The first-year experience (FYE) encompasses various programmatic initiatives designed to introduce students to campus culture, assist with the transition from high school, and improve retention. At many colleges and universities, this is partially operationalized through the high-impact practice of first-year courses or seminars that help students establish a network of peers, forge meaningful connections with faculty and staff, and explore campus resources (Keup and Barefoot 2005). Additional scholarship has demonstrated the effectiveness of FYE seminars on numerous student success outcomes (e.g., Boudreau and Kromrey 1994; Engberg and Mayhew 2007; Schnell and Doetkott 2003).

The Value of FYE Instructor Training

Although the efficacy of FYE seminars is thoroughly demonstrated in the literature, this is not something that merely happens serendipitously. Kuh et al. (2005) emphasize that simply offering such programs and practices does not guarantee that they will have the intended effects on student success, but rather they must be of high quality, customized to meet the needs of students, and firmly rooted in a student success-oriented campus culture. Part of this culture-shaping effort includes intentional training for FYE instructors.

Instructor training is critical to improving outcomes with any FYE course, partially because it reorients faculty and assists in helping them approach their own classes with agency, autonomy, and ownership. Further, well-orchestrated instructor training can contribute to positive changes in faculty disposition regarding their teaching. These changes are important to student success outcomes, as Gardner (1980) noted how “student retention cannot be improved until faculty change their attitudes, values, and particularly their behaviors in the classroom” (10).

Barefoot and Fidler (1992) posited that—as FYE instructor training is often an institution’s first, and perhaps only, systematic focus on first-year students and undergraduate instruction—such workshops can “provide a forum for a campus-wide dialogue on teaching and frequently raise faculty consciousness about the unique needs and characteristics of their first-year students” (62). In short, an investment in FYE instructor training is an investment in first-year student success. This effort is especially important considering the setback for students if they are required to retake their FYE course in a subsequent semester due to a grade of D or F, or a withdrawal (DFW).

Context, Challenges, and Changes

Within our institution’s (Gardner-Webb University) general education requirements, first-year students take a 2-credit hour FYE course. Taught by a faculty or staff member and a peer leader, this course is designed to help students successfully transition to the university, establish community, and develop skills to succeed at on campus. We noticed a pattern around the year 2020 that showed relatively inflated DFW rates (hovering near the 10-15% mark) for FYE courses. The course maintained an appropriate amount of rigor for a general FYE program and was not unnecessarily burdensome for students; however, it was clear that the campus needed to address and reduce the DFW rates, as students retaking the course were at possible risk of several potential issues (e.g., delayed major declaration, slowed path to graduation, additional financial obligations, etc.).

Given the importance of faculty interaction in an FYE coupled with the changing generational characteristics of students, one of our first attempts for reducing DFW rates in FYE courses was to revise instructor training. Adhering to best-practice literature, peer institution practices, and our campus’ established culture around FYE, we made small changes in hopes of larger overall improvement of the FYE program and indirect reduction in DFW rates. The table below represents the progress toward this effort as shown in FYE data.

Academic Year	DFW count	DFW %	Sample size
2021-22	41	9.2%	446
2022-23	45	11%	409
2023-24	20	4.9%	402

Although we cannot use causal language to discuss the data we observed, changes to instructor training before the 2023-24 year correlated with a sizable decrease in DFWs for FYE students. Further, existing research underscores the importance of training as linked to the success of a course and the enrolled students (Barefoot and Fidler 1992; Gardner 1980). Pulling from these efforts, we want to emphasize a few recommendations for FYE practitioners, faculty, and course administrators involved in facilitating instructor training.

Recommendations

The recommendations below do not represent any secret formula, but rather exemplify some of the bigger-picture factors to consider when redesigning training as a mechanism to indirectly reduce DFW rates.

View faculty as the top resource for combating DFWs.

Conventional wisdom might lead one to feel that supplemental resources (e.g., tutoring, success coach intervention, etc.) may be the best investment in reducing DFWs. While these supports are indeed helpful, they are sourced outside of direct course-specific student-faculty interactions. Scholars have demonstrated the positive impact faculty can have on DFW rates (Frame and Cummins-Sebree 2017). As such, FYE instructors should be perceived as a first-line of defense rather than a last-ditch effort, and that recognition should be shared with them. Helping FYE instructors in their training understand their role in supporting students can help them see the value they provide an FYE program and help them reframe their own important position as an instructor working with first-year students.

Use general grade assessment data to help visualize value.

Assessment is today’s means of modifying tomorrow’s instruction. During FYE instructor training, it is important to frame the importance of faculty support around data. Showing faculty the big picture of FYE grades across campus can help them understand how their efforts contribute to retention, timely graduation, reducing financial burdens, and general student success. This is not an effort to ask faculty to falsely inflate grades to avoid DFWs (which is not a good idea), or to point blame toward them for low grade averages, but rather to see how their first-year support efforts connect to broad academic achievement.

Be strategically political.

Occasionally, some faculty may feel they are above any FYE training, and that subjecting them to such a requirement would be an insult to their expertise. In such cases, it pays to be political in creating win-wins. This may come in the form of offering individualized attention and support to their class, taking care of a minor administrative task to free their time to attend training, or even ensuring a training date works with their challenging schedule. It may sound like pandering, but the reality is such moves can be strategically political to ensure all FYE faculty are on the same page regarding the importance of their work. Gallos and Bolman (2021) poignantly noted: “Consult fiction, humor, or the Chronicle of Higher Education, and you will find colleges and universities depicted as intensely political places populated by political amateurs who keep making a mess of things because their interests are so parochial—and their political skills so limited” (79). While political skills can be hard to implement, they are typically worth it to see positive change.

Communication is key.  

We have found that timely and recurring communication is crucial to build FYE instructor buy-in. Opportunities at training that allow instructors to interact and communicate with each other for new relationships and idea sharing is vital, as is keeping steady communication after training (e.g., check-ins, administrative support, etc.).  Ensure training material is upheld and implemented and encourage FYE instructors to reframe their experience within a broader community of student resources.

Encourage Creativity.

Though specific to introductory chemistry courses, Vyas and Reid (2023) found that innovative pedagogical approaches (i.e., flipped classrooms, redesigned modules, low-stakes quizzes, etc.) can be valuable toward reducing DFW rates with students. Creativity in FYE course structures – communicated through instructor training – can be valuable in the mission to support students as it encourages students to interact with material in a new and exciting way. Allowing instructors freedom to find what works for their classroom can encourage their willingness to participate in FYE initiatives while meeting the needs unique to their students.

Conclusion

There is no one-size-fits-all approach when designing FYE instructor training; however, the above list offers a few recommendations to consider in shaping a training that can help limit DFWs. In doing so, students are given a better opportunity succeed, which – at the end of the day – is part of the hope with any FYE initiative.

References

Barefoot, Betsy. O. and Paul P. Fidler. 1992. “National Survey of Freshman Seminar Programming, 1991. Helping First Year College Students Climb the Academic Ladder. The Freshman Year Experience: Monograph Series Number 10.” Education Resources Information Center. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED354842

Boudreau, Charles A. and Jeffery D. Kromrey. 1994. “A Longitudinal Study of the Retention and Academic Performance of Participants in a Freshman Orientation Course.” Journal of College Student Development 35 (6): 444-480.

Engberg, Mark E. and Matthew J. Mayhew. 2007. “The Influence of First-Year “Success” Courses on Student Learning and Democratic Outcomes.” Journal of College Student Development 48 (3): 241-258. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0023

Frame, Debra L. and Sarah Cummins-Sebree. 2017. “A Case Study on Proactive (Intrusive) Faculty Contacts’ Influence on DFW Rates in Introductory Psychology Courses.” Association for University Regional Campuses of Ohio Journal 23 (1): 49-72.

Gallos, Joan V. and Lee. G. Bolman. 2021. Reframing Academic Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, John N. 1980. “University 101: A Concept for Improving University Teaching and Learning.” Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED192706.pdf

Keup, Jennifer R. and Besty O. Barefoot. 2005. “Learning How to Be a Successful Student: Exploring the Impact of First-Year Seminars on Student Outcomes.” Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition 17 (1): 11-47.

Kuh, George D., Jillian Kinzie, John H. Schuh, Elizabeth J. Whitt, and Associates. 2005. Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schnell, Carolyn A. and Curt D. Doetkott. 2003. “First Year Seminars Produce Long-Term Impact.” Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice 4 (4): 377–391. https://doi.org/10.2190/NKPN-8B33-V7CY-L7W1

About the Authors

Ryan W. Erck is Executive Director of the Division of Student Success at Gardner-Webb University. As a scholar-practitioner, he studies systems and processes that help students and institutions succeed, and then implements results to improve practice. Connect at rerck@gardner-webb.edu.

Kara Alves is Director of Success Initiatives and First-Year Experience at Gardner-Webb University. She has experience in student affairs, career services, and first-year programming. Connect with her at kalves1@gardner-webb.edu.

Benjamin Flournoy is Coordinator of the Learning Resource Center at Gardner-Webb University. He is an aspiring English academician with a background in admissions and student services. Connect with him at bflournoy@gardner-webb.edu.

How to Cite this Post

Erck, Ryan W., Kara Alves, and Benjamin Fournoy. 2024. “Improving Instructor Training to Reduce DFW Grades in First-Year Seminars.” Center for Engaged Learning (blog), Elon University. August 22, 2024. https://www.centerforengagedlearning.org/improving-instructor-training-to-reduce-dfw-grades-in-first-year-seminars/.