student engagement (Kuh, 2003; Kuh et al., 2005), starting with new student
orientation, plays a key role on college and university campuses across the United States by improving
student satisfaction and persistence. Low rates of student persistence and degree completion have
caused concern for administrators at most colleges and universities (Museus et al., 2017). This worry
relates to the effect of dissatisfied students on other students’ happiness and success and the potential
for it to negatively impact the institution’s financial strength. Student attrition researchers have focused
on academic reasons for student departure rather than nonacademic reasons (Jenkins et al., 2013).
However, understanding the cocurricular reasons, such as orientation, student leadership, athletics,
campus employment, and how they influence students’ decision to leave, is important because these
factors also affect student attrition (Astin, 1999; Hurtado, et al., 1998). Thus, institutional leaders must
develop and maintain a community that supports student persistence and satisfaction, beginning with
new student orientation (Manns, 2002; Stewart et al., 2015).
Over the years, however, new student orientation programs have shifted, and although their
purpose has remained, the structure and delivery method has transformed. For example, to orient
students to all aspects of their new academic, social, and cocurricular life, programs should be longer
than 1 day and begin well before classes start (Attinasi, 1989; Deggs, 2011). Orientation professionals
who oversee programs, especially summer programs, should understand how a sense of belonging
develops prior to, during, and after the program. Belonging matters because students develop a sense of
community and institutional identity during their first semester of college (Manns, 2002). Developing a
student’s sense of belonging begins during the orientation; therefore, orientation professionals must
think about how all aspects of their programs encourage a sense of belonging.
27
A student’s feelings of belonging affect their motivation, engagement, achievement, and overall
persistence (Pajares, 1996; Schunk, 1995; Zumbrunn et al., 2014). Connection and feelings of belonging
are critical to persistence to graduation. Therefore, orientation professionals must understand their
impact begins before campus arrival. Students who feel rejected and lack a sense of belonging represent
a major cause for concern. Consequently, student engagement (Kuh 2001, 2009), which begins during
orientation, represents one solution to college retention problems (O’Keeffe, 2013).
To ensure that students persist at their institutions, administrators must develop strategies to
enhance the perception of the educational environment for all students (Barry & Okun, 2011).
Understanding why a student fails to persist does not always directly inform how institutions can solve
the problem (Tinto, 2006). Additionally, Maguire’s (1976) assertion that enrollment management
matters to the student experience still resonates, especially at small private institutions. The need for
enrollment management stems from the complexity of the basic requirement of every admissions
department. They must recruit the next year's class while balancing student experience with headcount
goals, net revenue, quality and composition, yield, and retention (Maguire, 1976). Retention starts at
recruitment and becomes orientation the moment a student registers for their first classes. It is
important to understand how positive college experiences, such as an orientation program, influence
and impact student persistence and success (Tinto, 2006). First-year experiences are critical to college
persistence (Ribera et al., 2017).
In a collaborative and structured fashion, colleges and universities can improve student access,
enrollment, retention, and graduation rates. This literature review covers factors influencing orientation
and transition experiences, including articles retrieved from JSTOR, ProQuest, Education Research
Complete, and ERIC. Keywords included: orientation, transition, retention, sense of belonging, access,
choice, student engagement, student connection, student involvement, family, social integration.
28
Many factors impact students’ college transition and retention. This chapter includes discussions
of retention, financial, and orientation. This literature review is organized into three sections. The first
section presents a discussion of new college student orientation and transition experiences, reviewing
literature focused on student connection facilitated by belonging, engagement, and involvement. The
second section focuses on factors for new students in the literature on family influences and
involvements, influences of others, new students’ precollege factors and characteristics, and self-
efficacy and self-awareness. The final section highlights new student financial factors and impacts,
including information about access, choice, new student financial aid, and the implications of student
retention.
New Student Orientation and Transition Programs
Orientation can play an important role in the lives of new students and their families during
their transition to a college or university (“NODA OTR Definitions,” 2012). Orientation involves a
thoughtful programmatic service effort designed to facilitate the transition of new students to the
institution while also preparing them for the educational opportunities and student responsibilities they
will encounter (“NODA OTR Definitions,” 2012). Additionally, administrators use orientations to
integrate new students into the institution’s intellectual, cultural, and social climate while supporting
new students’ families and loved ones (“NODA OTR Definitions,” 2012). Moreover, orientation programs
facilitate students’ assimilation and socialization to college (Pascarella et al., 1986) while bringing new
students and institutions together to recognize students’ individual and personal needs as they enter a
new environment (Mann, 1998). Orientation and transition programs and services should be tied to the
institution’s mission and to its students’ overall positive development (Pope, 2001).
Orientation programs benefit from basic planning and careful thought around the intended
outcomes, such as equipping students with the tools needed to navigate their transition (Zis, 2002).
Orientation professionals should focus on how the entire campus staff can work to meet students’
29
expectations and establish identified outcomes (Zis, 2002). For example, prior to the start of classes,
students can benefit from social activities that develop their social engagement skills (e.g.,
communication, negotiation, collaboration, and making friends; Thomas, 2013). College and university
administrators must integrate programs and processes that create a robust and healthy college
environment for student learning and retention. Possibilities include living–learning communities, new
student orientation, specific first-year transition activities, and coordinated study programs (Kerby,
2015). Actions intended to improve student persistence must be calculated, strategic, systemic, and
well-reviewed.
According to Tinto’s (1975, 1988, 1990) model of student integration, new students go through
three stages upon arrival to their campus: separation, transition, and incorporation. In their model of
college student integration, Tinto (2006) stated that persistence responsibility lies with the student, not
the institution. Tinto attributed a student’s decision to leave a college to the student’s inability to
integrate rather than to the institution’s failure to help them do so (Samura, 2016). However,
institutions are perhaps more responsible for this, as it is their job to ensure student satisfaction
throughout their entire college experience, including new student orientation programs. The functional
relationship between the student and the institution is important to define because it can contextualize
orientation, transition, and retention work. Institutions must also identify why they wish to adjust
retention and graduation rates (Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1990).
The transition to college has been characterized as stressful for many students (Giddan, 1988;
Lu, 1994) because these types of life transitions create opportunities for growth and change (Paul &
Brier, 2001). Therefore, college campus community programs designed to foster belonging and support
contribute to college student retention and college student success (Strayhorn, 2012a, 2012b). Pope
(2001) referred to this as “front-loading,” which refers to the belief that student success and
matriculation begin with focused programs for new students during orientation. To facilitate
30
persistence, students must determine and resolve transition issues during their first year of school
(Stewart et al., 2015). To ensure a smooth transition for first-year students, orientation staff members
must advocate for change and help students identify and move through potential transition issues and
their overall student development (Pope, 2001).
Understanding how a sense of belonging and engagement influence student experiences related
to orientation, transition, and retention was critical to this study. A sense of belonging leads to student
involvement and future interactions with community members (Ribera et al., 2017).
Sense of Belonging and Connection
Within higher education, multiple definitions of belonging exist (Anant, 1966; Goodenow,
1993a; Osterman, 2000; Strayhorn, 2019; Tovar & Simon, 2010). Rosenberg and McCullough (1981)
defined belonging as a feeling of connectedness and a sense of mattering to others. Tovar and Simon
(2010), however, believed it to be an individual’s sense of position in relation to a college community.
Another definition, most widely used within the field of student affairs, was established by Strayhorn
(2019), who defined a sense of belonging as a college student’s perceived social support on campus, a
feeling of connectedness to the campus and their peers, and the experience of mattering. Strayhorn
(2019) expanded upon this definition to involve a college student’s need to feel cared for, accepted,
respected, and valued by members of the campus community, including faculty, staff, and peers.
Students who feel rejected and do not have a strong sense of belonging contribute to student attrition
(O’Keefe, 2013).
Expanding upon Strayhorn’s (2012a, 2012b) definition, the core elements of a sense of
belonging include: (a) a universal, basic human need; (b) a fundamental motive sufficient to drive
behavior; (c) context, time, and factors determining importance; (d) a relation to mattering; (e) being
influenced by identity; (f) leading to the positive; and (g) being satisfied as conditions change.
Strayhorn’s (2019) revised model of college students’ sense of belonging includes a baseline status that
31
evolves to the fullest potential and basic functions that evolve to an educational mission. Additionally,
this new model involves physiological needs, safety and security, love and belongingness, self-esteem,
and self-actualization (Strayhorn, 2019). Strayhorn (2019) identified six strategies for increasing a
student’s sense of belonging, with three focused on the individual and three tied to the organization.
Strayhorn argued that a sense of belonging leads to positive outcomes such as involvement, happiness,
achievement, retention, and a student’s overall success. Orientation, transition, and retention depend
on peer acceptance and support. Hirsch (1980) focused on the role of peer relations in support,
socialization, identify formation, and overall college adjustment.
The notion of mattering relates to a sense of belonging and to student persistence. Mattering
refers to an individual’s belief they are important to others in the college community (Schlossberg,
1989). Schlossberg (1985) identified the key components of mattering as: attention, dependence,
importance, and ego-extension. A sense of belonging and mattering have been studied by many within
the context of academic and social engagement (Tinto, 1975), class, gender, and ethnicity (Haussmann
et al., 2009; Read et al., 2003), self-perception and career focus (Hassanien & Barber 2007; Kember et
al., 2010), and student engagement (Kuh et al., 2008).
In addition to belonging and mattering, students’ feelings of connectedness to their institution
contribute to their persistence (Jorgenson et al., 2018). Understanding the functional relationship
between the student and the institution is important to define (Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1990). Connectedness
encompasses social connectedness and institutional connectedness. An individual achieves social
connectedness through satisfaction with interpersonal relationships and various social groups (Cutrona,
1982; Rovai, 2002). Individuals achieve institutional connectedness through feelings of belonging and
acceptance with organizations, programs, and faculty (Sidelinger & Booth-Butterfield, 2010).
Institutional attachment includes connection to a specific college and a resolve to complete a degree
(Gefen & Fish, 2013). Bean (1985) confirmed that having a good institutional fit enables students to feel
32
as if they are at home in with the university. Student perception of social and institutional
connectedness is an overlapping construct that plays a role in student connectedness and overall
satisfaction on a college campus (Jorgenson et al., 2018). Jorgenson et al. (2018) determined that
student connectedness in college and university settings is intricate and complex, involving relationships
with campus faculty or staff. Administrators at colleges and universities must take holistic and deliberate
approaches during orientations to increase student engagement through multiple types of interactions
(Jorgenson et al., 2018). This approach incorporates the student perspective and experience versus
institutional structure and outreach (Jorgenson et al., 2018).
Belonging and connectedness are significant to successful and thoughtful orientation, transition,
and retention work for all new and current college students. Academic and social integration increases a
student’s sense of belonging and helps them to believe they fit into the institution and have made the
correct choice (Xu, 2017). New college students who do not feel like they belong may transfer to
another institution or leave higher education altogether (Hagedorn & Castro, 1999; Haussmann et al.,
2007). College students will struggle with other fundamental needs (e.g., self-actualization, creativity,
and innovation) until their need to belong is satisfied (Maslow, 1954).
Belonging, learning, and a student’s identity all contribute to engagement and alignment with
the institution, and they also lead to a student’s identification with colleges and universities (Masika &
Jones, 2016). Haussmann et al. (2009) shared that the relationship between a sense of belonging and
social interactions should exist at the start of the year instead of developing over time. The gradual
change and guidance into the campus community through orientation and transition programs improve
students’ adjustment and sense of belonging (Boyer, 1987, 1990). Jorgenson et al. (2018) confirmed that
any positive interaction between a student and a campus employee plays a positive role in
connectedness. Jorgenson et al. (2018) reaffirmed that a sense of connectedness builds from students’
perceptions (Cutrona, 1982; Tinto, 1987).
33
Student Engagement and Involvement
Engagement refers to the amount of time and effort a student devotes to their academic
responsibilities (e.g., studies) and other activities (e.g., sports and clubs) that contribute to a student’s
positive experience and success (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Kuh et al., 2005; Kuh, et al., 1991;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005; Strayhorn, 2019; Wolf-Wendel et al., 2009). Student
engagement represents the time and effort students devote to activities that are empirically linked to
desired outcomes of college and what institutions do to induce students to participate in these activities
(Kuh, 2001, 2003, 2009; Wolf-Wendel et al., 2009). Wolf-Wendel (2009) confirmed that, “Participating in
educationally purposeful activities directly influences the quality of students’ learning and their overall
educational experience.” Wolf- Wendel (2009) confirmed that student engagement is grounded through
empirical observation of “good practice” in undergraduate education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987), in
involvement theory (Astin, 1984), and in Pace’s (1980) quality of effort measures. “The concept of
student engagement is about encouraging institutional reflection and action on effective practice”
(Wolf-Wendel, 2009).
Student engagement includes the amount of time students participate in activities that are co-
curricular and activities that students perceive to aid in their learning and development at the institution
(Kuh, 2001; 2009). Astin (1984) defined involvement as the amount of physical and psychological energy
a student devotes to his/her academic experience. Kuh (2009) noted that institutions should encourage
student involvement. Involvement and engagement within the context of higher education, orientation,
transition, and retention work can appear similar. Involvement relates to the facilitation of students’
investment in both the quantity and quality of experiences (Strayhorn, 2019).
Student engagement and involvement contribute to the successful transition and persistence of
new and current college students. Student engagement has also been defined as developing
relationships with others and feeling connected to them (Thomas, 2013). The integration of all college
34
students depends on positive early college experiences (Levitz & Noel, 1989; Woosley, 2003; Woosley &
Miller, 2009). Early college experiences matter because they set first-year students up for success by
helping them get to know the campus, the community, and other students. Promoting the idea that
students belong to a community is central to orientation activities and transition initiatives (Maher &
Macallister, 2013). One-time orientation programs provide an indirect positive impact on student
persistence and student engagement; therefore, many administrators have expanded them by offering
other types of experiences, such as outdoor orientation trips, camps, or on-campus welcome weeks
(Pascarella et al., 1986).
Student Involvement
Astin (1984) stated that student involvement in college matters, continuing that according to
student involvement theory, students who are involved in their college education are more likely to
succeed and persist to graduation. Astin defined student involvement as a student spending a
considerable amount of time on a college campus, interacting with other students and faculty, devoting
extensive time and energy to their academics, and partaking in student clubs and organizations. Given
this definition, any external activity that removes a student from this engagement, such as employment,
family, friends, and hobbies, can negatively impact their learning and success (Astin, 1984; 1993). If an
activity removes the student from campus, then they cannot directly participate in activities that
positively influence their ability to succeed (Astin, 1984).
Jorgenson et al. (2018) used student involvement theory to suggest a direct and proportional
link exists between a students’ involvement and their level of institutional connectedness. The ultimate
goal of student involvement is to increase a student’s satisfaction (Manns, 2002). Student involvement
significantly impacts and influences the quality of a student’s educational experience (Manns, 2002).
Manns (2002) confirmed that many colleges and universities support collaborative student development
programs, such as orientation, because they ensure retention and degree completion. Research showed
35
peer relations and interactions in student clubs, organizations, or activities encourage college student
connectedness, which can lead to better overall social integration, satisfaction, and commitment to the
college or university (Bowman et al., 2019; Branand et al., 2015).
Involvement in informal social spaces like student clubs or residential communities improves the
campus climate for orientation, transition, and orientation programming (Miller et al., 2019; Ribera et
al., 2017). Living on campus provides a social component, creating a more structured community
environment with more community interactions (Miller et al., 2019). Furthermore, getting involved in
campus extracurricular activities and high-impact activities helps students develop a sense of belonging
(Vaccaro & Newman, 2017). Participation in high-impact practices such as learning communities, faculty-
led research, and supplementary services like academic advising, student activities, and service-learning
courses can shape student perceptions of institutional interactions and campus climate. Together these
factors can positively impact their sense of belonging and engagement during the transition process
(Covington et al., 2017; Holloway-Friesen, 2018; Hurtado et al., 1998; Kuh, 2007, 2013; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005). Many studies have confirmed that a student’s involvement is one of the most
significant indicators of student success and satisfaction (Astin, 1999; Branand et al., 2015; DeBard &
Hurtado et al., 1998, Sacks, 2012; Mullin, 2012; Schroeder, 2000; Tinto, 1993).
Self-Efficacy and Self-Awareness
Student’s self-efficacy and self-awareness, combined with the influences of others close to them
(i.e., family or friends) and the development of their own identity, play a role in their orientation.
Erikson (1968, 1980), Chickering (1969), and Chickering and Reisser (1993) asserted the importance of
college-aged students understanding the need to establish their identity (Evans, et al., 1998). College
students are constantly learning, discovering, and meaning-making the multiple dimensions of their
various social identities and personal identities (Abes & Jones, 2004; Abes, et al., 2007; Chavez, et al.,
2003; Davis, 2002; Jones & McEwen, 2000; Stevens, 2004). A fundamental and essential challenge facing
36
college-aged students is the need to expand their identity by increasing self-efficacy; this occurs through
inclusion in the college community (Branand et al., 2015).
Bowman et al. (2019) stated that students who perceived themselves as successful in the
classroom had overall higher levels of self-efficacy, belonging, and well-being. This is not easy, as
students must navigate between their expectations and their actions to connect with other students,
faculty, staff, and the campus community (Jorgenson et al., 2018). Orientation programs can help with
this by focusing early on the areas of student engagement, self-efficacy, and self-awareness because
they can grow from a singular event to a semester or year-long program, aiding in new students’
transition to the community (Attinasi, 1989). Orientation leaders can focus on self-efficacy and self-
awareness during programing by including activities and initiatives that teach students about the
college’s social environment, expectations related to student behavior, and ways to engage in motivated
behavior. These types of activities arm students with tools to help them engage with the independent
aspects of college life. Emphasizing these skills before, during, and after students arrive will increase
their engagement, and ultimately, their persistence.
Conclusion
Belonging, involvement, engagement, connection with the institution, self-efficacy, and
motivation all contribute to student success during orientation, transition through the first year, and
persistence to graduation. Now, more than ever, students explore their options for colleges before,
during, and after orientation programs. This affects the provision and delivery of services. The themes
identified in this section are key areas where higher education and student affairs administrators should
focus to adopt best practices. Orientation and transition programs should include these factors to
integrate new first-year college students to their campuses. As the literature demonstrated, first-time,
first-year students can struggle with connections, sense of belonging, involvement, engagement, self-
efficacy, and self-awareness, which may affect their college success.
37
Retention Factors for New Students
NODA (2019) defined retention as student progression through higher education, from the start
of their second year at the same institution through to graduation and degree attainment (NODA, 2019).
NODA formed in 1977 to study orientation, transition, and retention. NODA asserted retention
represents one outcome of successful student transition facilitated by effective academic and social
integration processes such as orientation programs. A negative event or perception that isolates a
student from their college experience will influence their decision to stay at or leave the institution
(Kerby, 2015).
College student retention has been a topic of concern for over 8 decades, and many researchers
have theorized about why students depart or stay (Bean, 1980, 1985; Spady, 1970; Tinto, 1993). Spady
(1970) focused on potential influences that may contribute to withdrawal decisions. Tinto (1988, 1993,
2006), the seminal expert on higher education retention, proposed that the college itself plays a role in
retention. Tinto posited that economics, psychological, and organizational influences impact students’
transition and retention. Tinto’s (1988) student integration theory has continued to serve as an accepted
way of studying student retention and departure (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Schuh & Gansemer-Topf,
2005; St. John et al., 2000; Tinto, 1993). Tinto (2006) further expanded to include sense of belonging in
relation to the academic and social integration and, also, institutional fit. Strayhorn (2012a) provided a
modernized model that is also heavily used in higher education on student persistence and retention of
first-year college students.
Strayhorn (2019), a contemporary expert, identified the main reasons why students consider
leaving their higher education institution as a lacking sense of belonging, an unsatisfactory social life, an
unwelcoming climate, lack of a support group, difficult coursework, financial reasons, and feelings of
homesickness. Bean (1985), another important contributor to the field, first examined retention factors
30 years ago, to include (a) family background and individual difference, (b) initial goals, (c) grade
38
performance and intellectual development, and (d) goal commitment and institutional commitment.
Given these factors, it was clear that persistence to graduation relies on engagement and interaction
with their institution, which begins with their orientation programming.
The research showed that the issue of retention has transcended time. Engagement of new
students and helping students understand why they wish to attend an institution from enrollment to
graduation (i.e., enrollment management; Maguire, 1976) begins with orientation. Orientation and
transition professionals must keep retention and persistence in the forefront of their work and infuse
sufficient mechanisms promoting student connection to their institution as soon as they enroll in
orientation. To do this, they must work to understand how various retention factors influence
orientation and transition programming. For new first-year students, the influences of where they come
from, combined with their new community, collide during the orientation and transition processes. New
student orientation during the summer is a key mechanism for connecting students to other new
students, current student leaders, staff, and faculty. Building this community before classes begin
contributes to students’ success, happiness, and overall experience, which can lead to persistence.
Family Influence and Involvement
Enrolling and transitioning into a college or university represents a monumental life event for
students, and for some, it can cause stress and other overwhelming emotions. Melvin and Stick (2001)
explained students do not always make this decision alone. Family, friends, employers, and institutional
financial aid officers also play a role (Melvin & Stick, 2001). Each factor impacts how the student decides
where to apply and ultimately attend and graduate.
For students who feel very connected to their life at home, being away at college can elicit
feelings of isolation and loneliness (Henninger et al., 2016). For these students, friends and family at
home may encourage them to return home on the weekends, which reduces their ability to connect
with their college and university. Trips home prevent them from engaging in campus activities and cause
39
them to miss out on opportunities to meet new people (Henninger et al., 2016). Although support from
home can be important to some students, students should make efforts to strengthen their
relationships with their on-campus community throughout their time at their college or university
(Henninger et al., 2016).
Although parents can play an important role within the college or university community, their
long-term educational and career goals may differ from those of their child (Turrentine et al., 2000). In
some cases, parental goals may be unrealistic, including academic achievements, study focus, or intern
or job prospects; thus, colleges should not base their orientation goals on parent expectations
(Turrentine et al., 2000).
Orientation Sessions Designated for Parents
As colleges have seen an increase in parent participation in student life, parent orientation
programs have been implemented at many colleges and universities (Coburn & Woodward, 2001;
Merriam, 2007; Wartman & Savage, 2008). Orientation sessions designated for parents can assist with
persistence efforts by providing information about the institution, creating an alliance between parents
and the institution, and informing them of the pressures their students may face at school (Mann,
1998). In their study of successful parents and families with first-year college students, Ward-Roof et al.
(2008) found that strategies such as assessing family needs; creating intentional programming; securing
financial resources and staff; utilizing consistent communication tools, including family members in crisis
planning; and educating students about developing strong relationships with their families can help
institutions engage parents and families in meaningful ways during a student's transition to college.
Family engagement leads to positive student outcomes.
Influence of Others
In addition to family members, friends can also impact a student’s college or university goals
and may impact their ability to persist to graduation (Strom & Savage, 2014). Ellison et al. (2007) defined
40
friendsickness as lonely feelings caused by the distance between college and their home community.
Paul and Brier (2001), however, defined friendsickness as the preoccupation with the loss of or change
in precollege friendships, which can cause distress. Paul and Brier’s (2001) study suggested that the
most useful focus for friendsickness prevention programming is understanding how students anticipate
coping based on their precollege expectations and concerns. The loss of a familiar group of friends
coupled with emersion in the new college environment’s uncertainty can create feelings of loss that
resemble grief for some students (Paul & Brier, 2001). Colleges and universities can focus their
intervention programs on helping new students build relationships with strong supportive tendencies,
thus avoiding college transition distress associated with friendsickness (Paul & Brier, 2001).
Issues of integration and connection on campus have been studied for decades. Paul and Brier
(2001) asserted college students who remain preoccupied with their precollege network of friend’s
experience trouble integrating into potential new relationships. The authors added students are at a
greater risk for college adjustment difficulties if they do not find a new social group and create a new
network. Students with a high degree of connectedness with friends from home often go home,
whereas students with connections to new friends stay on campus (Jorgenson et al., 2018).
Hand and Payne (2008) recognized that although students with friends who have dropped out
can be negatively affected, it is ultimately each student’s choice and responsibility to persist. Paul and
Brier (2001) suggested that orientation programs can help students identify important qualities for a
good friendship, evaluate precollege relationships, and develop strategies for finding similar qualities in
their new college friends while maintaining a delicate balance.
Paul and Brier (2001) explained many students include many precollege friends in their newly
established social network. Precollege friendships can cause friendsickness, yet they can also help with
feelings of loss and backward-looking tendencies. Paul and Brier noted orientation programs should
acknowledge this distress, facilitate productive coping strategies addressing friendsickness, and
41
encourage students to keep their precollege friends while also establishing college friendships. Pittman
and Richmond (2008) suggested that programs and activities aimed at enriching a student’s sense of
belonging and helping them develop positive ties and connections to friends would improve their
successful adjustment during their first semester and throughout their college career. Students may use
social media to establish on-line groups, stay connected to hometown friends, and networks to reduce
friendsickness (Strayhorn, 2012a, 2012b). Friendship quality and a sense of belonging are tied together
and play a large role in student adjustment during the transition to college (Chipuer, 2001; Pittman &
Richmond, 2007, 2008).
In their study, Brooman and Darwent (2014) showed, in contradiction with Tinto (1988), that
new students felt a sense of belonging and support from staff when they tried to keep in touch with old
friends and family members. The authors showed this may have been influenced by the use of
communication media to maintain old friendships and increased by the number of students living close
to or at home (Brooman & Darwent, 2014).
Community Support for New Students
Institutional experiences can be formal, informal, academic, or social. Several studies have
shown the types of student experiences are strong predictors of student persistence (Astin, 1999;
Branand et al., 2015; Tinto, 1993). Researchers can bridge Astin’s (1999) theory of involvement and
Tinto’s (1993) integration model using the self-expansion model, Branand et al. (2015) defined as the
involvement leading to integration and, ultimately, persistence. Haussmann et al. (2007) and Hurtado
and Carter (1997) posited that participation in institutional programs and policies helps students build
relationships.
Additionally, Branand et al. (2015) suggested the campus community itself is one of the most
important contributors to building relationships and fostering connections in all areas. As such,
involvement in the college community increases a student’s overall satisfaction with the college and
42
university experience by making them feel more comfortable and a member of the institutional
community. Moreover, Branand et al. asserted the college community impacts personal growth and
development through the potential for relationships and connections it offers. Feeling included in this
community contributes to student persistence because the more connected a student feels to their
institution, the greater the likelihood they will remain a part of it (Mashek et al., 2007). Orientation
programs help new students get acquainted with their campus community and educate them about
college resources to ensure their academic and social success (Mack, 2010).
Precollege Factors and Characteristics
Colleges and universities encounter predetermined factors during the recruitment, enrollment,
orientation, and transition periods that may impact a student’s readiness to be at any college or
university. These include family background, individual attributes, precollege schooling, goal
commitment, institutional commitment, student orientation experiences, academic integration, and
social integration (Pascarella et al., 1986). Precollege factors, perceptions, expectations, and preferences
can dominate how students select the college or university best suited for them (Davis, 2003). Jorgenson
et al. (2018) indicated that students can struggle to balance their personal expectations with social and
institutional connectedness when entering college. This is important because parental involvement can
start for many students during the application, financial aid, and enrollment periods, but ensuring
parent involvement continues during orientation contributes to students’ successful transition and
overall persistence. Additionally, some students will have zero family or parent involvement, and that
can also impact a student’s transition.
Tinto (1993) noted that students enter college with personal attributes, goals, and commitments
that impact and shape their institutional experiences, leading to their integration into the campus
community. Barry and Okun (2011) posited that following enrollment, many first-year college students
continue to compare their university with alternative universities. The authors added that social life,
43
quality of education, and the amount of schoolwork required to receive desired grades represent key
dimensions that contribute to student success and persistence. Social and institutional connections
influence a student’s ability to succeed and fully transition (Mack, 2010). Intent and perception can
seriously impact a student’s success, happiness, and experience, which can lead to persistence to
graduation. Thus, if college administrators continue to maintain students’ sense of belonging, both
students and institutions can expect successful outcomes (Strayhorn, 2012a, 2012b).
Deggs (2011) indicated that transition can be difficult, so schools need successful orientation
programs to aid students’ adjustment to college. Students enter college with various characteristics and
different levels of commitment to the institution (Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1990). Gist-Mackey et al. (2018)
additionally noted that first-generation students share their parents’ educational status but may also
share other attributes with family such as race, ethnicity, social class, siblings’ education level, and
parents’ occupation. These characteristics and variables pair with commitment issues to influence a
student’s ability to transition successfully through orientation, their first semester, first year, and
beyond (Gist-Mackey et al., 2018).
Many factors that impact a student prior to enrollment relate to the campus culture and
context, which are critical to new student success (Manns, 2002; Strayhorn, 2012a, 2012b). Pascarella
and Terenzini (2005) acknowledged that students must change and develop while in college, but they
also examined the institutions’ need to look at the origins and processes of change as they occur in the
college environment. Furthermore, Manns (2002) reported that the institution’s size and espoused
values and the student’s lack of involvement present barriers to building and maintaining community.
Conclusion
The student transition experience is influenced largely by family, friends from home and school,
and the general institutional community. The more informed and equipped orientation professionals are
about their new students, the better they will be able to create orientation programming that promotes
44
successful transitions and retention. Orientation programs can focus on precollege characteristics and
factors, self-efficacy and self-awareness, family influence and involvement, and the role of friends and
family in the success of new college students.
Hosting orientation and transition programming throughout a student’s tenure and including
family members and friends in the process increases the overall success and persistence. College and
university administrators must continue to learn how the right support can contribute to student
success, retention, and persistence to graduation. As the literature showed, these themes are central to
understanding how to successfully execute an orientation program that will promote new students’
transition to happy and successful college students.
New Student Financial Considerations
Millea et al. (2018) explained that the success of a university and its students are intertwined,
with both influenced by institutional factors, student attributes, and financial considerations. Increased
scrutiny on the rising costs of higher education also affects student persistence. The authors asserted
that student attrition costs universities thousands of dollars in unrealized tuition revenue and
recruitment costs. Additionally, colleges and universities use retention and graduation rates to measure
success and progress. Students who graduate, however, become part of the institutional alumni
network, which contributes to institutional development, advancement, and donor relations
(McDearmon, 2010). To improve college retention and enrollment rates, higher education professionals
should study the need for academic quality and financial aid (Xu, 2017).
Administrators conducting orientation, transition, and retention work should prioritize financial
education for prospective and new students and their families because it provides students and their
families an opportunity to learn and change behaviors, if necessary (Kezar & Yang, 2010). Furthermore,
during orientation, students should receive a holistic view of how to be successful in college, including
how they will pay for their education (Pope, 2001). Colleges and universities can provide access to
45
resources for increasing financial literacy and education, which provides students and their families
confidence and assurance that can influence their academic and cocurricular quests (Kezar & Yang,
2010). To this end, Pope (2001) asserted financial aid awards and information about how to utilize funds
should be included in orientation programming. Pope added that financial aid awards are a key factor in
determining a student’s decision to attend an institution, so orientation staff members must be well
versed in how financial aid works.
With the cost of higher education rising, Pope (2001) argued students do more research and
comparison between schools and the financial packages they offer. During orientation, many students
ask additional questions and gain further details about their financial options. Pope continued that
orientation staff professionals can provide accurate information during the orientation and transition
programming about managing student loans and helping with possible alternatives. Additionally, Hand
and Payne (2008) asserted colleges and universities should provide financial resources and other critical
on-campus resources such as emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical support systems; relationships
or role models; and knowledge of campus rules, policies, and procedures. The authors added that
communication of resources and general information is key to preventing serious barriers from
developing between the institution and students.
Shireman (2009) contended paying for college resembles assembling a puzzle with different
pieces and defined frames that can appear, disappear, or change in reaction to each other. These
“frames” include tuition and fees, books and supplies, room and board, transportation, and personal
expenses. Shireman also defined financial aspects as parental funds from savings, current income, and
borrowing and student funds from savings, income earned during school, borrowing, and grant aid from
the college, private scholarships, federal grants, and state grants. Informing both students and family
members during orientation programs about the financial campus resources and the benefits of a
degree while providing them with financial literacy and showing the value of education can help both
46
students and families absorb the transition process (Walsh & Robinson Kurpius, 2016). It is important to
note that this is focusing on traditional college students, similar to the participants in this research.
Financial Aid
Davis et al. (2003) explained financial aid is a multidimensional system designed to help students
overcome financial obstacles and access higher education. According to the authors, financial aid
includes grants, unsubsidized and subsidized loans, tuition assistance, and work–study. Fortunately,
although student matriculation has increased, so has financial aid (Shireman, 2009). Schools need to
fight for continued improvements in need-based financial aid, but they should also consider financial aid
that covers living expenses and focus on keeping students on track to complete their degrees in a timely
fashion (Shireman, 2009).
An important influence on a college student’s engagement, satisfaction, and persistence is the
transparency related to financial aid. Pope (2001) contended the amount of financial aid awarded can
determine the final decision to attend an institution. Orientation professionals should promote a holistic
view of student success, Pope suggested, including how to pay for college, so administrators should
consider financial aid, financial access, and the financial burden many students feel.
Tuition costs, financial aid, and college admission practices intimidate some students and
families, especially those lacking social, cultural, and economic capital (Sacks, 2010). Financial aid affects
higher education and influences many aspects of the fields of student life and orientation (Melvin &
Stick, 2001). Kezar and Yang (2010) argued that campus communities should actively develop financial
literacy, education, and responsibilities as essential components for student engagement and
persistence. College and choice of academic major, lifestyle, and access represent key factors influencing
the financial concerns of college students and their families (Melvin & Stick, 2001). Students considering
higher education should understand the financial nuances of attending college (Melvin & Stick, 2001).
Many students worry about the implications of making such a big financial commitment, which puts
47
pression on administrators to justify how services and costs align and why the degree will be worth the
loans and financial stress.
Financial Implications of Student Retention
Attrition and the ability for institutions to retain students together represent a problem for
higher education. Attrition occurs most often during the first year (Pope, 2001) when college students
face personal, social, academic, and financial hardships, which can cause stress (Civitci, 2015). Stewart et
al. (2015) implied it would be useful to monitor the effects of student financial aid on persistence to
measure enrollment management outcomes and define financial aid packages. Ehrenberg and Webber
(2010) found that colleges and universities can enhance the student-service expenditures and reduce or
reallocate instructional expenditures to enhance graduation rates.
Failure to understand what is effective reduces opportunities for all students, including those
with lower incomes, potentially imposing unwanted costs on institutions, taxpayers, and the
government (Davis, 2003). Designating an administrator who can take responsibility for managing and
maintaining student happiness and persistence can ensure the college strategically assists students on
their journey toward graduation, boosting the institution’s overall success and graduation rates. It
appears to be unrealistic to hold the college or the student totally responsible for persistence. Working
together to address the needs of the ever-changing student population and the various campus factors
will lead to success for all. Student-service expenses can influence new college students’ persistence and
graduation rates at America’s 4-year colleges and universities (Ehrenberg & Webber, 2010).
Institutional Access and Opportunity
New college students often face a number of challenges that can threaten their ability to
successfully adjust to the new campus environment. Access issues and financial concerns are important
for orientation professionals to keep in mind so that orientation programs offer resources,
presentations, and information to provide students with the knowledge and access they need to
48
succeed. Access to higher education is pivotal in further advancing an individual’s life (Melvin & Stick,
2001), and rising tuition is not the only obstacle students face (Sacks, 2010). Access also involves class
differences, the pursuit of prestigious institutions, and an overall flawed paradigm (Sacks, 2010). In
reality, a new paradigm, which includes students, families, alumni, and donors, gets equal value for its
investment while the old merit-based paradigm has struggled to stay relevant (Sacks, 2010). Access is
complicated and troublesome, and rising tuition costs are only one of the many obstacles and hidden
barriers students face when pursuing equitable higher education (Sacks, 2010). Colleges and universities
cannot fix the overall flawed paradigm, but they could do more to decrease inequities (Sacks, 2010).
These fixes can begin with admissions reforms that could enable faculty and staff to take ownership of
decisions promoting equity, and institutions can continue to fight inequality with access through
orientation.
Tinto (2006) asserted student income is a critical issue for access, choice, and equity in higher
education. Colleges and universities must understand that where and how a student goes to college
relates to their likelihood of graduating, which directly affects their income. In particular, Tinto (2006)
elaborated that institutions should stay cognizant of how income impacts a student’s experience, which
then influences how they engage with orientation programs, transition to college, and persist. Colleges
and universities can improve their understanding of who they should be serving and how to help them
succeed. Every student is different, so administrators should keep that in mind when building
orientation programs that will benefit the student and the institution. Additionally, identifying effective
actions and implementing them will help colleges and universities improve access to programs for new
college students from start to finish (Tinto, 2006).
Orientation professionals can help new students access new student orientation programs and
resources. Challenges begin in admissions and continue through orientation programming (Mack, 2010).
Administrators need to understand that financial limitations influence how students pay for orientation
49
programming, access websites to sign register or gather information. The process represents a
significant step in many, but not all, new student’s experience with access and opportunity. White or
dominant culture students may not have had such an experience. Orientation programs represent an
opportunity for conversations about access, opportunity, financial support, and systems that can be key
to breaking barriers.
Conclusion
Financial matters influence student enrollment throughout students’ tenure at an institution.
Attending a college or university has become more difficult for many students due to financial burdens
and issues with financial literacy and assistance. Colleges and university administrators must understand
their new students and the internal and external factors contributing to their choice to enroll in the
institution. College and university stakeholders and administrators should acknowledge what will work
or not for their students’ essential needs, learn to be proactive versus reactive to multiple retention
circumstances, and do a full review of the services provided for all new students and their parents on a
regular basis. College and university leadership must take a targeted look at how financial aid, financial
management, tuition discounting, and financial burden contribute to student satisfaction, enrollment,
engagement, and persistence. Conversely, they must also understand how the success in those benefits
the institution.
Summation
Existing literature provided insight into the orientation, transition, and retention experiences of
new college students, with a focus on precollege factors, financial implications, sense of belonging,
student engagement, student involvement, self-efficacy and self-esteem, and the influence of family and
friends. Most of the research did not specifically focus on the summer orientation program at a small
private institution and how it can influence a student’s experience and potential overall persistence. This
gap in the research highlighted the need for further exploration into how summer orientations influence
50
first-year students’ college experiences and persistence. Leaders at colleges and universities make
decisions to create and maintain strong orientation and transition programs while also developing key
strategies to address attrition. These decisions can help administrators serve students effectively and
efficiently. Institutional leaders who wish to be successful must strive to overcome poor retention rates.
Institutions must employ various options to address the constant need to keep students happy and
engaged. Colleges and universities can assess their programs and services and maintain knowledge of
the ever-changing internal and external factors influencing student persistence.
Understanding both positive and negative experiences across higher education within specific
institutions and within specific demographics of students could provide direction for assessment, data
gathering, and practices and strategy development. Higher education professionals must stay up to date
on cost-sharing and financial assistance policy and procedure with special attention to how these things
impact student behavior. Student behavior can drive policy and also the financial stability of a college or
university. Administrators must educate students and their families about financial assistance, burdens,
and management before and during enrollment, continuing these efforts throughout the college tenure.
Focusing on student and parent needs before and during student arrival can also assist with the
recruitment, selection, and admissions processes. An orientation program designed through campus-
wide collaboration will promote student retention, persistence, sense of belonging, and overall
happiness. Furthermore, orientation programs have been developed to address institutional concerns of
retention and to help students adjust to their new environment. Orientation professionals must
continue to evaluate ways to deliver orientation content.
In conclusion, this study adds to the literature on how the orientation experience can influence
transition and retention of first-year college students. As noted earlier, the higher education experience
has been challenged and transformed by the COVID-19 pandemic; this research and the research
questions apply to the pre-pandemic orientation experience. There are many reasons students do not
51
complete college. Administrators must make calculated, strategic, systemic, and well-reviewed decisions
to improve retention rates. Decisions must also be informed by an understanding of the noted factors,
including the influence of family and friends, precollege interests, finances, and the sense of belonging
and engagement that can be promoted through a successful orientation experience. College and
university administrators must continue to work to understand why students leave their campuses and
how the departures can be prevented.
52
Chapter 3: Research Design
This study was an examination of the 2-day overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged,
first-time first-year college students at a small private institution and how it contributed to their sense
of belonging and persistence through their first and second years of school. Hearing students’
experiences showcased a powerful story about how students experience the college transition that is
valuable for small colleges and universities competing for students in an environment where students
have many choices.
The overarching research questions guiding this IPA study were:
RQ1. How do first-year college students understand their orientation experience, and what
impact do they perceive it had on their transition experience?
RQ2. How do the summer overnight orientation experiences contribute to a student’s sense
of belonging?
RQ3. How do first-year students define, develop, and make meaning of their sense of
belonging during the first year of college?
This chapter begins with a presentation of the purpose of the study and research questions, a
general overview of qualitative research approaches, specific reasons behind the choice of the
constructivist–interpretivist paradigm, and a rationale for selecting IPA. Next, recruitment and
participant selection are covered. Last, the chapter ends with a discussion of research procedures,
including data collection and analysis; ethical considerations, such as credibility, transferability, research
bias, and positionality; and study limitations.
Qualitative Research Approach
Qualitative researchers focus on meaning and understanding, collecting data through interviews
and observations, and performing inductive and comparative analysis. Findings are intended to be rich,
descriptive, and thematic (Merriam, 2009). Ponterotto (2005) confirmed that paradigms provide a
53
context through which all researchers must choose to operate their studies. This qualitative research
study relied on the constructivist–interpretivist research paradigm. Constructivism is a model based on
observations about how people learn and engage (Butin, 2010). When using interpretivism, researchers
create truth with the key goals of finding patterns within meaning, sharing the story, and staying
authentic (Butin, 2010). Constructivism and interpretivism emerged in response to the positivist and
postpositivist paradigms, which involved a focus on individual experiences versus truth and reality
(Merriam, 1991). In constructivist–interpretivist studies, the researcher seeks to understand the
certainty of the research topic and its application to everyday situations as they occur. Furthermore, in
the constructivist–interpretivist paradigm, researchers focus on how humans build their own
understanding and knowledge by experiencing and then reflecting on those experiences (Merriam,
1991). Ponterotto (2005) explained that research conducted through this paradigm brings truth and
actuality to the forefront. In this model, researchers document the truth and examine perspectives.
This study was conducted using a constructivist–interpretivist paradigm because of the desire to
emphasize making meaning by exploring and analyzing the experiences of first-year college students.
This study aligned with the constructivist–interpretivist paradigm because the focus This study was an
examination of the 2-day overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged, first-time first-year
college students at a small private institution and how it contributed to their sense of belonging and
persistence through their first and second years of school.
Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis
IPA was the qualitative research approach for this study because it helps me understand how a
group of individuals interpret a phenomenon. The objective of using IPA was to inform me about the
phenomenon being studied through the interpretations of the first-year college student participants
who experienced a new student orientation. The selected IPA research methodology provided
opportunities to make meaning of the participants’ perspectives on transitioning successfully to college.
54
Many studies have focused on why students leave colleges. This study was designed as an examination
of the 2-day overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged, first-time first-year college students at
a small private institution and how it contributed to their sense of belonging and persistence through
their first and second years of school. IPA researchers focus on making sense of participants’ lived
experiences, so the method suited this study and the intent to invite participants to offer a rich,
detailed, first-person account of their experiences (Callary et al., 2015; Charlick et al., 2016; Larkin et al.,
2011; Smith et al., 2011). This approach facilitated the understanding, interpretation, and amplification
of the research participants’ lived experiences to make their experiences meaningful.
Key Characteristics of IPA
IPA research is guided by the fields of phenomenology, hermeneutics, and idiography (Creswell,
2013). Successful IPA studies are crafted carefully with attention to the interview design, data collection
process, and analytical steps. This IPA research involved using the student’s description of a lived
experience (i.e., orientation) and interpreting the meaning of the students’ language, with a focus on
the specifics of a small group of students and a rich, meaningful analysis (Charlick et al., 2016). The aim
was to get as close as possible to the actual lived experience of the students while interpreting meaning
through a broader context of the surrounding world and higher education (Larkin et al., 2011). I
achieved this by interviewing the first-year college students to learn about their questions, comments,
thoughts, feelings, experiences, hopes, dreams, and stories (Smith et al., 2009).
IPA research shows how students understand a similar experience through the student and
researcher’s different interpretations. In this study, interviews and data analysis were used to keep the
research interpretive and informational. Instead of focusing on facts and themes, IPA researchers focus
on the meaning held within them (Larkin & Thompson, 2012; Smith et al., 2009). I did their best to
understand the meaning behind the participants’ answers (Tuffour, 2017).
55
To perform this study, I recruited a small sample of students and performed in-depth interviews
with them to create personal meaning-making of the fall semester of their first year in college. The focus
on the meaning of the participants’ orientation experience made for a strong IPA study. Larkin and
Thompson (2012) confirmed that IPA requires open research questions that focus on experiences and
understandings within a particular context. IPA researchers focus on the quality of information, not the
quantity, with the aim of developing an organized, detailed, plausible, and transparent account of the
data’s meaning. IPA researchers focus on an in-depth personal view of a specific experience from a
particular perspective.
Participants
IPA studies involve using a double hermeneutic analysis in numerous interviews with each
participant, requiring smaller sample sizes (Shaw, 2010; Smith et al., 2009). The goal of this study was to
recruit eight to 12 undergraduate students to participate in two to three distinct semi structured
interviews. IPA researchers perform idiographic examinations of individual cases (Larkin et al., 2011;
Smith, 2011), aiming to provide a detailed analysis of the individuals’ perceptions about a particular
experience (Smith et al., 2009). For this IPA study, I recruited participants who shared the experience of
having participated in a new student summer orientation program during the summer of 2019. Research
participants were recruited at a small, private university in the suburbs of Boston, Massachusetts.
Students who attended the overnight summer orientation program received an email inviting
them to participate in the study. Individuals who responded with interest were sent an email to
determine their eligibility for the study. The research criteria excluded graduate, nontraditional, online,
and sophomore to senior students because their unique transition and orientation experiences could
distort the results. Limiting the study by gender, race, or ethnicity could have significantly reduced the
anticipated participant pool, so they were not among the prerequisite criteria. The criteria for eligibility
for participants included:
56
• first-time, first-year students who attended a Laser Link Orientation session,
• first-time, first-year students who transitioned into the university within the year prior to
the study,
• students with full-time status,
• students living in on-campus residence halls during the transition year,
• traditional students between 18–24 years of age,
• New England residents.
Table 1 shows participant demographics and orientation session by pseudonym.
57
Table 1
Participant Demographics
Participant name (pseudonyms)
Age Major Gender Hometown
LLO session
#
Race and ethnicity
Residence hall
Albert 19 Management/marketing
M Amesbury, MA
2 White/Asian-American
Rockwell Hall
Asia 18 Psychology F Manchester, NH
1 African/Eastern Europe
McClelland Hall
Betty 18 Exercise science
F Warwick, RI
1 White Rockwell Hall
Christine 19 Business and finance
F Douglas, MA
2 White Van Winkle Hall
Emma Jean 19 Health science
F Falmouth, MA
3 South Asian, Indian, Asian
Woodland Hall
Grace 18 Elementary education
F West Hartford, CT
1 White Gardner House - Mott House
Jack 19 Hospitality/ management
M Amherst, MA
3 Latino Woodland Hall
Marie 19 Psychology F Westport, MA
3 White Holt Hall - Van Winkle Hall
Savannah 19 Hospitality/ management
F Hudson, MA
3 White Holt Hall
Sky 19 Psychology F Wilmington, MA
1 Asian American
Woodland Hall
Note. LLO = Laser Link Orientation
Procedures
After the institutional review board approved the study, recruitment and selection of the
participants began. Participants were invited to participate in an email (see Appendix A) that informed
them of the study’s purpose and provided the Exempt Study Participant Information Sheet (see
Appendix B). Each consented to allow me to record the interview on a cell phone. Participants received a
copy of their signed consent form, which stated the purpose of the study and provided information
about confidentiality, the protection of their privacy, and the right to withdraw from the project at any
time.
58
Data Collection
Data was collected using one-on-one, semi structured interviews with 10 undergraduate
students who attended the 2-day overnight orientation program in the summer of 2019. The semi
structured interviews consisted of open-ended questions and several deeper questions. During every
interview, I shared information about my role at the university and assurance that participants’
responses would only be used for research analysis. I developed specific interview protocols (see
Appendix E) and ethics and strove to represent themselves, the research, the topic, and the subjects
accurately and fairly.
I used the interview questions to begin a dialogue focused on the participants’ orientation and
transition experiences. The first-round interview lasted 60–90 min. Participants consented to be
recorded at the start of the interviews, and recordings were made using the Rev recorder app on my cell
phone. After the interviews, the recordings were submitted for transcription. I then asked each
participant to review their transcript and confirm its accuracy or clarify and expand any statement. After
each interview and transcript review, I scheduled a follow-up interview with the goal of having a more
in-depth conversation. The purpose of the additional interview was to allow the participants to reflect
on their experiences. Throughout the interview process, I kept notes and made observations, which
allowed myself to record behaviors, tones, and other nuances that would not show up on the audio
recording. The data was stored on my password-protected personal computer.
Data Analysis
This section provides a description of how data was analyzed using basic inductive procedures
appropriate for an IPA study. To start, through the technique of bracketing, I set aside my own personal
and professional experiences, assumptions, and biases to adopt a clear perspective on the phenomenon
and themes and focus on the participants interviewed in the study (Creswell, 2013; Moustakas, 1994).
59
As part of the analysis, I remained cognizant of my background, insights, positionality, bias, and ethical
considerations.
After collecting the data, I analyzed it by hand-coding and using MAXQDA. Each transcript was
read twice to identify common opinions and cluster those opinions into various themes called codes.
Transcripts were then read a third time to highlight words and phrases that fit into the defined codes
and to create a word frequency word cloud (see Appendix C) I identified the themes that emerged from
the clusters and determined how they related to the research questions. Seidman (2006) speculated
that codes might conflict and recommended including all contradictions. Smith (2011) argued that the
final data analysis should demonstrate both divergent and convergent themes. Accordingly, I noted
themes that emerged in some but not all interviews, identifying them as a one-off theme.
Criteria for Quality Qualitative Research
This study was an examination of the 2-day overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged,
first-time first-year college students at a small private institution and how it contributed to their sense
of belonging and persistence through their first and second years of school. This section provides an
explanation of the procedures and the efforts I executed to address ethical considerations, credibility,
transferability, self-reflexivity and transparency, and limitations while keeping the purpose of this study
in mind.
Ethical Considerations
I refrained from providing any personal or professional thoughts on how I have experienced
orientation, transition, and retention to avoid influencing participants’ accounts. I understood even the
best intentions could not entirely erase personal perceptions about student orientation, transition,
persistence, satisfaction, engagement, and retention. Researchers and scholar–practitioners must strike
a balance between scientific requirements of their chosen methodology, human rights, and values
60
(Kimmel, 1988). Preserving the dignity of myself and the research subjects in how their words and
thoughts are presented made the research accurate and appropriate (Seidman, 2006).
Student’s identities, information, and transcripts were handled with care and used for this study
only. Participants understood the study’s purpose and the intention to provide them with anonymity. As
shared earlier, the participants signed informed consent agreements that outlined the expectations. The
list of participants’ names and pseudonyms was kept in a locked cabinet in my home until the study
ended, and the information will be destroyed after 3 years. All additional documents resulting from the
interviews (i.e., recordings and transcripts) will also be destroyed after 3 years.
Credibility
The credibility of this study was established in accordance with IPA practices used to select
participants and collect and analyze data. The selection process was transparent for each participant.
Checking for validity and reliability is key to an IPA study (Rivituso, 2014), so I conducted member
checking to verify information with the participants (Rivituso, 2014). I checked in with each participant
after their first interview and sent them a copy of the transcript, asking them to confirm the accuracy of
the data and provide any comments or feedback they deemed necessary. Students were then invited for
a second interview to repeat the process. I kept notes during and after the interviews with dates and
times, post interview reflections, and participant correspondence to enhance the credibility of the
study.
Transferability
This IPA analysis elicited stories, thoughts, and feelings from the students interviewed. I shared
those experiences and the emergent themes using thick descriptions. Lincoln and Guba (1985) explained
that thick descriptions of a phenomenon contribute to a study’s external validity. Thick description refers
to the practice of describing a phenomenon in rich and sufficient detail (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To
provide the context needed to increase the transferability of the findings, I described the participants,
61
the experience, and the settings (Creswell, 2007). These descriptions and contexts will help the reader
understand the study and assess its transferability. This will help external readers, including other higher
education professionals, make use of the results. Higher education and student affairs administrators;
scholar–practitioners; and orientation, transition, and retention professionals in higher education should
see the noteworthy contribution of this study and consider the results when designing orientation
programming, retention practices, or further research. This research is valuable and practical for higher
education administrators who wish to understand how to better serve first-year college students and
how to foster student persistence through orientation and transition programming.
Internal Audit
According to Creswell and Miller (2000), researchers should establish an audit trail to document
the inquiry process. The audit trail can include journaling, memos, a research log of all activities, a data
collection chronology, and clear recordings of data analysis procedures. The internal audit adds
credibility and trustworthiness to the study, as any reviewer can verify methods for data collection and
analysis. I maintained an internal IPA audit trail (see Appendix D) to enable readers to follow the
meaning-making process (Shaw, 2010) from the interview and data analysis through to the final report.
This audit trail demonstrates a transparent and trustworthy process occurred. It includes (a) the
research question; (b) the study’s purpose; (c) participant recruitment and selection; (d) data collection
and analysis as recorded in research field notes, journaling, memoing, audiotapes, and annotated
transcripts; (e) identified excerpts and findings; (f) tables of emerging and superordinate themes; (g)
draft reports; and (h) the final report (Shaw, 2010).
Self-Reflexivity and Transparency
Researchers must be prepared to conduct internal reflection and for those reflections to come
through in their research, study, practice, and writing (Fennell & Arnot, 2008). This section provides
62
information my background and biases, with reflections about how those could have impacted this
study. The section also addresses my positionality and background.
Over 15 years ago, my passion for new student orientation and college transition became a
focus when I first served as an orientation leader and then as an orientation coordinator as a college
student. Holding those positions fostered my desire to pursue graduate work in education with the goal
of becoming a director of student activities and orientation. Over 14+ years, I have worked in higher
education as a student affairs administration professional and have gained knowledge and views on the
effectiveness of new student and family orientation programs in promoting student persistence. My
employing institution at the time of the study offered a 2-day overnight orientation program in June and
a 3-day orientation program in September. The orientation office encouraged all traditional domestic
first-year students to attend both of these events. The June program focused on student advising,
course registration, and getting to know other new students, faculty, and staff. The September program
focused on enrollment confirmation, trips and tours in Boston, and a variety of social activities for new
students. These programs influenced my view that orientation programs help students connect to the
college community by promoting general student engagement, success, and satisfaction. In all of my
orientation experiences, I have worked mainly with overnight summer programs, which informs my bias.
I have served on a retention committee at my employing institution and have prior knowledge
about what the institution has accomplished, and the efforts made to understand why students stay or
leave. I kept my academic, professional, and personal identities (e.g., being a director at the institution,
a past orientation leader, or a white female) in mind during the interview, analysis, and writing
processes. Throughout the process, I took notes on thoughts, feelings, and reflections that could be
helpful to remember at various stages.
I kept my predicted outcomes, feelings towards the institution and orientation, and biases in
check. I had a preconceived notion that students who attend the summer overnight program at the
63
selected institution succeeded, and those who do not attend struggle. The preconceived notion
motivated me to perform this study and help the selected institution and others like it improve their
persistence rates.
Understanding positionality and bias was important to counter the different perspectives that
arose. Being open and honest helped me listen to thoughts, feelings, and opinions related to research,
subjects, and outcomes. In working with others on this research, I created a safe space that was
communicated and defined for all involved.
Limitations
This IPA study had a number of limitations related to its scope, focus, timing, goals, and aim. The
main limitation involved transferability. First, the study was conducted at one small institution with its
own unique characteristics as a small private institution with a connected learning philosophy. This
makes the results hard to duplicate at other types of colleges and universities. Next, in accordance with
the IPA method, the study included a small sample size of 10 first-year college students. The 10 students
did not represent the entire new first-year class entering the institution. Additionally, they only
represented a small private higher education institution in New England. Third, this study involved only
first-year undergraduate students in their second semester; consequently, the criteria excluded other
populations, timeframes, and variables that could have provided additional results.
64
Chapter 4: Findings and Analysis
This study was an examination of the 2-day overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged,
first-time first-year college students at a small private institution and how it contributed to their sense
of belonging and persistence through their first and second years of school. The student transition
experience is defined by how the orientation program supports the students’ adaption, persistence, and
continued enrollment at the university.
The interview analysis yielded four superordinate themes and 12 corresponding subthemes. The
data collection focused on 10 participants who attended an orientation program held during the
summer prior to their freshman year at a small private residential university outside Boston,
Massachusetts. Each participant was interviewed in a primary 60–90 min interview and a follow-up 15–
20 min interview. The superordinate themes were: (a) understanding impact of overnight orientation,
(b) sense of belonging and fit, (c) orientation impact on enrollment and transition experience, and (d)
orientation influence on persistence and retention. Table 2 lists the superordinate themes with their
corresponding subthemes and the reoccurrence of each theme during the participant interviews.
65
Table 2
Identification of Recurring Theme
Superordinate themes
Subthemes
Alb
ert
Asi
a
Bet
ty
Ch
rist
ine
Emm
a
Jean
Gra
ce
Jack
Mar
ie
Sava
nn
ah
Sky
1. Understanding the impact of overnight orientation
1.1 Helpful with an effective transition
X X X X X X X X X X
1.2 Positive student experience
X X X X X X X X X X
1.3 Student happiness X X X X X X X X X X
1.4 Expectations and goals met X X X X X X X X X
2. Sense of belonging/fit
2.1 Connections made X X X X X X X X
2.2 Academics interests solidified
X X X X X X X X
2.3 Comfort with institutional choice X X X X X X X X X
3. Orientation impact on enrollment & transition experience
3.1 Importance of orientation on first year
X X X X X X X X X
3.2 Importance of orientation on sophomore year X X X X Xa Xa X
4. Orientation influence on persistence/retention
4.1 Impact of orientation on decision to attend institution
X X X X X X X X
4.2 Orientation was critical to student success
X X X X X X X X X
4.3 Involvement & Engagement
X X X X X X X X X
Note. aThe “yes” answer was influenced by COVID-19 enrollment options.
66
Understanding the Impact of Overnight Orientation
Orientation and transition experiences can impact a new student in many ways. Therefore, a
new student’s participation in an orientation program prior to their first year at a college or university
can impact their transition into the institution and their overall collegiate experience. The first
superordinate theme that emerged from the participant interviews demonstrated how the orientation
program influenced the students’ experiences transitioning into their first year. Additionally, across all of
the participants, I uncovered several subthemes: a) orientation was helpful, b) orientation had a strong
impact on their student experience, c) orientation influenced student happiness, and d) goals and
expectations of orientation were met.
Helpful With an Effective Transition
It was clear that the summer overnight orientation program helped the participants build new
connections, get a sense of their new campus, and make an effective transition to college life. Savannah
indicated how experiencing orientation helped her feel prepared for being a first-time, first-year student
by calming her nerves:
Well, I think it definitely helped me, coming in as a freshman, because everyone is nervous in the beginning. And you need that introduction to see what it will be like and make you feel more comfortable. And then also, the staying overnight helps a lot, too, because a lot of kids are not used to being away from home like you are when you are in college. So, getting used to that experience helps. And also meeting new people because that is a big part of school, and you do not want to go in there not knowing anybody, so that is a good opportunity. Likewise, Emma Jean explained how orientation intentionally helped new students:
I do think it is helpful for new students. Every student should experience orientation at their school. The orientation is made for new students. So, everything that the orientation consists of will help a student if not now, then later. . . . I do think that if a student does not attend orientation, they are missing out because it is more, so I feel like when a student goes to orientation, they are more prepared for what is to come.
Savannah and Emma Jean made clear that participating in orientation helped them meet new students
and know what to expect in their first year as college students.
67
Various participants showcased that orientation helped them understand the campus culture
and gain a sense of living in an on-campus residential hall. Savannah recalled:
I think staying over at orientation definitely helped me adjust to the dorm room living and seeing or just see what it is like before you go there. Because that is definitely one, for myself, definitely an uncertainty that I had, just not knowing what to expect with the dorm room or what to bring or how it would look, what you would have for storage. So being in that room overnight definitely helps. Grace expanded on how orientation helped her understand the campus feel: “It was helpful just
to get the vibe of the school.” She also confirmed that orientation helped her get to know the school’s
location and its surroundings:
I feel like it was very helpful because the transition from high school to college is a huge step. Not just academically, but where you are living, because I am out of state. I do not know Boston; I do not know the Massachusetts area. . . . So, when I did the orientation, I actually got to learn where the school is compared to Boston . . . and just how to navigate. So, it was good, helpful in that sense. Orientation was also helpful for Albert who said it highlighted all of the resources the institution
offered new students:
There was definitely so many opportunities to ask questions and just listen to what [the university]’s all about, and different things like that. Then resources, yes. Especially the online resources, which was super helpful. Being educated on like how to use self-service, and like the kind of, the pro tips, if you will, from the orientation fairs, having inside school. I think, overall, education of classes was helpful. Collectively, the research participants confirmed that the summer overnight orientation
program helped them transition to and persist in their first and second years as an undergraduate
student. Although each of the participants’ orientation experiences differed, each shared that
orientation helped bring them happiness and prepared them for success as first-year students. The
orientation program also provided participants with the opportunity to make new friends with other
new first-year students, connect with upper-class students such as the orientation leaders, and gain an
understanding of what their life as a residential student would be like. These new students found
orientation to be helpful, which is key to aiding in their transition from high school to the university.
68
Positive Student Experience
The participant interviews confirmed that a positive orientation and transition experience can
influence a student’s persistence. For example, Sky revealed that participating in orientation helped her
have an overall positive experience: “I definitely think that that helped shape my experience, and it
allowed me to go into my first year feeling pretty confident already. Having friends, having ideas of what
I can join and belong in.” Other participants also shared that orientation helped them have a positive
student experience. For example, Jack shared:
During orientation, I was able to learn about different clubs and organizations on campus, then I was able to find them when classes started. That really helped me to open my eyes and open my mind to be more out there, learn about different stuff and join different organizations and support other students as well. Also, I felt really supported by the whole organization staff. That was awesome. Another participant, Betty, stated that orientation helped her learn more about herself, which
then allowed her to have positive curricular experiences:
Within the process of getting to know everyone, I also got to know my major a little bit more. So as that time in between, I got to know more about other people as well as myself and what I would like to do for the future. All participants valued the orientation for themselves and other new students, saying it provided
them with the tools and capabilities they needed to have the best student experience they could for
their first 2 years at the university. The research participants proved that the overnight orientation
program created a positive student experience for new students by introducing them to campus,
boosting their confidence in finding their way around the campus, and contributing to their ability to
build a network of friends that included upper-class students such as orientation leaders. Additionally,
the orientation experience confirmed students’ academic expectations and allowed them to create their
fall course schedule, which was important for their positive student experience.
69
Student Happiness
Participants viewed student happiness as something that impacted their orientation and
transition experience and aided in their ability to understand how orientation led to their success as a
student. All of the participants indicated they felt happiness during their orientation experience. Asia
stated: “Happiness, yes, I was happy.” Grace noted that being happy at orientation made her excited to
return to campus in the fall. Albert shared that orientation made him happy and excited for his future at
the institution: “It brought back a lot of good memories. I was just happy feeling, happy time. I think I
was just excited for college and what that would look like for me.” Aside from impacting a student’s
ability to enjoy and fully participate in their orientation program, student happiness changed how some
participants viewed their new student journey and helped them to become more involved. Christine
shared:
I am definitely not the same person I was last summer. That is for sure. If you were to tell me I would have been this open and involved on campus last summer, I would not have believed you. I did not see myself as ever being a type of person to be involved in anything. But being in the environment at [the university] during orientation completely opened my eyes, and I am so happy that it did. Other participants measured the happiness they derived from orientation by their ability to
make friends, meet people, and enjoy the overall social aspects of orientation. For example, Jack
reflected: “I was really happy because I met a lot of great people through orientation, all of that. That
was a must.” Marie had similar feelings coming out of orientation, as it allowed her to make
connections, which led her to feel secure with her choice to attend the institution:
I also come from a very small town, so I have known everyone since I was 3 years old. . . . Just knowing everyone from 3 to 18 it was like, "I'm going to this place where I don't know anybody." Having [the orientation program], even though there are three different ones, it was nice to know that group of people, for me. Made me happy. Made me feel more secure in going to [the university]. Throughout the interviews, participants expressed appreciation that one of the powerful
outcomes of orientation was their happiness and positive outlook regarding their overall student
70
experience. All of the participants experienced different levels of happiness, and each of their
experiences showed how happiness can influence a student’s sense of belonging, the connections they
make, and the social environment where they interact.
Expectations and Goals
Participants felt that the orientation program met their expectations and goals for the transition
process. Although individual expectations and goals varied, the majority of the participants focused on
specific aspects of the orientation program, such as opportunities to make new friends, getting to know
the campus, feeling prepared with the transition to college, and learning necessary information about
the institution. Sky reflected: “I was not disappointed in many things. Everything met my expectations, I
think.” And Marie similarly shared: “I feel like they were met. I really do not think I knew what I was
getting into. I did not know what was going to happen. I just kind of went for it.”
Many participants arrived at the 2-day program with a limited understanding of the process and
departed with the tools and knowledge they felt were necessary to succeed as a new student. It is
important to underscore that some participants arrived at orientation with no expectations beyond
focusing on their own personal goals. Some participants additionally noted they came into the
orientation program with minimal expectations but left feeling satisfied. Betty shared: “It exceeded my
expectations.” Various participants noted the need to try new things, step out of their comfort zone,
and become acquainted with the physical campus. Emma Jean expressed how orientation helped her
achieve one of these goals: “I know that when I went, I was now prepared for how to get around on
campus. And that was my biggest goal.” She continued:
So, coming to [the orientation program], my goal was to get as much information as possible. . . . I loved the presentations that we sat through, and I loved the little breaks that our [orientation leader] gave us. But it also was like kind of informational too. She would take us to different spots in the campus and just like explain the history behind it, which I thought was really neat. For Emma Jean, the orientation experience exceeded her goals and expectations through
presentations that provided information, built her confidence in navigating the physical campus, and
71
feeling like a member of the community in her small orientation group. These small groups also led to
friendships and connections.
Many of the study participants reflected that their main goal of orientation was to make a friend
or meet new people, which they hoped would help in their transition to college life. Additionally, the
participants valued the opportunity to meet upperclassmen and get to know other community members
(e.g., faculty and staff). The selected university allowed first-year students to choose a roommate or be
randomly assigned, so the participants also appreciated that orientation helped them find a roommate.
Marie stated: “I was hoping to meet a lot of people, which I did.” Jack also felt strongly that his
expectations to meet new people and connect with institutional resources were met:
I did have expectations. . . . When I know information about stuff that I need to know, and I feel like I did get the answers, I say, “Great, I met them.” I definitely know, and I definitely can say that yes, my expectations were met. Which were, meet new students, meet other people in my major because I did not know anyone, and learn about my resources and what will I have to do in my classes. What is on campus? What can I not do? What can I do? Participants explained that the experience of meeting new people and making new friends
during the summer orientation program made them excited to live on campus and gave them the
confidence they needed to return in the fall. Savannah confirmed this by stating: “That made me more
excited, leaving a really great experience on campus to see around campus and what it is going to be like
living there.”
Many participants consistently expressed nervousness and anxiety around achieving the goal of
making connections at orientation. Albert shared: “Arriving in the parking lot, I was definitely anxious
and nervous at first, but it was great. Just the energy and the vibe was awesome, that output.” Asia
additionally stated:
With orientation, I think a lot of people, not just myself, we were all very nervous going in because it is a new thing, but it helped a lot, honestly. It eased the nerves a lot and made me think [the school] was a good choice.
72
Throughout the interviews, most participants identified at least one expectation that
meaningfully helped them create a sense of belonging, impacting their understanding of orientation.
However, the participants who went into orientation with no expectations experienced similar
outcomes. They all felt they understood what their first year would be like because of their orientation
experience. Furthermore, through the integration of new student orientation, there could be changes in
their goals, expectations, and hopes. Finally, it was clear from the interview analysis that the
participants felt having expectations and goals for the orientation program was important to their
successful transition to the university.
Conclusion
It was clear through the interview analysis that for most of the participants in this study,
understanding how orientation positively impacted their assimilation into college life was important.
Summer overnight orientation programming, such as the one the participants attended, helps prepare
new students for their transition to college life, learn more about institutional resources and how to
navigate them, and meet new people and make friends. Everything that the participants experienced
during orientation contributed to their becoming successful college students.
All of the study participants reflected on and shared the impact of the orientation on their
happiness. Their responses showed that student happiness occurred during orientation because the
programming helped them develop a sense of belonging, build connections, and gain an understanding
of the social environment, all of which reassured them in their decisions to attend the institution.
Additionally, the majority of the participants expressed that having their expectations for orientation
met underscored the positive impact of orientation on their overall experience as college students.
Sense of Belonging and Fit
Sense of belonging and institutional fit are critical in determining a student’s success at their
college or university. Through academic connections, social and academic opportunities, and
73
programming, students can establish a link to the institution. Thus, the second superordinate theme
that emerged was the influence that orientation and transition experiences have on a new student’s
sense of belonging and institutional fit. Within this superordinate theme, additional subthemes were
identified: a) connections built at orientation; b) academics solidified at orientation; and c) student
feelings developed about the institution.
Connections Built at Orientation
Helping a student establish new relationships through orientation programming can truly help
the student connect not only to others but also to the institution and the campus community. In
addition to the important role that friends play in a student’s satisfaction, experience, and persistence,
participants reflected that orientation also helped them build other connections at the institution. These
connections occurred with the students in their assigned orientation groups, the upper-class students
who served as orientation leaders, the faculty, and other academic members of the community. Several
participants expanded on how they made connections within their small orientation group and with
their assigned and unassigned orientation leaders. Albert reflected on his ability to connect and how this
influenced his transition experience:
I think it is super helpful for new students. . . . I think it is more beneficial in the connections that are made, especially with orientation leaders and knowing the upperclassmen, but particularly with that sort of individual in your group, and the friendships that you create. . . . I would say I definitely made friends at orientation. Are we as close as we were? Are we closer now? I would say no, for those students that were maybe in my small group. In terms of the orientation leaders, definitely a heavy connection with much of them, I should say, because of different things that we are involved in. That kind of amplified, at first at orientation our connection, and then the connection was amplified through various other things, whether it be a club, a first-year seminar course, or just something else I am involved with them. Betty similarly reflected on her relationships with the orientation leaders:
Looking back, I remember all the orientation leaders are still friendly. They, even if we were not even part of their group, they were still willing to help us out because they knew like we did not know what was going on. It was just a good time.
74
Savannah expanded on how the orientation leaders influenced her orientation experience and
provided an important connection. Savannah noted the following:
Meeting those people and then seeing them again when you came back freshman year was amazing. So, you got introduced to them at orientation, and then you saw them again on campus, so you already knew them. And you could talk to them; you were comfortable talking to them, and then they most likely ended up in the same clubs that I was in. So being introduced to those people and seeing how they were at orientation because the energy that they had and everything and seeing how they were so involved and so excited and all that stuff, and then seeing them again later on. For me, I wanted to be like that. I wanted to be involved in campus like that and getting kids excited like that. So then seeing them later on and being able to work beside them or do what they were doing, I think that definitely helped. Connections with the orientation leaders led to students becoming more involved and engaged
during the first year of college. These connections also led to new students having more confidence in
their ability to succeed, become part of the community, and feel positive about the institution. Asia
stated: “They always made it open . . . and if we ever needed help even after orientation, we could
always reach out to them, and they just became friends to us.”
Several of the participants stated that meeting people and making friends represented vital
opportunities derived from the orientation experience. For example, Albert indicated: “I think it was
very helpful to meet new students in that way, but then also upperclassmen.” This was true for Betty as
well, who indicated: “I think it is very helpful for new students because they get to meet new friends.”
Jack also confirmed that the connections made at the overnight orientation helped him beyond the
orientation program:
I met a lot of people through orientation. We knew each other. We became friends, but then we did not finish best friends for the next semester. But then through orientation, I also met more people that became friends with me the next semester. That helped because I met more people and not specifically one or two students. Making friends and meeting new people mattered to the participants, indicating a successful
orientation experience. Although some participants focused on the connections with their peers and
orientation leaders, others reflected on the impact of meeting faculty and staff during orientation. For
Jack, orientation programming allowed him to establish new relationships beyond his peers:
75
I was also able to connect and meet with some of my department faculty members, one of my favorite professors. I did continue to have the connection with them. I had a class with that faculty member, and it was awesome. It really impacted my life in a good way, professionally and personally, because it was just awesome. Grace also mentioned the importance of making connections with faculty:
I met one of the head professors of the education department, which is really helpful to know what her face looked like, because we are walking around where a lot of education students are, and you have not met all the professors yet. Because some of them do not teach freshmen, some of them do, so you do not meet everyone right off the bat. So, it is very helpful to meet the professors, the higher-up professors who do not teach freshmen. So, I knew what they looked like when they emailed me, because they do email you about basic stuff going into sophomore year. I knew their faces. So, I knew on campus who they were, so I know who to ask, so that was very helpful in terms of that. . . . But I feel like the biggest . . . bond, was basically my professors. . . . I could connect with them later down the road and not be confused who is who. For Savannah, in addition to connections with faculty, developing relationships with other
students within her academic major stood out as important influencers in her success and happiness:
I met people in my major when we were picking out our class schedules. And I still talk to those kids, and I had classes with them, and we do projects together. So, making those connections in the beginning, especially with people that are inside your major, helps a lot, too. The connections made through the various orientation activities and opportunities emerged as
key influencers in the type of first year experience the participants had. As a result of the introductions
made during orientation, students continued connecting with important university members after
orientation. The participants acknowledged that meeting people in-person relieved them from feeling
nervous and anxious and made them believe that college would be a new positive adventure for them.
Making friends, engaging with faculty and staff, and connecting with orientation leaders all represented
important connections facilitated by orientation, which helped students build a foundational network
that led to successful transition and retention.
Academic Interests Solidified at Orientation
The second subtheme that emerged from the interview data was how participants addressed
concerns about connecting with faculty and solidifying their academic interests at orientation. Having
the opportunity to be in a classroom and creating their fall class schedule were also noted as important.
76
During the orientation, faculty and orientation leaders conduct advising by major; then students learn
how to digitally sign up for courses with staff nearby to assist. Betty felt that advising and registering for
classes during orientation contributed significantly to her overall positive experience:
What we learned from [the orientation program] has helped us learn how to make our own schedules, and we have to do that like midspring semester on our own. We do not have that help again. So, it was good to know what I was doing. Similarly, Savannah felt that the advising and early registration boosted her confidence as she
transitioned into her first year:
When we were picking our classes, picking our schedules, I met a professor for the first time, the head of the hospitality department. So, being able to meet him and knowing this is going to be the professor that I am going to have classes with and the head of my major and everything. So being able to meet those people in your major definitely helps a lot, too, because then I had class with him, and he remembered me from orientation. So that helped a lot. Sky also mentioned how helpful the academic components of orientation were and how they
impacted her academic trajectory:
I think that really helped me be successful because I got to learn more about my major and what classes I would be taking. And then just to not have to go through that alone. I do not know if I did not go to orientation, if I would have to do it online or something, but to have that guidance right there was really good.
In addition to the advising and course registration aspects of orientation, Jack felt that other academic
components of the program, such as being in the classroom, helped him to prepare to be a new student:
Definitely orientation helped me a lot because it got me prepared to what I could expect from my class, but also from other classes and the staff members as well as the faculty. Although some participants felt that they gained the most out of the advising opportunities and
ability to register for classes, other students reported feeling most impacted by the exposure to what
classes would be like, appreciating the chance to sit in the classroom with faculty and other students
prior to their first day of classes. The participants’ experiences showed that connecting new students
with faculty at orientation, having the opportunity to create their fall course schedule, and creating
77
important networks within their intended major solidified academics and contributed to the
participants’ sense of belonging in the community.
Comfort With Institutional Choice
Throughout the study, most of the participants demonstrated how orientation enhanced their
comfort in having chosen the university, confirming it was the right fit for them. The final subtheme
involved the participants’ comfort with their institutional choice and how the orientation program led
students to feel like their new school would be their home away from home. To start, Albert revealed
his feelings for the institution:
[The university] is a great place for me, I think. At first, I dealt with . . . the thought process behind if I chose the right school or not. Even though during the orientation, after I had said I chose the right school, I still had doubts, to be honest, for example, the small classrooms and not big lecture halls, and the difference between a small institution compared to a larger one. I had gone back and forth between that. I think, ultimately for me, I am accepting it more in that the people in a small institution; it feels like home. It feels like my hometown in many ways, and I really like that part of it. Asia also reflected on her feelings when she explained, “Me and my friends, we love [the
university].” Savannah similarly commented: “It helped me, like I said, feel more prepared for going, like
I made the right choice.”
Other participants, however, focused more on how the community and the new friends they
made were central to their positive feelings for the institution, which validated they had made the right
choice. Jack shared how he felt after orientation: “I was happy after that, knowing that I had picked the
right institution with the right people.” Christine also explained:
[The university] is for me because it has brought me my lifelong friends, and it has made me fall in love with my major. . . . And just having those resources, knowing that you are wanted, is the best feeling. Christine went on to share that orientation helped her develop a familiarity with the institution,
which made it feel like home:
78
So, I would say orientation was . . . I definitely think it helped me to realize that this is my home now. Even though I did not have the best experience, it was so nice to be like, I am like actually a part of this. Almost all of the participants expressed positive reactions to their orientation experience, saying
it produced positive feelings for the institution and a sense of knowing that it was the right place for
them. Participants shared insight on how institution size, campus community, friendships, and
opportunities to meet faculty and staff members contributed to their love for the university and its
people. Together, these converging themes established the participants’ sense of belonging and overall
institutional fit.
Conclusion
The majority of the participants established their sense of belonging and strengthened their
belief that the institution was the right one for them after attending the overnight summer orientation
program. Participants reflected on the positive connections they made at orientation and how they
confirmed their academic interests through advising, opportunities to establish relationships with
faculty, and the ability to create their fall course schedule. These connections and opportunities played a
key role in establishing the participants’ sense of belonging, as exemplified by their strong positive
feelings about the institution and their belief they had made the right choice. Additionally, orientation
persuaded the participants they had made the right choice by providing an in-person view of the
community, its size, and how it made them feel; enabling them to form friendships; and instilling them
with the idea the school could feel like home.
Orientation Impact on Enrollment and Transition Experience
During the interviews, participants reflected upon their orientation experiences and identified
the factors they believed contributed to their enrollment decisions and successful transition to their first
year as college students. The third superordinate theme involved how orientation impacted the
participants’ enrollment and transition experience. Under this superordinate theme, two subthemes
79
emerged: a) importance of orientation on the first year and b) importance of orientation on the
sophomore year. More than half of the participants claimed that orientation impacted their enrollment
status during their first and second years, helped with their transition, and influenced how the COVID-19
pandemic impacted their thoughts, decisions, and experiences. A majority of participants felt that
orientation impacted the first semester—especially the first few weeks—and a few felt that orientation
had an impact on their second semester. Finally, some participants felt that the overnight orientation
also affected their sophomore year. It was important to note that data collection occurred a few weeks
prior to the start of the participants’ sophomore year, which began after they had undergone a shift to
remote learning in the middle of the previous spring semester due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
impact of COVID-19 began in March 2020 and, at the time of this writing, still affected the university, all
of higher education, and the globe.
Importance of Orientation on the First Year
The first year of a new student’s college experience is often impactful. All of the participants
recalled vivid memories of the start of their time at the university and the role of orientation in how
they experienced the start of college life. Most participants felt that orientation contributed to their
success in the first semester, and several felt it also impacted their second semester.
Jack explained that he felt like orientation provided access to resources and opportunities, such
as academic advising, student life, and financial aid, which he identified as being important to his
success in his first year. Participants shared that knowing about resources and how to access them had a
positive effect on their orientation and transition processes. Jack continued:
I can say that it definitely gave me that touch of like, “You might expect this. This might also happen. If so, this is what you can do.” Also, learning the different resources around campus or different situations, even for mental health if you need a break, that was awesome. I really consider that during our orientation, I was able to gather all of that. It was awesomely helpful to me. I definitely consider that it should be fine, it should be happening because it was really helpful.
80
Academic resources provided during the orientation program also emerged as an important
theme as participants identified them as critically influencing their first semester. Jack shared how
academic resources and connections with professors prepared him to enjoy class during his first
semester:
For my first semester, the [orientation program] prepared me a lot for how classes were going to look like, how professors were going to work, how different resources that we utilize, that's Canvas, Outlook, all of the things were going to work. How to probably deal with different and difficult situations at some point because during orientation, we learned that could happen as well. Participants noted that the overnight summer orientation program influenced the welcome
weekend portion of the transition and contributed to their first-year success. Marie shared: “It was my
first time ever on campus, for an overnight. I felt like orientation prepared me to go into moving in, the
first weekend of school.”
Grace agreed, explaining that:
You definitely need orientation before you move in, because moving in is one of the craziest days of your life. I am never going to forget moving day. . . . It is crazy because your life changes in a day. But it is really helpful to kind of experience it a little bit, taste it as you would say in June or July, whenever you go, it is kind of like a taste of college and definitely mentally prepares you over the summer for what you are going to experience in the fall. If I did not have [the orientation program], I would not be mentally prepared for welcome weekend when we had to talk to people they did not know all weekend. . . . All people you really have is your roommate, and yeah, so definitely gives you a taste of college and it mentally prepares you for what you are going to experience. Grace shared feeling conflicted about orientation and wondered if it was helpful beyond the
first few weeks of her first semester:
I do not really think it played a role in me going from first to second semester, to be quite honest. I do not . . . It played a role the first month and a half of school, and then after that, I basically learned how to be a college student. You learn a little bit at orientation, given that it is the whole point of it. And if you need to . . . orientation I feel like sets you up for the first month or so of school. After that, you learn how to live life on campus. Through the data analysis, it became clear that orientation had a greater influence on students’
first semester than it did on their second semester of the same year. During that second semester, other
81
factors influenced the student transition experience. It was important to note that the COVID-19
pandemic upended the second half of the second semester for the participants in this study because
administrators depopulated the campus due to safety concerns. Emma Jean shared that she felt
orientation prepared her to be successful in the spring semester because it helped her avoid fear and
lean on her friends, solidifying those relationships:
I think going into my first semester, I still was a bit nervous, but the second semester, I do think that thinking back to orientation, it did help me. . . . So, thinking back to orientation, when I said that the biggest thing was getting around campus, that helped me a lot second semester, because I did not have to be that scared, first year, who did not know where she was going. Like I was living in the same building, but I just had to find a different way. And also, second semester, I managed to have one friend from orientation in most of my classes. So, we kind of just stuck together, and that is another thing orientation gave me; they gave me one of my really good friends. So that helped me second semester as well. Jack also felt that what he learned from orientation impacted his second semester:
For the first semester, since I was able to have all these resources, all the support that I knew I could find, I feel like second semester was completely easier, and I knew what to get thanks to orientation because I learned where things were. I learned my resources, where I learned where the library was. I learned who was in my department, who was in another department, what organizations were out there for me. I definitely think that second semester, even though COVID happened, was the best. Other participants, however, did not feel a direct impact from orientation on their second
semester. Albert reflected simply: “Second semester, I would say not so much. Not as much as the first
semester.” Betty agreed. She felt that orientation helped with her transition from high school to college
and not from semester to semester. Betty stated:
I really do not think it helped that much because I think it was just transitioning from going from high school into college, but if you are already in college, going into college again. So, I think it did not help as much. Grace also felt that orientation had little effect on her second semester:
So, then that first semester, the uncomfortable semester, sets you up for a successful second semester. I feel like first semester . . . second semester, because I was way more successful second semester, only because of the things I learned from living on campus on my own first semester. I do not think orientation helped with second semester. It only really helped me for a month and a half, for basic stuff.
82
Lastly, Sky also felt strongly that there were other factors outside of orientation that impacted
her success during her second semester:
I am not sure if it had too much of an impact on my fall semester just because I think that during the first semester in the fall, I think that I sought out a lot of opportunities. I am not really sure if it was because of orientation, just because I found clubs that I really enjoyed and everything. So, I feel like that continued me on to the spring semester. Throughout the interviews, the participants demonstrated the various ways that the overnight
summer orientation program impacted their first semester, specifically focusing on on-campus living,
their access to resources, and their academic and social preparation. For the participants, orientation
was critical to their success as first-year students. Additionally, few participants confirmed that the
overnight orientation program impacted their second semester, which could be attributed to the
disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Impact on Sophomore Year
Participants were interviewed in August 2020, 1 month prior to the start of their sophomore
year and 6 months after the COVID-19 pandemic struck the United States. The institution offered all
undergraduate students three different enrollment options due to the COVID-19 regulations put forth
by the state. Students chose to enroll as a resident, a commuter, or online. Additionally, students could
opt to take their classes in-person, online, or through a flexible option (i.e., flex) if they were a resident
or commuter student. Students who selected the all-online option were limited to online courses.
University guidelines permitted resident and commuter students to participate in all cocurricular
activities and limited all-online students to virtual activities. Despite all of these changes for the fall 2020
semester, the data analysis showed that orientation impacted the majority of participants’ sophomore
year by providing them with the knowledge about the move-in experience, the foundation for a
successful overall transition experience, and information about the role of the orientation leaders
beyond the students’ first year. Some participants reflected on how the COVID-19 pandemic and the
83
switch to being online affected them, and one participant shared that the manner in which her classes
were delivered most influenced her return for sophomore year at the university.
Jack felt that the transition process was never-ending because there was always something to
learn, and that orientation prepared him for each new stage of his experience:
I feel like my transition never ends, because there is always something new I have to learn. For some of the basic stuff, I am done, but for some of the other stuff, I still need to work on. I feel like freshman and sophomore years are the most difficult because you need to figure out what to do, like internships, where to go, all of that. So, I think that I am not quite done with the transition until I have my answers on who do I meet and who I have to meet. Until I find my internship, until I finish my class. I feel like I am still in the transition of first-year student to second. But like I say, we are always in transition, starting at orientation.
Christine similarly felt that the transition process did not end with the first year, and she
highlighted that the orientation leaders remained a resource for her going into her sophomore year, as
they continued to serve as an extension of orientation:
I think during orientation, I was kind of familiar with just my own orientation leaders. And I have noticed that throughout the year, I have developed more relationships with orientation leaders that I never had personally. So, I think that is really cool just getting to actually meet them and develop a friendship. And they still continued to be resources for me, even though I am going to be a sophomore, I still ask them a bunch of questions, and it is really nice to have that. Other participants, however, felt that orientation did not impact their persistence to sophomore
year or influence how they experienced their sophomore year. Grace shared that her classes were what
brought her back to the institution:
I really think the classes kept me here for again, a second year. I think I really just enjoyed my time there more second semester. And they really did a good job of making me comfortable there over the course of 1 year. And I do not feel like I am lost anymore, and I just feel like some of my other friends that I went to high school with still feel that way a little bit. So, I definitely feel like that is one of the major reasons why I am going back the second year. Maybe just because I enjoyed it and I never really had to second guess, "Do I like it here?" Because I just really enjoyed the classes, I really enjoyed the professors, and I just enjoyed my experience as a whole. Participants confronted a global pandemic, the fatigue of the new normal, new enrollment
options with financial benefits, and the impact of orientation on their continued transition. They shared
that the orientation leaders, move-in experience, general transition experience, and the COVID-19
84
pandemic changed the impact of orientation on their sophomore year. The start of their sophomore
year was significantly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, but this research confirmed they saw
orientation as a foundation that played a role in their successful start to their sophomore year. This
study also confirmed that all participants persisted through to their sophomore year for various reasons,
including the influence of orientation and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Conclusion
The third superordinate theme showed that orientation impacted enrollment and transition for
most participants. The two subthemes involved how the orientation experience impacted the
participants’ first and second years. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, most participants tried to
maintain an optimistic attitude and reflected on their first year in a positive light. All participants
confirmed that they became enrolled students and transitioned to full-time matriculated students in the
fall semester and had attended an overnight orientation program. The first semester was influenced by
orientation, which provided them with confidence to live and learn on campus, the ability to connect to
resources and important stakeholders, and an assuredness in their academics. Although the impact of
orientation was significant to students’ first semester, the analysis showed it had a smaller impact on
the participants’ second semester. Students’ sophomore year was also affected by orientation through
lasting connections with the orientation leaders, certainty about moving back onto campus, and
confidence in the overall transition experience. Furthermore, participants reflected on the influence of
the COVID-19 pandemic on their transition and retention at the institution. Despite going through a
global pandemic, orientation continued to impact the participants’ enrollment and transition experience
in their first year at the university. This study confirmed that a successful orientation experience can
prepare new students for their first year at the institution and help them persist to their sophomore
year.
85
Orientation Influence on Persistence and Retention
Orientation programs and transition experiences are significant and can provide a positive path
to student persistence and retention. In this superordinate theme, several subthemes emerged. The first
subtheme involved orientation’s impact on a participant’s decision to attend the institution. The second
subtheme resulted from comments on orientation’s foundational function for the participants’
successful journey at the institution. The final subtheme confirmed that involvement and engagement
begin at orientation, influencing students’ persistence and overall retention.
Impact of Orientation on Decision to Attend Institution
Most of the participants in this study shared that the orientation program supported their
transition, persistence, and continued enrollment at the University. For these participants, final
enrollment decisions were made before, during, or after orientation. These students admitted that
while participating in orientation, they were still weighing whether they would formally matriculate at
the university. Students often use the orientation program as one of their final decision influencers. The
participants reported that attendance at the overnight orientation program served as a leading decision
factor. In addition, other decision factors included personal finances and financial aid packages and, in
the transition from freshman to sophomore years, how the COVID-19 pandemic affected campus life.
For some participants, the orientation program itself stood out as the greatest factor in their
decision to attend the institution. For Christine, feeling like she was a part of the community during
orientation helped her confirm her decision to enroll:
I saw such a huge difference in the sense that [the university] was so much more welcoming, and I was not treated as just a high school graduate. I was almost treated like I was already a part of [the university]. So, I put down on decision. And that was the biggest factor wanting to come here. More participants agreed with the notion that orientation impacted their decision to fully enroll
at the institution. For example, Emma Jean emphasized how going through orientation reaffirmed her
decision to enroll:
86
It definitely showed me that I made the right decision. The decision I made was based on the campus, what they offered me, and just location and the people. And just going to orientation finalized all that. The people were amazing. I love the location, the campus. I got the best feel of it. I knew where I was going. I think, yeah. Orientation just finalized everything for me. Sky shared that being at orientation allowed her to imagine and experience what it would be
like to be a college student:
Orientation helped me really confirm that and just sent home that decision too, because I just, like I had mentioned, I could see myself going to school there, especially doing just the everyday things. Savannah, on the other hand, second-guessed her decision to enroll prior to attending
orientation:
I think orientation definitely gave me that, more of a “I want to go here; I am happy with my choice” and got me more excited. . . . Yeah, so I decided before, but orientation definitely helped me feel more better about the decision. . . . I wanted to go to different places. . . . But then, when I went to orientation, I feel like it is kind of just made me feel more excited. I was like, okay, even if that is the reason why I have to pick this school, I still really like it. Lastly, for other participants, personal finances and their financial aid packages played a
substantial role in their enrollment decision-making. Albert noted:
I considered financial things like on-campus housing options. For various reasons, housing, all 4 years, rather than 2 years, and so that went into it as well, and then just programs in general. All those kind of factors led up to the decision. . . . It was a really welcoming community, and from that point on, I was excited for orientation, about being on campus in the summer. I had taken a couple of tours before that point, and so I was familiar with the campus, but the orientation program really delved deep into what exactly, how it runs, and what campus really looks like, and how to live on campus. Participants reflected on how orientation impacted their decision to attend and stay at the
institution. This decision was not made lightly and often times happened at different points, most
notably, before, during, and even after orientation. Most of the participants claimed the overnight
orientation experience influenced their decision, though some also shared that additional factors, such
as financial aid and feeling welcomed, also played a role in their decisions to attend. Overall, the
overnight orientation led participants to become 100% committed to their decision to the university.
87
Orientation Critical to Student Success
Participants in this study shared their understanding of how the orientation experience
impacted their successful transition to campus. They reflected on their retention at the institution and
identified various aspects of orientation that provided a foundation to their successful journey to their
sophomore year. Participants shared that the orientation experience prepared them to succeed in
higher education by providing access to resources, building connections, boosting confidence in their
academic journey, and clarifying their educational goals. Betty confirmed: “In my future success, I think
it helped a lot because I was able to see where my classes will be.” Sky agreed and shared how
orientation helped her feel established as a student at the institution:
Just to know that when I went there in the fall that I had already been there, had already established some things. . . . So, it was definitely an experience that I think helped me a lot. Just to have that initial, first introduction and everything, rather than jumping into it and having a lot of things being overwhelming. Despite their shared success, the participants’ experiences differed. For many participants,
orientation helped with various transition issues and created a strong persistence strategy. Jack shared
how the precollege experience, the connections made, and the general sense of belonging contributed
to his success:
During orientation, I was able to be myself. I was able to put myself out there. Other students and the orientation staff and everyone was able to make me feel comfortable and accepted as whoever I was and supported. For me, that was awesome. Also, because I was having identity issues, I did not know who I was going to be in college and how I was going to turn out to be. I definitely feel like having that precollege experience during orientation was definitely amazing for me. It gave me that sense of why I chose [the university] as well. I chose [the university] because it made me feel like home. It made me feel like I belong there. It actually made me feel like I could do something and be successful and also stop being socially shy, like I said. Stop feeling scared of what people would say, what people would think. Even if I had disagreements with people about who I was or what I would do, they were able to understand. That is another thing that [the university] really provided. Not provided but had for me. People are really supportive and understanding when it comes to staff and students and whoever. Various participants focused on how the numerous resources, including the orientation leaders,
helped to build their foundation at the university. Christine stated:
88
The orientation program helped with my student success. I think knowing what the resources on campus were and being able to ask orientation leaders, “What could I be involved in?” And I am involved in those now. So, it was really good.
Jack shared how meeting new people from departments helped him succeed:
Orientation had somewhat of an impact on my student success because it really pushed me and taught me that I had to be open to new opportunities, to meeting new people, to go to different departments, and ask whatever question I had. Even if I did not have a question, be there and support. It really had that impact on me of letting me open my eyes to that, and understanding why it was so necessary, but also helpful. Additionally, Marie realized how her own success centered on available college resources for
students. She confirmed that gaining knowledge at orientation about where to go for help contributed
to her success as a first-year student. Marie talked about how she could always go to an orientation
leader for advice or direction on an issue:
I knew who to reach out to if I was having . . . even if it were just an orientation leader so she could refer me to the counseling center or anywhere that I needed to go. I had a resource. Although connections with the orientation leaders were key to many participants’ foundation
for success, others highlighted the academic aspects they valued. Meeting faculty, learning about their
majors, experiencing academic advising, meeting with academic administrators, and registering for fall
courses during orientation all emerged as critical to the participants’ successful academic experiences.
This was true for Emma Jean, who attributed her success to meeting a department head at orientation:
Orientation kind of helped me succeed in the fact that I got to meet my department head. . . . I got to talk to her one-on-one before we left. And that was very nice because I told her she was one of my professors that I signed up for one of her classes . . . and so we kind of got in touch during that. Additionally, participants who worked with academic advisors and faculty at orientation to build
class schedules said this aided in their successful academic experience. Marie reflected on how selecting
classes helped build her foundation, and that a specific guest speaker at orientation made her feel
confident she could succeed:
Orientation set me up for success because I knew the classes I was taking; we did scheduling. I understood more about how schedules work at, how college schedules in general work. That
89
prepared me for what my days were going to look like a little bit more. Just talking to people. The one thing . . . I am trying to think of what it was called. [Motivational speaker], his little thing. That was very inspiring. I was like, "All right, I'm so excited. I'm ready to get started on this new journey." Although most participants felt strongly about the role orientation played in their success,
others were less confident, such as Grace, who expressed mixed emotions:
Yes and no. Yes, because it definitely gave me the foundation of how to start living on campus. So, I feel like it was successful in one way and not successful in another socially in orientation. Furthermore, the participants showcased how important their success was to them and how
orientation impacted that success, specifically through institutional resources and community members.
Participants confirmed that various phases of the orientation program provided a foundation for their
successful transition to their first year and persistence to their sophomore year. Participants proved that
the orientation experience prepared them to succeed at the university by providing access to resources,
building connections, gaining confidence in their academic journey, and figuring out their specific
educational goals. The majority of the participants agreed that orientation created an important
foundation for their successful journey at the institution. Furthermore, orientation proved critical to
student success.
Involvement and Engagement
Participants discussed factors that impact student engagement and how becoming involved in
the campus community as new students helped them fit into the university community. Participants
shared that the new student orientation educated them on becoming involved in cocurricular activities
and being engaged community members. They confirmed that learning about involvement and
engagement at orientation led to their continued persistence at the institution. Furthermore, they
identified the orientation leaders as assets that provided information and direction at orientation on
getting involved and being engaged.
90
For many participants, the relationships and connections made helped them feel more involved
and engaged with the campus. Sky reflected on how orientation impacted her involvement with campus
activities: “I definitely think that orientation helped shape my experience . . . having ideas of what I can
join and belong in.”
Many of the participants reflected strongly on how orientation encouraged them to get involved
with various activities on campus. Emma Jean spoke candidly about how orientation influenced her to
step outside of her comfort zone: “I want to say orientation gave me that little push to become involved.
I think the biggest thing I learned was try something do not think you would ever want to do.” Christine
also felt that orientation expanded her boundaries, which was the beginning of a personal
transformation starting with becoming involved at the institution:
I feel like I just needed the push in a sense. In high school, I never was involved in anything, and it was never frowned upon to not be involved. But when you see everyone around you getting involved in different things, it makes you want to join something and talking to different people and understanding how to get involved, definitely helped me. . . . And I want to join more and be involved more, which is a really positive thing. And I think orientation did help me with that. Additionally, Emma Jean shared that orientation helped her get involved, which gave her a
sense of belonging and led to a positive student experience. She reflected deeper by sharing that she
would have never expected to get involved as a top leader of her cohort:
Through my orientation leader, I found out how important it is to get involved, to find your place. . . . So, I think through orientation, I was able to find what matters for myself. It is kind of like a self-reflecting process, like what do you want to do to become as successful as you want to be? . . . I did not expect myself to be on the class committee. To be at that level of involvement. The orientation leaders played a key role in many participants’ orientation, transition, and
retention experiences. Albert reflected on how the orientation leaders influenced his involvement and
engagement with the institution: “The orientation leaders who were also actively leaders on campus
helped a lot in the transition of being involved on campus in general.” Savannah also reported that the
orientation leaders influenced her understanding of what engagement opportunities existed on campus.
91
Learning about these different experiences created feelings of excitement for her and contributed to her
desire to enroll and become involved on campus:
I definitely talked to people like my orientation leader about going to dance team. I definitely talked to people about the opportunities and what I did in high school, and then they told me everything that I could do at [the university] that was equivalent to that or similar to that. So, I think meeting those people that are these leaders in these clubs and having them tell you about it and what you can do, right when you come back to campus, oh, you can get involved in these things. It made me excited after orientation to go there as a freshman, and yeah, it just made me excited and then helped me get involved in things. In summary, the majority of participants engaged and increased their involvement as a result of
their participation in the orientation program. Learning how to become involved can have an enormous
impact on a student’s collegiate experience. Participants highlighted how orientation helped them
define their institutional engagement and understand the ways they could become involved with
cocurricular activities. For many participants, learning how to become involved aided in their overall
sense of belonging and happiness, which met their expectations and goals for orientation.
Conclusion
This superordinate theme involved orientation’s influence on the participants’ persistence and
retention at the institution. The opportunities that were accessed during the orientation program led to
participants solidifying their decision to enroll, building a successful foundation for success, and steering
them toward involvement in their first semester and first year.
For some participants, orientation greatly influenced their decision to enroll at the institution by
providing information regarding their finances and academics, allowing them to make connections with
faculty and peers, and generating overall feelings of being welcomed as university community members.
Most participants also shared that during orientation, they learned how to get involved with various
activities and made important connections that would later help them to become engaged. Participants
shared that relationships with the orientation leaders, feeling a sense of belonging, establishing new
connections, and simply being invited to different conversations and events led to their positive
92
involvement and their overall persistence at the university. Involvement prompted by the orientation
experience directly correlated to a student’s return to the institution. Participants understood that the
orientation program prepared them to successfully transition and persist at the institution. They found
that orientation influenced their decision, their journey, and their involvement.
Conclusion
This study was an examination of the 2-day overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged,
first-time first-year college students at a small private institution and how it contributed to their sense
of belonging and persistence through their first and second years of school. The information in this
chapter provided an understanding of how first-time, first-year college students made sense of their
transition experience and how the specific aspects of the orientation program influenced them.
In analyzing the participant interviews, four superordinate themes emerged: a) understanding
the impact of overnight orientation, b) a sense of belonging and fit, c) orientation impact on enrollment
and transition experience, and d) orientation influence on persistence and retention. These
superordinate themes proved that the overnight orientation program impacted the transition
experience for these participants. These themes also showed that participants understood how
orientation impacted them personally, that it contributed to their sense of belonging, and by extension,
their first year of college. Participants believed their orientation experience positively affected their
overall transition to college life and laid the foundation for persistence at the university.
The first superordinate theme (i.e., understanding the impact of overnight orientation), made
clear that the participants felt the overnight summer orientation helped them prepare to be college
students, learn about institutional resources, and feel more comfortable with the physical campus.
Participants also described how orientation provided them with other opportunities they desired, such
as the chance to create their fall course schedule, meet new people, and make friends, which helped
them establish a social network on campus. In the second superordinate theme, the majority of
93
participants claimed they established their sense of belonging and strengthened their institutional fit
after attending the overnight summer orientation program. They largely attributed this to the
connections created during the orientation program. Participants also asserted the orientation solidified
their academic interests by allowing them to meet with faculty members and build their fall course
schedules. They also identified that orientation inspired them with pride in and love for the institution,
confirming it was the right place for them.
In the third superordinate theme, participants reflected on how orientation impacted their first
year, and for some, their sophomore year. Participants repeatedly stated that orientation affected their
first semester by developing their trust in living on campus; capacity to link to resources such as the
orientation leaders; confidence in academics, including classes; and preparedness for the first full
weekend on campus. The COVID-19 pandemic played a role in participants’ reflections on how
orientation impacted their spring semester of their first and second years. Although the analysis clearly
showed that participants’ first years were most influenced by the orientation, some reported it also
slightly affected sophomore year, even with the COVID-19 pandemic changing their enrollment status.
Through the strong relationships the participants developed with the orientation leaders during
orientation, participants felt assured in moving back to campus for a second time and going through the
transition experience again.
In the fourth superordinate theme, orientation influenced most participants’ persistence and
retention through their sophomore year. They found that orientation played a direct role in their
decision to stay at the institution, largely through their subsequent involvement and engagement in
campus and academic life. Participants identified involvement and engagement as the highlights of what
they learned from orientation and said they were key to continued enrollment at the institution.
According to participants, the involvement and engagement promoted by orientation led to persistence
to the sophomore year. Participants reflected on how their decision to attend the institution was
94
influenced before, during, and after the orientation because of the resulting connections made, comfort
with academics, and overall feeling of being welcomed as new students. Additionally, orientation
provided a foundation for student happiness and success by providing access to resources, overall
support, and the opportunity to connect with faculty and other academic administrators. Furthermore,
orientation left participants feeling eager to become involved on the campus when they returned to
campus for their first year.
The interview analysis illuminated how an orientation program can impact the experience, sense
of belonging, and transition of first-time, first-year college students. It was evident that students’
participation in a unique overnight orientation played a key role in their transition and overall
experience. The final chapter of this study provides a discussion of the implications of the study findings
and provides recommendations for practice and further research on this topic within higher education.
95
Chapter 5: Discussion and Implication for Practice
This study was an examination of the 2-day overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged,
first-time first-year college students at a small private institution and how it contributed to their sense
of belonging and persistence through their first and second years of school. In this study, Schlossberg’s
transition theory (Schlossberg et al., 1995) was adopted as the theoretical lens through which to
investigate the most meaningful experiences that contributed to students’ sense of belonging in their
first and second years.
I selected IPA as the qualitative methodology to best understand how the research participants
interpreted the impact of the summer orientation program on their collegiate experiences. Four
superordinate themes and 12 related subthemes emerged from the data analysis. The superordinate
themes were: (a) understanding impact of overnight orientation, (b) sense of belonging and fit, (c)
orientation impact on enrollment and transition experience, and (d) orientation influence on persistence
and retention. The themes and their corresponding subthemes are shown in Table 2.
An analysis of the themes produced four findings based on the stated superordinate themes in
relation to the research question, the theoretical framework, and the literature:
1. Orientation is a foundation for success.
2. Orientation must meet student expectations and goals.
3. Orientation affirms a student’s enrollment decision.
4. Orientation influences persistence and retention.
In this chapter, I expound upon the findings described in Chapter 4, drawing relationships between the
findings of this study and those of previous research. Specifically, I show how findings replicate, extend
upon, or contradict previous research.
96
Orientation is a Foundation for Success
The first finding in this study revealed that participation in the summer overnight orientation
experience provided the participants with a foundation, which they cited as critical to their success in
their first and sometimes second years. The participants explained orientation introduced them to
involvement opportunities on campus, which contributed to their ability to network and make
connections. These connections contributed to their positive transition experience and supported their
emotional well-being and overall persistence to their sophomore year. The results of this study
suggested orientation can help new students survive and flourish at the university when programming
includes a heightened focus on appreciating students’ emotions and their role in students’ success
(Immordino-Yang & Damasio, 2007). The summer overnight orientation program led to student
happiness, which represented positive emotional health and laid the foundation for their success. This
result supports Zakrzewski and Brunn’s (2015) notion that students’ well-being is a key to their success
and that happiness plays an additional role. College students’ happiness and intellectual ability have
been studied for many years (Hartmann, 1934; Jasper, 1930; Washbume, 1941). This study showcased
an additional connection between students’ happiness and emotional well-being and their persistence.
The results of this study align with the literature, which indicated that orientation provides
college students with a strong foundation for success and serves as an effective transition vehicle
(Gardner, 1986; Hollins, 2009; Kuh & Love, 2000; Mack, 2010; Pope, 2001; Strayhorn, 2011; Tinto, 2006;
Tomasko et al., 2016; Walpole et al., 2008). This study extends the knowledge on orientation impact by
demonstrating how transition programs foster resilience, efficacy, social development, and the ability to
navigate campus resources such as social and culture capital (Perna, 2002; Stephens et al., 2014;
Stephens et al., 2015; Strayhorn, 2011; Swail & Perna, 2002; Wibrowski et al., 2017). Summer
orientation programs often include social and academic features and are one of the most popular and
successful approaches to helping first-year students transition to their college or university campus
97
(Deggs, 2011; Elkins et al., 2000; Kerby, 2015; Kuh & Love, 2000; Mack, 2010; Strayhorn, 2011; Tinto,
1993, 2006). Kerby (2015) indicated higher education plays in helping students see the
interconnectedness of the college experience, the socialization process, and the discovery of self and
how that aids in developing a resilient environment for student learning, adaption, and retention. Kerby
(2015) shared that external factors, internal factors, and adaptive factors affect student retention. Mann
(1998) supported this finding by noting that orientation brings new students and institutions together to
recognize students’ individual and personal needs as they enter a new environment. The study
participants all reported the summer orientation program positively impacted their overall experiences
and contributed to their desire to persist through their sophomore year. Additionally, the opportunities
provided for social and academic engagement and learning within their new environment also helped
them build a solid foundation for success.
In her study, Jacobs-Biden (2007) noted that “orientation plays an important role in how
students perceive their institution” (p. 74). The participants made a similar point when they expressed
that attending orientation influenced their decision to attend the university. Moreover, Burgette and
Magun-Jackson (2008) shared that admission strategies, new student orientation, first-week activities,
residential life programs, and various academic initiatives both inside and outside of the typical
classroom may foster student happiness and success. The findings within this study corroborate
Burgette and Magun-Jackson’s points, including the idea new student orientations can promote
students’ happiness, emotional well-being, and success during the transition experience.
Several studies foregrounded the connection between student happiness and student
satisfaction, which relates to my study’s finding that orientation connects to happiness. Educators can
be mindful, let new students work through some transitions independently, and build time for personal
and group reflection into the orientation program (Zakrzewski & Brunn, 2015). In contrast, Flynn and
MacLeod (2015) examined the relationship between perceived happiness and six life domains: academic
98
success, financial accessibility, familial support, living environment, self-esteem, and social relations. The
results of the Flynn and MacLeod’s (2015) study supported the importance of self-image, academic
success, and financial security to university student happiness. Additionally, Antaramian (2017) showed
that students with very high life satisfaction enjoy higher levels of academic performance, student
engagement, academic self-efficacy, and approach-oriented goal achievement, all with lower academic
stress. The findings from this study reinforce the idea that orientation can set a student up for happiness
and well-being and that happiness impacts a student’s successful experience at the institution.
Orientation provides students with a glimpse into the campus culture and a sense of the
community they will join, which helps them build and understand these new and connected experiences
(Boyd, et al., 2020). Coleman-Tempel and Ecker-Lyster (2019) also confirmed that cultural capital,
including resource knowledge and comfort interacting with faculty and staff, is key to a successful
transition to college. Similarly, Jorgenson et al. (2018) shared that student connectedness in higher
education is quite complex and involves student interactions and relationships with faculty and staff.
This study confirmed that understanding the community, the people, and the campus, helped new
students with their overall perception of the institution. The findings confirmed that, at orientation, new
students are still figuring out why they want to attend their chosen institution and that orientation can
create a strong tie to the institution. The first finding demonstrated that orientation builds a strong
foundation for students by fostering a sense of belonging and providing resources and connections that
show students what their experience will be like at the institution. This foundation plays a key role in
students’ successful transition and persistence to their sophomore year.
Orientation Must Meet Student Expectations and Goals
The second finding was that participants came to orientation with high expectations and goals
and placed significant importance on meeting them during the program. Participants’ individual
expectations and goals varied, but the majority focused on specific details, such as making new friends,
99
getting to know the campus, feeling prepared for the transition to college, and learning necessary
information about the institution. Participants expressed that their most important expectations
involved leaving orientation with new connections and with a finalized fall course schedule. According to
Tinto (1975, 1988, 1990, 2006, 2009) and later Guiffrida (2006), positive and complex interactions in the
college environment should increase the student’s intentions, goals, and commitments and positively
influence their persistence toward graduation. Tinto’s (1975, 1993) theory has been highly influential
and continues to dominate theory and research on student retention (Braxton; 2014). Student
integration theory (Cabrera et al., 1992, 1993) includes the individual, the social, and the interface
between the individual and the institution (Guiffrida, 2006; Tinto, 1975, 1993). Ahn and Davis (2020)
expanded upon how social and academic integration includes a sense of belonging and fit. Additionally,
Lukszo and Hayes (2019) explained how important it is for colleges and universities to help students
understand early in their career how the right institution should align with their own personal,
academic, and even emotional needs.
Students often choose to participate in an orientation program not only to garner important
information regarding their first-year experience but to make friends, meet faculty and staff members,
register for classes, and their decision whether or not to attend the institution (Mann, 1998). Students in
this study expressed satisfaction with how the orientation program helped them connect with others in
the community and finalize their fall course schedule. Participants said they expected to leave their
summer orientation experience with their fall course schedule finalized. In addition, the orientation
provided students with concrete opportunities to connect with faculty members and other students. By
the end of orientation, students felt the experience was a success if they had made at least one friend
and had completed a fall course schedule.
Positive relationships with mentors and faculty members also contributed to participants’ sense
of belonging. The literature supports this finding (Freeman et al., 2007; Haussmann et al., 2007; Pittman
100
& Richmond, 2008; Ribera et al., 2017; Strayhorn, 2012; Tinto, 2011) by showing that relationships with
peers, college faculty, staff, and administrators during a student’s first year of college are critical. The
support and care demonstrated by faculty creates a positive sense of belonging and persistence
(Jorgenson et al., 2018; Masika & Jones, 2016; O’Keefe, 2013; Sidelinger et al., 2016; Zumbrunn et al.,
2014). Students with a strong sense of belonging have a greater chance of persisting (Choy, 2001;
Hausmann et al., 2007; Morrow & Ackermann, 2012; Museus et al., 2018; Ribera et al., 2017; Strayhorn,
2012; Tachine et al., 2017). These social relationships shape students’ identity and promote social
integration (Branand et al., 2015), which leads to student success by fostering a sense of community and
an institutional commitment. Participants reflected about their orientation experience and how it met
their expectations by providing significant opportunities to meet faculty, staff, and other students.
Gaining these curricular and cocurricular connections influenced participants’ eagerness to return to the
campus in the fall semester and ultimately persist at the University. At the selected research site, all
participants (i.e., sophomores at the time data were collected) reported being on track to graduate on
time. Hausmann et al. (2007) and Hurtado and Carter (1997) posited that participating in various
institutional programs, such as orientation, may help students facilitate supportive relationships.
Persistence relies on positive academic and social relationships (Astin, 1993; Pascarella & Terenzini,
2005; Tinto, 1993), which orientation can cultivate. Jorgenson et al. (2018) expanded on the idea that
students must continuously reconcile their preconceived expectations with the actions they must take
to establish social connectedness.
Many of the expectations and goals that participants shared related to their self-awareness.
Some participants expressed their anxiety about being alone during orientation, and others confirmed
they sometimes felt lonely during the orientation and transition experience. It became apparent that
opportunities for social engagement helped the students feel like they mattered and were not isolated
or alone. Loneliness represents a common problem across college and university campuses; students
101
with more support from friends and others are less lonely (Henninger et al., 2016). Participants
described several goals and expectations for orientation that they hoped would make them feel less
lonely and more connected. Expectations and goals included becoming a part of the university
community, integrating socially, becoming involved in cocurricular activities, and defining their sense of
belonging. Expanding upon the finding of expectation and goal importance, student involvement in
extracurricular programs has been shown to help students achieve their goals through improved self-
confidence and interpersonal skills (Astin, 1984, 1993, 1997; Hanks & Eckland, 1976; McCluskey-Titus et
al., 2002; Terenzini et al., 1996). Involved students establish connections to campus life, which is vital to
their successful college experience (Jorgensen et al., 2018). This study’s results clearly indicate that
connectedness and involvement begin at orientation.
Many students, including all the participants in this research, focus on making strong
connections because most of them move away from home and know they will experience the loss of
high school friendships (Cleary et al., 2011). Therefore, making new friends and developing new social
groups will impact their experiences at the institution (Cleary et al., 2011). In this study, however,
participants asserted their hometown friends and family did not play a major role in their decision to
attend the institution and did not have a major impact on their ability to make connections and be
happy.
Belonging is an ongoing process for students (Samura, 2016), and developing a sense of
belonging is imperative to student success (Miller et al., 2019). Several participants discussed how their
sense of belonging began to develop at orientation and continued throughout their collegiate journey.
Students’ sense of agency and how they navigate, negotiate, contest, and understand their role and
process of belonging are crucial to successful engagement (Samura, 2016). Participants identified their
sense of belonging by confirming they learned how to become involved and engaged during their
orientation experience. This shows the participants felt orientation helped them achieve a sense of
102
belonging by providing engagement and involvement opportunities. Importantly, schools must ensure
orientation leader staff and other important student leader positions include members of minority
groups. This representation can lead diverse new students to feel a part of the community and create a
sense of belonging and mattering (Glass, 2018).
In summary, participants confirmed that the summer overnight orientation program played a
positive role in their transition and persistence journey by meeting their goals and expectations and
educating them about available resources. Participants had goals and expectations for orientation and
their overall transition to college that began when they financially committed to the institution. Many of
these students immediately began to imagine what their college years would look like and how they
would make friends, make it their new home, and succeed academically. Participants in this study noted
that orientation allowed them to meet new people (e.g., a roommate) and finalizing their fall course
schedule. This study demonstrated the importance of meeting new student expectations and helping
them achieve their goals.
Orientation Affirms Student Enrollment Decisions
The third finding involved the orientation experience’s positive influence on students’ decision
to attend the institution and transition into the first year. This finding is significant because the college
selection landscape has shifted. Students once committed to their college or university by the time they
participated in their orientation. Now, some students attend before making their final decision. The
participants noted that the decision and enrollment processes were stressful, took various levels of
commitment, and involved precollege factors such as the institution size. Many of the participants
admitted the institution was not their original first choice and that orientation persuaded them to
enroll. Pope (2001) shared that, as higher education costs rise, students perform more research and
draw comparisons between institutions before, during, and after orientation programs. Expanding upon
the enrollment decision, Barry and Okun (2011) postulated that new students continue to compare their
103
chosen institution to their other options, which aligns with this study’s confirmation that orientation can
influence and final decision to enroll. New students in this study expressed undecidedness, which aligns
with Barry and Okun’s (2011) finding that students continue to compare institutions even after they
enroll, making positive orientation experiences powerful retention tools.
Multiple studies on college choice theory (Bergenson, 2009) and the college choice process
appeared in the literature, framing the issues from sociological and economic perspectives (Hossler et
al., 1989; Hossler et al., 1999; McDonough, 1997; Paulsen, 1990). Other important influences noted by
researchers on college choice related to parents, the students themselves, and institutional
characteristics (Chapman, 1981; Hearn, 1991; Hossler et al., 1989; Stage & Hossler, 1989). Iloh (2018)
asserted that the concept of choice might be a limited and problematic way of understanding present-
day college-going. This study confirmed that new students at a rolling admission institution were still
finalizing their decision to attend during orientation and transition. Key findings this this study included
institutional leaders’ need to understand what brings students joy so they can design activities that will
establish happiness and emotional well-being and build a connection with the campus and community.
This finding highlights the role orientation plays in solidifying a student’s decision, enrollment, and
ultimate persistence at the institution.
For this study’s participants, financial implications played a major role in their decision-making
process before, during, and after orientation. Various participants noted that financial aid and access to
resources were factors for considering the institution. Several students also shared that the COVID-19-
related tuition discount offered for enrolling as an online student was a leading factor in their continued
enrollment. Many participants noted access to an even more significant discount may have impacted
their persistence at the institution. For small private tuition-driven institutions, such as the selected
research site, financial implications for the student and the institution will play a role in the institution’s
future success. Johnstone and Marcucci (2010) underscored this finding by showing that tuition fees
104
and student financial assistance drive student enrollment. As tuition and student fees increase, the
impact for more student financial aid will rise, impacting the role that orientation, transition, and
retention services and programs have in financial education and conversations (Civitci, 2015; Melvin &
Stick, 2001; Walsh & Robinson Kurpius, 2016; Xu, 2017).
The students in this study noted they first felt like an enrolled student when they made their
first tuition deposit, attended orientation, and received their fall course schedule. The literature also
showed the influence of these three actions on a student’s sense of belonging even before they
matriculate into a college or university (Davis et al., 2019; Walton & Cohen, 2007, 2011; Walton &
Cohen, 2011; Yeager et al., 2016). College matriculation can be characterized as enrollment or
registration. Orientation can establish students’ sense of belonging by showcasing everything a school
can offer them and creating ways for new students to envision themselves as part of the community.
In conclusion, orientation influenced students’ decision to enroll in the institution and ultimately
attend. Participants noted that orientation gave them the confidence they needed to begin their first
semester by building a foundation that led to their continued success and persistence into their
sophomore year. This finding (i.e., orientation as a foundation) is consistent with past research
indicating confidence navigating campus resources is a key factor in a successful transition to college
(Coleman-Tempel & Ecker-Lyster, 2019; Covarrubias et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2011). The campus’s size
and feel and the availability of a generous and comprehensive financial aid package also influenced
participants. New students expressed getting a feel for the campus and its size during the orientation
program. The ability to successfully navigate university life requires campus knowledge, self-advocacy,
and institutional understanding, which can all begin during new student orientation (Coleman-Tempel &
Ecker-Lyster, 2019). New students feel confident when they understand the campus they will attend and
the community culture they will enter (Boyd, et al., 2020). This study showed the importance of
orientation for new student enrollment and decision-making.
105
Orientation Influences Persistence and Retention
The final finding showed orientation influences persistence and retention. Research has shown
that students leave a college before graduation for complex and interrelated reasons (Fontana et al.,
2006; Kerby, 2015; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977, 1980; Schuh & Gansemer-Topf, 2005; St. John et al.,
2000; Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1990, 2016). Thus, orientation programs remain one of the most effective
strategies for promoting persistence to retention (Deggs, 2011). Student persistence, satisfaction, and
engagement play a major role in college life across the United States (Ashe, 2016; Astin, 1984, 1993,
1997; Berger & Braxton, 1998; Braxton et al., 1997; Braxton et al., 2000; Braxton & McClendon, 2001;
Kerby, 2015; Kuh et al., 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1977, 1980, 1986; Tinto, 1975, 1988, 1990, 1998,
2011). The promotion of these factors begins with orientation because it represents the student’s first
opportunity to understand what the institution offers and how they can become engaged. The
participants in this study all expressed their satisfaction with the institution and their desire to learn
more and become engaged resulted from their orientation experience.
Pascarella and Terenzini (1986, 2005) suggested that initial involvement in the campus social
system, such as occurs at orientation, plays a key role in a student’s level of college engagement.
Jorgensen et al. (2018) corroborated this point by confirming that involvement leads to connectedness.
Similarly, my study affirmed that orientation programming must lay the groundwork for a student’s
involvement. Higher education institutions can use orientation to promote purposeful academic
programming and foster meaningful faculty interactions through high-impact practices and
supplementary programming and services (Dumais & Ward, 2010; Perez & McDonough, 2008).
Strayhorn (2019) and Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) noted that involvement refers to both academic
and social activities, as participation in extracurricular programs reinforces and generates success
through exposure to social relations and connections with peers and college faculty and staff (Hanks &
Eckland, 1976). Peer connections extending outside the classroom (e.g., involvement with student clubs
106
and organizations) can lead to student connectedness, increasing social integration, satisfaction, and
commitment to the institution over time (Bowman et al., 2019; Branand et al., 2015). The studies
reviewed in this paragraph align with the participants’ assertions that their engagement with extra and
cocurricular activities began at orientation through the connections made with orientation leaders,
faculty, and staff. During the data analysis, the researcher reflected on the areas of transition and
persistence and where ownership may exist between the student and the institution. The study results
showed that students and the institution share responsibility for success, happiness, engagement,
involvement, and persistence.
The finding that orientation influences persistence and retention aligns with previous research
findings showing that involvement, engagement, and potential for retention begin at orientation.
Freeman et al. (2007) confirmed that encouraging students to participate in cocurricular and curricular
activities, being prepared for college life, and overall faculty support are associated with a strong sense
of belonging begun at orientation. O’Keeffe (2013) replicated past literature to confirm that student
engagement leads to retention. The participants in this study shared that orientation programming that
prepared them to be college students, encouraged them to get involved, and helped them form social
connections contributed to their ability to develop a sense of belonging. This finding aligns with a study
conducted by Jorgenson et al. (2018), which showed that student engagement leads to holistic social
connectedness on campus. Participants in this study repeatedly noted how making connections and
feeling connected began through specific engagement opportunities presented during orientation.
Strayhorn (2012) discussed a student’s sense of belonging as their perceived social support, which
results in feelings of connectedness, mattering, being cared for, acceptance, respect, value, and
importance. Furthermore, researchers have related social connectedness to positive emotional well-
being and physical and psychological health (Causey et al., 2015; Evans, 1999; Hale et al., 2005; Khallad
& Jabr, 2015; Ozbay et al., 2007).
107
Therefore, institutions can help new students by connecting them with others, teaching them
institutional history, introducing them to support resources, and make belonging a priority, which all
begin at orientation (Strayhorn, 2019). Similarly, participants shared how important their emotional
well-being was to their overall positive feelings toward the institution and their overall transition and
persistence. Social integration into college impacts whether or not a student decides to persist in higher
education (Covarrubias et al., 2018; Strayhorn, 2011). Coleman-Tempel and Ecker-Lyster (2019) further
examined the importance of social connectedness. This current study confirmed that building strong
social connections and feelings of acceptance was key to the participants’ persistence through to their
sophomore year at the small private institution.
Additionally, research has shown engaging students in orientation, increasing faculty and staff
interactions, and addressing academic concerns through appropriate services and support will improve a
student’s college experience (Dumais & Ward, 2010; Perez & McDonough, 2008; Turner & Thompson,
2014). Students may choose to leave an institution for a variety of reasons, including personal
circumstances and preferences, level of preparedness, problems adjusting, and social and academic
offerings (Butler, 2011). The university orientation program represents a crucial opportunity to show
how the university can meet students’ needs in each of these areas. New students arrive at orientation
eager to learn about their options and see what the university can offer them. Orientation can also
prepare them for the adjustment from high school to college. Students making this transition face
various challenges (Reysen et al., 2019). Involvement can lead to connections and connectedness
(Bowman et al., 2019; Branand et al., 2015). Participants shared that the community support they
received during orientation prompted them to return to campus for their first year continue to their
sophomore year.
This study supports and contributes to prior research on new student orientation by confirming
that the orientation experience positively impacts students’ persistence and retention during their first
108
year. The data collection and analysis processes for this study involved comparing the retention rates
(see Appendix F) for the cohort of students who attended each of the summer overnight orientation
programs at the research site. Students who attended June orientation retained at 82%, and those who
attended the August and September orientations retained at 65.38% and 81.48%, respectively. The
overall 2019 cohort of first-year students retained at 90.79%. An additional note is that students who
did not participate in an orientation program retained at 60%. From 2016–2019, the June orientation
retention number exceeds the overall first-year retention rate, which proves that the summer overnight
orientation program contributes to the retention of first-year students.
In summary, participants confirmed that the orientation experience established a groundwork
for persistence in school, satisfaction with the college experience, and an understanding of how to
become involved with various areas of the institution. They developed a sense of belonging by learning
about opportunities to become active community members at the institution. The orientation presented
this opportunity, which led to persistence and retention in their first and second years at the university.
The participants’ persistence through their sophomore year was confirmed during this study and
reinforced by current retention data from institution.
Conclusion
This study was an examination of the 2-day overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged,
first-time first-year college students at a small private institution and how it contributed to their sense
of belonging and persistence through their first and second years of school. This qualitative study
included a review of (a) factors that impact student engagement and persistence; (b) how orientation
programs connect, influence, and impact students; c) what provides students a sense of belonging
during and after orientation; d) how students become engaged; and e) how orientation programming
helped students persist through to their sophomore year. Through empirical methods such as those
109
outlined by Ponterotto (2005; i.e., data collection, analysis, and interpretation), the researcher
confirmed a link between orientation and persistence through the sophomore year.
Based on the existing literature and findings from this study, it is clear that first-time, first-year
students establish their institutional sense of belonging at orientation. Furthermore, during their
transition to being enrolled students, they begin to understand the impact of orientation on their
collegiate experience. Orientation impacts first-year students in several keyways. It provides
opportunities to meet faculty and other students, gives them a chance to build a successful foundation,
solidifies their decision to enroll, and offers tools they can use to persist through their sophomore year.
The orientation program helped participants build relationships and friendships with peers, provided the
navigational skills needed to access campus resources, and enhanced their ability to network and
interact with campus staff and faculty.
The findings from this study clearly show that orientation influences a student’s experience,
success, and happiness, leading to persistence through to the sophomore year. This outcome adds to
current literature and highlights the need for higher education administrators to appreciate the effects
of orientation on students and the institution. Mehta et al. (2011) embraced the notion that higher
education professionals should seek to understand how to serve and educate their students. When
administrators conceptualize and plan orientations, they must consider how crucial this experience can
be for first-time, first-year students.
All divisions and departments on a college campus should challenge themselves to seek
solutions to low persistence rates (Fontana et al., 2006). This study shows that student experiences
should include intellectual engagement, opportunities for meaningful new relationships, community
belonging, and involvement in something larger than themselves. This study affirms that student college
activities (e.g., participating in orientation) and how they experience these opportunities are essential to
students’ happiness with their enrollment decision. That happiness extends to their overall emotional
110
well-being (Zakrzewski & Brunn, 2015). This study’s findings confirm that campus administrators should
make orientation and transition programming a campus-wide focus and strategic priority for all faculty
and staff. Seeing this strong impact helps student affairs and higher education professionals understand
the importance of helping students feel happy as they move through orientation and enroll in their first
semester and beyond.
In summary, the four key findings were that orientation (a) is a foundation for success, (b) must
meet student expectations and goals, (c) affirms a student’s enrollment decision, and (d) influences
persistence to the sophomore year. The orientation and transition experiences directly relate to a first-
year student’s overall positive student experience, which influences their persistence to the sophomore
year. Continued social engagement, helping students become excited about their learning, and
encouraging them to work towards a well-rounded sense of self are ways to help first-time, first-year
students thrive from their first day as enrolled students. Researchers should continue to explore the
orientation and transition experience as higher education evolves and student populations change so
that professionals may best serve students.
Recommendations for Practice
Recommendation 1
Several practice recommendations emerged from this study. First, institutions that cohouse
orientation and student activities should extend transitional programming through the academic year.
This recommendation relates to the fourth superordinate theme, orientation influences persistence and
retention. Orientation equipped students to become connected and engaged, which laid a foundation
for success. This study demonstrated that engagement and involvement were key orientation outcomes
that led to persistence. The responsibility for involvement in student organizations or leadership
positions tends to fall on the student, and the responsibility for engaging in an area such as the campus
111
community tends to fall on the institution. Both new students and their institutions should understand
that involvement and engagement are essential factors in student success.
The implementation of this recommendation could help provide a continuity of access to
activities that foster engagement and happiness and promote student success. This centralized and
strong department would provide a well-rounded experience to students throughout their college
career by presenting a united and accessible resource that would make a student’s transition ideal. The
study confirms that activities and orientation should be conceived together to meet new student
expectations and goals and build a foundation for success. Furthermore, staff and administrators might
be more likely to support combining these two higher education areas if they understood the crucial
role orientation plays in launching student involvement and engagement and how cohousing these
areas could expand that foundation.
Recommendation 2
Orientation programs should include information about campus culture before and during the
orientation and transition process. The first superordinate theme, understanding the impact of
orientation, suggests that orientation programs should include information about the campus culture
before and during the orientation and transition process. New students in this study expected to learn
about how it would feel to be a college student, what the campus was like, what the community was
like, and how they could be a part of it. Campus environments such as context and cultures can be
associated with college students’ sense of belonging (Museus et al., 2017; Strayhorn, 2012; Vaccaro &
Newman, 2017). This second recommendation involves imbuing students with cultural capital. Cultural
capital leads to academic success, and it begins during orientation programming that helps new students
understand the college landscape, including faculty–student interactions (Anderson & Williams, 2018).
Institutional leaders should look beyond securing the initial financial deposit and improve how
they characterize and market student life at their institution by thinking outside the box to highlight the
112
campus culture. Orientation programs should emphasize institutional culture by providing opportunities
to connect with multiple members of the campus community, showcasing campus resources, and
simulating campus life by having students sleep in a residential hall, eat in a dining hall, experience a
social event, participate in a diversity workshop, and sit in on a class. Jorgenson et al. (2018) noted that
college leaders should adopt holistic and intentional approaches to increase engagement from all
possible types of interactions. This study highlighted how imbuing a feel for campus life influences a
student’s orientation experience. Administrators can understand students’ needs through their
perceptions of belonging and institutional fit. Therefore, marketing material that showcases campus
culture and the variety of opportunities available to students can enable students to picture themselves
as students on campus (Miller et al., 2019). This action would ensure students understand what it means
to be a community member at the institution and set them up for a positive student experience.
Recommendation 3
The third recommendation involves designing orientation programming that provides students
with access to the tools and experiences they need to succeed beyond the orientation program. The
findings associated with the superordinate themes of (a) understanding impact of orientation, (b) sense
of belonging, and (c) orientation impact on enrollment and decision support this recommendation. The
exploration of participants’ orientation experiences highlighted the people and departments central to
students’ positive orientation experience. Therefore, the recommendation is to incorporate specific
programs around all resources, including financial departments and areas of involvement. If
programming effectively educates students about the resources and supports available to them, they
will feel confident and prepared for their first and second year of school. The participants regularly
mentioned their desire to build connections, establish a network, and make friends, so college and
university administrators should respond by providing ways for them to do this throughout their first
year. Timing access to services across a student’s first and second year will meet students’ evolving need
113
for information and specific support over time, avoiding the problem of frontloading information that
can be easily forgotten (Jacobson et al., 2017; Jorgenson et al., 2018; Rosenberg, 2016).
Orientation represents the perfect opportunity to prepare students for academic, emotional,
and social success, and that foundation and programming should continue through to the sophomore
year. Beyond formal orientation programming, I recommend formal and informal programming and
initiatives to promote student engagement. The study demonstrated that a student’s emotional well-
being was a central expectation and outcome of their orientation experience. Similar to Young et al.
(2020), this recommendation involves educating new students about mental health and wellbeing
services beginning at orientation. Resources and access to opportunities are essential to the success of
student’s transition. In time, orientation, transition, and persistence can be improved, and students and
institutional leaders can all take ownership of student involvement and engagement. Adding specific
targeted presentations, workshops, and points of connection would benefit students. Additionally, many
students’ financial situations require them to have one or more jobs that compete with their time and
hinder their ability to engage in campus activities such as orientation, leaving them feeling less
connected with their peers (Pratt et al., 2019). Orientation programs should be flexible in delivery, and
organizers should take a creative approach to providing engagement opportunities. In conclusion,
equitable access to advising, resources, services, and personnel is key to new student success,
happiness, and persistence through orientation and transition programs.
Recommendation 4
The fourth recommendation is to establish ways to understand and support student happiness
and emotional well-being during the orientation and transition process. This recommendation is
supported by the finding related to the superordinate themes (a) understand impact of orientation, (b)
orientation impact on enrollment and decision, (c) and persistence and retention. Studying the
enrollment process to learn what new students expect and how they define their sense of belonging is
114
vital to improving orientation, transition, and retention (Barry & Okun, 2011; Mack, 2010; Maguire,
1976; Manns, 2002; Masika & Jones, 2016; Stewart et al., 2015; Thomas, 2013). Student expectations in
this study highlighted the importance of emotional well-being to the students’ ability to build
connections, feel at home, and have a successful student experience. During the interviews, participants
consistently reflected on their success and measured it by examining their emotional well-being. A
student’s well-being and happiness can be measured by individual conversations, student satisfaction
surveys, and first-impression evaluations. Flynn and MacLeod (2015) reviewed happiness against the six
life domains. Abecia et al. (2014) studied student happiness by creating a happiness index, which could
be used as a model to understand college student happiness and emotional well-being.
Orientation programs should provide students the ability to successfully transition by
normalizing the difficulties in change, providing opportunities for conversations about the changes
happening in their life, and helping them celebrate where they have come from and where they are
heading. To restate, within the theoretical framework, Schlossberg (1995) for this study, orientation
(i.e., situation), impacts the students’ experience (i.e., self, and social support), and provides points of
engagement (i.e., strategies) which were the factors that students and institutions can use to determine
the most meaningful experiences that contribute to students’ sense of belonging during their
orientation and transition process. Through programming before, during, and after orientation designed
to build connections and prevent feelings of isolation, students can successfully navigate these changes.
Additionally, institutions can help new students create time management systems by partnering with
the counseling center, the career development center, academic advising, peer health education, and
health services to offer programs that promote mindfulness practice. Orientation programs can play an
important role in sparking student happiness and creating a foundation for maintaining that happiness
during their transition period and their entire college career. College students with higher levels of
optimism and emotional well-being enjoy college more and report feeling more satisfied with their
115
college experience. These results suggest that pursuing maximum happiness and emotional well-being
can positively impact emotional health and academic success. Furthermore, student happiness leads to
enrollment and persistence, which highlights the need for institutions to identify and share related data,
survey results, and strategic planning for systemic change with the campus community. Higher
education leaders often form taskforces and committees to work on retention or focus on the success of
at-risk populations, but these efforts are often reactive. This study demonstrates that college and
university administrators should adopt proactive measures to promote student happiness and
emotional well-being.
This study confirmed that higher education professionals should begin helping new students
become a part of the community immediately after they submit their tuition deposit (i.e., before
orientation) and should continue these efforts during and after the orientation program. Faculty and
staff who design orientation programs at the research institution can benefit from this information.
Creating best practices, as suggested, can support new students and the institutions that welcome and
educate them. Participants in this study consistently shared the importance of happiness to their
success and persistence. Happier students persist, and to promote this outcome, college and university
administrators must invest in students. That means investing in their happiness and emotional well-
being. As Hand and Payne (2008) suggested, colleges must work to retain students, and that begins with
promoting their happiness and emotional well-being. Higher education leaders must teach college
students how to care for themselves and proactively confront college life’s trials and tribulations
(Figueroa, 2020). Orientation programs should provide college students with information on what to
do when they or their friends become distressed (Figueroa, 2020) and introduce students to the
resources available to support their emotional well-being. Furthermore, orientation programs can
provide tools to help students recognize their good and bad feelings so they can succeed at the
institution.
116
Recommendations for Future Research
This study was an examination of the 2-day overnight orientation experience of traditional-aged,
first-time first-year college students at a small private institution and how it contributed to their sense
of belonging and persistence through their first and second years of school. Four future research
recommendations emerged from the research: (a) expand upon and utilize different data collection
methods across a period of time, (b) focus and expand on participant identities, (c) investigate virtual
orientation programs instead of in-person programming and the impact of social media on orientation
and transition programs, and (d) focus on different institution types and sizes.
First, the study relied on semistructured interviews with a small number of first-time, first-year
students after completion of their first year. Further research could include: (a) conducting focus groups
or interviews with different students, such as international students, athletes, or first-generation
students; (b) surveying all new students; (c) collecting feedback from a diverse group of students over
multiple orientation years; (d) observation; (e) document analysis; and (f) speaking with first-time, first-
year students at different times in their journeys, such as before orientation, directly after orientation,
during their second semester or senior year. Additionally, speaking with alumni about how their
orientation experiences impacted their overall persistence could offer valuable insight. This insight could
provide information about the potential impact of orientation on overall retention and graduation rates,
helping institutional leaders improve the student experience. Further insights could also show all faculty
and staff that effective orientation programming can lead to student enrollment, persistence, and
satisfaction, framing it as a transformational experience rather than a transactional point.
Second, additional research could expand on identity and participant-specific demographics,
such as gender, race, ethnicity, academic major, orientation session attended, hometown, and
enrollment status. This study did not include a diverse participant sample, so future targeted research
could provide further details on shared experiences and different outcomes. Feedback from students
117
with various backgrounds would provide the benefit of multiple perspectives and could produce
additional findings. This expansion could lead to services targeted to particular student identities and
demographic groups. It is crucial to investigate how orientation and transition impact various types of
students and their likelihood to persist. A student’s identity influences their college experience, so
future studies focused on how demographic factors affect the orientation experience would be useful.
Administrators who understand social identity and inclusion can better foster a sense of belonging on
campus; this effort can begin during the orientation and transition experience.
In addition to speaking with students from diverse backgrounds, future researchers could also
explore the perspectives of students who identify as part of Generation (Gen) Z. All student participants
in this study were members of Gen Z, and this population will be entering higher education for more
than the next decade. These students represent a different part of the population than their
predecessors, and their identities were formed in the context of social media and smartphone
technology. Thus, they differ from Gen Xers, Millennials, and their predecessors and understanding their
perspectives on the orientation and transition experience would be helpful. Gen Z has replaced
millennials on college campuses (Loveland, 2017). This population believes in their education; places
weight on practical, real-life experiences; believes that college is crucial to career; and worries about the
cost of college and their need for financial literacy (Loveland, 2017; Seemiller & Grace, 2015). This
generation has been characterized as demanding and expecting action from higher education
institutions in areas they feel need improvement (Tanaid & Wright, 2019). As new generations, like Gen
Z, make their way through campuses, higher education leaders must challenge their processes and
create equitable and inclusive spaces for all community members starting at orientation (Tanaid &
Wright, 2019). Continuing to speak with current students about which aspects of their orientation and
transition experiences worked best can add to past research on other generations. Furthermore, small
colleges could benefit from research on future generations. Higher education administrators must
118
consider how they can adapt existing programs to reflect all their students’ cultural traditions and values
(Rubin et al., 2019).
The third recommendation is for future researchers to focus on the differences between how an
in-person orientation program impacts a new student orientation and transition experience and overall
persistence when compared to a virtual orientation program. Researchers have begun to address this
topic, and I recommend additional research to fill in the gaps through in-depth analysis. Demand for
online courses continues to grow, and online orientations have become increasingly prevalent at some
institutions (Lerner Colucci & Grebing, 2020). Digital orientation and transition programs and services
could represent an alternative approach that could improve engagement and a student’s sense of
belonging (Haught et al., 2016; Melendez, 2019; Vaccaro et al., 2015). Additionally, the need to
understand social media’s impact on orientation and transition programs remains critical as the
imperative for all in-person services has disappeared. Higher education professionals need to
understand technology’s potential implications for retention and its ability to assist first-year students as
they transition into college. For example, Bowman et al. (2019) found that elevated levels of social
media use can hinder students seeking a sense of belonging at their college or university.
Furthermore, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2020 summer orientation experience was
held virtually for the first time at the selected research site. Some participants expressed concern that
new students missed out on the traditional orientation experience the institution typically offered. Due
to COVID-19, most colleges and universities also moved to remote learning and other delivery models
for all services, launched affordable online enrollment options, and found creative ways to support their
students (Dua et al., 2020). Conversations with new students who attended these last-minute
orientation programs could provide insight into how to create virtual programs for first-time, first-year
students. Further comparison between in-person and virtual orientation experiences and collecting data
about learning the retention rates for these students could benefit future programming. This research
119
could address the argument that the pandemic permanently changed education and that the virtual
environment is likely here to stay (Dua et al., 2020). Dua et al. (2020) took this idea even further,
asserting that higher education professionals will need to consider how to offer services in response to
student preferences and financial demands. Many small private institutions are at risk of closure (Horn,
2020), and the virtual innovation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic provided a path for potential
survival. The recommendation of virtual orientation programs has relevance for future and present
programming as we continue to experience the pandemic for another orientation season.
The final recommendation is for researchers to examine orientation and transition experiences
at a variety of institutions such as at a 4-year public university, a community college, or a highly selective
4-year private college or university. Gaining perspectives from students in these settings would round
out this research. This study was conducted at a small private, residential, 4-year university in
Massachusetts. It is important to note that past researchers have not solely focused on small residential
institutions, but they have focused on high-impact practices in retention and engagement at a
community college, in outdoor orientation programs, with service learning, and in other areas of
orientation, transition, and retention. Completing a study like this at different institutions would
produce more generalizable outcomes. This current study will help administrators working at small
institutions with similar student bodies, institutional size, and orientation approaches, but continual
research at a variety of institutions can serve even more schools.
Small colleges and universities should continue to reflect on and review their orientation
programs. Smaller institutions must review formats, delivery methods, program timing, and options for
continuing orientation and transition programming throughout a student’s career to improve retention
and persistence and help schools survive the current turbulence in higher education. The NODA
respondents reported they offered orientation programs (97%), welcome week programs (70%), and
online orientation programs (36%; “NODA Databank Survey,” 2017). The future of orientation at a small
120
institution will continue to change, and continued research on format, delivery, and timing will become
more common and needed.
These recommendations for research and practice and the findings of this study will aid future
research and practice of orientation experiences in higher education. College and university
administrators must help high school students transition to college every year, even in a global
pandemic. Overall, this study supports that the orientation experience can enhance and enrich students’
college experience. As first-time, first-year students continue to arrive at colleges and universities,
support during orientation will need to continue to evolve and be studied to build a foundation for
student success and happiness. Orientation programming can serve as a first step for students to
develop their sense of belonging, learn how to become involved on campus, and develop academic and
social skills. The study showed that first-time, first-year students make multiple decisions as they
transition from high school to their first college semester, seek access to opportunities, and feel excited
to build their networks.
During this study, participants were asked about their orientation experience and what they
valued most about it. They all shared the importance of making connections, having expectations,
finalizing their academic plans, and learning about and utilizing available resources. All of these
opportunities benefit new students and serve as a push towards their overall student experience that
can be tied to happiness and success. This study shows that continued research will be important. Given
that smaller institutions are struggling, they need to do everything in their power to recruit and retain
students. Updating orientation to align with current students’ needs represents a critical component of
this process.
121
References
Abecia, D., Samong, M., Abella, L., Baldomero, F., Tamayo, A., & Gabronino, R. (2014). Measuring
happiness of university students. Social Science Research Network.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2433950.
Abes, E. S., & Jones, S. R. (2004). Meaning-making capacity and the dynamics of lesbian college students’
multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 612–632.
Abes, E. S., Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions of
identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple identities. Journal
of College Student Development, 48(1), 1–22.
Ahn, M. Y., & Davis, H. H. (2020). Four domains of students’ sense of belonging to university. Studies in
Higher Education, 45(3), 622–634.
Anant, S. S. (1966). The need to belong. Canada’s Mental Health, 14, 21–27.
Anderson, P., & Williams, J. (2018). Identity and difference in higher education: Outsiders within.
Routledge.
Antaramian, S. (2017). The importance of very high life satisfaction for students’ academic success.
Cogent Education, 4(1). 1–10.
Ashe, E. S. (2016). Situating paradigms in student development theory. New Directions for Student
Services, 154(2016), 9–16.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 25, 297–308.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1997). How “good” is your institution’s retention rate? Research in Higher Education, 38(6),
647–658.
122
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of
College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.
Astin, A. W., Korn, W., & Green, K. (1987). Retaining and satisfying students. Educational Record, 68(1),
36–42.
Attinasi, L. C. (1989). Getting in: Mexican Americans’ perceptions of university attendance and the
implications for freshman year persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 60(3), 247–277.
Barry, C. Y. H., & Okun, M. A. (2011). Application of investment theory to predicting maintenance of the
intent to stay among freshmen. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 13(1), 87–107.
Beal, P. E., & Noel, L. (1979). What works in student retention: The report of a joint project of the
American College Testing Program and the National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems. American College Testing Service.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a casual model of student attrition.
Research in Higher Education, 12(2), 155–187.
Bean, J. P. (1985). Interaction effects based on class level in an explanatory model of college student
dropout syndrome. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 35–64.
Bell, B., Gass, M. A., Natziger, C. S., & Starbuck, J. D. (2014). The state of knowledge of outdoor
orientation programs: Current practices, research, and theory. Journal of Experiential Education,
37(1), 31–45.
Berger, J. B., & Braxton, J. M. (1998). Revising Tinto’s interactionalist theory of student departure
through theory elaboration: Examining the role of organizational attributes in the persistence
process. Research in Higher Education, 39(2), 103–119.
Bergenson, A. A. (2009). College choice and access to college: Moving policy, research, and practice to
the 21st century. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(4), 1–141.
123
Bir, B., & Myrick, M. (2015). Summer bridge’s effects on college student success. Journal of
Developmental Education, 39(1), 22–30.
Boudreau, C. A., & Kromrey, J. D. (1984). A longitudinal study of the retention and academic
performance of participants in freshman orientation course. Journal of College Student
Development, 35(6), 444–449.
Bowman, N. A., Jarratt, L., Jang, N., & Bono, T. J. (2019). The unfolding of student adjustment during the
first semester of college. Research in Higher Education, 60(1), 273–292.
Boyd, N. M., Liu, X., & Horissian, K. (2020). Impact of community experiences on student retention
perceptions and satisfaction in higher education. Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025120916433
Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: The American experience. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Campus life: In search of community. Princeton University Press.
Bradley, P. (2011). Orientation all term long. Community College Week, 24(1), 6–8.
Branand, B., Mashek, D., Wray-Lake, L., & Coffey, J. K. (2015). Inclusion of college community in the self:
A longitudinal study in the role of self-expansion in students’ satisfaction. Journal of College
Student Development, 56(8), 829–844.
Braxton, J. M. (2014). Rethinking college student retention. Jossey-Bass.
Braxton, J. M., & McClendon, S. A. (2001). The fostering of social integration and retention through
institutional practice. Journal of College Student Retention, 3(1), 57–71.
Braxton J. M., Milem, J. F., & Sullivan A. S. (2000) The influence of active learning on the college student
departure process. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(5), 569–590.
Braxton, J. M., Sullivan, A. S., & Johnson, R. M. (1997). Appraising Tinto’s theory of college student
departure. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 107–
164). Springer.
124
Brooman, S., & Darwent, S. (2014). Measuring the beginning: A quantitative study of the transition to
higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1523–1541.
Burgette, J., & Magun-Jackson, S. (2008). Freshman orientation, persistence, and achievement: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of College Student Retention, 10(3), 235–263.
Butin, D. W. (2010). The education dissertation: A guide for practitioner scholars. Corwin.
Butler, L. (2011). Do we have a retention problem . . . Or do we have a problem “about” retention? New
England Journal of Higher Education, 1, 1–1.
Butts, T. H. (1971). Personnel service review: New practices in student orientation. ERIC Clearinghouse on
Counseling and Personnel Services.
Caballero, B. F. (2020). Higher Education: Factors and strategies for student retention. HETS Online
Journal, 10(2), 1D.
Cabrera, A. F., Castaneda, M. B., Nora, A., & Hengstler, D. (1992). The convergence between two
theories of college persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 63(2), 143–164.
Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Castaneda, M. B. (1993). College persistence—Structural equations modeling
test of an integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education, 64(2), 123–139.
Callary, B., Rathwell, S., & Young, B. W. (2015). Insights on the process of using interpretive
phenomenological analysis in a sport coaching research project. The Qualitative Report, 20(2),
63–75.
Causey, S. T., Livingston, J., & High, B. (2015). Family structure, racial socialization, perceived parental
involvement, and social support as predictors of self-esteem in African American college
students. Journal of Black Studies, 46, 655–677.
Chapman, D. (1981). A model of student college choice. Journal of Higher Education, 52(5), 490–505.
125
Charlick, S., Pincombe, J., McKellar, L., & Fielder, A. (2016). Making sense of participant experiences:
Interpretative phenomenological analysis in midwifery research. International Journal of
Doctoral Studies, 11, 205–216.
Chavez, A. F., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Mallory, S. L. (2003). Learning to value the “other”: A framework of
individual diversity development. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 453–469.
Chickering, A. W. (1969). Education and identity. Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Chipuer, H. M. (2001). Dyadic attachments and community connectedness: Links with youths’ loneliness
experiences. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 429–446.
Choy, S. P. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence, and
attainment. National Center for Education Statistics.
Civitci, A. (2015). The moderating role of positive and negative affect on the relationship between
perceived social support and stress in college students. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice,
15(3), 565–573.
Cleary, M., Walter, G., & Jackson, D. (2011). Not always smooth sailing: Mental health issues associated
with the transition from high school to college. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 32(4), 250–254.
Coburn, K. L., & Woodward, B., (2001). More than punch and cookies: A new look at parent orientation
programs. New Directions for Student Services, 94, 27–38.
Coertjens, L., Brahm, T., Trautwein, C., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (2017). Students’ transition into higher
education from an international perspective. Higher Education, 73(3), 357–369.
126
Coleman-Tempel, L., & Ecker-Lyster, M. (2019). Linked coding: A qualitative investigation of the impact
of a college transition program. Journal of College Orientation, Transition, and Retention, 26(2),
1–28.
Covarrubias, R., Gallimore, R., & Okagaki, L. (2018). “I know that I should be here”: Lessons learned from
the first-year performance of borderline university applicants. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 20(1), 92–115.
Covington, M., Chavis, T., & Perry, A. (2017). A scholar-practitioner perspective to promoting minority
success in STEM. Journal for Multicultural Education, 11(2), 149–159.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd
ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J., & Miller, D. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into educational
research. Compare, 38(5), 525–538.
Cutrona, C. E. (1982). Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social adjustment. In L. A.
Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy
(pp. 291–309). Wiley.
Davis, T. L. (2002). Voices of gender role conflict: The social construction of college men’s identity.
Journal of College Student Development, 43, 508–521.
Davis, J. S. (2003). Unintended consequences of tuition discounting. Lumina Foundation for Education,
5(1).
Davis, G. M., Hanzsek-Brill, M. B., Petzol, M. C., & Robinson, D. H. (2019). Students’ sense of belonging:
The development of a predictive retention model. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 19(1), 117–127.
127
DeBard, R., & Sacks, C. (2012). Greek membership: The relationship with first-year academic
performance. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 13, 109–126.
Deggs, D. (2011). Students' adjustment to college: A comparison of orientation program attendees and
nonattendees. Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 18(2), 45–50.
Drake, R. W. (1966). Review of the literature for freshmen orientation practices in the United States.
Colorado State University.
Dua, A., Law, J., Rounsaville, T., & Viswanath, N. (2020). Reimagining higher education in the United
States. McKinsey & Company.
https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Public%20and%20Social%20Sector/
Our%20Insights/Reimagining%20higher%20education%20in%20the%20United%20States/Reima
gining-higher-education-in-the-United-States.pdf?shouldIndex=false
Dumais, S. A., & Ward, A. (2010). Cultural capital and first-generation college success. Poetics 38, 245–
265.
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Webber, D. A. (2010). Student service expenditures matter. Change: The Magazine
of Higher Learning, 42(3), 36–39.
Elkins, S. A., Braxton, J. M., & James, G. W. (2000). Tinto’s separation stage and its influence on first-
semester college student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 41(2), 251–268.
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and
college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
Erikson, E. H. (1956). The problem of ego identity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 4,
56–121.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. Norton.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. W. W. Norton.
128
Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle. W. W. Norton.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development theory in college: Theory,
research, and practice. Jossey-Bass.
Evans, R. (1999). A comparison of success indicators for program and nonprogram participants in a
community college summer bridge program for minority students. Visions, 2(2), 6–14.
Fennell, S., & Arnot, M. (2008). Decentering hegemonic gender theory: The implications for
educational research. Compare, 38(5), 525–538.
Figueroa, S. (2020). Why your campus should invest in mental and emotional wellness programs.
University Business. https://universitybusiness.com/why-your-campus-should-invest-in-mental-
and-emotional-wellness-programs/
Flynn, D. M, & MacLeod, S. (2015). Determinants of happiness in undergraduate university
students. College Student Journal, 49(3), 452.
Fontana, L., Green, P., Wright, T., DiStefano Diaz, M. F., Johnson, E., Macia, J., Daniel, Y., & Obenauf, S.
(2006). A strategic model to address issues of student achievement. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 7(3), 201–216.
Freeman, T. M., Anderman, L. H., & Jensen, J. M. (2007). Sense of belonging in college freshmen at the
classroom and campus levels. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 203–220.
Gardner, J. N. (1986). The freshman year experience. College and University, 61, 261–274.
Gefen, D. R., & Fish, M. C. (2013). Adjustment to college in nonresidential first-year students: The roles
of stress, family, and coping. Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 25(2),
95–115.
Giddan, N. S. (1988). Community and social support for college students. Thomas.
129
Gist-Mackey, A. N., Wiley, M. K., & Erba, J. (2018). “You’re doing great. Keep doing what you’re doing”:
Socially supportive communication during first-generation college students’ socialization.
Communication Education, 67(1), 52–72.
Glass, C. R. (2018). International students' sense of belonging—Locality, relationships, and power. Peer
Review, 20(1), 27–30.
Goodenow, C. (1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to
motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21–43.
Griffin, K. A., & Gilbert, C. K. (2015). Better transitions for troops: An application of Schlossberg’s
transition framework to analyses of barriers and institutional support structures for student
veterans. Journal of Higher Education, 86(1), 71–97.
Guarneri, J. A., & Connolly, S. (2019). Exploring the transformative capabilities of first-year seminars.
College Student Journal, 53(1), 56–70.
Guiffrida, D. A. (2006). Toward a cultural advancement of Tinto’s theory. The Review of Higher
Education, 29(4), 451–472.
Hagedorn, L. S., & Castro, C. R. (1999). Paradoxes: California’s experience with reverse transfer students.
In B. K. Townsend (Ed.), New directions for community college: No. 106. Understanding the
impact of reverse transfer students on community colleges (pp. 15–26). Jossey-Bass.
Hale, C. J., Hannum, J. W., & Espelage, D. L. (2005). Social support and physical health: The importance
of belonging. Journal of American College Health, 53, 276–284.
Hand, C., & Payne, E. M. (2008). First-generation college students: A study of Appalachian student
success. Journal of Developmental Education, 32(1), 4–15.
Hanks, M., & Eckland, B. (1976). Athletics and social participation in the educational attainment
process. Sociology of Education, 49(4), 271–294.
130
Hannah, J. (2018). Canoe trips: An especially good place for conversation about student transition.
Journal of Experiential Education, 41(4), 356–368.
Hartmann, G. W. (1934). Personality traits associated with variations in happiness. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 29, 202–212.
Hassanien, A., & Barber, A. (2007). An evaluation of student induction in higher education. International
Journal of Management Education, 6(3), 35–43.
Haussmann, L. R., Ward Schofield, J., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of
intentions to persists among African American and White first-year college students. Research in
Higher Education, 48, 803–839.
Haussmann, L. R., Ye, F., Ward Schofield, J., & Woods, R. (2009). Sense of belonging and persistence in
White and African American first-year students. Research in Higher Education, 50(7), 649–669.
Haught, M. J., Willis, E., Furrow, A., Morris, D. L., III, & Freberg, K. (2016). From tweets to seats: How
does social networking site use affect commuter university students’ football fandom? Journal
of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 2016(9), 17–38.
Hearn, J. C. (1991). Academic and nonacademic influences on the college destinations of 1980 high-
school graduates. Sociology of Education, 64(3), 158–171.
Henninger W. R., IV, Eshbaugh, E. M., Osbeck, A., & Madigan, C. (2016). Perceived social support and
roommate status as predictors of college student loneliness. Journal of College & University
Student Housing, 42(2), 46–59.
Hirsch, B. J. (1980). Natural support systems and coping with major life changes. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 8, 159–172.
Hollins, T. N. (2009). Examining the impact of a comprehensive approach to student orientation. Inquiry,
14(1), 15–27.
131
Holloway-Friesen, H. (2018). On the road home: A content analysis of commuters’ sense of belonging.
College Student Affairs Journal, 36(2), 81–96.
Horn, M. B. (2020, August 20). “A failure to thrive”: Closing a college. Christensen Institute.
https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/a-failure-to-thrive-closing-a-college/
Hossler, D., Braxton, J., & Coopersmith, G. (1989). Understanding student college choice. In J. C. Smart
(Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 5, pp. 231–288). Agathon Press.
Hossler, D., Kuh, G. D., & Olsen, D. (2001). AIR research and practice: Finding fruit on the vines: Using
higher education research and institutional research to guide institutional policies and
strategies. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 211–221.
Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and educational
factors influence the decisions students make. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Howard, R. A., & Lathrop, A. H. (2016). Community development, transitional value, and institutional
affinity. Journal of Experiential Education, 39(1), 45–58.
Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition on perception of the campus racial
climate on students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70, 324–345.
Hurtado, S., Clayton-Pedersen, A. R., Allen, W. R., & Milem, J. F. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for
racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 21(3),
279–302.
Iloh, C. (2018). Toward a new model of college "choice" for a twenty-first-century context. Harvard
Educational Review, 88(2), 227–244, 256. https://link.ezproxy.neu.edu/login?url=https://www-
proquest-com.ezproxy.neu.edu/scholarly-journals/toward-new-model-college-choice-twenty-
first/docview/2061866688/se-2?accountid=12826.
Immordino‐Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we Learn: The relevance of affective
and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain and Education, 1(1), 3–10.
132
Jacobs-Biden, J. (2007). Student retention at the community college: Meeting students' needs [Doctoral
dissertation, University of Delaware]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
Jacobson, T., Delano, J., Krzykowski, L., Garafola, L., Nyman, M., & Barker-Flynn, H. (2017). Transfer
student analysis and retention: A collaborative endeavor. Reference Services Review, 45(3),
421–439.
Jasper, H. H. (1930). The measurement of depression-elation and its relation to a measure of
extroversion-introversion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25,307–318.
Jenkins, S. R., Belanger, A., Connally, M. L., Boals, A., & Durón, K. M. (2013). First-generation
undergraduate students’ social support, depression, and life satisfaction. Journal of College
Counseling, 16(2), 129–142.
Johnstone, D. B. & Marcucci, P. N. (2010). Financing higher education: Who pays? Who should pay?
The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of
College Student Development, 41, 405–414.
Jorgenson, D. A., Farrell, L. C., Fudge, J. L., & Pritchard, A. (2018). College connectedness: The student
perspective. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 18(1), 75–95.
Kember, D., Ho, A., & Hoang, C. (2010). Initial motivational orientation of students enrolling in
undergraduate degrees. Studies in Higher Education, 35(3), 263–276.
Kerby, M. (2015). Toward a new predictive model of student retention in higher education: An
application of classical sociological theory. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 17(2), 138–161.
Kezar, A., & Yang, H. (2010). The importance of financial literacy. About Campus, 14(6), 15–21.
133
Khallad, Y., & Jabr, F. (2015). Effects of perceived social support and family demands on college
students’ mental well-being: A cross-cultural investigation. International Journal of Psychology,
50(5), 1–8.
Kimmel, A. J. (1988) Ethics and values in applied social research. SAGE Publications.
Klatt, J., & Ray, R. (2014). Student academic outcomes after completing a first-year seminar. NACTA
Journal, 58(1–4), 290–294.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the National Survey of
Student Engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 10–17.
Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective
educational practices. Change, 35(2), 24–32.
Kuh, G. D. (2007). How to help students achieve. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 53(41), 12–13.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professional need to know about student engagement. Journal of
College Student Development, 50(6), 683–706.
Kuh, G. D. (2013). Ensuring quality and taking high-impact practices to scale. Association of American
Colleges and Universities.
Kuh, G. D., Cruce, T. M., Shoup, R., Kinzie, J., & Gonyea, R. M. (2008). Unmasking the effects of student
engagement on first-year college grades and persistence. Journal of Higher Education, 18(4),
535–566.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Never let it rest: Lessons about student success
from high-performing colleges and universities. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning,
37(4), 44–51.
Kuh, G. D., & Love, P. G. (2000). A cultural perspective on student departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.),
Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 196–212). Vanderbilt University Press.
134
Kuh, G. D., Schuh, J. S., Whitt, E. J., Andreas, R. E., Lyons, J. W., Carney Strange, C., Krehbiel, L. E., &
MacKay, K. A. (1991). Involving colleges: Successful approaches to fostering student learning and
personal development outside the classroom. Jossey Bass.
Larkin, M., & Thompson, A. (2012). Interpretative phenomenological analysis in mental health and
psychotherapy research. In A. Thompson & D. Harper (Eds.), Qualitative research methods in
mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for student and practitioners (pp. 99–116). John
Wiley.
Larkin, M., Eatough, V., & Osborn, M. (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis and embodied,
active, situated cognition. Theory & Psychology, 21(3), 318–337.
Lenz, B. (2001). The transition from adolescence to young adulthood: A theoretical perspective. The
Journal of School Nursing, 17(6), 300–307.
Lerner Colucci, R., & Grebing, R. E. (2020). The impact of an online orientation program on student
success at a community college. Journal of College Orientation, Transition, and Retention, 27(1).
Levinson, D. J. (1986). A conception of adult development. American Psychologist, 41(1), 3–13.
Levitz, R., & Noel, L. (1989). Connecting students to institutions: Keys to retention and success. In M. L.
Upcraft & J. N. Gardner (Eds.), The freshman year experience (pp. 65–81). Jossey-Bass.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
Loveland, E. (2017). Instant generation. Journal of College Admission, 234, 34–38.
Lu, L. (1994). University transition: Major and minor stressors, personality characteristics, and mental
health. Psychology Medicine, 24, 81–87.
Lukszo, C. M., & Hayes, S. (2019). Comparing the college choice decision process among two- and four-
year transfer students. College and University, 94(3), 2–13.
135
Mack, C. E. (2010). A brief overview of the orientation, transition, and retention field. In J. A. Ward-Roof
(Ed.), Designing successful transitions: A guide for orienting students to college (Monograph No.
13, 3rd ed.) (pp. 3–28). National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition, University of South Carolina.
Maguire, J. (1976). To the organized go the students. Boston College’s Bridge Magazine. 39(1), 16–21.
Maher, M., & Macallister, H. (2013). Retention and attrition of student in higher education: Challenges
in modern times to what works. Higher Education Studies, 3(2), 62–73.
Mann, B. A. (1998). Retention principles for new student orientation programs. Journal of College
Orientation and Transition, 6(1), 15–20.
Manns, D. (2002). Building meaningful campus community: Lesson from the field. The Journal of College
Orientation and Transition, 10(1), 13–22.
Mashek, D., Cannaday, L. W., & Tangney, J. P. (2007). Inclusion of community in self scale: A single-item
pictorial measure of community connectedness. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 257–275.
Masika, R., & Jones, J. (2016). Building student belonging and engagement: Insights into higher
education students’ experiences of participating and learning together. Teaching in Higher
Education, 21(2), 138–150.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. von Nostrand Reinhold.
McCluskey-Titus, P., Oliver, R. S., Wilson, M. E., Hall, L. M., Cawthon, T. W., & Crandall, P. D. (2002). The
relationship between community and academic achievement in residence halls. Journal of
College and University Student Housing, 30, 11–16.
McDearmon, J. T. (2010). What's in it for me? A qualitative look into the mindset of young alumni
nondonors (Report). International Journal of Educational Advancement, 10(1), 33.
McDonough, P. M. (1997). Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. State
University of New York Press.
136
Mehta, S. S., Newbold, J. J., & O’Rourke, M. A. (2011). Why do first-generation students fail? College
Student Journal, 45(1), 20–35.
Melendez, M. C. (2019). The influence of residential status on the adjustment to college at four urban
universities. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, and Practice, 20(4), 437–
454.
Melvin, M., & Stick, S. L. (2001). The causes and consequences of the federal student financial aid policy
shift from grants to loans. The Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 9(1), 44–55.
Merriam, L. S. (2007). It’s your child’s education, not yours. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(13).
Merriam, S. (1991). How research produces knowledge. In P. Peters & P. Jarvis (Eds.), Adult education:
Evolution and achievements in a developing field of study (pp. 42–65). Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Millea, M., Wills, R., Elder, A., & Molina, D. (2018). What matters in college student success?
Determinants of college retention and graduation rates. Education, 138(4), 309–322.
Miller, A. L., Williams, L. M., & Silberstein, S. M. (2019). Found my place: The importance of faculty
relationships for seniors’ sense of belonging. Higher Education Research and Development,
38(3), 594–608.
Morrow, J. A., & Ackermann, M. E. (2012). Intention to persist and retention of first-year students: The
importance of motivation and sense of belonging. College Student Journal, 46(3), 483–491.
Moustakas, C. E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Sage.
Mucci-Ferris, M., Grabsch, D. K., & Bobo, A. (2021). Positives, negatives, and opportunities arising in the
undergraduate experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of College Student
Development, 62(2), 203–218.
Mullin, C. M. (2012). Student success: Institutional and individual perspectives. Community College
Review, 40, 126–144.
137
Museus, S. D., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2017). The impact of culturally engaging campus environments on
sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 40(2), 187–215.
Museus, S. D., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2018). How culturally engaging campus environments influence sense
of belonging in college: An examination of differences between white students and students of
color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(4), 467–483.
NODA databank survey 2017. (2017). NODA: Association for Orientation, Transition, and Retention in
Higher Education Databank. https://www.nodaweb.org/page/Databank.
NODA OTR definitions. (2012). NODA: Association for Orientation, Transition, and Retention in Higher
Education. https://www.nodaweb.org/page/otr_definitions.
Nemelka, B., Askeroth, J., & Harbor, J. (2017). Summer start: Supporting success for conditionally
admitted students in a summer bridge program. Summer Academe, 11, 2–13.
O’Keeffe, P. (2013). A sense of belonging: Improving student retention. College Student Journal, 47(4),
605–613.
Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational
Research, 70(3), 323–367.
Ozbay, F., Johnson, D. C., Dimoulas, E., Morgan, C. A., Charney, D., & Southwick, S. (2007). Social support
and resilience to stress. Neurobiology to Clinical Practice, 4(5), 35–40.
Pace, C. R. (1980). Measuring the quality of student effort. Current Issues in Higher Education, 2, 10–16.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in achievement settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543–
578.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1977). Patterns of student-faculty informal interactive beyond the
classroom and voluntary freshman attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 48, 540–522.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1980). Predicting freshman persistence and voluntary dropout
decisions from a theoretical model. The Journal of Higher Education, 51, 60–75.
138
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from
twenty years of research. Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2). A third decade of
research. Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Wolfe, L. M. (1986). Orientation to college and freshman year
persistence/withdrawal decisions. The Journal of Higher Education, 57(2), 155–175.
Paul, E. L., & Brier, S. (2001). Friendsickness in the transition to college: Precollege predictors and college
adjustment correlates. Journal of Counseling & Development, 79(1), 77–90.
Paulsen, M. (1990). College choice. Understanding student enrollment behavior (ASHE-ERIC Higher
Education Report No. 6). Georg Washington University, School of Education and Human
Development.
Perez, P. A., & McDonough, P. M. (2008). Understanding Latina and Latino college choice: A social capital
and chain migration analysis. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 7, 249–265.
Perna, L. W. (2002). Precollege outreach programs: Characteristics of programs serving historically
underrepresented groups of students. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 64–83.
Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2007). Academic and psychological functioning in late adolescence: The
importance of school belonging. Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 270–290.
Pittman, L. D., & Richmond, A. (2008). University belonging, friendship quality, and psychological
adjustment during the transition to college. Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 334–361.
Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer in research paradigms
and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 126–136.
Pope, M. L. (2001). Why knowledge of student financial aid is important to orientation professionals.
The Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 9(1), 41–55.
139
Pratt, I. S., Harwood, H. B., Cavazos, J. T., & Ditzfeld, C. P. (2019). Should I stay or should I go? Retention
in first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory &
Practice, 21(1), 105–118.
Read, B., Archer, L., & Leathwood, C. (2003). Challenging cultures? Student conceptions of belonging and
isolation at a post-1992 university. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 261–277.
Reysen, R., Reysen, M., Perry, P., & Knight, R. D. (2019). Not so soft skills: The importance of grit to
college student success. Journal of College Orientation, Transition, and Retention, 26(2), 1–28.
Ribbe, R., Cyrus, R., & Langan, E. (2016). Exploring the impact of an outdoor orientation program on
adaptation to college. Journal of Experiential Education, 39(4), 355–369.
Ribera, A. E., Miller, A. L., & Dumford, A. D. (2017). Sense of peer belonging and institutional acceptance
in the first year: The role of high-impact practices. Journal of College Student Development,
58(4), 545–563.
Rivituso, J. (2014). Cyberbullying victimization among college students: An interpretive
phenomenological analysis. Journal of Information Systems Education, 25(1), 71–75.
Rosenberg, M. J. (2016). Understanding the adult transfer student—Support, concerns, and transfer
student capital. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(12), 1058–1073.
Rosenberg, M., & McCullough, B. C. (1981). Mattering: Inferred significance and mental health among
adolescents. Research in Community Mental Health, 2, 163–182.
Rovai, A. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous
learning networks. Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319–332.
Rubin M., Evans O., & McGuffog, R. (2019) Social class differences in social integration at university:
Implications for academic outcomes and mental health. In J. Jetten & K. Peters (Eds.), The social
psychology of inequality (pp. 87–102). Springer, Cham.
140
Ryan, S. W., Carlstrom, A. H., Hughey, K. F., & Harris, B. S. (2011). From boots to books: Applying
Schlossberg’s model to transitioning American veterans. NACADA Journal, 31(1), 55–63.
Sacks, P. (2010). Rethinking the rules of higher education game. Academe, 96(4), 22–24.
Samura, M. (2016). Remaking selves, repositioning selves, or remaking space: An examination of Asian
American college students’ processes of “belonging.” Journal of College Student Development,
57(2), 135–150.
Sanford, N. (1962). The American college. Wiley.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1981). A model for analyzing human adaption to transition. Counseling Psychologist,
9(2), 2–18.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition. Springer Publishing Group.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1985). Marginality and mattering: A life span approach [Paper presentation]. Annual
Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Schlossberg, N. K. (1989). Marginality and mattering: Key issues in building community. In D. C. Roberts
(Ed.), New directions for student services: No. 48. Designing campus activities to foster a sense of
community (pp. 5–15). Jossey-Bass.
Schlossberg, N. K. (2011). The challenge of change: The transition model and its applications. Journal of
Employment Counseling, 48(4), 159–162.
Schlossberg, N. K., Waters, E. B., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in transition (2nd ed.).
Springer.
Schroeder, P. J. (2000) An assessment of student involvement among selected NCAA Division III
basketball players. Journal of College Student Development, 41, 616–616.
Schuh, J. H., & Gansemer-Topf, A. (2005). Finances and retention: Trends and potential implications. In
A. Seidman (Ed.), College student retention: Formula for student success (pp. 277–294). Praeger
Publishers.
141
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In J. E. Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy,
adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application. The Plenum series in
social/clinical psychology (pp. 281–303). Plenum Press.
Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2015). Generation Z goes to college. Jossey-Bass.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research. Teacher’s College Press.
Shaw, R. (2010). QM3: Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In M. A. Forrester (Ed.), Doing
qualitative research in psychology: A practical guide (pp. 177–201). Sage Publications.
Shireman, R. (2009). College affordability and student success. Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 41(2), 54–56.
Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Co-constructing student involvement: An examination
of teacher confirmation and student-to-student connectedness in the college classroom.
Communication Education, 59, 165–184.
Sidelinger, R. J., Frisby, B. N., & Heisler, J. (2016). Students’ out-of-classroom communication with
instructors and campus services: Exploring social integration and academic involvement.
Learning and Individual Differences, 47, 167–171.
Smith, J. A. (2011): Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis. Health
Psychology Review, 5(1), 9–27.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory, method
and research. Sage Publications.
Spady, W. G. (1970). Dropouts from higher education: An interdisciplinary review and synthesis.
Interchange, 1(1), 64–85.
142
St. John, E. P., Cabrera, A. F., Nora, A., & Asker, E. H. (2000). Economic influences on persistence
reconsidered. How can finance research inform the reconceptualization of persistence models?
In J. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle (pp. 29–47). Vanderbilt University
Press.
Stage, F., & Hossler, D. (1989). Differences in family influences on college attendance plans for male and
female ninth graders. Research in Higher Education, 30(3), 301–315.
Stephens, N. M., Brannon, T. N., Markus, H. R., & Nelson, J. E. (2015). Feeling at home in college:
Fortifying school-relevant selves to reduce social class disparities in higher education. Social
Issues and Policy Review, 9(1), 1–24.
Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the social-class achievement gap: A
difference-education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic performance
and all students’ college transition. Northwestern University Associate for Psychological Science.
Stevens, R. A., Jr. (2004). Understanding gay identity development within the college environment.
Journal of College Student Development, 45, 185–206.
Stewart, S., Lim, D. H., & Kim, J. (2015). Factors influencing college persistence for first-time students.
Journal of Developmental Education, 38(3), 12–16, 18–20.
Strauss, A. (1995). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented students’ preparation for
college through a summer bridge program. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(2), 142–159.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012a). College student’s sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all
students. Routledge.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2012b). Exploring the impact of Facebook and myspace use on first-year students’ sense
of belonging and persistence decisions. Journal of College Student Development, 53(6), 783–796.
143
Strayhorn, T. L. (2019). College student’s sense of belonging: A key to educational success for all
students. Routledge.
Strom, R. E., & Savage, M. W. (2014). Assessing the relationships between perceived support from close
others, goal commitment, and persistence decisions at the college level. Journal of College
Student Development, 55(6), 531–547.
Swail, W. S., & Perna, L. W. (2002). Pre-college outreach programs: A national perspective. In W. G.
Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all
students (pp. 15–34). State University of New York Press.
Swift, M. C., Bowers, L., & McDonald, E. (2019). An explorations approach to summer bridge at a
selective liberal arts college: One path toward equalizing student success. Journal of STEM
Education: Innovations & Research, 19(5), 46–55.
Tachine, A. R., Cabrera, N. L., & Yellow Bird, E. (2017). Home away from home: Native American
students’ sense of belonging during their first year in college. The Journal of Higher Education,
88(5), 785–807.
Tanaid, K. L., & Wright, K. L. (2019). The intersection between Chickering’s theory and Generation Z
student of color activism. The Vermont Connect, 40(1), 105–114.
Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Bliming, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-of-class experiences and their
influence on cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College Student
Development, 37, 149–162.
Thomas, L. (2013). What works? Facilitating an effective transition into higher education. Widening
Participation and Lifelong Learning, 14(1), 4–24.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of
Educational Research, 45, 89–125.
144
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student
leaving. Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438–455.
Tinto, V. (1990). Principles of effective retention. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience and Students
in Transition, 2(1), 35–48.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.).
University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1996). Reconstructing the first year of college. Planning for Higher Education, 25, 1–6.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: Taking research on student persistence seriously. The Review
of Higher Education, 21(2), 167–177.
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: What next? Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 8(1), 1–19.
Tinto, V. (2009). Taking student retention seriously: Rethinking the first year of university [Paper
presentation]. FYE Curriculum Design Symposium 2009, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane, Australia. http://www.fyecd2009.qut.edu.au/resources/SPE_VincentTinto_
5Feb09.pdf.
Tinto, V. (2011). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2016, September 26). From retention to persistence. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/09/26/how-improve-student-persistence-and-
completion-essay
Tomasko, D. L., Ridgway, J. S., Waller, R. J., & Olesik, S. V. (2016). Association of summer bridge program
outcomes with STEM retention of targeted demographic groups. Journal of College Science
Teaching, 45(4), 90–99.
Tovar, E., & Simon, M. A. (2010). Factorial structure and invariance analysis of the sense of belonging
scales. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43, 199–217.
145
Tuffour, I. (2017). A critical overview of interpretative phenomenological: A contemporary qualitative
research approach. Journal of Healthcare Communications, 2(4), 1–5.
Turner, P., & Thompson, E. (2014). College retention initiatives meeting the needs of millennial
freshman students. College Student Journal, 48(1), 94–104.
Turrentine, C. G., Schnure, S. L., Ostroth, D. D., & Ward-Roof, J. A. (2000). The parent project: What
parents want from the college experience, NASPA Journal, 38(1), 31–43.
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). The condition of education 2017.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144
Vaccaro, A., Adams, S. K., Kisler, T. S., & Newman, B. M. (2015). The use of social media for navigating
the transitions into and through the first year of college. Journal of the First-Year Experience &
Students in Transition, 27(2), 29–48.
Vaccaro, A., & Newman, B. M. (2017). A sense of belonging through the eyes of first-year LGBPQ
students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 54(2), 137–149.
Walpole, M., Simmerman, H., Mack, C., Mills, J., Scales, M., & Albano, D. (2008). Bridge to success:
Insight into summer bridge program students’ college transition. Journal of the First-Year
Experience & Students in Transition, 20(1), 11–30.
Walsh, K. J., & Robinson Kurpius, S. E. (2016). Parental, residential, and self-belief factors influencing
academic persistence decisions of college freshmen. Journal of College Student Retention, 18(1),
49–67.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 82–96.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and
health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331, 1447–1451.
146
Ward‐Roof, J. A., Heaton, P. M., & Coburn, M. B. (2008), Capitalizing on parent and family partnerships
through programming. New Directions for Student Services, 2008, 43–55.
Wartman, K. L. E., & Savage, M. E. (2008). Parental involvement in higher education: Understanding the
relationship among students, parents, and the institution. ASHE Higher Education Report, 33(6),
1–125.
Washbume, J. N. (1941). Factors related to the social adjustment of college girls. Journal of Social
Psychology, 13, 281–289.
Wathington, H., Prentlow, J., & Barnett, E. (2016). A good start? The impact of Texas’ developmental
summer bridge program on student success. Journal of Higher Education, 87 (2), 150–177.
Wibrowski, C. R., Matthews, W. K., & Kitsantas, A. (2017). The role of a skills learning support program
on first-generation college students’ self-regulation, motivation, and academic achievement: A
longitudinal study. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 19, 317–
332.
Wolf-Wendel, L., Ward, K., & Kinzie, J. L. (2009). A tangled web of terms: The overlap and unique
contribution of involvement, engagement, and integration to understanding college student
success. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 407–428.
Woosley, S. A. (2003). How important are the first few weeks of college? The long-term effects of initial
college experiences. College Student Journal, 37, 201–207.
Woosley, S. A., & Miller, A. (2009). Integration and institutional commitment as predictors of college
student transition: Are third week indictors significant? College Student Journal, 43(4), 1260–
1271.
Xu, Y. (2017). Localizing college retention efforts: The distance between theoretical orientation and
institution-specific needs. Innovative Higher Education, 42(1), 49–63.
147
Yadusky, K., Kheang, S., & Hoggan, C. (2020). Helping underprepared students succeed: Minimizing
threats to identity. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2020.1719939
Yeager, D., Walton, G., Brady, S., & Akcinar, E. (2016). Teaching a lay theory before college narrows
achievement gaps at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 113(24), E3341–
3348.
Young, E., Thompson, R., Sharp, J., & Bosmans, D. (2020). Emotional transitions? Exploring the student
experience of entering higher education in a widening-participation HE-in-FE setting. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 44(10), 1349–1363.
Zakrzewski, V., & Brunn, P. (2015, May 25). Should student success include happiness? Greater Good
Magazine.
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/should_student_success_include_happiness
Zis, S. (2002). Changing student characteristics: Implications for new student orientation. Journal of
College Orientation and Transition, 10(1), 64–68.
Zumbrunn, S., McKim, C., Buhs, E., & Hawley, L. R. (2014). Support, belonging, motivation, and
engagement in the college classroom: A mixed method study. Instructional Science: An
International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 42(5), 661–684.
148
Appendix A
Participation Invite Email
Dear Class of 2023 Student,
You are receiving this e-mail because you attended a Laser Link Orientation session in June 2019. My
name is Jennifer L. Granger Sullivan, and I am a doctoral student at Northeastern University, and I am
conducting my dissertation study at Lasell University. This research seeks to understand how students
make sense of the transition experience as first-time first year through their participation in a two-day
overnight orientation program. The goal of this research is to help bring voice to how students
understand the impact of an overnight summer orientation program on their student experience and
overall success. This research will seek to understand first-year undergraduate college student’s
perception(s) and expectations before, during, and after a summer overnight orientation program.
The study is looking for Class of 2023 students who attended a Laser Link Orientation with the following
characteristics:
• First-time first-year students that attended a Laser Link Orientation session,
• First-time first-year students that have transitioned within the last year,
• Full-time status institution,
• Lived in on-campus residence during the transition year,
• Students with a residency in the New England area,
• Traditional student between 18-24 years of age.
The study will require no more than three hours of your time. This will include a 60- to 90-minute
interview and a brief 30-minute follow-up meeting. Upon completion of this study, participants will
receive a $10 Gift Card.
If you meet this criteria, please e-mail me at [email protected] or reply to this e-mail. All
meetings will take place via Zoom or in a classroom at Lasell at a time and place suitable for you. The
location will be dependent on what you are comfortable with and COVID-19 regulations. Your
participation and identity will be kept confidential in this study. Results will not be shared with Lasell
University.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Boards Northeastern
University and research standards put forth by Lasell University.
Thanks,
Jennifer L. Granger Sullivan Doctoral Candidate Northeastern University
149
Appendix B
Exempt Study Participant Information Sheet
Northeastern University, Department of: College of Professional Studies, Doctor of Education Name of Investigator(s): Principal Investigator, Paula Boyum, and Student Researcher, Jennifer L.
Granger Sullivan
Title of Project: The Impact of Orientation Programs on the New Student Engagement and Transition Experience Request to Participate in Research We would like to invite you to take part in a research project. The purpose of this Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) study is to understand how students make sense of the transition experience as first-time first-year residential traditional-aged students at a small private residential college in the Boston area, through their participation in a two-day overnight orientation program. At this stage in the research, the student experience is defined by how the two-day overnight orientation program supports the students’ transition, persistence, and continued enrollment at the University. The overarching research questions that will guide this IPA study are: How did first-year college students understand their orientation experience and what impact did they perceive it had on their transition experience? How did the summer overnight orientation experience provide, if at all, the most meaningful, important, and/or connected experiences that contributed to a student’s sense of belonging? How do first year students, define, develop, and make meaning of a sense of belonging during the first year of college? You must be at least 18 years old to be in this research project. The study will take place at Lasell University in Newton, MA and interviews will take about 60 to 90 minutes. If you decide to take part in this study, we will ask you to participate in an interview about the Laser Link Orientation program and to make meaning of their orientation and transition experiences while using their own personal narratives. A follow-up interview will take place to clarify any statements and ask any additional in-depth questions and could take about 30 minutes. No preparation is required of participants and no prior knowledge of the research topic is necessary. Interviews will take place via Zoom or in person in a classroom at Lasell. The location will be decided based on what the participant is comfortable with and/or COVID-19 regulations. There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts to you for taking part in this study. There are no direct benefits to you for participating in the study. However, your answers may help us to learn more about how orientation impacts new student engagement and transition experiences. Your part in this study will be handled in a confidential manner. Only the researchers will know that you participated in this study. Any reports or publications based on this research will use only group data and will not identify you or any individual as being of this project. Pseudonyms will be used for all participants. It is possible that respondents could be identified by the IP address or other electronic record associated with the response. Neither the researcher nor anyone involved with this survey will be capturing those data. If you have any questions regarding electronic privacy, please feel free to contact
150
Northeastern University’s Office of Information Security via phone at 617-373-7901, or via email at [email protected]. The decision to participate in this research project is up to you. You do not have to participate, and you can refuse to answer any question. Even if you begin the study, you may withdraw at any time. You will receive a $10 gift card to Amazon upon completion of interviews. If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact Jennifer L. Granger Sullivan at 413-374-2993 or [email protected], the person mainly responsible for the research. You can also contact Dr. Paula Boyum, at [email protected] or 425-941-9101, the Principal Investigator. If you have any questions about your rights in this research, you may contact Nan C. Regina, Director, Human Subject Research Protection, Mail Stop: 560-177, 360 Huntington Avenue, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115. Tel: 617.373.4588, Email: [email protected]. You may call anonymously if you wish. This study has been reviewed and approved by the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board (# CPS20-06-26). You may keep this form for yourself. Thank you. Jennifer L. Granger Sullivan
151
Appendix C
Data Analysis Word Frequency Word Cloud
152
Appendix D
Audit Trail
Audit Trail: Understanding Impact of Overnight Orientation
Audit Trail: Sense of Belonging and Fit
Sky - I definitely think that that
helped shape my experience and
it allowed me to go into my first
year feeling pretty confident
already. Having friends, having
ideas of what I can join and
belong in.
Orientation made
her feel confident
about her first-year
student experience
through friendship,
creating a sense of
belonging, and what
she could get
involved in.
Orientation
established a
positive
student
experience.
Marie - One thing I remember
from orientation was it was us
and like three other groups,
other orientation groups, we did
this game where you had to say
something and walk up. I do not
really remember the exact thing
of it. But that is something that
got to know people. That was an
area where I felt like a part of
Laser Nation. We were building
that together.
Orientation
experience included
small groups that
made students feel
included, accepted,
and welcomed. It
confirmed that they
felt a part of the
community.
Orientation
created a sense
of belonging
and institutional
fit through
feeling
welcomed and
accepted.
153
Audit Trail: Orientation Impact on Enrollment & Transition Experience
Audit Trail: Orientation Influence on Persistence and Retention
Betty - I really do not think it
helped that much because I
think it was just transitioning
from going from high school into
college, but if you are already in
college, going into college again.
So, I think it did not help as
much.
Orientation
impacted the
transition from high
school to college.
Orientation
influenced the first
semester and not
the second
semester.
Orientation
impacted
enrollment and
the transition
experience
from high
school to the
university.
Christine - I did want to transfer
at the beginning of the
semester, and I think the biggest
factor to me falling in love with
campus was understanding that
I am actually welcomed. I think
that was hard for me to
understand. I felt very out of the
loop fall semester, so definitely
joining different clubs. And then
also just being able to meet new
faces and feel like you are
actually wanted. And that was
the biggest thing for me wanting
to stay. And it just makes me
want to explore more of
campus. There is so much that I
still want to learn about school
and just everything like that.
Orientation led her
to get involved and
engaged which led
her to feeling
welcomed and
wanting to stay at
the institution.
Orientation
was the
foundation
to influence
the
participant’s
success,
persistence,
and
retention at
the
university.
154
Appendix E
Interview Protocol
Interview Date:
Interview Time:
Interview Location:
Interviewer: Student Researcher, Jennifer L. Granger Sullivan
No Recording.
1. Review Purpose of Study and Limitations. Confirm the following participant criteria:
• First-time first-year students that attended a Laser Link Orientation session,
• First-time first-year students that have transitioned within the last year,
• Full-time status at the institution,
• Lived in on-campus residence during the transition year,
• Students with a residency in the New England area,
• Traditional student between 18-24 years of age.
2. Review and Complete Informed Consent Document
3. Select Participant Pseudonym and Pronoun:
• _____________________________________________________
4. Collect Demographical Information:
a. Age: ____________________________
b. Gender: ____________________________
c. Hometown: ____________________________
d. LLO Session attended: ____________________________
e. Race/Ethnicity: ____________________________
f. Residential Building 19-20: ____________________________
g. What is your major, if any: ____________________________
h. What was your major, if any: ____________________________
Primary Research Question / Purpose of Study:
The overarching research question that will guide this IPA study is:
• How did first-year college students understand their orientation experience and what impact did they perceive it had on their transition experience?
Sub-questions include:
• How did the summer overnight orientation experience provide, if at all, the most meaningful, important, and/or connected experiences that contributed to a student’s sense of belonging?
155
• How do first year students, define, develop, and make meaning of a sense of belonging during the first year of college?
Introductory Script:
Thank you for taking time to meet with me. The interview should take 60 to 90-minutes. If you do not
have any questions, do you still agree with participating in this interview?
First, before we get started I would like to ask your permission to record the interview which I will use in
to craft a transcription and eventually a narrative of your perspectives. I will send you a copy of the
transcribed interview for your review, clarification, and/or confirmation prior to it being used for my
data analysis. Both the audio recording and transcriptions will be destroyed upon completion of the
study. Do you agree to this interview being recorded?
Start recording.
Thank you. As a reminder, I am a doctoral student at Northeastern University in the process of
completing my dissertation thesis. This interview is for use in my dissertation thesis and potentially in
scholarly journals and conference presentations. Your participation will be kept confidential from Lasell
University and all references to this interview will be associated with your selected pseudonym. I plan to
not capture any identifiable information. The main purpose of this interview is to understand how Laser
Link Orientation impacted your transition and persistence at Lasell.
As a reminder, you may decline to answer any question and you may discontinue from the study at any
time. Your participation is completely voluntary, all information will remain anonymous and
confidential. Additionally, I am happy to walk through the consent form again with you to answer any
questions you may still have.
First Round Questions: Research Question - How do you understand your orientation experience and what impact did you perceive it had on your transition experience? ❖ Let us start by helping me understand how your new student journey starting with enrolling at
Lasell. Can you share how your new student experience from deposit to your first class was for you?
o What resources did you utilize or seek in making the decision to attend Lasell? ▪ Campus Resources? ▪ Family? ▪ Friends? ▪ Orientation?
o What obstacles did you overcome? o What victories did you have? o How did Laser Link Orientation help with your new student journey? o How did Laser Link Orientation set you up to succeed? o Do you think Laser Link Orientation is helpful for new students? Why or why not? How?
❖ Think back to that day you arrived at the Laser Link Orientation session.
156
o Do you think the Laser Link Orientation program helped with your: ▪ Student experience? Why and How? ▪ Student happiness? Why and How? ▪ Student success? Why and How?
o How did the Laser Link Orientation help you persist successfully to the second semester?
o How did the Laser Link Orientation help you prepare for your sophomore year at Lasell? o How did the Laser Link Orientation program impact your prep for your first semester? o How did you prepare for Laser Link Orientation? o How would you describe leaving the Orientation program? o What do you remember? How would you describe the first day? o What were your expectations for Orientation?
❖ Can you describe what an ideal new student orientation experience and/or process might look
for you? How could it help with your success and happiness as a student?
❖ If we could rewind, what advice would you give yourself prior to beginning the orientation and transition process, what would it be?
Research Question - How did the summer overnight orientation experience provide, if at all, the most meaningful, important, and/or connected experiences that contributed to a student’s sense of belonging? ❖ What expectations and hopes did you have when you first started your orientation and transition
process at Lasell? o Were they met or not met? o Do you feel like you have adjusted those original expectations and hopes?
❖ How many connections, if any, did you make at Laser Link Orientation? o Any faculty?
• Are you still connected?
• Did they help with a part of orientation and/or transition experiences?
• How did it happen? ❖ Any staff members?
• Are you still connected?
• Did they help with a part of orientation and/or transition experiences?
• How did it happen? ❖ Any friends?
• Are you still friends?
• How did you make friends?
• Were they Orientation Leaders?
• Were they other new students?
• Who is in your circle today?
• Why do you think you became friends? ❖ Have you found your team/tribe at Lasell? Do you have similarities/differences? How
did you find them? Where did you find them? ❖ How often do you connect with others within the Lasell Community? How did you make
connections at Laser Link Orientation?
157
Research Question - How do you define, how did you develop, and how have you made meaning of a sense of belonging during the first year of college? ❖ Do you feel Lasell is the right place/fit for you?
o Are you happy here? Why? o Do you think orientation helped you find your fit at Lasell? o What contributed to this fit or not? o Why Lasell?
❖ Do you feel that you belong at Lasell University?
o How did your orientation experience and/or process shape your feelings of belonging? o How did other transition experiences and/or process shape your sense of belonging? o How would you describe belonging at LU? o How would you describe Lasell University’s community?
▪ How would you describe the people (faculty, staff, students, etc.) at Lasell? Other
❖ How did you learn about and decide on attending Lasell?
o Did you decide on Lasell, before, after, or during Orientation? How did Orientation
impact your decision?
o Did you get advice from anyone? Who?
o Were there other institutions that you considered, why? How did they differ from Lasell,
in your opinion?
o What were the factors that impacted your decision in choosing Lasell?
o When did you decide to attend college?
o Why did you decide to attend college?
❖ How have you been educated about and welcomed to be a part Laser Nation? o How did your orientation experience help you becoming a member of the community? o What college resources were helpful in this process? o What tools did orientation provide you to become a member of this community? o What would have improved your experience? o Who helped you the most with becoming a community member at Lasell?
❖ How would you describe your first few weeks at Lasell University?
o Did Orientation impact your first impression of Lasell? o How would you describe it now?
❖ Are you engaged on campus?
o Are you in any clubs, teams, or student leadership positions? o Did Laser Link Orientation prepare you to become engaged and/or involved on campus? o How did you get involved? o Why did you get involved?
❖ In reflecting on your orientation and transition experience, are you still going through transition process, or do you feel like you have finished it? Why?
o How did your family impact your transition?
158
o How did your friends impact your transition? o How did you impact your transition? o How did any faculty or staff help?
❖ You are a resident student.
o Did you have friends on your floor? In your building? o Do you still plan to live on campus your second year? o How did orientation prepare you to be a resident student? o How was your roommate?
▪ Did you meet before the start of the first semester? How? Where? Why? o If you had any issues, did you go to your resident assistant?
▪ If no, who did you go to? An OL? A Friend? A Family member? o What building did you live in your first year?
❖ Is there anything I did not ask in regard to your orientation and transition experience that you
wish to add? Follow-up Interview Questions: ❖ Any questions that you did not get to – enter here.
❖ Any specific questions from the first round – enter here. ❖ Is there anything you wish to follow-up on, clarify, or add to from the first-round interview?
❖ How do you feel now about your orientation experience? o Do you feel that it was impactful? o How do you feel your orientation experience will help you continue to succeed and
graduate from Lasell on time?
❖ If you could go back, what advice would you give yourself going to orientation and transitioning throughout your first year?
❖ If you could be in charge, how would you improve orientation, transition, and retention work at Lasell University?
❖ Is there anything I did not ask that you would like to add or talk about?
Ending Script: Thank you for participating in this interview. If I require any clarification or confirmation of your interview, I will email you directly. If you have any questions, please email me at [email protected]. Do you have any questions for me at this time?
159
Add for 2nd round: For you time and commitment to this study, you have earned at $10 gift card. Where would you like it from? I will send the e-card to you. Again, thank you so much! Have a wonderful day. Turn off recorder.
160
Appendix F
Retention by Orientation Month at Research Site
First time Freshman Retention
All Students Orientation Month
Cohort Total # % June % August % May % September % None %
2016 438 72.83% 384 74.74% 19 57.89% 0 n/a 32 65.63% 3 0.00%
2017 411 67.40% 354 69.21% 25 56.00% 0 n/a 30 60.00% 2 0.00%
2018 382 74.08% 326 76.38% 30 63.33% 0 n/a 24 62.50% 2 0.00%
2019 458 80.79% 400 82.00% 26 65.38% 0 n/a 27 81.48% 5 60.00%
Transfer
All Students Orientation Month
Cohort Total # % June % August % May % September % None %
2016 67 61.19% 2 0.00% 46 69.57% 0 n/a 15 60.00% 4 0.00%
2017 67 68.66% 1 0.00% 43 76.74% 0 n/a 16 81.25% 7 0.00%
2018 161 63.35% 0 n/a 77 70.13% 60 60.00% 18 66.67% 6 0.00%
2019 179 63.69% 1 100.00% 52 65.38% 44 63.64% 12 66.67% 70 61.43%