Assessing Transfer Student Performance

Minnesota State University, Mankato
Cornerstone: A Collection of
Scholarly and Creative Works for
Minnesota State University,
Mankato
Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects
2011
Assessing Transfer Student Performance
Hyderhusain Shakir Abadin
Minnesota State University - Mankato
Follow this and additional works at: http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/etds
Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, and the Industrial and
Organizational Psychology Commons
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University,
Mankato. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects by an authorized administrator of Cornerstone: A
Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato.
Recommended Citation
Abadin, Hyderhusain Shakir, "Assessing Transfer Student Performance" (2011). Theses, Dissertations, and Other Capstone Projects. Paper
144.

Running head: ASSESSING TRANSFER STUDENT PERFORMANCE
By
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
In
Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Mankato, Minnesota
May 2011

This thesis has been examined and approved by the following members of the thesis
committee.
Dr. Andrea Lassiter, Advisor
Dr. Kristie Campana
Dr. Kathy Dale

ASSESSING TRANSFER STUDENT PEFORMANCE 1
Abstract
Higher educational institutions place a high priority on the retention and timely
graduation of students. Previous literature and research studies have identified transfer
students to have a vital role in the success of four year universities. The university in the
study enrolls a high percentage of transfer students, primarily from two year community
colleges within the state of Minnesota. To understand transfer students performance, the
study used multiple measures of transfer student success, including (1) cumulative GPA,
(2) one year retention rate, and (3) one year graduation rate. The comparison of transfer
students and native students is examined, showing that generally speaking, there are few
significant differences between both groups.

Assessing Community College Transfer Student Performance at Minnesota State
University, Mankato
Community colleges are a key component of the North American higher
education system and are the largest contributor to the movement of students from one
institution to another (Pascarella, 1999). As community colleges expand in size and
number in the future, the possibility of more two-year community college students
transferring to four-year universities is a certainty. Therefore, to examine this population,
we must identify three trends that are changing higher education. First, societal changes
are showing that community colleges are a more affordable and accessible way of
securing an education. Second, demographic changes are showing that the number of
individuals enrolling in these two-year community colleges is increasing. Third,
university initiatives are beginning to foster more of a focus on transfer students,
especially in terms of articulation agreements that facilitate student transfer between
institutions.
Societal Changes
The community college is a vital component of the American educational story.
Evolving and taking shape during the era of a sharp increase in college attendance fueled
by post-war prosperity, the American community college has become fundamental to the
higher education system (Cohen & Brawer, 1996). In 1973, Bateman stated that the
growth of community colleges was one of the most striking phenomena of the many new
and expanding forms of educational organizations. As community colleges become

increasingly accessible to individuals, more students will be using these ―brick and
mortar‖ institutes to spring-board their educational careers. This comes as a result of
society placing an extreme amount of importance of graduating with a baccalaureate
degree. As a result of these changes in how society deems a job applicant as qualified or
not, an acquired degree is one of the most important characteristics for an applicant to
have.
In addition, many students are concerned on the quality and affordability of their
education. According to several news sources, many four-year universities have or intend
to increase tuitions to offset budget cuts by federal, state or local governments (Satake,
2010). Today, in the United States, there are more than 1,200 community colleges with
more than 11 million students enrolled, suggesting that community colleges are becoming
a money-saving alternative (Glass & Harrington, 2002) As students seek less expensive
routes to a baccalaureate degree, community colleges cannot be overlooked; the primary
function of community colleges is to provide two years of course work suitable for
transfer to four-year institutions (Wilson, 1983). In fact, enrollments at community
colleges—the largest sector of higher education with close to 44 percent of all U.S.
undergraduates—have increased for eight of the past 10 years, but the prolonged
recession has spurred recent enrollment spikes. From fall 2008 to fall 2009, enrollments
were up an average 11 percent nationally, and from 2007-2009 enrollments increased
close to 17 percent (AACC, 2010). Community colleges are often a real catalyst for
economic development.

Demographic Changes
The workforce of today needs to be more educated than the workforces of
previous generations. Higher education used to be for only those privileged few who
were well prepared for further education (Hansen, 1998). At the turn of the century, there
were 237,000 individual enrolled in colleges (Association of Governing Boards of
Universities and Colleges, 1999). In current times, enrollment in degree-granting
institutions increased by 14 percent between 1987 and 1997. Between 1997 and 2007,
enrollment increased at a faster rate of 26 percent, from 14.5 million to 18.2 million
students (NCES, 2008). This is an increase of 18 million students in the last 100 years.
The education system in the United States has had to keep up with this growth rate.
Employers are seeking specific higher-order skills and prefer graduates who have gone
through systematic programs of study.
As a result of this growth, many institutions accept a large number of transfers,
and the numbers of students attempting transfer will most likely increase in the near
future (NCES, 2009). Nearly 50% of those enrolled in public institutions of higher
learning have attended one of a thousand or so public community colleges in the United
States and this number is expected to increase (The Chronicle of Higher Education,
1995). This mobility from one institution to another is highly popular among today’s
college students, making higher education more accessible to a larger number of
individuals. For example, taking lower level courses through a community college and
finishing at a more prestigious four-year university may become an option for many
working students.

Educating a competitive workforce n t only helps to stimulate both the local and
state economies; it also helps individuals improve their lives and the lives of their
families. More people are realizing the economic value of an education and are seeking a
college education. In a survey conducted by NCES (2010), the median annual earnings
for a male in 2008 with a high school diploma was $32,000. Comparing this to a male
with a bachelor’s degree or higher earning $55,000, the economic incentive to attain a
Bachelor’s degree is evident. Merely graduating from high school is no longer sufficient
to guarantee a steady job and a middle class income.
About two-thirds of 2004 seniors who enrolled immediately in a community
college seem to have done so with the intention of pursuing a bachelor’s degree or
higher: as high school seniors, 28 percent had planned to use a community college as a
stepping stone to a bachelor’s degree and 39 percent revised their original plans to attend
a 4-year college and earn a bachelor’s degree by starting their postsecondary education at
a community college (NCES, 2008).
Transfer is a component of most community college students’ educational
aspirations (Grubb 1991). In fact, National College Education Statistics (2002) reports
that community colleges are a gateway to post secondary education for almost half of all
incoming freshmen. This preparation is key to the community college’s role in higher
education because it affirms the community college’s claim to a collegiate, academic
identity and to a role in broadening access for those historically excluded from a college
education.

University Initiatives
Four-year universities are beginning to understand that with the rise in the number
of transfer students, effective transition from two-year to four-year institutions will have
to be seamless. This is increasingly important as the composition of the population to be
served becomes increasingly diverse and complex. Nationally, the U.S. Bureau of the
Census is projecting that by the year 2050, no racial or ethnic group will be a majority.
Universities are incorporating transfer agreements and special recruitment procedures as
strategic priorities to help deal with the influx of new transfer students.
Articulation agreements are formal agreements between two or more colleges
and universities to accept credits in transfer toward a specific academic program (See
appendix for example articulation agreement). Articulation agreements are generally for
specialized professional or technical programs offered at colleges (e.g., Associate of
Science (AS), Associate of Fine Arts (AFA), Associate of Applied Science (AAS),
diplomas, certificates) that can be applied to a specific program/major at the receiving
university. Many states and institutions have developed articulation policies to facilitate
such transfers (Wellman, 2002). Each institution is responsible for developing
articulation agreements with other institutions. Some institutions have agreements with
all or nearly all of the colleges and universities in their respective state, while others have
agreements with only a more limited number of colleges or universities.
Articulation agreements give students a better way to identify appropriate
community college coursework that will transfer and meet the university’s degree
requirements. (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, 2007). However, when a

transfer student does not have access to articulation agreements, the transfer process from
a two-year institution to a four-year school may seem baffling. Without an articulation
agreement, transfer students do not have a clear perspective of what course to complete at
the community college that will successfully transfer to the university. This lack of
consistency can affect numerous parts of the transfer student’s transition, including
overall performance at the receiving university.
Minnesota State University, Mankato has developed specific goals in accordance
with a university wide strategy of bring in and retain more transfer students. The
development and accessibility of more articulation agreements is a high priority.
Specifically, the university hopes to develop articulation agreements with two-year
community colleges outside of their traditional network area to help attract more
students. Furthermore, leaders and stakeholders want to intensify transfer student
recruitment efforts by doubling the number of visits from student relations coordinators
to community and technical colleges. Support for such an initiative will come from the
creation of a two-year college liaison job. Recruitments efforts will also focus on students
that will help meet the need to enhance diversity. In fact, the majority of Black and
Hispanic undergraduate students in this country study at community colleges (AACC,
2009). These university initiatives are a result of the increased need and support to
accommodate the rise in the admittance of transfer students.
Admissions and Definitions
For the purposes of this research, it is useful to understand how both transfers and

freshmen arrive at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Students registered in a given
semester can be divided into two groups, new and returning. New students are students
who have just arrived at the university and are attending their first semester here.
Returning students, on the other hand, have matriculated in a previous semester. Based on
their matriculation status these two groups can be subdivided into first-time freshmen and
transfers. With the exception of continuing education students and international students,
new undergraduates are classified as either new (or first-time) freshmen or new transfers.
First-time freshmen have not previously attended a post-secondary institution
before attending the university, while transfers have. First-time freshmen are often
referred to in the transfer literature as ―natives‖ - they are native to the university in that
they first began their college career here. Based on these categories, we can divide all
undergraduate students registered in a given semester into four different groups:
1. New natives – the cohort of new first-time freshmen entering the university in
the fall
2. New transfers – the cohort of new transfer students entering the university in
the fall
3. Returning natives – all undergraduates enrolled in the fall who were here in a
previous semester and who originally entered the university as first-time freshmen
4. Returning transfers – all undergraduates enrolled in the fall who were here in a
previous semester and who originally entered the university as transfer students
First-time freshmen are those students who have never attempted or earned credit
at a post-secondary institution (excluding courses taken through a post-secondary options

program). First-time freshmen are applying after high school graduation, are applying to
the university after having completed a GED, or are applying to the university after
completing home schooling, all within three years.
New transfer students are those students who have attempted or earned post-high
school graduation credits. Transfer students have also completed at least 24 semester
level credits with a 2.0 cumulative GPA and satisfactory completion of at least 67 percent
of the credits attempted will be admitted. Transfer students who have completed fewer
than 24 semester college level credits must also submit a final high school transcript. The
eligibility for admission for these students will be based on the high school and collegiate
records.
Review of Existing Literature on Transfer Student Performance
Research shows that performance of transfer students utilizes several different
performance variables. In fact, there is some concern about transfer student performance,
particularly in whether two-year community college students can academically perform,
be retained, and graduate at a four-year university.
Most community colleges strive to serve all the members in the community who
can benefit from their services. The large proportion of students attending public 2-year
institutions seek a wide range of services, from a place to experiment with postsecondary
education to a structured vocational certificate or associate’s degree program (Grubb
1991). Although the course offerings and degree programs of many community colleges
can accommodate diverse student interests and goals, preparing students to transfer to a

4-year college remains a central characteristic of community colleges (Brint & Hirt
1999).
When considering the long-term implications for success at four-year colleges,
the quality of community college education has been and continues to be controversial
and widely debated (Dougherty, 1994; Parnell, 1982; Zwerling, 1976, 1986). The
common perception is that students who enter a four-year university by transferring from
a two-year community college are less qualified and perform worse than students who
enter as first-time college students. Yet, most two-year community colleges firmly
believe that transfer students bring high quality performance, outside exposure, and
diversity to the classroom at the receiving institution (Berger & Malaney, 2003).
Numerous studies have identified differences among native and transfer students,
most often reporting that transfer students have lower GPAs and higher attrition rates
than native students (Cejda et al. 1998; Cuseo, 1998; Glass and Harrington, 2002) A
study conducted by the University of Maryland showed that transfer students are retained
at rates of 1 to 9 percentage points lower than native freshmen, graduate at rates 2 to 8
percentage points lower than native freshmen, and earn grade point averages 1/10 to 2/10
of a grade point lower than native freshmen (Porter, 1999). It is also known that
community colleges address the problem of an increasingly large population of people
who are under-prepared to meet the minimum admissions requirements of four-year
universities, cannot attend a university due to work or family constraints, or seek job-
related skills. In 2003–04, nearly 40 percent of community college students were
dependent students (i.e., under 24 years old and not financially independent from their
parents); yet, 26 percent were 24 years old or older and financially independent from

their parents, 20 percent were independent and married with children, and 15 percent
were independent, single parents (Horn and Nevill, 2006). If the transfer student does not
have time to participate in learning, he or she is unlikely to be successful. As a result,
transfer students supposedly perform poorer academically and are retained at lower rates.
There is some research that points to transfer shock affecting this performance
(Diaz, 1992; Cejda, Kaylor, & Rewey, 1998). Transfer shock is the tendency for transfer
students to experience a drop in GPA during the first semester at a four-year institution.
Explanations for this drop in GPA can be attributed to the change in environments, lack
of support from the receiving university, and lack of preparedness. This phenomenon has
been reported in several studies on transfer populations; however, few studies have also
shown GPA to increase after transfer (Nickens, 1975).
Comparing native students and community college transfers requires that steps be
taken to ensure that both group in each cohort are as similar as possible. Even though
perfect comparison will not occur, striving to make each pair of groups as similar as
possible is still important (Clark, 1994; Ishitani, 2008). The method employed in this
study compares new transfer with returning natives and has advantages over comparison
with new natives (Best & Gehring, 1993, Dupraw and Michael 1995, Saupe & Long
1997). Because both groups have experiences college experience, measures such as
retention rates and graduation rates are not artificially inflated for new transfers. In
addition, both returning natives and new transfers can be broken down into further
subgroups (gender, ethnicity, etc.). This increases what this study can compare or not
compare. However, with this approach, the effects of transfer shock may impact
retention, graduation, and GPA measures (Cedja, 1998). New transfers might be affected

by transfer shock since they aren’t afford ample time to adjust to the university’s new
policies, procedures, student body, and culture.
The confluence of these factors may potentially hinder the performance of
transfer students at the receiving university. Higher education institutions prefer
admitting transfer candidates who will reflect well on the institution and graduate in a
timely manner. It is understood that no matter how rigorous the curriculum, dedicated the
faculty, or plentiful the academic support services, a transfer student who is working
many hours or juggling demanding family obligations while attending school may simply
lack the time to take advantage of the services offered or even to complete the work
assigned.
Retention Rate
The first outcome variable that has been extensively studied in previous literature
on student performance is retention rate. Higher educational institutions have placed the
retention and timely graduation of students as a critical priority (Glass and Harrington,
2002). Retention rate is measure of the rate at which students persist in their educational
program at an institution, expressed as a percentage (IPEDS, 2010). In other words,
retention rate is the percentage of a school’s first-time, first-year undergraduate students
who continue at that school the next year. For all other institutions this is the percentage
of first-time degree/certificate-seeking students from the previous fall who either re-
enrolled or successfully completed their program by the current fall. For example, a
student who studies full-time in the fall semester and keeps on studying in the program in
the next fall semester is counted in this rate.

While approximately half of community college students have aspirations to attain
a bachelor’s degree with or without an associate degree (American Association of
Community Colleges 2007), some studies suggest that students who begin at community
colleges are less likely to complete a bachelor’s degree than those who begin at four year
colleges (Christie & Hutchenson 2003; Clark 1994; Grubb 1991; Ishitani 2008). The
attrition rate for a transfer student is 10 to 15 percent higher than that of native students
(Glass & Harrington, 2002). When they fail, the majority of transfer students do so before
the end of their first year as a transfer (Cejda, Kaylor & Rewey 1998; Cuseo 1998).
However, transfer students are more likely to be neglected or ignored in retention
efforts (Berger & Malaney, 2003). Historically, the majority of retention literature has
focused solely on native freshmen (Christie, Munro, & Fisher 2004; Hughes & Pace
2003; Rickinson & Rutherford 1995); however, due to the recent enrollment shift into
and out of community colleges, more emphasis has been placed on retaining transfer
students. Specifically for Minnesota State University, Mankato, there is a great deal of
importance in understanding transfer student performance.
Graduation Rate
Another prominent outcome variable, graduation rate, is the percentage of a
school’s first-time, first-year undergraduate students who complete their program within
150% of the published time for the program (IPEDS, 2010). For example, for a four-year
degree program, entering students who complete within six years are counted as
graduates. Because the establishment of a graduation rate definition in the federal
Student Right to Know Act of 1990 (SRTK), campus leaders, federal policymakers, and
research have extensively analyzed and debated this indicator of student success

(AASCU, 2008). Although scrutiny exists as to using this graduation rate as an indicator
of performance, the AASCU maintains that it is a legitimate indicator of student
performance. It is important to state that graduation rates represent just one part of a
broader outcomes picture, and that graduation rate should be used in conjunction with
other outcomes variables (NPEC, 2010).
Grade Point Average
The final outcome variable this study will focus on is grade point average (GPA),
or the numerical value of a grade multiplied by the credit hours for a course. Transfer
GPA has been shown to be the best predictor of degree persistence and completion
among full-time university students who transferred from a community college
(Townsend, McNerny and Arnold, 1993). Research also shows that across the nation,
42% of community college transfer students do not achieve a 2.0 grade point average at
their university of choice (Hughes & Graham, 1992). For instance, the results of such
studies indicated that students with transfer GPAs of less than 2.5 were not as apt in
graduating as those with GPAs above 2.5. As a group of transfer students who entered
with a GPA of 2.5 or more were able to maintain a 2.3 at the university, whereas those
who entered with less than a 2.5 had an average university GPA of 1.9. However, this is
only the results of one study. It is equally important to note that several studies show no
significant differences between the GPA of native students and transfer students.
Gender
Education has been a source of advancement, empowerment, and liberation for
women, but it has also reproduced gender inequalities. Women and men are known to

differ in their college experiences and face different outcomes (Jacobs, 1996). One study
suggests that female college students are almost as likely to cheat as their male
counterparts even though the former's ethical standards tend to be higher than those of the
latter (Whitley, 1999). Gender also seems to influence what type of student groups one
affiliates with. Women are more likely to be labeled as a "grind" whereas men are much
more likely to be labeled as a "recreator" (Kuh, Hu &Vesper, 2000). Grinds exhibit a
high level of academic effort and recreators are involved with sports and exercise.
Students labeled as grinds exhibited attitudes and behaviors very similar to those who
have been identified as possessing an academic ethic (Smith and Pino, 2003).
The Current Study
Are transfer students truly less qualified than native freshman students, or is this
simply a myth? The purpose of this research paper is to methodically evaluate transfer
student performance in terms of retention rate, graduation rate, and grade point average
and compare this information with native freshman students. By analyzing the
backgrounds and behavior of recent transfer and freshman cohorts, this research will shed
light on what evidence, if any, supports this belief. This study can provide much needed
information to help ensure smarter decisions be made while undertaking such large
initiatives, as in common articulation agreements. Additionally, assessing transfer
students and comparing them to native freshman students provides an opportunity to
evaluate transfer admission criteria. If transfer students happen to be performing poorly,
should an institution raise minimum GPA requirements, or instead concentrate on

students from certain types of transfer institutions? Such questions will be informed by
results of this study.
The request for information pertaining to transfer students has been mandated by
the Office of the President due to the influx of transfer students at this university. An
increasingly large proportion of students attending two-year community colleges are
transferring to four-year universities like Minnesota State University, Mankato, and the
need to understand this population of students is essential for the success of the
university. With 44% of all new students at the state universities in Minnesota each year
being transfer students, and about half transferring from community and technical
colleges (Minnesota State Colleges and Universities), emphasis on transfer student
performance, graduation, and retention is as important as ever. Given what is already
known about community college transfer student performance, I expect to find significant
differences between transfer students and native freshman students on key outcome
variables.
H1: Incoming cumulative mean GPA for community college transfer students’ will be
significantly lower than the native students cumulative mean GPA’ at the end of the
sophomore year.
H2: The one-year retention rates of transfer students will be lower than native
students.
H3: The graduation rates of the transfer students will be lower than native students.
H4: Female students (natives/transfers) will have higher GPAs as compared with male
students (natives/transfers).

Method
The study focused on assessing and statistically comparing the cumulative GPA,
the one-year retention rate, and the overall graduation rate of community college transfer
students and native freshmen student scores at a mid-sized four-year public university.
Other variables that will be investigated include age and gender.
Participants
This study used archival data on transfer students and native freshman students
who were admitted to Minnesota State University, Mankato over the course of three years
(N=10427). In terms of organization, the population was separated into cohorts of
new/returning transfers and new/returning natives who both began school during the
same semester. Keep in mind that this data covers three distinct, consecutive time
periods.
Second, demographic data on all subjects was ran for the entire population, but in
terms of comparing both native students and native freshmen, this study enlisted a sample
of undergraduates taken from each cohort. To increase the comparability of native
students to transfer students, equal N of sample groups was randomly assigned to native
students. Each sample contained 100 participants for both transfer students and native
freshmen across three consecutive years.
The data that was used in this study was gathered from the Office of Institutional
Research. All data from these subjects were first organized into an excel spreadsheet. In
order to run statistics on the data, the excel spreadsheet was converted to a format read by
SPSS.

Types of Analyses
The first type of analytic procedure will be descriptive statistics and frequencies
on demographic characteristics of the population being sampled. Next, independent
samples t-tests will compare mean scores of native and transfer students in terms of GPA,
graduation rate, and retention rate. Other variables such as age and gender will be
compared as well using independent samples t-tests.

Results
Data Screening
The first step in these analyses involved screening data to detect, remove, and
correct coding errors. To examine the data, the distributions of variables, means,
frequencies, standard deviations, and ranges were used. All values were reviewed to
make certain that they were within valid ranges.
The next analyses involved removing missing values, especially for transfer GPA.
A total of 235 cases had transfer GPAs of .00. It is difficult to say whether students had
actual transfer GPAs of .00 or that transfer GPA was not available at the time when data
was entered into the spreadsheet. As for native student GPA at two years completion,
there was only 1 value that reported a .00. For both groups, these GPA values were not
included.
After data screening and cleaning, a total population size of 10,427 subjects was
used. These subjects consisted of three consecutive cohorts comprised of both transfer
and native undergraduate students. Of the total (N=10427), 3,227 were apart of the fall
2002 cohort, 3,569 were apart of the fall 2003 cohort, and 3,631 were apart of the fall
2004 cohort.
Initial Analyses
Analyses were first conducted to determine demographic characteristics for the
population of subjects. Age is reported using frequencies and means by each cohort. Age
and ethnicity are reported using frequencies and percentages. Results for these analyses

are presented in the Tables 1-4 below. Population statistics are reported in the appendix
(Table 9-11).

ASSESSING TRANFSER STUDENT PEFORMANCE 21

Of the fall 2002 cohort, 19.49% (N=629) were transfer students and 80.5%
(N=2598) were native undergraduate students. Of the fall 2003 cohort, 17.9% (N=640)
were transfer students and 82.1% (N=2929) were native undergraduate students. Of the
fall 2004 cohort, 19.5% (N=708) were transfer students and 80.5% (N=2923) were native
undergraduate students. All cases were reported; therefore, no missing values were listed.
Also, the high N for the each population would have caused all analyses to be significant.
This study will therefore utilize a smaller sample size for comparison of the data. No
doubt information will be lost; however, to understand if real differences exist with the
aid of a large sample size, a sample size of 100 participants will be used. This sample size
was determined using G*Power, a statistical program used to compute power. An effect
size, d=0.46, is required for samples of this size.
Hypothesis 1 suggests that incoming cumulative mean GPA for community
college transfer students’ will be significantly lower than the native students cumulative
mean GPA’ at the end of the sophomore year. To test this hypothesis, an independent
samples t-test was run. Results to these analyses are illustrated in Table 5. The data
shows that there is a significant GPA difference between community college transfer
students and native undergraduate students in the fall 2004 cohort. Community college
students (M=2.75; SD=.68195) in the fall 2004 cohort have significantly lower GPA’s
than native freshman students (M=3.10; SD=.50240). Fall 2002 and fall 2003 cohorts
were found to have no significant differences (ns).

Retention rate is measure of the rate at which students persist in their educational
program at an institution, expressed as a percentage. For this study, retention rate will be
the one-year retention rate from enrollment to the next fall. Hypothesis 2 suggests that
the retention rates of transfer students are significantly lower than native students. To test
this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was run. It was found that there are no
significant differences of one-year retention rates between community college transfer
students and native freshman (ns) Results to these analyses are illustrated in Table 6.

Hypothesis 3 suggests that the graduation rates of transfer students are
significantly lower than native students. Graduation rate is the percentage of a school’s
first-time, first-year undergraduate students including transfer students who complete
their program within 150% of the published time for the program (IPEDS, 2010). To test
this hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was run. Results to these analyses are
illustrated in Table 7. It was found that there are no significant differences of graduation
rates between community college transfer students and native freshman (ns).
In terms of GPA differences between genders, hypothesis 4 suggests that female
transfers and natives will have higher GPAs compared with male transfers and natives.
Independent t-tests were run and the results of the analyses are illustrated in Table 8.
Females score higher GPAs than males in the fall cohort of 2002 and the fall cohort of
2003. There were no significant differences found for the fall 2004 cohort (ns).

Discussion
It is increasingly important to understand transfer student GPA, retention, and
graduation rates because of the growing number of transfer students, demographic
changes within the population and societal changes that can influence certain outcomes.
Of particular interest for this study was to examine significant difference, if at all, exist
between native students and community college transfer students. Variables that were
analyzed included GPA, graduation rates, and retention rates. In addition, age and gender
were analyzed.
First, it was shown that that there is a significant GPA difference between
community college transfer students and native undergraduate students in the fall 2004
cohort. In this cohort, the mean GPA for community college transfer students was
significantly lower than native undergraduate students. However, fall 2002 and fall 2003
cohorts were found to have no significant differences.
It is important to note that even though hypothesis 1 was not statistically
significant, the means were in the direction hypothesized. In fact, Table 10 in the
appendix shows the mean GPA for all students in the population. The means for transfer
students are lower than that of native freshmen. Due to the rigors of the current study,
significance testing was not employed on the population at large, yet a pattern similar to
that of the sample tested is seen. Leaving statistical significance out for a moment, we
can see that community college transfer students have generally lower GPA’s than native
freshmen students. It is also important to note the age difference between transfer student
and native students.

Community college transfer students have shown that they are generally older
than native freshman students across all cohorts, which may mean they have less time for
school work. This decrease in the amount of time spent on school work may carry over
and affect overall performance on GPA. It terms of explaining slightly lower GPA scores,
it is understood that no matter how rigorous the curriculum, dedicated the faculty, or
plentiful the academic support services, a transfer student who has more responsibilities
such as working many hours or juggling demanding family obligations while attending
school may simply lack the time to take advantage of the services offered or even to
complete the work assigned. These responsibilities tend to occur as an individual ages.
Second, the one-year retention rates of transfer students were not significantly
different from the one-year retention rates of native freshmen. These retention rates may
not be statistically significant, but the data revealed that according to the samples, the
retention rates were slightly lower for transfers than native students. It is important to
note that similar to hypothesis 1 in terms of directionality, hypothesis 2 showed a distinct
pattern that transfers are being retained lower than native freshmen students. This lower
retention rate for community college transfer students may be partly due to the fact that
graduation rates are slightly higher in transfer students versus native students because of
the number of incoming credits earned by transfer students allowing a timelier graduating
within a six-year period.
Third, students are allotted 150% (6 years) of the published time to complete a
program to be included in graduation rate data, and it was found that there are no
significant differences in graduation rates between community college transfer students
and native freshman. It was predicted that transfer students would have lower graduation

rates than native students. However, the directionality of the results show that graduation
rates are generally higher for transfer students compared to native students. This pattern
is understandable because transfer students are enrolling to the four-year university with
two years of experience and credit, allowing for a better chance to graduate within the
allotted six-year timeframe.
A fourth finding was in terms of GPA differences between genders, suggesting
that female undergraduate students (both native and transfer) have higher GPAs
compared with male undergraduate students. It was shown that females scored higher
GPAs than males in the fall 2002 and 2003 cohorts. However, there were no significant
differences found for the fall 2004 cohort, though scores were still in the direction
favoring of female students. Research has shown that females generally score higher than
males in terms of GPA (NCES, 2010) and the findings of this study are consistent with
this research. Since females are scoring higher than males, a potential area of emphasis
will be improving the overall GPA of male undergraduate students.
Recommendations
In terms of practical recommendations for the university, there are a few
suggestions that can be made. Based on the findings of the current study, it is very
important to continue to examine the transfer student population. The community college
transfer student population at Minnesota State University, Mankato will continue to
increase, thereby impacting many aspects of the university. Therefore, the first
recommendation is to establish an ongoing assessment of transfer student performance,
including qualitative data. This will not only provide insight into how students perform

based on specific criteria variables, but will also provide a basis to compare transfer
students to native freshmen students. Moreover, continued data collection and analyses
can potentially be used to indentify marketing needs to underrepresented community
colleges that the university wants to extend their network to. If high performance scores
of GPA, retention rate, and graduation rate are associated with specific community
colleges, admitting those students would be likely produce a better transfer student body
in terms of those variables.
To fully understand the magnitude of the data, information in terms of qualitative
data should be collected and analyzed. Instances occur whereby quantitative data can
produce only a glimpse of the overall situation facing the student body at Minnesota State
University, Mankato. For example, this study uncovered that there is an approximate
three-year difference between native freshmen students and community college transfer
students. And research has shown that community college transfer students usually part-
time employment, have families, and other responsibilities. If individuals are asked open-
ended questions about their university experiences, both inside and outside the confine of
the classroom, we may potentially uncover important findings that can lead to improving
the university experience. Further investigation will help to uncover these questions.
The second recommendation is to evaluate the admissions process for native and
transfer students here at Minnesota State University, Mankato to uncover potential
pitfalls in the transfer process. A critical issue that has gained awareness through this
study is that native freshmen students and transfer students do not have the same
admission requirements, especially in terms of GPA. Different admission requirements
could lead to perceptions of problems with fairness or bias in the selection process

(Guion, 1991). Such differences could also be an indication that the transfer process is
not treating native and transfer student equitably in terms of admissions.
The third recommendation is to improve the overall mean GPA of male students
by first identifying why this disparity exists. As the results have shown, female students
generally outperform male students based on GPA. This may be due to overall cognitive
ability, or environmental factors hindering this specific group’s GPA. A future study
delving into this issue may potentially benefit the male students at Minnesota State
University, Mankato.
The last recommendation stresses the importance of a diverse undergraduate class
as outlined by university initiatives. By looking at the ethnic breakdown of transfer and
native students, over 80% of each cohort’s student body was Caucasian. Increasing the
percentage of minorities enrolled in the university would help to satisfy Goal 1 outlined
in the Strategic Plan (see appendix for Minnesota State University, Mankato Strategic
Priorities – Goal 1: Promote Diversity).
Limitations
There are a few limitations to the current study. It is important to keep in mind
that there are no cause and effect conclusions that can be drawn from this research. The
focus of the study was to report statistically significant differences between transfer
students and native students, and to also provide descriptive statistics of the population
being sampled. Causal modeling, along with other statistical analyses, can provide insight
into the directionality of some of these findings.

Another limitation is that the cohorts sampled were from 2002, 2003, and 2004.
Using these cohorts does not allow for a recent comparison of GPA. Comparing transfer
student and native students in later cohorts would provide much more relevant and
actionable results.
One major limitation is the use of comparing groups of native students and
transfer students where many relevant differences still exist. These differences can impact
a proper comparison of both groups. For example, transfers may pursue different
academic programs than native students, therefore inflating variables such as graduation
rate. There are many other variables that can be controlled for, including credits earned;
however, no comparison will ever be a perfect comparison.
Moreover, it would be beneficial to know something about the people who were
not retained or did not graduate. It cannot be assumed that transfer students who left were
not able to handle the work at a four-year institution; therefore, research should analyze
and try to understand why those students leave. It would be interesting to find out if
incoming GPA is lower than subsequent semester GPAS in transfer student populations
due to transfer shock or if students with extremely low GPAS are leaving each semester.
Articles on transfer shock continue to appear, yet what might be transfer shock might
actually be attrition of less qualified students.
Conclusion
The purpose of this research paper was to methodically evaluate transfer student
performance in terms of retention rate, graduation rate, and grade point average and
compare this information with native freshman students. It is increasingly important to

understand transfer student GPA, retention, and graduation rates because of the growing
number of transfer students, demographic changes within the population and societal
changes that can influence certain outcomes. As community colleges expand in size and
number in the future, the possibility of more two-year community college students
transferring to four-year universities is a certainty. By analyzing the background and
behaviors of recent transfer and freshman cohorts, this research shed light on community
college transfer student performance.
In general, the data shows few significant differences between transfer students
and native freshmen students; however, there is still validity for the direction of the slight
disparities between both groups. Analyses conducted on performance indicators make
one to believe that continued monitoring of transfer students needs to occur to ensure that
transfer students are on par with native students.

References
American Association of Community Colleges. (2010). Community College Fast Facts.
Retrieved February 20, 2011, from http://www.aacc.nche.edu/Pages/default.aspx
Cedja, B.D., Kaylor, A.J., and K.L. Rewey. (1998). Transfer shock in an academic
discipline: The relationship between students’ majors and their academic
performance. Community College Review. Retrieved October 27, 2010, from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_3_26/ai_63323082/print
Christie, H., M. Munro, and T. Fisher. (2004). Leaving university early: Exploring the
differences between continuing and non-continuing students. Studies in Higher
Education 29:617-36.
Christie, R., and P.A. Hutcheson. (2003). Net effects of institutional type on
baccalaureate degree attainment of ―traditional‖ students. Community College
Review 31: 1-20.
Clark, B.R. (1994). The ―cooling out‖ function revisited. In J.L. Ratcliff (Ed.),
Community colleges (2nd
ed., pp. 67-78). Needham Heights, MA: Simon &
Schuster Education Group.
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1996). Policies and programs that affect transfer.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Cuseo, J. (1998). The transfer transition: A summary of key issues, target areas, and
tactics for reform. Rancho Palos Verdes, CA: Marymount College.

Dougherty, K.J. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, impacts, and
futures of the community college. Albany, NY: State University Press.
Dupraw, Christine and William B. Michael (1995) ―Community College Transfer
Students: Comparing Admission and Success‖ College & University
71(2):10-18.
Glass, J. C., Jr., & Harrington, A.R. (2002). Academic performance of community
college transfer student and ―native‖ students at a large state university.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26(5), 415-430.
Grubb, W. N. (1991). The decline of community college transfer rates: Evidence from
national longitudinal surveys. Journal of Higher Education, 62, (2). 196-222.
Hughes, R., and C.R. Pace. (2003). Using NSSE to study student retention and
withdrawal. Assessment Update: Progress, Trends and Practices in Higher
Education 15: 1-15.
Ishitani, T.T. (2008). How do transfers survive after ―transfer shock‖? A longitudinal
study of transfer student departure at a four-year institution. Research in Higher
Education 49: 403-19.
National Center for Education Statistics. (1996). Digest of education statistics.
Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement: U.S.
Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Transfer students in institutions of
higher education. Washington, DC. Office of Educational Research and
Improvement: U.S. Department of Education.

Parnell, D. (1982). Some tough questions about community colleges. Washington, DC:
American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E.T. (1999). New studies track community college effects on students.
Community College Journal 69: 8-14.
Rickinson, B., and D. Rutherford. (1995). Increasing undergraduate student retention
rates. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 23: 161-73.
Satake, A.L. (2010, July 15). UNCW tuition hikes offset budget cuts. The Greater
Wilmington Business Journal.
Zwerling, L.S. (1976). Second best: The crisis of the community college. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Zwerling, L.S. (Ed.) (1986). The community college and its critics. San Francisco:
Jossey- Bass.

Appendix

ASSESSING TRANFSER STUDENT PEFORMANCE 37

Strategic Priorities (2005)
*Goal 1- Promote Diversity
Objective 1
The University will adopt, for all purposes, a definition of diversity.
Objective 2
The University will establish a permanent Diversity Commission in Fall 2004.
Objective 3
The University will establish workshops and mini-grants for faculty to integrate diversity
components into their teaching.
Objective 4
The University will conduct a campus climate survey.
Objective 5
The university will develop and implement a diversity orientation program for all employees.
Objective 6
The University will develop and implement a mentoring program for new faculty.
Objective 7
The University will implement the Diversity Recruitment Plan developed jointly by the Office of
Admissions and the Office of Institutional Diversity.
Objective 8
The University will undertake a diversity-focused advertising and marketing campaign in local
media.
Objective 9
The University will strengthen the office infrastructure of the LGBT Center to enable its support of
diverse populations.
*Source: Strategic Plan, September, 2005
December 3, 2008

Strategic Priorities
*Goal 3 –Undergraduate Excellence
Objective 1: Enhance the Undergraduate Curriculum
Deployment Strategies 1
Increase the amount and quality of student writing in degree programs and in general education.
Increase standards in degree programs. Revising the Honors program to have higher standards.
Seek accreditations and treat program review as "internal accreditation."
Clarify admission, retention and graduation standards within majors, and enforce prerequisites.
Encourage all degree programs to develop some form of capstone experience that requires students
to demonstrate some level of mastery of knowledge and skills needed by a graduate of the program.
Consider adoption of a +/- option to the grading system.
In addition to current First Year Experience seminars, develop and implement a "discipline-based"
first year seminar.
Develop and implement a "Common Reader" program as part of the First Year Experience courses
(FYEX).
December 3, 2008

Recommendations that are already being implemented and need to continue:
Deployment Strategies 9a
Develop General Education course "Clusters."
Deployment Strategies 9b
Streamline the General Education course approval process.
Deployment Strategies 9c
Assess General Education courses and program.
Objective 2: Enhance Faculty Academic Quality
Encourage and support innovation and creativity in faculty workload.
Allow faculty within a department to reallocate emphases within the five Article 22 criteria
for Professional Development Plans.
Allow departments to meet student demand for courses in innovative ways.
Revise the method by which faculty instruction is evaluated.
Enhance financial and other support for faculty development and faculty assistance.
Continue and enhance support for the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning.
As part of the upcoming Capital Campaign, the University should emphasize the creation of
an endowment for Faculty Development.
Deployment Strategies 12c
Provide support in the form of paraprofessionals to work with faculty in areas such as lab set-
up and maintenance, technical support, and non-teaching components of classroom activities.
Objective 3: Enhance Student Academic Quality
Enhance Academic Advising services.
Establish an Academic Honor Code on campus with emphasis on education and enforcement issues.
December 3, 2008

Enhance funding and other resources for the Center for Academic Success.
Establish more student study areas in academic buildings, student union, residential life and
athletics.
Consider changes to Library open hours to better serve students on campus and planned expansion
of Friday-Saturday classes.
Establish an all-student convocation similar to the faculty-staff convocation in order to set a tone of
academic excellence at the very beginning of the academic year.
Better publicize and promote undergraduate academic honor societies and review requirements for
academic honors.
*Source: Strategic Plan, September, 2005 (Objectives, pg. 4) (Deployment Strategies, pg. 9)
Note: Critical to the mission of the University ―To Promote Learning‖, undergraduate studies
elaborated on the objectives and the deployment strategies to show their accomplishments.
December 3, 2008

Assessing Transfer Student Performance

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Similar to Assessing Transfer Student Performance (20)

Assessing Transfer Student Performance