This article was downloaded by: [201.47.27.211]On: 26 April 2012, At: 07:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education for BusinessPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20

Transitioning Into a Major: The Effectiveness of anAcademic Intervention CourseJeanne Almaraz a , James Bassett a & Olukemi Sawyerr aa California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, Pomona, California, USA

Available online: 13 Feb 2011

To cite this article: Jeanne Almaraz, James Bassett & Olukemi Sawyerr (2010): Transitioning Into a Major: The Effectivenessof an Academic Intervention Course, Journal of Education for Business, 85:6, 343-348

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832321003604953

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 85: 343–348, 2010Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0883-2323DOI: 10.1080/08832321003604953

Transitioning Into a Major: The Effectiveness of anAcademic Intervention Course

Jeanne Almaraz, James Bassett, and Olukemi SawyerrCalifornia State Polytechnic University, Pomona, Pomona, California, USA

The authors examined the effectiveness of a course designed to assist students in transitioninginto a business major in achieving its learning outcomes in three areas: knowledge of thecurriculum, utilization of the career center, and an appreciation of the value of and involvementin cocurricular activities. We collected data from 361 students enrolled in the course. Theresults indicate that the course was effective in all three areas, having a positive impact onboth first-generation college students and those who are not. The value of a college-concurrentintervention for all types of students is discussed.

Keywords: academic intervention, academic preparation, college transition, managementeducation

There is a body of studies that are rooted in a desire to in-crease participation in postsecondary education and the ac-quisition of degrees. Some of these studies have focused oncollege-concurrent programs that work to support studentspresently enrolled in college and are frequently designed toease students’ transition into college and facilitate retention.The literature is replete with a wide variety of programsand activities as vehicles for college preparation, but theyhave often featured a single intervention focused on eitheracademic or psychosocial development issues. In addition,although some researchers explored perceptual changes re-garding preparation, not all examined behavioral changes.Further, many of these programs have been special offer-ings rather than being integrated into the regular curriculumand its learning objectives. However, opportunities for per-sonal and professional development may present themselvesto students in the form of academic advising, involvementin student organizations and activities, cocurricular learningopportunities, career center offerings, internships, and otherprograms. Nevertheless, a student may fulfill the require-ments for graduation and receive a degree without pursuingthe benefit of these resources—effectively denying them-selves the additional value that these resources would havebrought to their education.

Correspondence should be addressed to Jeanne Almaraz, California StatePolytechnic University, Pomona, Department of Management and HumanResources, 3801 W. Temple Avenue, Pomona, CA 91768, USA. E-mail:jaalmaraz@csupomona.edu

Although several programs have focused on the efficacy ofbasic forms of college preparation, such as improving studyskills, examinations of the effect of preparation on studentparticipation in campus-based learning enrichment programshave received relatively little attention. Our purpose in thisstudy is to examine a particular college-concurrent programaimed at encouraging students to take advantage of the manyprofessional development opportunities available to them inthe university environment. In as much as the value of acollege degree is extended by the breadth and depth of sucheducational enhancements, levels of student participation inthese activities deserves attention as well.

College-Concurrent Preparation and Support

Although a variety of college preparation programs exist forhigh school students that focus on developing academic skillsand improving scores on standardized tests to increase thelikelihood of admission to college, continuing support dur-ing the college years may improve retention and graduationrates. Orientation programs, assistance with adjustment tothe college environment, and advising are some examples ofsuch support. College-concurrent preparation programs canbe examined with regard to both their content and process.Although some researchers have suggested that the selec-tion of program elements is the critical factor in determiningthe effectiveness of the program, still others indicate thatthe skillfulness and commitment with which a program isdelivered is also a critical component of program success.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

47.2

7.21

1] a

t 07:

07 2

6 A

pril

2012

344 J. ALMARAZ ET AL.

College-concurrent support programs were advocated byKaelber (2007), who documented his experience with a fresh-man program, a first-year offering designed to prepare incom-ing students for the educational opportunities offered by theuniversity. The program served not merely as an orientationto the campus but, more importantly, as a training experienceto enhance students’ academic skills and teach new studentshow to build professional working relationships with facultythat facilitate learning. Thus, the program’s focus extendedbeyond the scope of typical academic preparation to includethe facilitation of student-teacher partnerships in learning.Kaelber noted that encouraging enrollment in a freshmenprogram is not enough to improve students’ performance.He contended that for a freshman program to be successfulstudents in such a first-year program should be encouragedstrongly to cultivate skills in active learning and critical think-ing as well as build a stronger sense of partnership with theirprofessors. Kaelber argued that the collaboration of facultyand students working together toward student achievement isan essential element for the success of such programs. In thisway, freshman programs can lead to a smoother transitionfor students into their university experience and can lead tohigher retention rates for new college students.

First-generation students may particularly benefit fromcollege-concurrent support programs that better prepare themto take advantage of educational opportunities. A study byByrd and MacDonald (2005) explored the readiness, suc-cess, and strengths of first-generation college graduates andhow their level of preparation is not measured by traditionalstandardized tests. The factors associated with readiness forcollege were academic skills, time management, goal focus,and self-advocacy. The study’s qualitative analysis revealedfour critical background elements that affected college per-formance. These included family factors, career influences,financial concerns, and college preparation. The authors alsoidentified additional issues that impacted students’ abilityto navigate college culture, such as self-concept and under-standing of the college system and standards. In addition toacademic skills, student characteristics such as goals, atti-tudes, and motivation were also found to contribute to thesuccess of entrance and longevity in college. The authorsrecommended additional research with a view to improvingstudent advising and placement—particularly for nontradi-tional students. Also suggested are efforts to help studentsto recognize and leverage their strengths to improve aca-demic performance. Development of favorable financial aidprograms for high-risk students was also emphasized.

Addus, Chen, and Khan (2007) also considered the ef-fectiveness of advisement as a tool to supplement a lackof precollege preparation and to help students overcomecollege-concurrent academic challenges that affect students’performance. They surveyed 1055 college students’ use ofcampus academic assistance programs. The study recordedstudents’ overall GPAs, identified the severity of academicand related issues that affected students’ performance from

their freshman to senior years, and evaluated perceived effec-tiveness of advisement and counseling services. Addus et al.noted that inadequate preparation, working long hours, poorstudy habits, family responsibilities, lack of self-confidence,and social and extracurricular activities have a direct cor-relation with low grades and high dropout rates. They alsodocumented that poor-performing students often failed totake advantage of support services and that students gen-erally reported that they perceived advisement services tobe ineffective. The authors recommended the developmentof an academic monitoring and advisement center for eachrespective discipline versus a university-wide service in or-der to monitor, encourage, and assist students in achievingeducational and career objectives.

There appears to be evidence that, under the right circum-stances, college-concurrent preparation and support servicescan improve retention and graduation rates. Precollege prepa-ration alone, though valuable, may not always be sufficient toensure that students will realize the full benefit of the learningopportunities afforded by a college education. Support, guid-ance and encouragement coupled with a high quality arrayof cocurricular activities that are conducive to learning mayadd an important dimension to students’ success in college.

Present Study

In the fall of 2004, the Management and Human Resources(MHR) Department of a large, four-year public universitybegan developing a course that would educate students aboutthe MHR curriculum, provide information about careers andcareer planning, and encourage students to take advantage ofon-campus opportunities for personal and professional de-velopment, particularly those present in cocurricular activi-ties. The MHR department found over the years that manymajors did not fully understand the curriculum and associ-ated policies and as a result often made mistakes that some-times delayed graduation. The department also noticed thatmany students did not avail themselves of the wealth of op-portunities for personal and professional growth availableon the campus such as the career center and cocurricularactivities.

The design of the course was both functional and in-trospective. From the functional perspective, three specificoutcomes were targeted. These included student knowledgeand understanding of the policies and procedures inherentin the MHR curriculum, exploration and utilization of theCareer Center on campus, and an appreciation of the value ofcocurricular activities and encouragement to become moreinvolved in such activities. In the duration of the course, stu-dents are informed about the procedures and policies of theMHR department and the university. In addition, students arerequired to spend an hour of research and attend a variety ofactivities (of their own choosing) in the on-campus CareerCenter. This may include attending career fairs and attendingpresentations in the Career Center on interview skills, resume

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

47.2

7.21

1] a

t 07:

07 2

6 A

pril

2012

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION COURSE 345

workshops, and other activities. Finally, the strategic valueof cocurricular activities is explored and reinforced throughpresentations from leaders in student clubs. Such activitiesare designed to help students understand the networking op-portunities and the many resources available to them on thecampus.

From a developmental perspective, students in the classare engaged in a number of career review activities de-signed to help them articulate and claim transferable skillsin documenting their qualifications and in personal devel-opment planning. Students formulate career developmentplans for leveraging their talents and abilities toward profes-sional careers. Individual plans reflect self-awareness, well-articulated transferable skills, and insights from significantself-directed efforts at career research. Efforts are made tobridge competency achievements and transferable skills withrequired competences in order to attain desired entry leveljobs upon graduation and target jobs in their chosen fieldsafter 5 years.

Although a wide variety of programs and activities havebeen represented in the literature as vehicles for collegepreparation, they have often featured a single interventionfocused on either academic or psychosocial development is-sues. In addition, although some studies explored perceptualchanges regarding preparation, not all examined behavioralchanges. Further, many of these programs have been specialofferings rather than being integrated into the regular curricu-lum and its learning objectives. Critical in many of the studieswas the issue of differential preparation—how well preparedstudents were when they entered the program—in the effec-tiveness of the intervention program. Some of the reviewedstudies associated this differential preparation with whetheror not students were first-generation college students.

Rather than the single-intervention technique, the coursewas designed to address academic and psychosocial as wellas other issues of preparation bundled together into a uni-fied approach. Featuring an experiential learning method,the course was intended to generate both behavioral and per-ceptual changes among the participants. Course designersrecognized that students were likely to come to the classwith varying levels of collegiate preparation and were sen-sitive to these differences in the planning of the course. Anawareness of the fact that many class participants would befirst-generation college students, with greater need and thuspotential for greater benefit from preparation activities, alsoinformed the course development process.

In this study, we examined the effectiveness of a coursespecifically developed and integrated into the curriculum interms of achieving the stated learning outcomes and the im-pact on that achievement caused by differences that may existin terms of the students’ perceived level of preparedness forthe collegiate experience. Three key questions emerged andthe following hypotheses were developed to address them.First, to what extent can a course designed to prepare studentsto take greater advantage of the college experience, in terms

of programs, courses, campus resources and leadership, andnetworking opportunities, achieve its learning objectives?

Hypothesis 1 (H1): MHR 201 course outcomes would beachieved as demonstrated in a significant difference inthe pre- and posttest scores of the respondents in theirknowledge of the MHR Curriculum, use of the CareerCenter services, value they ascribe to cocurricular ac-tivities, and the degree of participation in cocurricularactivities.

The second hypothesis addressed the issue of whether thecourse would influence the perceived level of preparednessfor college among the respondents. Essentially, we were in-terested in finding out whether or not the students wouldperceive that they were better prepared for the college expe-rience as a result of taking this course. To address this issue,the following hypothesis was proposed:

H2: There would be a significant difference in the pre- andposttest scores of the respondents in their perceived levelof preparedness for the college experience.

The third hypothesis addressed whether students whocome into such a course with perceptions of low levels ofpreparation for college performed worse on the three out-comes of the course than those who came into the coursewith perceptions of high levels of preparation for college.On a related note, we wondered whether performance on thethree outcomes of the course would vary for the studentsbased on whether or not they self-identified as first gener-ation to college. The following hypotheses addressed thesequestions:

H3a: There would be significant differences in the respon-dents’ pre- and posttest scores on the three outcomes ofthe course based on their perceived level of prepared-ness for college with the respondents who perceive ahigher level of preparedness scoring better than thosewho perceive a lower level of preparedness.

H3b: There would be significant differences in the respon-dents’ pre- and posttest scores on the three outcomesof the course based on whether or not they were first-generation college students, with first-generation col-lege students scoring lower than those who are not first-generation college students.

METHOD

Participants and Procedures

Data were collected in MHR 201 as part of a voluntary exer-cise during the seven quarters from fall 2006 to spring 2008.The course was piloted in the 2005–2006 academic year. Itwas approved by the College of Business Undergraduate Cur-riculum Committee and added permanently to the curriculum

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

47.2

7.21

1] a

t 07:

07 2

6 A

pril

2012

346 J. ALMARAZ ET AL.

as a requirement for all MHR majors in the 2006–2007 aca-demic year. All MHR majors are required to take the coursebefore proceeding to upper division courses.

On the first day of class students were provided the pur-pose of the study, assured confidentiality, signed a consentform, and completed the precourse survey. On the last dayof instruction, students signed a consent form and completedthe postcourse survey. Each survey took approximately 15min to complete.

A total of 474 students were enrolled in the course duringthe two academic years the surveys were administered. Atotal of 361 students completed useable pairs of the pre- andpostcourse surveys, resulting in a response rate of 76%. Sixtypercent of the sample comprised women and 36% consid-ered themselves first-generation college students. Studentswho self-identified as Asian constituted 31% of the sample,Hispanic students constituted 30%, White students consti-tuted 27%, Black students constituted 6%, Native Americanstudents constituted less than 1%, and students identified asOther constituted 6%.

Measures

The precourse survey had four sections. The first section hadtwelve items designed to ascertain a student’s knowledgeof the MHR Curriculum (MHR Curriculum Outcome). Thequestions were in the form of a multiple choice and true orfalse test. The students were asked to select the best response.The section contained questions such as, “If you transfer intoMHR in a different year than you enrolled in the Univer-sity, which MHR curriculum must you follow?” The secondsection was composed of 15 items designed to ascertain a stu-dent’s utilization of the services offered by the Career Center(Career Center Utilization Outcome). The questions askedthe students to indicate whether they had taken advantage ofspecific Career Center services, such as Career AssessmentTests, Resumania, or MonsterTrak. The third section aimed toascertain the value ascribed to and the degree of involvementin cocurricular activities (Cocurricular Value and Participa-tion Outcome). The first part of section three listed 10 com-petencies identified by employers as being necessary for em-ployability. The respondents were asked the extent to whichthey believed participation in cocurricular activities couldhelp them develop these skills using a 7-item Likert-typescale ranging from 1 (not at all valuable) to 7 (very valuable).The second part asked the respondents to indicate their de-gree of involvement in college of business-based, university-based, and/or non-campus-based clubs/organizations using a7-item Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all involved)to 7 (highly involved). The fourth section obtained demo-graphic information of gender, race–ethnicity, the number ofhours worked, and whether they were first-generation col-lege students. Respondents were asked if they were the firstin their families to attend college. They were also asked toindicate on the same 7-item Likert-type scale the extent to

TABLE 1Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables

Variable M SD

1. MHR curriculum Pretest 5.74 2.03Posttest 7.01 1.71

2. Career center ctilization Pretest 3.88 2.84Posttest 7.33 2.56

3. Cocurricular value Pretest 6.16 0.80Posttest 6.19 0.91

4. Cocurricular participation Pretest 1.78 1.25Posttest 2.27 1.45

5. Preparedness Pretest 3.73 1.73Posttest 5.26 1.29

which their parents or other family members were involved intheir college-related decisions. Finally, we sought to evaluatethe extent to which the respondents felt they were preparedfor the college experience. The respondents were asked toindicate on a 7-item Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not atall prepared) to 7 (very well prepared) the extent they feltthey were prepared for the college experience. The pre- andpostcourse surveys were identical, with the exception that inthe demographic section only one item was retained, whichwas the extent to which the respondents felt prepared for thecollege experience.

RESULTS

Table 1 includes descriptive statistics for all variables tested.In H1 we predicted that MHR 201 course outcomes wouldbe achieved as demonstrated in a significant difference in thepre- and postcourse scores of the respondents on the threelearning outcomes. This hypothesis was partially supported.Paired-samples t tests showed significant differences in thepre- and posttest scores for the knowledge of the MHR cur-riculum, t(360) = –26.065, p > .001, utilization of the careercenter services, t(360) = –26.065, p > .001, and participa-tion in cocurricular activities, t(360) = –7.633, p > .001. Thedifference between the pre- and posttest scores for the valueascribed to cocurricular activities did not differ significantly,t(359) = –0.743, p < .05.

In H2 we predicted that there would be differences inthe pre- and postcourse scores of the level of preparednessperceived by the respondents. This hypothesis was supported.The extent to which the respondents felt prepared for thecollege experience differed significantly between the pre-and postcourse surveys, t(360) = –16.463, p > .001.

For the third hypothesis we predicted that there would besignificant differences in the performance of the students inthe pre- and postcourse surveys on the three outcomes of thecourse based on the perceived level of preparation for the col-lege experience (H3a) and whether they were first-generationto attend college (H3b). We performed independent samples ttests. We found significant differences in the precourse scores

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

47.2

7.21

1] a

t 07:

07 2

6 A

pril

2012

ACADEMIC INTERVENTION COURSE 347

of the two groups for participation in cocurricular activitieswith students who indicated they were highly prepared tak-ing greater advantage of cocurricular activities even beforetaking the course, t(308) = –2.259, p > .05. There were nosignificant differences in the pre- and postcourse scores ofthe two groups for knowledge of the MHR Curriculum, useof career center services and value ascribed to cocurricularactivities. We found significant differences in the postcoursescores of the two groups on the value ascribed to and partici-pation in cocurricular activities. Respondents who indicatedthey were highly prepared for the college experience ap-peared to ascribe greater value to, t(265) = –2.200, p > .05,and demonstrated greater participation in, t(265) = –2.440,p > .05, cocurricular activities after the course as comparedwith students who indicated they were not that prepared forthe college experience. We found significant differences be-tween those who indicated they were first-generation collegestudents and those who indicated they were not in the pre-course cocurricular participation score, t(308) = –2.554, p >

.05, with those who were not first-generation college stu-dents taking greater advantage of cocurricular activities evenbefore taking the course. There were no significant differ-ences between first-generation and non-first-generation re-spondents in their pre- and postcourse scores for any of theother variables.

DISCUSSION

The results of the study provide support for the effectivenessof a course that is specifically developed and integrated intothe curriculum to prepare students to gain greater outcomesfrom their collegiate experience. Such a course can have apositive effect on students, regardless of their prior level ofcollege preparation. In the present study, we found that bythe end of the course students had a greater understanding ofthe MHR curriculum, had increased their use of career centerservices as well as become more involved in cocurricular ac-tivities. Precollege preparation alone, though valuable, maynot always be sufficient to ensure that students will realizethe full benefit of the learning opportunities afforded by acollege education. In line with the extant literature (Adduset al., 2007; Byrd & MacDonald, 2005; Nonis & Hudson,2006), the results of our study provide support for the effec-tiveness of curricular innovations designed to aid students inleveraging the multiple opportunities available on a collegecampus for personal and professional development.

The issue of college preparedness as perceived by the stu-dents was significantly increased by the end of the course.This improvement occurred whether students were first tocollege in their families or whether they had family rolemodels who had been through college in the past. This re-sult provides support for requiring this type of course for allstudents, regardless of their degree of preparedness. When itcomes to the academic and career planning of an individualstudent, it seems that all students benefit from a course that

requires them to self-assess and pursue opportunities on cam-pus for information and mentoring about avenues of study aswell as career opportunities.

Finally, we looked at students who felt they were moreand less prepared for the college experience as well as stu-dents who were not the first to attend college in their familiesand those who were the first to attend college. We did notfind any significant difference between these groups when itcame to curriculum issues or use of career center servicesand activities. However, we did find a significant differencewhen it came to the perception of value of, and the levelof participation in, cocurricular activities. Students who feltmore prepared for their college experience put more valuein cocurricular activities and were, in fact, involved in moreof these activities prior to beginning the course. In contrast,students who felt less prepared or were the first to attendcollege did not participate in as many activities prior to tak-ing the course. This difference continued at the end of thecourse, even though more of all types of students felt thatcocurricular involvement had value to them and they all hada greater level of involvement by the end of the course. Byrdand MacDonald (2005) identified family factors as issuesthat impacted students’ ability to navigate college cultureand understand the college system and standards. It appearsthat in the absence of family members who had gone to col-lege, first-generation college students were not cognizant ofthe value of cocurricular activities and as a result did nottake advantage of the opportunities for personal and pro-fessional improvement offered by these activities. However,upon completion of the course both the value they ascribedto these activities and their participation in them increased.Again, this result provides support to prior research that hasfound utility in college-concurrent interventions designed toempower students to identify and take advantage of a widerarray of offerings on the college campus to enhance theircollege education (Kaebler, 2007).

Implications

The results of this study have multiple implications for thedesign of college-concurrent interventions. Many college-concurrent intervention programs often feature a single in-tervention focused on either academic or psychosocial devel-opment issues and have been single interventions rather thanbeing integrated into the regular curriculum and its learn-ing objectives. In addition, although some studies exploredperceptual changes regarding preparation, not all examinedbehavioral changes. The results of the present study providesome support for the effectiveness of a required course specif-ically developed and integrated into the curriculum to preparestudents to gain greater outcomes from their collegiate ex-perience. Rather than the single-intervention technique, thecourse was designed to address academic and psychosocialas well as other issues of preparation bundled together into aunified approach.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

47.2

7.21

1] a

t 07:

07 2

6 A

pril

2012

348 J. ALMARAZ ET AL.

Critical in many extant studies was the issue of differ-ential preparation—how well prepared students were whenthey entered the program—in the effectiveness of the in-tervention program. Some of the reviewed studies associ-ated this differential preparation with whether students werefirst-generation college students. Our results demonstrate thevalue of such an integrated approach to students regardlessof their levels of preparedness or whether they are first-generation college students. This is encouraging, given thereality of the 4-year university system in which students maybe first-time freshmen, transfer students, or transfers fromother majors. Regardless of these factors, students from alllevels seemed to master the material and moved forward intheir perception of preparedness for college after taking thecourse. The value of such a course to students at any levelreinforces the importance of continued support for studentsduring the college years.

Of particular interest is the perception of cocurricular ac-tivities and the value ascribed to them by students who arefirst to college and those who are not. This aspect of collegelife may be less visible and therefore perceived as less valu-able by students who have no one at home to relate stories ofcollege life to them. Their perceived norms of the college ex-perience may not encompass cocurricular activities. Studentsmay only be taking the classes they are told to take and as-sume that this is all that the college experience is about. Theimplication of this result is the need to include educating stu-dents on the value of cocurricular activities and encouragingparticipation in an integrated approach to college-concurrentintervention programs.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has a number of limitations. Survey research hasoften been criticized and this study is no exception to this

criticism. All data are self-report measures as is typical ofsurvey research. Perhaps it would be useful for future re-searchers to examine the students’ knowledge of the cur-riculum, utilization of the career center, and appreciationof the value of and participation in cocurricular activitiesfrom the perspective of a third party before and after thecourse.

We did not examine the impact of such a course on per-sistence in college and graduation rates. Future researchersshould include longitudinal studies that examine the impactof a college-concurrent program integrated into the regularcurriculum and its learning objectives on retention and grad-uation rates. Of special interest is whether or not a goodunderstanding of the curriculum and its associated policiesimpact retention and graduation rates. Also, do students thatvalue and participate in cocurricular activities have higherretention and graduation rates than those who do not? Fi-nally, it would be interesting to explore the issue of col-lege preparedness as perceived by the students in order tofurther delineate what is missing in their perceptions ofpreparedness.

REFERENCES

Addus, A., Chen, D., & Khan, A. (2007). Academic performance and ad-visement of university students: a case study. College Student Journal,41, 316–326.

Byrd, K., & MacDonald, G. (2005). Defining college readiness from theinside out: First-generation college student perspectives. Community Col-lege Review, 33, 22–37.

Kaelber, W. (2007). A senior professor tackles the freshman program. Lib-eral Education, 93(1), 56–60.

Nonis, S., and Hudson, G. (2006). Academic performance of college stu-dents: Influence of time spent studying and working. Journal of Educationfor Business, 81, 151–159.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

201.

47.2

7.21

1] a

t 07:

07 2

6 A

pril

2012