Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 1
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK
STEMing the shock: Examining GPA “Transfer Shock” and its Impact on STEM Major and
Enrollment Persistence
Joni M. Lakin
Auburn University
Diane C. Elliott
Immaculata University
Author Note
Joni M. Lakin, Ph.D., Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and
Technology, Auburn University. Diane C. Elliott, Immaculata University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joni Lakin, Department of
Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology, 4036 Haley Center, Auburn University,
AL 36849. Phone: +1-334-844-4930. Email: [email protected]
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 2
Abstract
Students who transfer between institutions of higher education often experience “transfer shock”,
a temporary decrease in academic performance (GPA) hypothesized to be due to changes in
academic expectations between institutions. This study used university institutional records to
explore the magnitude of transfer shock, what factors impact the GPA effects of transfer shock,
and the impact of shock and other student characteristics on important academic outcomes
including persistence in a STEM and baccalaureate degree. We found that STEM majors and
students transferring from two-year institutions experienced the largest degree of transfer shock
and that shock was a significant predictor of change of major. Most intriguingly, we found
interaction effects where shock had a greater impact on institutional retention for two-year
transfers and Science/Mathematics majors. Implications for future research and academic
policies and interventions are discussed.
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 3
STEMing the shock: Examining GPA “Transfer Shock” and its Impact on STEM Major
and Enrollment Persistence
Community colleges serve as a critical point of entry to higher education for many
students. According to the American Association of Community Colleges (2012), nearly half of
all beginning undergraduate students enroll in a community college. Although many community
college students enter with intentions to transfer to a four-year college, few successfully do.
National surveys have shown that although intention to transfer to a 4-year institution may be
high at 2-year institutions, only a fraction of those students successfully transfer (Bailey et al.,
2005; Goldrick-Rab, 2010; Hoachlander, Sikora, & Horn, 2003; Laanan, 1996). Recent evidence
suggests less than one-tenth of transfer students earn a baccalaureate degree (Nevarez & Wood,
2010). Such poor rates of attainment have prompted much debate and concern on the part of
policy makers, researchers, and practitioners. In particular, as the US faces an increasing need to
remain globally competitive, especially in STEM fields, community college students are viewed
as the greatest means for improving postsecondary attainment levels (Bahr, Toth, Thirolf, &
Masse, 2013).
Clearly, a key milestone for community college students on the path to a STEM
baccalaureate degree is transferring to a four-year institution. A considerable amount of literature
has studied the effects of transferring on student attainment (e.g. Duggan & Pickering, 2007-
2008; Glass & Harrington, 2002; Johnson, 2005; Laanan, 2004, 2006, 2007; Monaghan, &
Attewell, 2014), though little has been done specifically on STEM persistence. While findings in
the general literature are inconsistent, and it is difficult to control for pre-existing group
differences, the literature is generally in agreement that native students (students who begin their
studies at a four-year institution) exhibit greater academic success, especially in the form of
grades, than do transfer students (Duggan & Pickering, 2007-2008; Laanan, 2004; Townsend &
Wilson, 2008-2009). The literature is also divided in terms of persistence and degree attainment
where some findings have shown that transfer and non-transfer students graduate in comparable
levels (e.g., Glass & Harrington, 2002; Ishitani, 2008) while others have shown transfer students
are at greater risk for delayed graduation and dropout (Duggan and Pickering, 2007-2008).
Evidence on the differential attainment rates of transfer students suggest academic issues
are, in part, at the root. Transitioning between institutions can be a challenge in itself. Transfer
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 4
students, especially those from two-year institutions, often enter the university environment
having shown excellent past performance in their classes. Yet, when challenged by the new
institution’s academic norms in the form of increased pace of instruction, coursework intensity,
and larger class size, class performance suffers (Cejda, 1997; Johnson, 2005). Documented
declines in academic performance (i.e., dips in grade point average; GPA) are referred to as
“transfer shock” and may be related to these changing academic norms (Hills, 1965; Cejda,
1997; Townsend, McNerney, & Arnold, 1993). In a meta-analysis examining this phenomenon,
Diaz (1992) uncovered that over three-quarters of community college students experienced
transfer shock. The degree of shock experienced seems to vary by student. For example, Cejda,
Kaylor, and Rewey (1998) showed evidence of greater transfer shock for students who were
majoring in math and sciences than in other fields (see also Cejda, 1997).
Research suggests transfer students experience shock predominantly during their first
transfer semester, suggesting its impact is temporary. However, other research points to lasting
consequences of even one semester of apparent transfer shock. For instance, Ishitani (2008)
found that students with lower GPA were significantly more likely to withdraw from college,
suggesting transfer shock plays a pivotal role in degree persistence behavior. Similarly, Glass
and Harrington (2002) showed that transfer shock in the first semester impacts student
withdrawal and drop out behaviors. Despite research demonstrating the existence and impact of
transfer shock, remarkably little literature has been devoted to understanding the range of
contextual and student factors that impact shock and, specifically, how it impacts particularly
challenging majors, such as STEM. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to examine the
magnitude of transfer shock, what student and contextual factors affect shock, and understand
the role shock plays in general and STEM-specific major persistence and institutional retention.
Review of the Literature
Extensive research has examined factors that contribute to the adjustment and persistence
of college students (e.g. Astin, 1984, 1993; Bean, 1983; Tinto, 1987; Nora, Barlow, & Crisp,
2005), including students who transfer to a four-year college from a two-year institution (e.g.,
Sorrey & Duggin, 2008; Wang, 2009). Commonalities across these studies emphasize the
importance of sociodemographic characteristics, pre-college academic experiences in the form of
grades and high school curriculum, and individual attributes that influence educational
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 5
aspirations and college readiness (Braxton & Hirschy, 2005; Braxton, Hirschy, & McClendon,
2011). Most important to discussions of the transfer experience, this research conceptualizes
persistence as a function of student adjustment, assimilation, and integration in academic and
social spheres of a college (Bean, 1983; Tinto, 1987; Sorrey & Duggin, 2008; Wang, 2009).
Persistence, essentially, results from a longitudinal process of interactions between students and
faculty, staff, and peers in academic and social settings in which students are socialized to
internalize academic and social norms. (Sorrey & Duggin, 2008; Tinto, 1993)
We relied specifically on a re-conceptualized and updated model of student retention by
Bean and Eaton (2002) that incorporates psychosocial characteristics such as motivation,
attribution, and self-efficacy which have been empirically linked to a host of student outcomes
(Robbins, et al., 2004). In addition, the model has been applied to non-traditional students who
are typically over-represented in community colleges. Briefly, the model hypothesizes that pre-
entry characteristics interact with environmental factors in the form of academic and social
interactions and psychosocial characteristics that form a feedback loop. Positive interactions and
involvement in academic and social settings provide students with the means to integrate and
assimilate to institutional norms leading to a heightened commitment to completing college and
to the institution itself. Negative experiences and factors that limit campus involvement weaken
intentions and commitments and increase the likelihood of departure.
Academic interactions may be a particular obstacle for transfer students. Transfer
students, particularly those from two-year institutions, have usually done well in high school and
community college and come to the new institution “knowing” that they can handle their
academic demands. However, Berner (2012) cited challenges in relation to academic interactions
include accessing academic support, fit to major, adjusting to include larger classes, limited
access to instructors, greater independence in class, and less flexibility from instructors. For
STEM students, these differences are often more dramatic (Packard, 2011). For example, in our
focus group research (Lakin & Elliott, 2013), STEM students cited heavy, lab-dominated course
loads and challenging gateway courses as particular stressors in their first semester on a four-
year campus. Prior research has also shown that transfer students report not using group study
strategies before coming to the university and have some difficulty finding study groups once
they arrive (Packard et al., 2011).
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 6
Transfer students also experience unique challenges in integrating socially. Opportunities
to interact with faculty in informal situations about non-academic topics – for instance careers –
can be very important for future success. Yet, transfer students have fewer opportunities to
establish a social network and connect with faculty because of their shortened graduation clock
at the four-year institution. Transfer students also experience social challenges including include
developing social supports and friends and adjusting to a new campus culture which theoretically
may impact transfer shock (Berner, 2012).
Despite their widespread use, contemporary models of persistence have been criticized
because usage of integration perspectives stress an underlying notion that acculturation is
necessary (Hurtado & Carter, 1997) and assume there is a single uniform set of values and
attitudes in an institution (Tierney, 1992). Thus, the central premise of integration is that students
must relinquish previously held values and adopt the dominant values of an institution. Such a
perspective can isolate students whose beliefs and attitudes may run contrary to the dominant
values (Hurtado & Carter, 1997). In addition, existing frameworks have predominately been
devoted to understanding the high school to college transition of first-year students.
Considerably less research has utilized these frameworks for understanding transfer behaviors
which is distinctly different from the first-year transition. Accordingly, we incorporate elements
of Transition Theory (Schlossberg, 1984)
Transition Theory
Transition Theory emphasizes the meanings attributed by individuals to transitions
accounting for the context, impact, and the type of transition (Schlossberg, 1984). Context and
impact refer to situational factors such as how and where a transition occurs, whether a transition
directly or indirectly impacts an individual, and how central the transition is to daily life,
routines, perceptions of self and relationships, and roles (Schlossberg et al., 1995). Generally
speaking, the more impactful a transition, the longer the assimilation period (Sargent &
Schlossberg, 1988). Transition theory posits three types of transitions exist: anticipated
transitions, such as college attendance, unanticipated such as loss of a job or a family member,
and nonevents which are anticipated transitions which fail to occur such as failure to be admitted
to a college of choice (Chickering & Schlossberg, 1995).
Adaptation and adjustment to a transition rests on four elements: (1) situational
circumstances such as causes of the transition, timing, duration and previous experience with a
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 7
similar transition, (2) personal, demographic, and psychosocial characteristics that affect outlook
and perspective on the transition, (3) the availability of social support systems including family
and friends, and (4) coping strategies that help modify and manage stress associated with the
transition (Schlossberg, 1984).
Although Transition Theory has been applied to college transitions (e.g. Flowers,
Luzynski, & Zamani-Gallaher, 2014; Griffin & Gilbert, 2015; Milsom & Hartley, 2005) much of
this literature focuses on transitions from high school to college. Transfer students have unique
experiences compared to native freshmen in the college transition because they come with
greater experience with the transition to college and a history of high or low integration, support,
and coping strategies at their prior institution(s) that inform their experience of the transition to
the new institution. Two small-scale research studies have explored the community college
transfer experience in the context of Transition theory (Lazarowicz, 2015; Rodriguez-Kiino) and
found themes consistent with Schlossberg’s theory. Both found that support systems of varying
kinds (family, institutional, financial) were critical to the success of transfer students.
Lazarowicz (2015) also emphasized the need for time to adjust and found that many of the
students he interviewed felt overwhelmed by the new institution. He concluded that adjusting to
the transition takes at least one semester and perhaps longer suggesting the act of transferring
may be a longitudinal process. Incorporating transition theory and contextual factors (type of
transfer institution, length of prior study, major, etc.) that impact perceptions of the transition is
therefore critical in this study.
Methods
This study uses institutional records from a large, research-intensive university in the
southeastern United States. The university serves over 20,000 undergraduate students per year in
10 academic colleges (Architecture, Human Science, Forestry, Nursing, Liberal Arts, Business,
Agriculture, Education, Math and Science, and Engineering). STEM majors comprised students
in the College of Engineering (COE) and the College of Math and Sciences (CMS; which
includes biomedical majors as well as chemistry, physics, and mathematics). We utilized
institutional data to obtain student characteristics and academic records for all transfer students
(n=14,159) first enrolling at the institution between 2004 and 2013. Transfer students from two-
and four-year institutions were specifically included in analysis for comparative purposes. The
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 8
institution admitted roughly equal numbers (54%/46%) of students from 2-year and 4-year
institutions. See Table 1 for descriptive statistics of the sample.
It is important to note that transfer students in science and math tended to be closer to
traditional age native students (18-22) with 86% of transfer students in the range of 18 to 25
years old according to institutional records. In contrast, engineering transfer students were
somewhat older with 32% aged 18-25 and 68% aged 26 or older. Two-year transfer students had
a larger proportion of white students and other small differences compared to four-year and
native students as shown in Table 1.
Transfer students varied considerably in terms of the number of credit hours they brought
to the institution (M=59, SD=18 for 2-year; M=61, SD=30 for 4-year transfers). Sophomore
status was by far the most common for incoming transfer students (49% and 44% for 2-year and
4-year). GPAs at the transfer institution were on average B-level (M=3.1, SD=.5). Admission to
the focal institution is primarily based on transfer GPA if the student has earned at least 30 credit
hours at other institutions.
[Insert Table 1 about here]
Defining Dependent Variables
This study utilized two dependent variables: transfer shock and persistence. Transfer
shock was calculated as the difference between the student’s cumulative GPA at the most recent
transfer institution compared to their first semester GPA at the focal institution consistent with
prior research (e.g., Cejda, 1997). For example, a student transferring from a community college
with a GPA of 3.9 who earns a GPA of 3.1 in their first semester at the four-year institution
would have a “shock” value of 0.8. Persistence was operationalized in three distinct ways:
persistence within a college of enrollment to allow comparison across different colleges and
majors and provide baseline data for contextualizing possible differences in STEM majors,
persistence within a STEM degree (essentially the first variable limited to those starting in
STEM), and institutional retention. Change in terms of college of enrollment rather than specific
major was purposefully selected as an outcome because these changes mark important transitions
that impact employment opportunities and time to completion (due to changes in course
requirements), among other things, that less drastic major changes (i.e., those that occur within-
college) may not entail.
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 9
Analyses
Descriptive statistics were utilized to explore the magnitude of transfer shock
experienced by students. We used between-group ANOVA comparisons as well as multiple
regression with stepwise entry to determine which student and contextual characteristics were
associated with greater first-semester GPA shock. Predictors included incoming college, type of
prior institution, gender, race, number of credits earned at prior institution (coded 0/1 as entering
as sophomore or lower vs. upperclassman), and transfer characteristics (ACT score, HSGPA,
number of transfer hours, transfer GPA).
To understand how transfer shock is associated with STEM major persistence, we relied
on binary logistic regression. In this case there were three events of interest: a student changes
their college of enrollment, a student changes from a STEM college to a non-STEM college, and
a student leaves the institution each of which was coded dichotomously (i.e., the event occurred
or not). For these analyses, only students whose first semester was at least two years prior to the
data collection point (in 2013) were included so that the models were not biased by students who
had only just entered the university. Each of these outcome variables were dichotomous.
Six blocks of variables were included: (1) transfer shock, (2) race and gender variables,
(3) transfer related variables (GPA, credit hours, institution), (4) university entry characteristics
(first college of enrollment), (5) first semester characteristics (credit hours), and (6) key
interactions between shock and institution type, entry college, race, and gender. Within each
block, the Forward LR (likelihood ratio) variable selection method was used. Transfer shock was
entered first by itself to allow us to inspect its unique contribution as well as its contribution once
other variables entered the model.
Results
We first examined the magnitude of transfer shock. Descriptive statistics for the full
sample showed that transfer shock (defined as the difference between transfer GPA and first
semester GPA) was substantial with the average transfer student’s GPA dropping .633 points
(SD = 0.960)1. Comparing students who transferred from two-year and four-year institutions, we
found significant and noteworthy differences in shock with two-year transfers experiencing an
average drop of 0.769 points (SD = 0.949), while four-year transfers experienced an 0.478 point
1 Inspection of the descriptive statistics indicates that transfer GPA, GPA at the four-year institution, and “shock” variables were normally distributed in this sample.
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 10
drop (SD = 0.949; t(11,282) = 16.175, p < .001, d = 0.31 [medium effect]). See Figure 1, which
shows the effect of college of entry as well. Regression analyses were used to explore the impact
of college of entry.
[insert Figure 1 about here]
Factors Associated with Transfer Shock
To better understand the factors associated with greater transfer shock, we conducted a
hierarchical multiple linear regression to predict the magnitude of GPA shock from student
characteristics in addition to college of enrollment and transfer institution sector. Stepwise entry
was used with blocks of related variables to build from previous analyses: (1) transferring
institution sector[2-year vs. 4-year] and entry college), (2) an interaction term of institution and
entry college, (3) student characteristics (e.g. race, gender), (4) transfer variables (credit hours
transferred, cumulative transfer GPA); and (5) post-entry characteristics (class level, credit hours
attempted). Table 2 shows the results of these regression analyses.
[insert Table 2 about here]
The regression results confirmed our expectations in terms of which colleges of
enrollment showed the greatest GPA shock: Science/Math and Engineering were among the
colleges with the largest transfer shock (0.47 GPA points and 0.40 points, respectively,
compared to Architecture students who showed average levels of shock and served as the
reference group). As with the t-test results, coming from a two-year institution was shown to be
associated with greater transfer shock (0.19 GPA points more shock than four-year transfers).
Other characteristics associated with greater transfer shock included being female
(associated with slightly more shock of 0.07 GPA points) and being an African American student
(associated with a slightly larger [0.13 GPA points] shock than white students). Transferring
more credits and being a junior or senior at entry were both associated with slightly less shock:
0.04 GPA points for every additional 10 credit hours transferred and 0.05 points less shock for
being an upperclassman at entry. Interestingly, a higher transfer GPA was associated with 0.29
points more shock for every 1 GPA point increase at the transfer institution. Finally, attempting
more credit hours in the first semester at the four-year institution was associated with less shock
(-0.1 points for each additional credit hour). The overall model accounted for just 22% of the
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 11
variance, indicating that although some important variables were identified, there is clear room
for improvement in predicting shock.
We were also interested in whether type of transfer institution and college of entry
showed an interaction effect. This expectation was confirmed and the two STEM colleges of
entry, Science/Math and Engineering, yielded the only significant interactions. Entering as a
two-year transfer from either college was associated with about .2 GPA points of additional
shock. When looking at the raw descriptive statistics (i.e., not controlling for other variables as in
the regression), the typical 2-year engineering transfer student showed a 1.0 GPA point drop in
GPA in the first semester while the 4-year transfer showed 0.6 points. In science/math, the GPA
effects were 1.2 and 0.7 points, respectively. These are clearly substantial drops.
Only about half of transfer applicants had ACT/SAT scores or high school GPAs on
record and, often, these values were on record because of previous, unsuccessful, applications to
the institution. Therefore, these variables were omitted from previous analyses to retain the full,
unbiased sample. However, we were interested in whether academic quality measures from high
school would affect the models. When high school GPA and test scores were added to the
regression analyses described above, we found that, among the restricted sample that remained,
students with higher ACT (or converted SAT) scores experienced somewhat less shock—about
.1 GPA points for every 5 ACT points. Likewise, a higher HS GPA was associated with a .1
decrease in transfer shock for every 1 GPA point change. Both are very small effects.
Transfer shock and STEM major persistence and institutional retention
To understand the relationship between transfer shock and institutional and STEM major
persistence we used binomial logistic regression to predict three outcomes: changing colleges,
leaving a STEM college for a non-STEM college, or leaving the university entirely. For these
analyses, only students whose first semester was at least two years prior to the data collection
point were included (reducing the sample size to N = 7, 966). Table 3 shows the full results with
all blocks of variables entered. We used blocks of predictors similar to the previous analyses.
Shock was entered alone as well as in combination with the other predictors to look at its
unique effect on the outcomes of interest. When entered alone, shock was significantly
associated with the likelihood of leaving a major (Exp(B) = 1.184) and institutional departure
(Exp(B) = 2.279). Adding other variables substantially reduced the effect of shock on leaving a
college of enrollment (Exp(B) = 1.045), but only modestly decreased the effect on institution
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 12
departure (Exp(B) = 2.161). These odds ratios indicate that students with one GPA point more of
shock are 4% more likely to leave their college of enrollment, but 116% more likely to leave the
institution.
Controlling for shock, race/ethnicity and gender had variable effects on the outcomes of
interest. Compared to white students, African American, Native American, and Asian students
were more likely to leave the institution (all over 34% more likely to leave than white students).
Despite a greater chance of leaving the institution, Asian students were much less likely to
change majors in general (Exp(B) = 0.473) and when in STEM fields (Exp(B) = 0.196). Women
were found to be slightly more likely to leave STEM majors (Exp(B) = 1.090) and more likely to
leave the institution (Exp(B) = 1.295).
Transfer characteristics were also important, although transfer institutional sector was not
a significant predictor in the presence of other variables in the model. Students who transferred
more hours were somewhat less likely to leave the institution (Exp(B) = 0. 996), leave STEM
(Exp(B) = 0. 982), or change major (Exp(B) = 0.987), although these effects are small.
Consistent with this finding, students who entered as juniors or seniors by credit hours were less
likely to change their major (Exp(B) = 0.795; this effect is in addition to the total number of
credit hours). Importantly, having a higher transfer GPA had a substantial impact, reducing the
likelihood of leaving the university (Exp(B) =0. 294), which is interesting because it was
associated with greater shock in the previous analyses. Transfer GPA also made students much
less likely to change their major (Exp(B) =0.670), including STEM (Exp(B) = 0.691).
College of entry was also important to each outcome. For leaving a major, several
colleges, including Business and Liberal Arts, were associated with lower probabilities of
changing major while Nursing and Science/Math were associated with a substantially greater
likelihood of changing colleges (Exp(B) = 2.765 and 1.978, respectively). Engineering majors
were no less likely to leave their major than the reference group of Architecture. Consistent with
this finding, among STEM majors, Science/Math majors were much more likely to leave STEM
than Engineering majors (Exp(B) = 1.896). Nursing and Science/Math were also more likely to
leave the institution without graduating, with substantially higher probabilities than other majors
(Exp(B) = 4.156 and 2.831, respectively).
Credit hours attempted, both general and STEM-related, had an unexpected relationship
with changing majors or leaving the university. We expected that attempting a large number of
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 13
credit hours would be associated with less academic success in the transfer institution (i.e. more
shock) and might be associated with change of major or institutional departure . However,
taking more credits (including more STEM credits for STEM majors) was associated with a
small decrease (3-4%) in the likelihood of changes to major or institutional departure.
Critical to our analysis of the relationship between transfer shock and academic outcomes
was understanding how shock interacted with important student and institutional characteristics
identified in prior analyses. Therefore, interactions between shock and transferring institution
sector , college of entry, race, and gender were added to the final block. Only a few interactions
emerged in association with institutional departure. Specifically, interactions between shock and
transferring institution sector and initial college of entry were found. Findings showed that
students from 2-year institutions who experienced more shock are more likely to leave (Exp(B) =
1.110) compared to students with less shock or from a four-year institution. These students may
be the most vulnerable to impacts of shock. The interaction of shock and Science/Math majors
surprisingly showed that students who experienced more shock in that major were less likely to
leave the institution (Exp(B) = 0.839).
R2 statistics for logistic regressions cannot be interpreted as percentages as they are for
linear regression, but they do help interpret model fit. Overall, the R2 values for both college
change variables was relatively small (Nagelkerke R2 = .09 for both), meaning that the
significant factors, including shock, are just a small part of the story for transfer students who
change colleges (STEM or any college). More work is needed to identify additional
characteristics that contribute to these changes. In terms of understanding institutional departure,
the model was much more effective (Nagelkerke R2 = .26) with shock acting as important
predictor of this event. Transfer shock (or perhaps more accurately events or characteristics that
lead to transfer shock) is therefore an important consideration in understanding why transfer
students do not complete college degrees even after successful transfer to a four-year institution.
[insert Table 3 about here]
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the magnitude of transfer shock, demographic
and institutional factors that were associated with greater initial transfer shock, and, finally, the
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 14
relationship between transfer shock on student persistence in a STEM major and institutional
retentionWe found that transfer students experienced an average of 0.6 GPA drop in their first
semester, but students transferring from a two-year institution experienced more shock (about 0.8
GPA points) and students in STEM colleges (defined as the Science/Mathematics and
Engineering colleges) and especially two-year transfers in STEM colleges experienced the
greatest amount of shock. Science/Mathematics and Engineering majors from two-year
institutions had an average GPA drop of 1.2 and 1.0 points respectively. These are remarkable
changes in GPA for students undergoing an institutional transition.
These substantial changes in academic performance are likely related to the academic
climate, which is more variable between two and four-year institutions than among four-year
institutions (Cejda, 1997; Lazarowicz, 2015). Prior literature has shown that community college
transfers struggle with increased pace of instruction, coursework intensity, and larger class size
(Cejda, 1997; Johnson, 2005) all of which can impact academic performance and contribute to
transfer shock. Although we cannot determine what causes shock from this data, such large
decrements in GPA are clearly problematic; low GPAs must be discouraging to students and
reflect substantial stress in the first transfer semester. These low GPAs also form an impediment
to graduation, internship placement, graduate school, and other academic and career related
opportunities.
In terms of student and institutional level characteristics associated with experiencing greater
transfer shock, we found that students who were African American, female, brought fewer
transfer credits, and had a higher transfer GPA had significantly greater shock with moderate
effect sizes. Of these characteristics, being African American and female are most problematic as
they are immutable factors. The effect of race was not surprising; prior literature suggests that
minority students experience challenges with the college climate (e.g. Harper, 2006, 2009) and
negative views of a campuses’ racial climate can have a damaging impact on both a minority
student’s academic and social life (Hurtado, 1992; Saenz, Marcoulides, Junn, & Young, 1999).
Their transition to a four-year institution may therefore involve greater challenges to academic
integration than other transfer students.
Interestingly, students with higher GPAs also experienced significant transfer shock. It is
possible this finding could be an artifact reflecting a greater disparity in grade distributions or
grading standards across the two institutions, rather than a direct effect of student performance.
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 15
Nevertheless, the sudden drop in GPA seems likely to impact students’ perceptions of their
academic success. Students are known to use grades as a means to assess their suitability for a
particular major or college in general; therefore, we believe such substantial drops in GPA as
seen in our analyses would be likely to affect student commitment to their major or finishing a
STEM degree.
In addition to exploring predictors of shock, we used logistic regression to understand the
impact transfer shock had on persistence in a STEM major and institutional retention. Although
transfer shock in the first semester was not associated with STEM major persistence, it was
associated with changing majors in general and longitudinal institutional retention. The effect on
major change was small, where students with more one GPA point of shock were 18% more
likely to change major college during their time at the university. However, the effect of shock
on institutional retention was large, with students experiencing a 1 GPA point increase in shock
being 128% more likely than other students to leave the institution. Whether this is a direct effect
of shock (or other causal factors that cause both shock and major or institutional change) requires
further research with a longitudinal design.
Other factors associated with changes in college major were race; transfer factors,
including bringing fewer credit hours or having a lower transfer GPA; attempting more credit
hours in the first semester after transfer; and entering the CMS. It is important to note that
transferring from a two-year institution did not affect change of major, which was unexpected
given the large effect it had on shock. We suspect that the effect of shock mediated any impact of
coming from a two-year institution. This would mean that whatever factors are associated with
greater difficulties in transitioning from a two-year to four-year institution are captured by that
substantial drop in GPA.
It is also interesting that the effect of transfer GPA on the outcome variables was the
reverse of the effect on shock: higher transfer GPAs were associated with more shock, but less
likelihood of change of major or institutional departure. Future research should explore how
differences in grading rigor across institutions affect students’ perceptions of academic fit. It may
be that students are aware of the differences in grading rigor across institutions and are prepared
for these changes and do not take them into account in making decisions about major and
institutional persistence.2
2 In fact, we have conducted qualitative interviews that indicate two-year transfer students anticipate substantial
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 16
Given the substantially larger shock experienced by transfer students in STEM colleges,
we were surprised to find that factors associated with leaving a STEM major were very similar to
those associated with leaving any major which included the effects of race, transfer GPA,
transfer credit hours, and number of credit hours attempted in the first semester. In this analysis,
women were found to be somewhat more likely to leave a STEM college, consistent with prior
research noting women earn fewer STEM degrees (NCES, 2012). Interestingly,
Science/Mathematics majors were significantly more likely than Engineering majors to leave a
STEM college for a non-STEM college. Prior research has not emphasized any differences in
these types of majors in terms of departure. We were surprised that amount of shock did not
predict STEM departure. It may be that shock is so large among all of these students that it is no
longer a significant factor in explaining departure within this group. Therefore, it may be a
critical factor in explaining the overall problem of retaining transfer students in STEM fields (or
may reflect a larger academic adjustment in these fields), but does not serve as a useful predictor
of which STEM transfer students will leave the major. It is also plausible that the act of
successfully completing rigorous gateway STEM courses prompted resilience and commitment
to completing a STEM degree. Future research should explore the post-baccalaureate success of
STEM transfer students. Although they may remain in their major and at the institution, we do
not know how successful these students were in achieving career goals such as high-paying jobs
and entrance to professional and medical schools. The impact of low GPAs may be more critical
to understanding these outcomes.
In examining institutional departure, we found some similarities and differences from the
previous analyses. The effect of transfer hours and transfer GPA was still associated with a
reduced likelihood of departure. Majors in Science/Mathematics was related to a greater
likelihood of leaving as well. Surprisingly, women were also more likely to depart than men.
This is unexpected given that nationally women complete degrees at a higher rate than men
(NCES, 2012), but may reflect some differences in the persistence intentions of female transfer
students or may reflect a regional difference. In contrast with factors associated with changes in
major, we found that Asian students, as well as Native American and African American, students
were more likely to leave the institution. This lends additional support for our contention that
campus climate may impact minority students in important ways. We also found two year
challenges and lower GPA at the four-year institution. Several reported that these dire warnings were overblown.
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 17
transfers who experienced more shock were more likely to leave the institution (by about 11%)
and surprisingly, Science/Mathematics majors who experienced more shock were less likely to
leave the institution. This paradoxical finding requires further confirmation and study. Future
research is needed to explore personal characteristics (e.g., resilience or perhaps stubbornness) as
well as institutional factors (e.g., GPA restrictions on changing colleges) that may push students
to stay in a major despite poor grades.
Limitations
An important limitation to our dataset was the partial information we had about students’
high school academic records, including GPA and ACT/SAT test scores. Having complete data
on these factors would allow us to better control for the academic readiness of students who
initially enter two- and four-year institutions, but later transferred to the focal institution. An
obvious explanation for the greater effect of two-year institutions on shock is that less
academically prepared students may choose to attend a two-year institution first. Our partial data
allowed us to determine that high school GPA and test scores did not negate the effect of two-
year institutions on the magnitude of shock, but more complete data would allow a more
confident analysis of this question.
Another important limitation is that we gathered institutional records over time rather
than at a single point in time. Although this was beneficial to our sample size, it meant we were
unable to account for changes in the institution, including changing admissions selectivity or
changes in student support services provided to the transfer students, and its effect on our results.
Our data essentially averages across any of these changes that may have occurred over the 10
years studied. Based on institutional records, it is clear that the high school GPA and admissions
test scores at this institution increased for first-time freshmen during this time period. It is
unknown how much this affected the admissions process for transfer students. The size of the
transfer enrollment did not appear to vary much during this time period, but no data on their
academic records was available.
Implications for Practitioners
Our findings have important implications for practitioners. On the one hand, our findings
show that STEM students do experience greater shock, with markedly low GPAs at the four-year
institution, and suggests that faculty and college personnel working with STEM students,
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 18
especially at community colleges, may want to re-evaluate course norms and format to promote
more success at the four-year institution. Although many inter-institution transfer articulation
discussions held by faculty focus on course content, we also suggest that discussions focus on
pace of instruction, time allowed for content review, and modes for assessing content mastery.
Students should also be prepared (possibly through orientation or mentoring programs) for the
changes in academic culture and possible changes in grades. Alignment of instructional
modalities and course norms between two and four-year institutions may limit the transfer shock
experienced by STEM students.
At the same time, our findings are actually very promising for community college
students. Widespread fear of credit loss prompts many students to transfer early (Monaghan &
Attewell, 2014). Our findings showing that transfer students with greater credit accumulations
experience less shock, which provides additional evidence in support of community college
retention and completing an associate’s degree prior to transfer. Future research is needed to
explore what configuration of credits (e.g., taking core vs. major courses at the first institution)
leads to the strongest outcomes. Further, our finding that transfer shock is not associated with
STEM major persistence supports the idea that community colleges are in fact adequately
preparing STEM students for degree completion. This suggests community colleges can provide
an alternative pathway for STEM degree completion and may be an untapped resource in
remaining globally competitive. As community colleges tend to attract greater proportions of
minority and first-generation college students, college administrators should consider increasing
outreach and recruitment efforts into STEM majors as a means for advancing racial and income
equality.
Conclusion
Although transfer shock has been part of the college persistence literature for many years,
considerably less research has explored the combination of student and contextual characteristics
that impact STEM transfer shock or explored how shock can impact STEM academic outcomes.
The results of this study show that transfer shock is clearly a nontrivial problem that
disproportionately affects transfer students from two-year institutions and students in STEM
colleges. Regression analyses also showed that transfer shock in the first semester has real
effects on student persistence in their major and, especially, in their retention at the institution.
Because shock varies by student and contextual characteristics, this research provides avenues
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 19
for additional research into early identification and intervention. Two-year transfers in STEM
fields should be studied in more depth, especially through qualitative approaches, to determine
what hurdles and supports they experience in making the transition from two-year to four-year
institutions. Given the increasing use of community colleges as a pathway to STEM careers
(Starobin, Laanan, & Burger, 2010), and the greater use of community colleges by
underrepresented minority groups, promoting the success of such students could have a
substantial impact on increasing the numbers and diversity of STEM graduates in the U.S.
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 20
References
American Association of Community Colleges (2014). 2014 Fact Sheet. Retrieve from:
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Pages/fastfactsfactsheet.aspx.
Community College Trends (2010). and Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.aacc.nche.edu/ABOUTCC/TRENDS/ Pages/default.aspx
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A theory for higher education. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What Matters in College. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bahr, P.R., Toth, C., Thirolf, K., & Masse, J.C. (2013). A Review and Critique of the Literature
on Community College Students’ Transition Processes and Outcomes in Four-Year
Institutions. In M. Paulsen (Ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research
(pp 459-511), New York, NY: Springer.
Bailey, T., Calcagno, J. C., Jenkins, D., Kienzl, G., & Leinbach, T. (2005). Community college
student success: What institutional characteristics make a difference? New York:
Community College Research Center Teachers College, Columbia University.
Bean, J. P. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the student
attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 6(2), 129-148.
Bean, J. P. (2005). Nine themes of college student retention. In A. Seidman (Ed.) College student
retention: Formula for student success (pp. 215-244), Westport, CT: Praeger.
Berner, R. J. (2012). Transfer shock and the experience of community college students
transitioning to California State University, Chico: An exploratory study (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). California State University: Sacramento, CA.
Braxton, J.M., & Hirschy, A.S. (2005). Theoretical developments in the study of college student
departure. In A. Seidman (Ed.) College student retention: Formula for student success
(pp. 61-88), Westport, CT: Praeger.
Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2011). Understanding and Reducing
College Student Departure: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 30, Number
3 (Vol. 16). John Wiley & Sons.
Cejda, B.D. (1997). An Examination of Transfer Shock in Academic Disciplines. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 23 (3), 379-389.
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 21
Cejda, B. D., Kaylor, A. J., & Rewey, K. L. (1998). Transfer shock in an academic discipline:
The relationship between students' majors and their academic performance. Community
College Review, 26(3), 1-13.
Diaz, P. E. (1992). Effects of transfer on academic performance of community college students
at the four-year institution. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 16,
279-291.
Duggan, M. H., & Pickering, J. W. (2007-2008). Barriers to transfer student academic success
and retention. Journal of College Student Retention, 9(4), 437-459.
Evans, N.J., Forney, D.S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college: Theory,
research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Flowers, R.D., Luzynski, C., Zamani-Gallaher, E.M. (2014). Male Transfer Student Athletes
and Schlossberg’s Transition Theory. Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in
Education, 8 (2), 99-120.
Griffin, K.A., & Gilbert, C.K. (2015). Better Transitions for Troops: An Application of
Schlossberg’s Transition Framework to Analyses of Barriers and Institutional Support
Structures for Student Veterans. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(1), 71-97.
Glass, J. C., & Harrington, A. R. (2002). Academic performance of community college transfer
students and “native” students at a large state university. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 26, 415-430. doi: 10.1080/0277677029141774.
Harper, S. R. (2006a). Enhancing African American male student outcomes through leadership
and active involvement. In M. J. Cuyjet (Ed.), African American men in college (pp. 68-
94). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harper, S. R. (2009). Institutional seriousness concerning Black male student engagement:
Necessary Conditions and collaborative partnerships. In S. R. Harper & S. J. Quaye
(Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and
practical approaches for diverse populations (pp. 137-156). New York: Routledge.
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in campus racial climates and implications for
institutional transformation. New directions for Student Services, 120, 7-24.
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 22
Hills, J. R. (1965). Transfer shock: The academic performance of the junior college transfer. The
Journal of Experimental Education, 33(3), 201-215.
Hoachlander, G., Sikora, A. C., Horn, L., & Carroll, C.(2003). Community college students:
Goals, academic preparation, and outcomes (NCES Publication No. 2003–164).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Hurtado, S. (1992). The campus racial climate: Contexts of conflict. The Journal of Higher
Education, 63(5), 539-569.
Ishitani, T. T. (2008). How do transfers survive after “transfer shock”? A longitudinal study of
transfer student departure at a four-year institution. Research in Higher Education, 49,
403-419.
Johnson, M. D. (2005). The academic performance of transfer versus “native” student in natural
resources and sciences. College Student Journal, 39(3). 570-579.
Laanan, F. S. (1996). Making the transition: Understanding the adjustment process of community
college transfer students. Community College Review, 23(4), 69-84.
Laanan, F. S. (2004). Studying transfer students: Part I: Instrument design and implications
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28, 331-351. Doi:
10.1080/10668920490424050.
Laanan, F. S. (2006). Making the transition: Understanding the adjustment process of community
college transfer students. Community College Review, 23, 69-84.
Laanan, F. S. (2007). Studying transfer students: Part II: Dimensions of transfer students’
adjustment. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31, 37-59. doi:
10.1080/10668920600859947.
Lazarowicz, T. A. (2015) Understanding the transition experience of community college transfer
students to a 4-year university: Incorporating Schlossberg’s Transition Theory into
higher education (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsedaddiss/216
Milsom, A., & Hartley, M. (2005). Assisting students with learning disabilities
transitioning to college: What school counselors should know. Professional
School Counseling, 8(5), 436-441.
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 23
Monaghan, D.B., & Attewell, P. (2014). The Community College Route to the Bachelor’s
Degree. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (pre-print online
version). doi:10.3102/0162373714521865
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998-2009). Mplus user’s guide (5th edition). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Nevarez, C., & Wood, L. (2010). Community College Leadership and Administration: Theory,
Practice, and Change. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Packard, B. W. L. (2012). Effective outreach, recruitment, and mentoring into STEM pathways:
Strengthening partnerships with community colleges. Paper presented at the National
Academy of Science Meeting, “Realizing the Potential of Community Colleges for STEM
Attainment”. Retrieved from http://nas-
sites.org/communitycollegessummit/files/2011/12/NAS_Packard_Mentoring_toupload-
2.pdf
Rodriguez-Kiino, D. (2013). Supporting Students in Transition: Perspectives and Experiences of
Community College Transfer Students. Journal of Applied Research in the Community
College, 20(2), 5.
Ross, T., Kena, G., Rathbun, A., KewalRamani, A., Zhang, J., Kristapovich, P., & Manning, E.
(2012). Higher education: Gaps in access and persistence study. Statistical analysis
report. NCES 2012-046. Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
Saenz, T., Marcoulides, G. A. Junn, E. & Young, R. (1999). The relationship between college
experience and academic performance among minority students. The International
Journal of Educational Management, 13(4), 199-207.
Schlossberg, N.K. (1984). Counseling Adults in Transitions. New York: Springer Publishing
Company.
Schlossberg, K., Waters, E., & Goodman, J. (1995). Counseling adults in transition:
Linking practice with theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing.
Starobin, S. S., Laanan, F. S., & Burger, C. J. (2010). Role of community colleges: Broadening
participation among women and minorities in STEM. Journal of Women and Minorities
in Science and Engineering, 16(1), 1-5.
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 24
Solorzano, D. G., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions,
and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The
Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60-73.
Sorey, K.C., & Duggan, M.H. (2008). Differential Predictors of Persistence Between Community College
Adult and Traditional-Aged Students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 32
(2), 75-100. doi: 10.1080/10668920701380967
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Townsend, B. K., & Wilson, K. B. (2008-2009). The academic and social integration of
persisting community college transfer students. Journal of College Student Retention,
10(4), 405-423.
Townsend, B., McNerney, N., & Arnold, A. (1993). Will this community college transfer student
succeed? Factors affecting transfer student performance. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice, 17(5), 433-444.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The Condition
of Education 2012 (NCES 2012-045), Indicator 47.
Xueli, W. (2009). Baccalaureate Attainment and College Persistence of Community College
Transfer Students at Four-Year Institutions. Research In Higher Education, 50(6), 570-
588. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9133-z
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 25
Table 1
Demographic data for sample by type of transfer institution and entry college (2004 - 2013)
2-year 4-year Native freshmen
non-STEM STEM non-STEM STEM non-STEM STEM
5,383 2,273 4,493 2,010
approx. 16k a
approx. 8k a
Caucasian 90.2% 88.1% 86.0% 80.2% 83.6% 76.5% African-American 4.3% 4.9% 7.5% 10.5% 7.5% 7.1% Native American 1.1% 1.4% .6% .9% 0.7% 0.7% Asian .9% 2.3% 1.5% 2.7% 1.7% 3.3% Hispanic 1.2% 1.4% 2.2% 1.9% 2.2% 2.5% Unknown 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 2.6% 1.3% 1.4% Male 53.3% 68.6% 46.7% 64.4% 42.2% 68.1% Female 46.7% 31.4% 53.3% 35.6% 57.8% 31.9% ACT b (mean) 22.01 (3.29) 20.54 (3.17) 24.23 (3.89) 22.56 (3.69) 26 28 HS GPA b (mean) 3.52 (0.47) 3.30 (0.53) 3.58 (0.46) 3.36 (0.51) 3.78a Transfer hours (mean)
60.45 (18.15 58.08 (17.23) 62.33 (30.74) 58.47 (27.48) -- --
Transfer GPA (mean)
3.23 (0.46) 3.07 (0.47) 3.10 (0.48) 3.00 (0.47) -- --
Note. a Only reported in aggregate across colleges and without exact numbers by institutional records. b ACT and HS GPA are reported, but those data were only available for about half of the transfer students as these are not required for admission. In some cases, these data are available because the student applied to the university in prior years without enrolling. In other cases, students voluntarily provided this information. Students with lower scores may be more likely to omit these data from their applications for admissions. Therefore, although they are provided here for reference, they are most likely missing systematically (with a positive bias), leading to unacceptable missing data patterns, and are therefore not included in the analyses except where noted.
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 26
Table 2
Hierarchical multiple regression results—Final model with significant variables
Variable added to model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficientsa
Sig. R R2 R2
Change B Std.
Error Beta 2-year institution .154 .024 .024 .142 .020 .074 <.001 Entry college = Science/Math (relative to Architectureb)
.193 .037 .014 .372 .038 .132 <.001
Engineering .217 .047 .010 .303 .036 .119 <.001 Business .224 .050 .003 .303 .026 .121 <.001 Agriculture .230 .053 .003 .429 .036 .111 <.001 Nursing .237 .056 .003 .205 .047 .038 <.001 Liberal Arts .238 .056 .000 .100 .026 .040 <.001 Forestry .238 .057 .000 .291 .050 .052 <.001 Gender (Female=1) .242 .059 .002 .072 .018 .037 <.001 African American (relative to white)c
.245j .060 .001 .140 .033 .036 <.001
Credit hours transferred
.264 .070 .009 -.004 .000 -.096 <.001
Transfer GPA .271 .074 .004 .287 .018 .142 <.001 Credit hours (1st sem.) .470 .221 .147 -.100 .002 -.395 <.001 Entry as Jr./Sr.d .470 .221 .000 -.051 .022 -.026 .021 Interaction 2-yr and Science/Math
.471 .222 .001 .185 .048 .049 <.001
Interaction 2-yr and Engineering
.472 .223 .001 .165 .043 .050 <.001
Notes. a Positive coefficients indicate greater shock, negative indicates less shock. bSeveral race
variables were entered as dummy codes. Only the African American variable was significant. c
Architecture was chosen as the reference group for major because it showed average levels of
shock compared to other majors. d Jr./Sr. = Junior or Senior class ranking at entry by credit hours.
Table 3
Logistic regression predicting three outcomes
Model Left major Left STEM B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) BShock entered alone 0.169 0.029 <.001 1.184 NS 0.8
Block 1 Shock 1st sem. 0.044 0.033 0.185 1.045 NS .77
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 27
Block 2 Race/Ethnicity=White as ref. group African-American NS NS .29Native American NS NS .83Asian -0.750 0.302 0.013 0.473 -1.630 0.611 0.008 0.196 .43Hispanic NS NS Non-Resident Alien NS -1.759 1.034 0.089 0.172 Gender NS 0.086 0.130 0.508 1.090 .25
Block 3 2-Year Inst. NS NS Transfer C.H. -0.013 0.002 <.001 0.987 -0.019 0.003 <.001 0.982 -.00
Transfer GPA -0.400 0.068 <.001 0.670 -0.369 0.120 0.002 0.691 -1.2
Block 4 Entry as Jr./Sr. -0.230 0.089 0.010 0.795 NS
Entry College=Architecture as ref. Agriculture -0.660 0.157 <.001 0.517 --
Business -0.428 0.091 <.001 0.652 --
Engineering NS NS
Liberal Arts -0.415 0.092 <.001 0.660 --
Nursing 1.017 0.135 <.001 2.765 -- 1.4
Science/Math 0.682 0.084 <.001 1.978 0.640 0.130 <.001 1.896 1.0
Block 5 C.H. in 1st sem. -0.051 0.008 <.001 0.951 -0.055 0.014 <.001 0.947 -.03
STEM hours in 1st sem. -- -0.053 0.022 0.016 0.949
Block 6 Shock * Sci/Math -.17Shock * 2-year Inst. .10
Fit Statistics
Nagelkerke R2 .086 0.093
Cox & Snell R2 0.051 0.062
Running head: PREDICTORS OF TRANSFER SHOCK 28
Figure 1. Average GPA transfer shock by college of entry and type of transfer institution. Note that
differences for Architecture, Forestry, Human Sciences, and Nursing were non-significant.
0.82
0.40
0.79
0.48
1.04
0.62
0.42
0.61
0.86
1.17
0.57
0.28
0.50
0.37
0.57
0.45
0.280.35
0.69 0.70
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
2‐year
4‐year