1. BARBARA TOBOLOWSKY, RHONDA MCCLELLAN, AND BRAD COX FORT WORTH JANUARY 2012 The Power of Striving on Transfer Policies and Approaches

2. Rationale/ Literature Review Rankings vs access Transfer students:  Are less likely to complete  Experience Transfer Shock (Hills, 1965)  Are frustrated (Dennis, Calvillo, & Gonzalez, 2008)  Are challenged by new system (Townsend, 2008)  Perceived as “less capable” (Owens, 2010) and “anonymous” (Townsend & Wilson, 2006) Information matters

3. What is a striving institution? Marketing itself as “on the move” Increasing its research profile Expanding programs for gifted students Increasing admissions selectivity to improve student quality Allocating funds to support these efforts rather than instruction (O’Meara,2007, p. 131)

4. Theoretical Framework Segmented Assimilation Theory (Portes & Zhou, 1993)  Background characteristics (e.g., SES, educational preparation)  Government policies (federal, state, and institutional policies)  “Receptivity of the native population” (p. 275) (e.g., Would more transfer students on a campus affect transition?)  Family structure (e.g., financial and emotional resources)

5. Research Questions What are the organizational approaches and policies in terms of transfer students at a traditional four- year campus and a four-year commuter campus with a majority of transfer students? How do the transfer policies and programs at a commuter research university compare with a more traditional residential research university? How does state policy inform institutional transfer policy?

6. Research Questions (Con’t) Are there any other institutional factors that might affect the institution’s policies and practices?

7. Method Qualitative study Interviewed faculty and administrators who work with transfer students at two institutions that are located in two states Purposeful and snowball sampling

8. Sites Traditional U - Flagship campus  4, 500 Freshmen/1, 100 Transfer Students (2005-2006)  Transfer students less successful when compared with students with similar number of credits  Striving  Six interviews with administrative personnel Transfer U - Commuter campus in a system  2,800 Freshmen/4,300 Transfer Students(2010-2011)  Transfer students graduate at lower rate than native students  Striving  Five interviews with administrative personnel

9. Method (con’t) Transcribed interviews Open coding Compared our interpretations and discussed points of disagreement

10. Findings State policies  Focus on transfers  Traditional U state – transfer to four-year is part of higher education mission  Transfer U state – transfer is goal, but not mission. Striving missions supported by policy  Websites  Traditional U state – detailed state website for transfer students to see course equivalencies and steps to transfer  Transfer U state – limited state website, voluntary participation in common course numbering, students sent to individual schools’ websites for more information

11. Findings Definitional Challenges of transfers (Traditional U/Transfer U)  Hard to define/conflation with commuters  Aware of struggles

12. Findings (con’t) Institutional Policies/Programs (Traditional U/Transfer U)  Rolling admissions  Orientation Institutional Culture  Transfer students not priority

13. Conclusions/Implications Although organizational representatives see need: Lack of definition complicates support Striving is more powerful incentive Segmented transition theory will be helpful lens with student data – What has their experience been and how does that compare with organizational representatives’ perceptions?

14. Thank you Barbara Tobolowsky (tobolow@uta.edu)tobolow@uta.edu