{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019704433497536946, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007881773399014778, 'mean_word_length': 5.581847649918963, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Transfer Student Experiences: Comparing Their Academic and Social Lives at the Community College and University

Through focus group participation students expressed a variety of experiences when comparing student life at the community college with student life at a Western university. Two overarching themes emerged. The first theme focused on classroom experiences, which included the levels of individual attention students received, the amount of interaction with faculty and staff, the quality of learning experiences, and coursework difficulty. The second theme centered on the student life balance, which encompassed financial concerns, social networks and support, and support from campus service. What kind of inter-institutional and intra-institutional processes can be improved to enhance overall experiences for students transferring from a community college to a four-year university? Literature comparing student experiences at a two-year community college with experiences at a four-year institution is limited. Very little is expressed directly by students in their own voices. The literature involving student retention and first year experiences in community colleges does reflect some direct student reports. Academic and social integration is key to students making campus connections. Barriers to students staying in college include: poor academic preparation, lack of clear goals, low faculty involvement with students, and indifferent and racist campus cultures. Poor relationships between institutions create fragmented educational systems that are difficult to navigate and create additional barriers to student retention (Rendon, 1995). Jalomo (1995) found that positive aspects of college success were learning interesting, relevant information and making friends and meeting new people. He also found that it is difficult for students with families to get involved and that the college experience puts a strain on family relations. Student perceptions of faculty and advising at the community college are primarily positive. Hughes and Graham (1992) found faculty to be interested in students and available to them outside of classes. These students also perceived that academic advising was somewhat complete and accurate. Pincus and Archer (1989) reported that student experiences with counselors were similar at the community college and the university, while students viewed instructors at four year institutions as being less helpful than community college instructors. Many transfer students experienced an overall "campus culture shock" after transferring from a community college to the university. Within that `shock' of being on the university campus, undesirable student experiences included: parking, crowds, lines, and a lack of individual attention (Davies and Dickmann, 1998). While the majority of the literature deals with the actual transfer process, the authors of this writing were interested in directly hearing student voices about their community college and university experiences. Method The authors selected students who transferred to the university in the Fall of 1996 from the fifteen public community colleges in the state. The student data files were identified and students randomly ordered. The authors wanted to hear the student voices in the transfer process and have them tell their individual stories; thus, focus groups were decided upon as the methodological instrument. This technique was selected to provide students an opportunity in a non-threatening group setting to discuss their thoughts, feelings, and attitudes where their opinions were compared and contrasted (Flores and Alonso, 1995). A maximum group size of eight was decided upon to provide enough stimulus for interaction and still be sure every student was heard (Higginbotham and Cox, 1979). Eleven separate focus groups were held with an average attendance of six students. The students were telephoned according to the random generated listing to elicit their availability and willingness to attend a focus group meeting. …