Research Article
“Don’t Make Me Feel Dumb”: Transfer Students,
the Library, and Acclimating to a New Campus
Matthew Harrick
Outreach and Education
Librarian
Brooklyn College Library
Brooklyn College – CUNY
Brooklyn, New York, United
States of America
Email: mharrick@brooklyn.cuny.edu
Lee Ann Fullington
Health and Environmental
Sciences Librarian
Brooklyn College Library
Brooklyn
College – CUNY
Brooklyn, New York, United
States of America
Email: lafullington@brooklyn.cuny.edu
Received: 11 Oct. 2018 Accepted: 10 May 2019
2019 Harrick and Fullington. This
is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
Abstract
Objective
–
This qualitative study sought to delineate and understand the role of the
library in addressing the barriers transfer students experience upon
acclimating to their new campus.
Methods
–
A screening survey was used to recruit transfer students in their first
semester at Brooklyn College (BC) to participate in focus groups. The
participants discussed the issues they encountered by answering open-ended
questions about their experiences on campus, and with the library specifically.
Results – Transfer
students desired current information about campus procedures, services, and
academic support. They often had to find this information on their own, wasting
valuable time. Students felt confused and stressed by this process; however,
strategic library involvement can help alleviate this stress.
Conclusion
–
Involving the library more fully in orientations could ease students’ confusion
in their transitional semester. Students desired local knowledge, and the
library is in a key position to disseminate this information.
Introduction
Transfer students are a distinct population of a college’s student body.
At Brooklyn College (BC), we define a transfer student as “an applicant who has
attended any college, university, vocational, or religious institution after
graduating from high school or receiving a GED” (BC, 2019a). A 2017 National
Student Clearinghouse Research Center report found that “out of 852,439
students who first enrolled at a community college, 31.5 percent (268,749)
transferred to a four-year institution within six years” (p. 9).
In our university system, the City University of New
York (CUNY), which is the largest urban university in the country, transfers
account for 35.3 percent of new students in Fall 2017: 25,879 out of 73,375
(City University of New York, 2018). BC, like all of the 24 colleges in the
CUNY system, is a commuter institution, with a large population of
first-generation students. At BC, transfer students are the largest group of
new students for the same period, 43 percent, or 2,096 out of 4,883 (BC, 2018),
and they feature prominently in the College’s Strategic Plan (BC, 2019b).
This growing population of students is unique from traditional
first-year students in many ways, not least of which in the challenges and
barriers they experience when transferring from one institution to
another. A commonly experienced
phenomenon is “transfer shock”, where transfer students “suffer a severe drop
in performance upon transfer” (Hills, 1965, p. 202), and during which they “obtain
lower average grades immediately after they transfer than they received in
junior college” (Hills, 1965, p. 204). Hills’ research set the tone for
transfer student research (Cejda 1994; Cejda, Kaylor, & Rewey, 1998;
Ishitani, 2008).
In addition to transfer shock, researchers have identified other
transfer student barriers and challenges in recent studies. Some common
findings include: poor communication between community colleges and four-year
schools (Chin-Newman & Shaw, 2013; Owens, 2010); the lack of
transfer-specific orientations (Owens, 2010; Chin-Newman & Shaw, 2013;
Townsend & Wilson, 2006; Townsend, 2008); transfer students do not attend
orientations (Grites, 2013); weak transfer student
advisement (Chin-Newman & Shaw, 2013; Owens, 2010); difficulty with
academic and social integration (Grites, 2013;
Townsend, 2008; Townsend & Wilson, 2006); and weak personal and
institutional supports (Chin-Newman & Shaw, 2013; Grites,
2013; Owens, 2010). Grites (2013) believed transfer
shock would continue alongside these other challenges.
There are many academic and social groups on college and university
campuses invested in identifying and easing transfer student barriers and
challenges. Not surprisingly, academic libraries are also investigating ways
they can help, too. Furthermore, at a commuter campus like ours, in a system of
non-residential colleges, the library becomes a place to meet, to work, or to
socialize between classes, and is not just the place to check out books. As
students do not live in campus housing, transfer students at a commuter college
will not have the same opportunities or mechanisms for acclimating to a new
college as those at a residential campus. This research study is significant as
it listened directly to transfer students to incorporate their voices in the
library’s mission to provide effective services and programming to ease student
transition. Our findings could help other academic librarians see the
importance of student voices, and offers ideas for successful intervention.
Literature Review
Research interest in this population from the academic library
perspective is growing. Staines (1996) discovered
that many transfer students at four-year institutions returned to use their
community college libraries, as they felt more comfortable with the resources
and the space. Whang et al. (2017) highlighted transfer student specific
orientations involving multiple departments.
Another focus—library outreach efforts for transfer students—also
identifies orientations as important (Cox & Johnson, 1992; Kraemer et al.,
2004), as well as a few more strategies: a collaboration between an academic
library and its local writing center in the creation of a research and writing
course for transfer students (Tipton & Bender, 2006) and personal librarian
programs (Coats & Pemberton, 2017; Lafrance & Kealey, 2017; Macdonald
& Mohanty, 2017). McBride, Gregor, and McCallister (2017) and Sandelli (2017) reinforced the importance of librarians’
commitment to working with other groups on campus, participating in
orientations, establishing relationships with feeder school librarians, and
providing resources tailored for transfer students.
A common thread running through research regarding transfer students is
that academic libraries recognize their position on campus as possibly
strategic to easing or eliminating some of the barriers and challenges transfer
students encounter. However, many academic librarians developed programming and
outreach without direct input from transfer students themselves. Or, if they
had transfer student input, their programming was limited in scope or
scalability. Our current research confirmed that we at BC were on the right
track in our initial efforts to connect with transfer students, and brought to
light issues we had not yet considered. The past research also showed that it
is of the utmost importance to talk with transfer students directly, and to
apply their comments as holistically as possible to library outreach and
programming, involving as many campus constituents as possible, and looking for
longevity. Our project complements and extends recent research. First, it finds
its place among other projects, such as Richter-Weikum
and Seeber’s (2018) study, which used focus groups
and interviews to talk with transfer students at urban institutions; Roberts, Welsh,
and Dudek’s (2019) statewide survey of academic librarians about their
perceptions of academic library outreach and instruction for transfer students;
and Heinbach, Fiedler, Mitola,
and Pattni’s (2019) mixed-method research that
reoriented librarians’ approaches to supporting transfer students by focusing
on their strengths. Second, our research differentiates itself from these
studies, and expands them, in that we build on the knowledge that transfer
students need support from the library, and use focus groups and interviews to
collect data that would show us specifically how the library can better
integrate itself into the transfer student experience.
Aims
This article describes an exploratory qualitative study that seeks to
uncover and understand the issues facing transfer students as they acclimate to
BC. BC is a public commuter college that is part of a large university system
with mechanisms already in place for transferring within the system: students
either earn credits at the community colleges to fulfill requirements prior to
transfer for completion of Bachelor’s degrees, or complete Associate’s degrees
and subsequently enroll for bachelor’s programs. Thus, this study also attempts
to pinpoint what the library can do to assist transfer students as they
navigate these processes. The data we gathered and subsequently analyzed
addressed the following research questions:
- What barriers do transfer students encounter in
their transition to Brooklyn College?
- What services do transfer students desire most?
- How can the library support transfer student
acclimation to campus?
Situating the Study
Our study took place during the 2016-2017 academic year. Of the 4,699
new students in Fall 2016, 2,169 were new transfer students (BC, 2016). The
following spring, 1,300 of the total 1,367 new students were transfers (BC,
2017).
Several offices on our campus, including the Transfer Evaluations
Office, are dedicated to improving the transfer student experience (including
retention and graduation rates). Another example is TransferNation,
which seeks to ameliorate some of the aforementioned issues by providing a
semester-long onboarding program for a select, voluntary group of transfer
students. At past transfer orientations, librarians promoted library services
and resources, and distributed Transfer Student Library Bulletins, our
publication detailing important library information.
In 2014, the college revamped transfer orientation programs, and the
library’s presence was reduced to tabling at campus resource fairs. Though the
library had an interest in conducting research to better understand the needs
of our transfer students, with this shift in orientation programming, we needed
to upgrade this interest to a priority. We wanted to reestablish and
subsequently build a more comprehensive library presence at orientations. To do
this, it was necessary to collect evidence to share with other campus groups
that transfer students would benefit by a more robust library presence at
orientation. The best way to gather this evidence was to talk directly with
transfer students: learn what they need, what they already know, and how the
library can help. Hence, the heightened need for our study.
Methods
We chose focus groups as our data collection method to bring together
first semester transfer students in small groups to encourage interaction
between the participants, with the intention that the students would share
their stories and comment on each other’s experiences (Glitz, 1997; Von Seggern
& Young, 2003; Widdows, Hensler,
& Wyncott, 1991). We conducted focus groups in
both Fall and Spring semesters to capture any differences in the overall
experiences transfer students had depending on which semester they entered the
college.
To recruit students for the study, we created a short screening survey
using SurveyMonkey and emailed students the survey via the transfer student
electronic mailing list. We also hung posters with the survey link around
campus, and distributed flyers at transfer student events. We wanted to recruit
both CUNY and non-CUNY transfer students in the focus groups to potentially
compare their experiences. The survey was open for one month. We received 77
responses in the Fall and 62 responses in the Spring semester.
We selected participants using convenience sampling and contacted all
survey respondents who met the inclusion criteria of being a first semester
undergraduate transfer student. We offered $25 Target gift cards as
participation incentive. We emailed qualified survey respondents a Doodle poll
to select dates to meet for the focus groups. We offered 5-8 sessions each
semester, at times when students would likely be available, and aimed to have
groups of 4-6 students. We then assigned respondents to focus groups and sent
confirmation and reminder emails to mitigate any drop outs (Billups, 2012).
Ultimately, we scheduled ten focus groups (five per semester).
We identified an alternative data collection method in case only one
participant showed up on any particular date. Turning someone away simply to
adhere to our research design meant we would miss an opportunity to talk to a
student. So, we would use an in-depth interview as a backup data collection method.
Though we would miss the opportunity for interaction effects that focus groups
afford, an interview would still allow us to include these student
perspectives.
Our diverse pool of respondents reflected our student population, and we
captured a range of experiences from students of varied ethnic and racial
backgrounds, genders, and ages, as shown in Table 1. We had 21 participants in
total, between all the focus groups.
Using Braun and Clarke’s (2014) notion of crafting
questions that “open out” (p. 117) and encourage discussion that allows for
agreement and disagreement, we created a set of open-ended questions for our
semi-structured focus group guide (see Appendix). Our questions were
sequential, moving from broader transfer process experiences to their current
BC experiences. As librarians interested in hearing about the transfer
experience, and developing services to assist transfers with acclimation, we
created several questions about library specific experiences. We wanted to keep
the questions open-ended and avoid leading questions (such as, “Would a tour or
orientation help?”) as we did not want to introduce confirmation bias into the
study. Thus, we phrased our library-related focus group questions to allow for
more organic discussion and consideration. The broader purpose of our study was
to explore their experiences rather than confirm any notions we held about the
library’s role in their acclimation. Though our study did have a confirmatory
element, because we needed evidence to argue for reintroducing the library to
orientation, it was not the focus of the research. Seeing as we are librarians
conducting research about the library, we could not however, avoid researcher
bias as we both moderated and administered the focus groups.
For the actual focus groups, with participant consent, the
co-investigator took notes, handled the consent forms, and recorded each
session for transcription purposes. The primary investigator (PI) moderated all
sessions. Dividing the labor ensured consistency: each instance of participant
intake and its associated tasks was uniform, and one moderator prevented
deviation from the question guide.
We analyzed our transcripts using the thematic
analysis method (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which provided flexibility to allow
us to understand students’ stories. Using an inductive coding approach, we
identified themes and patterns in the data. We outsourced the transcription of
our recordings. While we awaited the transcriptions, we reviewed our notes from
the focus groups to start brainstorming potential themes. We also identified
common themes to use to inform our initial codes. To test these codes, we each
coded one transcript separately, then compared the application of our codes to
this transcript. We had near perfect agreement in how we determined and applied
our codes and felt confident coding the remaining transcripts independently. We
then each hand-coded a set of the transcripts. After this first round of
coding, we discussed sections in our respective transcripts that were unclear
or difficult to categorize and coded these sections together. The
co-investigator then used NVivo to code all hand-coded transcripts in order to
break our transcripts up into data extracts, which we then grouped into themes.
For this article, we analyzed only data excerpts related to the library and its
role in the transfer process.
Table
1
Screening
Survey Data
|
Group 1 (Fall)
|
Race/Ethnicity
|
Gender
|
Age
|
Previous Institution/(Associate’s
degree)
|
|
Student 1A
|
Hispanic
|
Male
|
21-29
|
CUNYAA
|
|
Student 1B
|
Black
|
Female
|
21-29
|
CUNY 2YR
|
|
Student 1C
|
White
|
Female
|
21-29
|
CUNY
|
|
Student 1D
|
Middle Eastern/North
African
|
Female
|
18-20
|
CUNY 2YR
|
|
Group 2
(Fall)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student 2A
|
Black
|
Female
|
18-20
|
Non-CUNY
|
|
Student 2B
|
Asian
|
Male
|
21-29
|
Non-CUNY
|
|
Student 2C
|
Black
|
Female
|
18-20
|
Non-CUNY
|
|
Student 2D
|
Other
|
Female
|
30-39
|
CUNY 2YR
|
|
Student 2E
|
Indian
|
Female
|
18-20
|
Non-CUNY
|
|
Student 2F
|
White
|
Female
|
18-20
|
Non-CUNY
|
|
Group 3 (Fall)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student 3A
|
Hispanic and African
|
Genderqueer
|
21-29
|
CUNY
|
|
Group 4 (Fall)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student 4A
|
Black
|
Female
|
30-39
|
CUNY AA
|
|
Student 4B
|
White
|
Female
|
18-20
|
Non-CUNY
|
|
Group 5 (Spring)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student 5A
|
Hispanic
|
Female
|
18-20
|
CUNYAA
|
|
Group 6 (Spring)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student 6A
|
Hispanic
|
Male
|
21-29
|
CUNY AA
|
|
Student 6B
|
Black
|
Female
|
21-29
|
Non-CUNY
|
|
Group 7 (Spring)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student 7A
|
Black
|
Female
|
18-20
|
Non-CUNY
|
|
Group 8 (Spring)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student 8A
|
White
|
Female
|
21-29
|
CUNYAA
|
|
Student 8B
|
Not Disclosed
|
Genderqueer
|
18-20
|
CUNY AA
|
|
Group 9
(Spring)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student 9A
|
Black
|
Male
|
21-29
|
CUNY
|
|
Group 10 (Spring)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Student 10A
|
Hispanic
|
Female
|
21-29
|
Non-CUNY
|
Results
Our participants discussed early decision-making steps at their previous
institutions, contacting offices at our campus before registering, their first
day on campus, and beyond. Our data analysis identified patterns that coalesced
in two major themes: 1) transfer process bureaucracy, and 2) acclimating to a
new campus. The first theme refers to the steps the student takes: deciding to
transfer, applying for admission, credit evaluation, and the processes they go
through once they have enrolled and arrived on campus. The second theme
encapsulates students’ experiences, and the steps they take to get used to the
new campus (e.g., programs they may attend, including orientation). It is
beyond the scope of our article to discuss the entire transfer process, so we
focused on library related sub-themes. Patterns we identified from the data
show that the library plays two key roles for transfer students: library as a
provider of local, campus specific knowledge and library as place.
Library as Place
Because BC is a commuter school, and our students do not live in
dormitories, they do not experience immersive campus life, including
opportunities to learn about local culture. The library is a space that is
neither home nor dorm (places that may be full of distractions or offer no
study spaces), but a place where students can be productive and collaborative
(Regalado & Smale, 2015). The library was not the
top reason to transfer to BC (cost and proximity to home were top two);
however, several students factored the library into their decisions to enroll
at BC. CUNY libraries have reciprocal access agreements, and some students had
already used the BC library before transferring, and envisioned themselves
being productive there. Student 9A summarized his impression of the library as
a place: "I could really get some work done here. It's clean and it's
quiet. You're near people. I'm going to say it was a factor.”
According to Student 8B:
For me, it's really about spots. That's why I picked
BC in the first place. I went to the library with my friend. We were like we
need to come here. It is a big place where I study. I could live in the
library.
Student 3A visited our library when they interned at a nearby high
school, and already felt a familiarity when considering transferring here:
I love the space. It's quiet... that's a big thing for
me, having quiet spaces, having endless amount of resources both digital and
print and computers… I felt accommodated by the librarians. The library was a
big reason why I moved to transfer. I saw and I felt that I would do very well
here just based on the library, the space.
The library as space is also a consideration for transfer students
without opportunities to come to the library prior to transferring. For these
students, being overwhelmed and confused pointed to a need for the library to
intervene positively in their acclimation. For example, Student 1B commented
that “certain areas [of the library] I kind of had to learn on my own.
Sometimes I would want to be seated at a certain area, so I wouldn't get
distracted by what was going on in the library.” Student 5A also felt lost,
offering: “If there was a tour to the library, then I wouldn't have been
confused. I literally roamed around the second floor for a good half an hour looking
for a space.” The library does not offer tours, so students must discover our
spaces on their own, possibly adding stress to their acclimation.
Our focus group participants told us tales of frustration, bewilderment,
confusion, and a lack of information. This gap in local knowledge can be
visualized as transfer fog. Though most
of the students figured out processes and asked clarifying questions, the fog
could lift sooner if we disseminate core information earlier in their
transition to campus. Staines (1996) found that
students returned to previous college libraries because they were familiar with
them. However, when students in our system draw on the knowledge they have of
how things work at their previous institutions, this may complicate their
acclimation because the way things work at a different library (CUNY or
non-CUNY) is not necessarily indicative of how things work at BC.
Rather than relying on students’ self-efficacy, we can intervene in the
transfer process by participating in orientation and finding alternative ways
to reach them prior to their first time in the library.
Acquiring Local Knowledge
Many students expressed anxiety, unease, and frustration with feeling
uninformed about campus services and procedures. At BC, the library houses the
college’s main computer labs. The IT-related issues transfer students encounter
often come to the attention of the staff at the library’s service desks. Our
reference desk is split into two service points: reference and computer sign-in.
Though we have tried to differentiate the service points with signage, the
blending of services at service points confuses students.
Of particular confusion is our idiosyncratic computer sign-in system. At
other CUNY campuses, students choose their own computer and log in with college
credentials. Our system requires our
staff to assign computers to users when they hand in their IDs, and for Student
2B, this was confusing: “My first day I just sat-- I didn't know the policy. I
just sat at a random computer on the first floor...then someone was like, ‘Oh,
you're in my seat.’” Student 7A was confused, too: "Why do I have to sit
at a specific computer? I had free choice at [my previous institution] of
computers for was whichever one was open.”
Student 1D got help:
[I]n (sic) [my previous institution] sometimes you
don't need to sign in, you can just go and sit and sign in if there's not a lot
of people. I thought that was how it was here. Then the [librarian] was like,
"You have to give your ID--" He was very nice about it. I felt really
dumb.
As previously noted, some students rely on their experiences from
previous institutions as a problem-solving technique to use services at our
library, but this technique is not necessarily sustainable. Student 3A was
familiar with the CUNY interlibrary loan system, and applied that knowledge at
BC, stating, “For a while, I actually used [my previous] library’s database for
books and sent it here or picked it up there.”
Library service desk staff can ease student transition. Staff members at
our Circulation and Reserves desks are often the first people students ask for
help, even if the question is not library related. Student 4A related that the
library was the first place on campus where she got answers to her questions
about college procedures:
When I first got [to BC] with my ID card, it was one
of the guys from the circulation desk who explained what the card gets you. He
went into explaining to me about the validation. Being new, I didn't know what
it meant. He kind of explained certain things to me, gave me a little good
direction.
Simultaneously, she learned about the need for memorizing her student ID
number, as students use this number to log in to numerous library services.
However, at her previous CUNY institution, this number was printed on her ID
card, and the college used a different system for logging into services.
Our campus receives many transfer students in both Fall and Spring
semesters. New students will have similar questions in both semesters, and
staff may (erroneously) assume that Spring students are up to speed on how
things work, not realizing they could be new first-year or transfer students.
Student 5A recounted:
I didn't know where all the computers were. So I asked one of the librarians at the reference desk, and
she just handed me this big laminated sheet. They didn't explain anything, so I
had to ask them, "Can I use any of these computers just to do homework or
not?"
Students mentioned that an informational tour or talk at orientation
would have been helpful. Student 1D notes, “I kind of wish I went to the
orientation. I feel like it would've been way more helpful.” Other participants
agreed:
Student 2E: They could just talk about it. Because I
didn't know about the library until one of my friends brought me in and told me
about it. I think if they spoke about it at orientation, it would kind of give
the students a heads up.
Student 2F: Because everybody kind of walks into the
library… not really knowing how to use the library resources, yet knowing that
they're there. So maybe having an information session at orientation…maybe the
library could get up there and talk a little bit about the process of getting
integrated into the library.
Students would also like to meet librarians at orientation. Student 10A
felt that a librarian should be present at each orientation tour because she
“would have wanted to see a familiar face. Then you could feel comfortable
going back to them for any more questions.”
For students unconvinced that orientation or a tour would be beneficial,
framing either as a moment to get insider or local knowledge may be effective
to entice students to participate:
Student 9A: I'm kind of iffy about [orientation]
because as a student, you know that the library is an essential part in your
education. You have to take that step and walk in the library and talk to the
librarians. You don't have to have people tell you, "This is a librarian.
This is what they do."
Student 8B: I do these things because...I hate feeling
like I don’t know what’s going on. I think the basics are where you start. Once
you know the basics, it's easier to explore the college and the library. But
all that stuff comes from knowing the basics and being able to walk into the
library and not feel like, where the hell am I going?
Discussion
The library is a central building on our campus and serves a role
similar to a student center as a place to be between classes, where students
come to work and socialize. The library is also the college’s largest computer
lab. Addressing, during orientation, the myriad roles the library plays would
help alleviate transfer students’ frustration and cut through the transfer fog.
Students who used our library prior to transferring noted they either felt a
connection with the library space, or with librarians and library staff. These
students knew the spaces they wanted to use and felt that they would work well
here. Highlighting library spaces could promote the library to transfer
students who did not have the opportunity to use the BC library while attending
their previous college. A tour during orientation could also address local
knowledge deficiencies.
Students’ near universal concerns were about the lack of local
knowledge: using the library’s computer labs, printing, study space locations,
checking out books, using group study rooms, and the importance of the student
ID. The library could transmit this local knowledge to students if we were to
participate more fully in transfer student orientations. By addressing
seemingly little issues, we can save students time and ease their transition,
confusion, and frustration.
Though students indicated they want librarians to present at
orientation, providing an overview of library resources and services in print
form, and having informal conversations with students at Resource Fair events,
can be enough to get students started. The main issue is to make sure all
transfer students receive at least the core information about library and IT
services.
Conclusion/Recommendations
The academic library is strategically situated to play a prominent role
in easing transfer student acclimation to a new campus. However, because each
group of transfer students is unique, not all outreach programs and services
will work for all groups. There is no one common transfer experience, and
therefore no one-size-fits-all solution. It is incumbent upon librarians to
meet with and interview transfer students at their institutions to discover
their specific and unique needs, challenges, and successes; to share the
results of these discussions with constituents on campus invested in easing the
transfer experience; and to develop holistic and diverse programming and
partnerships to engage with transfer students at multiple points. We found
through our focus group discussions that there are particular needs the library
could address, as evidenced in the Discussion section. Although we found no
single solution to address transfer student needs, what is evident is that
using focus groups or interviews is useful to uncover unmet needs, and to use
students’ feedback in creating new or improved library outreach initiatives to
support their acclimation. However, we can suggest using such methods to
collect information from students in order to create supports that address the
idiosyncrasies of our institution.
Libraries are in prime positions to connect transfer students with
library services and resources at their new institutions, and with other campus
academic and social services, if librarians know what the specific issues are. The library must complement other services
and offices on campus, such as the Transfer Student Center, Registration and
Advisement, and Peer Mentoring/College Transfer Group, in its outreach and
programming for transfer students.
As with Richter-Weikum and Seeber
(2018), Townsend (2008), and Townsend and Wilson (2006), and, where researchers
conducted interviews with students, our research confirmed that the value of
actually talking to the students cannot be underestimated. Engaging with the
students allowed us to delve deeper into understanding their needs and
determine ways to meet them. A
related, unexpected outcome from the focus groups was the students’ enthusiasm
and desire to help future transfer students, to share their experiences to try
to improve the process. Student 4B proclaimed: “I'm glad I got to come and have
somebody hear about my experience.... I was talking about what will help
prevent some people from having the same bad experiences that we've been
having.”
This passion to help would not have been nearly as evident had we relied
on collecting survey responses. This is one of the benefits of qualitative
research: from the tones of their voices, and from their facial expressions, we
could see that our participants were angry about their transfer experiences,
and they wanted to participate in our research as a way to help future
students. When we deviated from our
method and conducted three in-depth interviews (some students did not show up
to their scheduled focus group), our nimble design allowed us to talk to these
students who wanted to share their stories, rather than turning them away
because they had missed their focus group appointments. The positive feedback
we received, and the trust we gained from students because we were willing to
listen, showed that our engagement with these students was meaningful, and our
attempts to improve their experiences were appreciated.
As Cox and Johnson (1992) found, their library orientation workshops for
transfer students were deemed useful by participants. Building on this, our
participants also spoke of a desire for better library representation at
orientations. Thus, our first next steps are local to our campus. First, we
will approach Student Affairs to re-embed the library into orientation so we
can impart local knowledge to incoming transfer students. We will offer a
library tour to introduce students to several librarians, friendly faces they
could feel comfortable approaching for help. As noted earlier, framing the tour
as a way to learn insider tips for success, and about library resources and
services, may increase participation. We will also modify our virtual tour, the
Library Online Orientation Program, also known as The LOOP (Georgas, 2014), and
its attendant quiz, to deploy to new transfer students each semester. Perhaps
most importantly, library managers need to remind public services staff to
treat every semester as each student’s first, and to be gentle and helpful to
everyone to alleviate the transfer fog that happens in both Fall and Spring.
When the above are in motion, we will look to partner with other
librarians in our university system to find collaborative ways to make the
entire transfer process smoother. BC is a popular transfer destination from
2-year CUNY schools, and our university system-wide library association is our
mechanism to work with librarians from these 2-year schools. We can use this
association to begin a wider conversation about easing transfer student stress
with library support. We could consider coordinating instruction between the
junior and senior colleges by creating a new roundtable for interested
librarians or as part of the current Instruction roundtable. Ultimately, we are
in a unique, and uniquely strong position, in that instead of one library tackling
the transfer student problem once they arrive here, we can intervene earlier by
collaborating with librarians at schools where transfer students transfer from,
so that, when they arrive here, a solid foundation for transfer student success
has already been laid.
References
Billups, F. D. (2012). Conducting focus groups with college students: Strategies to ensure
success. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED573089)
Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Terry, G. (2014).
Thematic analysis. In P. Rohleder & A. C. Lyons
(Eds.), Qualitative research in clinical
and health psychology (pp. 95-114). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic
analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3,
77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brooklyn College. (2019a). Transfer students FAQ.
Retrieved 1 January 2019 from http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/web/admissions/transfer/faq.php
Brooklyn College. (2019b. Strategic plan 2018-2023.
Retrieved 1 January 2019 from http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/web/about/administration/president/strategicplan/2018-2023.php
Brooklyn College. (2018). Fall 2017 enrollment
snapshot. Retrieved 1 October 2018 from http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/web/abo_misc/171120_Enrollment_Snapshot_Fall_2017.pdf
Brooklyn College. (2017). Spring 2017 enrollment
snapshot. Retrieved 1 October 2018 from http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/offices/avpbandp/ipra/enrollment/Spring%202017%20Enrollment%20Snapshot.pdf
Brooklyn College. (2016). Fall 2016 enrollment
snapshot. Retrieved 1 October 2018 from http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/bc/offices/avpbandp/ipra/enrollment/Fall%202016%20Enrollment%20Snapshot.pdf
Cejda, B. (1994). Reducing transfer shock through faculty collaboration: A
case study. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 18,
189-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1066892940180207
Cejda, B., Kaylor, A., & Rewey, K. (1998).
Transfer shock in an academic discipline: The relationship between students’
majors and their academic performance. Community
College Review, 26(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/009155219802600301
Chin-Newman, C., & Shaw, S. (2013). The anxiety of
change: How new transfer students overcome challenges. Journal of College Admission, 221, 14-21. Retrieved from https://www.nacacnet.org/news--publications/journal-of-college-admission/
City University of New York. (2018). Total new
undergraduate and graduate students by full-time/part-time attendance, gender
and college: Fall 2017. Retrieved 1 October 2018 from https://www2.cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/oira/institutional/data/historical-student-data-book-tables-all-semesters/
Coats, L. R., & Pemberton, A. E. (2017).
Transforming for our transfers: The creation of a transfer student services
librarian. Reference Services Review,
45(3), 485-497.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-11-2016-0079
Cox, J., & Johnson, R. (1992). Transfer students
in the library: The forgotten population. Research
Strategies, 10(2), 88-91.
Georgas, H. (2014). The implementation of an
independent and self-paced online library orientation for freshman students and
the use of Sakai as a quiz management system (QMS). College & Undergraduate Libraries, 21(1), 56-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2014.877737
Glitz, B. (1997). The focus group technique in library
research: An introduction. Bulletin of
the Medical Library Association, 85(4),
385-390. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/journals/72/
Grites, T. (2013). Successful transitions from two-year to four-year
institutions. New Directions for Higher
Education, 162, 61-68.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20057
Heinbach, C., Fiedler, B., Mitola, R., & Pattni, E. (2019). Dismantling deficit thinking: A
strengths-based inquiry into the experiences of transfer students in and out of
academic libraries. In the Library with
the Lead Pipe. Retrieved from http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org
Hills, J. (1965). Transfer shock: The academic
performance of the junior college transfer. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 33(3),
201-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1965.11010875
Ishitani, T. (2008). How do transfers survive after “transfer shock”?: A longitudinal study of transfer student departure at a
four-year institution. Research in Higher
Education, 49(5), 403-419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-008-9091-x
Kraemer, E. W., Keyse, D.
J., & Lombardo, S. V. (2004). Beyond these walls: Building a library
outreach program at Oakland University. The
Reference Librarian, 39(82),
5-17. https://doi.org/10.1300/J120v39n82_02
Lafrance, H., & Kealey, S. B. (2017). A boutique
personal librarian program for transfer students. Reference Services Review, 45(2),
332-345.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2016-0066
MacDonald, A., & Mohanty, S. (2017). Personal
librarian program for transfer students: An overview. Reference Services Review, 45(2),
346-354. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2016-0071
McBride, K. R., Gregor, M. N., & McCallister, K.
C. (2017). Bridging the gap: Developing library services and instructional
programs for transfer students at Appalachian State University. Reference Services Review, 45(3), 498-510. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2016-0067
National Student Clearinghouse Research Center.
(2017). Tracking transfer: Measures of
effectiveness in helping community college students to complete bachelor’s
degrees. Retrieved from https://nscresearchcenter.org/signaturereport13/
Owens, K. (2010). Community college transfer students’
adjustment to a four-year institution: A qualitative analysis. Journal of The First-Year Experience &
Students in Transition, 22(1),
87-128. Retrieved from https://sc.edu/about/offices_and_divisions/national_resource_center/publications/journal/index.php
Regalado, M., & Smale,
M. A. (2015). “I am more productive in the library because it’s quiet”:
Commuter students in the college library. College
& Research Libraries, 76(7), 899-913. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.7.899
Richter-Weikum, E., & Seeber, K. (2018). Library experiences of transfer students
at an urban campus. Student Success, 9(2), 63-71.
https://doi.org/10.5204/ssj.v9i2.411
Roberts, L., Welsh, M., & Dudek, B. (2019).
Instruction and outreach for transfer students: A Colorado case study. College & Research Libraries, 80(1), 94-122. Retrieved from https://crl.acrl.org
Sandelli, A. (2017). Through three lenses: Transfer students and the library. Reference Services Review, 45(3), 400-414. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2016-0074
Staines, G. M. (1996). Moving beyond institutional boundaries: Perceptions
toward BI for transfer students. Research
Strategies, 14(2), 93-107.
Tipton, R. L., & Bender, P. (2006). From failure
to success: Working with under-prepared transfer students. Reference Services Review, 34(3),
389-404. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320610685337
Townsend, B. K., & Wilson, K. (2006). "A hand
hold for a little bit": Factors facilitating the success of community
college transfer students to a large research university. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 439-456. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0052
Townsend, B. K. (2008). “Feeling like a freshman
again”: The transfer student transition. New
Directions for Higher Education, 2008(144),
69-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.327
Von Seggern, M., & Young, N. (2003). The focus
group method in libraries: Issues relating to process and data analysis. Reference Services Review, 31(3), 272-284. https://doi.org/10.1108/00907320310486872
Whang, L., Tawatao, C., Danneker, J., Belanger, J., Edward Weber, S., Garcia, L.,
& Klaus, A. (2017). Understanding the transfer student experience using design
thinking. Reference Services Review, 45(2), 298-313.
https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-10-2016-0073
Widdows, R., Hensler, T., & Wyncott,
M. (1991). The focus group interview: A method for assessing users’ evaluation
of library service. College and Research
Libraries 52, 352-359. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl_52_04_352
Appendix
Focus Group Questions
Introduction: You’ve all been
invited here today for this focus group to discuss your experiences
transferring into BC.
- What was the most difficult part of transferring
into BC? What made this frustrating or difficult?
- What was the easiest part of transferring? What
did you enjoy about the process?
- Think about the offices and services you may have
used throughout the transfer process. Which service/office was most useful
to you?
a. Which service/office was least useful or most frustrating?
b. How would you improve this service?
- As librarians, we want to be of service to
students and improve your experiences at BC. Have you had any interactions
with librarians, or have you taken a class that came to the library?
Please elaborate.
a. Can you think of (or describe the) ways the librarians can assist with
the transfer process?
b. What role does the library play, if any, in your transfer experience?
- Is there anything you wish you knew before you
came to campus and started your BC career?
- Is there anything else you’d like to add about
your transfer experience?