An Insight into Students’ Transition to Tertiary or Academic Pathways Programs

ABSTRACT

There is a lot of research on pathways students’ transition to universities, however, little is known about those students’ initial transition to the Academic Pathway Program (APP). This study investigated students’ transition to an Academic Pathway Program (APP) offered at a College affiliated to a metropolitan university in Sydney, Australia. Data collected from a sample of students using the Transition, Wellbeing, Help-seeking, and Adjustments Survey (TWHAS) were analysed both descriptively and inferentially. Most students reported positive moods, emotional coping, and were able to seek help without many barriers. Also, most students reported adjusting positively to the College, despite facing a few personal and social challenges such as finding time to exercise, balance study with family commitments and socialise with friends outside the College. Further, a possible association between students’ adjustments and their initial feelings when beginning the College, proficiency in written and spoken English, and help-seeking was noted. Additionally, differences in the students’ transitional challenges, wellbeing, help-seeking behaviors, adjustments across gender, age, and type of enrollment were evident. The implications of these findings for supporting students’ transition to the Academic Pathway Programs and recommendations for future research addressing the limited sample size are discussed.

Introduction

In Australia, students typically commence university studies after completing their high school or secondary education (Vernon et al., 2019). However, in recent years, many students have been joining universities via alternative pathways, a move that was driven by the Australian Government’s agenda of widening participation and their commitment to making university education accessible to all students (Bradley et al., 2008). The various pathways programs grouped under the umbrella of enabling courses (Hodges et al., 2013; Vernon et al., 2019) have opened opportunities for many students from non-traditional backgrounds or targeted equity groups such as indigenous, low socio-economic, refugee backgrounds and students with disabilities or First-in Family (FiF) to attend university (Pittman et al., 2016). Students can now access tertiary education without meeting the academic pre-requisites needed for a direct entry into a university course (Baik et al., 2017).

An enabling course is defined as “a course of instruction provided to a person for the purpose of enabling the person to undertake a course leading to a higher education award, but does not include: (a) a course leading to a higher education award; or (b) any course that the Minister determines is not an Enabling course for the purposes of this Act” (Department of the Attorney General, 2003, p. 384, cited in The National Association of Enabling Educators of Australia [NAEEA], 2019). It includes bridging courses, university preparation courses, and foundation courses”“ (Hodges et al., 2013, p. 14). Those courses provide targeted academic and psychosocial support to build students’ English language proficiency and/or their preparations and readiness to undertake rigorous academic studies in universities (Pittman et al., 2016). Pathway students enter the second year of a university degree after completing the preparatory and first-year course with an entity that offers alternative pathways to university. In Canada, such courses offered via community colleges and other educational settings are known as Short-cycle tertiary education (SCTE; Skolnik, 2020a). There are more than 71 terms associated with post-secondary, non-university education offered globally (Skolnik, 2020b).

The pathway Programs offered across the globe are quite varied. In Great Britain, they are offered under the umbrella of Access to Higher Education Programs, as bachillerato/preparatorio in Mexico and via community colleges in the United States (US) (Clark & Gzella, 2013; Clark & Monroy, 2013, Long & Kurleander, 2009, as cited in Collis & Reed, 2016). In Australia, they are offered through community colleges and public institutions such as Technical and Further Education (TAFE) and Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (Hodges et al., 2013; Millman & McNamara, 2018) and they vary in their duration, content, and mode of delivery (Pittman et al., 2016).

The growth of pathway colleges has been exponential in recent years, with 36 colleges in the United Kingdom, 13 in the US and 11 in Australia partnering with multiple universities (Baker, 2011). Moreover, in Australia, 35 universities offer pathway courses to several thousands of students (Hodges et al., 2013). Pathway students now represent a large sample of the higher education population in various countries (Garrison & Gardiner, 2012). For example, one-third of undergraduates in the US are enrolled in community colleges (National Student Clearinghouse Research Center [NSCRC], 2019, as cited in Boeck, 2020). In Australia, 34,600 Vocational and Educational Training (VET) graduates continued their enrollment into universities in 2010 (Guthrie et al., 2011). Also, 60% of university admissions in Australia comprised of students from VET, a higher education pathway college, or English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS; Australian Education International, 2013).

Students’ demographic profiles in the pathways programs are varied, predominantly comprising of older or mature students. For example, only 11% of students enrolled in a community college in Ontario, Canada were under 21 years of age (Durham College, 2014, as cited in Collis & Reed, 2016). Also, 59% of students in American community colleges were studying part-time (The American Association of Community Colleges, 2013). In Australia, between 1.9 and 4% of students were of an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background and about 5% to over 30% of students were from a non-English speaking background. There was also a greater representation of FiF students with their enrollments ranging from 46.3 to 51.3% in the pathways courses (Hodges et al., 2013).

Despite many students joining universities via alternative pathways, most of the research was focused on their transition and retention in universities and little is known about their prior transition to the pathways courses. This study aimed to explore students’ transition to an APP offered at a College affiliated to a metropolitan university in Sydney, Australia.

Theoretical and empirical bases of the study

Transition refers to a complex process of naviagting through a series of changes, movements, and adjustments from one setting to an another setting or events (Gale & Parker, 2014). Framed within the Bronfenbrenner’s bio-ecological theory (1979), various models emphasised the importance of ecological factors in the transitional processes. For example, Gale and Parker (2014) conceptualises transition as a series of sequential changes between settings, adjustments, and students’ growth, identity, and their long-term development referred to as “Induction, Development and Becoming” (Gale & Parker, 2014, p.737). Tinto’s (1993) model on the other hand, outlines the importance of social and academic integration and institutional support in transitions. Other models such as Bridges’s (2011) and Menzies and Baron’s (2014, as cited in Cheng et al., 2015) emphasise students’ transitional changes, emotional vulnerabilities, and their adaptations through a series of phases and timelines. Further, some of the past models of transition dating back to early 2000s such as Student Retention (Bean & Eaton, 2002, as cited in Cheng et al., 2015), Student Experience (Burnett, 2007, as cited in Cheng et al., 2015), and a more recent model of Mapping Student Identity (Briggs et al., 2012, as cited in Cheng et al. 2015) also emphasise changes, adjustments, and social support in the transition to higher education.

While various models of transition have focused on contexts, emotional vulnerabilities, and social integration, there is no holistic model that cumulatively considered students’ changes, challenges, emotional wellbeing, help seeking, and their impacts on the transitional adjustments (Sanagavarapu et al., 2019). Addressing this gap, Sanagavarapu et al. (2019) developed and empirically validated a Transition, Wellbeing, Help-seeking, and Adjustments (TWHAS) model for university students. The central tenet of this model is that students face many personal, socio-emotional, and academic challenges when beginning studies and that they can affect their moods and wellbeing. Further, some students hesitate to seek help when they encounter socio-demographic and psychological barriers. All these factors cumulatively can affect students’ adjustments to universities (see, Sanagavarapu et al., 2019 for more details). Adopting this TWHAS model, this study aimed to investigate students’ transition to an enabling or academic pathways courses to gain a holistic insight into pathways students’ transitional experiences.

To date, research involving pathways students has predominantly focused on their preparations and transition to higher education. Academic Pathway Programs are believed to be valuable in providing a form of “priming” in higher education. Priming is a term that refers to students’ reaction times in response to a stimulus or probe that is the same or similar to a previously encountered probe (Henson et al., 2014). It is assumed that “reaction time” (RT) will be faster when exposed to a stimulus a second time due to the enhanced information-processing abilities (Henson et al., 2014). Pathways programs can help to prepare students to what is to come at university (Pittman et al., 2016), lessen the shock of transition that some students may face (Tillis, 2019; Weadon & Baker, 2014), assist students with acquiring academic skills, develop a sense of belonging, identity, progression to university (e.g., Millman & McNamara, 2018), and increase the likelihood of students succeeding academically (Baik et al., 2017). The benefits of pathways courses for enhancing students’ English language proficiency (e.g., Dunworth et al., 2012; Maros et al., 2012), building confidence, and the smooth transition to university (e.g., Crawford, 2014; Millman & McNamara, 2018) are also documented. The importance of social support, especially from teachers in facilitating students’ academic self-efficacy, academic capabilities, and motivation to continue to university studies are further indicated (Barber & Netherton, 2018).

Research on the benefits of pathway courses for university transition is mixed. Some studies indicated that pathways students are not prepared adequately for university, struggle with academic and social integration, and feel they do not fit in or belong to the university community (e.g., Woodson-Day et al., 2011). Other studies adopting empowering models emphasised that pathways students can perform as well in undergraduate courses on average as those from direct entry studnets and that supportive contexts help to bring a shift in pathways’ students’ attitudes from a deficit to an enabling mode of thinking (Lane & Sharp, 2014, p. 78). TAFE courses are hailed as valuable in enabling students to positively adapt to the new learning environments and challenges in universities with enthusiasm and “resilience” (Klinger & Murray, 2011, cited in Lisciandro & Gibbs, 2016). To say in the words of O’Shea et al. (2012, p. 268), attending pathways courses such as TAFE before university studies was ‘universally regarded as “beneficial.”

Comparatively very few studies were conducted on students’ initial transition to the pathways courses and settings before their transition to university studies. Further, those studies also investigated students’ perceptions and experiences of pathways programs retrospectively, after they joined university (e.g., Crawford, 2014). The limited research available, however, has emphasised the importance of personalized support and information (Rucks‑Ahidiana & Bork, 2020), promoting students’ trust through interactions, and provision of valid information during the transition to the enabling courses (Boeck, 2020). The need to provide clear and transparent information to the prospective students on what an enabling course entails was also emphasised (Pittman et al., 2016).

Research on the wellbeing of pathways students is also emerging (e.g., Novotney, 2014), with a few recent studies documenting students’ vulnerabilities to stress, anxiety, and depression in American and British community colleges (e.g., Bowman, 2010 & Berwick et al., 2010, as cited in Lo & Tiffany, 2021). In a national survey of American community college students conducted between 2016–2019, 50% of students were reported to have been affected by mental health conditions (Lipson et al., 2021). Further, the impacts of psychological well-being on pathways students’ academic performance in Hong Kong community colleges were also illuminated (Lo & Tiffany, 2021).

Pathways students will be in a complex process of preparing for the ‘double transitions’ between their current pathway courses and the anticipated future transition to university studies, metaphorically referred to as “borderland” (Vogler, 2007, as cited in Willans, 2019, p. 48). Those complexities in transitions can have implications for students’ retention and adjustments. While help seeking enables students to cope with the challenges and issues of wellbeing, little is known about the pathways students’ help seeking as well. To date, to the authors’ best knowledge, there is no research that holistically investigated pathways students’ transition to an enabling course, considering their challenges, wellbeing, help-seeking, and adjustments in Australia and elsewhere. Equally, there are no tools and instruments to measure pathways students’ transitional challenges, wellbeing, help-seeking, and adjustments.

This study aimed to investigate students’ transitions to the pathways courses. This research is significant given the benefits of pathways courses for supporting and promoting students’ future transition to higher education and beyond to benefit their families and communities (Crawford, 2014). Such research will assist to a) gain deeper insights into promoting continuity and smooth transitions between the college and university settings with varied socio-cultural milieu, academic policies, approaches, and practices, b) understand and address the high attrition rates in enabling programs in Australia, estimated to be about 50% (Hodges et al., 2013), and c) provide evidence to assist students’ adjustments during their initail transition to the pathways courses (Collis & Reed, 2016).

The specific aim of this study was to investigate students’ transition to an APP, whose admission to a metropolitan university in Sydney, Australia is guaranteed, following the successful completion of their studies in the APP, by addressing students’ transitional challenges, wellbeing, help-seeking behaviors, and adjustments to a pathway setting, referred to as The College from here on. The findings can help to support students’ a) positive adjustments and retention at The College b) prepare them to adapt to the increased academic demands in the affiliated university and c) promote their smooth transition between the College and the affiliated university.

Methodology

The study was conducted at The College, attached to a large, multi-campus metropolitan Australian university, both located in Sydney. The College, a separate entity to the selected university, comprises of several business units, including Academic Pathway Programs (APP). The College provides a range of pathway options to help students transition directly into the affiliated university through the successful completion of APP. The study utilised a quantitative, survey approach (Denscombe, 2014).

Participants and sample

All first-year students enrolled in a tertiary pathway course in their first semester were invited to participate in the study. Forty seven out of the 82 completed surveys with a 100% response in all four survey items (explained later) were considered in the analysis. There were more female (56%) and male (38%) students than in the “other” category (6%). Most students were enrolled in Construction and Engineering (21%), followed by Information Communications and Technology, Social Science, Policing and Criminal Justice (15%), and the rest in Business, Communication Arts and Design, and Science courses.

Most students were aged under 25 (67%), with a few above 50 years (7%) and the rest aged between 36–40 years (26%). Students of diverse backgrounds participated, with an equal 30% representing a refugee background and First- in- Family (FiF) to attend The College. Also, an equal percentage of students identified as having a disability or from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds (12%), followed by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (or questioning), Intersex, and Asexual (or allies-LGBTQIA) (1%). Further a 15% of students identified as carers with a young child or having other caring responsibilities.

Also, a quarter of participating students were from Middle Eastern background with another quarter from a mixed cultural background (25% each). Of the remaining, 10% were from an Asian background, followed by African (9%), Australian (8%), Anglo Australian (8%), European (6%), and Indian sub-continent backgrounds (2%).

While 41% of students spoke only English, 59% spoke a language other than English (LOTE) at home. Arabic was the most spoken LOTE language (30%), followed by Chinese (5%), and Indian languages (2%). While 66% of students rated their proficiency in written English as good or very good, 19% rated it fair and 15% rated it poor or very limited. A similar percentage of students rated their proficiency in spoken English as good or very good (68%), fair (18%) and poor or very limited (8%) and 6% did not rate their proficiency.

Further, more domestic (87%) than international students (13%) participated in the study. Also, 27% of students were employed in paid jobs. Of those employed, 50% were working 10–30 hours /week, followed by 42% working less than 10 hours per week, and 8% working more than 30 hours per week. In contrast to The College student demographics that typically represent students from a low socio-economic status (SES), 51% of students in this study were from a middle SES background, measured using their postcodes. Of the rest, 34% were from high SES and 15% from low SES backgrounds.

Data collection

An e-mail was sent to all students enrolled in various preparatory units at The College with a link to an online, anonymous survey (hosted on the Qualtrics site) through the affiliated university’s marketing team. Students’ willingness to fill the survey implied their consent for voluntary participation. The study commenced after obtaining ethics approval from the authors’ academic institution (HERC approval no:H13314). The response to the survey was very low, presumably due to students’ survey fatigue, who regularly receive surveys seeking their feedback on Teaching (SFT), unit (SFU), and Course experience. Lack of incentives would have also contributed to the low survey response.

The data were collected using the TWHAS survey developed for and validated with students transitioning to the same university affiliated with The College (Sanagavarapu et al., 2019). It has 33-items with Likert scale questions grouped under four sub-scales of challenges, wellbeing, barriers to seeking help, and adjustments. Likert scale was used as it helps respondents to rate the degree to which they agree or disagree with a given statement (Sullivan & Artino, 2013). The development and validation of the TWHAS and its robust psychometric properties are discussed elsewhere (see, Sanagavarapu et al., 2019). A few details are provided below.

The first sub scale had 14 items relating to students’ personal, socio-emotional, and academic challenges (Cheng et al., 2015, as cited in Sanagavarapu et al., 2019) and were measured on a five-point Likert Scale (1 = Very difficult; 5 = Very easy). See Table 2. The reasons for selecting a 5-point rating scale were that it helps to collect higher quality data than those with 7 or 11 points (Revilla, Saris & Krosnick’s 2014, as as cited in Robinson, 2018) and reduces the survey fatigue that respondents are likely to face when completing a longer rating scale (Robinson, 2018). The second sub scale measured moods and coping, representing students’ anxiety and depression respectively (see Table 3) and were adapted from Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) (Kessler et al., 2002, as cited in Sanagavarapu et al., 2019), also measured on a Likert-scale (1 = All the time, 5 = Never). The third sub-scale (see Table 4) had 11 items to measure socio-demographic and psychological barriers (e.g., Komiya et al., 2010; Soorika et al., 2001, as cited in Sanagavarapu et al., 2019) in a Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree 5 = Strongly agree). The last sub-scale (Table 5) had only one item measuring students’ overall adjustments to The College, using a Likert Scale (1 = Very bad 5 =Very good). Given that a single item can fully capture students’ perceptions on their adjustments, we did not consider multiple items to measure their perceptions as they would be redundant (Poon, Leung, & Lee, 2002, as cited in Sanagavarapu et al., 2019).

Table 1. Summary of transitional challenges, wellbeing, help seeking barriers, and adjustments (N = 47).

TWHAS constructs	N	Mean	SD
Personal challenges	47	2.411	1.047
Socio-emotional challenges	47	2.828	1.225
Academic challenges	47	2.984	1.083
Moods	47	2.947	0.933
Coping	47	3.259	1.157
Socio-demographic barriers	27	2.241	0.994
Psychological barriers	28	2.429	1.063
Adjustments	46	3.351	1.100

Scale Minimum = 1, Scale Maximum = 5, N = Number of students; scale mean = 3.

Table 2. Personal, social, and academic challenges reported by all students (N = 47).

TWHAS Constructs	Scale Items Since starting at this College, how easy or difficult it was for you to:	Median	Mode
Personal	Balance family commitments with studies	2.00	3.00
	Balance financial commitments with studies	3.00	2.00
	Find time to exercise	2.00	1.00
Social	Make friends with people from similar backgrounds	3.00	2.00
	Make friends with people from different backgrounds	3.00	3.00
	Meet up with friends outside university	2.00	2.00
Academic	Participate in online study & discussion	3.00	3.00
	Feel respected	4.00	3.00
	Understand my course requirements	3.00	3.00
	Complete my assessments	3.00	3.00

Likert scale Minimum =1 (Very Difficult); Maximum = 5(Very Easy); Scale mean = 3.00.

Table 3. Wellbeing: moods and coping reported by all students (N = 47).

TWHAS Constructs	Scale Items Since starting at this College, how often do you feel	Median	Mode
Moods	Misunderstood	3.00	4.00
	Unable to concentrate	3.00	3.00
	Nervous	3.00	3.00
	Everything is too difficult	3.00	3.00
	Pressurized to succeed	3.00	3.00
	Worried (e.g., about money, study, family)	3.00	3.00
Coping	Unable to fit in	3.00	3.00
	Not wanting to go to The College	3.00	4.00
	Lonely	4.00	5.00
	Tired for no good reason	3.00	5.00
	Irritable	3.00	3.00
	Low self-worth	3.00	5.00

Minimum =1(All the time); Maximum = 5(Never); Scale mean = 3.00.

Table 4. Barriers faced by students in seeking help (N = 27).

TWHAS Constructs	Items If you did not seek help, tick the below that applies to you	Median	Mode
Socio-demographic barriers	I would be concerned about language barriers (e.g., my English is not good)	2.00	1.00
	I would be concerned that staff may not respect my faith	2.00	1.00
	I would be concerned that staff may not understand my cultural background	2.00	2.00
	I would be concerned that my family member, or friend, cannot accompany me	2.00	1.00
Psychological barriers
	I would be concerned about what others would say	2.00	3.00
	I would be concerned that others would find out	2.00	1.00
	I would feel ashamed	2.00	3.00
	I would not trust the support staff	2.00	1.00
	I would be afraid to seek support	2.00	3.00
	I would be concerned I may not be able to explain my problems	3.00	3.00

Minimum = 1(Strongly Disagree), Maximum = 5(Strongly Agree), Scale mean = 3.00.

Table 5. Overall adjustments to The College (N = 47).

TWHAS construct	Item Generally, how well do you think you are adjusting to The College	Median	Mode
Adjustments		3.00	3.00

Minimum (Not adjusting at all) = 1, Maximum (Adjusting very well) = 5, Scale mean = 3.00.

Data analysis

The descriptive statistics (mean & standard deviation) were computed for the selected variables of: personal, socio-emotional, and academic challenges; moods and coping, socio-demographic and psychological barriers, and overall adjustments. Other measures of central tendency, namely median and mode were also used to describe data.

A comparative analysis of students’ transitional challenges, wellbeing, help seeking behaviors, and adjustments across gender, age, language background, and equity groups (e.g., refugee, FiF to attend university, international) was also done. The group differences were tested for statistical significance using T-test with significance level set at 0.05 (Hills, 2011, p. 785). Effect size calculation gives the practical importance of the difference in means by considering the magnitude of the difference and the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Effect sizes were examined using Cohen’s d calculation. Following Cohen’s guidelines, 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 were deemed as “small,” “medium” and “large” effects respectively (Hills, 2011, p. 85). Given that the sample size is small, the increase in familywise error rate with associated statistical procedures (multiple T tests) were not controlled for. Procedures adopted for adjustments for multiple tests (e.g., Bonferroni adjustments) are often controversial, while some argue that such adjustments are often unnecessary or even lead to wrong statistical inference. Specifically, such adjustments may decrease Type I errors but can inflate type II errors (e.g., Perneger, 1998). As this study had a modest sample size, such adjustments were not conducted, and therefore, the findings from this study need to be interpreted with caution.

Cross‐tabulation tables were also computed to present frequency distribution between students’ adjustments and selected factors of feelings when starting at The College, help seeking behaviors, spoken and written English proficiency, paid employment, and SES (Cooksey, 2020).

Results

The results start in Section 1 with a summary of the mean value levels of TWHAS constructs, followed by students’ transitional experiences under the subheadings of: 1. Transition: Feelings and Challenges, 2. Wellbeing: Moods and Coping, 3. Help seeking- barriers and behaviors and 4. Adjustments to The College. Section 2 presents results from crosstabs on the association between students’ adjustments and the selected factors when starting at The College. Section 3 presents results on the group differences across selected variables of gender, age, type of enrollment, LOTE, and equity groups. The mean values of the four TWHAS constructs were used in this comparative analysis.

Section 1-transition

Feelings when beginning studies at the college

Nearly half of the respondents (45%) reported having mixed feelings. While 32% felt nervous or very nervous, 24% were excited or very excited to begin studies at The College (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Feelings when beginning studies at The College.

Note: percentages may not total to 100% due to rounding.

Results in Table 1 should be interpreted based on the directionality of questions in the scale. Mean values below 3 for Challenges, Moods, and Coping: Adjustments equate to more challenges and issues of wellbeing and poor adjustments. In contrast, mean values below 3 for Social and Psychological barriers mean students have less barriers.

The scale items were analysed individually to gain a finer understanding of the students’ transitional experiences and a deeper insight into the specific attributes of student experiences. Following the guidelines on analysing and reporting individual items in a scale, those items were treated as ordinal data (Boone & Boone, 2012) and, Likert-type statistical procedures, such as estimation of median and mode were used as the measures of central tendency (see Tables 2 – 3). The median is the value that corresponds to the 50^th percentile and mode is the most frequently occurring response (Hills, 2011, p. 15) which can display the trends in data.

Challenges faced during the transition

Comparatively, students reported facing more personal challenges such as finding time to exercise, balancing study with family commitments, and meeting friends outside the campus (Table 2).

Wellbeing

Students did not report many issues of wellbeing,in the moods and coping subscale. Furthermore, results indicated that students were not feeling depressed (Table 3).

Help seeking: Barriers and behaviors

A majority of students (62%) did not seek help and only a few (38%) sought help to deal with their issues of wellbeing. Of those who sought help, most reported seeking help from either a family member or a close friend (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Personnel from whom students sought help.

Note: percentages may not total to 100% due to rounding.

Even though majority of students did not seek help, they did not perceive many barriers when help was needed, attested by the measures of central tendency reported for the items (Table 4), excepting concerns in articulating or expressing wellbeing issues.

Adjustments to the college

The median and mode scores indicated students’ adjustments to The College (Table 5), with most students reporting ‘Adjusting “somewhat” (3.00) to The College (41%).

A further frequency distribution analysis showed that while 15% students were ‘not at all “adjusting” or ‘on the way to “adjusting,” 44% were ‘adjusting “well” and ‘adjusting very “well.”

Section 2

Factors associated with students’ adjustments

Initial feelings and later adjustments

Students who experienced positive emotions such as excitement when starting the course reported adjusting “well” and ‘very “well” to The College. Conversely, students who reported negative emotions such as nervousness reported feeling less adjusted to The College (Table 6).

Table 6. Initial feelings and later adjustments (N = 46).

Level of Adjustment to The College	Initial Feelings When Students Started at The College
	Very nervous	A bit nervous	Mixed feelings	Excited	Very excited
Not adjusting at all	25%	0	5%	0	17%
On the way to adjusting	13%	0	10%	0	0
Adjusting somewhat	50%	58%	45%	20%	17%
Adjusting well	13%	42%	35%	40%	0
Adjusting very well	0	0	5%	40%	66%
Total students	8	7	20	5	6

Students’ help seeking and adjustments

Further most students who sought help seem to adjust well to The College. Interestingly, most students who did not seek help also reported ‘adjusting “somewhat” to The College (Table 7).

Table 7. Students’ help seeking and adjustments (N = 46).

Level of adjustments	Sought help with issues of emotional wellbeing?
	Yes	No
Not adjusting at all	5%	11%
On the way to adjusting	5%	8%
Adjusting somewhat	39%	42%
Adjusting well	39%	21%
Adjusting very well	12%	18%
Total Students	18	28

Spoken English language proficiency and adjustments

Students who rated their spoken English language proficiency “good” and ‘very “good” reported ‘adjusting “somewhat,” “well” or ‘very “well” to The College compared to those who had limited spoken English language proficiency (Table 8).

Table 8. Spoken English language proficiency and adjustments(N = 44).

Level of Adjustment	Spoken English Language Proficiency
	Very Limited	Limited	Fair	Good	Very Good
Not adjusting at all	0	33%	25%	0	5%
On the way to adjusting	0	33%	12%	0	5%
Adjusting somewhat	0	0	37%	50%	44%
Adjusting well	0	33%	12%	36%	23%
Adjusting very well	0	0	12%	14%	23%
Total students	1	3	8	14	18

Written English language proficiency and adjustments

Interestingly, some students who reported “limited” or ‘very “limited” written English language proficiency also rated their adjustments to The College as “well” and ‘very “well.” (Table 9).

Table 9. Written English language proficiency and adjustments (N = 44).

Level of Adjustment	Written English language proficiency
	Very Limited	Limited	Fair	Good	Very Good
Not adjusting at all	33%	25%	11%	0	5%
On the way to adjusting	0	50%	0	9%	0
Adjusting somewhat	0	0	55%	45%	47%
Adjusting well	33%	25%	22%	27%	29%
Adjusting very well	33%	0	11%	18%	18%
Total students	3	4	9	11	17

Employment and adjustments

Students who were not in the paid employment while studying reported “adjusting well” to The College than those students employed (Table 10).

Table 10. Employment and adjustments (N = 44).

Level of Adjustment	Are you currently employed?
	Yes	No
Not adjusting at all	17%	6%
On the way to adjusting	8%	6%
Adjusting somewhat	33%	44%
Adjusting well	33%	25%
Adjusting very well	8%	19%
Total Students	12	32

SES and adjustments

Overall, a majority of students from low SES appeared to be adjusting well and very well. Interestingly, many students from medium and high SES did not rate their adjustments highly (Table 11).

Table 11. SES and adjustments (N = 38).

	Generally, how well do you think you are adjusting to The College?
SES category	Not adjusting at all	On the way to adjusting	Adjusting somewhat	Adjusting well	Adjusting very well
Low	0%	0%	28%	43%	29%
Medium	4%	2%	46%	25%	13%
High	2%	0%	71%	14%	0%

Section 3

Group differences in students’ transitional challenges, wellbeing, help seeking, and adjustments

Student’s transitional challenges, wellbeing, help seeking, and adjustments were compared across selected groups using independent sample t-tests (Hills, 2011). The assumption of homogeneity of variance was examined through a Levene’s Test for equality of variances (Hills, 2011, p. 78). All tests met assumptions of homogeneity of variance (Sig.>0.05), and effect sizes were examined for statistically significant differences (Hills, 2011). The comparative analysis of students based on their gender, age, and enrollment status indicated statistically significant differences in the mean values (Table 12).

Table 12. Mean differences in TWHAS variables across selected groups.

TWHAS constructs	Gender		Type of enrollment		Age
	Female N = 25	Male N = 17	Inter national N = 6	Domestic N = 39	Under 25 N = 30	Above 25 N = 15
Personal challenges	2.227	2.667	2.444	2.410	2.667*	1.911
Socio-emotional	2.640	3.059	3.000	2.778	3.144*	2.133
Academic challenges	2.710	3.368 *	2.917	2.917	3.308*	2.283
Moods	2.827	3.324	2.639	2.983	3.239*	2.333
Coping	3.313	3.500	3.222	3.257	3.589*	2.578
Socio-demographic barriers	2.033	2.455	3.250*	2.160	2.367	2.025
Psychological barriers	2.365	2.469	3.444	2.307	2.441	2.409
Adjustment	3.200	3.650	3.170	3.360	3.500	3.000

* = significant at 0.05; Based on the direction of the scale questions, mean values below 3 for transitional challenges, wellbeing and adjustments indicate concerns, whereas mean values below 3 for social and psychological barriers indicate no concern or less barriers.

Female students have significantly higher levels of academic challenges than their male counterparts. The difference in means of 0.658 in academic challenges (95% CI: −1.301-.015) represented a “medium” effect (Cohen’s d = 0.66). The mean differences for other constructs were not statistically significant.

Students aged above 25 reported higher levels of personal, academic, and socio-emotional challenges than their younger counterparts. The 0 .756 difference in personal challenges mean values (95% CI: 0.105–1.406) displayed a “medium” effect (Cohen’s d = 0.71). Mean difference (1.031) in academic challenges (95% CI:0.388–1.66) indicated a “large” effect (Cohen’s d = 0.93) and, the mean difference(1.01) in socio-emotional challenges (95% CI: 0.269–1.752) indicated a “large” effect (Cohen’s d = 0.801). Further, their emotional wellbeing was also at a statistically significant lower level than their younger peers. Mean difference in moods (0.905) was statistically significant (95% CI: 0.358–1.451) and indicated a large effect (Cohen’s d = 0.965). Similarly, a large’ effect (Cohen’s d = 0.86) was indicated for the mean difference of 1.011 in coping (95% CI: 0.315–1.707). The mean differences for other variables were not statistically significant.

Furthermore, international students reported statistically significant mean difference (1.09) for socio demographic barriers in seeking help than for domestic students (95% CI: −0.377–2.557). The effect size was large (Cohen’s d = 1.55). The two groups did not differ as per the mean values of other variables in a statistically significant manner.

Similar analyses were conducted across selected equity-sub groups. All tests met assumptions of homogeneity of variance (Sig.>0.05), except for moods. In contrast to the earlier results, no statistically significant group differences were obtained between these equity-subgroups (Table 13).

Table 13. Mean differences in TWHAS variables across selected equity-sub groups.

TWHAS constructs	Language		Refugee status		First in Family (FiF)
	LOTE N = 18	Non LOTE N = 26	refugee background N = 14	Non refugee Background N = 33	FiF to attend The College N = 14	Not FiF to attend The College N = 33
Personal	2.370	2.423	2.428	2.404	2.595	2.333
Socio-emotional	2.592	2.961	2.714	2.868	2.904	2.787
Academic	2.875	3.038	2.910	3.015	3.160	2.909
Moods	2.990	2.897	2.666	3.065	3.095	2.883
Coping	3.342	3.198	2.773	3.464	3.392	3.202
Socio-demographic	1.840	2.515	2.541	2.154	1.928	2.350
Psychological barriers	2.075	2.656	2.785	2.309	2.666	2.349
Adjustment	3.671	3.121	3.210	3.412	3.430	3.310

* = significant at 0.05; Based on the direction of the scale questions, mean values below 3 for transitional challenges, wellbeing and adjustments indicate concerns, whereas mean values below 3 for social and psychological barriers indicate no concern or less barriers.

Discussion

Students reported facing more personal challenges such as finding time to exercise or balance studies with work and life commitments when starting at The College. These findings are similar to the experiences of direct entry students who also reported more personal challenges during their transition. to the same university that is affiliated with The College (Sanagavarapu & Abraham, 2021).

Further, pathways students did not report many issues of wellbeing, even though they reported worrying about their family, study, and finances. These findings are also similar to the experiences of direct entry students transitioning to the same university affiliated with The College (Sanagavarapu & Abraham, 2021). They are, however, in contrast to American studies that reported anxiety, depression, and other issues of wellbeing in students attending community colleges (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2016 & Eisenberg & Lipson, 2018, as cited in Martin & Bohecker, 2021).

Also, students of this study reported very few barriers in seeking help, excepting difficulties in articulating, or expressing their psychological issues. This contrasts with the accounts of direct entry students, who reported many socio-demographic and psychological barriers to seek help during their transition to the university affiliated with The College (Sanagavarapu & Abraham, 2021). Further, pathways students did not avail the professional help provided at The College, instead preferred seeking help from their personal networks. This finding is consistent with the literature that documented students’ reliance on informal social networks to seek social or emotional support (Lu et al., 2014).

Although cross-tabulations do not offer conclusive evidence, they suggested an association between students’ adjustments and their initial feelings when starting at The College, self-rated proficiency in both written and spoken English, and help-seeking behaviors. Paid employment, on the contrary, does not seem to facilitate students’ adjustments as they try to balance it with their personal life and university studies. While the present findings correspond with a few previous studies (e.g., Broadbridge & Swanson, 2005), they are in contrast to some recent studies that showed that paid employment does not impact on College students’ academic performance, despite them reporting more anxiety and stress (e.g., Mounsey et al., 2013). There are benefits to working while studying, but research indicates that the threshold of working hours matter and that working longer hours can negatively affect students’ academic performance (Zhang & Yang, 2020). For example, a recent study from Estonia indicated the negative impacts of students working more than 25 hours on their academic performance (Beerkens et al., 2011), similarly noticed in an Australian study as well (Applegate & Anne, 2006).

An unexpected finding of this study was that most students from low SES reported “adjusting well” and “adjusting somewhat” to The College, compared with those from high or middle SES backgrounds. This is in contrast to other studies that outlined the impact of low SES on students’ poor adjustments (e.g., Mutambara & Bhebe, 2012). The possible explanation is that students from a low SES background may have perceived the pathway program as a valuable second opportunity to achieve the educational aspirations that they had missed the first time after finishing high school studies. In contrast, students from middle to high SES may have perceived the pathway program as a regression or a delay in their career plan.

The results also pointed to the demographic differences in students’ transitional challenges, wellbeing, help-seeking, and adjustments. The findings on the challenges older age students (above 25) face and their poor ratings of wellbeing were expected. It supports existing findings that older students often face more transitional challenges, including issues of acceptance, interaction, loneliness, isolation, and on-campus friendships (Dawborn-Gundlach & Margetts, 2018) than younger cohorts. However, the present findings are in contrast with studies that reported significantly higher levels of stress, anxiety, and depression in younger students aged 18–28 years in American community colleges (e.g., Martin & Bohecker, 2021). Examining male and female students’ adjustments did not reveal statistically significant differences, although male students reported adjusting slightly better to university life and female students reporting more academic challenges. While some studies indicate that females tend to have lower academic self-efficacy, which is further mediated by their age (Huang, 2013), overall research is inconclusive or does not support the existence of gender differences in students’ adjustments (Yau et al., 2012).

Consistent with the literature on social barriers to seeking help, for example, due to language difficulties or lack of knowledge of symptoms of psychological distress (Lu et al., 2014), international students in this study reported more socio-demographic barriers than domestic students. More refined analyses, however, did not show statistically significant differences between international and domestic students in the overall adjustments. This could be attributed to the low sample size and the social support offered to all students at The College, among other factors.

Students from the selected equity-sub groups fared similarly to other students on all transition constructs considered in this study. It should, however, be noted that these groups were not mutually exclusive. A student is likely to fall into many of the other categories simultaneously, such as being FiF to attend university, younger than 25 years of age, or from a refugee background and belong to LOTE background at the same time. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with caution, as an interplay of several factors can influence their lived experiences at The College.

Overall, most students reported adjusting well or adjusting somewhat to The College. These positive results can be partially explained by the small class sizes and teacher-to-student ratios at The College, compared to university. Moreover, The College adopts Transition Pedagogical practices in supporting first-year students, which is a curriculum-mediated approach that targets, transition, curriculum design, student diversity, engagement, assessment, evaluation, and learning monitoring (Gale & Parker, 2014). The College encourages educators in each unit or course to plan for supportive and inclusive learning environments, identify students struggling academically and emotionally, and plan for an early intervention using a formal “at-risk” form. The early intervention framework of The College also consists of First-Year Experience Coordinator (FYEC), whose primary role is to provide early intervention support and raise awareness of the wellbeing issues and support services available within The College. The FYEC liaises with academics to offer individualized support in understanding course requirements and direct students to academic and wellbeing services early in the semester. Teachers are very much part of the Transition Pedagogy. They are encouraged to develop rapport with students and build pastoral care into their teaching practices. Teachers are also reminded of this critical responsibility through the regular newsletters and are made accountable. The supportive learning environments and frameworks adopted by The College, with an emphasis on developing a sense of belonging, seem to assist students in building relationships and trust vital to seeking help, deal with any challenges and issues of well-being, and adjusting positively to The College. While these early interventions may have helped students, they need to be corroborated empirically in future studies.

Implications and conclusion

Overall, the results projected a positive picture of students’ transition with most students starting their studies with positive or mixed feelings, having fewer issues of emotional well-being, not facing many barriers when help is needed, and adjusting well or somewhat to The College. However, they pointed to the need to acknowledge the challenges that some students face in the personal domain, which can potentially impact on their social and academic adjustments. If unaddressed, those challenges may lead to students’ attrition from studies. Therefore, it is essential that The College assists students in identifying their personal challenges, such as lack of exercise and difficulties in balancing study, work, and family and their effects on their moods/well-being. In this respect, The College could develop resources to help students, for example, online digital modules to develop time management and prioritization skills to assist all, more importantly, older, and mature age students to manage these challenges and alleviate their stress and anxiety through flexible study options. Further, The College could also assist students struggling with finding time to exercise by reinforcing the positive benefits of exercise and providing opportunities and facilaities given its benefits for physical and mental health.

Further, the findings suggested the importance of promoting students’ positive feelings when beginning studies, spoken English language proficiency, and understanding their support needs, especially those in paid employment to facilitate their adjustments to The College. The support provided to students in building spoken English language proficiency, may also help to remove the barriers in articulating issues of wellbeing that some students reported facing in seeking professional help at The College.

The implications of the results on group differences are that female students need additional support in understanding their course or academic requirements and that older age students above 25 also need support in coping with a range of challenges, especially in social and academic domains, including issues of acceptance and social interactions, on and off campus friendships, understanding course requirements, participation in online study and so forth identified in this study. Additionally, this study pointed to the need to support older age students’ wellbeing, for instance, by providing flexible study options, who are likely to have competing demands in their personal and work lives. Furthermore, the need for The College to assist international students in overcoming barriers in seeking help, potentially arising from their socio-demographic barriers of culture, faith or language or family values is also highlighted.

This study, first of its kind, has helped to illuminate pathways students’ transitional experiences holistically, considering their challenges, wellbeing, barriers to seeking help, and adjustments. Additionally, it offered valuable suggestions for supporting diverse students’ adaptations and well-being during a critical transition period. However, the study is limited by its small sample size. There is a need to validate these findings along with the TWHAS instrument and theoretical model with a larger sample. Another recommendation for research is to complement quantitative data with students’ subjective, qualitative data to develop a more nuanced understanding of their socio-cultural and lived experiences of transition.

Acknowledgments

To all students who participated in the survey and School of Education, WSU for supporting this study with a Seed grant.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).