Introduction
The transition to higher education is one of the most challenging periods for young adults in America, as they leave the comfort of home for a complex university environment filled with new values and norms (Giddan, 1988; Gass, 1986; Robison et al., 1996) Research indicates that the initial weeks of the freshman year are critical for successful adaptation, with various unique challenges to navigate throughout the educational journey Students' confidence in their ability to meet these challenges significantly influences their persistence and success (Bandura, 1994) While academic preparedness has long been a focus in higher education, the importance of social acceptance and comfort within the university culture is equally vital for students' perseverance and overall success.
Universities and colleges are increasingly aware of the importance of helping new students acclimate to their surroundings One effective strategy they have adopted is the implementation of first-year seminars, like University 101, which have demonstrated positive outcomes in facilitating this transition.
Research from 2006 indicates that first-year seminars significantly benefit students, leading to higher average grades, reduced likelihood of academic probation, increased campus involvement, and improved interaction with faculty Reflecting these positive outcomes, approximately 84.8% of higher education institutions have adopted such programs (“History of the first year seminar,” n.d.).
Despite variations in program lengths, timing, and quality, most educational programs emphasize clarifying institutional expectations and integrating students into the campus culture (Bell, 2006) By clearly communicating these expectations, students can evaluate their ability to meet them This communication has been achieved through diverse methods, including small group discussions, skits, songs, interactive presentations, lectures, and speeches (Fox, Zakley, Morris & Jundt).
Wilderness orientation programs have become increasingly popular as a method to support students during their transition to college life These programs trace their origins back to 1935 when Dartmouth’s Outing Club initiated hiking trips for incoming students before classes started Since then, such programs have significantly expanded, offering unique opportunities for students to connect with nature and build community.
According to Bell (2008), there are 200 universities offering diverse outdoor programs that vary in activities such as backpacking, canoeing, climbing, and ropes courses These programs accommodate participants ranging from 4 to 1,080 individuals, with durations spanning from 1 to 24 days and costs that can range from $0 to $212 per day.
Gass (1986) investigated the impact of wilderness orientation programs on college student attrition rates, finding significant differences in GPA, retention rates, and shortened Student Developmental Task Inventory (SDTI) scores between experimental and control groups Students who participated in the wilderness program showed improved performance in all areas by the second semester However, concerns about the study's external validity and research design limit the generalizability of the results, though it still offers valuable insights into potential program outcomes More recent research by Bell (2006) highlighted the social support benefits of wilderness pre-orientation programs, utilizing the Campus-Focused Social Provisions Scale to assess changes in students' support networks, revealing significant advantages over other pre-orientation programs.
Wilderness orientation programs encompass a variety of activities, notably challenge courses, which have evolved from experience-based adventure education into traditional educational settings These experiential tools are effectively employed in therapeutic environments, corporate training, and educational institutions for middle and high school students By incorporating games, initiatives, and both low and high elements, practitioners aim to achieve significant outcomes such as increased self-esteem, enhanced trust and teamwork, improved self-efficacy, a stronger locus of control, better communication, and greater group cohesion.
For every study which discovers a connection between challenge course participation and desired benefits, there is a question as to whether they are long persisting (Wolfe & Samdahl,
2005) However, one such outcome that has received widespread credibility is self‐efficacy
Gillis and Speelman’s (2008) meta-analysis revealed a significant medium effect size for self-efficacy outcomes in challenge course research, indicating practical implications for personal development Notably, self-efficacy, defined as one's belief in their capabilities to achieve performance levels that influence life events (Bandura, 1994), exhibited an effect size nearly double that of self-esteem, which had three times as many studies conducted In contrast, self-esteem reflects an individual's approval or disapproval of their worth and capabilities (Coopersmith, 1990) While self-esteem is widely studied, Gillis and Speelman (2008) argue that it is
Self-efficacy is defined as an individual's assessment of their ability to perform actions necessary for managing potential situations (Bandura, 1982) It influences how people feel, think, motivate themselves, and behave (Bandura, 1994) This belief in one's capabilities is a strong predictor of perseverance and success in various areas, including pain tolerance, career development, academics, and adventurous pursuits (Hackett & Betz, 1981; Litt, 1988; Propst & Koesler, 1998; Sanders & Sanders, 1998) Moreover, self-efficacy plays a crucial role in successfully transitioning to new and challenging environments Students who believe they can accomplish the tasks required for a successful transition are more likely to thrive in college life.
Challenge course-based pre-orientation programs (CCBOP) have gained popularity as effective tools for easing the transition from high school to college life (Giddan, 1988) These programs foster general self-efficacy, making them a strategic approach to enhancing student success West Virginia University has recognized this potential by establishing a new challenge course facility in the summer of 2007, which is designed to support their freshman outdoor orientation program, Adventure West Virginia.
Through examination of the literature there is a desire to move beyond simply showing a connection between an adventure education program and its associated benefits Ewert’s
In 1987, Ewert emphasized the need for further research on the characteristics of programmed experiences that influence observed outcomes in outdoor adventure activities He advocated for a shift in focus from merely identifying outcomes to understanding which aspects of the experience lead to desirable results, suggesting that systematic quantitative investigations of programs could facilitate this understanding Investigating the design characteristics of challenge course programs is essential for practitioners and managers to ensure they are meeting participant goals A key area of interest is the type of facilitation employed, which blends science and art However, the specific facilitation elements—such as framing, frontloading, briefing, and debriefing—that yield the most significant outcomes remain unclear Additionally, effectively integrating educational curricula into experiential learning presents challenges that need to be addressed.
Models of Integration (MOI) ©, created by Christian Campus Outreach (CCO) in 1999, includes faith-based elements in its framework The four primary models it outlines are 'Non-integrated,' 'Pseudo integrated,' 'Partial integrated,' and 'Fully integrated.'
In the context of experiential learning, a 'holistically integrated' approach, as defined by Harlan & Grout (2008), emphasizes a strong connection between the curriculum and the activity, allowing participants to embody the learning throughout the experience In contrast, a 'non-integrated' model represents a complete disconnect, where the activity merely serves as a backdrop for traditional lectures, with little relevance to the participants' experiences By integrating the curriculum into the activity, learners can engage more deeply, making the educational experience more meaningful and impactful.
This article explores the impact of a 'holistically integrated' curriculum on participants' perceptions of anticipated outcomes and overall learning By examining how facilitators and practitioners implement this approach, we seek to understand whether a deliberate emphasis on holistic integration can enhance the learning experience.
The purpose of this study is to:
(1) examine the connection between challenge course based orientation programs and students perceived college and academic self‐efficacy;
(2) examine the effects of ‘Holistically integrated’ and ‘Non‐integrated’ curriculum approaches on student’s perceived college and academic self‐efficacy; and
(3) identify if any socio‐demographic factors are related to college and academic self‐efficacy
1 Does a university’s challenge course based pre‐orientation programs elicit changes in participants’ perceived academic self‐efficacy and/or perceived college self‐efficacy?
2 Does a higher level of curriculum integration of the challenge course based pre‐ orientation program elicit any change in participants’ perceived academic self‐efficacy and/or college self‐efficacy?
3 What is the socio‐demographic makeup of the sample of participants?
4 What socio‐demographics differences, if any, have influence on participants’ perceived academic self‐efficacy and college self‐efficacy?
Literature Review
Adventure/Experiential Education Research and Benefits
Outward Bound School programs and similar experiential learning initiatives have demonstrated significant positive impacts on participants' lives, leading to their expansion since the 1990s (Hattie et al., 1997) Before the 1950s, while many instructors and participants observed changes post-activities, they struggled to articulate these effects To validate the growing interest in adventure-based learning, researchers began to systematically investigate and document its outcomes From the 1960s to the 1970s, the focus shifted towards understanding the social and personal benefits derived from wilderness adventure activities (Ewert, 1987).
Early research has shown that adventure-based activities can yield significant social benefits (Ewert, 1987) Over the years, the focus has shifted primarily to individual benefits, particularly the development of self-concept (Ewert, 1987; Hattie et al., 1997) Additionally, ongoing research since the late 1970s continues to explore this area, highlighting its enduring relevance.
‘wilderness experience’ and focuses on why participants take part and what their expectations are (Ewert, 1987)
As shown, many different approaches have been taken in order to determine the expected outcomes of educational process within adventure experiences (Wolfe & Samdahl,
2005) Links have been made connecting these programs to positive effects on participants (e.g Dougherty, 2005; Goldenberg, Klenosky, O'Leary, and Templin, 2000; Priest and
Burton's (1981) analysis of 161 independent studies highlights significant inconsistencies in research regarding the positive effects of adventure programs The results reveal that nearly equal percentages of studies reported 'mostly significant' effects and 'non-significant' effects, suggesting that not all adventure experiences yield inherently positive outcomes (Hans, 2000; Neil and Richards, 1998).
In their meta-analysis, Hattie et al (1997) identified 40 significant outcomes of adventure programs, categorized into six main areas: leadership, self-concept, personality, interpersonal skills, and adventurousness, with self-concept showing the most subdomains and the largest effect size Their findings suggest that adventure programming can significantly enhance participants' self-concept Similar conclusions were drawn in Neil and Richard's 1988 study; however, other research, including works by Gillis (1981), Powers (1983), and Stoger (1978), indicated that some programs may not effectively produce any changes.
(1987) indicated that the evidence for beneficial outcomes is too large to ignore and question
Recent research has increasingly focused on specific sub-domains of self-concept, particularly independence, confidence, self-efficacy, and self-understanding Studies suggest that analyzing these individual factors provides a more credible and clearer understanding of self-concept than examining it as a singular entity (Hans, 2000).
Concerns regarding adventure education research include pre-group anxiety and post-group euphoria, as well as variations in outcomes based on participants' backgrounds, age, and gender However, research by Hattie et al (1997) indicates that pre-group anxiety does not significantly impact results In contrast, post-group euphoria can influence participants' responses, potentially leading to exaggerated emotional reactions that overshadow individual assessments, as noted by Neil and Richards (1998) Implementing follow-up tests can provide a clearer picture of changes in participant responses, revealing whether effects have stabilized, reverted to baseline levels, or continued to evolve after the activity.
Numerous studies have validated the effectiveness of adventure programming and its outcomes (Burton, 1981; Ewert, 1987; Gillis & Speelman, 2008; Hans, 2000; Witman, 1993) Despite this, questions remain regarding the specific characteristics that drive these outcomes Research efforts have sought to identify these key traits (Dougherty, 2005; Yoshino, 2004), but many studies have been too limited in scope, flawed, or unable to establish reliable connections Nevertheless, incremental and quantifiable data that builds on existing research remains valuable for advancing the field (Ewert, 1987; Hans).
Transitioning from the familiar routine of high school to the complex environment of college is often seen as one of the most challenging phases in an adolescent's life Understanding one's role within the university community, which reflects its own distinct values and norms, is crucial for a successful transition To support students during this adjustment, higher education institutions offer orientation programs and classes designed to facilitate this experience.
Boston College pioneered the development of orientation programs in 1888, with Reed College becoming the first institution to offer college credit for such programs in 1911 (Gordon, 1989) Throughout the years, these programs have experienced fluctuations in popularity, yet there has been a consistent overall increase in their implementation (Gordon, 1989) Despite various redesigns and formats, the history of orientation programs consistently emphasizes three key areas of focus: physical, social, and academic transition and adjustment (Tinto, 1987; Robinson et al., 1996).
Orientation is a three-phase process that begins with a student's initial contact with the university, progresses through pre-enrollment and early enrollment, and culminates at the start of their first year (Perigo & Upcraft, 1989) While the exact boundaries of each phase can be ambiguous and vary for each student, institutions establish deadlines and provide essential information, experiences, and activities to facilitate a smooth transition (Perigo & Upcraft, 1989) For this study, the orientation period is defined as spanning from early enrollment to the commencement of fall classes.
A survey by Robinson et al (1996) of 273 colleges revealed that academically focused orientation programs provide essential insights for incoming first-year students regarding requirements and procedures such as placement testing, academic advising, course registration, tuition payments, and financial aid These programs typically occur from pre-admission to pre-enrollment, while social and cultural orientation happens closer to the start of classes During this time, emphasis is placed on community building among peers, upperclassmen, faculty, and staff, alongside vital information on personal health and safety, student support services, student organizations, and essential college survival skills.
The final phase of orientation typically occurs during the first semester, often represented by the traditional University 101 course, which gained popularity at the University of South Carolina (Gordon, 1989) These courses cover a variety of topics, primarily focusing on academic integration, personal health and safety, and time management skills However, they often fall short in promoting community building and social integration Most of these courses are credit-bearing, and many smaller institutions mandate that all freshmen participate (Robinson et al., 1996).
Orientation programs for first-year students should leverage the insights of both peers and academic advisors, as each offers distinct advantages during this transitional phase Peer interactions provide firsthand experiences and candid discussions about university norms, enriching students' understanding of campus life in ways that formal channels cannot Conversely, academic advisors play a crucial role in establishing relationships that focus on identifying essential resources for student success from the outset To accommodate diverse learning styles and reinforce information retention, it is vital to employ a variety of instructional methods, such as small group discussions, interactive presentations, and engaging performances.
Many institutions are increasingly adopting comprehensive orientation programs that integrate academic, social, and physical aspects into a cohesive experience These multifaceted programs utilize a variety of activities and events to facilitate adjustment, with the timing and focus varying by institution One effective approach is the incorporation of wilderness adventure activities, which leverage the shared experience of engaging in new outdoor challenges to effectively convey essential orientation information.
Adventure orientation programs offer a unique approach for higher education institutions to facilitate students' transition into college life by addressing key integration topics These programs can vary widely in structure, encompassing challenge courses, backcountry excursions, outdoor activities, and overnight stays in remote locations The selection of specific activities is influenced by the institution's goals, available resources, and the overall feasibility of the program.
Even though several orientation programs of this type have been well established since the 1960s, few professional articles have been published (Gass, 1990; Davis‐Berman and
Method
This study investigates the changes in perceived self-efficacy among first-year college students involved in challenge course-based pre-orientation programs This chapter details the survey instruments, experimental design, and data collection methods employed in the research Additionally, it provides a concise overview of the analytical methods used to interpret the collected data.
The inventory created by Solberg, O’Brien, Villarreal, Kennel, and Davis in 1993 assesses students' confidence in completing various college-related tasks A panel of six independent experts evaluated a selection of 40 items, resulting in a consensus on 20 items that effectively measure this confidence.
The study categorized 20 items into three subscales: roommate self-efficacy, course self-efficacy, and social self-efficacy Students rated their confidence in completing various tasks on a 9-point Likert scale, ranging from 0 (not at all confident) to 8 (very confident) Example tasks included "Talk with school academic and support staff," "Write a good paper," and "Get along with others you live with."
‘Make new friends at college’
Solberg et al (1993) found that the instrument they studied demonstrates high reliability and sufficient validity, including both convergent and discriminant aspects Furthermore, the instrument shows insensitivity to cultural and gender differences, enhancing its applicability across diverse populations.
20 items was dropped from the instrument to 19
College Academic Self‐Efficacy Scale ‐
The 33-item measure developed by Owen and Froman (1988) was created similarly to the CSEI Initially, three university faculty members generated a pool of items related to college academics, which were then refined by seven graduate teaching assistants Subsequently, 93 undergraduate educational psychology students ranked the importance of these items for academic success using a 5-point Likert-type scale Items with a score of 3.0 or higher were retained, resulting in the final 33 items Participants were then asked to evaluate their confidence in performing behaviors, such as 'Participating in a class discussion,' on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very little) to 5 (quite a lot).
‘Making a professor respect you’, Relating course content to material in other courses’, and
‘Taking essay tests’ Internal reliability and validity of all items were found to be adequate
A demographic survey was created to better understand participant characteristics, asking for information on gender, age, ethnicity, and home state The responses to these four questions were analyzed to identify significant differences in self-efficacy expectations among various demographic groups.
The instruments employed provide a comprehensive analysis of the program and curriculum, with the CSEI assessing both social and academic aspects of the college transition This program uniquely supports incoming first-year students in socializing, which helps validate any perceived gains in self-efficacy In contrast, the CASES focuses specifically on academic tasks, offering a deeper insight into the impact of the facilitation approach Given that the University 101 curriculum primarily emphasizes academic content, the CASES is instrumental in revealing how facilitation and curriculum delivery affect participants' perceived academic self-efficacy.
This study was a quasi‐experimental design whose subjects were West Virginia
The study focused on first-year university students enrolled in the Challenge Course Based pre-Orientation Program (CCBOP), selecting four out of six classes from the 2008 freshman cohort Excluding the initial two courses for facilitator skill refinement, the remaining classes were randomly assigned to either a 'Holistically integrated' or 'Non-integrated' curriculum design While all groups followed the same core curriculum of University 101, the holistic approach emphasized metaphorical connections between activities and the curriculum The research measured self-efficacy through the College Self-Efficacy Scale and the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale using a pretest/post-test design, enabling an analysis of the program's impact on student self-efficacy and identifying differences between the two curriculum designs.
The study was quasi-experimental, focusing on first-year college students at WVU who voluntarily participated in Adventure West Virginia's odyssey programs Participation was influenced by various factors, including class availability, scheduling conflicts, financial constraints, and personal interest, leading to some self-selection among participants Despite these factors, classes were randomly assigned to the curriculum integration designs, ensuring the study maintained its experimental integrity as closely as possible.
Challenge Course Base Orientation Program
Participants were subjected to one of two treatments: the 'Holistically Integrated' curriculum, which emphasizes briefing, framing, frontloading, and debriefing activities while incorporating a specific curriculum, leading to greater transference of insights to everyday life; and the 'Non-Integrated' approach, where activities are conducted separately from the curriculum and presented in a traditional lecture format afterward.
In the summer of 2008, data collection was conducted at eight different intervals, following the research design previously described This section details the methodology employed for both the pre-test and post-test data collection processes.
During the check-in process at Adventure West Virginia, students were invited to participate in a research study, with the assurance that participation was voluntary and would not affect their course grades Researchers explained that their decision to participate or not would remain anonymous to course instructors Students who chose to participate completed an internal review board assent form and filled out the College Self-Efficacy Scale and College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale before rejoining their peers.
Post-test assessments mirrored the pretest process, occurring after the trip gear was cleaned and returned, but before the closing ceremonies Participants were reminded of the research study and confirmed their voluntary participation before completing the College Self-Efficacy Scale and the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale They were given sufficient time to finish the self-report instruments and then rejoined the group for the closing ceremonies The research adhered to the WVU Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines, with all data collected and managed in compliance with IRB requirements, and the surveys administered by the researcher.
The raw data from student survey responses were analyzed using SPSS 16, with descriptive statistics computed for all groups to identify incomplete data sets To ensure a high response rate while minimizing the impact of outliers, any data sets missing more than three individual values on a single scale were excluded from the study This approach allowed the researcher to retain the majority of data sets, resulting in a total of 67 usable pretest and posttest data sets.
A paired t-test was utilized to analyze the pre-test and post-test responses of participants, providing an initial assessment of the program's impact Additionally, further analysis involved conducting paired t-tests on each scale within individual treatment groups, as well as independent sample t-tests to compare the mean gain scores of each scale across different treatment groups.
Results
This study investigated the changes in perceived self-efficacy among first-year college students involved in challenge course-based pre-orientation programs (CCBOP) using a quasi-experimental design The findings include details on response rates, demographic information, and the testing of quantitative research questions.
Pre-tests were conducted during the check-in process at the start of each program, which included 22 incoming freshmen In total, 68 out of 88 students (77.0%) participated in the study: Odyssey ‘A’ (Non-integrated) had 14 participants, Odyssey ‘B’ (Integrated) had 16, Odyssey ‘C’ (Integrated) had 20, and Odyssey ‘D’ (Non-integrated) had 17 The response rates were 79.5% for the Non-integrated groups and 70.0% for the Integrated groups.
A total of 30 usable surveys from the College Self-Efficacy Scale were collected for the 'Non-integrated' treatment pre-tests, along with 31 from the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale For the 'Integrated' treatment groups, all 37 College Self-Efficacy Scale pre-tests were usable, although 3 responses from the College Academic Self-Efficacy Scale were discarded due to multiple missing values.
On the final day of the program, 67 out of 68 first-year students who completed the pretest surveys participated in the post-test survey, resulting in a low attrition rate of just 1.5%.
% for the entire study and 4% in the ‘Non‐integrated’ treatment group In total only one
College Self‐Efficacy Scale posttest survey was discarded due to multiple missing values
A simple demographic survey was conducted along with the College Self‐Efficacy Scale and the College Academic Self‐Efficacy Scale All Participants completed the four demographic questions specified below
The gender distribution in the study was nearly balanced, with 33 males (48.5%) and 35 females (51.5%) participating In the 'Non-integrated' treatment group, there were 14 males (45.0%) and 17 females (55.0%), while the 'Integrated' treatment group included 19 males (51.0%) and 18 females (49.0%).
Figure 5: Gender distribution for ‘Integrated’ (n7) and ‘Non ‐ integrated’ (n1) treatment groups participating in West Virginia University’s 2008 CCBOP
The study predominantly involved participants aged 18, comprising 89.0% of the respondents, while the remaining participants were 17 years old Among the 17-year-old respondents, three were part of the 'Integrated' treatment group and four were in the 'Non-integrated' treatment group.
Figure 6: Age distribution for ‘Integrated’ (n7) and ‘Non ‐ integrated’ (n1) treatment groups participating in West Virginia University’s 2008 CCBOP
Ethnicity‐ The majority of participants identified themselves as being Caucasian (63
In a recent study, 92.0% of participants identified their ethnicity, with 4.8% identifying as African-American and 2.9% as Hispanic Among the 'Integrated' treatment group, a significant 97.3% considered themselves Caucasian, whereas the 'Non-integrated' treatment group had a lower percentage of Caucasians at 87.0%, with 10% identifying as African American.
Figure 7: Ethnicity distribution for ‘Integrated’ (n7) and ‘Non ‐ integrated’ (n1) treatment groups participating in West Virginia University’s 2008 CCBOP
The research participants represented a diverse range of higher education institutions across various states, with the largest proportion hailing from West Virginia at 28.0% Additionally, Virginia contributed 17.6% of the participants, highlighting the geographical diversity of the study's respondents.
Maryland (13.2%) and Pennsylvania (13.2%)— 44% of all study participants New Jersey
(11.7%) is the only other majority from a state not adjacent to West Virginia Three or fewer participants claim Delaware (4.4%), New York (4.4%), Ohio (3.0%), Georgia (1.5%), New
Hampshire (1.5%) or Texas (1.5%) as their home state
Figure 8 Residency distribution for ‘Integrated’ (n7) and ‘Non ‐ integrated’ (n1) treatment groups participating in West Virginia University’s 2008 CCBOP
The demographic analysis reveals a balanced distribution across treatment groups, with gender representation aligning with the program's design The Integrated treatment group included 6.0% more females than the Non-integrated group, while the latter had a slightly higher percentage of males Notably, the majority of participants were 18 years old, with 92% in the Integrated group and 87% in the Non-integrated group Additionally, a significant portion of the sample population was Caucasian, accounting for 97% in the Integrated group Furthermore, 28% of participants hailed from West.
Virginia, 47% from adacent states, and 25% are from all other states that closely parrall the distribution observed in the greater University population
A paired t-test was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the program on students' self-efficacy, using responses from the CSEI and CASES The results indicated that mean post-test scores exceeded pre-test scores across all examined items Notably, the pre-test and post-test comparison of CSEI responses revealed statistically significant differences for all nineteen items, with a p-value of ≤ 05 Furthermore, when applying a stricter alpha level of 01, seventeen out of the nineteen items still demonstrated significant differences, including the item "Write a course paper," which had a p-value of 039.
Engaging in social interactions with housemates significantly impacts well-being (p = 016) Both socializing and staying current with schoolwork demonstrated a medium effect size (d ≥ 50), while the remaining aspects of the study exhibited large effect sizes (d ≥ 80).
The paired t-test results (Table 2) revealed a significant difference in responses among all subjects between pre-test and post-test, with 29 items showing a p-value of p≤.05 (two-tailed) However, four individual items did not demonstrate significant differences: 'Attending class regularly' (p=.199), 'Attending class consistently in a dull course' (p=.185), 'Performing simple math computations' (p=.063), and 'Using a computer' (p=.495).
The survey results reveal varying effect sizes across different items, with 3 items classified as having a 'small' effect, 6 as 'medium', and 23 as 'large', alongside one negative effect (Table 2) Notably, the item related to 'Using a computer' showed a negative effect size of d = ‐0.17, indicating a decline in post-test scores following participation in the CCBOP The small effect sizes were observed in statements such as 'Attending class regularly', 'Attending class consistently in a dull course', and 'Mastering most content in a math course' These findings align with the t-test p-values discussed earlier.
Table 1 Comparison between pre and post test responses to College Self ‐ Efficacy
College Self‐Efficacy Inventory t df
Make new friends at college ‐5.87 66 ≤.001** 1.45
Talk to your professor/instructor ‐7.06 66 ≤.001** 1.74
Ask a professor or instructor a question outside of class ‐5.73 65 ≤.001** 1.42
Talk with a school academic and support staff ‐6.43 65 ≤.001** 1.60
Get a date when you want one ‐5.61 64 ≤.001** 1.40
Do well on your exams ‐6.52 66 ≤.001** 1.61
Keep up to date with your school work ‐3.13 66 003* 0.77
Divide chores with others you live with ‐5.43 65 ≤.001** 1.35
Get along with other you live with ‐3.89 65 ≤.001** 0.97
Socialize with others you live with ‐2.46 66 016* 0.61
Divide space in your residence (if applicable) ‐6.09 58 ≤.001** 1.60
Table 2 Comparison between pre and post test responses to Academic Self ‐ Efficacy Survey
College Academic Self‐Efficacy Scale t Df
Taking well‐organized notes during a lecture ‐3.89 66 ≤.001** 0.96
Answering a question in a large class ‐5.33 66 ≤.001** 1.31
Answering a question in a small class ‐4.58 66 ≤.001** 1.13
Taking “objective” tests (multiple‐choice, T‐F, matching) ‐3.07 66 003* 0.76
Writing a high quality term paper ‐4.37 66 ≤.001** 1.08
Listen carefully during a lecture on a difficult topic ‐3.84 66 ≤.001** 0.95
Explaining a concept to another student ‐3.79 65 ≤.001** 0.94
Asking a professor in class to review a concept you don’t understand ‐6.25 65 ≤.001** 1.55
Earning good marks in most courses ‐2.79 64 007* 0.70
Studying enough to understand content thoroughly ‐3.98 65 ≤.001** 0.99
Running for student government office ‐4.38 65 ≤.001** 1.09
Participating in extracurricular events (sports, clubs) ‐5.09 64 ≤.001** 1.27
Attending class consistently in a dull course ‐1.34 63 185 0.34 Make a professor think you’re paying attention in class ‐2.41 64 018* 0.60 Understanding most ideas you read in you tests ‐3.36 65 001* 0.84
Understanding most ideas presented in class ‐3.82 64 ≤.001** 0.96
Mastering most content in a math course ‐2.30 65 024* 0.57
Talking to a professor privately to get to know him or her ‐6.24 65 ≤.001** 1.55
Relating course content to materials in other courses ‐5.24 63 ≤.001** 1.32
Challenging a professor’s opinion in class ‐4.14 65 ≤.001** 1.03
Applying lecture content to a laboratory session ‐4.93 65 ≤.001** 1.22
Making good use of the library ‐8.12 65 ≤.001** 2.01
Spreading out studying instead of cramming ‐6.37 65 ≤.001** 1.58
Understanding difficult passages in textbooks ‐6.53 65 ≤.001** 1.62
Mastering content in a course you’re not interested in ‐3.70 64 ≤.001** 0.93
Treatment Group CSEI Paired t‐test Comparison
Responses to 15 CSEI scales significantly differed (paired t‐test, two‐tailed p 05), indicating only a slight improvement from pre-test to post-test This minimal gain is expected given the deliberate exclusion of technology during the experience and the curriculum focused on technology use.
The evaluation of the CCBOP program demonstrates its effectiveness in enhancing students' perceived self-efficacy in both college and academic domains, as evidenced by pre-test and post-test comparisons Notably, 29 out of 33 CASES items showed significant improvement in the post-test, indicating the program's broad applicability The remaining four items focused on specific skills and were less transferable from the challenge course experience The large and medium effect sizes further underscore the significance of the improvements observed in these 29 items.
The post-test responses to the 19 CSEI item measures were significantly higher across all treatment programs, demonstrating large and medium effect sizes This indicates that the CCBOP positively influenced the perceived self-efficacy of first-year students involved in the study Notably, the Social Self-Efficacy subscale showed overwhelmingly positive results While most remaining subscales and the CASES reflected a majority of statistically significant items with notable effect sizes, the impact of the CCBOP experience varied across different domains.
Students' self-efficacy in subjects like mathematics and their confidence in achieving good grades were less impactful on their overall success compared to factors such as effectively utilizing library resources and building relationships with their professors.
Does a higher level of curriculum integration of the challenge course based pre‐ orientation program elicit any change in participants’ perceived academic self‐efficacy and/or college self‐efficacy?
To assess differences between treatment groups, paired t-tests were performed on pre and post-test responses Furthermore, independent t-tests were utilized to compare the mean gain scores of each treatment group, evaluating the effects of 'Integrated' versus 'Non-integrated' programs.