1 First-Year Experience and Students in Transition Programming in Canada: Where are we Now?

Introduction and Monograph Overview

In 1997, John Gardner and his colleagues (Gilbert, et al., 1997) published a monograph which gave the results of a survey of Canadian colleges and universities. The purpose of the survey was to understand to what extent post-secondary institutions in Canada had first-year experience programming to support student success, and what the details of those programs were. That was the first major attempt to understand, in a national context, how such programming had developed in the Canadian system and by default to allow for some definitive analysis of differences between Canadian and American first-year experiences. Twenty-five years later, we have replicated and extended this survey and asked experts from across Canada to provide an overview of best practices for first-year experience (FYE) and students in transition (SIT) programming. Not surprisingly, the changes of the survey approach have evolved and diversified as a natural result of societal and post-secondary changes.

The purpose of this review is multi-faceted. Times have changed. What was deemed as important in the 1990s has shifted, along with the changes in demographics of the post-secondary student population. Campuses in Canada are more diverse than they have ever been, not only in terms of race or ethnic origin, but also in terms of their needs with regard to physical and intellectual challenges, mental health, indigenization and decolonization, internationalization, gender and sexual identity, and financial concerns amongst others. Add to this the fact that Canada is a world educational destination, with hundreds of thousands of students from around the world coming to Canada for their education every year, and we have more diverse campuses in Canada than ever before. With this welcomed diversity comes a multiplicity of opportunities, but also real needs that require support, and an academy that needs to review how it operates to effectively serve all students.

Our goal with this book is to help readers to understand not only the breadth of programming that is occurring on college and university campuses in Canada, and especially the changes in programming since 1997, but also provide examples of best practice for that programming. In Chapter 2 we will provide an overview of the pan-Canadian survey conducted in 2022-2023 looking at the current state of FYE and SIT programming. Next, in a series of chapters, we will cover innovations in FYE and SIT programming including Orientation Programming in Canada (Chapter 3), Mental Health Programming (Chapter 4), Programming for International Students (Chapter 5), Indigenous Student Programming (Chapter 6), programming for  2SLGBTQIA+ students (Chapter 7), Programs for Black Student Transitions (Chapter 8), Meeting the Needs of Students with Disabilities (Chapter 9). Further, we will discuss the differences between the Canadian context and approaches used internationally (Chapter 10), Supporting Co-Curricular Design through Social Learning Approaches (Chapter 11),  and Evaluating the Impacts of First Year Experience Programs  (Chapter 12). Finally, we will identify what is missing from FYE and SIT programming in Canada and look ahead to the future of such programs (Chapter 13).

Why do we Need FYE and SIT Programming?

Student transitions are complex and can be challenging. In post-secondary education (PSE), graduation rates in Canadian universities vary dramatically from close to 90% to under 50% (MacLean’s, 2018). This varies by program, institution, province, and demographic factors. For example, students with mental health and/or cognitive accessibility considerations are less likely to graduate (Statistics Canada, 2022). But the transition from high school to post-secondary education (or transition from one institution to another; or coming back to post-secondary education later in life) poses a range of academic, social, and financial challenges for students.

There are over 2 million students at Canadian post-secondary institutions, a number that is more than double what it was in the 1980s (Statistics Canada, 2023). Almost 20% of those students come from countries other than Canada, which is a ten-fold increase over the 1980s. These international students join Canadian institutions coming from different perspectives and educational systems than domestic students, and thus require specific support to help in that transition (see Smith et al., 2022). Although this shift in where students are coming from has impacted the diversity of Canadian campuses, not all groups have fared as well. For example, non-Indigenous youth are twice as likely as their Indigenous youth counterparts to have taken some form of post-secondary courses (72% versus 37%; Layton, 2023). Similar disparities are seen for Latin American, Black, and Filipino youth (Statistics Canada, 2023). In addition, student success statistics are worse for domestic Black and Indigenous students, who are up to 2-3 times less likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree than others (e.g., non-minority, Chinese, South Asian, and first-generation African students; Statistics Canada, 2021). Students with disabilities and former youth in care are also far less likely to successfully complete post-secondary education (Anderson et al., 2022; Furrie, 2017; Gahagan et al., in press).

Furthermore, students entering post-secondary education are typically at an age which is the peak onset time for mental health challenges (Munro, 2011; Prince, 2015). Mental illness affects more than half of the population, with the typical post-secondary age representing a peak onset period (Ibrahim et al., 2013; Kessler, 2003). More than a quarter of students need accessibility support to participate effectively. 35% of students were found to meet the diagnostic criteria for at least one mental health condition (Auerbach & Richardson, 2005) which is higher than those reported in the general population (Sheldon et al., 2021). 83% of post-secondary students’ report being moderately or severely distressed (Rosenthal & Wilson, 2008). Even for students who are in good health at the time of enrolment, negative lifestyle habits developed through childhood and adolescence can increase in PSE, leading to a higher risk of mental health challenges (McComb et al., 2016; McLean-Meyinsse et al., 2013; Schroeter et al., 2021).

Student financial situations also need to be considered in terms of challenges facing students. As post-secondary institutions diversify in their student body, there are more and more students coming from lower socio-economic family backgrounds (e.g., Corak, et al, 2003; Canadian Federation of Students, 2021). Undergraduate tuition fees have more than doubled since the 1980’s, controlling for inflation, and student debt has consistently increased over time, with the undergraduate students owing an average of $28,000 upon graduating, and spending the next 9.5 years paying that off (Statistics Canada, 2019). As such, more students are working more hours to accommodate this increased cost which is putting added pressure on their time and ability to successfully complete their education (Statistics Canada, 2010; CUSC, 2018).

Finally, when developing programs to support student transitions, we also need to be aware that each of the groups mentioned above are not monolithic. When developing programs for students who are identified as “at risk” we must be aware that people are not only a singular identity. Students are frequently not “just” 2SLGBTQIA+, Black, Indigenous, women in STEM, disabled, financially challenged, etc. These factors often intersect to create a multi-level and intersectional overlapping series of risk factors that need to be considered (Carter-Rogers, et al, in press).

Impact of Digitalization and Virtual Learning Environments

Transitions in post-secondary education can be difficult in any situation, but the advent of COVID-19, and the sudden shift in 2020 to online learning for almost all post-secondary students in Canada represented a substantial shift in how students needed to transition and learn. Virtual learning made it possible for students to continue their studies, and research has demonstrated that it has also made it easier for students from diverse groups, and dispersed geographies, to learn (Boling et al., 2012; Edmunds et al., 2021; Gillett-Swan, 2017; McParlan et al., 2021; Schmidt et al., 2016). Yet it is also understood that online learning comes with many challenges. Students who learn via distance are typically less successful than those who learn in person (Simpson, 2004), they do not feel connected to the institution or their peers (Rovai, et al., 2005), students with financial limitations may also have less access to required technology (Bowden, et al., 2019) and students who have fewer skills related to independence, time management, and intrinsic motivation have lower success rates (Chaney, 2001; Savenye, 2005; You & Kang, 2014). Perhaps not surprisingly, when COVID-19 forced the end of in-person classes for most students and shifted Welcome Weeks/Orientation for 2020 to online, most institutions quickly shifted to virtual support systems and transition programming as well.

Types of FYE and SIT Programming

In response to the challenges faced by students, many different types of programs have been designed to support their success. These programs include first-year seminar programs (Cho & Karp, 2013; Hyers & Joslin, 1998; Jamelske, 2009; Vaughan et al., 2014), early alert programs (Jayaprakash et al., 2014; Tampke, 2013), predictive analytic programs (Attaran et al., 2018; Ekowo & Palmer, 2016; Norris et al., 2008), course placements (Bracoo et al., 2015; Sneyers & De Witte, 2017), tutoring (Hodges & White, 2001), faculty and student mentorships (Campbell & Campbell, 1997), and financial aid programming (Angrist et al., 2009; Bettinger, 2007) among others.

Importantly, these programs are effective. There is evidence to suggest that interventions focusing on financial aid and peer mentorship have led to higher GPAs for students overall, and lower levels of female students on academic probation (Angrist et al., 2009). First-year student experience programming is associated with higher academic performance (Hyers & Joslin, 1998; Jamelske, 2009; Tabvuma et al., 2023; Vaughan et al., 2014), student retention into second year (Hyers & Joslin, 1998; Jamelske, 2009; Miller et al., 2007; Naylor et al., 2018; Tabvuma et al., 2023), graduation rates overall (Schnell et al., 2003) and overall student satisfaction (Hendel, 2007; Mamrick, 2005) and sense of belonging.

Value of FYE and SIT Programming in Canadian PSE

Anyone working in post-secondary education in Canada knows that funding is continuing to tighten (Usher, 2023). As detailed in Chapter 2, student affairs and services professionals are experiencing cuts to funding, staff, and programs. Colleges and Universities as a whole have seen a slow but consistent drop in government funding over the last several decades and are now more reliant than ever on student tuition fee dollars to support operations (Usher, 2023). What happened to Laurentian University in 2021 sent shockwaves across the country and forced many institutions to re-think how they managed their finances and has increased scrutiny on programs within institutions as well.

Many people at colleges and universities view programs to support students transition into post-secondary education as a “nice to have” extension of welcome week programming, which is designed to give new students the important parts of the former “frosh week” experience, that current university and college staff  had when they started their own post-secondary education experiences. Although FYE and SIT programs have been well documented to support student retention and graduation rates, it is still relatively rare for those programs to be assessed at institutions that are running them. As such, these programs can become the target of cuts when the value cannot readily be demonstrated. This is why it is important for student services professionals at post-secondary institutions to provide regular assessments of FYE and SIT programming to demonstrate the value of these programs (see Chapter 12).

Once proper assessment of programs is done, the people running those programs can make effective arguments about the return on investment (ROI) provided by such programs (see Smith et al., 2023). To make an effective ROI argument, several steps need to be followed. First, a clean plan for assessment of impact needs to be created which considers, as much as possible, the financial implications of programs. This includes understanding how the program is linked to student retention across semesters, and ideally graduation rates. It is important to be able to compare people who did and did not participate in the program (matched on as many relevant factors as possible) to understand its real impact. Second, the true cost of the program needs to be calculated – this includes the cost of the program itself, as well as staff and any infrastructure costs. Next, a calculation of the benefit of the program needs to be made. This will involve working with institutional financial services to understand the actual “value” of a student to the institutions (e.g., tuition, fees, residence, etc.). Once this calculation is complete then an argument can be made about the cost versus benefit of any given program and can be used to justify programs being offered to students (as well as offer a way to fund niche programs where this assessment cannot reasonably be done). This is an important effort, as when it comes to strategic enrolment management, most institutions seem to understand recruitment activities and the corresponding return on investment better than they do for retention-focused initiatives. This is likely not surprising as retention can be more complicated to understand, to isolate cause and effect and ultimately there are more variables and offices in play.

Looking Ahead to the Following Chapters

It is clear that student success programs are needed, and that they must adjust constantly to the shifting needs of the students who are entering post-secondary education. The imperative to support student success is clear, and it provides a rare “win-win-win” opportunity for institutions. First, when students are more successful (i.e., feel a sense of belonging, get better grades, return year over year, graduate in a timely manner) they win, as it allows them to complete their credentials and meaningfully contribute to society, often achieved by becoming employed and earning more money than they would without a post-secondary education. Second, society wins by having a more educated population and a more capable citizenry. Finally, colleges and universities win by increasing their standing by being able to demonstrate improved retention rates and graduation rates, and greater sustained revenues to support their programs and institutions. Student success programs need not be seen as a “nice to have” cost of doing business. Student success programs, if well developed and assessed, can be shown to be an important and necessary investment by institutions for their own future, as well as the future of their students.

Therefore, although this monograph provides a review of FYE and SIT programs in Canada, and we hope it serves as a tool for student success professionals to refine and improve their programming, we also see it as a call to action for stakeholders to prioritize first-year and transition programming focused upon student success in Canadian higher education institutions. The programs reviewed in the chapters ahead demonstrate the importance of continuous adaptation and innovation to support the evolving needs of incoming students. We also hope that this monograph provides a vehicle for greater collaboration between academic and student services colleagues across campuses, institutions, provinces, and territories.

As we close, we want to highlight some features of this book. Chapters each have their own URLs. This means that you can easily send individual chapters by way of URL as you wish, in addition to sharing the main link for the book. This book is open access, with most chapters being protected either under CC-BY 4.0 or CC-BY-NC 4.0 licenses. This means you are encouraged to share broadly (please see specific licensing associated with each chapter), and there are no costs to using this book. Content has been generously shared by authors, who retain copyright of their chapters, with the intention of removing barriers to accessing content. We ask that you cite chapters in future work so authors can receive academic credit for their work. To help with this, recommended citations are included at the bottom of each chapter. To learn more about creative commons licensing permissions, we recommend visiting  https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/cclicenses/ (Creative Commons, n.d.).

References

Anderson, K., Holland, A., Gahagan, J., Smith, S. M., Wong, T., Grant, T. & McWilliam, S. (2022). We know better, so why aren’t we doing better in supporting the health of children and youth in care? The Conversation Canada. Nov. 15, 2022; https://theconversation.com/we-know-better-so-why-arent-we-doing-better-in-supporting-the-health-of-children-and-youth-in-care-193726

Angrist, J., Lang, D., & Oreopoulos, P. (2009). Incentives and services for college achievement: Evidence from a randomized trial. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(1), 136-63.

Astin, A. W. (1994). Higher education and the concept of community. University of Illinois a Urbana-Champaign.

Astin, A. (2007). Mindworks: Becoming More Conscious in an Unconscious World. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

Attaran, M., Stark, J., & Stotler, D. (2018). Opportunities and challenges for big data analytics in US higher education: A conceptual model for implementation. Industry and Higher Education, 32(3), 169-182.

Auerbach, E. S., & Richardson, P. (2005). The long-term work experiences of persons with severe and persistent mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 28(3), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.2975/28.2005.267.273

Bettinger, E., & Guryan, J. (2007). How Financial Aid Affects Persistence (pp. 207-238). University of Chicago Press.

Bracco, K. R., Austin, K., Bugler, D., & Finkelstein, N. (2015). Reforming Developmental Education to Better Support Students’ Postsecondary Success in the Common Core Era. Core to College Evaluation. Policy Brief. WestEd. Retrieved on April 23, 2021 from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED559730.pdf

Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 118-126.

Bowden, J. L. H., Tickle, L., & Naumann, K. (2019). The four pillars of tertiary student engagement and success: a holistic measurement approach. Studies in Higher Education, 1-18.

Campbell, T. A., & Campbell, D. E. (1997). Faculty/student mentor program: Effects on academic performance and retention. Research in Higher Education, 38(6), 727-742.

Canadian Federation of Students (2021). Fact Sheet: Education for All. CFS. Ottawa, ON.

Carter-Rogers., K., Smith, S. M., Chigumba, C. & Tabvuma, V.  (in press). The Future of Equity, Diversity, Accessibility, and Inclusion in Post-Secondary Education. In Norris, M. & Smith, S. M. (Eds.) Leading the Way: Envisioning the Future of Higher Education. Kingston, ON: eCampus Ontario. Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Chaney E. G. (2001). Web-based instruction in a Rural High School: A Collaborative Inquiry into its Effectiveness and Desirability. NASSP Bulletin, 85(628), 20-35.

Cho, S. W., & Karp, M. M. (2013). Student success courses in the community college: Early enrollment and educational outcomes. Community College Review, 41(1), 86-103.

Corak, M., Lipps, G & Zhao, J. (2003). Family Income and Participation in Post-Secondary Education. Statistics Canada. Ottawa, ON.

Canadian University Survey Consortium (2018): 2018 Graduating Student Survey McMaster University: June 2018. https://ira.mcmaster.ca/app/uploads/2020/04/CUSC_2018-Graduating-Student-Survey_McMaster-University-Report-English.pdf

Edmunds, J. A., Gicheva, D., Thrift, B., & Hull, M. (2021). High tech, high touch: The impact of an online course intervention on academic performance and persistence in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 49, 100790.

Ekowo, M., & Palmer, I. (2016) The Promise and Peril of Predictive Analytics in Higher Education. New America Report. Retrieved from: https://d1y8sb8igg2f8e.cloudfront.net/documents/Predictive-AnalyticsGuidingPractices_fbsrc53.pdf

Furrie, A. (2017). Post-secondary students with disabilities: their experience – past and present. National Educational Association of Disabled Students (NEADS). Retrieved from: https://www.neads.ca/en/about/media/Final%20reportCSD2012AdeleFurrie2-3.pdf. Feb. 13, 2024.

Gahagan, J., Slipp, N., Chowdhury, R., Kirby, D., Smith, S. M., McWilliam, S., Carter, N., Anderson, K., Chughtai., S., Robinson, M., & Meuller, R. (in press). Reducing Barriers to Post-Secondary Education Among Former Youth in Care: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Educational Research.

Gilbert, S, Chapman, J., Dietsche, P., Grayson, P. & Gardner, J. N. (1997). From Best Intentions to Best Practices: The First Year Experience in Canadian Postsecondary Education. National Resource Center for the Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition. USC. South Carolina, USA.

Gillett-Swan, J. (2017). The challenges of online learning: Supporting and engaging the isolated learner. Journal of Learning Design, 10(1), 20-30.

Goodman, K., & Pascarella, E. T. (2006).  First-year seminars increase persistence and retention:  A summary of the evidence from how college affects students. Peer Review, 8(3), 26-28.

Hendel, D. D. (2007). Efficacy of participating in a first-year seminar on student satisfaction and retention. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 8(4), 413-423.

Hodges, R., & White Jr, W. G. (2001). Encouraging high-risk student participation in tutoring and supplemental instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3), 2.

Hyers, A., & Joslin, M. (1998). The first year seminar as a predictor of academic achievement and persistence. Journal of the first-year experience & students in transition, 10(1), 7-30.

Ibrahim, A. K., Kelly, S. J., Adams, C. E., & Glazebrook, C. (2013). A systematic review of studies of depression prevalence in university students. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 47(3), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2012.11.015

Jamelske, E. (2009). Measuring the impact of a university first-year experience program on student GPA and retention. Higher Education, 57(3), 373-391.

Jayaprakash, S. M., Moody, E. W., Lauría, E. J., Regan, J. R., & Baron, J. D. (2014). Early alert of academically at-risk students: An open source analytics initiative. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(1), 6-47.

Kessler, R. C. (2003). Epidemiology of women and depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 74(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0327(02)00426-3

Kim, K. J., Liu, S., & Bonk, C. J. (2005). Online MBA students’ perceptions of online learning: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. The Internet and Higher Education, 8(4), 335-344.

Layton, J (2023). First Nations Youth: Experiences and outcomes in secondary and post-secondary learning. Statistics Canada. Retrieved from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/81-599-x/81-599-x2023001-eng.htm. Feb. 13, 2024.

Mamrick, M. (2005). The first-year seminar: An historical perspective. In The 2003 national survey on first-year seminars: Continuing innovations in the collegiate curriculum (pp. 15-45). University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

MacLean’s (2018). University Rankings. MacLean’s. https://www.macleans.ca/education/university-rankings/university-rankings-2018/

McComb, S., Jones, C., Smith, A., Collins, W., & Pope, B. (2016). Designing Incentives to Change Behaviors: Examining College Student Intent Toward Healthy Diets. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38(9), 1094–1113. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916644705

McLean-Meyinsse, P. E., Harris, E. G., Taylor, S. S., & Gager, J. V. (2013). Examining College Students’ Daily Consumption of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 44(1).

McPartlan, P., Rutherford, T., Rodriguez, F., Shaffer, J. F., & Holton, A. (2021). Modality motivation: Selection effects and motivational differences in students who choose to take courses online. The Internet and Higher Education, 49, 100793.

Miller, J., Janz, J., & Chen, C. (2007). The retention impact of a first-year seminar on students with varying pre-college academic performance. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 19(1), 47-62.

Munro, L. (2011). ‘Go Boldly, Dream Large!’: The Challenges Confronting Non-Traditional Students at University. Australian Journal of Education, 55(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/000494411105500203

Naylor, R., Baik, C., & Arkoudis, S. (2018). Identifying attrition risk based on the first-year experience. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(2), 328-342.

Norris, D., Baer, L., Leonard, J., Pugliese, L., & Lefrere, P. (2008). Action analytics: Measuring and improving performance that matters in higher education. EDUCAUSE review, 43(1), 42.

Prince, J. P. (2015). University student counseling and mental health in the United States: Trends and challenges. Mental Health & Prevention, 3(1), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhp.2015.03.001

Rosenthal, B., & Wilson, W. C. (2008). Mental Health Services: Use and Disparity Among Diverse College Students. Journal of American College Health, 57(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.3200/JACH.57.1.61-68

Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., & Liu, J. (2005). SCHOOL CLIMATE: Sense of classroom and school communities in online and on-campus higher education courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(4), 361-374.

Savenye, W.C. (2005). Improving Online Courses: What is Interaction and Why Use It? (Undetermined). Distance Learning, 2(6), 22-28

Schmidt, D., & Wartick, M. (2014). Performance in upper-level accounting courses: The case of transfer students. In Advances in accounting education: teaching and curriculum innovations. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Schnell, C., Louis, K., & Doetkott, C. (2003). The first-year seminar as a means of improving college graduation rates. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 15(1), 53-76.

Schroeter, C., Corder, T., Brookes, B., & Reller, V. (2021). An incentive-based health program using MyPlate: A pilot study analyzing college students’ dietary intake behavior. Journal of American College Health: J of ACH, 69(3), 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1661845

Sheldon, E., Simmonds-Buckley, M., Bone, C., Mascarenhas, T., Chan, N., Wincott, M., Gleeson, H., Sow, K., Hind, D., & Barkham, M. (2021). Prevalence and risk factors for mental health problems in university undergraduate students: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 287, 282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.03.054

Simpson, O. (2004). The impact on retention of interventions to support distance learning students. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 19(1), 79-95.

Slaten, C. D., Elison, Z. M., Deemer, E. D., Hughes, H. A., & Shemwell, D. A. (2018). The development and validation of the university belonging questionnaire. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(4), 633-651.

Smith, S. M., Brophy, & Daniels, S (2023). The ROI argument for SEM: It makes more than Cents. Strategic Enrolment Management Quarterly. 11 (3), 57-65.

Smith, S. M., Carter-Rogers, K., Norris, M. E., & Brophy, T. (2022). Students Starting University: Exploring Factors that Promote Success for First-Year International and Domestic Students. Frontiers in Education DOI: 10.3389/feduc.2022.779756

Sneyers, E., & De Witte, K. (2017). The effect of an academic dismissal policy on dropout, graduation rates and student satisfaction. Evidence from the Netherlands. Studies in Higher Education, 42(2), 354-389.

Song, L., Singleton, E. S., Hill, J. R., & Koh, M. H. (2004). Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics. The Internet and Higher Education,7(1), 59-70.

Statistics Canada (2010). Perspectives on Labour and Income. Retrieved from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-001-x/2010109/pdf/11341-eng.pdf Jan. 22, 2024.

Statistics Canada (2019). Student Debt from all Sources. Retrieved from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3710003601 March 3, 2024.

Statistics Canada (2022). Postsecondary graduates, by field of study, program type, credential type, and gender. Retrieved from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3710001201

Statistics Canada (2023). Postsecondary enrolments by field of study, registration status, program type, credential type, and gender. Retrieved from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3710001101. Feb. 13, 2024.

Tabvuma, V., Smith, S. M., Brophy, T., & Carter-Rogers, K. (2020). The impact of time management training on first-year students’ success. Presentation at the 39th Annual Conference on The First-Year Experience for the National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition Conference, Washington, DC

Tampke, D. R. (2013). Developing, implementing, and assessing an early alert system. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 14(4), 523-532.

Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition.  Second Edition. University of Chicago Press.

Usher, A. (2023). State of Post-Secondary Education in Canada. Higher Education Strategy Associates. Toronto ON. Retrieved from: https://higheredstrategy.com/spec-2023/ Jan. 22, 2024. 

Vaughan, A., Parra, J., & Lalonde, T. (2014). First-generation college student achievement and the first-year seminar: A quasi-experimental design. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 26(2), 51-67.

Xulu-Gama, N., Nhari, S. R., Alcock, A., & Cavanagh, M. (2018). A student-centred approach: A qualitative exploration of how students experience access and success in a South African University of Technology. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(6), 1302-1314.

York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S.  (2015).  Defining and measuring academic success. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 20.

You, J. W., & Kang, M. (2014) The role of academic emotions in the relationship between perceived academic control and self-regulated learning in online learning. Computers & Education, 77, 125-133.