Abstract
This paper uses Middle Tennessee State University’s MT Scholars Academy, an extended early arrival program targeting first-year students who are classified as at-risk by a variety of measures, as a case study for demonstrating the effectiveness of AASCU’s Re-Imagining the First-Year (RFY) initiative. In particular, this case study demonstrates the implications of RFY’s foundational assumption that successful practices are known well in student success literature and need to be enacted. The case study demonstrates the scholarship which undergirds the program and describes a series of decision points that have been encountered as these research proven strategies have been put into practice. The current iteration of the program is also described thoroughly, and its results for student success are articulated.
Highlights
In higher education, programs tend to become stale or even ineffective after a number of years
This article will provide a case study of Middle Tennessee State University’s (MTSU) MT Scholars Academy (SA) – a continuously evolving summer bridge turned early arrival program informed by the work of Astin (1998), Tinto (1993, 2012), and Schlossberg (2008) – which is aimed towards improving the retention, progression, and graduation of students who are typically considered “high risk.”
Even when fully implemented, many programs do not endure” (p. 9). These observations are substantially similar to those that undergird the Reimagining the First Year (RFY) initiative. This initiative, formed by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (ASSCU) in 2016, is a conglomeration of 44 higher educational institutions who have agreed that the national college graduation rate which hovers near 55% is not satisfactory and who have committed to enacting research based best practices to affect drastic change in retention, persistence, and completion rates
Summary
In considering the academic factors related to first-year student success, it is immediately clear that what students need is to figure out how to learn in the college environment, which is significantly different than their high school experience. Erickson, Peters, and Strommer (2006) summarize the difference between high school and college classes by suggesting that “courses are larger and seem less personal; the structure is looser and the support less evident; expectations seem less clear and evaluation is less frequent” (p. 8). In considering the academic factors related to first-year student success, it is immediately clear that what students need is to figure out how to learn in the college environment, which is significantly different than their high school experience. Erickson, Peters, and Strommer (2006) summarize the difference between high school and college classes by suggesting that “courses are larger and seem less personal; the structure is looser and the support less evident; expectations seem less clear and evaluation is less frequent” Students notice the difference almost immediately – but knowing how to adapt their learning to meet the change is another story. Not surprisingly, this reduction in effort decreases student learning in college (Arum & Roksa, 2011; Blaich & Wise, 2011)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
