A peer-refreed, bi-annual journal Issue No.11 - Rajab 1435 AH - May 2014
PERSPECTIVES ON
- Preparatory Year in Saudi Universities from a Global Perspective.
RESEARCH- Developing the Ecosystem of Business
Incubators in Japanese Universities: Current Situation and Challenge.
- The Degree of Practicing Organizational Commitment For the Heads of Departments in the Colleges of Salman bin Abdulaziz University
- Relationship Between the Knowledge Management Processes of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research- Jordan and the Administrative Empowerment With the Employees.
Research Projects- Some Modern Trends in Teacher
Education
2 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
General Rules:1- Topics to be submitted have to be
related to the field of higher education.2- Articles could be written in Arabic or
English. In addition, the journal accepts book reviews.
3- Manuscripts submitted are judged on the originality, appropriateness of methodologies, clearness of ideas and statements, contribution to the advancement of knowledge. In addition, they should not be taken from a dissertation or published book.
4- Manuscripts should be submitted with a cover letter asking for acceptance
with the name, short biography, and contact information of the first author.
5- Author should sign a declaration that the manuscript has not be submitted or accepted in other venues.
6- The editorial board then will forward the manuscript to selected reviewers to be blindly-evaluated. Revision might be required based on this review.
7- The author will be eventually notified about the decision of acceptance or rejection. No submitted materials would be returned.
8- Accepted manuscripts can’t be
submitted for publication in other
venues without written permission from
the editor.
9- Five free copies of the issue containing
the published manuscript will be sent to
the author.
Technical Instruction:
1- Submitted articles should not exceed
20 A4 pages, using “Time New
Roman” font, size 12. Other materials
should not exceed 5 pages.
2- Tables and figures should be sized to
12x18 cm.
3- Submission has to be digital in MS
Word format.
4- Text citations and the end references
should be written and sorted in APA
style.
5- Using endnotes is not recommended. If
it is needed, it should be minimized to
the clarification points, and numbered
throughout the article, then listed at the
end after the references.
Manuscript submission
All manuscripts should be submitted in MS Word format to this email address:[email protected]
3The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
The Saudi Journal of Higher Education
A Peer-refereed, bi-annual JournalPublished by : Center for Higher Education Research and
Studies (CHERS) Ministry of Higher Education, Saudi Arabia
© Center for Higher Education Research and Studies, Ministry of Higher Education 2014
This journal is copyright. All rights reserved. Except for legitimate non-commercial educational use, no part of this publication may be reproduced or communicated in any form or by any means without the written permission of the Journal Editor-in-Chief
Deposit Ref: 47 / 1424 Date 2 / 1 / 1424 HISSN : 1658 - 1113
The authors are responsible for the choice and the presentation of the facts contained in this Journal and for the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of CHERS nor the Ministry of Higher Education
SupervisorDr. Khalid M. Al-AnkaryMinister of Higher Education
Deputy SupervisorDr. Abdulhalem A. Mazi
Director, CHERS
Editorial BoardProf . Abdulrahman A. Sayegh
)Editor-in-Chief(King Saud University
Prof . Mohammed M. Al-Hamid Al-Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud Islamic
University
Prof .Mahroos A. Al-GhabbanTaibah University
Prof . Saleh A. Al-NassarKing Saud University
Prof . Amal M. Al-ShamanKing Saud Univeristy
Prof . Fatimah M. Al-Oboudi Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman
University
Dr. Abdullah H. Al-KhalafAl-Imam Muhammed Ibn Saud
Islamic University
Associate EditorDr. Majda I. Al-Jaroudi
King Saud University
SecretaryArwa S. Al-Ruhaimi
Language editorHmood A. Al-Salamah
DesignerEng. Jamal E. Mashali
Contact UsE-mail: [email protected]
www.chers.edu.sa
Contents
7
9
11
45
65
71
73
75
77
79
81
PREFACE
PERSPECTIVES ON :
• A History of the First-Year Experience in the United States during the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries Past Practices, Current Approches, and Future Directions
Prof. Andrew K. Koch and Prof. John N. Gardner
• The Preparatory Year: Global Perspectives & Local Practices
Prof. Abdulmohsen S. Aloqaili
• Preparatory Year (First Year Experience)
Prof. Saud Nasser Al Kathiri
RESEARcH
• Developing the Ecosystem of Business Incubators in Japanese Universities: Current Situation and Challenges.
Dr. Eng. Essam Amanallah Bukhary
• The Degree of Practicing Organizational Commitment For the Heads of Departments in the Colleges of Salman bin Abdulaziz University.
Dr. Abdulrahman Albabtain
• Relationship Between the Knowledge Management Processes of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research- Jordan and the Administrative Empowerment With the Employees
Dr. Ahmad Badah
RESEARcH PROJEcTS
• Some Modern Trends in Teacher Education
Prof. Mohammed M. Al-Hamid
7The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Saudi higher education institutions have witnessed a
quantum leap over the past decade. This is evident in institutional
academic quality in addition to numerous achievements on
human, administrative, and regulatory development levels.
Praise be to Allah and thanks to the unlimited support of the
Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.
Achieving higher international ranks, international
college accreditation, and academic/research partnerships
with reputable institutions are some of the most significant
characteristics of this progression. Additionally, many Saudi
universities have initiated preparatory years, excellence
research centers, and research chairs and incubators. Lastly,
e-learning, which was crowned through transforming the Saudi
Electronic University (SEU) project into a reality.
The Saudi Higher Education Journal essentially aims
at monitoring the Saudi experience in developing higher
education institutions through research and analysis. This
is achieved through comparisons with similar leading
international experiences. This issue sheds the light on the
issue of the preparatory year from the local and international
perspective(s) of the American experience. Concentrating
on past practices, methodologies, and current and future
trends. Articles in this issue address academic practices and
applications at the international level. These perspectives
Dr. Khalid M. Al-Anqari Minister of Higher Education
Magazine's General Supervisor
Preface
8 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
include studying the development of business incubators in the Japanese experience while
focusing on the current situation and challenges. At the regional level, the relationship between
processes of knowledge management in the Jordanian Ministry of Higher Education & Research
and administrative empowerment among employees. Finally, at the local level, identifying the
degree of organizational commitment of department chairs at Prince Salman University. The
research project of this issue focuses on new approaches to teacher preparation. In addition,
this issue includes a book review on higher education issues and developments by an American
University president.
As I thank my colleagues the members of the editorial board, I urge them to move forward
and continue to fathom higher education issues, challenges, and future outlooks at home and
abroad. Hoping to achieve the ambitious mission of the journal.
Minister of Higher Education
Director General, Saudi Higher Education Journal
Dr. Khalid bin Mohammed Al-Angari
9The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
The Experience of the Preparatory Year in Saudi Universities from a Global Perspective.
Perspectives on
11The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Abstract
This article examines the historical factors in the United States that combined to form
the postsecondary movement known today as” the first-year experience.” Included within
this historical overview is an examination of the first year of university study in the United
States prior to World War II; a discussion about the changes to American higher education,
especially during the 1960s, that resulted in the launch of a first-year experience movement;
a review of the events leading up to and reasons for the creation of several centers focused
on improving the first year of college in the latter portion of the twentieth century; and recent
developments in the first-year experience in the early twenty-first century. The authors then
provide a synopsis of the current state of some of the initiatives proven to make a difference
for first-year students. Finally, they make some suggestions about what lies in the future for
the first-year experience in the United States.
A History of the First-Year Experience in the United States during the Twentieth and Twenty-First centuries:Past Practices, current Approches, and Future Directions
Andrew K. Koch, Ph.D.Executive Vice President
Pers
pect
ives
on
John N. GardnerInstitute for Excellence in
Undergraduate Education
12 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Introduction
Like higher education in the United States itself, the first-year experience in American
higher education has been a dynamic and contextually-specific movement – one that has
consistently changed to meet the needs of students, instituitions, and the broader society
of which they are a part. This essay tracks that history, with particular emphasis placed
on events that occurred during the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. The authors’
pragmatic intent for providing this overview is to furnish readers – especially Saudi higher
educators and policy makers – with perspective on the first-year experience’s past that can be
used to shape the lives of present and future first-year students – in the United States, Saudi
Arabia, or elsewhere. While it is understood that not all the lessons of the American first-year
experience are transferable, it is hoped that knowledge about the successes and the failures
of the movement in the United States can be used by others – especially in Saudi Arabia – to
enhance and expand the efforts that they undertake on behalf of first-year students in their
own countries.
The authors use the phrase “first year experience” to describe a multiplicity of efforts
used by American universities during the latter twentieth and early twenty-first centuries to
enhance the academic and social success of first-year students. The first-year experience is
both cultural- and time-specific – that is, it varies by institutional context at any point in time,
and it varies within a specific institution over the course of time. Because of this, within the
past ten to fifteen years, the expression has been used by many American educators in ways
that were not intended by John Gardner, the developer of the phrase. For example, any search
by Saudi educators of the US literature would find that the phrase “first-year experience”
is also widely used to describe a particular initiative in the curriculum or co-curriculum,
most notably something known as a “first-year seminar” which will be described later in
this article. In short, there is much ambiguity associated with a definition for “the first year
experience.” But the authors of this article are using this concept to describe the entirety of an
educational institution’s approach to the beginning university experience: everything it does
with and for new students.
For the purposes of this article, the phrase “first-year experience” is not a single program
13The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
or initiative, but rather an intentional combination of academic and co-curricular efforts
within and across postsecondary institutions. It is used to name a purposefully connected
set of initiatives designed and implemented to strengthen the quality of student learning
during and satisfaction with the first year of college – the stage in American higher education
during which the largest proportion of university dropout occurs (Upcraft, Gardner and
Barefoot 2003). The first-year experience has contributed both meaningfully and measuably
to the ability of universities in the United States to educate and retain students and maintain
or enhance instituitonal financial well being. For this reason, the first-year experience is a
movement that should be examined by both educational scholars and practitioners alike from
across the globe – persons who are interested in enhancing learning and, as a by-product,
increasing retention and instituitonal financial well being. Another fundamental context in
which this “first-year experience” must be understood is that it is part of US efforts to expand
access to post secondary education and simultaneously improve university completion rates
through enhanced student “retention.” As we shall make clear in this article, the “retention
and completion agenda” has been the single greatest motivator for US institutions to adopt the
first-year student success-focused efforts.
Background History of Higher Education as context for the First-Year Experience in
the United States
History of Higher Education in the United States Leading up to the First-Year Experience
Movement
From the founding of Harvard college – the oldest university in the United States – in
1636 through most of the nineteenth century, higher education in the Amercia was largely an
experience enjoyed by a select group of privileged, white, land owning males. The combined
impact of mid-nineteenth century reform efforts, abrupt technological and societal changes
associated with the Civil War, and the sweeping economic and social effects of the industrial
revolution produced both changes in the structure of American higher education – which
adopted a model similar to that of the German research university – and a gradual but steady
alteration in the size and composition of the postsecondary student body in the United States
during the latter part of the nineteenth century. While still not an experience in which the
14 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
masses participated, postsecondary education in the United States on the eve of the twentieth
century was pursued by a steadily increasing number of men and a gradually increasing
number of women. In short, if they displayed their merit, and had the means, they could attend
– although for most non-Cacucasians, attendance occurred in racially segregated instituitons
(Brubacher and Rudy, 1997; Rudolph, 1990).
The merit-based stage of American higher education continued up to the onset of the
Second World War. During that conflict, however, war-related training needs brought tens of
thousands of men and women to university campuses for accelerated educational experiences
that would help the United States in its war effort (Cardozier, 1993; and Rudy, 1991). In
addition, the government poured massive sums of monies into the universities to sponsor war-
related research. This large-scale, federal role in higher education during the Second World
War was a mere shadow of things to come.
With the end of World War Two in sight, the federal government began to plan for the
return of millions of soldiers. In an attempt to offset the impact that this large group of job-
seeking men and women would have on the American economy, the government introduced
what would come to be known as the G. I. Bill – a program that provided financial resources
for returning soldiers to both attend universities and support their families while doing
so. The post World War II and Korean War G. I. Bills transformed the relationship that
the federal government had with higher education and the purpose of higher education in
the United States itself (Bennett, 1996; and Olsen, 1974). During the 1940s and 1950s,
postsecondary education became an accepted norm for many American citizens, and with
the “democratization” of higher education came increased enrollments and resources. The
stimulus for this change was the Second World War and the ensuing Cold War. It must be
noted that the United States’ federal government enacted the higher education-related funding
and access legislation during the 1940s and 1950s to address economic and political pressures
– civil rights would not become a significant higher education access-related goal for the
federal government until the 1960s. Nevertheless, on the eve of the 1960s, American higher
education had been transformed. No longer was it an experience offered by a small cluster
of private institutions to a limited number of privileged students. It had become something
promoted by the federal government, enjoyed by a considerably larger segment of the
15The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
population, and provided by an expanding number of public institutions.
During the 1960s, five factors combined to expand postsecondary education at a rate
that had not been seen before. These factors included: 1) the growth of the overall pool of
the university-age students due to the rise of the post World War II Baby Boom generation;
2) the robust economy during the 1960s – an economy that created an ideal job climate
for university graduates; 3) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 – which resulted in the federally
enforced desegregation of higher education; 4) the legislation associated with President
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society program, in particular the Higher Education Act of 1965 –
which created the legal basis for federal financial aid programs and academic preparation and
support initiatives for economically disadvantaged students such as the TRIO programs (see:
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/index.html); and, 5) the war in Vietnam – during
which, draft deferments were granted to men who pursued a postsecondary degree, and many
young men chose going to attend a university over going into combat. In addition, the G.I.
bill was again authorized, and many who served in Vietnam used it to gain access to higher
education upon their return from the war.
It is beyond the scope of this article to explore these factors in any additional depth.
However, it must be stated that, when examined collectively, that these five factors all
combined to bring steadily increasing numbers of students to campus from varying
backgrounds. By the end of the decade, university enrollments totaled nearly 8.6 million
students – more than double the 1960 level (American Council on Education, 1984, 58). New
campuses opened across the nation at a previously unimaginable rate; and many of these
new institutions were “community colleges” – institutions that were designed to award two-
year associate degrees. Within the ranks of the growing student body were many non-white
and low-income students – students who added racial and socioeconomic diversity to the
previously heavily white, upper and middle class campus populations. Simply making room
for a large group of diverse students in such a short period would have created strains. The
social, racial and political factors of the era brought the tensions to a boiling point.
During the late 1960s, student activists energetically displayed their displeasure over
racial inequality and the federal government’s Vietnam War policies by staging protests on
16 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
campuses across the United States. On many campuses, these protests became violent, and
at some universities, such as at Kent State University and South Carolina State College, they
resulted in student deaths. The violent protests and their human costs shook public confidence
in higher education. Searching for ways to curb student unrest and restore their position in
society, many American postsecondary institutions began experimenting with more student-
centered approaches to education. One such institution, the University of South Carolina,
responded to student unrest on its campus by instituting a first-year seminar named University
101 – a type of course that will be described later in this article. While its faculty and staff
did not know it at the time, this action would place South Carolina at the vanguard of a new
movement in American higher education – the first-year experience movement.
Re-Emergence of First-Year Seminars and the Emergence of the First-Year Experience
First-year seminars – small enrollment courses that help beginning students with their
academic and social transition – were not new to American higher education in 1972, the year
in which the University of South Carolina initiated its University 101 seminar. The initial
first-year orientation seminar was launched at Reed College (in Oregon) in 1911. Slowly
gaining momentum, by the 1915-16 academic year, four other American postsecondary
institutions followed Reed’s example and offered credit-bearing first-year orientation seminars
of their own. By 1925-1926, eighty-two American universities did (Brubacher and Rudy,
1956, 331) – including Princeton, Indiana, Stanford, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins and Ohio
State (Gordon, 1989, 185). By 1938, nine out of ten freshmen in American universities were
required to take them (Gordon, 187). However, this would be the apex of first-year seminar
offerings during the first half of the twentieth century. Following the middle part of the 1930s,
the courses began to wane in both number and, where they still existed, scope. The first-year
experience scholar/practitioner Virginia Gordon shares that the courses were reduced “because
of faculty objections to offering credit for their ‘life adjustment’ content” (Gordon, 188). In
the minds of those who objected to them, the first-year seminars were too remedial and non-
academic in scope to be tolerated. By the early 1960s, the first-year orientation seminar was
practically non-existent on American university campuses (Gordon, 188).
It took a campus riot to convince Thomas Jones, the President at the University of South
17The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Carolina, to bring back a first-year seminar at his institution. In his words, the University
was offering the course to “teach students not to riot” (Watts, 1999, 246). In its early days
in the 1970’s, the course was not without its opponents. Faculty critics decried the course’s
lack of “structure” and pointed out that it was missing any credible evaluation results that
could convince them of its educational value. With little surprise, when Jones announced
his intention to resign following the end of the 1974 academic year, the future existence of
University 101 was not guaranteed. Jones and his administrative colleagues did what they
could to preserve the course and shore it up for the future. One such action was finding a
person to serve as the course’s director. Of the four names considered for the search, the
first two persons to whom the job was offered declined to take it. The third person who was
offered the position was one of the original faculty members who had been trained to teach
the course – an untenured faculty member by the name of John Gardner (Watts, 274).
Over the next few years, Gardner set out to add more traditional course structure and
academic content to University 101, boost student enrollment, and provide credible research
data to prove that the students and the University benefited from offering the course. He
succeeded at accomplishing all three objectives – working with Paul Fidler, a faculty member
and administrator at the University of South Carolina who focused his research efforts
on student outcomes, to conduct the assessment. By the end of January 1975, Fidler and
his associates provided outcomes results showing that there was a statistically significant
positive difference on retention for University 101 students when compared to students
who did not take the course. In other words, students who started at the University of South
Carolina during the fall of one academic year were more likely to return for the start of the
next academic year in the subsequent fall if they had enrolled in the University 101 first-year
seminar. The outcomes also showed that students who took the course were better informed
about the University, made more frequent use of the University’s resources and services, and
participated in extracurricular activities to a greater extent than non-participants. With these
outcomes presented to him, the President decided that the course would continue as long as
student interest and need continued to exist (Watts, 274-84).
In the robust enrollment years of the 1960s, retention-related findings such as those
associated with University 101 might have actually hindered the longevity of the course as
18 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
opposed to helping it because administrators and faculty may have assumed such efforts were
a waste of time due to the fact that departing students could easily be replaced. However, by
the late 1970s, concern over retaining students, and with them their tuition, was beginning to
mount. The end of Vietnam War-realted enrollments and the tailing off of the Baby Boom
generation meant that the double-digit annual enrollment increases that were common in the
previous decade shrank to a more typical two-to-four percent increase. In addition, many
higher education enrollment analysts predicted that by the 1980s American universities would
experience enrollment decreases (Centra, 1980, 18). Consequently, as a means of preserving
themselves and avoiding drastic financial cutbacks, universities focused more attention on
efforts that would help them retain the students that they already had. Proven retention-
enhancing programs were sought out and, when found, quickly imitated. And, because of
Gardner’s tireless efforts to share outcomes associated with University 101 at regional and
national conferences, the first-year seminar was one of the most frequently copied retention
enhancing initiatives.
In 1981, after conducting numerous presentations about the University of South Carolina’s
first-year seminar at an array of professional meetings over the previous five year period,
assisting a host of other postsecondary institutions to launch their equivalent of the course,
and finding no literature or higher educator professional association focused on first-year
students, John Gardner decided to host a national conference on the first-year orientation
course in Columbia South Carolina. Approximately 175 higher educators from the United
State and Canada came to take part in and listen to more than thirty descriptions of courses
comparable to University 101. The conference exceeded its organizers expectations –
prompting Gardner to make a decision to offer the conference on a recurring basis under
the title “The Freshman Year Experience.” By doing this, he gave the first-year experience
movement an annual focal point and, just as important, a name – one that was flexible enough
to accommodate the growth and increased scope of the movement in the years to follow
(Watts, 343).
The first-year experience and its by product, retention, both grew in importance in the
United States during the 1980s as a result of increased attention to educational performance
and decreased direct federal funding for higher education – all of which was spurred forward
19The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
by the administration of President Ronald Regan. In particular, changes in federal financial
aid funding policies – that made retaining the individual student of greater and greater
significance – and increasing public attention to the quality of education brought about by
reports such as A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform released in 1983
by the Presidential Commission on Excellence in Education helped to fuel both interest in
improving the first-year experience and, as a by product, attendance at the annual conference
and the variety of professional meetings associated with the first year of college (Zeller, 1984,
6).
As a result of the steadily increasing interest in the first-year experience, John Gardner
began actively advancing a plan to create a research and “resource” center for first-year
experience at the University of South Carolina. After nearly two years of planning, the
National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience opened in July 1987. Soon
thereafter, the Center launched its Freshman Year Experience Newsletter. During the same
year, it also began the scholarly, blind refereed, Journal of The Freshman Year Experience.
Hitting desks and library shelves in fall 1988, the journal, like the newsletter, found a ready
and eager readership. In an effort to provide research reports that exceeded twenty pages in
length, the center also initiated a monograph series. To date, the monograph series includes
over fifty titles – several of which have multiple editions (Watts, 380). The newsletter, journal
and monographs provided an important and previously non-existent literature base for higher
education administrators and faculty in the United States who were interested in research-
based approaches to improving undergraduate education. The emphasis on quantifiable
reports, particularly as found in the Journal, satisfied, in a distinguished scholarly fashion,
academe’s demand for credibility and the growing call for accountability and evidence of
effectiveness (Watts, 386-87).
During the 1990s, increased public pressure for educational accountability combined
with changing demographics and further efforts to expand educational access to create new
growing pains for America’s higher education institutions. Specifically, a series of books,
notably Allan Bloom’s 1987 best-seller, The Closing of the American Mind, and reports,
such as An American Imperative: Higher Expectations for Higher Education issued by the
Wingspread Group in 1993 and The Student Learning Imperative, published by the American
20 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
College Personnel Association in 1994, prompted educators to concentrate on showing
measurable improvement within the core functions of the educational enterprise – student
learning and development (Johnson Foundation/Wingspread Group on Higher Education,
1993; and American College Personnel Association, 1994). This quality movement – in part,
an extension of the quality movement in American industry – was endorsed with vigor by
the major postsecondary professional associations in the United States, especially American
Association for Higher Education, and the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
The emphasis on quality came at the same time as a wave of new immigration, principally
from Latin America and Asia, and increased racial diversity in higher education brought less
prepared but nonetheless eager students to American campuses.
To meet these challenges, John Gardner and his colleagues in the National Resource
Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition broadened both the scope
of the Center’s activities and the diversity of the projects that the center undertook within
this expanded scope. The Resource Center continued to conduct the national and regional
conferences that helped to establish the movement – with the annual combined attendance
at these events numbering in the thousands. It also added an array of monographs, journal
articles, and a host of newsletters and occasional papers that addressed issues important to the
success of underrepresented students and those in need of supplemental academic support and
services. Reflecting the technological innovations of the era, in 1994, the Center launched
an internet listserv for first-year issue-oriented faculty and staff, established a website and
created a satellite-transmitted videoconference series – all of which continue to be offered
today – the listserv alone having over seventeen hundred subscribers (Hunter, 2001).
With an ear on the increasingly louder call for accountability and an eye on the growing
influence of accrediting agencies – organizations that serve to certify the quality of the
institutions that make up American higher education – John Gardner and his colleague,
Betsy Barefoot, launched a second center focused on the first-year experience in 1999 – the
Policy Center on the First Year of College (now the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence
in Undergraduate Educaiton). With funding provided by three American philanthropic
organizations –The Pew Charitable Trusts, The Atlantic Philanthropies and Lumina
Foundation for Education – the Policy Center on the First Year of College expanded the first-
21The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
year experience movement in the United States by focusing squarely on heling institutions
use assessment to improve the entirety of what they do as part of their respective first-year
programs. Foundations of Excellence® in the First College Year (FoE) is an example of one
of the asessment-based project projects that the Gardner Institute’s staff created to achieve
their mission. Since 2003, FoE has helped over 250 American college and universities
develop and implement a research-based, aspirational, model for the entirety of the first
year. The comprehensive, assessment-based plans of action that institutions generatate by
participating in FoE are subsequently implemented with the aim of increasing first-year
student learning, success, and retention (see: http://www.jngi.org/institute/our-history/).
During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the same types of philanthropic funding
agencies that supported the Gardner Institute’s development of Foundaitons of Excellence
were also supporting broader higher education policy and practice initiatives across the United
States – projects with implications for the ongoing development of the first-year experience
movement. Specifically, organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Lumina
Foundation for Educaiton, and Kresge Foundation, began using their resources to transform
higher educaiton in the United States – so that the U.S. would not only be among the world’s
leaders in access to higher education, but it would once again lead the world in the rates
at which its citizens also complete a postsecondary certificate or degree. The “Completion
Agenda” that has emerged out of these organizations efforts has greatly influenced higher
education in both the states and the nation as a whole (see: http://www.luminafoundation.org/
goal_2025.html).
President Barak Obama made this completion-focused agenda abundantly clear to the
American people during his first joint address to Congress on February 24, 2009. During
that address, Obama set a goal that the nation should once again have the highest proportion
of college graduates in the world by the year 2020. According to U.S. Department of
Education projections, reaching this goal means that the proportion of college graduates in
the U.S. will need to increase by fifty percent nationwide by 2020. This means that eight
million more persons will need to earn associate’s and bachelor’s degrees by the end of
the current decade. Achieving this ambitious goal will require higher education institutions
and systems to implement far-reaching reforms to improve college success and, ultimately,
22 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
degree completion while ensuring quality (see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/
higher-education). And the first year of college is the foundation on which the success of the
Completion Agenda must be built.
In the 2012 edition of its annual report, National Collegiate Retention and Persistence to
Degree Rates, ACT noted that first-to-second year degree rates across all higher education
institutions in the United States was 66.5%. In other words, more than a third of all first-
year students did not return to the college at which they began their studies the subsequent
year (ACT, 2012). This is by no means a one-year trend. ACT has conducted its retention
and completion analysis since 1983, and first-to-second year retention rates have remained
relatively flat over the near thirty year period examined for the study (ACT, 2012). In short,
in the early 21st century, the first college year is period in American higher education during
which the largest proportion of dropout occurs. The realization of national education policy
goals hinges, at least in large part, on the ability of higher education institutions in the United
States to make sure that first-year students succeed.
It is beyond the scope of this article to go into all the factors that further complicate this
first-year student success charge. For purposes of this submission, it suffices to share that the
financial implications of the Great Recession that started in 2008 – specifically the decline
in state and federal financial support for higher educaiton since that year – and increases
in military veteran enrollments and the needs that those veterans bring with them to higher
education institutions following their service in the Persian Gulf and/or Afghanistan, have
combined with the Completion Agenda-related policy directives to add complexity to and
enhance the need for increased student success during the first college year and beyond. With
this context in mind, the nation’s ability to successfully support and improve first-year student
success will be a key indicator of whether the Completion Agenda’s admirable goals will be
realized or left unfulfilled.
As evidenced by the content on the preceeding pages of this article, from its beginnings
to its current state, the first-year experience movement has been a story of innovation
and adaptation meeting the postsecondary education needs of a steadily diversifying and
increasingly accountability-oriented society. In the process of doing so, the first-year
23The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
experience has become a part of the fabric of higher education in the United States today – it
has both shaped and reflected the broader U.S. postsecondary culture of which it is a part.
The next section profiles some of the contemporary initiatives that are used in varying ways
across postsecondary institutions in the United States to continuously reframe the first-year
experience.
current Practices for First-Year Students in the United States
This section includes overviews of the initiatives and approaches used by many
higher education institutions in the United States to support and enhance first-year student
success. For the readers’ convenience, the content is divided into three sub-sections. The
first, Pre-University Programs for First-Year Students, examines the academic and social
efforts employed by universities in the United States to help their first-year students with
the immediate transition into postsecondary education. In the second sub-section, First-
Year Initiatives Focused on the Curriculum and/or the Faculty, information is shared about
academic-based programs and services that benefit first-year students directly, or indirectly
through the faculty who teach them. The third and final sub-section, Structures, Services and
Activities that Benefit First-Year Students, details the out-of-class initiatives in which students
participate, institutional approaches to the delivery of services, and organizational structures
that enhance the first-year experience. In all cases, footnotes are provided to the readers so
that they can readily find sources that will provide more in-depth information on the first year-
related topics found within each sub-heading.
Pre-University Programs for First-Year Students
New Student Orientation Programs – New student orientation programs are a core
feature of the first-year initiatives found in American universities. According to the National
Survey of First Year Practices, ninety-six percent of all postsecondary institutions offer some
form of orientation program (Barefoot, 2005, 52). While the duration of the programs and
their components may vary from institution to institution, these initiatives generally provide
an introduction to the academic and social aspects of the institution – either during the months
immediately preceding the students’ first days on campus or during the first days themselves.
24 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Given the timing during which they are conducted, orientation programs serve as one of
the earliest forms of outreach and intervention offered to first-year students in the United
States. Frequently, orientation programs include time for an explanation of the curriculum,
course placement testing and registration, an overview of campus resources and services,
and opportunities to meet with staff, faculty and students(Mullendore and Banahan, 2005).
A major influence on the development of orientation programming in the United States is
the National Orientation Directors Association (NODA). NODA’s website (provided at the
end of this article), publications and conferences are excellent resources for practitioners in
the United States or elsewhere who would like to learn more about the ways in which new
students can and should be successfully oriented to a university setting (see: Barefoot, Griffin
and Koch, 2012, 6-10).
Parent/Family Orientation Programs – Like orientation programs for students,
parents and family orientation programs provide resources and information about a specific
institution. The information is tailored to meet the needs of parent and/or family members so,
in turn, they can help their respective first-year students succeed. While the approaches to and
reasons for parent/family orientation vary by institution, generally, universities in the United
States use these programs to devote some attention to the changing roles and relationships
between parents and students issues and what these roles mean for a successful transition to a
university(Mullendore and Banahan, 2005).
Summer Bridge Programs – Summer bridge programs are initiatives that offer incoming
first-year students a structured transition from high school to college. These programs
traditionally occur in the summer that immediately precedes the fall term during which the
students will matriculate. Focused on developing academic skills and awareness of campus
resources, summer bridge programs are targeted at participants who come primarily (but not
necessarily solely) from student populations historically at greater risk of not succeeding in
universities in the United States – such as racial minorities, females in male-dominated fields
and students from low-income backgrounds. The first summer bridge programs were started
as part of the TRIO and Upward Bound efforts that came into existence with the Civil Rights
and Higher Education Acts of the mid 1960s. Exemplary models are presently found in the
City University of New York system and at the University of California at Berkeley. Summer
25The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
bridge programs have somewhat different goals than orientation programs, and they last
longer as well – spanning weeks compared to orientation programs that last for a few days.
While they vary in structure across the universities that offer them, these programs generally
include intensive academic experiences – in many cases they include credit-bearing courses.
Additional components found across summer bridge programs include residential living
experiences, time management sessions, study skills programming, academic and career
planning, programs that help students network with faculty, staff and other students, and
efforts that familiarize students with campus resources and services (Pascarella and Patrick T.
Terenzini, 401-405; see also Barefoot, Griffin and Koch, 2-5).
Summer or common Reading Programs – More and more American higher education
institutions – particularly those with a liberal arts foundation – provide their incoming first-
year students with a book to read during the summer before the students’ first year of college.
Frequently, theses institutions will invite the author to campus for convocation – a ceremony
that sets the tempo for the rest of the year. In addition, the books are commonly discussed
during orientation and/or within a first-year course, such as a first-year seminar or an English
composition course in which students are required to enroll. With these components, summer
reading experiences are offered as a means to increase students’ academic integration and to
provide a common experience at the onset of the first-year of college. Both of these intended
outcomes are associated with greater levels of student success (see: Laufgraben, 2006).
First-Year Initiatives Focused on the Curriculum and/or the Faculty
Academic Advising – Academic advising is considered by many higher education
practitioners in the United States as one of the most important ways that first-year students
interact with a representative of their respective universities. Through academic advising,
students gain vital curricular information and guidance that helps them shape their academic
programs of study. Advising services can be offered in a variety of ways – face-to-face,
on the telephone, on-line – and they can be provided in a number of formats – through a
central advising office, by faculty, by professional staff, by peer advisors. Regardless of
how academic advising is provided or by whom it is offered, if done correctly – in a manner
that helps students put their course selections within the context of a broader life plan – it
26 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
will enhance student success (King and Kerr, 2005). A major influence on the development
of academic advising in the United States – both as a service and as a profession – is the
National Academic Advising Association (NACADA). NACADA’s website (provided at
the end of this article), publications and conferences are excellent resources for practitioners
in the United States or elsewhere who would like to learn more about the ways in which
academic advising helps new students succeed.
Developmental Education – Drawing from the fields of developmental psychology
and learning theory, developmental education includes programs and services that:
enhance academic preparedness; provide diagnostic evaluation and corresponding course
placement; decrease social barriers to education; and, augment learning skills. Because of
this, developmental education strategies have collectively served as a method for providing
opportunities to first-year students who are not totally prepared for the rigors of college.
In essence, developmental education is based on the premise that some first-year students
are better prepared than others, and that those who are less prepared can nevertheless be
successful in college if they are offered the appropriate forms of support. Some of the reasons
why students may need to take advantage of developmental education offerings include
coming from a low-income background or from a family in which no one has ever attended a
university. While not without controversy (Complete College America, 2012), developmental
education has provided and continues to provide access to higher education for millions
of first-year students in the United States as it has been shown to enhance their academic
achievement and retention (Highbee, 2005). Two professional groups that have had significant
influence on developmental education in American universities are the College Reading and
Learning Association (CRLA) and the National Association for Developmental Education
(NADE).
Distance Education and On-Line First-Year courses – During the last decade,
American universities have taken steps to make use of technology to offer classes to and
provide support for their first-year students. These approaches are particularly used by
two-year institutions – fifty percent of all two-year colleges report offering on-line courses
in which their first-year students can enroll compared to nine percent of the four-year
colleges and universities (Barefoot, 2005, 57). On-line education requires that educators
27The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
focus concerted attention to delivering services such as academic advising and orientation
to students in a careful manner – so that students feel connected to the university and that
their instructional and support needs are being met. While the curricular and programmatic
aspects associated with offering on-line courses to first-year students is relatively new to
American universities, some exemplary programs and services exist. These include Brigham
Young University’s web-based student planning system; Pennsylvania State University’s
automated notebook system; Ball State University’s on-line degree audit system; and Pima
Community College’s video academic advising system. When planned and supported well,
on-line courses and services can help first-year students succeed and make progress toward
completing their degrees (Kramer and Childs, 2000).
Faculty Development – Issues of faculty preparation are directly connected to efforts
that focus on enhancing first-year student academic success – particularly those efforts
that are related to or based in the classroom experience. For that reason, many universities
in the United States offer workshops or other professional development activities that are
intended to help their faculty enhance the way they teach first-year students. According to the
results of the National Survey of First Year Practices, sixty-two percent of all postsecondary
institutions indicated that they had provided development initiatives within the five years
leading up to the survey (Barefoot, 2005, 54). An example of a first-year student-focused
professional development initiative is found in the “Teaching First-Year Students” resources
and podcasts offered by Vanderbilt University (see: http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teaching-guides/
interactions/firstyears/). Often, the pedagogical enhancements made within the context of
these development initiatives lend themselves to teaching in general. Thus, by improving the
manner in which they teach first-year students, faculty can serve all students better.
First-Year Seminars – Offered by eighty percent of all four-year and sixty-two percent of
all two-year institutions, first-year seminars are the most commonly implemented curricular
strategy designed for first-year students (Barefoot, 2005, 56). In addition, they are one of the
most researched, and as a result, most measurably successful of all the first-year initiatives
presently employed in American universities (Pascarella and Terenzini, 2005, 400-3). First-
year seminars come in many forms. Some, like the University 101 course at the University of
South Carolina, are extended orientation courses. Others, such as at Princeton University, are
28 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
focused on intensive study of an academic topic or theme. By definition, seminars are small
in size – but in some cases institutions involve more than twenty-to-thirty students in their
first-year courses. Regardless of their form or size, all variations of first-year seminars are
focused on assisting students in their academic and social development and with the transition
to college. Specifically, first-year seminars help students learn about a subject or combination
of subjects. In the process, students learn about themselves and their institutions in ways that
can meaningfully increase their ability to succeed and, ultimately, graduate (Upcraft, Gardner
and Barefoot, 2005, 275-91).
Learning communities – Learning Communities are defined as two or more linked
courses in which the same small group of students is enrolled. Often focused on an academic
theme or major, learning communities are found at thirty-seven percent of all four-year
and twenty-three percent of two-year institutions (Barefoot, 56). Large research-focused
universities, such as Purdue University, make use of learning communities to help make
their environment feel smaller and more manageable for their first-year students. Learning
communities benefit students by connecting the content in their courses in a complimentary
manner. In addition, students are likely to make friends with the other students in their
learning communities – making the formation of study groups easier. Finally, learning
communities facilitate the interaction of students with their faculty. When combined, these
benefits result in enhanced learning, greater satisfaction with the university experience and,
a by-product, higher retention rates (Barefoot, Griffin and Koch, 20-24; Upcraft, Gardner
and Barefoot, 371-90; Pascarella and Terenzini, 109-10 & 422-23). An important source
of information on learning communities in the United States is the Washington Center for
Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education at Evergreen State College in Olympia,
Washington.
Service Learning – Service learning is a pedagogical approach that ties together
voluntary service to the community with credit-bearing, academic activities. In essence,
the approach relates meaningful community service actions to course materials through
reflection activities such as directed writings, class presentations, and small group discussions.
Technically then, service learning becomes mandatory, non-remunerative work that is
incorporated by faculty into their credit-bearing courses. What differentiates service learning
29The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
from regular community service is the fact that the service activity is intentionally placed in
context with the curriculum and, as a result, it reinforces course objectives as it enhances civic
responsibility. Many universities in the United States make use of service learning with their
students, with over a third of them – 37% – reporting that they involve their first-year students
in these service learning endeavors (Barefoot, 57). Doing so helps first-year students to: gain a
better understanding of who they are; develop a sense of connection with their new university
community; create a sense of cohesiveness with their classmates; and, apply their course
content to “real world” situations. Thus, service learning helps first-year students integrate
into their new communities as well as understand and apply academic content (Zlotkowski,
2005, 356-70; see also Barefoot, Griffin and Koch, 35-38).
Supplemental Instruction – Pioneered at the University of Missouri at Kansas City
in 1976 and replicated across American higher education and numerous countries abroad,
Supplemental Instruction, or “SI,” is a peer-led, out-of-class learning assistance program
that is targeted at “historically difficult courses”. What differentiates SI from other forms of
academic assistance, such as group or individual tutoring, is that SI is focused on high-risk
courses, not high-risk students. In other words, institutions use Supplemental Instruction to
address student performance issues in courses that historically have high rates of low grades
– with low grade being defined as thirty percent or more of the grades being “F” for failure,
“D” for unsatisfactory or “W” for withdrawal. SI is targeted primarily but not exclusively at
introductory level courses. SI does not “water down” content or lower expectations. In fact,
by requiring students to attend the review sessions outside of regular class time, and usually
for no credit, students actually put in more work. The SI leaders – the session facilitators –
are students (either undergraduates or graduate students) who previously earned a high grade
in the course. By combining study skills concepts with the course content, the SI leaders help
the session participants apply proper study strategies to the material they are learning in their
classes. Consequently, Supplemental Instruction helps first-year students learn how to learn
at the same time that it reinforces what they should be learning. As a result, SI improves both
grades and overall retention rates Hurley, 2005, 308-19; and Pascarella and Terenzini, 106-7).
30 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Structures, Services and Activities that Benefit First-Year Students
Early Alert/Warning Systems – According to Barefoot, Griffin, and Koch, early warning
systems are used by institutions to monitor student academic performance and guide
appropriate intervention. Often affiliated with courses in which students experience great
difficulty, “early warning/academic alert systems take on many different forms across and
even within institutions. Some rely heavily on technology, others on direct human observation
and actions, and still others on a combination of human and technological monitoring and
intervention” (2012, p. 25). In addition, “early warning/academic alert support may also
vary within an institution across student classification levels (class standing) and by student
subpopulations” (2012, p. 25). Some limitations with early warning systems have to do
with the degree to which monitored behaviors are physically observed by faculty and/or
other staff – because they can only act on what they see – and the frequency with which
warnings occur. Often, early alert programs do not occur as early as their names imply – they
may rely on mid-term grades, and these grades may account for as much of half a course
grade. Thus, interventions may occur when it is too late to make meaningful changes in
student performance and the grades they earn. Arkansas State University hosts the National
Clearinghouse for Early Alert Initiatives in Higher Education with a website, listserv, and
other resources dedicated to providing “a collective forum for higher education where
faculty and professionals can join discussion of and access research on early alert strategies”
(National Clearinghouse for early Alert Initiatives in Higher Education, 2010).
Learner Analytics – Learner analytics is one of the newest and most promising forms
of early warning / early intervention tools. Learner analytics tools can mitigate the
aforementioned issues associated with early warning systems due to their ability to provide
more timely feedback and their ability to do so with great granularity. An example of this
is Boise State University’s Student Success Monitoring System – a tool that draws on data
from the institution’s student information system, learning management system, and a
variety of other sources on a routine basis to monitor performance and guide intervention in
twenty-eight challenging courses (Chacon, Spicer & Valbuena, 2012). Purdue University’s
Signals project is another innovative and successful form of learner analytics that is making
a difference in course success. When compared to a sample that controlled for the volunteer
31The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
effect, students in courses with Signals earn more A and B grades, fewer D or F grades, make
greater use of help resources, and graduate sooner (Pistilli, Arnold, & Bethune, 2012). With
support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, EDUCAUSE has placed great focus on
promoting and researching analytics, most recently devoting an entire issue of its bi- monthly
publication to analytics efforts.
First-Year Activities such as Athletics, “Greek Life” (membership in social organizations
that have existed on American residential campuses for several hundred years and which
are designated with Greek letters), and Residential Life – Once first-year students settle
into classes, and in some cases even before they do, they will begin to identify out-of-class
activities in which they will get involved to help enrich their lives and make meaning in their
new collegiate worlds. In some cases, this may include involvement in student organizations
and clubs, including leadership thereof. Other students will take part in intercollegiate
athletics – defined as being a member of an athletic team. With nearly two-thirds of all
American universities indicating that they provide housing for their first year students, it
should come as no surprise that students also get involved and identify with their residence
halls. In addition to these activities, first-year students also involve themselves in fraternities
or sororities – referred to as “Greek” organizations because of the Greek letter used to name
many of these fraternal groups. In all cases, particularly Greek life, participation in these
out-of-class activities can have a negative impact on first-year students – as involvement can
cause some students to lose focus of their academic responsibilities. Greek life, in particular,
has long been associated with stereotypical concepts of “the intoxicated university student”
– despite the fact that actual involvement in Greek life is declining due to the financial costs
associated with membership and heightened concerns about socially inappropriate behavior
and the liability risks and costs associated therewith. However, when placed into the proper
context, especially with the help of faculty and staff who intentionally set out to do so,
involvement in activities such as those described about can compliment learning, accelerate
socialization and, as a result, increase college success and retention for first-year students
(Barefoot, 57-59).
Institutional Policies, Attendance and Mid-Term Reporting – The policies that American
higher education institutions adopt and enforce have a significant and direct impact on the
32 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
success of their first-year students – particularly those policies that are associated with class
attendance and grade reporting. When sharing and reflecting on the results of the National
Survey of First-Year Practices, the researcher Betsy Barefoot asserted the following about
these practices:
Although both class attendance and whether students receive midterm feedback on
academic performance are issues that affect students beyond the first year, many would argue
they have disproportionate impact on first-year students. Both research and mountains of
anecdotal evidence support the importance of class attendance, especially in the first year, and
yet only 39 percent of institutions report an official attendance policy. Only about 4 percent
have an attendance policy for first-year students that “differs in any way from the institution-
wide policy.”
Over 60 percent of all institutions collect and report midterm grades to first-
year students, thereby giving them an important source of feedback on their academic
performance. Some educators would argue that midterm feedback is too late: first-year
students need some idea within the first few weeks of the term about their performance,
hopefully in time to withdraw from classes that are “hopeless” (Barefoot, 55).
Where American universities have recognized the power of their practices and acted to
augment their approaches accordingly, it is no surprise that first-year students are often better
informed and, as a result, experience higher levels of success. This is a valuable lesson to
institutions seeking ways to enhance student learning and success – often small changes in
administrative policies and reporting patterns can make a big difference.
Living-Learning Communities/First-Year Living Environments – Many universities in the
United States operate on-campus residence halls in which their students elect to live for a part
or all of their educational experience. An increasing number of the institutions that provide
such living arrangements also opt to offer unique spaces and/or services for the first-year
students living in these residence halls. Frequently called living-learning communities, these
offerings vary in form, but generally attempt to create an emphasis on an academic theme by
including such aspects as faculty interaction, academic and/or cultural programs, academic
33The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
advising, and mentoring. In some cases, particularly at large, research-focused universities
such as Indiana University, some of the first-year classes are taught in the residence halls.
Efforts of this nature connect aspects of the student learning experience to their living
environment and, in the process, they seem to blur the boundaries between students’
academic and social lives. Another example of a combination of the academic and residential
enterprises is the “Residential College,” such as the Preston Residential College at the
University of South Carolina. Residential Colleges serve as a location in which students and
faculty both live and learn. They differ from learning communities in that some of the faculty
actually live in the residence halls with the students. Whether offered as a living-learning
community or as a residential college, intentionally connecting first-year students’ residential
and academic realms tends to lead to greater success in both the academic and social aspects
of college and, in turn, higher retention (Zeller, 2005, 410-27; and Pascarella and Terenzini,
109-10 & 420-22).
Additional comments on the current Practices for First-Year Students in the United
States
Having shared information on the practices most frequently used to help first-year
students succeed in American universities, we must note that not all of these initiatives and
approaches are found in every higher education institution in America. More often than not,
institutional resources and culture combine to produce environments in which only some,
or perhaps even one, of the approaches are employed. In addition, even when initiatives
exist commonly across institutional settings, there is great variation between the respective
programs and services described in the preceding section. There is no “magic pill” – no
single effort that can help all first-year students across all universities in the United States.
But even though differences exist, there are commonalities – if only at a broad level – that
allow universities to adopt successful approaches and adapt them accordingly. Those making
decisions at their institutions about which programs to adopt will do well to keep in mind
the unique cultural contexts in which they are working so that they can select initiatives and
strategies that fit their respective environments and needs well. And, as the last section of this
article reveals, every effort should be made to intentionally connect the various components
that constitute the first-year experience at a particular university.
34 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
conclusions About the Past and Recommendations for the Future of the First-Year
Experience in the United States
Since the early 1970s, faculty and staff working with the first-year experience in higher
education institutions in America have succeeded in establishing and advancing a national
reform movement with numerous participants coming from hundreds of instituitons. With
help from the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition and the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education,
many colleges and universities in the United States have made the first-year experience a
higher priority. Faculty and staff working with first year programs have established and
sustained the growth of a scholarly literature base and a national network of higher educators
focused on a common concern – the legitimization of a unique field of endeavor, inquiry, and
action called the first-year experience. Simultaneously, they have encouraged and supported
the growth of an array of programs and services to enhance the experience of first-year
students as discussed in the previous section of this article. But there is still much work to be
done.
In the second decade of the twenty-first century, there is still too much failure in the
first-year of college in the United States. Attrition is still too high. The first year is still not
sufficiently valued on some campuses. Intentional, mission-focused design is lacking in the
first-year experience at most institutions. And, with a number of initiatives, for example
the signature intervention known as the first-year seminar, it can be argued that much more
attention needs to be paid to the educational quality of such offerings. Assessment is not
practiced throughout first-year experience activities in the United States and, where it is
practiced, decisions are often not being made on the basis of the findings. Assuming that
once the first year is over, students no longer need support, the first-year experience ends
abruptly – often leading to an inevitable drop in performance during the second year of study
known as “the sophomore slump.”Although it is widely recognized now that the beginning
experience does make a great difference in student outcomes, nevertheless, most institutions
have not subjected themselves to a rigorous “self-study” of the first year (with the exception
of about 250 institutions that have engaged in the self-study and improvement planning
process known as “Foundations of Excellence” designed and offered by the John N. Gardner
35The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education. Clearly, there is an enormous unfinished
agenda associated with the first-year experience across all institutional types in the United
States. In short, it is time to apply the lessons of the past to the present and, in the process of
doing so, make necessary structural, policy, curricular, and pedagogical changes to better meet
the needs of our students so that they have fuller and richer futures. To achieve this goal, we
recommend that faculty and staff associated with the first-year experience movement focus
attention and effort on accomplishing the following objectives.
1. Make assessment an integral part of the first-year experience – The noted first-
year experience scholar, Betsy Barefoot, has often mused during her presentations,
that the first-year experience cannot be an “assessment free zone.” Making use of
nationally normed instruments, American universities must strive to collect data on
the implementation and performance of first-year programs and on the first year of
college in general. Examples of these instruments include: the Your First College
Year (YFCY) survey produced jointly by the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence
in Undergraduate Education and the Higher Education Research Institute at the
University of California Los Angeles; the First-Year Initiative (FYI) Benchmarking
Survey developed by the John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate
Education and Educational Benchmarking, Inc.; the First-Year Data Audit Toolkit
created by the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems and the
John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education; the National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) directed by researchers at Indiana University
in the Center for Postsecondary Research and Planning; and the Community College
Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) launched as a project of the Community
College Leadership Program at The University of Texas at Austin in conjunction with
the NSSE efforts at Indiana University.
2. Link the first-year experience with the university’s mission by focusing on
measurable forms of learning excellence and as integral part of this focus, conduct a
comprehensive self study of the institution’s approaches to its first-year students. –
American universities must envision a more effective experience for their beginning
students and, in conjunction with this, assess the degree to which they actually
36 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
achieve excellence in accordance with these statements and aspirations. To do this,
institutions of comparable types should work collectively to develop a research-
based, comprehensive model of the first year that is attainable and immediately
usable to increase student learning, success, and retention. In addition, they must
develop a method to measure and evaluate their respective levels of achievement in
accordance with this model. An example of a process that helps universities focus
on measurable forms of learning excellence is the Foundations of Excellence in the
First College Year project presently being conducted by the John N. Gardner Institute
for Excellence in Undergraduate Education (see: http://www.jngi.org/foe-program/).
This is a process that uses a set of aspirational principles for excellence in both the
design and measurement of the beginning college experience; it includes a process
for conducting a comprehensive self study which leads to an “action/improvement”
plan to both confirm existing practices that are educationally sound, and to produce
change to improve educational effectiveness. Such a system could be directly tied
into the accreditation process that each institution undergoes on a routine basis – a
process that provides the public and potential employers with a reasonable assurance
of the quality of a specific university’s academic programs and graduates. External
evaluation correlates the high implementation of a Foundations of Excellence-
generated action plan with significant increases in first-to-second year retention rates
(Drake, 2010).
3. Examine and postively transform “gateway courses” – In their nearly seventy years
of combined work in the first-year experience movmement, the authors have come
to conclude that mproving institutional and student performance in high enrollment,
undergraduate, foundation-level courses that typically enroll first- and second-year
students – a.k.a. gateway courses – is the “great untapped frontier” of the first-
year experience movement (Koch, 2012, 21). These courses enroll high numbers
of students within and across course sections – often first-year students – yet, for
decades, the rates at which students earn unsatisfactory grades in these courses –
alarming rates as high as 40%, 50% and even 60% – have remained unchanged.
Lack of success in gateways courses is directly tied to significantly lower rates of
degree completion (Adelman, 1999 and 2006). While some of this lack of success
37The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
may be due to lack of student effort, higher education institutions bear some of
the responsibility associated with these failure rates as well. The time has come
for instituitons to focus on what they can control – faculty selection, instructor
professional development, academic support efforts, course policies, etc. – and
directly address gateway course success. One approach for doing so is the newly
initiated Gateways to Completion effort. Initiated by the John N. Gardner Institute in
2013, this effort provides a structured analysis and gateway course improvement plan
implementation process (see: http://www.jngi.org/g2c/). Whether through a structured
process such as Gateways to Completion, or through a self-generated approach, U.S.
colleges and universities must begin to intentionally and directly address the success
of first-year (and other) students in gateway courses if the nation is to realize its
Completion Agenda goals.
4. Make intentional connections between the first-year programs within a given
college or university – Just as John Donne asserted “No man is an island,” we assert
that no first-year program can realize its full potential by operating alone. While
American colleges and universities have done a laudable job at starting programs and
offering services for first-year students, far too often these initiatives are atomized
and disconnected. A truly effective first-year experience is more than the sum of
its parts. Students can, and often do, make sense of these various pieces on their
own – and unfortunately they do so at both their and the institution’s peril. The best
learning occurs when an institution intentionally connects its first-year components
in a meaningful and explicit manner. For example, rather than allowing them to
operate on their own, a university could maximize the benefits of its Supplemental
Instruction and first-year seminar programs by imbedding both within a learning
community. Research conducted at Purdue University shows that when connections
of this nature occur, retention outcomes are greater than when students participate
in any of the programs in a stand-alone fashion (Koch and Drake, 2009). In essence,
regardless of where the various portions of an institution’s first-year programs may
be administratively housed, efforts must be made to create an integrated first-year
experience that reflects both how and what universities want students to learn.
38 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
5. Treat the first-year experience as a part of a broader continuum – The first-year
experience is but one of a number of transitions that a student will undergo while
she or he attends a university. Far too often, American higher education institutions
focus heavy attention on helping their first-year students and then believe that the
rest of their students’ educational experience will take care of themselves. The
initial analysis of the first-year experience movement as a response to student needs
must continue to evolve into a much broader conversation, with connections made
with efforts that are evolving to address the “sophomore slump” and the senior
year experience. In essence, just as universities must make efforts to link their first
year programs together in an intentional manner, so they should make sure that the
combined package that these linked programs comprise – the first-year experience –
is intentionally linked with what occurs in other years of study.
These recommended objectives are germane to the unique needs of higher education
in the United States during the second decade of the twenty-first century. But despite their
context, they should not be ignored by university faculty and staff in other countries who
are seeking to enhance their respective nations’ own first-year experience. Simply stated,
the future directions that we suggest for the first-year experience in the United States tell the
reader a great deal about where the movement has gone and where it still needs to go. In the
process, it suggests ways and approaches that others might want to consider when they craft
their own version of action on behalf of first-year students in their own unique countries and
institutional settings. On that note, we hope that our article has provided you with valuable
resources and insight to help you achieve your first-year experience-related objectives in
Saudi Arabia, and we wish you and your students great success and gratification in this
important international enterprise.
Internet-Based Resources Associated with the First-Year Experience in the United States
• College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) – http://www.crla.net/
• Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) – http://www.ccsse.org/
• Foundations of Excellence in the First College Year – http://www.jngi.org/foe-program/
39The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
• Gateways to Completion – http://www.jngi.org/g2c/
• Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) – http://www.heri.ucla.edu
• International Center for Supplemental Instruction – http://www.umkc.edu/asm/si/index.shtml
• John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education – http://www.jngi.org
• National Academic Advisors Association (NACADA) – http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/
• National Association for Developmental Education (NADE) – http://www.nade.net/
• National Clearinghouse for Early Alert Initiatives in Higher Education – http://registrar.astate.edu/earlyalert/
• National Resource Center for Learning Communities – http://registrar.astate.edu/earlyalert/
• National Orientation Directors Association (NODA) – http://www.nodaweb.org/
• National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition – http://www.sc.edu/fye/
• National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) – http://nsse.iub.edu
40 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
References
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high school through college. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/ toolboxrevisit/toolbox.pdf
Adelman, C. (1999). Answers in the toolbox: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/ Toolbox/Title.html
American College Personnel Association. (1994). The student learning imperative: Implications for student affairs. Alexandria, VA: Author.
American Council on Education. (1984). Fact book on higher education. New York: Author.
Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Current institutional practices in the first college year. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barefoot, B. O., Griffin, B. Q., & Koch, A. K. (2012). Enhancing student success and retention throughout undergraduate education: A national survey. Brevard, NC: John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education, Brevard, NC. Retrieved from http:// www.jngi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/ JNGInational_survey_web.pdf
Barnett, E. A., Bork, R. H., Mayer, A. K., Pretlow, J., Wathington, H. D., & Weiss, M. J. (2012). Bridging the gap: An impact study of eight developmental summer bridge programs in Texas. New York: Columbia University, National Center for Postsecondary Research.
Bradley, P. (2012, July 9). School is in for the summer. Community College Week. Retrieved online from http://www.ccweek.com/news/templates/ template.aspx?articleid=3139
Bennett, M. J. (1996). When dreams came true: The G.I. Bill and the making of modern America. Washington, D.C.: Brassey’s.
Brubacher, J. S., and Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Brubacher, J. S., and Rudy, W. (1956). Higher education in transition: An American history,
41The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
1636-1956. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Cardozier, V. R. (1993).Colleges and universities in World War II. Westport, CT: Prager.
Centra, J. A. (January-February 1980). College enrollment in the 1980s: Projections and possibilities. The Journal of Higher Education (51): 18-39.
Center for Excellence in Higher Education (2007). Higher education by the numbers. Retrieved from http://cehe.org/facts-by_the_numbers.html
Chacon, F., Spicer, D., & Valbuena, A. (2012). Analytics in support of student retention and success. Louisville, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/ analytics-support-student-retention-and-success
Complete College America (2012). Remediation: Higher education’s bridge to nowhere. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from http:// completecollege.org/docs/CCA-Remediation-final.pdf
Cohen, A. M., and Brawer, F. B. (2003). The American community college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Drake, B. M. (2010, March). Foundations of Excellence in the first college year: 2010 retention analysis. Brevard, NC: John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education. Re-trieved from http://www.fyfoundations.org/pdf/FoERetentionExecSummary.pdf
Garcia, P. (1991). Summer bridge: Improving retention rates for underprepared students. Journal of the Freshman Year Experience, 3(2), 91–105.
Gordon, V. (1989). Origins and purposes of the freshman seminar. In M. Lee Upcraft and John N. Gardner (Eds.), The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Highbee, J. L. (2005). Developmental education. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hossler, D., and Anderson, D. K. (2005). The enrollment management process. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the
42 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hunter, M. S. (Feburary 2001). The national resource center for the first-year experience twentieth anniversary: Remember, reflect, refocus. Paper delivered at the twentieth Annual Conference for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition. Houston, TX.
Hunter, M. S., and Linder, C. First-Year Seminars. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson Foundation/Wingspread Group on Higher Education. (1993). An American imperative: Higher expectations for higher education. Racine, WI: Author.
King, M. C., and Kerr, T. J. (2005). Academic Advising. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Koch, A. K. (2012). A call to action: Why high enrollment, high-risk, gateway courses require an intentional institutional improvement effort. SoLAR Flare 2012 Concept Paper. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Koch, A. K., and Drake, B. M. (2009). The efficacy of a coordinated, multilayered, first-year experience program at Purdue University. In Diane Nutt and Denis Calderon (Eds.), International perspectives on the first-year wxperience in higher education (Monograph No. 52). Columbia, SC: The National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Koch, A. K., Foote, S., Hinkle, S., Keup, J. R., and Pistilli, M.D. (2007). The freshman year experience in American higher education: An annotated bibliography (Monograph No. 2, 4th edition). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Kramer, G. L., and Childs, M. W. (2000). The ‘e’ factor in delivering academic advising and student services. Manhattan, KS: National Academic Advisors Association.
Laufgraben, J. L. (2006). Common reading programs: Going beyond the book (Monograph 44). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for
43The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Laufgraben, J. L. (2005). Learning communities. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.. Martin, D. C., & Arendale, D. R. (1993). Supplemental Instruction: Improving first-year student success in high-risk courses (Monograph 12). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Martin, D. C., and Hurley, M. (2005). Supplemental Instruction. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mullendore, R. H., and Banahan, L. A. (2005). Designing orientation programs. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Olsen, K. W. (1974). The G.I. bill, the veterans, and the colleges. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
Pascarella, E. T., and Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pistilli, M. D., Arnold, K., & Bethune, M. (2012, July). Signals: Using academic analytics to promote student success. EDUCAUSE Review Online. http:// www.educause.edu/ero/article/signals-using-academic-analytics-promote -student-success
Rudy, W. (1991). Total war and twentieth-century higher learning – Universities of the Western World in the First and Second World Wars. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Stone, M. E., & Jacobs, G. (Eds.) (2008). Supplemental Instruction: Improving First-Year Student Success in High-Risk Courses (3rd ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for The First- Year Experience and Students in Transition.
44 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
The City University of New York (n.d.). Summer bridge program at The New Community College at CUNY. Retrieved from http://ncc.cuny.edu/ academics/summerbridgeoverview.html
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., and Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the first- year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M. L. & Gardner, J. N. (1989). The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed in college, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Fast facts: Enrollment. In U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2011. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fast-facts/ display.asp?id=98
Watts E. I. (1999). The freshman year experience, 1962-1990: An experiment in humanistic higher education. Kingston, ON: Queens University.
Zeller, T. (July 1984). “A Nation at Risk”: Mandate for change in arts education. Art Education, 37.
Zeller, W. J. (2005). First-year student living environments. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gard-ner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zlotkowski, E. (2005). Service learning and the first-year student. In M. Lee Upcraft, John N. Gardner and Betsy O. Barefoot (Eds.), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
45The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
The Preparatory Year: Global Perspectives & Local Practices
Prof. Abdulmohsen S. AlaqeeliProfessor of Curriculum and Arabic Teaching &
Learning StrategiesDepartment of Curriculum & Instruction, College of
Education, King Saud UniversityConsultant and Director, Department of Planning &
Statistics, Ministry of Higher [email protected]
Pers
pect
ives
on
Introduction
Various studies indicate that the preparatory year plays a crucial role in the preparing students
for their education and university life. Skill, scientific, psychological, and social preparation are
central objectives of that year. Yet, other objectives concerning raising quality levels in higher
education exist. Following are some of the most important objectives:
1. Increasing retention and graduation rates; thus enhancing institutional internal efficien-
cy levels and reducing educational waste resulting from student attrition, failing, and/or
frequent transfers between specializations.
2. Rationalizing admission through proper student guidance to colleges suiting their skills
and abilities. In addition to assessing student levels for admission to the various sci-
entific and academic disciplines across the university. Furthermore, learning about the
nature of university life/education before joining different colleges.
3. Providing college students with the necessary language and practical skills. As well as
enhancing the skills and knowledge of freshmen in English, computer use, learning,
research, and communication. Leading to facilitating student success during college and
46 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
contributing to their distinction after graduation.
4. Improving and regulating institutional resources, equipment, and capabilities by reduc-
ing duplicate courses in programs.
5. Preparing the student to engage in academic, social, and research aspects of university
life. In addition to involvement in on-campus activities and use of various facilities.
Which should result in forming a decent and integrated character, known as the Whole
Personality.
The preparatory year, globally considered as one of the best practices in higher education, is a
relatively new experience in Saudi universities. The principal proposition of this paper is pro-
viding a set of ideas and perceptions to establish a comprehensive vision for the development
of the preparatory year in Saudi universities. To achieve this goal, the paper includes two sec-
tions; the first section involves broad examination of global perspectives and best practices for
the preparatory year. Furthermore, the second section focuses on reviewing local preparatory
year practices in Saudi universities. Ultimately leading to forming ideas and perceptions of a
comprehensive vision for developing the preparatory year intellectually and practically.
Section I: The Preparatory Year: Global Perspectives
Introduction
This section involves reviewing the literature to paint a picture about the global perspective
of the preparatory year its best practices. More specifically, this section will cover the follow-
ing topics regarding the preparatory year: foundational dimensions, self-evaluation, proposed
mechanism for implementing the self-evaluation , basic principles of distinction, trends in-
dicative of best practices based on three essential areas: academic issues, public and private
student support, organization, management, and policies. These areas include several relevant
sub-issues. Finally, a brief presentation of field study findings of the preparatory year at Ameri-
can universities.
Foundational Dimensions of the Preparatory Year
Alexander and Gardner (Alexander & Gardner, 2009) point to the cooperation of the Policy
47The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Center on the First Year of College with Pennsylvania State University’s Center for the Study
of Higher Education & Integration, Campus Compact. This involved an extensive study that
included nearly 300 bachelor’s and diploma degree-awarding academic institutions. Its purpose
was to identify best practices in the preparatory year. The study resulted in nine principles
called Foundational Dimensions. The dimensions were developed to deliver a performance-
measuring platform of learning in the preparatory year among the programs offered on-campus.
The principles were formulated in a general manner to enable academic institutions to articulate
their own beliefs for the preparatory year within the institutional guidelines. The dimensions are
based on four assumptions:
1. Maintaining the institution’s educational mission to preserve its individuality and dis-
tinctiveness.
2. The preparatory year is central in the establishment of the student in accordance with
institutional guidelines throughout the following years of study.
3. Relying on quantitative indicators for performance measurement.
4. These principles are ideal not only for creating quality in the preparatory year, but also
for the entire educational process.
According to the study, the main reasons to be adopted by the academic institution when imple-
menting a comprehensive study of the preparatory year are summarized in the following (Al-
exander & Gardner, 2009):
1. Transition from an Evaluation-Free to an Indicator-Rich Environment
The study reports that only few academic institutions were keen to measure performance, suc-
cess rates for example, in the preparatory year. Teaching methods were neither tested nor evalu-
ated and were only assumed effective while some characteristics have led to doubts. Institutions
also ignored modest teaching capabilities, course levels, faculty competencies, and even the
teaching methods used in the preparatory year.
2. Retention Fatigue
Student retention efforts among academic institutions during the preparatory year focused on
48 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
study completion rather than adopting clear and stable academic goals. This was evident as a
number of local universities have suffered from plunging, at certain stages, towards expanding
admission in response to the growing demand for the limited-capabilities higher education. The
unprecedented increment in student numbers resulted in many deep-rooted complications. Most
notably were applicant levels and their deteriorating basic skills the universities initially aimed
to improve through the preparatory year.
3. coping with the Growing Demand for Accountability
The process of improving education generates a lot of stress. This includes accreditation criteria,
achieving better international ranking positions, and pressure from students, faculty, and spon-
sors. Local parents lobby to get the best investment return on education and focus on getting
qualifications that meet the requirements of the labor market. The study argues that institutions
taking the initiative to self-evaluate performance will be more ready to comply with standard
quality requirements that may be imposed by legislative bodies at any time and become more
able to respond to them. Once self-evaluation initiatives improve, a new or existing standard is
set raising the competitive advantage against counterparts. Above all, it becomes the minimum
for others.
4. Seizing the Opportunity to Achieve Further integration and coordination in the
Academic Process
Organized by the University of South Carolina in 1982, a series of annual conferences focused
on the preparatory year “The Fresh Year Experience”. The study indicates that this and similar
conferences were fertile grounds for reviewing and exchanging successful experiences between
academic institutions. However, academic institutions rarely implemented recommendations
and/or incorporated them in strategic plans. Thus becoming an intellectual luxury! The study
claims that these conferences would have been more useful through more dedication and less
repetition, competitiveness, and pursuance of short-term fame. Some institutions aimed the pre-
paratory year towards rehabilitating students in fundamentals that basic education failed at. As
efforts were focused on what students missed in basic education, students were overwhelmed
during their university education.
49The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Self-evaluation of the Preparatory Year
The Foundations of Excellence in the First College Year operate as a general framework for
self-assessment. They include specific criteria for the success of academic institutions in the
preparatory year. Teams formed by the institution evaluate and use the results in proposing
initiatives for development of and improvement. The study indicates that since 2003, 145 aca-
demic institutions ranging from Diploma (two semesters) and BA (four years of study) have ap-
plied the previously mentioned framework in its self-assessment. The study documented many
difficulties these institutions faced. Starting from the academic and administrative aspects of
forming the team with representatives from the various relevant parties such as students .. etc,
to get their perspectives in the development process.
The self-evaluation process began by gathering and classifying data in a databank. This includ-
ed the Current Practices Inventory as an attempt to critique and learn about of student, faculty,
and others’ perspectives on these practices. It may also lead to the development of new practices
or terminating those that prove ineffective. The data may indicate the low achievement rates in
specific curricula, or lack of procedures for student complaints, thus creating a bottleneck with-
out taking corrective action. It can also indicate the lack of a mechanism to identify students
with special needs, unclear academic and social care, and follow-up accountability to integrate
them in the preparatory year.
In contrast, documenting current practices would lead to identifying practices accepted by the
relevant parties and the ability for them to learn more (Alexander & Gardner, 2009).
The impulsive expansion in undergraduate student responsibility versus that during his/her
years at the school age is one of the vital issues in the preparatory year. As the student becomes
fully responsible for his/her achievement at school. At this stage, the preparatory year must ad-
dress this expansion wisely through supporting students, especially those facing difficulties in
these responsibilities.
Proposed Mechanism for Self-Evaluation
The study included a proposed mechanism and several application guidelines as the result of
practices in a number of universities, which can be summarized in the following (Alexander &
Gardner, 2009):
50 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
• Forming a balanced group to evaluate the preparatory year with representation from all
relevant parties; administrators, academics ... Etc.
• Developing the team’s structural work by selecting a president or a leader with academic
experience with a lesser workload and whom is acceptable to the rest of the members.
• Educating team members on the standards and guidelines utilizing a document that is ap-
propriately framed and circulated amongst them first and then with the wider circle of
relevant parties.
• In order to start the project, the team should start their research by answering a number of
questions, including:
• Why do we have data on the preparatory year? What should we know?
• What are the strengths of the educational institution? What are the main challenges?
• Begin with summarizing the most important opportunities for development or threats
as the highest priority.
• What are the implementation requirements of the self-evaluation? Such as the amount
of required support from an external advisory group, project duration... etc.?
• Identifying, approving, and publishing the most important project tasks, targets, and com-
pletion stages.
• Assigning sub-teams for implementation.
• Adopting methodology for effective communication between team members and efficiently
managing their performance.
The Basic Principles of Excellence in the Preparatory Year
The John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education (www.fyfoundations.
org) introduced the principles in a published study titled Foundations of Excellence in the First
College Year. Measured through questionnaires filled out by students and faculty, they are as
follows:
51The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
1 . Philosophy: Academic institutions offer the preparatory year based on their educational
philosophies and strategic policies. This principle must be documented and easily ex-
changed between stakeholders according to the institutional directions.
2 . Organization: Academic institutions formulate organizational structures and policies that
form an integrated strategy for the preparatory year. It serves the needs of all stakeholders;
students, academics, administrators and others.
3 . Learning: Academic institutions offer curricular and co-curricular courses that support the
integration of students in the learning process. This results in the integrated development
of knowledge, skills, behaviors, and harmonization with institutional philosophy, policies,
and college education requirements. Hence, the preparatory year aims at constructing stu-
dents’ educational and moral values.
4 . Faculty: Institutions prioritize preparatory years. Therefore, faculty and staff also realize
the importance of this year and work to provide high quality education. They strive to
overcome the difficulties students face, whether inside or outside the classroom. This oc-
curs under the supervision of college and department leaders.
5 . Transition: Parties operating the preparatory year strive to make it a transition for the
student. This is achieved through the adoption of policies and practices consistent with
academic policies. Starting from admissions to the end of the year, preparatory year offi-
cials recognize that clear instructions, effective communication, and support to provide all
means of success is completely their responsibility. The transitional setup process should
involve coordination with institutions, schools, and community colleges from which stu-
dents graduated. It may also include parents and other institutions that may provide sup-
port for the student.
6 .Students: Services in the preparatory year include all students. It aims at meeting their
countless needs through preemptive diagnosis, rapid monitoring, and responding. Taking
into account their backgrounds, cultures, interests, and experiences. It also includes creat-
ing a safe campus environment.
7 . Diversity: Students should experience different paradigms of thinking to improve their
52 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
understanding, expand their knowledge, and to prepare them to be active participants in
their communities. They should have the ability to interact positively with others from
various levels and cultures.
8 . Roles & Purposes: Universities educate students on their responsibilities and roles during
the preparatory phase. They also should be familiar with the goals and directions of higher
education in general for individuals and society as a whole. These roles include the collec-
tion of knowledge, capacity development, production value of the student in preparation
for the job market, and the development of good citizenship.
9 . Improvement: An academic institution assesses its operations. It seeks to coordinate with
similar organizations, including professional meetings, in order to exchange views and
work together for development and continuous improvement.
The study came out with nearly one hundred recommendations and suggestions for improving
the performance of the educational process in the first year. It also stressed the need for coop-
eration among diploma and bachelor’s granting institutions in a specific field. This cooperation
is to ensure common grounds while integrating educational services, enrollment issues, devel-
oping disciplines with low turnout rates, and synchronizing shared academic content among
various academic institutions. This would result in easier student transfers between institutions.
As strange as it sounds, the study cited a number of successful examples of cooperation be-
tween institutions of different levels. Let alone the prospect of collaboration between second-
ary and higher education, which in our opinion, has huge potential for colleges, universities,
and community colleges. Cooperation in short and medium-term professional programs is very
valuable. It would provide high school graduates with the opportunity to master their profes-
sions for a better life. Afterwards, they could gradually be trained through collegial and univer-
sity programs. Institutions review and compare their rivals’ policies and procedures, which if
borrowed, may pose a dilemma for its academic distinction. Thus, developing higher education
in general and its growing contribution to community development.
The study recommends that institutions follow vigorous steps to initiate self-assessment con-
sistent with the model in question. Moreover, it also recommends a range of guidelines that can
be summarized as follows:
53The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
1. Proper selection of leadership for the initiative with adequate authority to get the sup-
port and participation of the relevant parties.
2. Appropriate selection of evaluation tools. Starting with the most important criteria in-
cluded in the model and adding standards from the team. Otherwise, the prior standards
would be sufficient as the first edition. Followed by periodical evaluations and proper
implementation to assure developing and enriching the standards.
3. Form specialized and subdivided teams to facilitate and accelerate the evaluation.
4. Review questionnaires and set performance standards that are consistent with the in-
stitution’s culture and terminology in order to gain access to accurate and objective
evaluation.
5. Adopt, document, and approve a scheduled action plan to cope with team members’
busy schedules.
6. Involve the project’s Executive Committee in the updates and communication in order
to overcome the difficulties facing the teams and support the adoption of initiatives and
continuing development and improvement.
Guidelines for Best Practices in the Preparatory Year
The National Resource Center for The First Year Experience and Students in Transition, Uni-
versity Of South Carolina, published the first edition of the guidelines for best practices for the
preparatory year in 1990. The center released the second edition in 2001 and following is an
introductory synopses. The year consists of a number of strategically interconnected prepara-
tory activities and practices. Certain procedures are taken to monitor the performance standards
to verify effectiveness. The following table illustrates these criteria grouped into major sub-
themes summarizing key issues in each axis (Gardner et al., 2001).
54 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
1. Academic Issues Theme
Main Theme Sub Theme Key Issues
AcademicIssues Courses
• What is the course structure in the preparatory year?
• Are educational goals clearly defined?
• Are experiences exchanged between faculty?
• Are there specific shared experiences between prepara-tory year students?
• To what extent are preparatory year courses offered by the best teachers and through the best methods?
• Is the development of reading and conversation tar-geted in the preparatory year?
• Are students introduced to some of the critical thinking skills within the three perspectives: concepts, values, and methods?
• Are students introduced to how to use the library and other cognitive means? How and when is it done? Whose responsibility is it? How effective is it?
• Does the preparatory year program include lectures or orientation meetings? Are they assessed to achieve the goals?
• What is the student-teacher ratio in the Preparatory Year? Is there a target percentage?
• Is there a policy to monitor student attendance? Is it different from other years? Have attendance patterns been studied in the preparatory year?
• Who teaches in the preparatory year? What are their ranks? Are faculty working fulltime, temporarily, or part-time? What are their qualifications? Do non-PhD holders teach? Were they previously provided with ap-propriate guidance and/or training? Are foreign teach-ers proficient in the local and/or foreign language? How are their competencies measured?
• Is teaching and/or supervision of preparatory year students linked with any faculty appointment and/or promotion criteria?
• Is there a program for developing faculty to support preparatory year students?
55The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Main Theme Sub Theme Key Issues
Pedagogy
• Are faculty encouraged to explore new methods?
• In difficult courses (Example: specialized, or character-ized by difficulty), are students provided with more support? (Example: additional lectures).
• Does the institution support forming learning commu-nities, which integrate a number of classes together?
• Do faculty apply Service Learning with preparatory year students?
• To what extent is information technology utilized in education? Does each student have the opportunity to use a personal computer? Do they have an Internet connection?
Academic Advising & EducationalSupport
• Is advising structured in the preparatory year?
• Does every student have an advisor? Can the student bypass the advisor while registering?
• Are faculty and advisors trained? Are they rewarded? Is advising linked to promotion in the institution?
• Does the institution maintain a system that flags stu-dents in need of academic/social support and/or guid-ance?
• Is there a certain division for pursuing and guiding academically weak students?
2. General & Special Student Support
Main Theme Sub Theme Key Issues General &Special Stu-dent Support
Supporting a Diverse Stu-dent Population
• Are student statistical data collected in terms of gen-der, nationality, academic qualifications etc. ..?
Supporting Special NeedsStudents
• What services are offered to them or some of them?
• Are there services and facilities for students with spe-cial needs?
• Are students diagnosed for learning difficulties in the preparatory year? Are faculty trained on diagnosing these cases and dealing with them?
56 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
DevelopmentalStudent Sup-port
• Is there an early-stage warning mechanism that flags students expected to suffer learning and/or social dif-ficulties?
• Are these mechanisms periodically evaluated?
• Are faculty rewarded for taking care of remedial stu-dents (enrolled in remedial tracks)?
• Are faculty trained for teaching remedial classes and dealing with those students?
3. Organizing, Management, & Policies
Main Theme Sub Theme Key Issues
Orga- nizing,Manage- ment, &Policies
Administration, Organizing, andLeadership
• Who generally runs the preparatory year?
• Is there a body responsible for preparatory year stu-dents? Is there an overseeing body (Higher Council or so)?
• To what extent are senior administrators of the institu-tion involved in the committees and the work of the preparatory year?
• Are there any partnerships between colleges and differ-ent departments in guiding and managing the prepara-tory year?
57The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Main Theme Sub Theme Key Issues
InstitutionalPolicies
• To what extent do preparatory year tasks align with the philosophy of the university and strategic directions? How are the institutional vision and mission utilized in guiding the work of the university?
• Is there integration between academic programs and other associated activities in the preparatory year?
• Are there faculty, leaders, and/or others advocating student issues in the preparatory year? Do they receive positive recognition from their colleagues? Are they rewarded for that?
• Are the criteria for student success defined in the pre-paratory year? Will these criteria be measured? Are the results verified?
• Does the institution use questionnaires to evaluate stakeholders feedback in the preparatory year? ( Stu-dents , parents , faculty)
• Is senior student feedback evaluated for their benefit from the preparatory year versus what they learned in the years that followed?
The Campus
• Are students appropriately respected, cared-for, and serviced dealing with the academic and administrative parties?
• Are all students equally cared-for on-campus? (Ex-ample: international students, privacy in dealing with female students).
Procedures& Activities
Registration & Admissions
• Is there a general admission philosophy supported by efficiently integrated policies?
• Is there any kind of pre-admission orientation? (Ex-ample: high school).
• What information is the student provided with during registration? How were their expectations effected? Does the institution pursue its promises?
• How do faculty and staff rate the website as being helpful to preparatory year students?
• Does the institution take into account admitted stu-dents’ approval of the study load? Does it have plans to improve chances of success of non-ideal students?
58 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Main Theme Sub Theme Key Issues
Financial Sup-port
Private Uni-()versities
• What is the tuition discount and statutory exemptions percentage available to students? Is there a dedicated budget for grants? Are there any grant policies?
• What percentage of students receive financial support in the preparatory year?
• What is the size of support? Who are the sponsors?
• What percentage of preparatory year students who work full and/or part-time?
• What is the percentage of students who have loans to pay their tuition?
Orientation
• Does the academic institution offer an orientation program for preparatory year students? Is this a joint program between other academic and administrative parties?
• Is there a supervising and developing body for orienta-tion programs?
• Are there standards for faculty and students to partici-pate in orientation programs?
Managing Insti-tutional Data
• What databases are available on preparatory year stu-dents and their potential?
• Are students who dropout followed-up?
On-campus Cultural &Social Environ- ment
• What are the arrangements for preparatory year student reception?
• What are the activities that enhance student affilia-tion and facilitate their integration into the university environment?
Non-CurricularActivities
• What are the activities and to what extent are students encouraged to participate?
• Are students introduced to these activities? How?
• To what extent is the university prepared to provide services that accommodate a specific category of stu-dents?
Dealing withComplications
• Are the students aware of improper and/or harmful acts and alert to some of the risks they may face?
• Are students allowed to discuss these issues?
• Is the university prepared to deal with certain situa-tions and/or behaviors?
59The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Main Theme Sub Theme Key Issues Professional &Student Societ-ies
• Do academic and professional societies exist within the university? Are there joining conditions? What data is available?
Housing• Does the university provide student housing? What are
the criteria for joining?
• What data is available?
Field Study Results of the Preparatory Year at American Universities
The Institute of John Gadner for Excellence in Higher Education published a study in 2012
titled Enhancing Student Success and Retention throughout Undergraduate Education A Na-
tional Survey. The study, which sampled public and private universities in the US, included a
field evaluation of the seven following components relating to the preparatory year (Barefoot
et al., 2012):
1. Summer Bridge Programs
2. Pre-Term Orientation
3. Special Academic / Transition Seminars
4. Learning Communities
5. Early Warning / Academic Alert Systems
6. Service Learning
7. Undergraduate Research
Data was collected through electronic questionnaires targeting 1,373 Educational Affairs Depu-
ties. The response rate was 34%. The study drew a comprehensive picture of support and as-
sistance levels to the academic and social growth of first-year students especially in preparatory
year in the U.S. It also revealed direction differences between State and private universities.
Other differences were found based on student numbers. Support was concentrated in the first
as well as in the senior year (year of graduation), making this approach a best practice (Barefoot
et al., 2012).
60 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Section II: Local Practices in the Preparatory Year
Introduction
This section focuses on providing insights on the reality of the preparatory year in Saudi uni-
versities. University websites were visited in addition to reviewing available booklets and bro-
chures on preparatory years. The paper concluded with several notes and ideas laying the foun-
dation for a comprehensive vision on how to develop the preparatory year in Saudi universities.
Moreover, international experiences and successful practices worldwide were also reviewed
especially expert papers presented in the 33rd Annual Conference on The First Year-Experience,
held in San Diego, U.S. from January 15 to February 18, 2014. In addition to research carried
out by many global research excellence centers and specialized in the preparatory year.
Key Ideas and concepts for Developing the Preparatory Year at Universities
Following are some vital ideas and perceptions laying the foundation for developing a compre-
hensive vision for improving the preparatory year in Saudi universities:
1. The preparatory year in Saudi universities lacks a Governing Concept philosophy. This
is crucial for building the Preparatory Year in terms of perception, objectives, programs,
and goals. On the other hand, the preparatory year in most American universities is
based on a theoretically and practical structured vision. This is in terms of goals, pro-
grams, skills, strategies, learning dimensions, teaching strategies, and assessment styles.
The point here is not to adopt a single comprehensive preparatory year model in Saudi
universities, as there is no one-size -fits-all. This is due to having different systems,
theories, and intellectual frameworks between schools. In addition to the vision for stu-
dents, knowledge, skills, learning processes in its entire complex and interconnected
dimensions, wide variation in institutional structures, and variety of personal perspec-
tives. However, the previous does not inhibit attempting to agree on shared features
that can frame the proposed model(s) for the preparatory year. The aim is to achieve
(the learner we need: independent and skilled). Taking into account some domestic and
international experiences and especially in developed countries, which have a long tra-
dition in this area.
61The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
2. Considerable attention was given in higher education literature, in theory and prac-
tice, to the preparatory year as a trend. This involves developing undergraduate student
skills, preparing them for success in college life, and raising retention and graduation
rates. However, most public universities did not take this trend seriously in terms of the
quality of service. In general, private colleges and universities still lead in managing and
implementing the preparatory year. Perhaps this is due to their recent inception and/or
relations (especially outstanding ones) through agreements and alliances with universi-
ties and advanced centers in America and Europe.
3. Preparatory year organizational forms and administrative bodies differ. They are Dean-
ships (in public universities) and independent programs (in most private colleges and
universities). With the exception of Taibah University where the preparatory year is part
of the Deanship of Educational Services and King Abdulaziz University where it fol-
lows the Deanship of Admission & Registration. Perhaps the difference in the shape of
the preparatory year leads to other differences in the context, components, and programs
from one university to another. According to Evenbeck and his colleagues (Evenbeck et
al., 2010), the University College has the most popular and successful preparatory year
model among American higher education institutions. ,
4. In most Saudi universities, the preparatory year is operated and implemented through
the private sector. According to best practices globally, this practice is unprecedented. I
have attended a number of meetings and discussions at the previously mentioned, 33rd
Annual Conference for the Preparatory Year. None have mentioned running the prepa-
ratory year through the private sector. They are usually operated and implemented by
university faculty. Occasionally, outstanding graduate students were assigned general
courses too. I asked some of the top experts in the preparatory year, such as Dr. John
Gardner, Dr. Andrew Koch, Dr. Arthur Levin, and Dr. Diana Dean about the preparatory
year offered by the private sector in the U.S. They responded that, to their knowledge,
no university in the U.S. did so. The concept startled them too. From their perspectives,
the preparatory year involves teaching and learning. As a central function of universi-
ties that are think-tanks with faculty members. Why would that task be assigned to the
private sector? Moreover, the Saudi private sector has no distinctive institutions spe-
62 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
cialized in educational services related to the university preparatory year. On the one
hand, all the available private parties are nothing more than training centers or emerging
offices with few and/or weak qualified and experienced staff. On the other hand, being
assigned that task in absence of faculty results in depriving students from their valuable
first year to be prepared according to the requirements and standards of undergradu-
ate education, learning, research, and interaction with the academic culture. , As their
undergraduate learning should be offered by university faculty. Finally, assigning the
preparatory year to the private sector infers a non-desirable concept according to the
literature, the Commodification of Higher Education. Where it is subjected to the laws
of buying and selling and ultimately weakening its quality. In addition to exhausting
the great opportunity for cultivating the main concepts of the preparatory year as a best
practice through the accumulation of experiences and expertise; making it a solid insti-
tutional structure at the university.
5. The preparatory year in Saudi universities focuses on cognitive skills, such as thinking,
learning, and communication. Although this has many merits, a new trend in the pre-
paratory year at American universities has arisen. It involves including non-cognitive
or non-academic skills in the preparatory year. These skills include educational com-
mitment, campus engagement, self-efficacy, appreciating creativity, seriousness, team-
work, and discipline. Studies indicate that non-cognitive skills explain 80%, while cog-
nitive skills explain 20% of success in life (Payne & Kyllonen, 2012). Saudi universities
should take advantage of this best practice.
6. Most Saudi preparatory year programs lack an integrated program for teaching lan-
guage skills, particularly reading skills. A number of studies, including the study of the
Hart Research Associates (2013), have shown that it is required for students to succeed
in their academic and professional careers. However, American preparatory years have
integrated programs to teach fast reading, analytical, critical, and strategic skills named
Reading Programs in addition to academic writing.
7. The preparatory year in Saudi universities is almost uniform in terms of duration. It is
either a full year or one semester. In contrast, the duration varies in the American experi-
ence. Some are for a year, some a semester, some are summer bridging programs, and
63The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
some are less. This is due to the difference in the preparatory year programs in America.
Programs include learning groups, academic early-warning systems, orientation to the
university systems and facilities, learning through community service, undergraduate
research programs, and others.
8. The preparatory year in Saudi universities solely focuses on preparing students for the
first year at the university. While best practices in American universities show that re-
habilitation programs cover all the years of undergraduate study. This is in the form of
programs and lectures according to the characteristics of the school year, students, and
their backgrounds whether for the first (freshman) and/or second (sophomore) year(s).
Studies indicate that students’ dropout is higher within these two years. The third (ju-
nior) and fourth (senior) years focus on preparing students for their professional and
future lives in general. They are called Senior Year Experience.
9. The implementation of the preparatory year in Saudi universities suffers a pedagogi-
cal blur (educationally and methodologically) of the teaching processes. Perhaps this
framework is not clear conceptually or practically (immature) in some universities. As
this pedagogical framework is scientifically and theoretically derived from the concept
of Strategic Teaching. Where the focus is on teaching (strategies and methods) associat-
ed with reading, writing, and communication, thinking, and research skills. The concept
involves functional and non-content teaching. A more abstract statement of describing
the effective framework is: (attention to quality versus epistemology). When we exam-
ine the vocabulary of some articles of the preparatory year, we find that they focus on
content teaching and not strategies.
10. It is recommended to publish (and translate) distinctive books on teaching preparatory
year materials. Particularly those in the general requirements for all students. Alterna-
tively, those dealing with technical aspects (which are irrefutable). Decent books are
few in this area and some commercial books are not good enough. Colleges and univer-
sities may find themselves quoting learning skills from weak books.
64 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
References
• Barefoot, B., Griffin, B., & Koch, A. ( 2012). Enhancing Student Success and Retention through-
out Undergraduate Education, A National Survey. The John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in
Undergraduate Education. NC, USA.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qc585jxicjsecfx/JNGInational_survey_web.pdf
• Evenbeck, S., Jackson, B., Smith, M., Ward, D., & Associates. (2010). Organizing for Student
Success: The University College Model. National Resource Center: First- Year Experience and
Students in Transition. University of South Carolina, USA.
• Gardner, J. ( 2013). Seven Principles of Good Practice for Student Success Partnerships. The John
N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education. NC, USA.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f87mreripiicsgd/7-Principles.pdf
• Gardner, J., Betsy O. Barefoot, B., & Swing, R. ( 2001). Guidelines for Evaluating The First- Year
Experience at Four-Year Colleges, The National Resource Center for The First- Year Experience
and Students in Transition, University of South Carolina.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/avnfmezl9j5h2mi/Guidelines_for_Evaluating-1.pdf
• Hart Research Associates. ( 2013). IT TAKES MORE THAN A MAJOR: Employer Priorities for
College Learning and Student Success. An Online Survey Among Employers Conducted. On Be-
half Of: The Association Of American Colleges And Universities. By Hart Research Associates.
Washington, DC.
http://www.aacu.org/leap/documents/2013_EmployerSurvey.pdf
• Julie S. Alexander, J. & Gardner, J. (2009). Beyond Retention: A Comprehensive Approach to the
First College Year. Published online in Wiley InterScience.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/xltxyxhxu0wsctt/Beyond-Retention-A-comprehensive-ap-
proach-to-FY.pdf
• Payne, D. & Kyllonen, P. ( 2012). The Role of Noncognitive Skills in Academic Success. 21st
Century Knowledge and Skills: The New Curriculum and the Future of Assessment. Center for
Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice ( CERPP).
65The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Preparatory Year (First Year Experience)
Prof. Saud N. Al Kathiri Assistant Vice President for Educational and Academic Af-
fairs for the development of educational
And director of the Center for Excellence in Learning and
Education at King Saud University
Pers
pect
ives
on
The importance and the role of the preparatory year for students in higher education:
The preparatory year is an important stage due to its role in bridging the gap between
the general education stage and the higher education. It might be thought that its existence is
a result of the general education weakness. However, this is not true because the gap between
the two stages is a result of the requirements of each stage that differs from one another in
addition to the special nature and requirements of the higher education. Accordingly, such dif-
ferences make the preparatory year important for two reasons; to bridge that gap and to guar-
antee students’ success in their new educational stage which is harder and richer in content
than their previous stage and requires specific skills. Within this context, a preparatory year
exists under in the most international universities although they have a strong general educa-
tional system, a matter which indicates the importance of and the need to pay more attention
to this year.
The main goals of the preparatory year are concentrated on preparing the students aca-
demically through improving their skills such as communication skills, social skills, critical
thinking skills, solving problems skills, leadership skills and self education skills. In addition,
the preparatory year programs have some scientific curriculum including math, languages and
business administration.
66 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Different methods of administrating the preparatory year:
Studying the international practices shows that there are different methods of the
administration of the preparatory year. The first method is the Integrated Program in which
the year is considered a part of bachelor degree program and is calculated in the Grade Point
Average (GPA). This method requires a unified center for the whole university to administrate
the program. The second way is the Independent Program in which the preparatory year is
administrated by independent entity away from the university. Succeeding in this program
does not guarantee the acceptance in the university without having the required qualifications
announced by the university, unlike the case in the first method. Each of these methods has its
advantages and disadvantages based on which each university may prefer one to another.
The assessment study of King Saud’s University on the preparatory year:
Out of the belief of King Saud University in the importance of assessing the success
and efficiency of educational system in achieving the objectives of its program and the devel-
opment thereof, the Teaching and Learning Excellence Center in the university has conducted
a comprehensive assessment study over the preparatory year under the supervision of univer-
sity’s Agency of Educational and Academic Affairs and in collaboration with the university’s
Agency for Improvement and Quality. The study has used the multi pattern assessment model
as an organizational frame including the following phases: context, inputs, operations, and
outputs. The study has included the analysis of the international practices, the relevant docu-
ments, and the field literatures. Also, the study has analyzed the results of more than 50.000
students and compared between them; it also included different set of scientific methods and
workshops. More than fifty members of the faculty staff and researchers have participated in
this study.
The results of the assessment study of the preparatory year:
The general results of the study show that introducing and improving the preparatory
year in the educational system of the King Saud University are positive and important steps.
The detailed results of the academic data analysis indicated that the preparatory year has a
positive impact on the performance of the students. Such results are based on some indicators
67The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
such as: the grades of the preparatory year were better indicators of the grades of the sec-
ond year when compared with the achievement test, qualification test and secondary school
grades; the classes that followed applying the preparatory year were better than the previous
classes in their final grades and in particular subjects (table 1).
Table1: Comparing Average Math Scores before and after implementing the prep
year
Course Batches Average Math Scores
math 106After prep year 2.89
Before prep year 2.60
math 151After prep year 2.86
Before prep year 2.02
math 203After prep year 3.32
Before prep year 2.13
The results also included the positive responses of the students towards the prepara-
tory year as they asserted that they have accomplished 74.9% of the year’s goals (table 2). On
the other hand, The questionnaires analysis and workshops results of both students and staff
asserted the importance of revising, developing and tailoring English language program and
general and scientific programs in a way that qualifies the students for their majors.
Table 2: Faculty and Students’ Perceptions on Achieving Prep year’s Goals
Prep Year Goals Faculty Student
Discipline and Responsibility 64% 78%
Confidence and Leadership Skills 69.8% 73.8%
Communication Skills 66.8% 79.2%
Learning and Research Skills 61.8% 71.8%
ESL Skills 61.8% 72.4%
Information Technology 73.2% 79.4%
Numerical Skills 62% 69.8%
Average Percentage 65.7% 74.9%
The results also show high levels of correlation between the preparatory year rates
with its inputs (independent variables) in terms of its dependence on high acceptance crite-
68 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
ria especially in the variable achievement test. High input rates clearly led to high rates of
the preparatory year. This interpretation is supported by the remarkable high rates of those
with high inputs in health and science (tables 3, 4.5) and supported also by the existence of a
positive correlation between cumulative average in the preparatory year and the independent
variables (the rate of secondary school and the degree of achievement test and the degree of
qualification test) in addition to a significant increase in the correlation factor with the vari-
able achievement test.
Table 3: Distribution of Accepted Students in Prep Year according to Their
High School GPA, SAT II and SAT I Scores (Science Track)
VariablePercentages
60% – 50 70%-61 80%-71 90%-81 100%-91High School GPA - - - 6.5% 93.5%
SAT II 5.9% 39.8% 41.4% 10.4% 1.3%SAT I 1.4% 13.9% 52.1% 29.3% 3.3%
Table 4: Distribution of Accepted Students in Prep Year according to Their
High School GPA, SAT II and SAT I Scores (Humanities Track)
VariablePercentages
60% – 50 70%-61 80%-71 90%-81 100%-91High School GPA - - - 14.1% 85.9%
SAT II 23.8% 24.5% 23.4% 25% 3.3%SAT I 1% 24.5% 39.9% 30.9% 3.7%
Table 5: Distribution of Accepted Students in Prep Year according to Their
High School GPA, SAT II and SAT I Scores (Health Science Track)
VariablePercentages
60% – 50 70%-61 80%-71 90%-81 100%-91High School GPA - - - 14.1% 85.9%
SAT II 23.8% 24.5% 23.4% 25% 3.3%
SAT I 1% 24.5% 39.9% 30.9% 3.7%
Main challenges facing the preparatory year:
69The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
The study found out that the most prominent aspects that formed the biggest challenge
for the preparatory year is to get and attract qualified teachers in the preparatory year and
create programs to develop their performance. It could be argued that unless the universities
adjust their input in terms of selecting efficient faculty staff and focusing on this challenge
while handling it in an efficient and positive way; achieving the aspirations and hopes of the
preparatory year may become continuously questioned which will be reflected on the impact
on the quality of the outputs of the preparatory year and thus may affect reviewing the impor-
tance of a preparatory year in the future.
The study showed – a like the results of international studies - that the student guid-
ance emerges as one of the challenges because it is considered as a necessary and constitutive
stage in the preparatory year specifically due to its impact on the students’ journey academi-
cally and professionally. Therefore, it is necessary to intensify the role of guidance and ori-
entation for students in the preparatory year in addition to systematically planning to educate
and guide the students, and providing all kinds of support to achieve the best results.
The need for administrative and academic support was also one of the most major
challenges facing the preparatory year to achieve its objectives with a high degree of quality
and increasing the quality standards in both the administrative and academic level. Accord-
ingly, the preparatory year is playing the role of university representative who carries out the
role of the university to qualify the students in accordance with the university’s vision and
aspirations.
Improvement Aspects of preparatory year program
The results of the present study do not guarantee the continuous success of achieving the
goals of the preparatory year. Accordingly, the impact of the preparatory year should be more
effective through reviewing and improving a set of its fields to enhance its impact and the
quality of its processes and outputs. These fields are topped by the following:
1- Improving the English language curricula and paying extensive attention to the
practical training. Moreover, improving the followed assessment methods and teach-
ing approaches to achieve all the required lingual skills through coordination with the
70 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
faculties to satisfy their needs in this field.
2- Improving the scientific curricula in the preparatory year for all health, scientific,
and humanitarian courses in order to cope with the needs of the universities.
3- Improving the general curricula to include advanced knowledge fundamentals and
extensive practical training in addition to harmonizing the followed assessment meth-
ods with the used teaching strategies.
The need for a comprehensive improvement of the preparatory year and of the
universities
Despite the fact that the whole attention may be directed to the preparatory year due
to its importance, the attention should be paid also to the improvement of the educational
process in the universities. Some students expressed their wish for improving the level
of the education in the universities to be similar to the level of the preparatory year. They
elaborated that the education in the preparatory years depends for example on cooperative
learning and increasing the role of the student in the classes, while the education in the
universities depends on delivery method and negative communication by the educators
without enhancing students participation in the educational process.
73The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Abstract: This study highlights the experience of business incubators in Japanese universities in
order to extrapolate the current situation and circumstances surrounding this experience and
in the same time monitor the challenges facing the development of the university business
incubator ecosystem in Japan. The author had been relying on the case study for each of the
universities of Tokyo, Waseda and Kyoto which are the strongest three Japanese universities
that have succeeded in generating the largest number of startup companies in the period
between 1998 and 2008. Moreover, interviews with specialists in the fields related to the
subject of study were adopted in the analysis. The findings shows that the experience of Japan
in the field of university business incubator started to reach maturity after nearly a decade
since the launch of “Hiranuma Initiative” to support emerging companies from universities in
the year 2001. This in turn helped the university business incubators to develop the quality of
services provided to startup companies from hard services into higher level of soft services.
In this respect, a number of startup companies from Japanese universities began recently to
record successes in Initial Public Offering (IPO) or being merged and acquisitioned (M&A)
Developing the Ecosystem of Business Incubators in Japanese Universities: current Situation and challenges
Dr. Eng. Essam Amanallah BukharyAssistant Professor, College of Economics and Administrative Science,
Imam Mohammed Bin Saud University. Saudi Cultural Attaché in [email protected]
Key words: Japanese Universities, Business Incubators, Startup Companies, Technology Commercialization, Industrial - Academic Cooperation
Res
earc
h A
bstr
act
74 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
by other companies. The remaining challenges facing the Japanese university ecosystem
of business incubators such as attracting talents and the quality of venture capital firms and
negativity of Japanese industrial sector toward startup companies.
In order to improve the ecosystem of university business incubation in Japan the study
suggests launching venture capital fund that is connected with the university and operated
independently. Furthermore, as shown in the American experience, the more numbers of
startup companies from universities succeeded in IPO or M&A, the more positivity would be
expected from Japanese industrial sector toward startup companies. It is also important for
Japanese startup companies from universities to expand their activities in to global market
and not to be limited in the Japanese domestic market. Thus, more efforts are required for
attracting foreign talented students, faculty and researchers as well as building networks with
foreign industrial firms. Finally, the study proposed a number of recommendations in order to
contribute to the development of university business incubators universities in Japan as well
as Saudi Arabia and Arab world.
75The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Abstract:The study aims at identifying the extent of practicing the organizational commitment
for heads of departments in the colleges of Salman bin Abdulaziz University as well as
identifying the degree of divergence in practicing the organizational commitment among the
sample of study in relation to different varia bles such as (sex, college , and academic rank).
The total population of this study is (232) faculty members. In addition, the researchers used
descriptive approach and he concluded his study with the following findings:
- The moral commitment comes in the first class wit average (2.52)
- The emotional commitment comes in the second class with average (2.47)
- The progressive commitment comes in the third class with average (2.45)
- There are differences of statistical significance at the level significance which is less
than (0.05) regarding the views of the study sample regarding The degree of practicing
organizational commitment among the heads of departments in relation to difference of
variable of sex (male and female) and the statistical significance goes in the interest of
female.
The Degree of Practicing Organizational commitment For the Heads of Departments in the colleges of Salman bin Abdulaziz University.
Prof. Abdulrahman Albabtain,Associate College of Education
King saud University
Key words: Organizational Commitment - Heads of Departmens
Res
earc
h A
bstr
act
76 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
- There are differences of statistical significance at the level significance which is less
than (0.05) regarding the views of the study sample regarding The degree of practicing
organizational commitment among the heads of departments in relation to difference of
variable of college type (scientific colleges and humanity colleges) and the statistical
significance goes in the interest of humanity colleges .
- There are no differences of statistical significance at the level significance which is less
than (0.05) regarding the views of the study sample regarding The degree of practicing
organizational commitment among the heads of departments in relation to the difference
of variable of academic rank such as (Professor , Associate professor and Assistant
professor)
Based on the above findings , the researcher ends his study with set of recommendations and
suggestions.
77The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Abstract: This study aimed at identifying the practice degree of the knowledge management
processes and their relationship with the administrative empowerment strategy with the employees
of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research in Jordan. The study sample consisted
of all the administrative employees at the directorates and departments of the Ministry of Higher
Education (n=153) in the University academic year 2011/2012. Two tools were utilized for
data collection. First, to measure the employees’ practice degree of the knowledge management
process. Second, to measure the degree of the employees’ empowerment. The means, standard
deviations and Pearson correlation coefficients were employed as well. The study results
demonstrated that the practice degree of the knowledge processes management was high, and
the employees’ empowerment degree was high either. Furthermore, there was a statistically
signification relationship between the knowledge management process and the employees’
empowerment degree. In the light of the results, the researcher recommended holding training
courses and workshops for the applications of the knowledge management processes; working
toward establishing trust among the employees to empower them and reinforces their inter-
communication, since they are deemed the intellectual capital and the success base of the Ministry
work, through investing and in and developing their energies and cognitive capabilities.
Relationship Between the Knowledge Management Processes of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research- Jordan and the Administrative Empowerment With the Employees.
Dr. Ahmad BadahAssociate Professor,
Balqa› Applied University
Key words: Knowledge management, administrative empowerment, Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research.
Res
earc
h A
bstr
act
81The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
Some Modern Trends in Teacher Education
Prof. Mohammed Bin Mu’jib Al-Hamid
Center for Higher Education Research and Studies
Res
earc
h A
bstr
act
Abstract
The future of the countries that desire to keep pace with the requirements of this age is as-
sociated with the level of education quality provided to their children. Institutions responsible
for teacher education are an essential part of the education system in the Kingdom. There-
fore, any difficulties facing these institutions will be reflected in the quality of education and
thus affect the future of the country, especially in the next phase of its history. In this respect,
complaints are increasing regarding the level of graduates from teacher education institutions.
These complaints state that the graduate teachers do not have the competencies and skills
required by the teaching profession. Therefore, teacher education institutions are seeking to
increase their efficiency in the education of teachers and trying to introduce modern trends
in an effort to prepare qualified teachers. It is certain that this alone is not enough. It must be
accompanied by numerous efforts associated with a good selection of the students enrolled in
Education Colleges , and provide outstanding faculty members to meet the educational com-
petencies required by the Ministries of Education.
82 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
The requirements of the teaching profession have grown to include skills related to the
prosecution of cognitive developments in the current community of information revolution,
and the requirements associated with being acquainted with modern techniques and how to
use them, and other requirements related to ways of teaching, evaluation methods, and tests.
So the teacher whom we considered in the past as competent may not be so if measured
against the standards of the teaching profession and the modern requirements. Knowledge
alone is no longer sufficient to evaluate the competence of the teacher. .
There are varied styles and trends in teacher preparation and training, some focus on the
cognitive aspects and explore them in depth, perhaps sometimes even at the expense of skill
and performance aspects. Others, however, increase the portion of the educational skills in a
way that minimizes the teacher’s ability to enrich and master the subjects he teaches. Mod-
ern trends have emerged and multiple experiments have invested technical progress and the
development of teaching strategies to suggest new programs in teacher education.
Nowadays, some new trends have emerged in the field of teacher education that empha-
size the need to keep up with the modern developments and the pursuit of scientific, educa-
tional, and technical developments. In addition, keeping pace with the development of the
curriculum and allocating specific ratios to the requirements of teacher education such as the
general preparation, specialized preparation, educational and practical education and in-
service training. The rapid developments on the technical level also require the teacher to
recognize how to deal with modern teaching techniques and effectively use them during the
implementation of his lessons.
It was found through a review of recent trends in teacher preparation and training, an
emphasis on linking teacher preparation institutions to the school. This practice is considered
an essential part of teacher training, his cognitive performance and skill rehabilitation. Just as
one cannot train a doctor unless he practices the profession and has the practical training in
an educational hospital, under the supervision of competent professors; teacher training can-
not be achieved away from school and away from the students, the curriculum , and teaching
techniques, methods of assessment and administration within a school.
It also emerged from recent trends an emphasize on the skills in the education of teachers
83The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
and the skills here mean multiple skills in teaching and learning, some of which depend on
training and others depend on the individual’s innate abilities. These skills are:
1. Communication skills.
2. Self-learning skills.
3. Technical skills.
4. Dialogue skills.
5. Persuasion skills.
6. Excitement Skills.
7. Self- confidence skills.
8. Evaluation skills.
9. Self-reliance skills.
10. Judgment Skills.
11. Criticizing skills.
12. All kinds of thinking skills.
13. Leadership skills.
In this study, the review highlighted the global trends in teacher education which include
education directions in the light of the concept of competence and preparation on the basis
of skills and preparation in the light of the approach systems and in-service teacher training
within the school and the integration of the pre-service training, as well as in-service training.
The study also reviewed the current situation in teacher education programs in the Kingdom
besides some international experiences and expertise in this field. It is also essential that the
study is based on a theoretical framework that supports and identifies its fundamental direc-
tions. In addition, the review of previous studies complements this framework and supports it.
Some of the developed countries were keen to establish reliability standards to determine
the technical requirements for teacher education and training, including those developed by
the National Board for professional standards (NBPTS). Standards for the teaching profes-
sion include the following:
1 - Emphasis on professional knowledge.
84 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
2 - Compliance with the appropriate teaching methods.
3 - Class management.
4 - Teaching through experience.
5 - A sense of affiliation.
These also include the specific criteria for teacher education in the state of Michigan in
America, namely:
1 - Full knowledge of the material of specialization.
2 - Understanding the environment of students.
3 - Learning how to cope with the difficulties (problem solving).
4 - Knowledge of teaching methods.
The American State of California also specifies certain standards for the teaching profes-
sion, including:
1 - Involve all students in education.
2 -Provide an environment for effective teaching.
3 - Organize educational material.
4 - Plan educational experiences.
5 - Evaluate academic achievement.
6 - The growth of the teacher professionally and educationally.
The National Board for Teacher Performance Evaluation in California identifies the basic
requirements needed in the teaching profession as follows:
A- Wide knowledge in cognition, science and languages.
B- Knowledge of materials to be taught, and knowledge of the curriculum and how they
are organized.
C-Knowledge of the skills required to develop the teacher, in addition to the means and
knowledge that help achieve this task.
D- Knowledge of the general teaching methods related to his subject, in addition to the
85The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
skills and knowledge of teaching that suit students of different categories.
E- Knowledge of the methods of student assessment to ensure their development, and their
ability to learn and their willingness to employ what they have learned in their favor.
The National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education Programs in the United
States (NCATE) formulates national professional standards every five years, specialized in
teacher education institutions, programs and outputs. The formulation of these standards
relies on educational research in the field of teaching and learning in the area of effective
programs in teacher education, in addition to the general criteria for accreditation in the geo-
graphical area (Regional Accreditation), which typically include a group of American States.
The standards of (NCATE) measure the effectiveness of teacher education institutions profes-
sionally not only by relying on the programs and curricula and study plans implemented, but
also on the efficiency of the graduates and their ability to teach.
For detailed criteria adopted by the (NcATE), visit its Web Site (www.ncate.org).
The restructuring witnessed and experienced in teacher education institutions at the uni-
versities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia should take advantage of the new trends in teacher
education by employing these trends in the foundations of teacher education and planning
of programs and mechanisms for educating before and during the service. There is no doubt
that the diagnosis of the status quo of these institutions, which is reviewed by the study, will
clarify the extent to which they adopt these new trends. Hence, the next step is how to invest
in these trends when taking practical steps to restructuring according to a scientific basis, tak-
ing into account the needs of the labor market and the civil government in the coming years,
especially after the implementation of the future plan for higher education.
This research project concludes that in order to achieve the goals of teacher education
institutions and in the light of modern trends in teacher education; the training institutions
should do the following:
1. Steer the teacher training programs towards complementary education rather than the
sequential setup for reasons of urgency. It has been proven experimentally that the
integrative setting positively affect the development of the criteria for teacher selection
86 The Saudi Journal of Higher Education - Issue No.11 - May.2014
and educating as well as the psychological preparation of the teacher for the profession
starting from the beginning of college.
2. Emphasize the skills necessary for the training of teachers reviewed in this study and
included in the teacher education programs.
3. Link teacher education programs with competencies necessary for teachers identified by
the Ministry of Education for each specialty.
4. Modernize study plans for teacher education programs.
5. Include all the educational programs that would deepen the student’s/teacher’s identity
and strengthen his religious, national, professional affiliation, and enable him to deal
with, and apply the teaching strategies and methods for the purposes of education and
its goals.
6. Closely connect the students during their studies with schools and prolong the duration
of the program of practical education (a minimum of full semester training their stu-
dents in teaching in the classrooms preceded by a few weeks period to watch).
7. Diversify teaching strategies at the educational institutions, and increase the use of
advanced educational methods, such as: self-learning, cooperative learning, problem
solving and more.
8. Joining the undergraduate program is conditional on the achievement of cumulative
grade average of at least (very good) at the end of the second level.
9. At least one school should be affiliated to every Teacher College or Education College
to supervise, and provide desired application models in the education of teachers and
the teaching methods and the other , called the “School of the college,” Or experimen-
tal school” .
10. Emphasize the importance of rehabilitation of existing teachers in accordance with the
comprehensive education plans which contribute to teacher education institutions and
are supported by the Ministry of Education.