Research

1. Charting the Course: Investigating the Transitions of First-Year University
Students in Sweden and the United Kingdom
A research proposal submitted to the International and Comparative Education
faculty at Stockholm University
Reed T. Curtis, M. Ed
April 1st, 2015

2. CURTIS, 2015 | 1
Introduction
Almost fifty years ago, American psychologist Nevitt Sanford (1966) theorized that college student development required a
delicate balance between challenge and support. To successfully transition into a complex higher education environment,
first-year students, defined as new full-time higher education students completing their first-year of studies, are challenged
to use appropriate integration strategies, such as exploring study and career options, managing time, studying effectively,
forging new social relationships, engaging inside and outside of the classroom, and developing their identity (Nutt &
Calderon, 2009; Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005). Concurrently, they must be supported, both academically and socially,
by the faculty, staff, and others at the higher education institution they have chosen to attend (Brooman & Darwent, 2013;
Chickering, 1969; Curtis, 2008, 2009, 2010; Curtis & Underwood, 2013; Goodman, Schlossberg, & Anderson, 2006; Nutt &
Calderon, 2009; Pitkethly & Prosser, 2001; Tinto, 1993; Yorke, 2014; Yorke & Longden, 2008; Yorke, Longden, & Society for
Research into Higher Education, 2004).
Sanford’s theory of a delicate balance underlying successful student transition into higher education has served as the
foundation of a rich body of research into college student development. Subsequent research and theory indicate that
students entering higher education undergo a transition that challenges their academic, personal, and professional
identities (Bowles, Fisher, McPhail, Rosenstreich, & Dobson, 2013; Briggs, Clark, & Hall, 2012; Brooman & Darwent, 2013;
de Lourdes Machado, Brites, Magalhães, & Sá, 2011; Dias & Sá, 2014; Engberg & Mayhew, 2007; Evans, 2010; McKay &
Devlin, 2014; Pitkethly & Prosser, 2001; Upcraft et al., 2005). In response, however, researchers have repeatedly found that
by providing adequate levels of student support within the first year of college, institutions can significantly improve long-
term retention rates and other measures of student success (Bowles et al., 2013; Brooman & Darwent, 2013; Cook &
Leckey, 1999; Engberg & Mayhew, 2007; L. Harvey, Drew, & Smith, 2006; Hunter, McCalla-Wriggins, & White, 2007; James,
Krause, & Jennings, 2010; Lairio, Puukari, & Kouvo, 2011; Longden, 2006; Lowe & Cook, 2003; Lumsden, Mcbryde-Wilding,
& Rose, 2010; Nutt & Calderon, 2009; Pitkethly & Prosser, 2001; Scanlon, Rowling, & Weber, 2007; Upcraft et al., 2005;
Wilcox, Winn, & Fyvie‐Gauld, 2005; Yorke & Longden, 2008).
While the above scholarly exploration into the first-year experience may appear extensive, it remains, curiously, quite
limited. Harvey, Drew, and Smith (2006) identify a significant and pressing need for systematic research in this area to be
undertaken beyond the United States. Research into the first-year student experience in Europe is of particular interest
because the structure of higher education in the continent has been rapidly evolving over the past few decades (Sursock &
Smidt, 2010). Higher education policy changes related to the Bologna Process have created a new educational landscape, as
have economic pressures that have led some (but not all) European nations to charge students fees for higher education for
the first time.
This proposed study will be situated in Sweden, where citizens are not subject to higher education fees, and in the United
Kingdom (UK), where citizens have been subject to higher education fees since 1988. Specifically, this study will investigate
the participation of first-year students in Sweden and in the UK in first-year support initiatives, the transitional strain
students report experiencing their first semester, the academic flexibility students have in changing their course of study,
and the relationship(s), if any, that exist between those three variables and the retention of students through their second
semester. The results will also be analyzed to provide a comprehensive comparison of first-year student experiences and
outcomes within the two European countries. It is anticipated that study findings will make a significant and lasting
contribution to both the growing field of higher education in Europe and that of international and comparative education.
The following section details the theoretical underpinnings of this study.
Student Development Theory
The term ‘college student development’ in this proposed study refers to the “ways that a student grows, progresses, or
increases his or her developmental capabilities as a result of enrollment in an institution of higher education” (Rodgers,
1990, p. 27). Several theoretical perspectives influence research into college student development; however, the most
commonly used theoretical perspectives can be categorized as either psychosocial theories or cognitive-structural theories.

3. CURTIS, 2015 | 2
Psychosocial theories “examine the content of development—that is, the important issues people face as their lives
progress” and indicate that a student’s understanding of his or her identity changes throughout time and not necessarily in
any order (Evans, 2010, p. 42). For example, Chickering (1969) theorizes that college students experience seven nonlinear
vectors of development. Thus, throughout their college career, students may have the opportunity to develop competence,
emotional management, interdependence, mature interpersonal relationships, identity, purpose, and integrity.
Transitional student development theories, which are psychosocial in nature, have also informed the exploration of first-
year student experiences. Transitions are “any event or non-event that results in changed relationships, routines,
assumptions and roles” which often require “new patterns of behavior” (Goodman et al., 2006, p. 32). Schlossberg (1984)
developed the adult transition framework to explore the holistic nature of transitions that adults experience. The
framework explains that a transition has three phases: moving in, moving through, and moving out. Within each phase, it is
important to understand the unique situation an adult is experiencing, his or her personal demographics and
characteristics, the support or lack of support to which they have access, and the strategies the individual does or does not
take during the transition (Goodman et al., 2006). Curtis (2009) found the framework to be useful when creating and
evaluating a survey instrument on transitional strain experienced by master’s degree students. As the theory points out,
and Curtis (2009) found, transitions that are anticipated result in less strain, whereas unanticipated or non-event transitions
result in higher levels of transitional strain that can impact a student’s ability to progress in college.
Cognitive-structural student development theories focus on how people “think, reason, and make meaning of their
experiences” (Evans, 2010, p. 43). In comparison to psychosocial and transitional theories, cognitive-structural theories
argue that there is a structure to development that must occur in stages that are ordered; however, “the age at which each
stage occurs and the rate of speed with which the person passes through it are variable” (Evans, 2010, p. 43). For example,
Perry’s theory of intellectual and ethical development indicates that there are nine sequential positions that college
students can progress through during higher education. Students begin college in the basic duality position where they see
the world through a dichotomous lens of good and bad, right and wrong but through the various positions have the
potential to develop critical thinking (Evans, 2010; Perry, 1999). Likewise, recent science on the adolescent brain seems to
support Perry’s idea but ties the development of critical thinking not only to college but to the physiological growth of the
brain. Several studies point to the idea of an emerging adulthood where good decision making and critical thinking is not
completely possible until brains reach the age of twenty five or so (Luciana, 2010; Richards, 2006; Steinberg, 2010; Welsh &
Schmitt-Wilson, 2013). This new brain research and the cognitive-structural theories raise the question as to whether
higher education systems that provide a lack of flexibility in study choice may be expecting solid decision making skills from
individuals who are not cognitively ready for it.
Higher Education in Europe
Similar to the students entering universities, higher education in Europe has been undergoing its own complex transition
where institutions are adapting to the Bologna Process, the Lisbon Strategy, and calls for wider access (J. Harvey, Scott, &
Rayfield, 2005; Kehm, 2015; Osborne, 2003). The Bologna Process, in particular, has reshaped the educational landscape,
leading scholars to argue that Europe has entered into a “brave new world” (Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 14) where higher
education stands “at the crossroads” (Curaj, Scott, Vlasceanu, & Wilson, 2012, p. vi).
The European University Association (EUA), the largest organization representing European universities, has chosen to
direct extensive resources into researching the trends associated with the Bologna Process. In 2010, the EUA published a
trends report that included results from a survey of over 820 European universities and from focus groups of faculty, staff,
and students across Europe. Of the 46 countries participating in the Bologna Process, the EUA found that 95% had
implemented the new degree structures by 2010; however, the EUA also found that the changed degree structures did not
lead to “meaningful curricular renewal, but rather to compressed Bachelor degrees that leave little flexibility for students”
(Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 7). This was echoed by the students who spoke with EUA officials; these students raised concerns
about the lack of flexibility within the bachelor programmes. In particular, the EUA expressed concern that the curricula

4. CURTIS, 2015 | 3
may be becoming more rigid and compressed, thus decreasing students’ abilities to be academically creative, study abroad,
take on internships, and become otherwise engaged in student life (Sursock & Smidt, 2010).
Sjur Bergan, head of the Education Department for the Council of Europe, argues that there are four main purposes of
education: career preparation, creating active citizenry in democratic societies, personal development, and increasing
knowledge (Sursock & Smidt, 2010). The personal development of students, according to the EUA and Bergan, has been
largely “ignored in the Bologna discussions” (Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 31). The EUA does indicate in the 2010 trends report
that Europe has begun to embrace student-centered learning in which the focus of higher education shifts from “the
teacher and what is taught, to the learner and what is learned” (Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 31).
According to the EUA,
“the importance of student services in European HEIs has been relatively ignored by policy makers throughout the
Bologna decade even although it is essential for communicating the benefits of the reforms to potential and
current students, guiding them in constructing more flexible study paths, succeeding in attaining their learning
goals and supporting their entry into the workplace.” (Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 82)
This shift to student-centered learning cannot be successful if it is only supported inside the classroom. The EUA argues that
student services and staff development must be priorities moving forward if it will succeed. Although there was marginal
growth in student services between 2005 and 2010, a focus group with the European Forum for Student Guidance
(FEDORA) resulted in the EUA concluding that institutions do not fully recognize the importance of student guidance and
counseling services. In addition, EUA finds that the Bologna Process has encouraged “personalised study paths and
diversification of the student body” but the “issue of student services that is so crucial to student success has been
relatively neglected” (Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 83).
The focus group with FEDORA also indicated that the common European model of student guidance may be changing.
Whereas, in the past, institutions have primarily emphasized giving guidance to students prior to admission to the
institution, the focus seems to be shifting to “improving student retention and preparing students for employment”
(Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 84). This coincides with an increased interest in providing stronger student support for first-year
students in European higher education (Bowles et al., 2013; Brooman & Darwent, 2013; L. Harvey et al., 2006; Lumsden et
al., 2010; Nutt & Calderon, 2009; Scanlon et al., 2007; Wilcox et al., 2005; Yorke & Longden, 2008).
Academic Exploration and Flexibility
As the EUA indicates, one unintended consequence of the Bologna Process seems to be the compression of academic
programmes into a shorter time frame which reduces the ability of some students to fully engage in the college experience
(Sursock & Smidt, 2010). It also seems that because most European bachelor programmes require three years compared to
the United States’ four years, most European efforts to support first-year students have not been curricular in nature. In the
United States, first-year seminars are common where students build or strengthen many skills necessary for college
success. In Europe, however, efforts have mostly been limited to programming outside of the classroom (Nutt & Calderon,
2009).
Further, it is common for students in the United States to change their course of study several times (Gordon, Habley,
Grites, & National Academic Advising Association (U.S.), 2008; Hunter et al., 2007). In contrast, however, in Europe, the
ability for students to change academic programmes after starting is limited (de Lourdes Machado et al., 2011; Yorke &
Longden, 2008), and may contribute to attrition rates. The Higher Education Academy, a leading British higher education
research entity, investigated the reasons first-year students did not return during the second year and found the top reason
was “poor choice of programme” (Yorke & Longden, 2008, p. 2). The report goes on to quote first-year British students
stating: “I had no idea what I wanted to do…I didn’t want to make a career out of what I was studying” and indicated that

5. CURTIS, 2015 | 4
many students felt they had to make a rushed choice and were unable to change programmes, so they left higher education
altogether (Yorke & Longden, 2008, pp. 30-32).
Interestingly, however, the Higher Education Academy report identified a “substantial number of students who expressed
satisfaction with their second enrolment in higher education…a basis from which to reorient their thinking about their
participation in higher education” (Yorke & Longden, 2008, p. 32). It seems that students left because the system did not
allow a flexible path by which they could change their course of study, lost the money they had spent on the fees which are
now required in the UK, and returned later to enter the field they wanted to pursue. This proposed study intends to
investigate this phenomenon further, especially in light of the fact that students are paying higher education fees in Britain.
First-Year Student Support in Sweden and the United Kingdom
In general, studies indicate a need for greater support both inside and outside of the classroom for first-year students in
Europe. Findings from studies exploring the experiences of college students in the UK indicate that students often have
unrealistic academic expectations about their preparedness, the amount of workload higher education requires, and the
size of classes they will attend, leading researchers to argue for greater academic support both prior to and after the
transition to higher education (Cook & Leckey, 1999; Lowe & Cook, 2003). In Sweden, Max Scheja, a professor of higher
education pedagogy at Stockholm University, found that some first-year students in Sweden are not fully equipped to
handle studies at the University level and struggle with time management. Scheja (2006) argues that first-year students in
Sweden need more time for reflection and that the “understanding of a particular course material necessitates certain
latitude for thinking through and grasping the essential aspects” (p. 442). Similarly, Hultgren (2009) found that many first-
year students in Sweden lack the information literacy skills needed to make informed study and career decisions, even
though they receive career guidance prior to higher education.
Both Sweden and the UK have made previous efforts to address the needs of first-year students, which reflect the overall
sense that the first-year experience is becoming an international priority (Nutt & Calderon, 2009). While it seems that the
UK has made more systematic efforts at investigating the retention of first-year students (Yorke et al., 2004), it may be a
result of the growing voice students have in the UK as they now are paying for higher education. Sweden, in comparison,
does not seem to focus as much on retention, despite finding that under half of their first-year students complete a degree
within seven years (Swedish Higher Education Authority, 2014). Retention may not be as culturally relevant in Sweden;
education may be seen more as a right than a privilege and that for “many students the award of a qualification is
important, while the main objective for others is to acquire knowledge, not to collect credits” (Swedish Higher Education
Authority, 2014, p. 32). Below are a few examples of specific efforts institutions in Sweden and the UK have taken to
support first-year students.
Sweden United Kingdom
Gothenburg University: first-year seminar offered to
science students to teach skills related to successful
transitions (study skills, career exploration, social
integration) and guidance in a small class setting during
first-semester. Instructors of the seminar receive support
and coaching while they teach (Hultberg, Plos, Hendry, &
Kjellgren, 2008; Kjellgren et al., 2008).
Teesside University: Retention Support Officers (RSOs)
initiative where members of academic staff across all
programs of study provide nonacademic drop-in support for
first-year students. The priority is the holistic success of each
student “rather than the retention rates or the concerns of a
school or a particular course or program” (Nutt & Calderon,
2009, p. 40).
Uppsala University: SciTech Model for first-year student
success involves support for students prior to admission,
during induction, and throughout their studies via
academic coaching, study skills components, career
counseling, and peer mentoring (Nutt & Calderon, 2009).
University of Manchester: Mentoring and Peer-Assisted Study
Sessions (PASS) initiative focuses on the benefits peer
mentoring and study assistance can have on first-year student
success. Peer mentors provide non-academic support during
the transition and PASS provides supplemental academic
support (Nutt & Calderon, 2009).

6. CURTIS, 2015 | 5
Research Question
1. What relationship(s), if any, is (are) there between the participation of first-year students in Sweden and the
United Kingdom in first-year support initiatives, the transitional strain students report experiencing during their
first semester, the academic flexibility students have in changing their course of study, and the retention of
students through their second semester? How do these relationships, if any, compare and contrast in Sweden and
the United Kingdom?
Methods
The researcher will create a survey instrument utilizing a variety of tools already validated and utilized in higher education
research. Some items will be drawn from the transitional strain scales previously utilized by Curtis (2009) and other survey
tools related to academic exploration, first-year experience, student engagement, and retention. Related open-ended
questions will also be included in the survey to allow for qualitative analyses. Prior to deployment, statistical analyses and
other appropriate steps will be taken to ensure the reliability and validity of the survey. Further, feedback on the draft
survey will be acquired from experts in educational research and a pilot survey will be administered.
Ideally, data will be collected from two institutions in each country. The researcher will work closely with institutional
representatives and the appropriate research review boards to determine the best method for deploying the survey. In
addition, institutions will be selected based on several factors related to the research question and the availability and
willingness of institutions to share internal retention data. Ideally, the conditions at each of the four institutions will enable
the researcher to obtain a random sample of first-year students and an appropriate manner in which to reach the invited
participants. Once determined, the survey will be deployed to a random sample of first-year students during their first
semester.
Results of the survey will be analyzed utilizing appropriate statistical software and the qualitative responses will be analyzed
using a coding system to highlight themes inherent within the comments. A useful approach to extend interpretation of the
quantitative data collected might be to analyze survey results with multiple regressions. This approach would allow for
statements of confidence in magnitude and directional impacts of the causative factors as they influence retention.
Significance
Research on higher education in Europe is particularly important now as institutions across Europe are placing greater
emphasis on student learning experiences and key outcomes such as retention and time-to-degree completion (Sursock &
Smidt, 2010). Kehm (2015) argues that research into higher education must be a pressing priority and points to the need for
European countries to fund and develop research-oriented master’s and doctoral programs of higher education. During the
past few decades, Europe has shifted much of its focus towards building “knowledge economies and knowledge societies”
and the result has been greater “interest and need of policy makers and practitioners for better and more evidence-based
knowledge about higher education institutions” (Kehm, 2015, p. 60). Despite increased demand and third-party funding for
European higher education research, higher education is not a robust field of study in Europe (Kehm, 2015; Teichler, 1996,
2005).
This study will fill a significant gap in the European higher education research literature and is both highly relevant and
critical to further discourse related to the future of the Bologna Process and Europe in general. This study will be a unique
exploration into both the transitions of first-year students in Europe and the transitions of higher education institutions in
Sweden and the UK. The study is warranted for a number of reasons, perhaps the most important of which is clearly
indicated within the 2010 EUA report:
“The paradigm shift to student-centered learning is probably the ultimate measure of the Bologna
reforms but, so far, no study has been able to assess and measure this aspect of the Process, at least not
at European level” (Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 32).

7. CURTIS, 2015 | 6
References
Bowles, A., Fisher, R., McPhail, R., Rosenstreich, D., & Dobson, A. (2013). Staying the distance: Students’ perceptions of
enablers of transition to higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(2), 212-225. doi:
10.1080/07294360.2013.832157
Briggs, A.R.J., Clark, J., & Hall, I. (2012). Building bridges: Understanding student transition to university. Quality in Higher
Education, 18(1), 3-21. doi: 10.1080/13538322.2011.614468
Brooman, S., & Darwent, S. (2013). Measuring the beginning: A quantitative study of the transition to higher education.
Studies in Higher Education, 39(9), 1523-1541. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.801428
Chickering, A.W. (1969). Education and identity (1st ed.). San Francisco,: Jossey-Bass.
Cook, A., & Leckey, J. (1999). Do expectations meet reality? A survey of changes in first‐year student opinion. Journal of
Further and Higher Education, 23(2), 157-171. doi: 10.1080/0309877990230201
Curaj, A., Scott, P., Vlasceanu, L., & Wilson, L. (2012). European higher education at the crossroads between the bologna
process and national reforms. doi:9789400739369
Curtis, R.T. (2008). Students in financial crisis: How academic advisers can help. The Mentor.
http://www.psu.edu/dus/mentor/080227rc.htm
Curtis, R.T. (2009). Unanticipated transitions: Investigating the financial experience of master's degree students. (M.Ed.),
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.
Curtis, R.T. (2010). Post-graduation advising: Needed more now than ever. . The Mentor: An Academic Advising Journal.
Curtis, R.T., & Underwood, Z.W. (2013). Pre-orientation registration program: Turning high school seniors into engaged
college freshmen. College and University, 89(1), 61-66.
de Lourdes Machado, M., Brites, R., Magalhães, A., & Sá, M.J. (2011). Satisfaction with higher education: Critical data for
student development. European Journal of Education, 46(3), 415-432. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2011.01489.x
Dias, D., & Sá, M.J. (2014). The impact of the transition to he: Emotions, feelings and sensations. European Journal of
Education, 49(2), 291-303. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12058
Engberg, M.E., & Mayhew, M.J. (2007). The influence of first-year "success" courses on student learning and democratic
outcomes. Journal of College Student Development, 48(3), 241-258.
Evans, N.J. (2010). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodman, J., Schlossberg, N.K., & Anderson, M.L. (2006). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice with theory (3rd
ed.). New York: Springer Pub. Co.
Gordon, V.N., Habley, W.R., Grites, T.J., & National Academic Advising Association (U.S.). (2008). Academic advising: A
comprehensive handbook (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harvey, J., Scott, B., & Rayfield, P. (2005). Sweden, its universities and vocational education. In M. Stuart (Ed.): Action on
Access. Retrieved from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Sweden-
Uni_and_Vocational_Education.pdf
Harvey, L., Drew, S., & Smith, M. (2006). The first-year experience: A review of literature for the Higher Education Academy.
Retrieved from https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/first_year_experience_exec_summary.pdf
Hultberg, J., Plos, K., Hendry, G.D., & Kjellgren, K.I. (2008). Scaffolding students' transition to higher education: Parallel
introductory courses for students and teachers. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(1), 47-57. doi:
10.1080/03098770701781440
Hultgren, F. (2009). Approaching the future. A study of swedish school leavers' information related activities. Göteborg:
Publ.-föreningen VALFRID.
Hunter, M.S., McCalla-Wriggins, B., & White, E.R. (2007). Academic advising : New insights for teaching and learning in the
first year. Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition,
University of South Carolina.
James, R., Krause, K.-L., & Jennings, C. (2010). The first year experience in australian universities: Findings from 1994 to
2009. Melbourne: CSHE.
Kehm, B.M. (2015). Higher education as a field of study and research in europe. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 60-
74. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12100
Kjellgren, K.I., Hendry, G., Hultberg, J., Plos, K., Rydmark, M., Tobin, G., & Säljö, R. (2008). Learning to learn and learning to
teach — introduction to studies in higher education. Medical Teacher, 30(8), e239-e245. doi:
10.1080/01421590802258896
Lairio, M., Puukari, S., & Kouvo, A. (2011). Studying at university as part of student life and identity construction.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 57(2), 115-131. doi: 10.1080/00313831.2011.621973

8. CURTIS, 2015 | 7
Longden, B. (2006). An institutional response to changing student expectations and their impact on retention rates. Journal
of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(2), 173-187. doi: 10.1080/13600800600751044
Lowe, H., & Cook, A. (2003). Mind the gap: Are students prepared for higher education? Journal of Further and Higher
Education, 27(1), 53-76. doi: 10.1080/03098770305629
Luciana, M. (2010). Adolescent brain development: Current themes and future directions: Introduction to the special issue.
Brain and cognition, 72(1), 1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.11.002
Lumsden, E., Mcbryde-Wilding, H., & Rose, H. (2010). Collaborative practice in enhancing the first year student experience
in higher education. Enhancing the Learner Experience in Higher Education, 2(1), 12-24.
McKay, J., & Devlin, M. (2014). ‘Uni has a different language … to the real world’: Demystifying academic culture and
discourse for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Higher Education Research & Development, 33(5),
949-961. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2014.890570
Nutt, D., & Calderon, D. (2009). International perspectives on the first-year experience in higher education. Columbia, SC:
National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience & Students in Transition in association with Teesside
University.
Osborne, M. (2003). Increasing or widening participation in higher education? — a European overview. European Journal of
Education, 38(1), 5-24. doi: 10.1111/1467-3435.00125
Perry, W.G. (1999). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme (1st ed.). San Francisco,
Calif.: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pitkethly, A., & Prosser, M. (2001). The first year experience project: A model for university-wide change. Higher Education
Research & Development, 20(2), 185-198. doi: 10.1080/758483470
Richards, F.H. (2006). Maturity of judgement in decision making for predictive testing for nontreatable adult-onset
neurogenetic conditions: A case against predictive testing of minors. Clinical Genetics, 70(5), 396-401. doi:
10.1111/j.1399-0004.2006.00696.x
Rodgers, R.F. (1990). Student development. In U. Delworth, G. R. Hanson, & Associates, Student services: A handbook for
the profession (2
nd
ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sanford, N. (1966). Self & society: social change and individual development. New York: Atherton Press.
Scanlon, L., Rowling, L., & Weber, Z. (2007). ‘You don't have like an identity … you are just lost in a crowd’: Forming a
student identity in the first-year transition to university. Journal of Youth Studies, 10(2), 223-241. doi:
10.1080/13676260600983684
Scheja, M. (2006). Delayed understanding and staying in phase: Students’ perceptions of their study situation. Higher
Education, 52(3), 421-445. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-7765-7
Schlossberg, N.K. (1984). Counseling adults in transition: Linking practice with theory. New York: Springer Pub. Co.
Steinberg, L. (2010). Commentary: A behavioral scientist looks at the science of adolescent brain development. Brain and
cognition, 72(1), 160-164. doi: 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.11.003
Sursock, A., & Smidt, H. (2010). Trends 2010: A decade of change in european higher education. Brussels: European
University Association.
Swedish Higher Education Authority. (2014). Higher education in Sweden: 2014 status report. Retrieved from
http://english.uk-ambetet.se/download/18.7ff11ece146297d1aa65b4/higher-education-in-Sweden-2014-status-
report.pdf
Teichler, U. (1996). Comparative higher education: Potentials and limits. Higher Education, 32(4), 431-465. doi:
10.1007/BF00133257
Teichler, U. (2005). Research on higher education in Europe. European Journal of Education, 40(4), 447-469. doi:
10.1111/j.1465-3435.2005.00239.x
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Upcraft, M.L., Gardner, J.N., & Barefoot, B.O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for
improving the first year of college (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Welsh, M., & Schmitt-Wilson, S. (2013). Executive function, identity, and career decision-making in college students. SAGE
Open, 3(4). doi: 10.1177/2158244013505755
Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie‐Gauld, M. (2005). ‘It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people’: The role of
social support in the first‐year experience of higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 30(6), 707-722. doi:
10.1080/03075070500340036
Yorke, M. (2014). The development and initial use of a survey of student ‘belongingness’, engagement and self-confidence
in uk higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1-13. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2014.990415

9. CURTIS, 2015 | 8
Yorke, M., & Longden, B. (2008). The first-year experience of higher education in the UK. York, England: The Higher
Education Academy. Retrieved from
http://www.improvingthestudentexperience.com/library/UG_documents/FYE_in_HE_in_the_UK_FinalReport_Yor
ke_and_Longden.pdf
Yorke, M., Longden, B., & Society for Research into Higher Education. (2004). Retention and student success in higher
education. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education: Open University Press.