IMRaD Report
Abstract
What
factors influence a first-year student’s transition to college? This study
analyzes the different ways in which in-state and out-of-state students adjust
to college life. A sample of twenty University of Iowa freshmen students were
surveyed about their perceived adjustment to different aspects of college.
Sample data indicates a potential advantage for out-of-state students in
transitioning to college, as out-of-state students reported that since
beginning college they have generally experienced more improvement in sleep,
exercise, emotional well-being, and relationship building than their in-state
counterparts. Based on these findings, it is necessary to ask why. More research
on this topic is necessary before we can conclude why this trend has occurred,
although it’s possible that out-of-state students become more productive, on
average, as a result of being thrust into a new environment.
Introduction
A
student’s transition to college can be one of the most exciting yet vulnerable
times in one’s life. For decades researchers and recent high school graduates
have wondered about what factors contribute to a smooth college transition. In
2012, researchers concluded that social connections are the most important
factor for a successful college transition, indicating a potential disadvantage
for out-of-state students (DeRosier & Leary). Additionally, out-of-state
students generally pay higher tuition and may have to adapt to an entirely new
culture. So, if DeRosier and Leary are correct, what is it like for the
approximately 13.7% (Dotterweich, Baryla, & Rochelle) of students that
enroll in out-of-state universities?
The
objective of this study is to discover ways in which the college transition
differs for in-state and out-of-state students and also to discuss potential
answers as to why the experiences may differ. Unlike many studies that use GPA
or test scores to judge the experience of a student, this study focuses on how
well individuals believe they are doing. The end result is a measure of one’s
perceived level of adjustment.
Methods
Participants
A convenience sample of twenty freshmen students at the University
of Iowa were surveyed.
Data Source
Surveys were conducted through the online survey application
Survey Monkey.
Survey Questions
First,
participants were asked which city and state they permanently reside in. They
were then asked to note whether or not they live in a suburb of a bigger city
and, if applicable, which city the suburb is a part of. Next, participants were
instructed to rank a series of statements based on their level of agreement
since beginning college courses. Five choices were given for each statement and
each choice was given a value for data analysis: strongly disagree (-2),
disagree (-1), neither agree nor disagree (0), agree (1), and strongly agree
(2).
The statements were presented as follows:
Your
academics have improved.
You get
better sleep.
You
exercise more.
Your
emotional well-being has improved.
You are
content with the relationships you’ve made.
Participants
were made aware that the purpose of the survey was to study the relation
between the location of one’s hometown and his/her perceived adjustment to
college life.
Data Analysis
Ranked
responses were given the stated values so as to show positive adjustment as a
positive number and negative adjustment as a negative number. Responses were
then separated into two groups: in-state and out-of-state students.
Results
Figure 1: Average rankings of in-state and
out-of-state students
Figure
1 shows that on average, the students surveyed have adjusted well to college
life. Each category has a positive average for both in-state and out-of-state
students, therefore the sample evidence indicates that freshmen students
generally have a positive adjustment to college life.
There
is also a clear discrepancy between in-state and out-of-state students’ level
of adjustment in all categories except academics. On average, out-of-state
students self-reported 25% lower in academics, 100% higher in sleep, 500%
higher in exercise, and 50% higher in both emotional well-being and
relationships.
Discussion
The results of this study
raise many questions. First, the sample data shows that students believe they
are generally doing well academically. College courses are considered more
rigorous than high school courses and therefore one would assume a negative
result for academics. Sample bias may be responsible for this outcome. Of the
twenty individuals in the sample, a majority were direct admits into the
University of Iowa’s business school. Therefore, many individuals surveyed may
already be academically inclined, thus the data shows a positive result for
academics. Additionally, in-state students reported a slightly higher level of
academic wellness than out-of-state students. Because the sampling method was
not random there is no way test whether in-state reported academic levels are
significantly higher than out-of-state levels, although if it were at some
point proven statistically significant, the discrepancy may be explained by
lower levels of reported in-state student improvement in the four other
surveyed categories of college life.
This
brings us to the next point. Out-of-state students reported much higher results
in the subsequent four categories of college life. Why could this be? If
DeRosier and Leary assert that social connections are the most important factor
in a successful college transition, how do you explain the results of this
survey? Of course, as previously stated, this data was collected through a
convenience sample and therefore there is a high probability that it isn’t an
accurate representation of the population of first-year college students. But,
if we assume the sample data is at least a semi-accurate portrayal of the
population, one potential reason for the survey results may be that
out-of-state students generally make social connections than in-state students
during the beginning of the academic year. In-state students, on average, have
more friends to lean on as they begin college but may become distant with these
individuals as the year progresses. Out-of-state students, on the other hand,
generally do not have the luxury of existent relationships and may feel much
more motivated to form new relationships quickly. It is possible this may also
cause a ripple effect and motivate out-of-state students to become more
productive individuals in general, thus providing a potential explanation for
the higher reported increases in sleep, exercise, and emotional well-being.
Now, it
is important to state once again that these ideas are only ideas, they are not
conclusions based on any statistical level of certainty. The topic of this
report is interesting, although it would benefit from more rigorous research
methods. If a cross-country study that employed random samples of students at
randomly chosen colleges and universities were conducted, one would likely be
able to provide reliable data correlations and to draw statistically
significant conclusions.
References
DeRosier, M. E., & Leary, K. A. (2012). Factors
Promoting Positive Adaptation and Resilience during the Transition to
College. Wuhan, Hubei, China: Scientific Research Publishing.
Dotterweich, D., Baryla, E. A., & Rochelle, C.
F. (2011). Nonresident Enrollment at Religious and Secular Colleges.
Johnson City, Tennessee, USA: Taylor and Francis Group.
Appendix
|
Respondent
|
Residence
|
Population
|
Location
|
Academics
|
Sleep
|
Exercise
|
Well-Being
|
Relationships
|
|
1
|
Chicago, IL
|
9,730,000
|
out-of-state
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
|
2
|
Twin Cities, MN
|
3,798,000
|
out-of-state
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
Springfield, IL
|
208,200
|
out-of-state
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
|
4
|
Iowa City, IA
|
164,400
|
in-state
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
|
5
|
Chicago, IL
|
9,730,000
|
out-of-state
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
|
6
|
Des Moines, IA
|
611,500
|
in-state
|
0
|
0
|
-1
|
0
|
0
|
|
7
|
Cedar Rapids, IA
|
257,900
|
in-state
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
|
8
|
St. Louis, MO
|
2,796,000
|
out-of-state
|
0
|
-1
|
-2
|
0
|
2
|
|
9
|
Des Moines, IA
|
611,500
|
in-state
|
0
|
1
|
2
|
2
|
1
|
|
10
|
Madison, WI
|
243,400
|
out-of-state
|
0
|
0
|
-1
|
0
|
1
|
|
11
|
Wayland, IA
|
1,000
|
in-state
|
0
|
1
|
-1
|
1
|
1
|
|
12
|
Waverly, IA
|
10,100
|
in-state
|
0
|
-2
|
-2
|
-1
|
1
|
|
13
|
Iowa City, IA
|
164,400
|
in-state
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
|
14
|
Chicago, IL
|
9,730,000
|
out-of-state
|
-1
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
-1
|
|
15
|
Des Moines, IA
|
611,500
|
in-state
|
1
|
-1
|
-1
|
-1
|
-1
|
|
16
|
Iowa City, IA
|
164,400
|
in-state
|
1
|
-1
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
|
17
|
Des Moines, IA
|
611,500
|
in-state
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
|
18
|
Des Moines, IA
|
611,500
|
in-state
|
0
|
0
|
-1
|
-1
|
0
|
|
19
|
Des Moines, IA
|
611,500
|
in-state
|
-1
|
1
|
2
|
1
|
1
|
|
20
|
Bristow, VA
|
8,900
|
out-of-state
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
