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