A Psychology Learning Community for Transfer Majors: Its Impact on Student Performance and Perceptions During the Covid-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Background

Transfer students are a growing population of undergraduate psychology majors who are academically at-risk but often underserved by 4-year institutions.

Objective

We describe a transfer learning community (TLC) for entering psychology transfer students and report its impact on participants social and academic integration and success.

Method

A mixed-method design was used to compare academic success metrics (archival measures of first-semester grade point average and probation rates) of participants with entering transfer majors not participating in the learning community. A participant survey was also created and used to measure student perceptions of the TLC, as well as perceived challenges of transferring during the Covid-19 pandemic and how the TLC helped to mitigate them.

Results

During its first year, the TLC served 72 entering transfer majors across two cohorts. Participants significantly out-performed non-participant psychology transfer majors on first-semester grade point average and were significantly less likely to be placed on academic probation after their first semester than non-participant transfer majors.

Conclusion

The widely-reported benefits of learning communities for first-year psychology students are adaptable to the more at-risk population of transfer students.

Teaching Implications

Technology-enabled teaching tools can be used to build virtual community in hybrid and synchronous online learning environments.

Keywords

transfer students learning communities online learning Covid-19

Introduction

Learning communities continue to be a popular high-impact curricular practice for undergraduate education (Ma-Kellams & Kwon, 2021; Thomas et al., 2018). Learning communities take many forms and serve many populations of students (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). Curricular-centered learning communities are centered in an academic college or department and typically serve entering first-year majors in a given discipline (Buch & Barron, 2012). Although they have been used more widely in professional colleges for students majoring in engineering and computer science, discipline-centered learning communities have also been used in psychology departments to enrich the academic experience for psychology majors (Buch & Barron, 2012). Learning communities are effective in improving academic performance and retention (e.g., Baron et al., 2009; Buch & Spaulding, 2011; Zrull et al., 2012), enhancing campus and community engagement (Buch, 2022; Buch & Barron, 2012), and building community among psychology majors and with psychology faculty (Grills et al., 2012).

The majority of psychology-centered learning communities (PLCs) written about during the past two decades have targeted first-year majors and serve students during their first semester or first academic year. Some PLCs continue the experience into students’ sophomore year (Barron et al., 2009), and at least one serves psychology seniors as a capstone experience (Nolan & Jenkins, 2012). However, we could not locate a single PLC that focused on transfer majors (i.e., students transferring from a 2- or 4-year institution who enter as psychology majors at a 4-year institution).

Indeed, transfer students continue to be an overlooked population in institutional efforts to enhance student success and retention (e.g., Coston, 2019; Nunez & Yoshimi, 2017; Thomas et al., 2018). This is in spite of the well-documented phenomenon of transfer shock, marked by difficult transitions from 2- to 4-year institutions resulting in a decline in students’ previous academic performance (e.g., Rhine et al., 2000) as well as notable performance gaps (sometimes referred to as equity gaps) in comparison to non-transfer students (e.g., Hobbs et al., 2021). The literature suggests a range of factors contributing to these performance and persistence gaps, including differences in the 2- and 4-year collegiate environment arising from size, mission, and culture (e.g., Rhine et al., 2000; Townsend & Wilson, 2006), demographic differences between transfer and non-transfer students resulting in the former facing more personal and financial obstacles to success (e.g., Thomas et al., 2018), and large gaps in provision of institutional support mechanisms offered much more frequently to traditional first-year students than to transfer students (e.g., Coston, 2019; Nunez & Yoshimi, 2017; Thomas et al., 2018).

All of these factors are thought to impede social and academic integration for transfer students. Thomas et al. (2018) recently proposed a learning community (LC) model for transfer students to address these performance gaps. They chose the LC model because it is considered a high-impact educational practice (Kuh, 2008; Zilvinskis & Dumford, 2018) for promoting student integration with a demonstrated track record of success. Their model, a cohort-based discipline-centered (i.e., sociology) LC, incorporates a range of strategies associated with student integration and success, including within-community advising, linked courses, collaborative learning, and embedded co-curricular activities. A pilot study showed their LC had a positive impact on transfer students’ academic and social integration and retention (Thomas et al., 2018).

Learning communities often incorporate in-class learning assignments and assessments designed to reduce equity gaps in under-served populations, including transfer students. Hobbs et al. (2021) identified two dimensions on which learning activities vary—utility value and inclusive content—that can reduce equity gaps between transfer and non-transfer students. Utility value is defined as the extent to which students perceive class work to be academically, personally, or professionally useful. Inclusive content is defined as class work which is equally familiar and accessible to all student groups. Recent research has begun to identify ways in which both of these dimensions can be enhanced at the classroom or curriculum levels in order to improve learning and academic performance for all students and to reduce the persistent performance (equity) gaps noted above (Hobbs et al., 2021; Nunez & Yoshimi, 2017).

Given the demonstrated success of learning communities for psychology majors, and the persistent performance gaps for transfer students reported in the literature, we created a curriculum-centered learning community for transfer psychology majors which incorporated many of the curricular- and classroom-level best practices reviewed above. The purpose of this paper is to describe the transfer learning community and to report its impact on participants during its first year. Additional goals of the paper are to explore the challenges of transferring to a new institution during the pandemic and the challenges we faced in creating a sense of community in a fully online environment. Finally, we will report our lessons learned from the challenges, focusing on the features of the Transfer Learning Community (TLC) that students found the most beneficial and how we will use these lessons to transition the TLC in the post-pandemic environment.

Method

Participants

TLC participants were recruited by the Psychology Academic Advisor during transfer advising and registration sessions that are part of transfer orientation. Recruitment was particularly difficult for fall semester, as campus decisions regarding in-person instruction were unfolding. Several unavoidable schedule and course format changes no doubt impacted our ability to recruit the targeted cohort size of 64, which represented approximately one-third of expected fall transfer majors. Instead, the fall cohort consisted of 45 transfer majors who self-selected into the TLC from the 174 eligible new fall transfer majors (i.e., transfer majors were given the choice to join the TLC, not pre-assigned. See Table 1 for participant race and gender information.

Table 1.

Participant Race and Gender

	Fall Cohort (N = 45)		Spring Cohort (N = 27)
	n	%	n	%
White	22	48.88	16	59.25
Nonwhite	23	51.12	11	40.75
Black	15	33.33	7	25.93
Asian	2	4.44	2	7.41
Hispanic	3	6.66	1	3.70
Other	3	6.66	1	3.70
Female	29	64.44	24	88.88
Male	16	35.56	3	11.12

Approximately half of the fall cohort were classified as non-traditional (over age 25) and seven were parents. Virtually all were working full or part time off campus. Although the university residence halls were open, none of the TLC students was living on campus, and fewer than half were living within commuting distance. All participants were co-enrolled in the two TLC courses and interacted with the full community in the online asynchronous Positive Psychology course and the online portion of the Transfer Success course. However, the cohort was split in half and spread across separate Zoom classes for the synchronous portion of the class.

The Spring 2021 cohort was recruited in the same way, but with less uncertainty about the class delivery format, as the university made an early decision to keep all classes online. New transfer enrollment is lower in the spring than fall semester, and 27 of the 61 eligible students chose to join the TLC (a smaller number but higher percentage than for the fall cohort). We believe the higher selection rate was due in part to the certainty about class format which ensured that students not living locally could participate. None of the students lived on campus during the semester. All students were co-enrolled in both TLC courses, and because of its smaller size, the entire cohort met together in the same weekly Zoom class. All entering transfer majors in both semesters were invited to join the TLC during transfer student orientation. Those students (N = 163) choosing not to join served as the control group for measuring academic performance.

Measures

Participants in the TLC were asked to complete an end-of-semester survey using a blind response feature in Canvas quizzing. The 10-item survey was designed by the authors and included 4-point Likert items (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) designed to measure perceptions of the TLC experience. The survey also included three open-ended questions asking students to identify their (1) greatest challenge as a transfer student; (2) their greatest success or accomplishment as a transfer student; and (3) how the TLC helped to overcome the challenges and/or to promote the successes. Because the survey was used for descriptive and qualitative analyses, the authors did not attempt to establish its statistical reliability.

Procedure

The TLC was designed as a non-residential, curricular-based learning community for first-semester transfer psychology majors. In its design, we incorporated the following features of the Thomas et al. (2018) TLC model: taking linked courses as a cohort, working closely together on group projects, the use of high-impact practices, academic advising embedded in the community, and collaboration among TLC faculty. It consists of a two-course block schedule that includes a course developed as the curricular center of the TLC, Transfer Success Strategies for Majors (PSYC 2100), and a pre-existing psychology elective course, Positive Psychology (PSCY 2137). The pre-pandemic plan was to offer both courses as traditional in-person courses to facilitate community building, but instead Positive Psychology utilized an asynchronous online format and Transfer Success Strategies for Majors utilized a hybrid Zoom-supported synchronous online format. These courses, taught by the authors of this paper, were integrated around the theme of successful transition and positive growth. Two upper-division majors were TLC teaching assistants (TA’s) and they served as mentors, peer advisors, and led virtual community building activities through group apps, Canvas (the university’s Learning Management System), and optional Zoom meetings.

Transfer Success Strategies for Majors is a 3-hour psychology elective that focuses on social and academic integration into the major and the department, and introduces transfers to engagement opportunities and student success resources. Its content and assignments were designed to promote utility value and inclusive content (as discussed above). Utility value was woven throughout the course content and assignments, and was guided by APA’s (2013) Goal 5 (Professional Development) to (1) apply psychological content and skills to career goals; (2) exhibit self-efficacy and self-regulation; and (3) develop meaningful professional direction for life post-graduation. The concept of psychological literacy (Cranney & Dunn, 2011) was taught and students were required to integrate its elements in their professional branding and career planning assignments. For the list of class topics in Transfer Success Strategies for Majors see Buch (2022).

Because Transfer Success Strategies for Majors was designed as a small discussion-based course, during the fall semester when enrollment was higher (see next section below), students were spread across two weekly Zoom classes (1.25 hours each) to encourage discussion and break-out activities. Zoom classes utilized technology-enabled active learning strategies including Poll Everywhere, Shared Chat, and Zoom break-out rooms and screen-share of online learning materials. The asynchronous portion of the course was offered through Canvas and all TLC students were enrolled in the same Canvas course which allowed them to get to know all members of the TLC. This portion of the hybrid course was centered around the text Careers in Psychology: Opportunities in a Changing World (Kuther & Morgan, 2020). The weekly asynchronous assignments included readings, discussion boards, and written assignments that exposed students to the major sub-disciplines in psychology and their associated career paths. Extensive written feedback on student work was provided weekly from TA’s and faculty. Some assignments involved peer reviews. Recorded final presentations allowed students to share their academic and career exploration journey with their peers, and a final paper required in-depth reflection on the process, as well as a plan for implementing their goals. These learning activities and assessments (instead of traditional testing) were designed to make course content accessible for all, thereby increasing the concept of inclusive content, as described above.

The second TLC course, Positive Psychology, is a course taught to a general audience of majors that we adapted for the TLC to speak directly to the needs of transfer students. The course uses the text, Positive Psychology: The Science of Happiness and Flourishing (Compton & Hoffman, 2020), and focuses on the theories covering subjective well-being, flow, mindfulness, love, health, spirituality, well-being across the lifespan, cultural awareness and overall well-being. In addition to covering the theoretical models of positive psychology, course assignments and activities stressed students’ subjective experiences of the content in the context of their transfer student status and its inherent challenges and stresses. Each week they completed online assignments and outside activities designed to optimize utility value and inclusive content through linkages to their current lives as transfer students and their future lives as psychology graduates. Some activities challenged students to focus on their assets and strengths (identified by self-assessments in the Transfer Success Strategies for Majors course) and others helped them navigate stressors inherent in the transfer experience, as well as those unique to the pandemic. This course was offered to both TLC cohorts in a fully asynchronous online format. However, the instructor engaged with students synchronously during weekly Zoom “office hours.” Together, this two-course block schedule was designed to provide entering transfer majors with an integrated academic and social experience within the Psychology major focused on current success at their new institution, while also preparing students for post-graduate success. The TLC survey was completed via the Canvas blind quizzing feature by 43 students in the fall cohort and 27 students in the spring cohort, for a total of 70 respondents out of 72 TLC participants.

Results

A between-groups design was used to compare first-semester academic success of TLC members with transfer majors not in the TLC. Grade point averages (GPA) for the two groups were compared using an independent samples t-test, and academic probation rates (earning below a 2.0 GPA) were compared using a Pearson chi square test. Results showed TLC members (n = 72) outperformed non-TLC students (n = 163) on both measures. The TLC group (M = 3.31, SD = 0.65) had significantly higher first-semester GPA than the non-TLC (M = 3.07, SD = 0.85) group t (233) = 2.30, p = .022, when combined across both fall and spring cohorts. A Cohen’s d = 0.317 showed a small effect size for this difference, meaning that 62% of the TLC group falls above the mean of the non-TLC group (Magnusson, 2022). Similar differences were noted between the two groups for first-semester academic probation rates. TLC students’ academic probation rate was 1.43%, while the rate for non-TLC transfer majors during the same period was over 11.80%. This difference was significant, Χ² (1, N = 217) = 4.84, p = .027.

We also used end-of-semester survey responses to measure participant perceptions of the TLC experience and to understand the challenges of students transferring during the Covid-19 pandemic and the ways in which the TLC helped to mitigate these challenges. Descriptive statistics, reported in Table 2, show that TLC participants either “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the beneficial aspects of the TLC in each survey item. The only item on which any respondent did not “agree” or “strongly agree” was “Enhanced my academic performance,” to which 9% selected “disagreed.” No respondent rated any item as “strongly disagree.” The most strongly endorsed items (100% “strongly agree”) were those asking about the TLC’s role in helping to establish relationships with other students, faculty, and staff in the major; defining/refining a career path in the major; and overall satisfaction with the TLC experience. These perceptions suggest that our efforts at promoting academic and social integration through our TLC design were successful. However, no pre-survey was administered at the beginning of each semester, limiting our survey data to post-survey only, and therefore allowing only descriptive and qualitative reporting of participant perceptions.

Table 2.

Percentage of TLC Students that Selected Each Response on Closed-Ended Perception Survey¹

Item	% Agree	% Strongly Agree
I feel my participation in the TLC…
Helped make my transition easier	4	96
Enhanced my academic performance²	65	26
Gave me confidence to succeed academically	25	75
Developed relationships with other students		100
Developed relationships with faculty and staff		100
Taught me how to get the most from my college experience	10	90
Taught me about resources/services for success	20	80
Helped me define/refine my career path in psychology		100
Overall…
I would recommend the TLC to future transfer majors	4	96
I am happy with my TLC experience		100

¹N = 70

²9% choose Disagree to this item

A thematic analysis was used to provide insight into the open-ended responses to the questions about transfer challenges, successes, and ways in which the TLC impacted them. The lead author first perused all comments looking for overall themes of transfer challenges and successes. To look for themes that might emerge from the item asking about how the TLC might have mitigated challenges or facilitated successes, the a priori categories of academic integration and social integration, based on the model proposed by Thomas et al. (2018), were used. The results of this process appear in Table 3, column 1. The second author then identified quotes that seemed to best illustrate these themes, as shown in Table 3, column 2. As discussed below, the themes reported as transfer challenges by our students are similar to those reported in the literature that often result in performance (equity) gaps between transfer and non-transfer students. However, the primary challenges facing TLC students seem to be those brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic which necessitated a fully online learning experience for students’ very first semester at their new institution. In summary, our findings offer support for the TLC as well as directions for improvement.

Table 3.

Thematic Analysis Results and Supporting Quotes

Greatest challenge themesPandemic=fully on-line learningDifficulty getting to know others	Quotes“Having classes online. Very challenging learning on my own.”“My greatest challenge was not knowing anyone at the university and not having a support system.
Greatest Success ThemesClarified my academic/career pathAdjusted to new school during pandemicLess “transfer shock” than expected	Quotes“I was able to solidify my career pathway and was hired for a job opportunity on campus.”“Getting good grades while adapting.”“Despite transferring during the pandemic I actually did better than I expected and got involved in my major.”
How TLC Helped: Academic Integration ThemesLearned about academic resources and servicesIncreased my confidence I can succeed hereBenefitted from relevant, meaningful assignmentsGained identity & direction as Psych major	Quotes“Exposure to campus opportunities, being able to assess my strengths and weaknesses and the exploration of career paths that appeal to me”“My greatest success was developing a sense of confidence in my academic achievements with the help of the TLC program. The program not only provided critical information in how to make the best of your undergrad experience but also how to best prepare for the future at this point in time. I strongly believe that I may have been aimlessly trying to navigate the psyc program and possibly have not been confident enough to become involved in other opportunities.”“The weekly assignments were very eye opening as they required a lot of self-reflection against the many opportunities within the field of psychology. It was a great way to learn what the requirements and benefits of each field to best prepare for my future.”“I loved going through the different sub-disciplines in PSYC 2100, it really helped me figure out my interests. Because I learned about social psych and health psych in that course, I took both introductory classes this semester. After taking both classes, I am set to be a TA with my health psych professor next semester, and am seriously considering a future career in social psych.”
How TLC Helped: Social Integration ThemesDeveloped relationships with peers and facultyBuilt “virtual” TLC community	Quotes“The transfer community gave me a support system with others going through the same situation, transferring in.”“Not only did I meet others like me in the TLC, we even formed an online support community for those of us who are parents.”

Discussion

The purpose of the TLC was to offer a discipline-centered learning community for incoming transfer majors that would ease their transition to a large department in a large institution. As described earlier, we designed the TLC around high-impact educational practices shown in the literature to be particularly effective for transfer students and other high-risk groups (e.g., Hobbs et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2018), but adapted to the pandemic learning environment. We focused our efforts on both TLC content (topics, assignments, and assessments) and process (how we interacted as a community). Process was far more challenging than anticipated given the sudden move to fully online learning. (Although both of us had taught online courses before, our previous learning community courses had been taught in-person.) Thus, we quickly learned how to use the technology-enabled tools described above to promote student-to-student and student-to-faculty connections that would enhance social integration.

As reported in Tables 2 and 3, the end-of-semester survey suggests that these efforts were successful and helped promote social integration. Because of the success at building virtual community, which was mandated by the pandemic, we plan to continue our use of technology-enabled online tools (Zoom, Canvas and Poll Everywhere) as we move toward a post-pandemic fall semester that includes in-person classes. Clearly, the flexibility gained without any apparent loss of community is a major lesson learned from our first year that we intend to carry forward to future TLC cohorts. This approach not only gains in flexibility, but also in accessibility for all students, according to the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). UDL is an approach to creating learning experiences with multiple means of engaging students with content and other learners, a best practice in inclusive design (Behling & Tobin, 2018).

Likewise, our success at promoting academic integration (and subsequent academic success and persistence) offers support for our pedagogical and content decisions in TLC courses. Our LC model incorporated many best practices reported in the literature (e.g., Thomas et al., 2018; Townsend & Wilson, 2006) and yielded many of the same benefits in student performance and perceptions. As discussed in detail above, notable features include linked courses, within-community advising, application of knowledge across courses, connections to campus resources, and embedded co-curricular activities and assignments. Results suggest that our focus on APA’s Goal 5 (Professional Development) helped students clarify their academic and career pathways in the major, while also enhancing the perceived utility value of the assignments in the TLC. Utility value (relevance) is an important content theme for transfer students and was readily incorporated into the content of both TLC courses (as described above) through APA’s Goal 5 and the concept of psychological literacy which were woven throughout the TLC curriculum. Our results suggest that this both appealed to participants and enhanced their academic integration and performance, supporting previous research showing that utility value and inclusive content can help to close the equity gap between transfer and non-transfer students (e.g., Hobbs et al., 2021; Nunez & Yoshimi, 2017).

Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions

These findings seem to have generalizable implications for others seeking targeted, flexible, resource-effective strategies for promoting social and academic integration and success in transfer psychology majors. As previously noted, learning communities are “infinitely adaptable to different kinds of curricular and co-curricular settings… educators can shape and reshape the strategy around specific curricular or student needs” (Smith et al., 2004, p. 22). Further, as noted by Buch and Spaulding (2008), the versatility of the TLC model enables them to be customized by each department to achieve a wide range of goals and outcomes under even the most challenging and resource-restricted environments—including, as we discovered, those induced by a global pandemic!

This study had several methodological limitations, common to most program evaluations in higher education, that should be noted. Because students are invited to participate in the TLC rather than being randomly assigned to participate, sample self-selection may be a confounding explanation of our findings. It could be that students who choose to join the TLC are more likely to be successful than students not choosing to join and would have been so without the benefit of the TLC experience. We were unable to compare TLC and control students on pre-college academic criteria (e.g., class rank or high school GPA) because these data are not used in selection decisions for transfers. Thus, pre-existing differences in the two groups cannot be tested for or ruled out. Future studies should add confidence to these findings by utilizing a pre/post design in the collection of participant data that could show change perceptions of social and academic integration across the course of students’ first semester. Future research should also attempt to gather survey data from non-TLC students so that between-group comparisons could be made.

Another limitation is that we only examined student performance for their first semester. Would the positive impact of a one-semester experience provide participants with benefits that would continue beyond, or would the TLC benefits be short-lived? Others have found that the “academic momentum” (Thomas et al., 2018) or “hand-hold for a little while” (Townsend & Wilson, 2006) that a one-or two-semester experience provides, can be sustained across subsequent semesters, and even impact graduation rates. However, longitudinal studies are needed to demonstrate the extent of any sustainable effects of the TLC on students’ success, persistence, and graduation rates.

Another methodological consideration is the generalizability of the TLC’s impact to a “normal” (i.e., non-pandemic, in-person) learning environment. While we felt like the online learning environment in which we implemented our first two TLC cohorts was a disadvantage in creating a learning community, it may also have had unexpected positive implications for our findings. Perhaps our impact on students’ social and academic integration was actually amplified because the TLC helped to mitigate the challenges of transferring in a fully online environment. Only further research might help to clarify this possibility. Another fruitful direction for future research is to explore which specific curricular, co-curricular, content, and process features of the TLC experience have the greatest impact on student performance and perceptions. This would be particularly helpful to others designing their own experience for transfer majors in different types of departments or with students facing different challenges.

Conclusion

Our experience implementing a new learning community for psychology transfer majors, and the results reported here, provide promising support for the use of learning communities with transfer students. Given the demonstrated success of learning communities with first-year psychology majors (e.g., Buch & Spaulding, 2008, 2011), their potential to offer similar benefits to a more at-risk and growing population of psychology majors is encouraging. We are especially encouraged by our success in delivering the experience in the fully online environment induced by the Covid-19 pandemic, and by our ability to build a virtual community of transfer majors, faculty, and teaching assistants that could deliver benefits similar to those we might have produced using the traditional in-person learning community model. We have also learned a great deal from our first year about the challenges facing transfer students and ways in which we can facilitate their academic and social integration into the discipline and department of psychology. Finally, we have discovered new technology-enabled tools for active learning and community building that we hope to transfer to future “post-pandemic” cohorts of the TLC.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Psychological Association (2013). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major: Version 2.0. http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/undergrad/index.aspx

Baron

K. E.

Buch

Andre

J. T.

Spaulding

(2009). Learning communities as an innovative beginning to the psychology major: A tale of two campuses. In Dunn

D. S.

Beins

B. C.

McCarthy

M. A.

Hill IV

G. W.

(Eds.), Best practices for teaching beginnings and endings in the psychology major (pp. 107–124). University Press.

Behling

K. T.

Tobin

T. J.

(2018). Reach everyone, teach everyone: Universal design for learning in higher education. West Virginia University Press.

Buch

(2022). List of topics [Figure]. figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19203506.v1

Buch

Barron

K. M.

(2012). Discipline-centered learning communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and curricula. Jossey-Bass.

Buch

Spaulding

(2008). A longitudinal assessment of an initial cohort in a psychology learning community. Teaching of Psychology, 35(3), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280802181582

Buch

Spaulding

(2011). The impact of a psychology learning community on academic success, retention, and student learning outcomes. Teaching of Psychology, 38(2), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311401589

Compton

W. C.

Hoffman

(2020). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and flourishing. SAGE.

Coston

C. T. M.

(2019). Transfer student success: Yet more support for learning communities. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 7(2). Article 7. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1240090

10.

Cranney

Dunn

(2011). The psychologically literate citizen: Foundations and global perspectives. Oxford University Press.

11.

Grills

C. N.

Fingerhut

A. W.

Thadani

Machón

R. A.

(2012). Residential learning communities centered within a discipline: The Psychology Early Awareness Program. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2012(132), 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20035

12.

Hobbs

H. T.

Singer-Freeman

K. E.

Robinson

(2021). Considering the effects of assignment choices on equity gaps. Research and Practice in Assessment, 16(1), 49–62.

13.

Kuh

G. D.

(2008). High-impact educational practices: What they are, who has access to them, and why they matter. Association of American Colleges and Universities. https://www.aacu.org/publication/high-impact-educational-practices-what-they-are-who-has-access-to-them-and-why-they-matter

14.

Kuther

T. L.

Morgan

R. D.

(2020). Careers in psychology: Opportunities in a changing world. SAGE

15.

Lenning

O. T.

Ebbers

L. H.

(1999). The powerful potential of learning communities: Improving education for the future (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, Vol. 26 (No. 6).

16.

Ma-Kellams

Kwon

(2021). The relationship between first-year learning communities and academic performance in Introductory Psychology and Sociology. Teaching of Psychology. in press https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283211018455

17.

Magnusson

(2022). Interpreting Cohen’s d effect size. R Psychologist. https://rpsychologist.com/cohend/.

18.

Nolan

L. J.

Jenkins

S. M.

(2012). Transitioning students out of college: The senior LC in psychology at Wagner college. In Buch

Barron

(Eds.) 132Discipline-centered learning communities: Creating connections among students, faculty, and curricula, (2012, pp. 31–42). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20034

19.

Nuñez

Yoshimi

(2017). A phenomenology of transfer: Students’ experiences at a receiving institution. Innovative Higher Education, 42(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-016-9374-7

20.

Rhine

T. J.

Milligan

D. M.

Nelson

L. R.

(2000). Alleviating transfer shock: Creating an environment for more successful transfer students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24(6), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668920050137228

21.

Smith

B. L.

MacGregor

Matthews

R. S.

Gabelnick

(2004). Learning communities: Reforming undergraduate education. Jossey-Bass.

22.

Thomas

D. T.

Walsh

E. T.

Torr

B. M.

Alvarez

A. S.

Malagon

M. C.

(2018). Incorporating high-impact practices for retention: A learning community model for transfer students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 23(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1521025118813618

23.

Townsend

B. K.

Wilson

(2006). A hand-hold for a little bit: Factors facilitating the success of community college transfer students to a large research university. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 439–456. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2006.0052

24.

Zilvinskis

Dumford

A. D.

(2018). The relationship between transfer student status, student engagement, and high-impact practice participation. Community College Review, 46(4), 368–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552118781495

25.

Zrull

M. C.

Rocheleau

C. A.

Smith

M. C.

Bergman

S. M.

(2012). Curriculum-based learning communities centered within a discipline. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2012(132), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.20033