February 2011 

By  Heather Ritenburg, MEd 

 

Transitioning With Success: A Study of Former 

Regina‐Area Secondary Students Entering Their 

Second Year at the  University of Regina  

  

  

  

  

Transitioning With Success:

A Study of Former Regina-Area Secondary Students Entering Their Second Year at the University of Regina

for

University-School Divisions Transition Management Committee

by

Heather Ritenburg, MEd

Saskatchewan Instructional Development & Research Unit (SIDRU)

February 2011  

 

  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     Copyright © 2011 Saskatchewan Instructional Development & Research Unit (SIDRU). Permission to reproduce or transmit any part of this report must be obtained in advance, in writing, from the Director of SIDRU [E-mail: sidru@uregina.ca], University of Regina, Regina, SK.

  

i  

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This research project was undertaken for the University-School Divisions Transition Management Committee (Transition Committee). The aim of this study is to understand the experiences of students from varying contexts who have successfully transitioned from Regina-area, secondary schools through to their second year of full-time study at the University of Regina. The purpose of this study is to provide the Transition Committee with the findings that emerged from a study of University of Regina students’ experiences and opinions based on the Canadian University Survey Consortium’s (CUSC) 2010 Survey of First Year Students. The intention of the study is to generate dialogue to inform the work of the Transition Committee, specifically, those aspects aimed at facilitating more successful transition and retention of Regina-area, secondary school students to the University of Regina.

Background In May 2010, Principal Investigator, Heather Ritenburg, met with Patricia Schmidt, Consultant for the Transition Committee, and SIDRU to review the background to the project and the research goals and to establish a timeline for the project. Using this information, a research proposal was drafted, edited, and approved by the Reference Committee on behalf of the Transition Committee in late August 2010.

Research Design Focus group discussions were selected as an appropriate method to gather qualitative data on particular issues in the CUSC survey. Participants were screened for the following four control characteristics: graduated from a Regina area high school transitioned directly from high school to university successfully completed first-year university1 currently in first semester of second-year university. Focus groups were created based on three distinguishing characteristics: graduated from an urban high school graduated from a rural high school are of Aboriginal ancestry.

                                                            1Focus group participants self-defined as having successfully completed first-year university. Some participants

discontinued or failed one course in their first year of university studies. For our purposes, success is defined as continued participation in the academic program.

  

ii  

Fifteen students participated in three focus group and two individual interview sessions: one focus group each of urban, rural, and urban Aboriginal students, along with two individual interviews with Aboriginal participants. The interviewer utilized a method which combined discussion and consensus-building. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 1.5 hours for a total of 4.5 hours of usable data. Interview data from the two individual interviews were excluded when it was determined the participants did not meet all four control characteristics. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed. Each transcript was analyzed and themed. Themed data were interpreted from the perspective of the students.

Results This report presents factors that supported and challenged students in the following three key periods. Getting to university 1. influential messages to attend university 2. comfort from perceived relationship between high school and university3. early familiarity with the University of Regina campus 4. key role of high school guidance counselors 5. importance of timely, accurate advice from counselors/advisors 6. scholarships mean we’re wanted. Being at university 1. importance of on-campus orientation events 2. Welcome Week activities 3. challenges and surprises in first year 4. differences between first and second year 5. what it means to teach 6. ‘weeding out’ students 7. what it means to learn in university is different from high school. Staying at university 1. expectations of success 2. network of supports to be successful 3. personal development – coping strategies. Wrap-Up Questions At the close of each focus group interview, individual participants were asked to respond to each of three questions.

  

iii  

Question 1 – What was the key to your success? Question 2 – What could your high school have done differently? Question 3 – What could the University of Regina be doing differently?

Considerations and Suggestions It is suggested the Transition Committee keep in mind five items while considering the findings presented in this report. 1. limitations of focus group design 2. students experienced many small transitions 3. one person believed in them 4. shared credit means shared responsibilities 5. students’ perceptions that the university is rigid but high school is changeable. The following four suggestions are proposed for consideration by the Transition Committee. 1. strengthen the University of Regina’s message of support during first year 2. familiarize parents to the experience of first year 3. consider if first-year university needs to be recognized as a unique year 4. consult, involve or include students in the ongoing work of the committee.

  

iv  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1 RESEARCH DESIGN .......................................................................................................1 Participants ...............................................................................................................1 Method .....................................................................................................................2 Analysis of Data .......................................................................................................4 RESULTS ...........................................................................................................................4 Getting to University................................................................................................4

1. Influential messages to attend university ...............................................4 2. Comfort from perceived relationship between high school and

the University of Regina ........................................................................5 3. Early familiarity with the University of Regina campus .......................6 4. Key role of high school guidance counselors ........................................6 5. Importance of timely, accurate advice from counselors/advisors ..........6 6. “Scholarships mean we’re wanted” .......................................................7

Being at University ..................................................................................................7

1. Importance of on-campus orientation events .........................................7 2. Welcome Week activities ......................................................................8 3. Challenges and surprises in first year ....................................................8

(a) Expecting an experience similar to high school ........................8 (b) Dropping grades .........................................................................8 (c) Larger workload .........................................................................9 (d) Lectures are . . . ... ......................................................................9 (e) Large class sizes .........................................................................9

4. Differences between first and second year ............................................9 5. What it means to teach .........................................................................10 6. ‘Weeding out’ students ........................................................................12 7. What it means to learn in university is different from high school .....12

Staying at University..............................................................................................14

1. Expectations of success ........................................................................14 2. Network of supports to be successful ..................................................15 3. Personal development – strategies leading to success .........................17

WRAP-UP QUESTIONS ................................................................................................18

Question 1: What was the key to your success? ....................................................19 Question 2: What could your high school have done differently? .........................19

Question 3: What could the University of Regina be doing differently? ..............21

  

v  

CONSIDERATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ................................................................21 Considerations........................................................................................................21

1. Limitations of Focus Group Design .....................................................21 2. Students Experience Many Successful Transitions .............................22 3. One Person Believed in Them .............................................................22 4. Shared Credit Means Shared Responsibilities .....................................22 5. University is Rigid; High School Is Changeable .................................22

Suggestions ............................................................................................................23 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................25

Appendix A: REB Approval Memo ......................................................................26 Appendix B: Recruitment Email Invitation ...........................................................28 Appendix C: Participant Letter of Introduction and Consent Form ......................32 Appendix D: Focus Group Agreement for Maintaining Confidentiality ...............36 Appendix E: Focus Group Interview Guide ..........................................................38

1  

  

INTRODUCTION This research project was undertaken for the University-School Divisions Transition Management Committee (Transition Committee) to inform its work in facilitating more successful transition and retention of Regina-area secondary school students to the University of Regina. The Transition Committee is comprised of representatives from three Regina-area school divisions: the Regina Catholic school division, the Regina Public school division, and the Prairie Valley school division, along with representatives from the University of Regina - Student Affairs, Academics, Continuing Education, Credit Studies Division, the Faculties of Arts, Education, and Science, and Campion College, Luther College, and First Nations University of Canada. Specifically, this project addresses the following objective of the Transition Committee.

To gather information from Regina area students who have been through the transition process, successfully or unsuccessfully, with a view to improve transition rates.

The aim of this study is to understand the experiences of Regina-area students from varying contexts who have successfully transitioned from Regina-area secondary schools to their second year of full-time study at the University of Regina. The purpose of this study is to provide the Transition Committee with the findings that emerged from University of Regina students’ experiences and opinions based on the Canadian University Survey Consortium’s (CUSC) 2010 Survey of First Year Students <http://www.cusc-ccreu.ca/home.htm>, with the intent of generating dialogue to inform the work of the Transition Committee. This research utilized the CUSC 2010 survey questionnaire to inform the design of the focus group interview questions. Survey results were not utilized because the University of Regina data were unavailable at the time this research was undertaken.

RESEARCH DESIGN

In May 2010, Principal Investigator, Heather Ritenburg, met with Patricia Schmidt, Consultant for the Transition Committee, and SIDRU to review the background to the project and the research goals and to establish a timeline for the project. Using this information, a research proposal was drafted, edited, and approved by the Reference Committee on behalf of the Transition Committee in late August 2010. Ethics approval was received from the University of Regina Research Ethics Board in early October 2010 (see Appendix A – REB Approval Memo).

Participants Participant recruitment began in mid-October 2010. The Transition Committee - through Patricia Schmidt - maintained responsibility for recruiting participants. Purposive sampling was utilized for its contribution to the desired interactive discussion due to participants having a significant

2  

  

relation to the research topic. Purposive sampling begins with a purpose in mind and allows a search for individuals who meet control characteristics. Participants were recruited in four ways: (a) email invitations, (b) poster invitations, (c) phone invitations, (d) in-person invitations (see Appendix B – Recruitment Email Invitation). Invitations to participate stated our wish to hear from all second-year students; in particular, those students who may have experienced some challenges in their first year of university. Recruitment support was received from the University of Regina Student Affairs, the University of Regina Students’ Union, the University of Regina Aboriginal Student Centre, and the University of Regina Aboriginal Career Centre. Participants were screened for the following four control characteristics: 1. graduated from a Regina-area high school 2. transitioned directly from high school to university 3. successfully completed first-year university 4. currently in first semester of second-year university. Focus groups were created based on three distinguishing characteristics: graduated from an urban high school graduated from a rural high school are of Aboriginal ancestry. Participants had a role in selecting which focus group they wished to join. All participants were given opportunity to self-identify as being of Aboriginal ancestry and to participate in a focus group comprised solely of Aboriginal individuals. Students were informed of the length of the interview and offered $15.00 in recognition of their time and, in addition, their names were entered in a $50 draw for a University of Regina Bookstore gift certificate. Participants were sent a letter of introduction and a consent form in advance of the focus group interviews (see Appendix C: Participant Letter of Introduction and Consent Form).

Method Focus group discussions were selected as an appropriate method to gather qualitative data on particular issues in the CUSC survey. A focus group is a small group discussion that addresses a specific topic. Focus group interviews are not a quick approach to individual interviews and depend on the interaction between participants. The interviewer utilizes a method which combines discussion and consensus-building. Focus group interviews provide rich data which

                                                            2 Focus group participants self-defined as having successfully completed first year university. Some participants

discontinued or failed one course in their first year of university studies. For our purposes, success is defined as ‘continued participation in the academic program.’

3  

  

can be complex to analyze. Both the interview and the analysis take into consideration the interpersonal dynamics, including possible conformance, conflict avoidance, and self-censoring. The focus group is the primary unit of analysis rather than the individual participant. The benefits of using focus groups in this project include: Group interaction. Students are able to listen to others’ thoughts and experiences, which can stimulate memories and ideas and produce data and insights that would be less accessible without group interaction. Common language. A well-facilitated focus group can create a kind of cascading effect where participants’ talk builds on previously expressed ideas. This cascading effect creates a space where participants begin to use a common language to describe similar experiences. Nonverbal component. The interviewer is able to observe nonverbal forms of communication, including body postures and facial expressions as contributing additional information about the topic under discussion. The control characteristics and distinguishing characteristics described above maximized the comparative potential between the groups. Fifteen students participated in three focus group and two individual interview sessions: one focus group each of rural, urban, and urban Aboriginal students, along with two individual interviews with Aboriginal participants. There were 9 female and 6 male participants. The first set of interviews took place in mid-November 2010, with the final set of interviews completed by mid-December 2010. All interviews were of the same structure and followed an outline of topics drawn from the CUSC 2010 survey. The investigator provided a brief introduction that covered: (a) a welcome, (b) the purpose of the interviews, and (c) a review of consent and consent documents (see Appendix D: Focus Group Agreement for Maintaining Confidentiality). The investigator then initiated and guided the discussion using the interview guide (see Appendix E: Focus Group Interview Guide). The investigator managed the discussions so that each group expressed their thoughts and shared their experiences that were relevant to the research and specific to their group. At the close of each interview, participants were invited to contribute any further thoughts to the investigator, Heather Ritenburg, via personal email. Interview data from two individual interviews were excluded when it was determined that the participants did not meet all four control characteristics. Each focus group interview lasted approximately 1.5 hours, and each individual interview, approximately 1 hour, for a total of 6.5 hours of interview data and 4.5 hours of usable data. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed, and any identifying details were changed to protect participants’ identities. The investigator maintained field notes.

4  

  

Analysis of Data Each transcript was analyzed, themed, and interpreted by considering the seven criteria (after Krueger, 1994, 3) of words, context, internal consistency, frequency and extensiveness of comments, specificity of comments, intensity of comments, and big ideas. Data were first analyzed within each transcript and then across the transcripts. Analysis and interpretation considered interpersonal dynamics and nonverbal forms of communication, for example, the role of laughter in establishing consensus.

RESULTS Analysis of the focus group transcripts revealed a broad range of supportive and challenging factors that merged in a complex relationship in these students’ lives. This report focuses on the students’ experiences, and the findings are presented from their perspective. This report presents factors that supported and challenged students over three key periods: (a) getting to university, (b) being at university, (c) remaining at university. A discussion of each period follows.

Getting to University 1. Influential messages to attend university

The messages that students received to attend university were widespread, ranging from family and friends, to school and community, universities, and common sense. There were noticeable differences between the rural and urban students, including the urban Aboriginal students, regarding which factor most influenced their decision to attend university. There was consensus across all focus groups of the limited influence of friends on their decision to attend a specific university. Participants generally agreed that most of their friends were attending a postsecondary institution. Rural students received strong messages to attend university from their parents and the community; however, once the decision to attend university had been made, it was the guidance counselors who played a supportive role. Rural participants received messages from parents both with and without university experience that they attend university (e.g., that university was “a must” and that my parents “really wanted me to go” [rural focus group participants]). Unique to rural students was the strong influence of community in the message to attend university. Rural focus group participants felt tremendous pressure from the community to

                                                            3Krueger, R. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

5  

  

attend university because everyone “knows your business” which, participants agreed, was sometimes good and sometimes bad.

Growing up in a small town it’s kind of expected if you have high marks you are automatically off to university. (rural focus group participant) People of the town … people come up to me and say like, ‘Hey my company’s got a scholarship and I know you’d get it….’ So yeah, everyone knows your business. I don’t even know them…. They just knew I was someone. (rural focus group participant)

Urban students, including urban Aboriginal students, felt strong expectations to attend university first from their parents and second, but not so strong, from their high school guidance counselors. Urban parents emphasized the need for a “good paying job,” and “common sense” or societal messages identified the need for a “career” or the need to have a “career plan.” Urban focus group participants received weak messages from urban guidance counselors to attend university; however, some urban students mentioned that “teachers who were closer to you” did provide messages to attend university.

Not so much teachers, I guess, it was my parents that were probably the main reason for me. Cause the high school, they kind of just [said] if you’re going to university, blah, blah, blah…. I guess in my high school half of [my graduating class] didn’t even come so [my high school] did really have an influence on my getting to university or making good choices or selections for university. (urban Aboriginal focus group participant)

When the interviewer raised the issue of community influence, neither the urban nor the urban Aboriginal focus groups members considered the community or the influence of the community as important.

2. Comfort from a perceived relationship between high school and the University of Regina

All focus groups perceived a strong relationship between their individual high schools (via the guidance counselors) and the University of Regina over any other university or postsecondary option. University visits to high schools for career fairs were important relationship-building events for all focus groups. Rural participants thought their high school guidance counselors considered visits to the university as important. For the rural focus group, these visits contributed to their feeling of the University of Regina - including Luther College and Campion College - as being the “norm”; a “safe” choice to make.

Everyone [in my graduating class who went to university] went to Regina, pretty much unless you were brave enough to go somewhere else – which was very few of us. (rural focus group participant)

6  

  

For the urban focus group, field trips to the university were not a topic of much discussion or interest. Urban participants also considered the University of Regina and the Colleges as the norm, but more because of living in the same city as the university; geographically and financially the University of Regina was the easiest choice.

3. Early familiarity with the University of Regina campus

To some extent, attending community programs at the University of Regina (e.g., such as EYES Camps, Summer Sports School and sporting events) throughout elementary and/or high school were reasons why some focus group participants felt comfortable with their decision to attend the University of Regina.

4. Key role of high school guidance counselors

There was strong consensus across all focus groups about the importance of guidance counselors in creating the reality of attending university. Many were the examples of high school guidance counselors support and advice, which included sourcing scholarships, arranging visits to the university, going over program and class options, arranging compulsory monthly meetings to discuss ongoing university plans, and generally encouraging students to attend university.

That first-off support is really important because it just gets you in the door and gets you set up. (urban focus group participant). The biggest deal in high school is having a guidance counselor who cares about the kids [I agree], and who cares about finding them scholarships. If you want to go to the university of whatever, they’ll get you there and they’ll find out specifically what you need, so I think that’s what makes the big difference is having somebody who cares. (rural focus group participant)

5. Importance of timely, accurate advice from counselors/advisors

Focus group participants discussed the advice that parents, family members, and friends provided about registering at the university. The accuracy of information provided by those not currently attending the University of Regina (i.e., about program or course selection) was mixed. Instead, participants preferred to make early contact with an on-campus advisor, such as at a career fair, prior to registration.

I didn’t even know what to take … so … my dad just went, ‘OK, you’ll take this’ and then I saw [the advisor at the university] and she’s like, ‘Oh, here’s a guideline,’ and I’m like, ‘OK, I’ll go by the guidelines for now’ [instead of my dad’s advice]. (Aboriginal focus group participant) I didn’t even get help picking my classes…. [We] had a family friend who said, ‘I used to be a guidance counselor there. I’ll help you do it’ and she had an out-of-date course calendar, so I missed getting into my first chem class … so now I’m back two semesters for chemistry. (urban focus group participant)

7  

  

6. “Scholarships mean we’re wanted”

There was general consensus across the focus groups that university entrance scholarships functioned not only as a financial support but also as an incentive because the University of Regina wanted them. For some it was a relatively small amount (e.g., $250) that was a push factor to attend; for others it was an honor to receive several scholarships from the University of Regina, despite having received the equivalent in monetary value in a single scholarship from another university. In considering other factors (i.e., being able to live at home or living within easy distance of home), it was the award – large or small – that seemed to tip the balance in favor of the University of Regina.

It was the dollar amount, too, but at the same time everybody likes to be recognized . . . it gives you confidence that you’re in the right place. (rural focus group participant) It kind of makes you feel like that University wants you to be there . . . I did apply to the U of S and I got none from them, and got four from here, so it’s obvious that the U of R wants me to come here because they are willing to help me pay for my school, whereas the U of S was like, ‘You can pay for it yourself.’ (rural focus group participant)

Being at University 1. Importance of on-campus orientation events

For all focus group participants, a crucial transition between ‘getting to’ and ‘being at’ university was the on-campus orientation events held prior to the start of fall classes. All but two focus group participants attended one or more orientation events offered by the University of Regina, Luther College, Campion College, and the Aboriginal Student Centre. One urban student chose not attend because she had an older sister who attended the University of Regina and gave her a tour of the campus. Another urban student was unsure about how to attend because she had not received an invitation and, as a result, she states,

I got thrown in [the experience of first semester] rather than stepping in gently. (urban focus group participant)

Two parents attended a parent orientation that was separate from the student orientation.

My mom came . . . [S]he said that she was really glad that she came cuz she didn’t know anything about university…. I guess they told her not to nag me about homework and stuff – they’re like – they’ll figure out they have to do it…. Ya [it’s benefited me] a little – she doesn’t nag as much as she did in high school. (urban focus group participant).

8  

  

It was possible that other parents did not attend because, “I just think they thought I could figure it out on my own” and “they already knew all about university” (urban focus group participants). On the whole, focus group participants found the University of Regina orientation helpful. They appreciated the small faculty groupings, the tours with experienced students who provided inside tips, and the meeting with professors. One rural focus group participant was disappointed with the orientation at one of the colleges.

I never got one of those tours, and that’s what I was looking for. [My college orientation] was all about games, games, and it was like, ‘I’m not here to play games.’ (rural focus group participant)

2. Welcome Week activities

Welcome Week activities were a non-issue for all focus group participants, generating no discussion.

3. Challenges and surprises in first year

Most participants were prepared that the university experience would be “time consuming” and “hard work.” Urban students and urban Aboriginal students experienced slightly more challenges and provided a variety of responses, whereas rural students experienced fewer surprises because university was pretty much what they had expected.

(a) Expecting an experience similar to high school

Urban students and urban Aboriginal students expected the university experience would be more similar to high school and expressed surprise at the differences.

I don’t know what I expected really. I thought it’ll just be like [high] school, you’ll do fine. And then first year, like omigod! (urban focus group participant) [I thought] first year [would be] like, OK more school, more school. I’ll just keep doing it. (urban Aboriginal focus group participant)

(b) Dropping grades

All focus groups and most participants were eager to discuss dropping grades. All students had been warned to expect a drop in grades - mainly from high school teachers and guidance counsellors - yet the students felt that parents, friends, and family who had not attended university did not understand that this was what most students experienced. Urban students expressed more surprise at their drop in grades from high school to first semester university than did the rural and urban Aboriginal focus group participants.

9  

  

I never believed [my grades would drop] – not me, I couldn’t do that [multiple agreement]. (urban focus group participant)

(c) Larger workload

Rural students, in particular, found the larger workload “difficult to manage” (rural focus group participant). There was some discussion about university advisors not understanding the additional workload from labs, and students were critical of those who scheduled too many classes with labs in their first semester.

(d) Lectures are ...

Across the focus groups, students experienced significant challenges with the lecture format of large, first-year classes, including: the large amount of information given in one lecture the faster speed of a lecture knowing how to filter the information knowing how to take notes in a lecture understanding a prof with an unfamiliar accent.

(e) Large class sizes

Participants in both the rural and urban aboriginal focus groups found the large class sizes surprising and challenging, whereas the urban focus group was less surprised and challenged by large, first-year classes.

You’re kind of alone. (urban Aboriginal focus group participant) It’s a lot more independent. (urban Aboriginal focus group participant)

4. Differences between first and second year

All focus groups agreed there were great differences between first and second year, and that the second year was better than the first.

You can have a plan in place and you can go with it, rather than first year you’ re all – it’s new, you’re somewhat lost, now you can work off what you know. (rural focus group participant) Classes are harder but … I’m more prepared for them. I know the flow of the system. I know what profs expect. I realize what I need to do. (urban focus group participants) I am more aware of … how to prepare for finals.

10  

  

how to study for tests. what we should be doing. (rural focus group participants)

5. What it means to teach

Focus group participants had much to share about what it means to teach in a high school and what it means to teach in a university context. Discussions were enriched by the participants recruited from multiple faculties. Each focus group had at least one participant who introduced the issues of equity and diversity of learners. All groups quickly came to consensus that

High school has teachers; [first-year] university doesn’t. (urban focus group participant).

There was shared belief that

Professors [are] not chosen because they know how to teach, they‘re chosen because they’re the best in their field. (urban focus group participant).

Further,

They don’t teach you. (urban focus group participant) They don’t explain it or anything. (urban focus group participant) It’s not them helping us to learn. (rural focus group participant)

All groups experienced limited teaching strategies from first-year professors, with lectures being the most common strategy.

Teaching is making sure that the other people understand, but lecturing is like, ‘I’m telling you the way it is.’ (rural focus group participant). During university it’s pretty much like you listen and write. There’s not different … methods. (urban focus group participant) It’s like we [professors] are just going to sit here and babble about what we know and then we’re going to leave. (rural focus group participant). At university you’re just kinda there. (urban focus group participant)

All focus groups felt first-year university was “kind of unfair” to a diversity of learners. They concluded that university favored auditory, independent, and physically passive learners, but did not meet the needs of visual or kinesthetic learners or those who required interaction to build understanding. This was noted as particularly unfair at the level of first-year lecture classes that only met the learning needs of some students, while teaching in higher level classes was perceived as more equitable to a diversity of learners.

11  

  

I think [it’s] hardest for kinesthetic learners … [who] require writing down or moving [to learn] or can’t sit still. I think they should allow people with that type of learning to do that type of learning. As far as visual goes, there are profs there for visual learners. Some. Like I said, it depends on if they are organized or not and in some cases it’s kind of hard to be. Like in organic chemistry…. There is so much … I’m going to have to use a big white board and draw all the things I’ve learnt…. A prof can’t quite do that, you know, it would probably take up too much time. (urban Aboriginal focus group participant)

Several rural focus group participants used hand gestures to describe good teaching as interactive; however, their experiences in first-year university was that communication in lectures went in one direction, with a perceived disinterest or resistance from professors towards interacting with students.

I feel the same way as everyone else was saying - it’s a one-sided conversation that you don’t have a part in … you have to take your own initiative to make sure you understand what the [prof] is saying; it’s not them helping you to learn it. (rural focus group participant)

Participants agreed that good teaching requires “social skills” (Aboriginal focus group participant).

[In high school] teachers are responding to you. (urban focus group participant) [In high school] they kind of mould it to the people in the class like, ‘Oh, you don’t get that? so let’s try a different way.’ [In university] it’s like, ’You don’t get that? Too bad.’ (urban focus group participant)

The urban focus group concluded that first-year professors did not care whether students succeeded or failed.

In high school they want you to succeed, and at university they’re like, ‘If you succeed that’s great; if you don’t, [then] try something else.’ (urban focus group participant)

Further, first-year professors did not share responsibility for student learning or failure to learn.

I’ll translate that – ‘If you don’t succeed in the way that I’m teaching this class [yeah multiple voices] too bad. There’s something wrong with [chorus of multiple voices you you, ya, pretty much ya, you]’. (interviewer and urban focus group participants)

12  

  

6. ‘Weeding out’ students

All focus groups fervently believed that first-year classes were intended to weed out students.

Definitely – what I heard through … all my high school teachers [was] they’re gonna weed you out. If you don’t make it, they’re just trying to cut people. They just want the best people at the end. (urban focus group participant) You … look at programs, and [wonder] why do I have to take that class cause it has nothing to do with what I’m doing, oh, because they don’t want some people to come back next year [um hmm]. (rural focus group participant)

Students believed there were specific ‘weeding out’ classes:

I heard that there are specific classes at the U of R that weed people out and they have different classes at the U of S that are meant to weed people out [Yeah]. [Ya, mandatory classes]. (rural focus group participant) My guidance counselor told me everyone at the U of R has to take English 100 and she said that that is the weed-out class [umm hmm] [yeah]. She said the profs are nasty, she said, ‘And if you don’t like your prof, they’re going to fail you and you’re not gonna go back.’ (rural focus group participant)

7. What it means to learn in university is different from high school

General consensus was that learning in university was very different from learning in high school.

[In first year classes] you taught yourself because he would just talk and talk. He didn’t write anything down. He’d give you maybe a few handouts, but he would just talk and, if you missed something, you were like lost because everything connects. You had to teach yourself and if you didn’t, you wouldn’t make it. (urban focus group participant) [In university] you have to pick apart the stuff that is important, that they’re actually going to test you on and I feel like they give you highlights … and then you have to make sure that you actually read your textbooks. (urban focus group participant)

Often students in first year did not want to ask questions in class.

It’s kind of embarrassing … to put up your hand and be like, ‘Hey everybody, I’m stupid,’ and, ‘Can you redo that again?’ (rural focus group participant) You don’t want them to look at you differently … you really don’t want to admit you don’t understand anything. (rural focus group participant)

13  

  

This changed when professors took an interest in them as learners.

One of my professors … is trying. We have forums and UR Courses4 a lot for that class. He said his goal by the first midterm was to know everybody’s name. He came to all our labs and he read all our name plates and he knows everybody’s names. If you raise your hand … he’ll say your name and then you can ask your question, so that’s good. (urban focus group participant)

Interviewer: What’s good about that?

You feel like you can talk to them … because they know who you are and you feel more like a person instead of a student number. (urban focus group participant)

Interviewer: Why is it important to talk to a prof?

[Because] they’re the one teaching the class – they’re the one that has the information that you are supposed to know by the end of the class, and I think that’s the best person to talk to to get the information from. (urban focus group participant)

Students agreed that some of the best learning took place beyond class time.

We use the forums on UR courses and we all talk and the night before exams everyone in the class is on that forum and we ask questions and we all talk to one another and the teacher says, ‘Oh good job’ to someone for explaining that. (urban focus group participant)

[The smaller classes] are really good because almost everyone right after the class [including the prof] will just keep talking about stuff – like you said, I bet you learn more out of class than in it. (urban focus group participant) I think to a degree you need both – you need someone to teach you some stuff and you need to teach yourself stuff…. If I figure something out on my own, then I know it for sure like solid … but at the same time you can get really frustrated – you need a starting point so you need someone to teach you a little bit at least and with some classes you’d get nothing, like basically nothing. (urban focus group participant)

                                                            4UR Courses is a course management system implemented at the University of Regina in 2009 to support university

teaching staff in creating effective on-line learning communities. It provides resources, content and activities including communication tools (email, discussion forums, blogs and wikis), quizzes and assignments, a calendar, and upcoming events.

14  

  

Staying at University Returning to second-year university implied participants were staying. Focus group participants knew they had transitioned successfully into university – not just to university but into university. It was as though they had been through several rites of passage. From the familiar world of high school they had found the courage to not only enroll but also to set foot on the university campus as a registered student. Then there had been the surprises and challenges (and for some, the shock) of first-year, first-semester classes. From the vantage point of second year, these students considered getting through each of these moments as little transitions of success. Staying at university requires a complex network of relationships with and around each student. While the network may be unique to each student, there are three common areas that comprise the relationships: (a) expectations, (b) supports, and (c) the discovery or development of strategies. A discussion each of these three areas follows. 1. Expectations of success

All participants experienced expectations from multiple sources they must be successful or would be successful. While the sources varied, all students felt they would let someone down, other than themselves, if they discontinued university by choosing to withdraw or by failing classes. It was important for participants at a variety of transitional times that they have someone who believed they would be successful in university. It was particularly important to have this expectation of success during the high school years. Expectations of success came from parents, community, teachers and schools, coaching staff, and self, but may or may not have been accompanied by tangible sources of support. The people identified as expecting students be successful may or may not have been part of the network of supports discussed in the following section. In addition to identifying someone who expected them to be successful, these participants also displayed strong expectations of their own success.

My parents always wanted me to do something after school …. My mom’s a teacher and my grandma, both grandparents were teachers and they were always saying teaching was great – you’d be great as a teacher cause you’re great with kids. (rural focus group participant) [People in the community knowing your business] It’s a good thing and a bad thing…. Yeah, people think that you can [be successful in university], so I may as well do it for them. (rural focus group participant) I guess this year, if anything, you realize that this is my life now, this is what I have to do to get by in life and get a good job and be successful…. It’s like, this is my life, I have to keep on going and actually try harder than I did last year. (urban Aboriginal focus group participant)

15  

  

It is significant to note that students did not feel expectations of success from either the university, generally, or from the first-year professors, specifically. This was clear from discussions about the differences in teaching and learning between high school and university, as well as discussions about student perceptions of first-year courses as a weeding out process. Students felt strongly that high school teachers wanted them to be successful in their high school learning, but also felt strongly that first-year university professors were not interested in them as learners.

In high school [the teachers] want you to succeed and at university [the professors] are like, ‘If you succeed, that’s great; if you don’t [then] try something else.’ (urban focus group participant) My [university] teacher told me the other day that they wanted the class average in the first year to be 50 and second-year class average to be a 60 – so like half of the people would fail in first year – that’s what they wanted. (urban focus group participant)

2. Network of supports to be successful

For all students, there existed an effective, complex network of tangible supports that contributed to their success in transitioning from high school to university, through first-year surprises and challenges, and into the more secure feeling of second-year university. Participants discussed utilizing a combination of supports from a variety of sources. Parents and family members Tangible supports from parents and family members varied, depending upon whether or not the parents had attended university. Where parents and family had attended university, students spoke of supports including guidance and advice. Where parents had not attended university, students spoke of supports such as prepared meals, laundry, car repairs, and rides. Friends Friends supported many students going through their first-year challenges. Occasionally these friends were classmates from high school, though more often participants spoke of new friends from university classes. Generally, high school friends made the university experience “more bearable,” but new friends from class, social clubs, or teams provided supports such as study groups and advice.

I’m on [a university athletic] team … I have a group of girls that I can always count on if I need anything cuz … most of them are older than me and so they can help me out cuz they’ve usually taken the classes that I have, so it’s good. (urban focus group participant)

Coaches and sports scholarships.

16  

  

Also, team coaches and sport scholarships were strong sources of support for student athletes. Linking grades to maintaining a scholarship seemed the means through which coaches could give students tangible support, particularly if the student had to improve his/her strategies for success in classes.

I needed a 70 to get my …[athletic team] scholarship, so I think I ended up with a 68 just ‘cause I was getting into bad habits … I was slacking big time. (rural focus group participant)

High schools High schools were a very important part of the network of supports in the transition from high school to university. High school supports included programs; courses such as Advanced English; scholarships and awards; the work of guidance counselors that included sourcing scholarships, advice on programs, and individual meetings to ensure plans were progressing; as well as the relationship between a participant’s high school and the University of Regina (e.g., field trips and community-based university classes).

I had the opportunity to take a few university classes before I graduated Grade 12…. It [was] a really good opportunity to understand this new learning environment different from the high school classroom setting…. It was slightly a bit easier, maybe just [due to] the comfort of being in your own high school. (urban focus group participant)

Advisors University faculty and college advisors provided critical support to all participants. Participants generally preferred in-person, individual support, followed by small group sessions. Advisors were appreciated for providing accurate information and good advice on the selection and scheduling of electives. Most participants spoke of continuing and planning to continue to work with advisors.

They were amazing. They sat down one-on-one and sat with you for 15 minutes if you needed that much time. (rural focus group participant) Since then, I’ve gone and made an appointment with them every semester. I don’t have to now but the first semester I did have to go. (urban focus group participant)

Some participants found that large advising sessions were not as helpful.

Once again, there was like 50 people in that [advising session], and it was really hard to follow because they are going so fast…. It’s the first time you’re doing it, so they just go through everything pretty fast and it’s like your first university experience and you feel like it goes right over your head too, so overwhelmed, so it was nice to have people who are in university and have graduated from university to help me with that. (rural focus group participant)

17  

  

Supplemental instruction Participants spoke very highly of Supplemental Instruction (SIs). Most focus group participants were familiar with the program and had attended in their first year.

[SI] is the best thing! [oh I second that]…. It is [almost like doubling your class time] but different [because] you have that one-on-one time with a teacher-type person. (rural focus group participant)

I probably needed more help than I went for, but I went to Supplemental Instruction for both [my science classes] as much as I could. (urban Aboriginal focus group participant)

Note. In discussing the differences in teaching and learning between university and high school, students noted that many university supports existed outside the class, while high school supports existed inside the class.

Field trips and orientation sessions

Field trips to the university and orientation sessions offered at the university, the colleges, and the Aboriginal Student Centre were critical components in the participants’ network of supports. Students most appreciated gaining familiarity with the campus via the tours; having extended contact with a second-year student who provided many pieces of advice; and meeting an actual professor. Technological supports Participants spoke often of technology-based supports. UR Courses and the forums offered on UR Courses were a major source of support, particularly when professors participated, even minimally, in the discussions. Rate-My-Prof was a well used source of information by all focus group participants.

3. Personal development – strategies leading to success

From the surprises and challenges of first year - in particular the first semester – there emerged coping strategies which developed into ongoing strategies for success. These can be summarized in four key areas - strategies around classes, schedules, organization, and finding help - that are discussed as follows. Classes Many strategies related to first-year classes developed because of participants’ unfamiliarity with the lecture method. Students had to figure out how to take effective notes and how to manage the volume of information that was shared in a single lecture class. Many students quickly determined they needed to regularly attend classes and

18  

  

actually study. Some discovered that reading the textbook, even when not assigned, helped in understanding the lectures. Key strategies in dealing with first-year classes often involved connecting with other students. Most students spoke of developing a school support network to share notes and ideas and to understand content. Some students discovered that helping others (i.e., in explaining content) helped them to learn the course material better. Others found that joining social clubs, participating in UR Courses forums, and socializing in the hallway after class supported their learning.

Schedules The importance of scheduling time to relax and socialize was a hard-learned lesson for many participants. Many spoke of overworking and feeling fried at the end of first semester. Some chose to reduce their class load to four classes, most scheduled in time for friends, and others made sure their schedules did not have 8:30 a.m. classes in second semester. Others recognized the value of having outlets outside of school, such as jobs and sporting or recreational activities. Organization All focus groups agreed that organization was a strategy that supported their success. Many spoke of utilizing agendas, little notebooks, day planners, or calendars. Finding help All focus groups addressed the need to know when, how, and where to find help when they faced challenges during first-year classes. A variety of strategies were discussed that included supplemental instruction, learning to “teach myself,” getting a tutor, sourcing and purchasing reference books, getting academic advising, and using Rate-My-Prof. Students seemed uncertain of where to go if they needed help and were hesitant to ask for help for fear of appearing stupid. When the urban focus group was asked where they would go or would they know where to go if they were struggling, there was much laughter, with the response, “[the university] would let you drown [laughter]”; however, another response was that “Big posters would help.”

WRAP-UP QUESTIONS

At the close of each focus group interview, individual participants were asked to respond to each of the following three questions. Because there was no intention to bring the group to consensus on these comments, they are listed without having been themed.

19  

  

Question 1: What was the key to your success? Students were asked to identify the key to their success – what it was that got them through first year successfully and encouraged them to register in second year.

Taking a breath – relaxing for a few minutes. (urban) Giving myself permission to relax and take timeout from school. Time management – having a clear schedule of time to hangout with friends as well as to study. Taking lunch breaks is key for me. Taking time away from university … otherwise it feels oppressive … like a cage. I need to have an outlet – the social aspect is important for me. Buckling down and getting some studying done in the library. (urban) Self-discipline and focus – keep to the books. Time management – knowing how much effort to put into each assignment. (urban) Organization – relaxing – working in stages on all my assignments instead of all at once. I stopped using my daily agenda cuz my agenda stressed me out; now I just use a big calendar for assignment dates and do the daily planning in my head. Picking classes early when you first get your time ticket. Not being afraid to drop a class. Learn to take everything in stride, even though you don’t do well in something doesn’t mean you’re going to fail and everything is going to come crashing down. Knowing there is a light at the end of the tunnel. I am motivated by the job I want.

Question 2: What could your high school have done differently?

Warn me how hard it is. (urban) Tell me that you need to remember the stuff you learn in high school. (urban)

20  

  

To have a different measure of what success is – success in high school is 90%, but success in university is 70% - I was told but I didn’t believe it. (urban) Not baby us as much – for example, you get bonus marks in high school but not in university. (urban) High school is about projects and assignments; university is about tests so either high schools should test more or university should test less. Make it less forgiving and harder to actually prepare you for university. (urban) Get to know yourself as a person and as a learner – your learning style, what study methods are best for you. Get to know your passions. (urban Aboriginal) When, how, and where to ask for help. (urban) Do lab reports in high school so we are prepared for university science labs. English writing is not the same as science writing. (urban Aboriginal) Nothing, our high school was good. (multiple rural responses) Have a class that directly prepares us for university like lectures, MLA style, especially prepares us for English 100. (urban) Tell us that there is something for everyone at university – you do not need to be a genius to go to university – you do not need to love math and science – there’s something there for you. (urban Aboriginal) Offer a university class like English 100 or Math to learn this new way of learning by lecture. (urban) There needs to some sort of bridge between the two “cause right now we’re jumping over a huge gap of water.” (rural) Take expectations like profs will have and introduce it to us a bit in high school. (urban) High school English was about thinking creatively outside the box and university is here’s the box, stay inside. (rural) Closer links in curriculum so what we learn in high school English is what we need in university writing.

21  

  

Question 3: What could the University of Regina be doing differently?

Have mock lectures at orientation and tell us how to take notes and filter information. (urban) It’s good – keep it the same – it’s modeling for later in life when we have a career. (urban) Some helpful instruction for profs about how to convey information properly – how to teach and not just talk. (urban) Promote social groups because it helps first years a lot. (urban Aboriginal) Warn us not to be too ambitious – to take it in steps – not to take all one semester of science and maths. (urban Aboriginal) Find your passion – “Careers are like relationships – why settle?” was on a pamphlet in the Aboriginal Support Centre and it’s good advice. (urban Aboriginal) High school is about projects and assignments; university is about tests. So either high schools should test more or university should test less Both high school and university need to help us get to know ourselves as a learner – your learning style, what study methods are best for you.

CONSIDERATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS The aim of this report is to provide the Transition Committee with findings which will assist in generating dialogue to facilitate more successful transition and retention of Regina-area secondary school students to the University of Regina. This section provides considerations and suggestions as to how this report might inform the work of the Transition Committee. These considerations and suggestions arise from the focus group interviews, the analysis of the transcripts, and the investigator’s reflections on the work of the committee.

Considerations 1. Limitations of Focus Group Design

By design, the statements of focus group members are influenced by the group’s interaction and the opinions of others. Thus, each group is understood to represent a general opinion.

22  

  

The intention of focus group interviews is not to provide generalizations but rather to offer informative, descriptive insights into the thoughts, opinions, and behaviors of a representative group. Analysis relies upon patterns formed by words or theming, rather than a generalizable statistical analysis. The small size of our focus groups may mean the groups might not be a good representation of the larger student population.

2. Students Experience Many Successful Transitions

Successful transition of students into second-year university is the result of a series of smaller successful transitions and accomplishments during high school and first-year university.

3. One Person Believed in Them

A key finding across the three focus groups was that each of these students had someone who believed they could and would be successful at university. It varied between individual participants as to whom this person was – a parent, a relative, a guidance counselor – however, all participants who had transitioned successfully from high school to second-year university were able to name one person who believed in them.

4. Shared Credit Means Shared Responsibilities

Students shared credit for their success among high school and university/Colleges, family, community and friends. It may benefit the Transition Committee to consider this report from a perspective of shared responsibilities for student success. Further, in the ongoing work of the Transition Committee, it might consider consulting with students.

5. University is Rigid; High School Is Changeable

Focus group participants tended to view the university as unchangeable and rigid in its ways. Conversely, participants tended to view high school as a site for change. There was the general perception that universities “are the way they are” and that, in order to be successful, students needed to adapt, change, or to be somehow different.

23  

  

Suggestions

1. Strengthen the University of Regina’s messages of support during first year.

Strengthen the messages of support from the university that are available to first-year students. Students struggle with where, when, and how to access tangible support; most did not look much beyond their classmates for help. Messages and information sharing about supports which came from, or were passed on by professors, appeared to be most effective. Students noted that many university supports existed outside class while high school supports existed inside class.

2. Familiarize parents with the experiences of first-year university.

Create more opportunities for parents to gain understanding and insights about the experiences of first-year university, particularly if parents have not themselves attended university. Recognize the diversity of parents and of parenting styles and beliefs. Whether students were living at or away from home during first-year university, parents were often an important source of support. Students who struggled often felt they were letting their parents down or not living up to parents’ expectations for their success. This sometimes added pressure and contributed to feelings of isolation. Parents who had some understanding of the first-year experience often provided more appropriate support.

3. Consider if first-year university needs to be recognized as a unique year

Across focus groups it was agreed that first-year university was a unique experience when compared to both high school and second-year university. Participants experienced second-year university classes as more similar to high school classes than to first-year classes. Participants concluded that only particular types of learners could be successful in lecture-based, first-year classes, while high school and second-year university classes taught to a broader range of learners.

4. Consult, involve, or include students in the ongoing work of the Committee

There needs to some sort of bridge between the two ‘cause right now we’re jumping over a huge gap of water. (rural focus group participant)

It is suggested that the Transition Committee consider how it might consult, involve, or include students’ insights and experiences along with those of the Transition Committee members. Consider what high schools and the University might do independently and together to determine what this gap consists of, how students might be assisted in navigating it, and how all might work together to transform this gap.

24  

  

25  

  

APPENDICES

26  

  

APPENDIX A

REB Approval Memo

27  

  

28  

  

APPENDIX B

Recruitment Email Invitation

29  

  

Recruitment Email Invitation

Subject Line: Calling All Second Year Students Are you in your second year of university? How’s it going? Would you be prepared to tell us about your experience of coming from high school and making it through first year? It will take about an hour and a half of your time. We will give you $15 in recognition of your time. The letter below provides additional information . . . Title of the Project: Transitioning With Success: A Study of Former Regina Area Secondary Students Entering Their Second Year at the University of Regina Dear Second Year Student: You are invited to participate in a research study to explore students’ experiences of getting from high school through to second year university entitled . The results of this study will tell us what you think high schools and the university are doing well and what they could do better to support you and others. Who can participate: At this time, we are inviting graduates from high schools in the Regina area including Regina Public School Division, Regina Catholic School Division, and the 38 schools in the Prairie Valley School Division who have come to the University of Regina. Everyone is welcome and we are especially interested in hearing from students who experienced some challenges in their first year. What will happen: You will participate in one focus group session with approximately 5 other students. We will discuss your experiences of getting from high school through to your second year of university. For example, we might discuss how or why you decided to attend university. What did your friends and family think? What has been the toughest thing about university? The best thing? What do you think of your profs and high school teachers? What could your high school have done differently to prepare you for first year? Could the university be doing anything differently to help you be successful? Confidentiality: Participant identities will remain confidential and every effort will be made so that information cannot be traced back to participants. Focus group participants will be asked to maintain the confidentiality of the focus group participants’ identities and discussions. Care will be taken to ensure that you will not be identified in the final report. Voluntary: Participation in this project is completely voluntary. You may withdraw from participation at any time without penalty. You may also refuse to discuss certain topics during the interview without penalty.

30  

  

Ethics Approval: This project has been approved by the Research Ethics Board, University of Regina. Interested in participating? Email or call: Patti Schmidt Email: Patricia.Schmidt@uregina.ca Phone: 337-8496 (please leave a message) Deadline to register: TBC Thanks! Patti Schmidt Consultant, Transitions Management Committee Faculty of Education Saskatchewan Instructional Development and Research Unit University of Regina Regina, SK S4S 0A2 If you have any questions about the research, you can contact Heather Ritenburg Principle Investigator Saskatchewan Instructional Development and Research Unit (SIDRU) University of Regina Regina, SK S4S 0A2 Ph: (306) 337-2280 Fx: (306) 585-4880 Email: Heather.Ritenburg@uregina.ca

31  

  

32  

  

APPENDIX C

Participant Letter of Introduction and Consent Form

33  

  

Participant Letter of Introduction and Consent Form

TO BE PRESENTED ON SIDRU/UR LETTERHEAD

Title: Transitioning With Success: A Study of Former Regina Area Secondary Students Entering Their Second Year at the University of Regina Introduction: Research shows that the transition from high school to university is a crucial period of time that can affect future success at university. The study in which we are inviting you to participate is aimed at studying your experience of transitioning from high school through to your second year of full-time study at the University of Regina. The results of this study will inform the University School Divisions Transition Management Committee in their efforts to increase the successful transition and retention of Regina area high school students at the University of Regina. Procedure: We are asking you to participate in one focus group session with approximately 5 other students. The session will be up to 1.5 hours in length. In the group we will discuss your experiences of getting from high school through to your second year of university. (For example, we might discuss how or why you decided to attend the University of Regina. Did it matter to you what your friends and family thought? What has been the toughest thing for you about university? The best thing? Could your high school have done anything differently to prepare you? Could the university be doing anything differently to help you be successful?) The sessions will be audio and/or video taped and transcribed. You will be invited to come back again in your focus grouping to receive the results and a copy of the final report. Risks: There are no known risks involved in this study. The only cost to you will be the time required to participate in the focus group. Compensation: In recognition of your time, you will be paid $15.00 following the focus group interview. You will also have your name entered to win a door prize consisting of a $50.00 gift certificate from the University of Regina Bookstore. Research Personnel: This study is being conducted by the Saskatchewan Instructional Development Research Unit (SIDRU) for the University School Divisions Transition Management Committee (Transition Committee). Heather Ritenburg is the principle investigator. Patti Schmidt is a consultant for the Transition Committee and is the second member of the research team. This research is funded by the University School Divisions Transition Management Committee and the Saskatchewan Instructional Development and Research Unit (SIDRU). If you have any questions about the research, you can contact Heather Ritenburg, Principle Investigator Saskatchewan Instructional Development and Research Unit (SIDRU) University of Regina Regina, SK S4S 0A2 Ph: (306) 337-2280

34  

  

Fx: (306) 585-4880 Email: Heather.Ritenburg@uregina.ca Confidentiality and Anonymity: Participant identities will remain confidential and every effort will be made so that information cannot be traced back to participants. We ask that the focus group participants maintain the confidentiality of the focus group participants’ identities and discussions. The audio/video tapes and transcribed focus group sessions will be stored anonymously and confidentially. Tapes and transcripts will be kept under lock and key and/or password protected computer files. No information which could be used to identify you will be made available without your agreement to anyone outside the research personnel. Written transcripts will record what you say by using a pseudonym or a code number. All identifying names and places will be taken out of the transcripts. Care will be taken to ensure that you will not be identified in the final report. You will have the opportunity to receive a copy of the final report. Voluntary Participation: Participation in this project is completely voluntary. You can decline participation or withdraw from participation at any time without penalty even after you have signed this consent form. You may also refuse to answer certain questions or discuss certain topics during the focus group interview without penalty and continue to be part of the study. Refusal to participate at any point will not influence any services provided to you, or treatment of you, by the university or its employees. Ethics Approval: This project was approved by the Research Ethics Board, University of Regina. If you have any questions or concerns about your rights or treatment as a research participant, you may contact the Chair of the University Research Ethics board at 585-4775 or by email at research.ethics@uregina.ca This project is funded Consent Statement: Having read the above, I agree to participate in this study and consent to the above. I also acknowledge that I have received a copy of this form. Signature of Participant Signature of Principal Investigator _____________________________________ Date Questions concerning the study can be directed to the principle investigator, Heather Ritenburg, at 337-2280 or Heather.Ritenburg@uregina.ca

35  

  

36  

  

APPENDIX D

Focus Group Agreement for Maintaining Confidentiality

37  

  

Focus Group Agreement for Maintaining Confidentiality

TO BE PRESENTED ON SIDRU/UR LETTERHEAD

Transitioning With Success: A Study of Former Regina Area Secondary Students Entering Their

Second Year at the University of Regina

Focus Group Agreement for Maintaining Confidentiality

Please read the following statement and sign your name to indicate you agree to comply: I hereby affirm that I will not communicate or in any manner disclose publicly information discussed during the course of this focus group interview. I agree not to talk about material relating to this study or interview with anyone outside of my fellow focus group members and the focus group interviewer. 5 Name: _________________________________________________________ Signature: ______________________________________________________ Principal Investigator / Interviewer Signature___________________________ Date: _________________________________________________________

                                                            5 Berg, B. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

38  

  

APPENDIX E

Focus Group Interview Guide

39  

  

Focus Group Interview Guide How is university going? Is university what you thought it would be? Why did you want to come to university in the first place? Why are you attending the University of Regina / Luther / Campion College and not another university? How did you find out about the University of Regina / Luther / Campion College? And when? Did you participant in any high school field trips to UR / orientation programs / welcome week activities? How did you decide on your current program or course selection? Thinking back to your first year …. What were some of the hurdles? What surprised you? How do these first year experiences compare to high school? What kinds of relationships did you have with your high school teachers / guidance counselors/staff? What kinds of relationships did you have with your first year university faculty/professors/instructors/staff? What effect did these relationships have on your success in high school? In first year university? Closing Questions . . . What was the key to you successfully completing first year at U of Regina? Is there anything your high school could have done differently to improve your success / experience at University of Regina? Is there anything the University of Regina have done differently to improve your success/experience at University of Regina?