ACADEMIC?SUCCESS?OF?TRANSFER?STUDENTS?AND?NATIVE?STUDENTS?IN?SOUTHEAST?ALABAMA? Except?where?reference?is?made?to?the?work?of?others,?the?work?described?in?this?disertation?is?my?own?or?was?done?in?colaboration?with?my?advisory?commitee.?This?disertationdoes?not?include?proprietary?or?clasified?information.? _____________________________________?Keith?W.?Sessions? Certificate?ofApproval:? _______________________?________________________?Caroline?Dunn? Marie?F.?Kraska,?Chair?Profesor? ildred?Cheshire?Fraley?Rehabilitation?and? Distinguished?Professor? Special?Education? Educational?Foundations,?Leadership,?and?Technology? ________________________?________________________?Olin?Adams? George?T.?Flowers?Associate?Profesor? InterimDean?Educational?Foundations,? Graduate?School? Leadership,?and?Technology ACADEMIC?SUCCESS?OF?TRANSFER?STUDENTS?AND?NATIVE?STUDENTS?IN?SOUTHEAST?ALABAMA? Keith?W.?Sessions? A?Disertation?Submited?to? the?Graduate?Faculty?of?Auburn?University? in?Partial?Fulfillment?of?the?Requirements?for?the? Degree?of?Doctor?of?Education? Auburn?University?May?10,?2007 iii ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF TRANSFER STUDENTS AND NATIVE STUDENTS IN SOUTHEAST ALABAMA Keith W. Sessions Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. The author reserves all publication rights _____________________________ Signature of Author ______________________________ Date of Graduation iv VITA Keith W. Sessions, son of Jimmy R. Sessions and Phyllis (Wilkes) Sessions, was born in Birmingham, Alabama on June 7, 1968. At the age of three his father passed away unexpectedly. A few years later his mother re-married to Joseph D. Talmadge (step-father). He graduated from Enterprise High School in Coffee County, Alabama in 1986. He received and Associate in Science Degree from Enterprise State Junior College (now Enterprise-Ozark Community College) in 1988. After transferring to Auburn University, he completed his Bachelor of Science in Business there in 1990. He later received a Masters in Business Administration from the University of South Alabama in 1993. He began his career in higher education administration in 1994 as an Area Coordinator for the newly formed state articulation program (AGSC/STARS). He served in this role until the late 1990?s when he was named Assistant Director of the AGSC/STARS Program. From 2001 to 2002 he worked as the Director of Distance Education at Southern Union State Community College. From 2002 to 2003 he worked as the Undergraduate Academic Program Coordinator at Auburn University. In September of 2003, he was named as the first Executive Director of the AGSC/STARS Program. He continues in this role today. He enrolled in the Auburn University Graduate School in the Fall of 2000 to pursue a doctoral degree in Higher Education Administration. He was married to Carlene A. Dorris on March 15, 1997. They have three sons, Richard W. Sessions, Parker K. Sessions, and Talmadge R. Sessions. v DISSERTATION ABSTRACT ACADEMIC SUCCESS OF TRANSFER STUDENTS AND NATIVE STUDENTS IN SOUTHEAST ALABAMA Keith W. Sessions Doctor of Education, May 10, 2007 (M.B.A., University of South Alabama, 1993) (B.S., Auburn University, 1990) (A.S., Enterprise State Junior College, 1988) 101 Typed Pages Directed by Marie F. Kraska The purpose of the study was to identify variables associated with the baccalaureate graduation status and number of terms enrolled for transfer students who have completed a portion (at least 30 semester hours) of their undergraduate program at an Alabama community college and who later transferred to a public four-year institution in Alabama to complete their baccalaureate degree and the baccalaureate graduation status and time to graduation of native students who completed all of their baccalaureate degree at one four year-university. In conducting the study, the researcher randomly selected academic records of two student groups: (1) native students who began their college career at Troy University, and (2) transfer students who began their college career at one of the primary feeder vi community colleges for Troy University between 1998 and 2000, and who later transferred at least 30 semester hours of credit to Troy University with a goal of completing their baccalaureate degree there. In addition, the researcher equally subdivided these two groups (transfer or native) by declared major into three discipline categories: business, education, or nursing. The total number of students in the data set was 300. The dependent variable was graduation status ? whether or not a student was graduated. Student demographic variables were as follows: (a) age, (b) gender, (c) ethnicity, (d) major, (e) type (transfer or native), (f) cumulative grade point average, and (g) number of terms enrolled. Results from the statistical analysis showed that transfer students had a slightly higher mean cumulative grade point average than the native students. In addition, the transfer students had been graduated at a slightly higher rate than the native students. While the transfer students had higher grade point averages and were graduated more often, native students were enrolled in fewer terms during their college experience. There was a statistically significant relationship between the predictor variables of college major, student type (transfer or native), cumulative grade point average, and terms enrolled and whether or not a person was graduated with a baccalaureate degree. There was no statistically significant relationship between the predictor variables of age, gender, and ethnicity and whether or not a person was graduated with a baccalaureate degree. vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am truly grateful to the members of my committee who supported me throughout this process. I want to thank Dr. Kraska for chairing my dissertation committee. She has always been there to encourage and guide me as I learned how to do quality research. I will always give her the credit for my success as a doctoral student. In addition, I am forever indebted to the other two members of my committee, Dr. Olin Adams, and Dr. Caroline Dunn, for their support and guidance. Not only were my technical questions answered regarding the dissertation process, but I always felt a tremendous sense of collegiality with this group of distinguished professors. Thank you all for your help. Sincere thanks are also offered to the administration of Troy University. I could not have asked for more cooperative support and assistance as I attended classes and worked on my dissertation. I could not have completed my degree without the financial and loving support of my parents Joe and Phyllis Talmadge. They paid every tuition bill without complaint. They also encouraged and loved me throughout my six years in the doctoral program. I owe my greatest amount of gratitude to my wife, Carlene, and my sons, Wil, Parker, and Tal. I am grateful for all of the sacrifices you made. Finally, I want to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. For without my Him nothing is possible. viii Style manual used: Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 5 th ed. (2001), Washington DC. Computer software used: Microsoft Word 2002 and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 14.0 ix TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................1 Statement of Research Problem...................................................................5 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................6 Research Questions......................................................................................6 Statement of the Hypothesis ........................................................................7 Definition of Terms......................................................................................7 Limitations of the Study...............................................................................9 Assumptions of the Study ..........................................................................10 Significance of the Study...........................................................................10 CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...........................................................11 Increased Student Mobility and Growth of Transfer Student Populations ....................................11 Increased Need for Articulation and Transfer Agreements .......................15 Impact of Transfer Articulation Agreements.............................................16 Transfer Student Barriers...........................................................................18 Profiles of Transfer and Native Students...................................................19 Chronological Review of Studies Comparing Academic Success of Transfer and Native Students in Other States...........21 Summary....................................................................................................28 CHAPTER 3. METHOD OF STUDY AND INSTRUMENTATION.............................30 Design of Study..........................................................................................30 Sources of Data and Collection Procedures...............................................31 Privacy and Confidentially of Student Data Collected..............................32 Instrumentation ..........................................................................................33 Method of Procedure..................................................................................33 Procedure for Data Analysis ......................................................................33 Profiles of Institutions Used in this Study .................................................34 Summary....................................................................................................38 x CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .......................................................39 Data Analysis.............................................................................................39 Results for Research Question One ...........................................................40 Demographic Characteristics for All Students ...........................40 Demographic Characteristics for All Native Students................46 Demographic Characteristics for Native Business Students.......48 Demographic Characteristics for Native Education Students.....49 Demographic Characteristics for Native Nursing Students........50 Demographic Characteristics for All Transfer Students.............50 Demographic Characteristics for Transfer Business Students....53 Demographic Characteristics for Transfer Education Students..53 Demographic Characteristics for Transfer Nursing Students .....54 Results for Research Question Two...........................................................55 Results for Research Question Three.........................................................56 Summary....................................................................................................61 CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS........................................................63 Overview of the Study ...............................................................................64 Summary of the Results.............................................................................66 Conclusions................................................................................................68 Recommendations......................................................................................69 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................72 APENDICES......................................................................................................................78 Appendix A ? IRB Approval Letter from Auburn University............................79 Appendix B ? Letter Requesting and Receiving Access to Troy University Student Records...........................................................................81 Appendix C ? Recording Form Used to Collect Student Data ...........................83 Appendix D ? Letter of Permission to Re-Print Figure 1 ...................................85 Appendix E ? Letter of Permission to Re-Print Table 1 and Table 2.................87 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Ranking of Transfer Obstacles by Four- and Two-Year Institutions ..............19 Table 2. A Demographic Comparison of Students in Two- and Four-Year Institutions ......................................................20 Table 3. Mean, Median, Minimum, and Maximum Age by Student Type....................41 Table 4. Number and Frequency for Gender by Student Type......................................42 Table 5. Number and Frequency for Ethnicity by Student Type...................................43 Table 6. Mean, Median, Minimum, and Maximum GPA by Student Type ..................44 Table 7. Number and Frequency for Graduation Status by Student Type.....................45 Table 8. Summary of Descriptive Data for Native Students..........................................47 Table 9. Summary of Descriptive Data for Transfer Students.......................................51 Table 10. Mean, Median, Minimum, and Maximum Terms Enrolled by Student Type ................................................................................56 Table 11. Contingency Table for Hosmer and Lemeshow Test ......................................58 Table 12. Contingency Table for Model Predictive Accuracy ........................................59 Table 13. Variables in the Equation.................................................................................61 xii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Types of First-Time Transfers Between 1995 and 2001 .................................13 Figure 2. Map With Locations of Two-Year and Four-Year Institutions Used in Study.................................................................38 1? CHAPTER?I?INTRODUCTION? For?decades,?students?attending?comunity?coleges?throughout?the?United?States?have?faced?the?posibility?of?losing?course?credit?hours?upontransfer?to?a?four?year? colege?or?institution.?Comunity?colege?students?may?be?advised?to?take?specific?courses?with?the?intent?ofreceiving?course?credit?for?their?coursework?upon?transfer?to?a? four?year?institution.?Money?and?time?may?be?wasted?ifstudents?take?courses?at?a?comunity?colege?and?find?that?some?course?credit?is?not?transferable?to?a?four?year? institution.?Students?attending?comunity?coleges?in?Alabama?may?encounter?this?same?problem?of?losing?course?credit?when?they?transfer?from?a?comunity?colege?to?a?four?? year?institution.?Anumber?of?states,?including?Alabama,?have?taken?a?proactive?approach,?either?through?state?legislative?mandates?or?state?educational?programs,?to? attempt?to?address?this?transfer?isue?and?provide?students?with?accurate?and?moretransfer?information.? In?1994,?the?Alabama?State?Legislature?addressed?the?transfer?credit?isue?by?passing?ACT?94?202.?There?are?two?main?provisions?of?this?act:? 1.?This?Act?Created?the?Alabama?Articulation?and?General?Studies?Commitee?(AGSC)?to?implement?provisions?of?the?Act,?and 2? 2.?This?Act?Designated?the?Statewide?Transfer?and?Articulation?Reporting?System?(STARS)?as?the?vehicle?for?disemination?of?information?and?implementation?of? AGSC?policy(Alabama?Legislative?Act,?94?202).?Within?the?provisions,?the?AGSC?was?given?the?folowing?charges:? 1.?Develop?a?statewide?general?studies?curriculum?by?September?1,?1998.?2.?Develop?a?statewide?articulation?agreement?by?September?1,?1999.? 3.?Examine?the?need?for?uniform?course?numbering?system,?course?titles,?and?descriptions.? 4.?Resolve?problems?in?administration?or?interpretation?of?articulation?agreement?(Alabama?Legislative?Act,?94?202).? This?legislative?mandate?impacts?al?public?institutions?of?higher?education?in?Alabama.?While?private?coleges?and?universities?in?Alabama?are?not?required?to?adhere?to?the? provisions?set?forth?by?the?Articulation?and?General?Studies?Commitee?(AGSC),?many?of?them?have?adjusted?their?transfer?policies?and?procedures?to?be?consistent?with?the? existing?AGSC?policyin?orderto?improve?the?transfer?proces?to?their?campuses.?As?of?the?sumer?of2004,?the?first?two?charges?listed?above?were?accomplished?by?the?AGSC.? In?regard?to?the?third?provision,?the?AGSC?examined?the?need?for?a?uniform?course?numbering?system.?The?commitee?concluded?that?the?first?two?charges?could?be? accomplished?using?the?existing?numbering?systems?currently?in?place?at?institutions?acros?the?state.?The?AGSC?chose?not?to?mandate?a?comon?course?numbering?system? for?al?public?institutions?of?higher?education?in?Alabama?due?the?high?conversion?cost?that?alfourteenof?the?four?year?institutions?would?face.?The?fourthcharge?is?on?going.? To?meet?the?fourthcharge,?the?AGSC?holds?meetings?everyquarter?(three?months)?to 3? address?and?resolve?problems?and/or?provide?interpretations?of?the?statearticulation?agreement?as?the?need?arises.? While?the?AGSC?setsthe?statearticulation?policy,?the?Statewide?Transfer?and?Articulation?Reporting?System?(STARS)?is?the?web?based?information?system?used?by? students,?advisors,?counselors,?faculty,?staff,?and?administrators?to?obtain?AGSC?approved?transfer?information.?The?STARS?System(htp://stars.troyst.edu),?maintained? and?governed?by?the?AGSC,?provides?students?attending?two?year?comunity?coleges?with?web?acces?to?AGSC?approved?transfer?guides?tailored?to?the?student?s?chosen? major.?These?transfer?guides?can?prevent?los?of?course?credit?for?thousands?of?students?each?year.?Since?1998,?over?400,000?students?have?obtained?STARS?Transfer?Guides.?In? an?average?monthover?6,000?students,?advisors,?and?counselors?acces?the?STARS?Systemto?obtainup?to?datetransfer?information.? During?the?2001?and?2002?academic?year,the?AGSC?hired?an?outside?consulting?group?to?evaluate?the?impact?of?the?articulation?program?on?higher?education?in?Alabama.? The?consulting?group?used?surveys,?interviews,?focus?groups,?and?existing?STARS?usage?data?to?evaluate?the?articulation?program.?The?goals?of?the?AGSC/STARS?evaluation? project?were?as?folows:?1.?Determine?the?degree?to?which?the?intent?of?Act?94?202?has?ben?achieved?? 2.?Evaluate?the?efectiveness?of?the?organizational?structure?established?by?the?statute?? 3.?Asses?the?degree?to?which?AGSC?is?fulfilling?its?responsibilities??and?4.?Evaluate?the?impact?of?the?articulation?proces?on?higher?education?in?Alabama? (Crump,?O?Neil,?&?Wilds,?2002). 4? The?evaluation?project?took?more?thantwo?years?to?complete.?The?conclusion?to?the?final?report?is?summarized?as?folows.? Data?and?information?from?practically?all?sources?provide?high?marks?for?[both]?the?AGSC?and?STARS?[Program].?The?survey?results?from?al?three?groups? overwhelmingly?supported?STARS?in?terms?of?the?ratings?and?the?coments?that?were?ofered.?Focus?groups?of?both?comunity?colege?and?university?transfer? students?were?enthusiastic?in?their?coments?about?STARS.?Comunity?colege?advisors,?faculty?and?administrators?participating?in?focus?groups?were?strong? advocates?for?STARS,?the?general?studies?curriculum,?and?the?articulation?of?degree?programs.?They?cited?the?legislation?and?the?achievements?of?the?AGSC? and?STARS?as?instrumental?in?creating?a?climate?of?cooperation?and?comunication?between?35?comunity?coleges?and?state?universities.?They?were? complimentary?of?the?STARS?staff?and?the?courteous?and?profesional?manner?of?the?personel.?The?focus?group?of?university?transfer?appeals?oficials?also? supported?the?value?of?STARS?in?facilitating?the?transfer?proces?and?reducing?significantly?the?number?of?transfer?appeals.?Participants?acknowledged?several? additional?benefits?from?STARS?and?the?statewide?articulationof?degree?programs.?Results?from?interviews?with?presidents,?former?AGSC?members,?and? legislators?provided?additional?support?for?the?accomplishments?of?the?AGSC.?In?fact,?some?coments?might?be?interpreted?as?indicating?that?the?comitee?is? doing?more?than?its?responsibilities?require?(Crump?et?al.,?2002,?p.?34?35).?The?final?evaluation?report?also?included?12?recomendations.?While?the? majority?of?the?recomendations?centered?on?improving?day?to?day?procedures?and 5? proceses,?the?twelfth?and?final?recomendation?focused?on?the?need?for?further?research.?The?consulting?group?wrote,??The?AGSC?needs?to?conduct?a?carefully?designed?study?to? evaluate?the?[academic]?succes?of?comunity?college?students?who?transfer?to?state?universities.?Much?useful?information?could?be?gained?from?a?wel?designed?study? evaluating?the?succes?of?transfer?students.?Information?about?factors?affecting?student?success?might?provide?useful?feedback?to?comunity?coleges?and?have?important? implications?for?the?general?studies?curriculum.?[As?the?cost?of?higher?education?continues?to?rise?in?Alabama,?the?on?going?evaluation]?of?the?efectiveness?of?academic? programs?should?be?a?primary?goal??(Crump?et?al.,?2002,?p.?40).?Statement?of?the?Research?Problem? Most?four?year?universities?in?Alabama?would?agree?that?transfer?student?populations?have?a?significant?impact?onthe?overalsucces?of?their?institutions.?Four?? year?universities?throughout?the?state?are?nowrequired,?by?law,?to?accept?AGSC?designated?transfer?coursework.?In?addition,?there?is?an?expectationthat?transfer?students? who?use?the?articulation?programand?who?transfer?to?other?in?state?public?institutions?of?higher?educationshould?graduate?in?a?similar?timeframe?as?native?students?in?similar? majors.?The?focus?of?this?study?is?the?lack?of?information?related?tothe?variables?associated?with?graduation?status?(graduated/not?graduated)?andtime?to?graduation? (number?of?terms)?of?students?who?transfer?from?comunity?coleges?to?four?year?institutions?in?Alabama?and?students?who?complete?their?entire?baccalaureate?program?at? one?institution. 6? Purpose?of?the?Study?The?purpose?of?the?studywas?to?identify?variables?associated?withthe? baccalaureate?graduationstatus?and?number?of?terms?enroled?fortransfer?students?who?have?completed?a?portion(at?least?30?semester?hours)of?their?undergraduate?program?at? an?Alabama?comunity?colege?and?who?latertransferred?to?a?public?four?year?institution?in?Alabama?to?complete?their?baccalaureate?degree?and?the?baccalaureate?graduation? status?and?time?to?graduation?of?native?students?who?completed?all?of?their?baccalaureate?degree?at?one?four?year?university.? Research?Questions?The?folowing?research?questions?were?addressed?in?this?study:? 1.?What?are?the?demographic?characteristics?ofstudents?who?transfer?from?comunity?coleges?to?four?year?institutions?in?Alabama?and?students?who? complete?their?entire?baccalaureate?at?one?four?year?institution?in?Alabama??2.?What?are?the?number?ofterms?enroled?for?students?who?transfer?from?comunity? coleges?to?four?year?institutions?in?Alabama?and?students?who?complete?their?entire?baccalaureate?at?one?four?year?institution?in?Alabama?? 3.?To?what?extent?is?there?a?significant?relationship?between?the?predictor?variables?ofage,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?student?type?(transfer?or?native),? cumulative?GPA,?and?whether?or?not?a?person?was?graduated?with?a?baccalaureate?degree? 7? Statement?of?the?Hypothesis?The?folowing?null?hypothesis?was?formulated?to?answer?research?question?3:? Ho1:?There?is?no?statistically?significant?relationship?betweenthe?predictor?variables?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?student?type?(native?or?transfer),?cumulative?GPA? and?whether?or?not?a?person?was?graduated?with?a?baccalaureate?degree.?Definition?of?Terms? 1.?Articulation?Agreements???Agreements?that?specify?how?transfer?credit?wil?be?accepted?from?one?institution?to?another?and?may?be?writen?in?terms?of?specific? courses,?or?even?partnerships?involving?entire?programs.?These?agreements?ofer?the?student?an?opportunity?to?more?effectively?plan?their?academic?career,? minimize?los?of?credit,?and?avoid?repeated?coursework?at?the?receiving?institution?(Arizona?State?UniversityOficialWebsite,?2006).? 2.?Articulation?and?General?Studies?Commitee?(AGSC)???Commitee?formed?in?Alabama?in?1994?through?State?Legislative?ACT?94?202?and?given?the?charge?to? develop,?implement,?and?monitor?the?statewide?general?studies?program/articulation?agreement?for?the?transfer?of?credit?among?all?public? institutions?of?higher?education(What?is?the?AGSC?,?2006).?3.?Grade?Point?Average?(GPA)???a?measure?of?scholastic?attainment?computed?by? dividing?the?total?number?of?grade?points?received?by?the?total?number?of?credits?or?hours?of?course?work?taken(Retrieved?from?htp://www.dictionary.com,?2006)? 4.?GraduationStatus???Determination?as?to?whether?or?not?a?student?has?graduated?or?not?graduated. 8? 5.?Native?Student???aperson?who?is?attending?an?institution?of?postsecondary?education?either?in?person?or?by?corespondence?and?who?has?not?attended?a? previous?postsecondary?institution?with?or?without?credit?earned?(AGSC?Definitions,?1997).? 6.?Retrospective?Study??A?study?for?which?subjects?are?selected?from?groups?based?on?subjects??response?levels?and?explanatory?values?are?then?determined?(Ramsey? &?Schafer,?2002).?7.?Statewide?Transfer?and?Articulation?Reporting?System?(STARS)???a?web?? accesible?database?system?which?provides?guidance?and?direction?for?prospective?transfer?students?in?the?State?of?Alabama?based?on?the?current?articulation? agreement?set?forth?by?the?AGSC.?STARS?allows?public?two?year?students?in?Alabama?to?obtain?a?Transfer?Guide/Agreement?for?the?major?of?their?choice.?This? guide/agreement,?if?used?corectly,?guides?students?through?their?first?two?years?of?coursework?and?prevents?los?of?credit?hours?upon?transfer?to?the?appropriate? public?four?year?university?in?Alabama?(What?is?STARS?,?2006).?8.?Term??a?measure?of?time?used?in?higher?education?to?represent?a?definite?period? in?which?clases?are?ofered?(usually?listed?as?semesters?or?quarters)?9.?Time?to?Graduation??the?number?ofterms?(semesters?or?quarters)?it?takes?for?a? student?to?graduate?with?a?baccalaureate?degree?from?a?universityor?colege?10.Transfer?Student??a?student?who?has?been?enroled?at?a?two?year?or?four?year? institution?of?higher?education?and?then?leaves?that?institution?to?enrol?in?another?institution?ofhigher?education(AGSC?Definitions,?1997). 9? Limitations?of?the?Study?This?studyhad?the?folowing?limitations.? 1.?Transfer?student?success?was?measured?based?ongraduationstatus?andtime?to?graduation?as?defined?in?the?definition?of?terms?section?and?as?compared?to?native? students.?That?is,?the?graduate?status?and?time?to?graduation?of?native?students?may?not?be?an?appropriate?benchmark?to?use?for?transfer?students.? 2.?Only?those?comunity?colege?transfer?students?and?native?students?who?majored?in?business,?education,?and?nursing?were?compared.?These?three?majors?tend?to?be? the?most?comon,?not?only?at?Troy?University(institution?used?in?study),?but?throughout?Alabama.?The?study?was?limited?to?students?who?were?enroled?in? busines,?education,?or?nursing?programs.?3.?The?transfer?and?native?students?studied?all?had?begun?their?academic?studies? between?1998?and?2000.?This?time?frame?provided?both?groups?the?opportunity?(between?six?and?eight?years)?to?have?completed?the?baccalaureate?degree? successfully.?4.?The?studywas?limited?by?the?kind?ofinformation?that?can?be?obtained?onthe?two? student?groups(transfer?or?native)?in?the?studyfrom?current?Troy?University?records.?For?example,?the?data?were?limited?to?the?folowing?variables:?(1)?age,? (2)?gender,?(3)?ethnicity,?(4)?colege?major,?(5)?cumulative?GPA,?(6)?graduation?status,?and?(7)?terms?enroled. 10? Assumptions?of?the?Study?This?studywas?based?on?the?folowing?assumptions:? 1.?The?accuracy?of?data?colected?was?limited?by?and?dependent?on?the?accuracy?of?colection?procedure?used?by?the?researcher?and?the?accuracy?and?completeness?of? student?records?from?which?data?wereobtained.?2.?A?recording?instrument?was?developed?that?permited?the?researcher?to?gather? transfer?and?native?student?data?in?an?unbiased?and?consistent?manner.?3.?Student?records?used?inthis?study,?both?native?and?transfer,?had?adequate?time?(at? least?six?years)?to?make?progress?toward?completion?of?their?chosendegrees.?Significance?of?the?Study? There?is?a?paucity?of?information?pertaining?to?the?graduationstatus?and?time?to?graduation?of?students?in?Alabama?who?transfer?from?comunity?coleges?to?four?year? institutions?in?Alabama.??While?other?states?have?conducted?similar?studies,?Alabama?has?not.? Recent?AGSC?articulationpolicy?mandates?that?research?be?conducted?that?measures?success?rates?of?transfer?students?from?various?comunity?coleges?acros?the? state?(Crump?et.?al,?2002).?Public?four?year?institutions?are?now?required?by?law?to?accept?AGSC?approved?coursework?from?the?various?comunity?coleges?in?Alabama?and?to? graduate?these?transfer?students?in?a?timely?manner. 11? CHAPTER?I?REVIEW?OF?LITERATURE? Chapter?I?provided?background?information?and?a?theoretical?framework?for?this?study,?statement?of?the?research?problem,?significance?of?the?study,?purpose?of?the?study,? research?questions,?hypothesis,?and?the?limitations?and?assumptions?of?the?study.?Chapter?I?presents?a?review?of?research?and?literature?related?to?the?trends?and?growth?of?transfer? students?acros?the?United?States?over?the?last?thirty?years,?the?increased?need?for?transfer?and?articulation?agreements?to?enhance?and?improve?the?transferability?of?coursework? from?one?institution?to?another,?the?impact?of?articulation?agreements?on?higher?education,?transfer?student?barriers,?profiles?of?transfer?and?native?students,?and?a? chronologicalreview?ofstudies?comparing?the?academic?success?oftransfer?and?native?students?inother?states.? Increased?Student?Mobilityand?Growth?ofTransfer?Student?Populations? Since?the?early?1900?s?the?growth?of?two?year?colleges?and?the?students?they?serve?has?ben?astounding.?Over?the?last?thirty?years,?tremendous?growth?has?taken?place? within?the?comunity?colege?sector.?From?1972?to?1992,?comunity?colege?enrollment?at?the?national?level?almost?tripled?(Shabazz,?1995).?According?to?the?National?Center?for? Education?Statistics,?it?is?believed?that?the?two?year?colege?system?is?now?educating?approximately?one?half?of?the?nation?s?first?year?postsecondary?students?in?the?United 12? States?(Bagnato,?2002).??Another?group?of?students?that?is?growing?are?caled??reverse?transfer?students.???These?students?started?at?a?four?year?colege?or?university?and?then? transferred?to?a?junior?or?comunity?colege.??Reverse?transfer?students?account?for?at?least?16%of?al?comunity?colege?enrolments?throughout?the?United?States?(Townsend,? 2000).?Over?the?last?century,?the?evolvement?of?the?two?year?junior?or?comunity? colege?has?greatly?impacted?the?landscape?of?higher?education?in?the?United?States.?Gone?are?the?days?when?the?majority?of?entering?freshman?begin?and?end?their?education? at?an?individual?colege?or?university.?Colege?graduates?of?todaymost?likely?will?have?attended?multiple?institutions?of?higher?education,?as?they?worked?toward?completion?of? the?baccalaureate?degree.?Like?the?world?in?general,?students?have?also?become?more?mobile?and?transient?in?nature.??It?is?not?uncomon?for?students?to?earncolege?credit? from?diferent?institutions?in?different?settings.?Over?the?last?few?decades,?trends?have?shown?that?colege?students?tend?to??swirl?? or?take?clases?from?ultiple?institutions.?Almost?one?half?(45%)?of?colege?seniors?took?at?least?one?course?from?another?institution?before?enroling?at?their?current?institution? (transfer?students)??a?third?took?at?least?one?course?at?another?institution?after?enrolling?at?their?current?institution(transient?students)?(United?States?Government?Accountability? Ofice,?2005).?Figure?1,?which?describes?the?types?offirst?time?transfers?between?1995?and?2001,?shows?that?traditional?transfer?(public?two?year?to?four?year)?accounts?for?at? least?one?third?of?first?time?transfer?activity.?The?extreme?growth?of?technology?and?information?science?has?changed?the? employment?landscape?drastically?over?the?last?twenty?to?thirty?years?(Carnevale?& 13? Desrochers,?2003).?Two?decades?ago,?there?were?numerous?high?paying?blue?colar?jobs?available?to?high?schol?graduates.?These?jobs?are?rapidly?disappearing.?Today,?more? and?more?companies?and?employers?need?to?fill?positions?that?require?additional?knowledge?and?experiences?gained?through?post?secondary?education?at?a?colege?or? university.?The?increase?in?these?type?ofjob?opportunities?has?been?dramatic.??In?addition,?in?today?s?global?economy,?many?of?the?industrial?jobs?are?moving?overseas?at? an?ever?increasing?pace.?Figure?1.?Types?of?first?time?transfers?between?1995?and?2001.? 4?year?to?public?2?year?1%? For?profit?to?public?or?not?for?profit?4%? Public?2?year?to?4?year?35%? Public?2?year?to?public?2?year?16%? 4?year?to?4?year?16%? Al?others?18%? From?United?States?Government?Accountability?Office.?(2005).Transfer?students?postsecondary?institutions?could?promote?more?consistent?consideration?of?coursework?by?not?basing?determinations?on?acreditation.(GAO?Report?to?Congressional?Requesters??No.? GAO?06?2).?Washington,?DC:?U.S.?Government?Printing?Office.??Reprinted?with?permission?of?the?author. 14? Students?have?been?getting?the?mesage.?In?1977,?according?to?the?Bureau?of?Labor?Statistics,?only?50%?of?high?schol?graduates?went?on?to?attend?a?colege?or? university.?In?1977,?over?94%?of?high?schol?students?stated?that?they?planned?to?continue?their?education?at?a?post?secondary?institution?(National?Center?for?Education? Statistics,?1998).?In?a?2004?study?titled??Improving?Acces?to?the?Baccalaureate,?the?American? Association?of?Comunity?Coleges?(AACC)?and?the?American?Association?of?State?Coleges?and?Universities?(AASCU),?emphasized?the?growing?importance?of? postsecondary?education?and?training?beyond?the?high?schol?diploma.?They?statedthe?folowing:? For?most?Americans,?the?route?to?the?middle?class?is?through?postsecondary?education?and?training.?On?average,?a?worker?with?an?associate?degree?will?earn? 20%?to?30%?more?than?a?high?schol?graduate,?and?a?worker?with?a?baccalaureate?will?earn?40%?more?than?a?high?schol?graduate.?Increased?economic?returns?in? the?form?of?wages?and?benefits?lead?to?greater?job?flexibility,?improved?working?conditions,?lower?rates?of?unemployment,?and?increased?tax?revenues,?which?in? turn?lead?to?greater?productivity,?lower?crime?rates,?and?decreased?reliance?on?government?support.?Higher?levels?of?education?also?corelate?with?improved? health?and?life?expectancy,?increased?civic?participation?rates,?improved?social?status,?and?greater?levels?of?charitable?giving?(Improving?Access?to?the? Baccalaureate,?2004,?p.?1). 15? Increased?Need?for?Articulation?and?Transfer?Agrements?As?a?result?of?this?growth?in?enrollment?and?attendance?at?comunity?coleges?and? universities,?the?articulation?and?transfer?of?academic?credit?from?institution?to?institution?has?garnered?more?importance?for?academic?administrators?and?faculty.?Universities?and? coleges?continue?to?work?together?to?lay?out?academic?plans?and?provide?transfer?information?so?that?students?can?maximize?transfer?credit?and?hopefully?graduate?in?a? timely?manner.?Many?institutions?and?multiple?state?governments?have?mandated?or?implemented?articulation/transfer?programs?to?ease?the?transition?and?assist?the?transfer? student.?Without?the?existence?of?an?articulation/transfer?agreement,?some?four?year?coleges?and?universities?require?transfer?students?to?retake?courses?they?have?already? completed?at?the?comunity?colege.?This?can?result?in?lost?money?and?time?for?the?public?taxpayer.? In?October?of?2005,?the?United?States?Government?Accountability?Ofice?(GAO)?conducted?a?study?designed?to?examine?the?folowing:?(1)?How?postsecondary?education? institutions?decide?which?credits?to?accept?for?transfer,?(2)?how?states?and?accrediting?agencies?facilitate?the?credit?transfer?proces,?and?(3)?the?implications?for?students?and?the? federal?government?of?students??inability?to?transfer?credits?(GAO,?2005).?The?GAO?found?that?whendetermining?whichcredits?to?accept?from?transfer?students,?receiving? institutions?often?were?consistent?whenconsideringthe?sending?institution?s?accreditation?status,?whether?academic?transfer?agreements?with?the?institution?existed,?and?the? comparability?of?courseworktakenby?the?student.?However,?in?most?cases,?the?institutions?varied?in?how?theyactuallyevaluated?and?applied?a?student?s?transferable? credits?(GAO,?2005).?To?streamline?the?overal?transfer?proces,?most?institutions?have 16? established?transfer?agreements?with?other?institutions?that,?in?most?cases,?provide?for?the?acceptance?of?credits?from?the?sending?institution?without?in?depth?evaluation.?As? mentioned?above,?states?have?passed?legislation?or?set?up?statewide?initiatives?to?facilitate?and?improve?the?overal?articulation?and?transfer?proces.? Impact?of?Transfer?Articulation?Agreements?Some?states?[including?Alabama],?have?adopted?common?statewide?transfer? agreements?or?comon?core?curricula?that?address?this?problem?of?fairly?awarding?transfer?credit.?When?transfer/articulation?agreements?are?not?in?place,?institutions? usually?compare?transfer?course?descriptions?with?their?current?course?oferings?in?an?efort?to?determine?transfer?credit?to?be?awarded.?As?a?result,?studentsoften?lose?course? credit?upon?transfer.?This?inability?to?transfer?credit?usuallyresults?in?longer?enrolment?period,on?going?tuition?payments,?and?the?increased?need?for?additional?financial?aid?or? support.?As?a?result?of?their?study,?the?GAO?recommended?that?the?U.S.?Congress?consider?further?amending?of?the?Higher?Education?Act?of?1965?to?require?postsecondary? institutions?who?are?eligible?for?Title?IV?funding?to?not?deny?the?transfer?of?credit?solely?on?the?basis?of?a?sending?institution?s?type?of?accreditation?(GAO,?2005).? In?a?recent?study?conducted?by?the?United?States?Government?Accountability?Ofice?(GAO),?they?reported?that?69%?of?postsecondary?institutions?have?entered?into? voluntary?transfer?agreements?with?other?institutions,?29%?did?not?specify?whether?or?not?they?entered?into?some?type?of?agreement,?and?about?2%?stated?that?they?had?no?transfer? agreements?in?place?(GAO,?2005).?Transfer?agreements?can?be?voluntary?or?mandated.?Many?states?have?initiated?or?passed?legislation?that?requires?certain?courses?or?programs? to?be?articulated?among?the?state?public?institutions?of?higher?education.??States?facilitate 17? the?transfer?of?credits?among?public?institutions?through?various?statewide?legislation?and?initiatives?that,?among?other?things,?support?the?establishment?of?statewide?transfer? agreements,?comon?core?curicula,?comon?course?numbering?systems,?and?encourage?institutions?and?others?to?make?transfer?information?available?to?the?public??(GAO,?2005,? p.?15).?The?GAO,?through?their?research,?identified?39?states?that?had?some?form?of?legislation?that?pertained?to?the?acceptance?of?transfer?credit?between?postsecondary? public?institutions?(2005).?In?most?cases,?the?legislation?passed?primarily?focuses?on?facilitating?the?transfer?of?academic?credit?for?comunity?colege?students?to?public?four?? year?institutions.??While?state?legislation?regarding?credit?transfer?is?generally?intended?to?facilitate?the?transfer?of?credit?among?public?institutions,?a?few?state?statutes?require?or? encourage?the?involvement?of?private?institutions??(GAO,?2005,?p.?18).?The?types?of?agreements?vary?in?what?they?prescribe?or?mandate.?Some?have?been? designed?to?make?course?by?course?transfer?posible.?Others?articulation?requirements?are?based?on?the?completion?of?a?certain?number?ofsemester?hours?(i.e.,?40?45?general? studies)?or?two?year?degrees?(usually?about?60?65?semester?hours).?Some?have?gone?so?far?as?to?require?or?encourage?the?establishment?of?comon?course?numbering?systems? for?al?public?institutions?of?higher?education?within?their?state.??In?many?cases,?these?statewide?legislative?mandates?force?two?year?and?four?year?institutions?to?make?public? the?information?regarding?transfer?credit.?Most?states?have?accomplished?this?through?the?use?of?public?websites.? Maintaining?transfer?agreements?requires?considerable?commitment.?However,?these?agreements,?for?the?most?part,?are?useful?because?they?make?the?transfer?proces? ?more?transparent?and?alow?it?to?operate?more?smoothly??(GAO,?2005,?p.?11).?State 18? agreements?often?require?the?receiving?institutions?to?review?course?content?from?various?feeder?institutions?to?determine?how?it?compares?to?their?courses.?Determinations?must?be? made?and?these?decisions?must?be?reviewed?regularly?as?course?content?and?academic?program?change.?Comunication?between?the?two?year?coleges?and?the?four?year? coleges?and?universities?is?very?important.?For?articulation?to?work,?both?should?be?aware?of?new?course?oferings?or?recent?course/degree?changes.?In?the?last?few?decades,? technologyand?the?use?of?the?internet?has?greatly?helped?to?facilitate?and?implement?transfer?programs?acros?the?United?States?(GAO,?2005).? Transfer?Student?Barriers?In?2002,?the?American?Association?of?Comunity?Coleges?and?the?American? Association?of?State?Coleges?and?Universities?joined?together?to?research?and?pinpoint?barriers?that?students?(specifically?transfer?students)?must?contend?with?on?a?regular?basis? when?attempting?to?transfer?and?ultimately?complete?a?baccalaureate?degree.??These?two?associations?colaborated?to?conduct?a?survey?of?their?members?(i.e.,?presidents,? administrators,?faculty,?and?other?support?staff).?The?surveyasked?participants?to?rank?the?major?obstacles?facing?transfer?students.? Although?they?are?ranked?in?a?slightly?diferent?order,the?top?three?obstacles?named?byparticipants?at?thetwo?year?and?four?year?institutions?relate?directlyto? articulation,?advising,?and?program?specific?transfer?isues?and?concerns.?Results?of?the?survey?are?displayed?in?Table?1. 19? Table?1?Ranking?of?Transfer?Obstacles?by?Four??and?Two?Year?Institutions? Obstacle?Ranking?Transfer?Obstacles? Four?Year?Institutions? Two?Year?Institutions? Articulation? 1? 2?Reliable?Information/Advising? 2? 1? Program?Specific?Transfer? 3? 3?General?Education? 4? 4? AAS/Technical?Education?Transfer? 5? 5?Access/Distance?Education? 6? 7? Cost/Financial?Aid? 7? 6? From?American?Association?of?Comunity?Colleges?&?American?Association?of?State?Colleges?and?Universities.?(202).?Improving?acess?to?the?bacalaureate.?Retrieved?8/29/05?fromhttp://www.pathtocollege.org/pdf/Lumina_Rpt_AACC.pdf.??Reprinted?with? permission?from?the?author.? Profiles?of?Transfer?and?Native?Students? The?demographic?profiles?of?transfer?and?native?students?often?difer?greatly.?The?public?perception?of?a?colege?student?is?that?of?an?18?year?old?single?student?living?in?a? dormitory?or?apartment?on?or?near?campus?who?attends?full?time.?On?the?other?hand,?the?national?profile?for?a?comunity?colege?student?is?quite?diferent.?Inthe?late?1990s,?over? 50%of?al?students?attending?comunity?coleges?were?students?whose?parents??highest?level?of?education?was?a?high?schol?diploma?or?les.?In?most?cases,?these?first? 20? generation?colege?students?were?more?likely?to?be?older,?have?lower?incomes,?be?married,?and?have?dependents?than?were?their?non?first?generation?peers?(NECS,?1998).?Table?2? provides?a?comparison?of?two?year?and?four?year?student?profiles.?Table?2? A?Demographic?Comparison?of?Students?in?Two??and?Four?Year?Institutions?Profile?of?Two?Year?Student? Profile?of?Four?Year?Student ? The?average?comunity?colege?student?is?29?years?old,?attends? colege?part?time?(fewer?than?12?credit?hours?a?semester),?and?holds? down?a?full?time?job. ? Sixty?three?percent?of?the?11.3? million?students?who?attend?comunity?coleges?annually?are? enroled?part?time,?whereas?only?37%?attend?full?time?(12+?credit?hours?a? semester). ? Of?those?who?do?attend?colege?full? time,?30%?also?hold?a?ful?time?job. ? The?average?public?four?year?student?begins?postsecondary?studies?at?age?21. ? Full?time?students?represent?79%?of?undergraduate?enrollment?at?public?four?? year?institutions. ? More?than?half?of?public?four?year? undergraduate?students?(55.9%)?enroll?ful?time?and?work?part?time. ? Students?who?work?ful?time?and?enroll?part?time?account?for?approximately?20%? of?public?four?year?undergraduates.? (table?continues) 21? Table?2.?(continued)?Profile?of?Two?Year?Student? Profile?of?Four?Year?Student ? Fifty?eight?percent?of?comunity?colege?students?are?women??many? have?significant?family?responsibilities?that?are?exacerbated? by?the?dificulties?of?finding?child?care. ? Fifty?five?percent?of?Latino?and?Native?American?undergraduates?and? 46%?of?al?Black?undergraduates?attend?a?comunity?colege. ? Women?account?for?55%?of?public?four??year?undergraduate?enrolments??many? have?significant?family?responsibilities?that?are?exacerbated?by?the?dificulties?of? finding?child?care. ? Public?four?year?institutions?enrol?31.4%? of?al?Black?undergraduates??35.1%?of?Latino?undergraduates??34.3%?of?Native? American?undergraduates??and?36.9%?of?Asian/Pacific?Islander?undergraduates.? From?American?Association?of?Comunity?Colleges?&?American?Association?of?State?Colleges?and?Universities.?(202).?Improving?acess?to?the?bacalaureate.?Retrieved?8/29/05?fromhttp://www.pathtocollege.org/pdf/Lumina_Rpt_AACC.pdf.??Reprinted?with? permission?from?the?author.?ChronologicalReview?of?Studies?Comparing?the? Academic?Succes?of?Transfer?and?Native?Students?in?Other?States?Since?the?early?1920s,?scholars?and?higher?education?administrators?throughout? the?United?States?have?been?interested?in?comparing?the?educational?performance?and?the?academic?succes?of?two?year?colege?students?with?that?of?native?four?year?students.? One?of?the?early?advocates?of?the?two?year?junior?colege?was?Leonard?V.?Koos.?In?research?conducted?in?the?mid?1920s,?Kos?compared?transfer?and?native?students?using 22? grade?percentages?and?intelligence?tests.?He?found?the?two?groups?to?be?quite?similar?in?academic?achievement?and?competence?(Kos,?1924).?The?next?year?in?a?diferent?study,? Kos?loked?at?scores?onthe?Thurstone?Intelligence?Test?for?Colege?Freshmen.?The?average?score?by?the?206?junior?colege?freshmen?was?86.5.?The?average?score?for?the? 5,495?four?year?colege?freshman?was?86.6.?Koos?concluded?that?similar?intelligence?distributions?and?means?indicated?similar?characteristics?of?students?attending?both?two?? year?and?four?year?coleges?(1925).??In?that?same?year,?Kos?conducted?another?study?that?focused?on?scores?of?junior?colege?students?and?four?year?colege?students?who?had? both?taken?the?Army?Alpha?Test.?In?this?study?Kos?compared?the?scores?of?581?junior?colege?freshmen?and?4,479?freshmen?in?six?coleges?and?universities.?He?found?that?the? mean?score?for?the?junior?colege?freshman?was?132.7?and?the?mean?score?for?the?colege?and?university?students?was?136.7?(Koos,?1925).?Since?then,?much?research?has?been? conducted?that?focuses?primarily?on?graduation?rates?and?academic?succes?between?these?two?student?populations.? Early?studies?of?junior?colege?transfers?were?also?conducted?by?Eels?in?the?mid??to?late?1920?s.?Between?1923?and?1927,?Eells?studied?510?junior?colege?transfers?at? Stanford?University.?In?this?study,?he?found?that?the?two?year?student?scored?higher?on?intelligence?tests?than?native?students?and?they?also?performed?better?when?comparing? their?grade?percentage?after?their?first?quarter?at?Stanford?(Eells,?1927).?Eels?(1943)?conducted?another?study?that?included?2,080?junior?colege?transfers? who?entered?319?junior?coleges?between?1934?and?1940.?Of?the?2,080?students?studied,?Eels?found?that?1,165?(56%)?of?the?transfer?students?had?either?graduated?or?were?still? attending.?Of?this?1,165,?46%of?them?had?obtained?a?higher?grade?point?average?than?all 23? of?the?students?in?the?study,?16%?were?below?the?overallgrade?point?average,?and?38?%?were?on?par?with?the?student?population?in?terms?of?grade?point?average?(Eells,?1943).?In? terms?of?degree?achievement,?Eells?reported?that?43?%of?transfer?students?had?graduated?and?14?%?were?still?in?residence?and?on?track?to?graduate?(1943).? Like?today,?some?of?the?early?studies?conducted?that?compared?academic?performance?of?junior?colege?transfer?students?at?four?year?institutions?provided? conflicting?information.?Allen?(1930)?compared?330?transfer?students?from?26?junior?coleges?entering?Baylor?University.?Allen?found?no?diference?between?the?cumulative? grade?point?averages?of?transfer?students?and?the?native?students?at?Baylor?University.?On?the?other?hand,?Fichtenbaum?(1941)?studied?900?junior?colege?transfers?to?the? University?of?Texas?between?1935?and?1938.?He?found?that?the?cumulative?grade?point?average?of?native?students?was?greater?than?that?of?the?transfer?students?after?their?junior? years?at?the?university.?However,?he?did?point?out?that?the?gap?between?the?groups?lesened?during?the?senior?year.? Martorana?and?Williams?(1954)?studied?251?junior?colege?transfer?students?at?the?State?Colege?of?Washington?between?1947?and?1949.?These?students?were?grouped?and? matched?with?native?students?by?gender,?major?subject?area,?high?schol?size,?age?at?time?of?entrance?to?colege,?ACT?scores,?and?high?school?grade?point?averages.?When,?the? performance?was?evaluated?by?groups,there?was?no?significant?diference?between?performance?levels?of?the?transfer?students?and?that?of?the?native?students.?In?addition,? when?the?groups?were?compared?as?a?whole?(251?transfers?versus?251?native?students)?the?transfer?students?did?as?wel,?or?better?than,?the?native?students?in?terms?of?grade?point 24? levels?and?degree?completion.?The?researchers?noted?that?in?the?areas?of?engineering?and?physical?science?the?transfer?students?actually?outperformed?their?native?counterparts.? In?the?50s?and?60s,?a?major?study?was?conducted?by?the?Center?for?Study?of?Higher?Education?at?the?University?ofCalifornia,?Berkeley.?The?study?consisted?of?16? four?year?coleges?or?universities?in?eight?diferent?states.?Each?of?these?institutions?was?asked?to?provide?information?about?the?educational?performance?of?both?native?(8,391)? and?transfer?students?(2,549)?in?the?mid?1950s.?The?study?found?that?transfer?students?earned?cumulative?grade?point?averages?comparable?to?those?of?native?students?(Medsker,? 1960).?At?the?same?time,?Klitzke?(1961)?studied?231?transfer?students?entering?Colorado? State?Universitybetween?1953?and?1957.?Klitzke?matched?comunity?colege?students?with?native?students?based?on?lower?division?grade?point?average,?equal?numbers?of?both? types?of?students?by?year,?major,?gender,?and?similar?credits?completed.?Like?many?of?the?others,?he?found?no?significant?diferences?between?the?grade?point?averages?of?transfer? students?and?that?of?native?students.?Similar?results?were?reported?byHergenroeder?in?a?1967?study.?Hergenroeder? compared?the?baccalaureate?degree?attainment?rates?of?transfer?students?with?native?students?at?six,?public?coleges?and?universities?in?Michigan.?This?study?was?designed?to? compare?transfer?students?who?had?earned?over?60?semester?hours?at?a?public?two?year?colege?with?native?students?who?were?at?junior?status?at?that?same?time?period.?Two? years?later,?the?graduation?rates?were?compared.?Hergenroeder?found?that?at?four?of?the?six?four?year?institutions,?the?native?students?graduation?rate?was?61.7%?compared?to? 35.1%?for?the?transfer?students?during?that?time?period.?Two?of?the?four?year?institutions 25? reported?88%graduation?rate?for?thetransfer?students?with?only?and?66%?graduation?rate?for?their?own?native?students.?No?explanation?for?the?diference?was?provided?in?the? study.?Most?studies?that?have?been?conducted?appear?to?be?regional?in?nature.?However,? in1965,?a?large?scale?nationwide?study?comparing?transfer?and?native?students?was?conducted?by?the?Center?for?Study?of?Higher?Educationat?the?University?of?California,? Berkeley,?under?the?direction?of?Knoel?and?Medsker.The?study?included?7,243?two?year?colege?students?who?transferred?in?the?fal?of?1960?as?full?time?students.?At?the?time?of? the?study,?89%?of?them?were?entering?a?four?year?colege?as?a?junior?with?upper?division?standing.?Knoel?and?Medsker?found?that?45%?of?those?studied?graduated?within?two?? years?and?62%?had?graduated?in?three?years.?As?of?1963,?only?9%?had?not?graduated.?A?number?of?studies?have?ben?conducted?where?the?researcher?has?reviewed?prior? studies?in?an?efort?to?notice?or?reveal?some?type?of?trend?or?pattern.?In?one?of?these?studies,?Hills?(1965)?reviewed?multiple?studies?involving?comunity?colege?transfer? students?and?their?performance?at?four?year?institutions.?Hill?s?primary?findings?showed?that?most?studies?reflected?a??post?transfer?drop??in?grade?point?average?for?transfer? students.?However,?these?students?ultimately?recovered?from?the?drop?in?34?of?the?38?studies.?He?also?found?that?out?of?the?33?sets?of?data?comparing?the?grades?of?transfer? students?to?natives,?22?indicated?native?students?performed?better,?seven?indicated?no?diference?in?performance,?and?four?indicated?transfer?students?performed?better?than?the? native?students.?Lee?and?Suslow?(1966)?studied?660?transfer?students?entering?the?Universityof? California?at?Berkeley?between?1961?and?1962.?The?researchers?found?that?only?38%?of 26? the?transfer?students?completed?their?bachelor?s?degree?in?four?semesters?(two?academic?years)?after?transfer.?Like?many?of?the?other?studies,?researchers?also?found?that?most? transfer?students?experience?a?drop?in?grade?point?average?their?first?semester,?but?by?the?end?of?the?fourth?semester?theyusually?have?raised?it?to?a?competitive?level.? Langston?(1971)?conducted?a?study?of?2,150?community?colege?transfer?students?who?entered?the?University?of?Iowa?during?the?fall?of?1967?and?1968.?Langston?found? that?46?%of?those?entering?in?1967?graduated?within?seven?semesters?and?9%?were?still?attending.?Of?those?who?transferred?in?1968,?25%graduated?in?five?semesters?and?28%? were?still?attending.?In?1971,?Eliot?studied?325?comunity?colege?transfer?students?who?were?then? attending?Pennsylvania?State?University.?He?found?that?77%of?the?325?students?studied?had?graduated?within?two?years?of?transfer?(Eliot,?1971).?On?the?other?hand,?Gold? (1981)?studied?386?transfer?students?who?transferred?from?Los?Angeles?City?Colege?to?California?State?University?at?Los?Angeles?in?the?fal?of?1977.?Four?years?later,?only?25%? had?graduated.??He?also?noted?that?transfer?students?in?the?Schol?of?Business?and?Economics?had?grade?point?averages?well?below?those?of?students?in?other?schols.? Hildebrandt?(1984)?found?that?most?transfer?students?in?the?Forestry?Department?at?Iowa?State?University?progressed?slower?in?attaining?their?degrees?and?graduated?with?a? greater?number?of?credit?hours.?She?concluded?that?this?larger?number?of?hours?was?in?large?part?dueto?credit?hours?los?due?to?transfer.? In?1984,?Doherty?compared?the?rate?of?degree?achievement?of?Piedmont?Virginia?Comunity?Colege?(PVCC)?transfer?students?to?students?entering?the?University?of? Virginia?as?eligible?freshmen.?Diferences?were?found?between?transfer?student 27? graduation?rates?(73%)?and?native?student?graduation?rates?(84%).?In?addition,?the?study?compared?PVCC?graduates?and?non?graduates?and?found?that?79%of?the?PVCC? graduates?eventually?attained?a?degree?from?the?University?of?Virginia?within?two?years?of?transfer.?At?the?same?time,?only?52%?of?the?non?graduates?attained?a?degree?within? two?years?of?transfer?(Doherty,?1984).?Nurkowski?(1995)?found?that?comunity?colege?graduates?were?consistently? more?persistent?than?other?student?types.?In?her?study,?she?found?that??the?institutional?persistence?rate?was?55%,?the?native?students?persisted?at?only?49%,?and?the?comunity? colege?graduates?persisted?at?68%??(Nurkowski,?1995).?The?researcher?went?on?to?examine?the?significance?of?other?variables?such?as?age,?gender?and?type?of?sending? institution.?She?found?that?comunity?colege?graduates?were?still?the?most?persistent?student?group?regardless?of?the?variable?examined.??Finally,?her?study?also?examined? transfer?practices?that?affected?student?success.?It?was?determined?that?transfer?support?services?within?academic?schols?corelated?to?transfer?persistence?and?ultimately?transfer? student?success.?Crawford?(2003)?compared?the?five?year?baccalaureate?graduation?rates?of? students?who?transferred?from?a?two?year?private?institution,?a?two?year?public?institution,?and?native?Idaho?State?University?students.?The?study?showed?that?the?three?cohort? groups?studied?had?near?identical?five?year?baccalaureate?attainment?rates?and?time?to??degree?rates.?However,?Crawford?pointed?out?that?two?year?students?who?earned?an? associate?degree?prior?to?transfer?to?ISU?received?their?baccalaureate?degree?faster?than?those?who?did?not?earn?the?associates?degree. 28? Sumary?The?profile?of?today?s?colege?student?is?ever?changing.?Gone?are?the?days?when?a? student?started?and?completed?his?or?her?entire?college?experience?at?one?institution.?Today?s?student?is?more?mobile.??The?majority?of?students?now?take?courses?from?two?or? more?institutions?as?they?work?toward?completion?of?their?baccalaureate?degrees.?As?students?move?from?one?institution?to?another,?the?need?to?simplifytransfer?procedures? and?streamline?articulation?of?course?credit?is?needed.?Many?institutions?have?worked?diligently?to?make?the?transition?easier?for?their?students.? Over?39?states?have?either?mandated?or?proposed?statewide?transfer?agreements?that?help?prevent?students?from?losing?course?credits?as?them?ove?from?institution?to? institution.?The?type?and?nature?of?the?agreements?may?vary?depending?on?how?the?states?set?up?their?articulation?programs.?Maintaining?transfer?agreements?requires?considerable? commitment.?However,?these?agreements,?for?the?most?part,?are?useful?because?they?make?the?transfer?proces??more?transparent?and?alow?it?to?operate?more?smoothly?? (GAO,?2005,?p.?11).?While?more?and?more?students?face?the?transfer?hurdle,?with?it?comes?certain? concerns?and?wories.?In?a?study?conducted?by?the?American?Association?of?Comunity?Coleges?(AACC)?and?the?American?Association?of?State?Coleges?and?Universities? (AASCU),?they?found?that?students?who?had?transferred?ranked?articulation,?advising,?and?program?requirements?as?their?top?three?obstacles?during?the?transfer?proces?(AAC?&? AASCU,?2004).?Higher?education?trends?continue?to?show?an?increase?in?comunity?colege? enrolments.?Since?the?early?1900?s?researchers?have?been?trying?to?determine?whether?or 29? not?transfer?students?are?as?successful?as?native?students?when?it?comes?to?completion?of?baccalaureate?degrees.?Most?studies?have?been?confined?to?regional?areas?or?states.?Very? few?national?studies?have?ben?conducted.??Many?researchers?have?compared?degree?completion?rates,?cumulative?grade?point?averages,?scores?on?entrance?exams,?and?time?to? graduation.?Their?findings?on?these?isues?have?varied.?Some?studies?have?shown?that?transfer?students?perform?as?wel?or?better?than?their?native?counterparts?in?terms?of? degree?completion?and?grade?point?averages.?On?the?other?hand,?other?studies?have?shown?that?native?students?outperform?transfer?students?in?many?of?these?areas.?In?terms? of?GPA?comparison,?often?the?transfer?students?see?a?decline?in?their?GPA?immediately?after?the?transfer,?but?usually?their?grades?improve?over?time?to?levels?equal?to?that?of?the? native?students. 30? CHAPTER?II?METHOD?OF?STUDY?AND?INSTRUMENTATION? ChapterI?provided?background?information?and?a?theoretical?framework?for?this?study,?statement?of?the?research?problem,?significance?of?the?study,?purpose?of?the?study,? research?questions,?hypothesis,?and?the?limitations?and?assumptions?of?the?study.?Chapter?I?presented?a?review?of?research?and?literature?related?to?the?trends?and?growth?of?transfer? students?acros?the?United?States?over?the?last?thirty?years,?the?increased?need?for?transfer?and?articulation?agreements?to?enhance?and?improve?the?transferability?of?coursework? from?one?institution?to?another,the?impact?of?articulation?agreements?on?higher?education,?the?barriers?to?transfer?and?completion?of?baccalaureate?degrees,?profiles?of? transfer?and?native?students,?and?a?chronologicalreview?ofstudies?comparing?the?academic?succes?oftransfer?and?native?students?inother?states.? Chapter?IIwill?discuss?the?methodology?used?in?this?study.?The?sources?of?data?and?the?data?colection?procedures,?privacy?and?confidentiality?of?student?data?colected,? instrumentation,?procedures?for?data?analysis,?and?profiles?of?the?institutions?used?in?the?studyare?presented.? Design?of?Study?This?studywas?a?retrospective?study?to?identify?differences?in?graduationstatus? and?time?to?graduation?between?transfer?and?native?students?to?predict?whether?or?not?students?were?graduatedor?not?graduated?based?on?their?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege 31? major,?student?type?(transfer?or?native),?cumulative?grade?point?average?(GPA)?and?number?of?terms?enroled.? The?purpose?of?this?studywas?to?identify?variables?associated?withthe?baccalaureate?graduationstatus?and?number?of?terms?enroled?for?graduation?oftransfer? and?native?students.?Transfer?students?were?those?who?have?completed?a?portion?(at?least?30?semester?hours)?of?their?undergraduate?program?at?an?Alabama?comunity?colege?and? who?later?transferred?to?a?public?four?year?institution?in?Alabama?to?complete?their?baccalaureate?degree.?Native?students?were?thosewho?completed?all?of?their? baccalaureate?degree?at?one?four?year?university.?The?dependent?variable?was?graduation?status???whetheror?not?a?student?was?graduated.?Student?demographic?variables?were?as? folows:?(a)?age,(b)?gender,?(c)?ethnicity,?(d)?major,(e)type?(transfer?or?native),?(f)?cumulative?GPA,?and?(g)?number?of?terms?enroled.? Sources?of?Data?and?Colection?Procedures?The?student?data?wereobtained?from?the?oficial?student?records?of?Troy? University?inTroy,?Alabama.?The?researcher?randomly?selected?academic?records?of?two?student?groups:?(1)?native?students?who?begantheir?colege?career?at?Troy?University,? and?(2)transfer?students?who?began?their?colege?career?at?one?ofthe?primary?feeder?comunity?coleges?for?Troy?University(Enterprise?Ozark?Comunity?Colege,?Walace? Dothan?Comunity?Colege,?Lurleen?B.?Wallace?Comunity?Colege,?and?Chattahoochee?Valley?Comunity?Colege)?between?1998?and?2000,?and?who?later? transferred?at?least?30?semester?hours?of?credit?to?Troy?University.?In?addition,?the?researcher?subdivided?these?two?groups?(transfer?or?native)?by?declared?major?in?one?of? the?folowing?three?discipline?categories:?busines,?education,?ornursing.?At?the?time?of 32? the?study?these?three?disciplines?comprised?the?largest?student?populations?at?Troy?University.?Busines,?education,?and?nursing?were?the?most?comon?majors?pursued?by? students.?The?sample?data?for?this?study?included?50?native?students?in?business,?50?transfer? students?in?busines,?50?native?students?in?education,?50?transfer?students?in?education,?50?native?students?in?nursing,?and?50?transfer?students?in?nursing.?The?totalnumber?of? students?in?the?data?set?was?300.?One?half?of?the?students?were?native?and?one?half?were?transfer.?The?student?records?were?randomly?selected?by?the?Records?Office?of?Troy? University.?The?researcher?obtained?permision?from?the?registrar?of?Troy?University?to? conduct?this?study?and?acces?the?student?records.?A?copyof?the?letter?requesting?permision?to?conduct?the?study?and?acces?student?records?is?included?in?Appendix?A.? Privacy?and?Confidentiality?of?Student?Data?Colected?Appropriate?steps?weretaken?to?insure?the?privacy?and?confidentiality?of?the?data.? The?researcher?obtained?permision?from?the?Institutional?Research?Board(IRB)?of?Auburn?University?to?conduct?this?study.?As?required?by?the?IRB,?the?researcher?also? obtained?permision?from?Troy?University?to?acces?the?student?data?needed?to?conduct?this?study?with?the?understanding?that?only?the?researcher?had?permision?to?view?student? records.?A?copy?of?the?Auburn?University?IRB?approval?letter?is?included?in?AppendixB.?The?researcher?did?not?share?any?personal?or?private?information?with?others.??The? findings?provided?in?the?studywere?aggregated?by?group?and?not?by?individual.?During?the?study,?al?data?obtained?using?recording?forms?were?kept?in?secure?files?on?the?campus? of?Troy?University?as?prescribed?by?the?Troy?University?registrar.?A?numbering?system 33? was?used?to?keep?student?information?anonymous.?Afterthe?studywas?completed,?all?data?colected?were?destroyed.? Instrumentation?A?researcher?developed?recording?formwas?used?to?colect?the?student?data.?The? formallowed?the?researcher?to?recordthe?folowing?information?for?each?participant?in?the?study:?student?identifier/observation?number??birth?year??age?(birth?year?was?used?to? calculate?age?at?time?of?study)??gender??ethnicity??major??cumulative?grade?point?average??graduation?status?(yes?or?no)?student?type??number?of?terms?enroled?in?colege??and? transfer?schol?for?transfer?students.?A?copy?of?the?recording?form?is?included?in?Appendix?C.? Methodof?Procedure?Descriptive?data?such?as?frequency?distributions,?mean?scores,?maximum?and? minimum?scores?were?analyzed?from?the?data?colected.?The?null?hypothesis?was?tested?using?binary?logistic?regression?analysis.?Binary?logistic?regression?is?a?classification? procedure?that?may?be?used?for?prediction.?This?is?an?appropriate?procedure?for?dichotomous?data?(graduated?or?not?graduated)(Casela?&?Berger,?2002).? Procedure?for?Data?Analysis?The?Statistical?Packet?for?the?Social?Sciences?(SPSS),?release?14.0,?was?used?to? address?the?three?research?questions?in?the?study.?The?first?research?questionasked:? What?are?the?demographic?characteristics?ofstudents?who?transfer?from?comunity?coleges?to?four?year?institutions?in?Alabama?and?students?who?complete?their 34? entire?baccalaureate?at?one?four?year?institution?in?Alabama??This?question?was?answered?using?descriptive?statistics?(Ary,?Jacobs,?&?Rasavich,?2005).? The?second?research?question?asked:?What?are?the?number?ofterms?enroled?for?students?who?transfer?from?comunity? coleges?to?four?year?institutions?in?Alabama?and?students?who?complete?their?entire?baccalaureate?at?one?four?year?institution?in?Alabama??This?question?was?answered?using? descriptive?statistics?(Ary,?Jacobs,?&?Rasavich,?2005).?The?third?research?question?asked:? To?what?extent?is?there?a?significant?relationship?between?the?predictor?variables?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?cumulative?GPA,?student?type?(transfer?or? native),?terms?enroled,?and?whether?or?not?a?person?was?graduated?with?a?baccalaureate?degree??This?question?was?answered?and?the?hypothesis?was?tested?using?binary?logistic? regressionprocedures.?Profiles?ofInstitutions?Used?in?this?Study? Academic?records?of?students?who?enroled?one?or?more?of?the?folowing?institutions?were?used:??Troy?University,?Enterprise?Ozark?Comunity?Colege,?Lurleen? B.?Walace?Comunity?Colege,?Wallace?Dothan?Comunity?Colege,?and?Chattahoochee?Valley?Comunity?Colege.?The?folowing?sections?present?the?scope?and? misionof?the?institutions,?campus?locations,?and?total?number?of?students?served?in?2005. 35? Troy?University?Troy?University?is?a?public?institution?comprised?of?a?network?of? campuses?throughout?Alabama?and?worldwide.?International?in?scope,?Troy?University?provides?a?variety?of?educational?programs?at?the?undergraduate?and? graduate?levels?for?a?diverse?student?body?in?traditional,?nontraditional?and?emerging?electronic?formats.?Academic?programs?are?supported?by?a?variety?of? student?services?which?promote?the?welfare?of?the?individual?student.The?dedication?of?the?Troy?University?faculty?and?staf?promote?discovery?and? exploration?of?knowledge?and?their?application?to?life?long?succes?through?efective?teaching,?service,?creative?partnerships,?scholarship?and?research? (Retrieved?fromhtp://www.troy.edu/mision.htm,?2006).?The?main?campus?of?Troy?Universityis?located?in?the?city?of?Troy,?Alabama.? TroyUniversityalso?has?statecampuses?in?Montgomery,?Dothan,?and?Phenix?City,?Alabama.?In?addition?to?campuses?in?Alabama,?TroyUniversityalso?has?campuses?in? other?states?throughout?the?United?States?and?in?other?countries?around?the?world.?In?the?FallSemester?of?2005,?Troy?University?enroled?14,957?in?state?students?(ACHE,?2005).? Enterprise?Ozark?Community?College?The?mision?of?Enterprise?Ozark?Comunity?College?(EOCC),?a?public? two?year?colege?located?in?rural?Southeast?Alabama,?is?to?ofer?educational?opportunities?for?personal?growth?and?fulfillment,?enhance?the?quality?of?life?in? the?region,?and?promote?economic?growth.?To?accomplish?this?mision,?Enterprise?Ozark?Comunity?Colege?employs?several?institutional?strategies,? including,?but?not?limited?to,?open?acces,?diversity?in?curriculum,?high?quality 36? staff,?and?convenient?locations?(Retrieved?from?htp://www.eocc.edu/abouteocc/facts.htm,?2006).? The?two?primary?campuses?for?EOCC?are?in?Enterprise,?Alabama?and?Ozark,?Alabama.?In?addition,?EOCC?ofers?courses?on?the?Fort?Rucker?Army?Base?in?Fort? Rucker,?Alabama,?and?in?downtown?Mobile,?Alabama.?In?the?Fall?Semester?of?2005,?EOCC?had?an?enrollment?of?1,732?students?(ACHE,?2005).? Wallace?Community?College?Dothan??George?C.?Walace?ComunityColege?(WCD),?a?comprehensive?comunity? colege,?seeks?to?provide?accesible?quality?educational?opportunities,?promote?economic?growth,?and?enhance?the?quality?of?life?of?its?constituents??(Retrieved?from? htp://www.wcc.cc.al.us/about_wallace/about.htm,?2006).?The?main?campus?for?Walace?Comunity?Colege?is?in?Dothan,?Alabama.??They?also?operate?smaller?campuses?in? Eufaula,?Alabama?and?on?the?Fort?Rucker?Army?Base?in?Fort?Rucker,?Alabama.?In?the?Fall?Semester?of?2005,?WCD?had?an?enrolment?of?3,564?students?(ACHE,?2005).? Lurlene?B.?Wallace??Community?College?Lurleen?B.?Walace?Comunity?Colege?(LBWCC)?is?a?public,?two?year? institution?in?the?Alabama?Colege?System?under?the?governance?of?the?Alabama?State?Board?of?Education.?The?Colege?ofers?career?oriented?certificates?and? associate?degrees,?as?wel?as?university?transfer?courses?and?asociate?degrees.?In?addition,?the?Colege?provides?specialized?training?for?busines?and?industry,?non?? credit?and?continuing?education,?adult?education?and?comunity?services?to?the?residents?of?its?service?area.?With?fundamental?principles?afirming?the?value?of? education,?the?freedom?of?teaching?and?learning,?and?the?worth,?dignity?and 37? personal?development?of?each?individual,?the?Colege?provides?an?environment?that?emphasizes?student?success?and?achievement?(Retrieved?from? htp://www.lbwcc.edu/cms/Storage/Files/COLLEGE%20MISSION.pdf,?2006).?.?The?main?campus?ofLurleen?B.?Walace?Comunity?Colege?is?located?in? Andalusia,?Alabama.??They?also?have?branch?campuses?in?Greenville?and?Opp,?Alabama.?In?the?Fal?Semester?of?2005,?LBWC?had?an?enrollment?of?1,475?students?(ACHE,? 2005).?Chattahoochee?Valley?Community?College? ?The?purpose?of?Chattahoochee?Valey?Comunity?Colege?(CVCC),?a?member?of?the?Alabama?Colege?System,?is?to?meet?the?higher?education?needs?of?the?citizens?of? the?Chattahoochee?Valey?and?others?who?can?benefit?from?the?courses,?programs,?and?services?of?the?Colege??(Retrieved?fromhttp://www.cvcc.cc.al.us/mision.htm,?2006).? The?main?campus?ofChattahochee?ValeyComunity?Colege?is?located?in?Phenix?City,?Alabama.?In?the?Fall?Semester?of?2005,?CVC?had?an?enrollment?of?2,034?students? (ACHE,?2005).?Figure?2?depicts?the?locations?and?primary?service?areas?for?the?institutions?used?in?this? study. 38? Figure?2.?Map?with?locations?of?two?year?and?four?year?institutions?used?in?study.? Note:?Map?retrieved?fromhttp://z.about.com/d/geography/1/0/7/J/al.jpg.?Researcher?developed?map?points?and?map?legend.?Sumary? This?chapter?discused?the?methodology?used?in?the?study.?The?sources?of?data?and?the?data?colection?procedures,?privacy?and?confidentiality?of?student?data?colected,? instrumentation,?procedures?for?data?analysis,?and?profiles?of?the?institutions?used?in?the?studywere?presented.?The?data?analysis?and?results?are?presented?in?Chapter?IV. 39? CHAPTER?IV?DATA?ANALYSIS?AND?RESULTS? ChapterI?provided?background?information?and?a?theoretical?framework?for?this?study,?statement?of?the?research?problem,?significance?of?the?study,?purpose?of?the?study,? research?questions,?hypothesis,?and?the?limitations?and?assumptions?of?the?study.?Chapter?I?presented?a?review?of?research?and?literature?related?to?the?trends?and?growth?of?transfer? students?acros?the?United?States?over?the?last?thirty?years,?the?increased?need?for?transfer?and?articulation?agreements?to?enhance?and?improve?the?transferability?of?coursework? from?one?institution?to?another,the?impact?of?articulation?agreements?on?higher?education,?the?barriers?to?transfer?students?as?they?work?toward?completion?of? baccalaureate?degrees,?profiles?of?transfer?and?native?students,?and?a?chronologicalreview?ofstudies?comparing?the?academic?success?oftransfer?and?native?students?inother?states.? ChapterIIpresented?the?methods?and?procedures?used?to?identify?and?select?subjects?to?be?studied,?generalproceduresof?the?data?colection?and?recording,?design?of?the?study,? and?statistical?treatment?of?the?data.?Chapter?IV?is?concerned?with?the?results?of?the?data?analysis.? Data?Analysis?Descriptive?data?such?as?frequency?distributions,?mean?scores,?minimumand? maximum?scores?were?sumarized?from?the?data?colected?and?used?to?answer?research 40? questions?one?and?two.?Research?questionthree?was?answered?by?testing?the?null?hypothesis?using?binary?logistic?regression?analysis.? Results?for?Research?QuestionOne?The?first?research?question?was:? What?are?the?demographic?characteristics?of?students?who?transfer?from?comunity?coleges?to?four?year?institutions?in?Alabama?and?students?who?complete?their?entire? baccalaureate?at?one?four?year?institution?in?Alabama??Demographic?Characteristics?for?All?Students? Demographic?characteristics?for?al?students?(native?and?transfer)?used?in?this?studywere?summarized?in?terms?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?student?type,? grade?point?average,?and?graduation?status.?The?meanage?of?all?students?in?the?sample?was?27.01?years?old.?The?median?age?was?26?years.?The?ages?ranged?from?a?minimum? age?of?22?years?to?a?maximumof?50?years.?The?range?was?28?years.?Table?3?shows?the?mean,?median,?minimum?and?maximumage?for?all?students?as?wel?as?subgroups?by? student?type?(transfer?or?native)?and?colege?major?(busines,?education,?or?nursing).?When?comparing?the?various?student?groups?by?age,?the?mean?and?median?ages?are?very? close?for?all?groups?studied.??In?terms?ofrange,?in?all?groups,?except?for?business?majors,?the?age?range?was?also?similar.?For?both?the?native?and?transfer?business?majors?their? minimum?age?values?were?consistent?with?other?groups,?but?their?maximum?age?value?was?much?lower?(between27?32?years). 41? Table?3.?Mean,?Median,?Minimum,?and?Maximum?Ageby?Student?Type? Age? Mean? Median? Minimum?Maximum?All?Students? 27.01? 26.00? 22? 50? Native?Students? 26.09? 26.00? 22? 48?Transfer?Students? 27.93? 26.00? 22? 50? Native?Business?Students? 25.02? 25.00? 22? 27?Transfer?Business? Students? 25.94? 26.00? 22? 32?Native?Education?Students? 26.48? 26.00? 24? 47? Transfer?Education?Students? 29.72? 28.50? 22? 47?Native?Nursing? Students? 26.76? 26.00? 24? 48?Transfer?Nursing?Students? 28.14? 26.00? 23? 50? One?hundred?and?ninety?six(65%)?of?the?300?students?were?female?and?104?(35%)were?male.?In?al?groups,?except?for?business?majors,?female?students? outnumbered?male?students.?There?were?20%?more?male?native?busines?students?(30)?than?female?native?busines?students?(20).?Male?and?female?busines?transfer?students? were?divided?equally?with?25?each.?Table?4?shows?the?number?and?frequency?for?gender 42? by?student?type,?including?major?subgroups.?Table?4.? Number?and?Frequency?for?Gender?by?Student?Type? Gender? Females?N?(%)? Males?N?(%)? All?Students?(300)? 196?(65%)? 104?(35%)?Native?Students?(150)? 92?(61.3%)? 58?(38.7%)? Transfer?Students?(150)? 104?(69.3%)? 46?(30.7%)?Native?Business?Students?(50)? 20?(40%)? 30?(60%)? Transfer?Business?Students?(50)? 25?(50%)? 25?(50%)?Native?Education?Students?(50)? 45?(90%)? 5?(10%)? Transfer?Education?Students?(50)? 39?(78%)? 11?(22%)?Native?Nursing?Students?(50)? 27?(54%)? 23?(46%)? Transfer?Nursing?Students?(50)? 40?(80%)? 10?(20%)?The?majority?of?the?students?were?Caucasian.?Of?the?300?students,?226?(75.3%)? were?Caucasian?and?74?(24.7%)?were?non?Caucasian.?Table?5?shows?the?number?and?frequency?for?ethnicity?by?student?type,?including?major?subgroups.?Native?education? students?had?the?largest?population?of?non?Caucasians?with?36%?(18/50).?Transfer?busines?students?had?the?lowest?percentage?of?non?Caucasians?with?only?8%?(4/50). 43? Table?5.?Number?and?Frequency?for?Ethnicity?by?Student?Type? Ethnicity? Caucasian?N?(%)? Non?Caucasian?N?(%)? All?Students?(300)? 226?(75.3%)? 74?(24.7%)?Native?Students?(150)? 107?(71.3%)? 43?(28.7%)? Transfer?Students?(150)? 119?(79.3%)? 31?(20.7%)?Native?Business?Students?(50)? 35?(70%)? 15?(30%)? Transfer?Business?Students?(50)? 46?(92%)? 4?(8%)?Native?Education?Students?(50)? 32?(64%)? 18?(36%)? Transfer?Education?Students?(50)? 36?(72%)? 14?(28%)?Native?Nursing?Students?(50)? 40?(80%)? 10?(20%)? Transfer?Nursing?Students?(50)? 37?(74%)? 13?(26%)?One?third?(100)?of?the?students?were?business?majors,one?third? (100)?were?education?majors,?and?one?third?(100)?were?nursing?majors.?Of?the?300?students?in?the?sample,?one?half(50%)?were?clasified?as?native?students?and?one?half? (50%)were?clasified?as?transfer?students.?Each?student?s?cumulative?grade?point?average?(GPA)?was?calculated?on?a?four?? point?scale.?The?meancumulative?GPA?for?the?entire?sample?was?2.753??the?median?GPA?score?was?2.828??GPA?scores?ranged?from?a?minimum?GPA?of?0?to?a?maximumGPA?of 44? 4.0.?The?range?was?4.?Table?6?shows?the?mean,?median,?minimum?and?maximum?values?for?al?students?as?wel?as?subgroups?organized?by?student?type.?In?al?majors,?except? education,?the?transfer?students?obtained?higher?cumulative?grade?point?averages?than?the?native?students?in?the?same?major.?Transfer?students?as?a?group?had?a?slightly?higher? mean?GPA?(2.816)?than?the?native?students?(2.690).?Table?6.? Mean,?Median,?Minimum,?and?Maximum?GPA?by?Student?Type?GPA? Mean? Median? Minimum?Maximum? All?Students? 2.753?2.828?0.000?4.000?Native?Students? 2.690?2.655?0.636?4.000? Transfer?Students? 2.816?3.021?0.000?4.000?Native?Business?Students? 2.555?2.490?1.630?4.000? Transfer?Business?Students? 2.773?2.826?0.240?3.930?Native?Education? Students? 2.746?2.848?1.200?4.000?Transfer?Education?Students? 2.711?2.932?0.231?4.000? Native?Nursing?Students? 2.767?2.772?0.636?4.000?Transfer?Nursing? Students? 2.965?3.147?0.000?4.000 45? One?hundred?and?seventy?four?of?the?300?students?(58%)?had?not?been?graduated?at?the?time?of?the?study,?while?126?(42%)?students?had?been?graduated.?Table?7?shows?the? frequency?for?graduation?status?by?student?type,?including?major?subgroups.?Overal,?transfer?students?had?bengraduated?in?44%?of?the?cases?studied?while?40%?of?the?native? students?had?been?graduated.??Transfer?education?and?transfer?nursing?students?had?a?higher?graduation?percentage?when?compared?to?native?students?in?the?same?programs.? Only?in?busines?did?the?native?students?have?a?larger?graduation?percentage?than?transfer?students.? Table?7.?Number?and?Frequency?for?Graduation?Status?by?Student?Type? Graduation?Status? Graduated?N?(%)? Not?Graduated?N?(%)? All?Students?(300)? 126?(42%)? 174?(58%)?Native?Students?(150)? 60?(40%)? 90?(60%)? Transfer?Students?(150)? 66?(44%)? 84?(56%)?Native?Business?Students?(50)? 31?(62%)? 19?(38%)? Transfer?Business?Students?(50)? 23?(46%)? 27?(54%)?Native?Education?Students?(50)? 9?(18%)? 41?(82%)? Transfer?Education?Students?(50)? 15?(30%)? 35?(70%)?Native?Nursing?Students?(50)? 20?(40%)? 30?(60%)? Transfer?Nursing?Students?(50)? 28?(56%)? 22?(44%) 46? Demographic?Characteristics?for?All?Native?Students?Demographic?characteristics?for?native?students?in?this?study?were?sumarized?in? terms?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?student?type,?grade?point?average,?and?graduation?status.?The?total?number?of?native?students?used?in?this?study?was?150.?The? meanage?ofthe?native?students?was?26.09?years.?The?median?age?was?26?years.?The?ages?ranged?from?a?minimum?age?of?22?years?to?a?maximum48?years.?The?range?was?26? years.?Ninety?two?(61.3%)?of?the?150?native?students?were?female?and?58?(38.7%)?were?male.?The?majority?of?the?native?students?were?Caucasian.?Of?the?150?native?students,? 107?(71.3%)?were?Caucasian?and?43?(28.7%)?were?non?Caucasian.?One?third?(50)?of?the?native?students?were?busines?majors,?one?third?(50)?were?education?majors,?and?one?? third?(50)?were?nursing?majors.?Grade?point?average?(GPA)?for?the?native?students?was?calculated?on?a?four?point?scale.??The?mean?GPA?for?the?native?students?was?2.690.?The? median?GPA?score?was?2.655.?GPA?scores?ranged?from?a?minimum?GPA?of.636to?a?maximum?GPA?of?4.0.?The?GPArange?was?3.364.?Ninety?of?the?150?native?students? (60%)?had?not?been?graduated,?while?60?(40%)?students?had?been?graduated.?Table?8?presents?descriptive?data?for?all?native?students. 47? Table?8.?Summary?of?Descriptive?Data?for?Native?Students.? Variable? All?Native?Students?(150)? Native?Business?Students?(50)? Native?Education?Students?(50)? Native?Nursing?Students?(50)? Age?Mean? 26.09?25.02?26.48?26.76? Median? 26.00?25.00?26.00?26.00?Minimum? 22? 22? 24? 24? Maximum? 48? 27? 47? 48?Gender???N?(%)? Female? 92?(61.3%)? 20?(40%)? 45?(90%)? 27?(54%)?Male? 58?(38.7%)? 30?(60%)? 5?(10%)? 23?(46%)? Ethnicity??N?(%)?Caucasian? 107?(71.3%)? 35?(70%)? 32?(64%)? 40?(80%)? Non?Caucasian? 43?(28.7%)? 15?(30%)? 18?(36%)? 10?(20%)?(table?continues) 48? Table?8.?(continued)?Variable? All?Native? Students?(150)? Native?Business?Students?(50)? Native?Education?Students?(50)? Native?Nursing?Students?(50)? Grade?Point?Average?Mean? 2.690?2.555?2.746?2.767? Median? 2.655?2.490?2.848?2.772?Minimum? 0.636?1.630?1.200?0.636? Maximum? 4.000?4.000?4.000?4.000?Graduation?Status???N(%)? Graduated? 60?(40%)? 31?(62%)? 9?(18%)? 20?(40%)?Not?Graduated? 90?(60%)? 19?(38%)? 41?(82%)? 30?(60%)? Demographic?Characteristics?for?Native?Business?Students?Demographic?characteristics?for?native?business?students?used?in?the?study?were? sumarized?in?terms?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?student?type,?grade?point?average,?and?graduation?status.?The?total?number?of?native?busines?students?used?in?this?study?was?50.? The?mean?age?of?the?native?business?students?was?25.02?years.?The?median?age?was?25?years.?The?ages?ranged?from?a?minimum?age?of?22?years?to?a?maximum?age?of?27?years.? The?age?range?was?5?years.?In?terms?of?gender,?20?(40%)?of?the?50?native?business 49? students?were?female?and?30?(60%)?were?male.??The?majority?of?the?native?busines?students?were?Caucasian.?Of?the?50?native?busines?students,?35?(70%)?were?Caucasian? and?15?(30%)?were?non?Caucasian.?Grade?point?average?(GPA)?for?the?native?business?students?was?calculated?on?a?four?point?scale.??The?mean?GPA?for?the?native?business? students?was?2.555.?The?median?GPA?score?was?2.490.?GPA?scores?ranged?from?a?minimum?GPA?of?1.63?to?a?maximum?GPA?of?4.0.?The?GPArange?was?3.37.?Nineteen? of?the?50?native?busines?students?(38%)?had?not?been?graduated,?while?31?(62%)?students?had?been?graduated.? Demographic?Characteristics?for?Native?Education?Students?Demographic?characteristics?for?native?education?students?used?in?the?study?were? sumarized?in?terms?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?student?type,?grade?point?average,?and?graduation?status.?The?total?number?of?native?education?students?used?in?this?study?was? 50.?The?mean?age?of?the?native?education?students?at?the?time?the?sample?was?taken?was?26.48?years.?The?median?age?was?26?years.?The?ages?ranged?from?a?minimum?age?of?24? years?to?a?maximum?age?of?47?years.?The?age?range?was?23?years.?In?terms?of?gender,?45?(90%)?of?the?50?native?education?students?were?female?and?5?(10%)?were?male.?The? majority?of?the?native?education?students?were?Caucasian.?Of?the?50?native?education?students,?32?(64%)?were?Caucasian?and?18?(36%)?were?non?Caucasian.?Grade?point? average?(GPA)?for?the?native?education?students?was?calculated?on?a?four?point?scale.?The?mean?GPA?for?the?native?education?students?was?2.746.?The?median?GPA?score?was? 2.848.?The?GPA?scores?ranged?from?a?minimum?GPA?of?1.20?to?a?maximum?GPA?of?4.0.?The?GPArange?was?2.8.?Forty?one?of?the?50?native?education?students?(82%)?had?not? been?graduated,?while?9?(18%)?students?had?been?graduated. 50? Demographic?Characteristics?for?Native?Nursing?Students?Demographic?characteristics?for?native?nursing?students?used?in?the?study?were? sumarized?in?terms?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?student?type,?grade?point?average,?and?graduation?status.?The?total?number?of?native?nursing?students?used?in?this?study?was?50.? The?mean?age?of?the?native?nursing?students?at?the?time?the?sample?was?taken?was?26.76?years.?The?median?age?was?26?years.?The?ages?ranged?from?a?minimum?age?of?24?years? to?a?maximum?age?of?48?years.?The?age?range?was?24?years.?In?terms?of?gender,?27?(54%)?of?the?50?native?nursing?students?were?female?and?23?(46%)?were?male.?The? majority?of?the?native?nursing?students?were?Caucasian.?Of?the?50?native?nursing?students,?40?(80%)?were?Caucasian?and?10?(20%)?were?non?Caucasian.?Grade?point? average?(GPA)?for?the?native?nursing?students?was?calculated?on?a?four?point?scale.??The?mean?GPA?for?the?native?nursing?students?was?2.767??the?median?GPA?score?was?2.772?? and?the?GPA?scores?ranged?from?a?minimum?GPA?of?.636?to?a?maximum?GPA?of?4.0.?The?range?was?3.364.?Thirty?of?the?50?native?nursing?students?(60%)?had?not?been? graduated,?while?20?(40%)?students?had?been?graduated.?Demographic?Characteristics?for?All?Transfer?Students? Demographic?characteristics?for?transfer?students?used?in?the?study?were?sumarized?in?terms?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?college?major,?student?type,?grade?point? average,?and?graduation?status.?The?total?number?of?transfer?students?used?in?this?study?was?150.?The?meanage?of?the?transfer?students?at?the?time?the?sample?was?taken?was? 27.93?years.?The?median?age?was?26?years.?The?ages?ranged?from?a?minimum?age?of?22?years?to?a?maximum?age?50?years.?The?age?range?was?28?years.?One?hundred?and?four? (69.3%)?of?the?150?transfer?students?were?female?and?46?(30.7%)?were?male.?The 51? majority?of?the?transfer?students?were?Caucasian.?Of?the?150?transfer?students,?119?(79.3%)?were?Caucasian?and?31?(20.7%)?were?non?Caucasian.?One?third?(50)?of?the? transfer?students?were?business?majors,?one?third?(50)?were?education?majors,?and?one??third?(50)?were?nursing?majors.?Grade?point?average?(GPA)?for?the?transfer?students?was? calculated?on?a?four?point?scale.??The?mean?GPA?for?the?transfer?students?was?2.816.?The?median?GPA?score?was?3.021.?GPA?scores?ranged?from?a?minimum?GPA?of?0?to?a? maximum?GPA?of?4.0.?The?GPArange?was?4.?Eighty?four?of?the?150?transfer?students?(56%)?had?not?been?graduated,?while?66?(44%)?students?had?been?graduated.?Table?9? presents?the?descriptive?data?for?all?transfer?students.?Table?9.? Summary?of?Descriptive?Data?for?Transfer?Students.?Variable? All?Transfer? Students?(150)? Transfer?Business?Students?(50)? Transfer?Education?Students?(50)? Transfer?Nursing?Students?(50)? Age?Mean? 27.93?25.94?29.72?28.14? Median? 26.00?26.00?28.50?26.00?Minimum? 22? 22? 22? 23? Maximum? 50? 32? 47? 50?(table?continues) 52? Table?9.?(continued)? Variable? All?Transfer?Students?(150)? Transfer?Business?Students?(50)? Transfer?Education?Students?(50)? Transfer?Nursing?Students?(50)? Gender???N?(%)?Female? 104?(69.3%)? 25?(50%)? 39?(78%)? 40?(80%)? Mmale? 46?(30.7%)? 25?(50%)? 11?(22%)? 10?(20%)?Ethnicity??N?(%)? Caucasian? 119?(79.3%)? 46?(92%)? 36?(72%)? 37?(74%)?Non?Caucasian? 31?(20.7%)? 4?(8%)? 14?(28%)? 13?(26%)? Grade?Point?Average?Mean? 2.816?2.773?2.711?2.965? Median? 3.021?2.826?2.932?3.147?Minimum? 0.000?0.240?0.231?0.000? Maximum? 4.000?4.000?4.000?4.000?Graduation?Status???N(%)? Graduated? 66?(44%)? 23?(46%)? 15?(30%)? 28?(56%)?Not?Graduated? 84?(56%)? 27?(54%)? 35?(70%)? 22?(44%) 53? Demographic?Characteristics?for?Transfer?Business?Students?Demographic?characteristics?for?transfer?busines?students?used?in?the?study?were? sumarized?in?terms?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?student?type,?grade?point?average,?and?graduation?status.?The?total?number?of?transfer?busines?students?used?in?this?study?was? 50.?The?meanage?of?the?transfer?business?students?was?25.94?years.?The?median?age?was?26?years.?The?ages?ranged?from?a?minimum?age?of22?years?to?a?maximum?age?of32? years.?The?age?range?was?10?years.?In?terms?of?gender,?25?(50%)?of?the?50?transfer?busines?students?were?female?and?25?(50%)were?male.?The?majority?of?the?transfer? busines?students?were?Caucasian.?Of?the?50?transfer?busines?students,?46?(92%)?were?Caucasianand?4?(8%)?were?non?Caucasian.?Grade?point?average?(GPA)?for?the?transfer? busines?students?was?calculated?on?a?four?point?scale.?The?mean?GPA?for?the?transfer?busines?students?was?2.773.?The?median?GPA?score?was?2.826.?GPA?scores?ranged? from?a?minimum?GPA?of.240?to?a?maximum?GPA?of3.93.?The?GPArange?was?3.685.?Twenty?sevenof?the?50?transfer?busines?students?(54%)?had?not?been?graduated,?while? 23?(46%)?students?had?been?graduated.?Demographic?Characteristics?for?Transfer?Education?Students? Demographic?characteristics?for?transfer?education?students?used?in?the?study?were?sumarized?in?terms?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?student?type,?grade?point?average,?and? graduation?status.?The?total?number?of?transfer?education?students?used?in?this?study?was?50.?The?meanage?of?the?transfer?education?students?at?the?time?the?sample?was?taken?was? 29.72?years.?The?median?age?was?28.50?years.?The?ages?ranged?from?a?minimum?age?of?22?years?to?a?maximum?age?of47?years.?The?age?range?was?25?years.?In?terms?of?gender,? 39?(78%)?of?the?50?transfer?education?students?were?female?and?11?(22%)?were?male. 54? The?majority?of?the?transfer?education?students?were?Caucasian.?Of?the?50?transfer?educationstudents,?36?(72%)?were?Caucasian?and?14?(28%)?were?non?Caucasian.?Grade? point?average?(GPA)?for?the?transfer?educationstudents?was?calculated?on?a?four?point?scale.?The?mean?GPA?for?the?transfer?educationstudents?was?2.711.?The?median?GPA? score?was?2.932.?GPA?scores?ranged?from?a?minimum?GPA?of.231?to?a?maximum?GPA?of?4.0.?The?GPArange?was?3.769.?Thirty?five?of?the?50?transfer?educationstudents? (70%)?had?not?been?graduated,?while?15?(30%)?students?had?been?graduated.?Demographic?Characteristics?for?Transfer?Nursing?Students? Demographic?characteristics?for?transfer?nursing?students?used?in?the?study?were?sumarized?in?terms?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?student?type,?grade?point?average,?and? graduation?status.?The?total?number?of?transfer?nursing?students?used?in?this?study?was?50.?The?meanage?of?the?transfer?nursing?students?at?the?time?the?sample?was?taken?was? 28.14?years.?The?median?age?was?26?years.?The?ages?ranged?from?a?minimum?age?of23?years?to?a?maximum?age?of50?years.?The?age?range?was?27?years.?In?terms?of?gender,?40? (80%)?of?the?50?transfer?nursing?students?were?female?and?10?(20%)?were?male.??The?majority?of?the?transfer?nursing?students?were?Caucasian.?Of?the?50?transfer?nursing? students,?37(74%)?were?Caucasian?and?13?(26%)?were?non?Caucasian.?Grade?point?average?(GPA)?for?the?transfer?nursing?students?was?calculated?on?a?four?point?scale.??The? mean?GPA?for?the?transfer?nursing?students?was?2.965.?The?median?GPA?score?was?3.147.?GPA?scores?ranged?from?a?minimum?GPA?of?0?to?a?maximum?GPA?of?4.0.?The? GPArange?was?4.?Twenty?two?of?the?50?transfer?nursing?students?(44%)?had?not?been?graduated,?while?28?(56%)?students?had?been?graduated. 55? Results?for?Research?Question?Two?The?second?research?question?was:? What?arethe?number?of?terms?enroled?for?students?who?transfer?from?comunity?coleges?to?four?year?institutions?in?Alabama?and?students?who?complete?their?entire? baccalaureate?at?one?four?year?institution?in?Alabama??Table?10?displays?the?mean,?median,?minimum,?and?maximum?values?by?student? type?for?terms?enroled.?The?meannumber?ofterms?enroled?for?all?students?were?12.31.?The?mean?terms?enroled?for?native?students?were?10.85.?The?mean?terms?enroled?for? transfer?students?was?13.78.?All?of?the?native?groups?(busines,?education,?and?nursing)?enroled?in?fewer?terms?than?did?the?transfer?students?in?those?majors.?In?busines,?native? students?enroled?anaverage?of11.06?terms?while?the?transfer?students?averaged?13.58?terms.?In?education,?native?students?enroled?anaverage?of11.08?terms?while?the?transfer? students?averaged?13.58terms.?In?nursing,?native?students?enroled?anaverage?of10.04?terms?while?the?transfer?students?averaged?14.18?terms.?Transfer?students,?while? obtaining?higher?grade?point?averages?and?graduating?more?often,?also?enroled?in?more?terms?than?the?native?students. 56? Table?10.?Mean,?Median,?Minimum,?and?Maximum?Number?of?Terms?Enrolled?by?Student?Type? Terms?Enroled?Mean? Median? Minimum?Maximum?All?Students? 12.31? 13? 1? 42? Native?Students? 10.85? 12? 1? 20?Transfer?Students? 13.78? 13? 3? 42? Native?Business?Students? 11.06? 12? 2? 18?Transfer?Business? Students? 13.58? 13? 4? 42?Native?Education?Students? 11.08? 12? 1? 20? Transfer?Education?Students? 13.58? 13? 4? 26?Native?Nursing? Students? 10.04? 11? 1? 18?Transfer?Nursing?Students? 14.18? 14? 3? 29? Results?for?Research?Question?Three?The?third?research?questionwas:? To?what?extent?is?there?a?significant?relationship?between?the?predictor?variables?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?student?type?(transfer?or?native),?cumulative?grade?point? average,?terms?enroled,?and?whether?or?not?a?person?was?graduated?with?a?baccalaureate?degree? 57? The?folowing?null?hypothesis?was?formulated?to?answer?the?third?research?question:? Ho:?There?is?no?statistically?significant?relationship?between?the?predictor?variables?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?student?type?(native?or?transfer),?cumulative?grade? point?average,?terms?enroled,?and?whether?or?not?a?person?was?graduated?with?a?baccalaureate?degree.?Binary?logistic?regression?procedures?were?used?to?test?the?null? hypothesis?and?to?construct?a?model?to?predict?graduation?status?(graduated?or?not?graduated).?As?stated?earlier,?300?individual?cases?were?used.?The?independent?variables? were?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?grade?point?average,?student?type,?and?terms?enroled.?The?dependent?variable?was?whether?or?not?a?student?was?graduated.?Without? knowing?anything?about?the?independent?variables?and?loking?only?at?whether?or?not?a?student?was?graduated,?the?logistic?regression?model?predicted?100%?of?those?who? graduated,?butonly58%?of?those?who?werenot?graduated.?The?eficacy?of?this?model?was?not?acceptable.?However,?this?model?provided?a?baseline?by?which?the?researcher? could?evaluate?other?models.?Next,?all?the?individual?variables?were?entered?simultaneously.?The?chi?square? statistic?was?computed?to?test?the?null?hypothesis?that?the?coefficients?for?al?of?the?variables?in?the?model?were?zero.?The?null?hypothesis?was?rejected?at?the?p<.000?level.? Consequently,?the?set?of?predictor?variables?improved?the?prediction.?The?Nagelkerke?pseudo?R?2?value?(.499)?was?used?to?ascertain?the?amount?of? variance?explained?by?the?model.?The?.499?value?indicates?that?the?independent?variables?explained?almost?half?of?the?amount?of?variance. 58? The?chi?square?goodness?of?fit?statistic?was?calculated?using?the?Hosmer?and?Lemeshow?Test?to?divide?the?cases?into?ten?approximately?equal?sized?groups?and? compare?the?number?of?observed?observations?to?the?expected?number?of?observations?in?each?category?of?the?dependent?variable.??The?goodnes?of?fit?statistic?was?4.969?with?a? significance?of?.761.?After?comparing?the?observed?and?expected?events?in?the?context?of?testing?goodness?of?fit,?the?non?significant?probability?indicated?that?the?model?was?a? good?fit.?The?Contingency?Table?for?the?Hosmer?and?Lemeshow?Test?is?presented?in?Table?11.? Table?11.?Contingency?Table?for?Hosmer?and?Lemeshow?Test? Graduated?=?no? Graduated?=?yes?Step?1?Observed?Expected?Observed?Expected?Total? 1? 30?29.729?0? .271?30?2? 29?28.654?1? 1.346?30? 3? 29?26.699?1? 3.301?30?4? 21?23.639?9? 6.361?30? 5? 19?19.185?11?10.815?30?6? 17?15.904?13?14.096?30? 7? 10?12.680?20?17.320?30?8? 10?8.917?20?21.083?30? 9? 6? 6.018?24?23.982?30?10? 3? 2.575?27?27.425?30 59? Table?12?provides?information?on?how?wel?the?model?performed?when?al?the?variables?were?accounted?for.?As?shown?in?the?table,?the?overal?predictive?accuracy?is? 78.7%.?The?model?does?much?better?for?not?graduated,?as?the?model?corectly?predicted?142/174,?or?81.6%?of?these?cases.?It?does?a?lesser?job?for?predicting?whether?or?not?a? person?was?graduated,?94/126,?or?74.6%.?In?school?practice,?interest?would?most?likely?be?on?those?not?graduated,?so?the?current?model?would?certainly?be?of?interest?and?one? could?saythis?current?model?is?meaningfulin?the?sense?that?it?would?be?acceptable.??In?this?case,?there?is?corespondence?between?statisticalfit?of?the?model?from?likelihod? statistics?and?the?predictive?ability?of?the?model.?However,?finding?a?significant?model?does?not?necessarily?mean?having?high?predictability,?but?in?this?case,?the?significance? model?has?high?predictability.?The?accuracy?of?the?current?model?(78.7%)?is?a?great?improvement?over?the?original?model.? Table?12.?Contingency?Table?for?Model?Predictive?Accuracy? Predicted?Graduated? Observed? no? yes? Percentage?Corect?Step1?graduated? no?142?32? 81.6? yes? 32? 94? 74.6?Overal?Percentage? 78.7? Note.?The?cut?value?is?.500 60? Considering?only?the?distribution?of?the?dependent?variable?(graduated/not?graduated),?if?one?predicted?that?all?cases?fal?into?the?category?of?graduated,the? predictionwould?be?corect?174/300?or?58%?of?the?time??the?improvement?to?78.7%?with?this?current?model?seems?particularly?noteworthy.? Significant?values?for?the?predictor?variables?(age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?grade?point?average,?student?type,?and?terms?enroled)?were?calculated?using?the? Wald?statistic,?which?is?distributed?as?a?chi?square?statistic.?The?folowing?variables?were?statistically?significant?predictors?(p??.05)?of?graduation?status:?age?(p?=?.643),?gender?(p?=?.063),?and?ethnicity?(p?=?.885).?Table?13?displays?the?variables?used?in?the? equation?and?their?level?ofsignificance. 61? Table?13.?Variables?in?the?Equation? Variable? Wald? Sig.?age? .215? .643? gender? 3.467? .063?ethnicity? .021? .885? major? 32.585? .000?major?(1)? 6.972? .008? major?(2)? 14.976? .000?GPA? 22.784? .000? student?type? 5.117? .024?terms?enroled? 37.194? .000? graduated?or?not?(constant)? 35.500? .000?Note.?Variable(s)?entered?on?step?1:?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?GPA,?student? type,?terms?enroled.? Sumary? This?chapter?discused?the?results?of?the?data?analysis.?Descriptive?data?that?sumarized?the?demographic?characteristics?of?the?students?used?in?the?studywere? presented.?Students?were?more?likely?to?be?in?their?mid?twenties,?female,?and?Caucasian.?Transfer?students?had?a?slightly?higher?mean?cumulative?grade?point?average?than?the? native?students.?In?addition,?the?transfer?students?had?been?graduated?at?a?slightly?higher 62? rate?than?the?native?students.??The?chapter?provided?informationonthe?number?of?terms?enroled?for?students?who?transferred?from?comunity?coleges?to?four?year?institutions? in?Alabama?and?students?who?completed?their?entire?baccalaureate?at?one?four?year?institution?in?Alabama.??While?the?transfer?students?had?higher?grade?point?averages?and? were?graduated?more?often,?native?students?were?enroled?in?fewer?terms?during?their?colege?experience.?There?was?a?statisticallysignificant?relationship?between?the? predictor?variables?of?colege?major,?student?type?(transfer?or?native),?cumulative?GPA,?and?terms?enroled?and?whether?or?not?a?person?was?graduated?with?a?baccalaureate? degree.?There?was?no?statisticallysignificant?relationship?between?the?predictor?variables?of?age,?gender,?and?ethnicity?and?whether?or?not?a?person?was?graduated?with?a? baccalaureate?degree.?The?model?used?in?the?study?appeared?to?be?an?acceptable?predictor?of?graduation?status?(78.7%).?A?sumaryof?this?study,?conclusions,?and? recomendations?are?presented?in?Chapter?V. 63? CHAPTER?V?SUMMARY?AND?CONCLUSIONS? Chapter?I?provided?background?information?and?a?theoretical?framework?for?this?study,?statement?of?the?research?problem,?significance?of?the?study,?purpose?of?the?study,? research?questions,?hypothesis,?and?the?limitations?and?assumptions?of?the?study.?Chapter?I?presented?a?review?of?research?and?literature?related?to?the?trends?and?growth?of?transfer? students?acros?the?United?States?over?the?last?thirty?years,?the?increased?need?for?transfer?and?articulation?agreements?to?enhance?and?improve?the?transferability?of?coursework? from?one?institution?to?another,?the?impact?of?articulation?agreements?on?higher?education,?the?barriers?to?transfer?students?as?they?work?toward?completion?of? baccalaureate?degrees,?profiles?of?transfer?and?native?students,?and?a?chronologicalreview?ofstudies?comparing?the?academic?success?oftransfer?and?native?students?instates?other? than?Alabama.??Chapter?II?presented?the?methods?and?procedures?used?to?identify?and?select?subjects?to?be?studied,?general?procedure?of?the?data?colection?and?recording,? design?of?the?study,?and?statistical?treatment?of?the?data.?Chapter?IV?presented?the?results?of?the?data?analysis.? This?chapter?will?present?a?summary?of?the?findings?of?this?study,?implications?for?further?research,?and?recomendations?for?practical?applications. 64? Overview?of?the?Study?Today?s?colege?student?is?much?more?mobile?than?students?who?attended? colege?in?past?decades.?A?student?s?final?transcript?often?includes?credit?earned?at?diferent?coleges?and?universities.?As?a?result,?the?transfer?student?population?is?on?the? rise.?Institutions?should?now?evaluate?transfer?credit?and?graduate?transfer?students?in?a?timely?manner.?To?ease?the?transfer?proces,?many?states?have?implemented?statewide? transfer?articulation?programs.?Alabama?is?one?of?these?states.?In?1994,?the?State?of?Alabama?approved?legislation?(ACT?94?202)?that?created?a?statewide?articulation? commitee?caled?the?Alabama?Articulation?and?General?Studies?Commitee?(AGSC).?This?legislation?granted?the?AGSC?the?power?to?create?and?maintain?a?statewide? articulation?program.?Through?this?program,?al?public?institutions?of?higher?education?in?the?state?must?accept?AGSC?approved?transfer?coursework?and?apply?the?transfer?credit? toward?four?year?degree?requirements.?While?much?has?been?done?to?improve?the?transfer?proces,?higher?education?administrators?and?faculty?in?various?disciplines?have? questioned?the?academic?quality?of?those?transfer?students?who?transfer?to?their?institutions?and?are?awarded?degree?credit?as?prescribed?by?the?AGSC.??Some?of?the?most? comon?questions?revolve?around?graduation?success,?grade?point?averages,?and?time?to?degree.? The?focus?of?this?studywas?the?lack?of?information?related?to?the?variables?associated?with?graduation?status?(graduated/not?graduated)?andtotal?terms?enroled?of? students?who?transfer?from?comunity?coleges?to?four?year?institutions?in?Alabama?and?students?who?complete?their?entire?baccalaureate?program?at?one?institution.?In?this? study,?transfer?student?success?was?measured?comparing?native?and?local?transfer?students 65? who?attended?Troy?University?(a?regional?university?in?southeast?Alabama).?In?addition,?this?study?included?various?demographic?variables?such?as?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege? major,?cumulative?grade?point?average,?graduation?status,?and?terms?enroled.?Data?for?the?study?were?randomly?colected?by?the?researcher.?The?researcher? designed?a?data?colection?form?to?record?al?data?used?in?the?study.?A?copy?of?the?recording?form?is?displayed?in?Appendix?C.?Of?the?300?students?used?in?the?study,?one?? half?were?native?students?at?Troy?University?and?one?half?were?transfer?students?who?had?transferred?to?Troy?University?from?one?of?the?following?feeder?comunity?coleges:? Enterprise?Ozark?Comunity?Colege,?Wallace?Dothan?Comunity?Colege,?Lurleen?B.?Wallace?Comunity?Colege,?and?Chattahoochee?Valey?Comunity?Colege.?Each?of? the?transfer?students?started?between?1998?and?2000?and?earned?at?least?30?semester?hours?of?credit?prior?to?transferring?to?Troy?University.?The?native?Troy?University?students? also?began?their?colege?careers?between?1998?and?2000.?In?addition,?the?students?were?divided?equally?by?major.?The?study?included?50?business?native?students?and?50? busines?transfer?students??50?education?native?students?and?50?education?transfer?students??and?50?nursing?native?students?and?50?nursing?transfer?students.?The?data?were? colected?during?the?summer?of?2006?thus?alowing?al?students?six?to?eight?years?to?have?been?graduated.? The?significance?of?the?study?has?both?practical?and?theoretical?application.?In?practical?terms,?understanding?the?graduation?status?and?total?terms?enroled?for?both? native?students?and?transfer?students?may?identify?areas?in?which?colege?and?university?administrators?can?improve?in?an?efort?to?increase?success?among?both?student?types.?In? addition,?knowing?which?demographic?variables?aid?in?predicting?graduation?status?may 66? also?provide?insight?and?information?that?can?be?used?to?enhance?both?native?and?transfer?students??colege?experience.?Theoretically,?this?study?may?add?to?the?current?body?of? knowledge?on?academic?success?of?both?native?and?transfer?colege?students?in?the?United?States.? Sumary?of?the?Results?The?study?sought?to?answer?the?folowing?research?questions:??(1)?What?are?the? demographic?characteristics?of?students?who?transfer?from?comunity?coleges?to?four??year?institutions?in?Alabama?and?students?who?complete?their?entire?baccalaureate?at?one? four?year?institution?in?Alabama?(2)?What?are?the?number?of?terms?enroled?for?students?who?transfer?from?comunity?coleges?to?four?year?institutions?in?Alabama?and?students? who?complete?their?entire?baccalaureate?at?one?four?year?institution?in?Alabama?(3)?To?what?extent,?is?there?a?significant?relationship?between?the?predictor?variables?of?age,? gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?student?type?(transfer?or?native),?cumulative?grade?point?average,?and?whether?or?not?a?person?was?graduated?with?a?baccalaureate?degree?? Question?one?addressed?the?demographic?characteristics?of?students?who?transfer?from?comunity?coleges?to?four?year?institutions?in?Alabama?and?students?who?complete? their?entire?baccalaureate?at?one?four?year?institution?in?Alabama.?The?mean?age?of?all?students?at?the?time?of?this?study?was?27.01,?and?the?median?age?was?26.?Transfer? students?were?slightly?older?(mean?age?=?27.93)?than?the?native?students?(mean?age?=?26.09)?used?in?the?study.?The?majority?of?all?students?used?in?the?study?were?females? (65%).?Of?the?150?native?students?61.3%?were?females?and?38.7%?were?males.?Of?the?150?transfer?students?69.3%?were?females?while?30.7%?were?males.?Male?students?(55)? out?numbered?female?students?(45)?in?the?business?program.??Seventy?five?percent?of?the 67? students?were?Caucasian?and?24%?were?non?Caucasian.?In?al?subgroups,?Caucasian?students?out?numbered?non?Caucasian?at?least?two?to?one.??The?mean?grade?point?average? (GPA)?for?al?students?was?2.753?and?the?median?GPA?was?2.828.?Overal?transfer?students?had?obtained?a?slightly?higher?cumulative?mean?GPA?(2.816)?than?did?the?native? students?(2.690).?Transfer?students?in?business?and?nursing?also?had?slightly?higher?grade?point?averages?than?the?native?students?in?the?same?majors.?In?education,?the?mean?GPA? for?native?students?was?slightly?higher?than?the?mean?GPA?for?transfer?students.?Only?42%?of?al?students?had?been?graduated,?and?58%?had?not?been?graduated.?Forty?percent? of?native?students?had?been?graduated?compared?to?44%?of?transfer?students?who?had?been?graduated.??Sixty?two?percent?of?the?business?native?students?had?been?graduated? compared?to?46%?of?the?transfer?students.?Eighteen?percent?of?the?native?education?students?had?been?graduated?compared?to?30%?of?the?transfer?students.?Forty?percent?of? the?native?nursing?students?had?been?graduated?compared?to?56%?of?the?transfer?students.?Question?two?addressed?the?number?of?terms?enrolled?for?students?who?transferred? from?comunity?coleges?to?afour?year?institution?in?Alabama?and?students?who?completed?their?entire?baccalaureate?atthe?same?four?year?institution?in?Alabama.? Transfer?students,?on?average,?enroled?in?more?terms?than?the?native?students.?In?addition,?transfer?students?obtained?higher?grade?point?averages?and?were?graduated?more? often?than?native?students.?The?mean?terms?enroled?for?the?transfer?students?were?12.31.?The?mean?terms?enroled?for?the?native?students?were?10.85.?Transfer?business?and? education?majors?enroled?in?at?least?two?more?terms,?on?average,?than?did?the?native?students.?Transfer?nursing?majors?enroled?in?at?least?four?more?terms,?on?average,?than? the?native?students. 68? The?third?research?question?investigated?whether?or?not?there?is?a?significant?relationship?between?the?predictor?variables?of?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,? student?type?(transfer?or?native),?cumulative?grade?point?average,?and?whether?or?not?a?person?was?graduated?with?a?baccalaureate?degree.?Results?of?the?logistic?regression? procedure?indicated?a?statistically?significant?relationship?for?the?predictor?variables?of?colege?major,?student?type?(transfer?or?native),?cumulative?GPA,?and?terms?enroled?and? whether?or?not?a?person?was?graduated?with?a?baccalaureate?degree.??No?statistically?significant?relationship?was?found?for?the?predictor?variables?of?age,?gender,?and?ethnicity? and?whether?or?not?a?person?was?graduated?with?a?baccalaureate?degree.??The?model?used?in?the?study?was?an?adequate?predictor?of?graduation?status?(78.7%).? Conclusions?To?the?extent?that?the?data?colected?for?this?study?were?valid?and?reliable?and?the? assumptions?of?the?study?were?appropriate?and?corect,?the?folowing?conclusions?may?be?made.?Based?on?the?results?of?this?study,?it?may?be?concluded?that?there?were?slight? diferences?between?transfer?students?and?native?students.?Overal,?transfer?students?obtained?slightly?higher?grade?point?averages?and?were?graduated?more?often?than?the? native?students.?Native?students,?on?average,?enroled?fewer?terms?and?appeared?to?complete?their?colege?work?faster?than?the?transfer?students.?Colege?major?(busines? and?education),?student?type?(transfer?or?native),?cumulative?grade?point?average,?and?number?of?terms?enroled?were?significant?predictors?of?graduation?status?(graduated?or? not?graduated)?for?all?students.?At?the?same?time,?age,?gender,?and?ethnicity?were?not?significant?in?predicting?graduation?status. 69? Recomendations?The?research?for?this?study?focused?on?the?graduation?status?and?terms?enroled?of? native?and?transfer?students?in?Southeast?Alabama.??While?the?study?focused?only?on?native?and?transfer?students?who?attended?Troy?University?between?1998?and?2006,?the? study?was?designed?so?that?it?could?be?replicated?at?other?universities.?The?variables?used?in?the?logistic?regression?model?were?age,?gender,?ethnicity,?colege?major,?cumulative? grade?point?average,?graduation?status,?and?terms?enroled.?It?might?be?useful?to?include?colege?entrance?exam?scores,?cumulative?high?school?grade?point?average,?marital?status,? number?of?children,?whether?or?not?the?student?s?parents?were?graduated?from?colege,?whether?or?not?a?student?had?a?disability,?and?whether?or?not?a?student?received?financial? aid?during?colege?to?determine?if?they?are?significant?predictors?of?academic?succes?(graduated?or?not?graduated).? While?the?study?showed?that?transfer?students?as?a?group?were?graduated?more?often?and?obtained?higher?cumulative?grade?point?averages?during?colege,?they?also? enroled,?on?average,?two?more?terms?than?did?the?native?students.?Astudy?to?determine?the?posible?factors?that?lead?to?this?longer?enrolment?period?might?be?informative?and? useful?to?higher?education?administrators?as?they?work?to?improve?the?colege?experience?for?their?students?and?produce?quality?graduates?of?their?institutions.?Similar?studies?may? be?usefulfor?enrollment?management?administrators?in?analyzing?and?implementing?new?policies?aimed?at?increasing?the?enrollments?of?both?native?and?transfer?students.?While? Troy?University?and?comunity?coleges?used?inthis?study?are?non?profit?organizations,?al?of?them?are?ultimately?interested?in?increasing?revenue?through?increased?student? enrolment?at?their?respective?institutions. 70? This?study?compared?the?graduation?status?and?terms?enroled?of?native?and?transfer?students?who?majored?in?busines,?education,?and?nursing.?A?study?using? diferent?colege?majors?may?be?useful?to?see?if?similar?results?occur.?Focusing?on?specific?concentration?areas?within?a?selected?discipline?might?also?provide?interesting? data?to?determine?how?students?compare?within?that?discipline?area.??This?could?be?useful?for?colege?deans,?department?heads,?and?faculty?members?as?they?attempt?to?analyze?and? improve?the?number?of?students?who?graduate?in?their?particular?discipline?areas?from?their?respective?institutions.? Of?the?300?students?used?in?this?study,?only?126?(42%)?of?them?had?been?graduated?at?the?time?the?data?were?colected.??The?study?allowed?a?six?to?eight?year? period?(1998?through?2006)?for?students?to?complete?a?four?year?bachelor?s?degree.??Other?Universities?may?want?to?conduct?a?study?to?determine?the?factors?that?posibly?prevent?or? hinder?a?student?from?completing?their?program?in?a?shorter?time?period.?The?study?showed?that?the?transfer?students?attained?a?slightly?higher?overall? cumulative?grade?point?average?than?did?the?native?students.?More?useful?information?might?be?gained?if?the?grade?point?averages?of?the?transfer?students?were?analyzed?prior?to? transfer.?A?comparison?of?the?transfer?students?grade?point?average?after?their?first?year?of?schol(approximately?30?semester?hours)?compared?to?the?grade?point?averages?of?the? university?students?after?theytoo?have?completed?30?semester?hoursof?course?work?may?be?useful?in?explaining?the?overal?difference?incumulative?grade?point?averages.? This?studyanalyzed?at?each?independent?variable?separately.?Future?research?in?this?area?may?want?to?folow?up?with?cros?tabulationto?see?if?any?relationship?exists 71? between?the?variables.?This?may?help?by?showing?ifand?how?the?variables?may?be?related?and?impact?one?another.? As?more?and?more?students?turn?to?distance?education,?a?similar?study?to?determine?the?graduation?status?and?terms?enroled?of?native?and?transfer?students?who? complete?a?large?percentage?of?their?colege?work?using?online?instruction?may?also?be?helpful.?Determinations?could?be?made?to?see?if?there?are?diferences?in?graduation?status? and?terms?enroled?for?students?who?choose?to?take?courses?through?various?distance?education?platforms?that?are?now?widely?available?throughout?higher?educational? institutions. 72? REFERENCES?AGSC?Definitions?(1997).??Retrived?September?16,?2006?from? htp://stars.troy.edu/agsc/defs.htm.?Alabama?Articulation?&?General?Studies?Commitee?(1997,?November?14,?1997).? Definitions?of?native,?transfer,?transient?student,?and?concurrent?enrollment?adopted?by?the?Articulation?and?General?Studies?Committee?on?November?14,? 1997.?Retrieved?July?6,?2004,?fromhtp://stars.troy.edu/agsc/defs.htm.?Alabama?Commision?on?Higher?Education??ACHE?(2005).?Institutional?student?profiles,? Fall?2005.?Retrived?July?5,?2006?from?htp://www.ache.state.al.us/Profiles.?Alabama?StateLegislature?(1994,?March).?Alabama?Legislation?Act?94?202Retrieved? 8/29/05?from?AGSC?&?STARS?Website:?htp://stars.troy.edu/agsc/legislation.htm.?Alabama?Legislative?Act?94?202,?(1994)?Section?e.? Allen,?W.?S.?(1930).?University?succes?of?junior?colege?graduates.?Junior?College?Journal,1,?147?148.? American?Asociation?of?Comunity?Coleges.?(2000).?National?profile?of?community?colleges:?Trends&?statistics?(3?rd?ed.).?Washington,?DC:?Author? American?Asociation?of?Comunity?Coleges?&?American?Asociation?of?State?Coleges?and?Universities.?(2002).?Improving?acces?to?the?baccalaureate.? Retrieved?8/29/05?from?htp://www.pathtocolege.org/pdf/Lumina_Rpt_AAC.pdf. 73? Arizona?State?University?Oficial?Website?(2006).Academic?Transfer?Articulation.?Retrived?September?16,?2006?fromhtp://www.asu.edu/provost/articulation.? Ary,?D.,?Jacobs,?L.?C.,?&?Rasavieh,?A.?(2005).?Introduction?to?Research.?Belmont,?CA:?Wadsworth??Thomson?Learning.? Bagnato,?K.?(2002).?Back?to?the?lab.?Community?College?Week,?18,?6?8.?Carnevale?A.?P.,?&?Desrochers,?D.?M.?(2003).?Standards?for?what??The?economic?roots?of? K?16?reform.?Princeton,?NJ:?Educational?Testing?Service.?Casella,?G.?&?Berger,?R.?L.?(2002).?Statistical?Inference?(2nd?ed.).?Duxbury?Advanced?`? Series.?Pacific?Grove,?CAWadsworth?Group.?Thomson?Learning.?Chattahoochee?Valley?Comunity?Colege?Oficial?Website?(2006).?Mission?Statement.? Retrived?September?16,?2006?fromhtp://www.cvcc.cc.al.us/purpose.cfm.?Crawford,?V.?M.?(2003).?A?comparison?of?the?baccalaureate?graduation?rates?of?students? who?transferred?from?a?two?year?private?institutions,?a?two?year?public?institution,?and?native?Idaho?State?University?students.?(Doctoral?dissertation,?Idaho?State? University,?2003).?Disertation?Abstracts?International,?UMI?No.?3082997.?Crump,?D.,?O'Neal,?M.,?&?Wilds,?P.?(2002).AGSC?&?STARS?Evaluation?Project?Final? Report?(AGSC?&?STARS).?Retrieved?July?6,?2004,?from?htp://stars.troy.edu/agsc/AGSC?STARS_Evaluation_Project_Final_Report.pdf.? Doherty,?Frank?J.?(1984).The?academic?performance?of?Piedmont?Virginia?Community?College?transfer?students?at?the?University?of?Virginia.?(Research?Rep.?No.?5?84).? Charlottesville,?Virginia:?Piedmont?Virginia?Comunity?Colege,?Office?of?Institutional?Research?and?Planning. 74? Eels,?W.?C.?(1943).?Asociate?s?degree?and?graduation?practices?in?junior?colleges.?Washington,?D.C.:?American?Association?of?Junior?Coleges.? Eels,?W.?C.?(1927).?The?junior?college:?Its?organization?and?administration.?Palo?Alto,?Calif.:?Stanford?University?Press.? Elliott,?E.?S.?(1972).?The?academic?achievement?of?transfer?students?and?the?colege?comprehensive?tests.?Journal?of?College?Student?Personnel,?13,?266?269.? Enterprise?Ozark?Comunity?Colege?Oficial?Website?(2006).?Mission?Statement.?Retrived?September?16,?2006?from? htp://www.eocc.edu/adminofices/registrar/catalogs/ColegeCatalog.pdf.?Fichtenbaum,?M.?(1941).?Junior?colege?graduates?versus?senior?colege?juniors.?Journal? of?the?American?Asociation?of?College?Registrars,?16,?144?154.?Giddings,?W.?G.?(1985).?A?study?of?the?performance,?progress,?and?degree?achievement? of?Iowa?comunity?colege?transfer?students?at?Iowa?s?state?universities?(Doctoral?dissertation,?Iowa?State?University,?1985).? Gold,?B.?K.?(1981).?Persistence?of?fall1977?transfers?to?CSULA:?Second?Report.?Los?Angeles?City?Colege.?ERIC?ED?208?927.? Grade?Point?Average.?(n.d.).Dictionary.com?Unabridged?(v?1.0.1).?Retrieved?September?16,?2006,?from?Dictionary.com?website:? htp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=grade?point?average?Hergenroeder,?S.?J.?(1967).A?comparatitve?study?of?academic?performance?of?community? college?transfer?students?and?native?students?in?six?public?four?year?colleges?and?universities?of?Michigan.?Unpublished?doctoral?dissertation,?University?of? Michigan,?Ann?Arbor. 75? Hildebrandt,?R.?E.?(1984).?Transfer?vs.?nontransfer?student?progress?and?performance?in?a?university?forestry?program.?Unpublished?manuscript.?Iowa?State?University,? Forestry?Department,?Ames,?Iowa.?Hungar?J.?Y.,?&?Lieberman,?J.?(2001).The?road?to?equality:?Report?on?transfer?for?the? Ford?Foundation.?New?York:?The?Ford?Foundation.(ERIC?No.?ED455856).?Integrated?Postsecondary?Education?Data?System?(IPEDS).?2002).Integrated? Postsecondary?Education?Data?System?Fal?enrollment?survey,?2002.?Washington,?DC:?U.S.?Department?of?Education,?National?Center?for?Education?Statistics.? Klitzke,?L.L.?(1961).?Academic?records?of?transfers?in?teacher?training.?Junior?College?Journal,?31,?255?257.? Knoel,?D.M.,?&?Medsker,?L.L.?(1965).?From?junior?to?senior?college:?A?national?study?of?the?transfer?student.?Washington?D.?C.:?American?Council?on?Education.? Kos,?L.V.?(1924).?The?junior?college.?Research?Publications?of?the?University?of?Minnesota,?Education?Series,?No.?5,?Vol.?I.?Minneapolis:?University?of? Minnesota.?Kos,?L.?V.?(1925).The?junior?college?movement.?San?Fransicsco:?Ginn?and?Company.? Langston,?R.?G.?(1971).?Iowa?two?year?colege?transfer?students?at?the?University?of?Iowa:?Academic?succes?and?satisfaction.?(Doctoral?disertation,?University?of? Iowa,?1971).?Dissertation?International,?32(09)?P4955.?Lee.?D.,?&?Suslow,?S.?A.?(1966).Differential?study?of?junior?college?transfer?students?at? the?University?of?California.?Berkeley,?California:?California?University,?Berkeley,?Ofice?of?Institutional?Research.?ERIC?ED?012?615. 76? Lurleen?B.Wallace?Comunity?Colege?Oficial?Website?(2006).Mission?Statement.?Retrived??September?16,?2006?from? htp://www.lbwcc.edu/cms/Storage/Files/COLLEGE%20MISSION.pdf.?Martorana,?S.V.,?&?Williams,?L.L.?(1954).?Academic?succes?of?junior?colege?transfers? at?the?State?Colege?of?Washington.?Junior?College?Journal,?24,?402?415.?Medsker,?L.?(1960).?The?junior?college:?Progres?and?prospect.?NY:McGraw?Hill.? National?Center?for?Education?Statistics.?(1998).Statistical?analysis?report?June?1998:?First?generation?students??Undergraduates?whose?parents?never? enrolled?in?postsecondary?education.?Washington,?DC:?Author.?National?Postsecondary?Student?Aid?Study?(NPSAS).?(2000).?National?Postsecondary? Student?Aid?Study?1999?2000.?Washington,?DC:?U.S.?Department?of?Education,?National?Center?for?Education?Statistics.? Nurkowski,?L.C.?(1995).?Transfer?student?persistence?and?academic?succes?(Doctoral?dissertation,?Widener?University,?1995).? Raisman,?N.?(1990).?Moving?into?the?fifth?generation.?Community?College?Review,?18,?15?23.? Ramsey,?F.?&?Schafer,?D.?(2002).?The?statistical?sleuth:?A?course?in?methods?of?data?analysis?(2?nd?ed.)?(2002)?Duxbury,?Thomson?Learning,?Inc.?Pacific?Grove,?CA.?p.? 544.?Shabazz,?M.?(1995).?Group?seeks?restructuring?of?higher?education?financing.? Community?College?Week.?10. 77? Townsend,?B.?(2000).?Rationals?of?comunity?colleges?for?enrolling?reverse?transfer?students:?a?second?chance?for?whom?Community?College?Journal?of?Research? &?Practice,?24.?301?311.?Troy?University?Oficial?Website?(2006).Mission?Statement.?Retrived?September?16,? 2006?fromhtp://www.troy.edu/mision.html.?United?States?Government?Accountability?Ofice.?(2005).Transfer?students??? postsecondary?institutions?could?promote?more?consistent?consideration?of?coursework?by??not?basing?determinations?on?accreditation.(GAO?Report?to? Congressional?Requesters??No.?GAO?06?22).Washington,?DC:?U.S.?Government?Printing?Ofice.? Wallace?Comunity?Colege?Oficial?Website?(2006).Mission?Statement.?Retrived?September?16,?2006?fromhtp://www.walace.edu/about_wallace/about.htm.? What?is?the?AGSC??(2006).What?is?the?AGSC??Retrieved?7/03/06,?from?htp://stars.troyst.edu/agsc/what_agsc.htm.? What?is?STARS??(2006).?What?is?STARS?Retrieved?7/03/06,?from?htp://stars.troyst.edu/stars/what_stars.htm. 78 APPENDICIES 79 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVAL LETTER FROM AUBURN UNIVERSITY 80 81 APPENDIX B LETTER REQUESTING AND RECEIVING ACCESS TO TROY UNIVERSITY STUDENT RECORDS 82 83 APPENDIX C RECORDING FORM USED TO COLLECT STUDENT DATA 84 DATA RECORDING FORM Stude nt Ide n tifi e r Birth Year Age as of 2006 Gen d er Ethnic i ty Major Cumulative GPA Native or Trans fer? Graduated ? Y e s or No? Number of Terms at Community Colleg e Number of Terms at Troy University Total Terms Enrolled (Combine d) Community Colleg e Atte nde d P r ior to Tr oy 85 APPENDIX D LETTER OF PERMISION TO RE-PRINT FIGURE 1 NOTE: The researcher e-mailed the United States Government Accountability Office (USGAO) to determine the appropriate individual to send a letter to requesting permission to re-print the pie chart that was printed in an October 2005 document published by their office. The following e-mail was sent back from their office stating that the researcher did not need permission from them to reprint the figure due to the fact that the USGAO documents are public and not protected by copyright laws. 86 87 APPENDIX E LETTER OF PERMISSION TO RE-PRINT TABLE 1 AND TABLE 2 88 89