Ethnographic and Qualitative Research Conference Presentation given on 2/5/2014. This presentation outlines my study done on second-year students using crystallization.

1. Presented by:
Ashley Babcock, Ed.D

2.  Second-year
students = Unique set of
challenges (Gahagan and Hunter, 2006)


More integrated than first-year
Many still lack a college identity
 Reasons

Retention, lack of support
 Unique

Features of Bartley
Professional focus, proprietary institution


to study Second-Year Students
Fast pace, ten-week quarters, no on-campus housing
High Attrition Rate
2

3. 
Key to success is involved students

Chickering and Reisser (1993); Tinto (1993); Astin
(1993); Kuh, Schuh, Whitt & Associates (1991)

Sophomore Slump: Lemons and Richmond (1987)

SYE Programming

Must build off first-year; Campus-wide collaboration
3

4.  Two
Seminal Second-Year Works: Pattengale
and Schreiner, (2000); Hunter et al. (2009)
 Lack
of SYE research on professional focus,
commuter schools.
 Gaps

There is a need for more qualitative studies.


in Research
Only one interview based study, Schaller (2005)
Many quantitative, mixed methods, or reflective
pieces.
4

5.  Longitudinal,

The case should be a functioning, bounded
system (Stake, 1994).

Sample: 11 second-year students; Data Collection:
Interviews, focus groups, blog, and self-reflection
 Theoretical

Framework
Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) revised seven
vectors of student development.
 Integrative

intrinsic case study:
Crystallization:
Provides multiple ways of understanding
participants’ experiences (Ellingson, 2009).

Student narratives, researcher’s reflections, poetry
5

6. There is are two research questions for this study:
 What
do second-year students at a
professional focus, commuter school need to
increase their involvement?
 Do
students at Bartley move through the
same stages of student development as
Chickering and Reisser (1993) suggest
students do at a four-year school?
6

7.  Bartley’s

Structure
Non-Traditional Campus; Fragmentation of Majors;
For-Profit Business Model
 Teaching

and Learning
Novice to Intermediate; Prioritizing; Faculty and
Department Chairs; Mentoring
 Professional

Development
Motivation for Joining Clubs;
Internships, Freelancing, and Conventions; Portfolios
7

8.  Community

and Involvement
Structure Leads to Lack of Involvement; Purposeful
Programming; Increasing Communication and
Networking; Building Camaraderie and Pride
 Resources

and Support
Academic Resources; Computer and Specialty Labs;
Outdated Equipment; Business Side of Bartley
8

9. Developing Integrity
Developing Purpose
Developing Integrity
Developing Identity
Establishing Purpose
Establishing Identity
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships
Developing Mature Interpersonal Relationships
Moving Through Autonomy Toward Interdependence
Managing Toward Interdependence
Moving Through AutonomyEmotions
Developing Competence
Managing Emotions
Developing Competence
9

10. A
support structure should be developed
using four common ideas:

Purposeful Programming



Increased Transparency



Town Hall Meetings
Communication is crucial to increase community
Mentoring



Programming should use the four vectors
Events for veteran, adult, and commuter students
Faculty and peer mentoring
Second-year advisors for individualized support
E-Portfolio Community

Develop student ownership through reflective
practices
10

11.  Three

One Institution: Not generalizable


Nature of the case study to focus on one case
Crystallization


Main Limitations
Must take care to not be seen as inconsistent or
contradictory
Bias

Reflections help to gain insight into prejudices
 Further

Research
More large-scale second-year studies on:


Proprietary, online, and commuter institutions
Veteran, adult, and commuter students
11

12.  Bartley



students—divergent from the lit
Gahagan and Hunter’s (2006) definition of second-year
students is problematic of Bartley population
Commuter students, veteran students, and adult
students have specific programmatic needs and their
needs to be more research on these populations
Bartley second-year students are truly the middle child
 Institution
specific, purposeful programming
is needed to develop the whole student
 Chickering’s seven vectors should be seen as
fluid and should be used to help develop
programming and SYE support
12

13. Contact Information:
Ashley Babcock, Ed.D
Argosy University
ashlee.babcock@gmail.com
A copy of this presentation is available at:
http://www.slideshare.net/AshleyBabcockEdD
/middle-child-eqr-conference
13

14. 









Astin, A.W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Chickering, A.W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass.
Ellingson, L.L. (2009). Engaging in crystallization in qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Gahagan, J. & Hunter, M.S. (2006).The second-year experience: Turning attention to the academy's
middle children. About Campus. 11 (3), 17-22. doi 10.1002/abc.168
Hunter, M.S., Tobolowsky, B., Gardener, J.N., Evenbeck, S.E., Pattengale, J.E., Schaller, M.A., &
Schreiner, L.A., (2009). Helping sophomores succeed: Understanding and improving the secondyear experience [Kindle]. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from Amazon.com.
Kuh, G.D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J.H., Whitt, E.J., and Associates (2010). Student success in college:
Creating Conditions that matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lemons, L. J., & Richmond, D. R. (1987). A developmental perspective of sophomore slump.
NASPA Journal, 24(3), 15-19.
Pattengale, J., & Schreiner, L.A., (2000). Visible solutions for invisible students: Helping
sophomores succeed (Monograph No. 31, pp. v-viii). Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, National Resource Center for First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Schaller, M.A. (2005). Wandering and Wondering: Traversing the Uneven Terrain of the Second
College Year. About Campus. 10 (3), 17-24. doi: 10.1002/abc.131
Stake, R.E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 236-247).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
14