John N. Gardner

To make immediate use of a “bottom line” big picture take-away from this American partner with the student success and “first-year experience” movement in Canada, upon a comprehensive review of this monograph which I hope you are really going to get into ….this is how I am thinking and will elaborate upon in this preface: How far we have come, and now we can go much further to advance student success in Canada.

In the spirit of an adage subscribed to by many higher educators: the following questions may be more important than the answers:

1. How much do you think you know about the extent of efforts and abilities of Canadian college and university educators to increase Canadian student success?
2. How much do you know about the unique needs and challenges Canadian students have as they enter and transition multiple times through post-secondary education?
3. Do you really think you know what is transpiring in the lives of Canadian first-year students and other students in transition?

If you can’t answer “I already know a great deal about this” you need to dig into this monograph. At the very least review the Table of Contents and check those topics to see which ones you are, or are not, really current on, what is being done, and needs to be done for even more Canadian higher education students.

Until I was invited to join the team that has produced this new 2024 monograph, I had not had a comparable opportunity to do this kind of quick update myself since 1997, when I was the only American on a predominantly Canadian author team looking at the status of the so called Canadian “First-Year Experience”. The 1997 work was entitled From Best Intentions to Best Practices: The First-Year Experience in Canadian Postsecondary Education. And unlike this new one, it was not published in Canada but instead by a US non-profit entity which I had founded at the University of South Carolina: the National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience and Students in Transition, which at that time, was the only option these Canadian educators had to publish their work on this topic.

And to fast forward, I am now so excited to see the progress made for supporting Canadian higher education’s first-year students and other students in transition, since this subject was last so comprehensively addressed in 1997. This is then to invite you to review and digest what this monograph reports as the current state of the art of effective practices to increase the probability of more Canadian college and university students being able to persist longer and graduate with the credentials they seek. And this is both an “art” and a “practice” that has been in development since the late 1970’s which I first identified at the University of Windsor, a process known as: “Studentship: The Art and Craft of Becoming a Successful University Student.” Thus, the very fact that Canada is attempting to improve its overall student success outcomes is not new at all. But what is new is the degree of sophistication and differentiation of such efforts to serve the ever increasingly diverse student population and their needs — many of which we have only recently discovered.

When I think of the most recent previous publication on this topic, some 28 years ago, I recall a day I really regretted the fact that my parents had not allowed me to become a Canadian! This was the day in February 1966 when my graduate school experience at Purdue University in Indiana was interrupted by the US government’s imposition on me of a mandatory physical and mental examination to determine my fitness to be conscripted by the US “draft” into service in the Vietnam War. This was the first time I had ever wanted to flunk an exam. Alas, I passed with flying colors and was found to be fit for induction into the US Army.

After leaving this processing center where my immediate fate had been determined I went to the Indianapolis bus terminal to catch a bus back up to West Lafayette, Indiana. I will never forget observing a family consisting of a mother holding a baby in her arms and four more small children in line with her waiting for her significant other to get off an arriving bus. I watched the father get off that bus and observed he was wearing the uniform of a US Navy seaman which told me exactly by looking at all his children when the fleet had been in. He was obviously someone who had been present at the conception and then had not returned until after the delivery. And I now feel this same way about this 2024 monograph. I was present for the one we produced in 1997 but largely absent from Canadian higher education practice until I was requested by the editorial leadership team that produced this monograph to join them for some conversations about producing what is now this monograph. So once again I am feeling like someone present at the conception but being absent until the delivery. And in like manner, now that the baby has been delivered, I am delighted.

Had my parents allowed me to become a Canadian citizen when I really did have that opportunity, I would have been freed from the obligation to be a cog in the wheel of this unjust war. From 1953-58 I did live in Canada by virtue of being a child of an American ex-patriate corporate executive who had moved his family to Canada during the period he was running an American corporate subsidiary in Canada. Although I had lived the required length of time to request Canadian citizenship status, my ethnocentric parents would not allow me to take any steps that would have altered my US citizenship. Of course, they could not have known in 1958 how the seeds of US foreign policy towards Vietnam would lead to the foreign policy disaster that would be very apparent by 1965 when I graduated from a US college and became eligible for the US draft.

So when I was drafted in 1966 all I had then instead of Canadian citizenship were my wonderful childhood memories of five good years living in Canada and especially of the extraordinarily beneficial education I received in Canada; and the perspectives I gained on how Americans like me were perceived in Canada; and how embracing Canadians were as individuals and in their government policy of immigrants in general—especially those who were freeing the repression by the Soviet Union of the unrest in Poland and Hungary in 1956.

I relate all this because, thankfully, my career as a U.S. university educator advanced sufficiently to enable me ultimately to have significant interaction with Canadian higher educators. Beginning in 1978, I have been determined to repay in some ways the educational gifts I had received from the gracious, accepting, tolerant, Canadians that had made me feel so welcome. And I would want the readers of this preface to know that I am no stranger to your institutional settings. I have visited approximately 25 Canadian tertiary institutions except those in Newfoundland, Labrador, and the Northwest Territories to help develop the Canadian First-Year Experience movement.

And now let us turn to the purposes of this monograph.

What most fundamentally are the purposes of this monograph?

This is best answered by those who produced this monograph, all of whom, excluding myself, are drawn from these nine Canadian universities:

Dalhousie University

Memorial University of Newfoundland

St. Francis Xavier University

Simon Fraser University

Saint Mary’s University

Thompson River University

University of New Brunswick

University of Toronto Scarborough

University of Windsor

            In the words of the authors of the monograph’s introductory chapter:

“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…

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 for action for stakeholders to prioritize first-year 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.”

For Whom was this Monograph Intended?

As you have just read, the authors have stated their intended audience is “student success professionals” for whom a “tool…to refine and improving their programming focused upon student success in Canadian higher education institutions” is being provided. However, and I want to particularly flag this potential audience: this monograph is “a call for action for stakeholders to prioritize first-year transition programming…….” The authors continued—very crucially I believe, to present this monograph as a “vehicle for greater collaboration between academic and student services colleagues.” And the authors specifically call for a truly national audience spanning “campuses, institutions, provinces, and territories.”

So here at the outset of this monograph I want to drive home that while yes, this monograph’s primary audience was originally intended to be higher education professionals who provide programming for first-year and other transition students, what we really have here is a work that is calling for a much wider audience, a partnership, spanning all those with a stake in Canadian student success. The portraits painted of Canadian student sub-populations, many of whose members really are at- risk, deserves to be better understood by the senior members of the Canadian academy. Beyond that scope, I will hope that some of my American colleagues will venture into what could be an enriching set of perspectives of their own students once they look at peers through the lens of this monograph’s expert researchers and practitioners.

Thus, it is my hope that this work will receive a wider audience than just the already converted—and I will offer specific suggestions in this preface as to how this monograph can and should be used to reach that wider audience. I am calling out then what I know was the aspiration of the author team to have a wider audience than an exclusive focus on “programming” practitioners (and I will address shortly just what is meant by this central concept of “programming.”) For all those who might read, listen and be receptive, this monograph is really a call for action and specific strategies to improve the success of Canadian higher education students. Please keep this in mind as you explore the contents of this monograph once I finish my efforts at context setting and advice on how to maximize a full appreciation and utilization of what this monograph has to offer.

Transitioning Now to Basic Concepts and Assumptions That Are Crucial to Fully Appreciating and Using this Monograph

This is a monograph about the Canadian models for two global higher education concepts that have become known as “FYE, “the First-Year Experience,” and “SIT,” “Students in Transition,” of which I am, and was, the creator during the period 1982-1995. These two concepts provide the conceptual foundation around which this monograph has been developed. And there is a third driving concept, that of “programming” which will be the conceptual framework and lens through which the experiences of Canadian students are being examined and targeted for improvement. Thus, an explication of these terms (FYE, SIT, and programming) is in order so readers of this important monograph can more fully appreciate what the authors are presenting, and calling for.

The First-Year Experience (FYE)

The use of this terminology and concept was coined by yours truly in 1982 when I was a tenured full professor at the University of South Carolina responsible for developing and leading two initiatives: 1) a three-credit, academic, course for first-year students known as “University 101, the Student in the University”; and a professional development series of conferences offered from 1982 to the present, known as “The Freshman Year Experience.” The term “freshman” was deleted from our official lexicon in 1998 to free it of its sexist implications and this phraseology thus became “the first-year experience.” This important change in language had been encouraged for more than 15 years by Canadian educators, beginning actually with the student newspaper of Western University Canada in 1983. For the purposes of this monograph, this phrase and its resulting acronym, “FYE,” have multiple meanings, whereby first-year experience designates:

1. The totality of everything that the student experiences during his/her period initial entry into a new institutional context. These experiences include those that were intentionally designed for them as part of the formal/official part of being a new student to higher education and those that occur spontaneously, naturally, and informally.
2. An institutional philosophy that when translated into practice is to demonstrate that new students are indeed important, have dignity and merit, should be treated with respect, and provided with all the support they need to fulfill their potential to succeed in higher education; no matter what their previous positions or attributes were in the larger society’s social stratification system.
3. A specific PROGRAM, intervention, activity, experience, either required or optional, that is designed and offered by the institution to promote the success of its new, first-year, students. The most ubiquitous single word for such entities became “program,” which in turn offered either “programming” or academic, credit bearing, learning experiences.
4. A specific, academic, credit bearing “course” designed to facilitate successful adjustment into higher education. The best known such course and gold standard for the genre is the University 101 course at the University of South Carolina, which has replicated versions in Canada. In the lexicon of higher education these courses are known as first-year seminars, student success courses, college success courses, new student seminars, “FYE courses” and variations on these more common designations. Such courses have existed in the US since the 1880’s and in Canada since the 1970’s. They are found in all types of post-secondary institutions. Some institutions also offer such coursework for first-term transfer students. And this course model has been adapted to focus on other important, student transition periods, such as the departing student experience as they complete an undergraduate degree, designated as “University 401”, Senior-Year Experience, Senior Capstone, etc. Alternatively, such coursework may be designated generically as “transition courses.” The first-year seminar has been replicated in multiple countries outside North America as a component of what is increasingly being categorized as the global student success movement.
5. A series of professional development conferences offered to help higher educators increase first-year student success, offered in Canada since 1984. As such they are referred to as “The First-Year Experience” or the “Canadian/American First-Year Experience.”
6. A globally focused higher education professional development and research center based at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina; founded by yours truly in 1987 and designated as The National Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
7. A registered trademark that applies to intellectual property and is owned and put into global practice by the University of South Carolina. However, the phrase itself and its acronym are widely and freely used by many other parties and institutions for non-proprietary purposes which was part of the reason I coined this terminology, registered the mark, and put it in use in 1982.

Students in Transition (SIT)

As the philosophy and practices associated with “the first-year experience” spread globally in the 1980’s and first half of the 1990’s, many tertiary institutions began adapting the philosophy, concepts, programming, interventions, and courses inherent in those efforts to increase first-year students to other undergraduate student populations during their unique transition periods:

• Second-year (sophomore) students
• Transfer Students
• Senior Year/Graduating students—a focus dubbed “The Senior-Year Experience”
• First-generation students
• Residential students
• Commuter students
• Part-time students
• On-line students

And a much longer list of differentiating student sub-populations who had this in common: they were having a unique transition experience as they moved through undergraduate education that was not one generic to all undergraduate students; an experience that if not appropriately understood, supported, honored, and respected might not result in successful student persistence, learning, satisfaction, and desired credential attainment. What all these students had in common was that they were “students in transition.” The question then became what “transitions” did institutions of higher learning have to go through to better serve “students in transition?” And that is still the question driving the content of this monograph.

It was discovered during the period 1982-1995 that the kinds of faculty, academic administrators, student services professionals, researchers, student advocates, who cared about the success of entering students also had additional interests in serving and supporting other types of undergraduate sub populations. Seeing this evolution and expansion of interest in student success, I, as the host and organizer of the first-year experience conferences, saw that what we had here was a cadre of higher educators who were often even more interested in other student transitions beyond the first year. And it became obvious that the common glue here was this focus on student sub-populations that were students with a unique, but common transition experience. Hence these were “students in transition.”

It became even more obvious there were many more common student transitions that we had been neglecting. Therefore, my epiphany became that what we needed to offer were professional development experiences for educators focused on “Students in Transition.” As a result, beginning in 1995 the Center that I founded at the University of South Carolina began offering an annual meeting (and still does) entitled “Students in Transition”–“SIT.” And relatively soon the US and then Canadian higher ed cultures began targeting “students in transition” with SIT programming. And that is exactly what you will see laid out for you in this monograph in a truly helpful and compelling fashion.

The Core Concept of “Programming:” Just What Does it Mean and How Are We Using it in Practice?

Because the central thesis of this monograph focuses on what is known in the Canadian and American academy as “programming” it is essential that our readers understand what this concept means. The contributors are demonstrating the positive benefits to Canadian higher education students who participate in programming. But while this concept is well known to student services professionals, in my experience, it is not one which traditional academic faculty and administrators either have familiarity or experience. This is too bad because the practice of programming could enhance traditional academic pedagogy and an understanding of which would help academic leaders and decision makers better grasp what students need to be more successful overall.

“Programming” is likely a term and concept that Canadian student services professionals have borrowed from US higher education, particularly from the profession known as “student affairs” or “student personnel services.” In both countries when this concept is used it is usually not explained to those outside the profession exactly what they mean by such terminology. Unfortunately, it is not a term that readily translates into work of the professoriate and is rarely defined by those who use it.

“Programming” is a pervasive concept that applies to deliberate efforts by non-faculty educators to create and deliver learning experiences that are outside the academic curriculum, but which are ultimately designed to support overall student academic success and learning. These are activities which involve active learning behaviors to increase active (as opposed to passive) engagement. Students are encouraged or asked to “do” things in the context of interacting with each other and with staff. They are encouraged to reflect upon the meaning of what they are being asked to do and to apply what they are learning to actual situations and choices they are making in their real lives both within and outside the formal academic curriculum. Thus, students often can and do receive “instruction” in programming activities through actual “presentations” and other didactic means. But usually, the instruction is in more practical and applied skills areas. While programming may involve individual student problems, issues, behaviors, choices, programming is usually conducted in groups.

Programming-based learning experiences are usually not offered for academic, degree applicable credit. However, “programming” activities could be and occasionally are incorporated into credit bearing courses. Usually students are not “graded” (given “marks”) for what they do in programming activities, but they could be. What I am describing are the more common applications of “programming,” but it must be recognized that there is great variation in such activities. What is common though is that the goals of those who provide “programming” is for students to learn something of value to themselves, to the institution, to the larger society.

Programming is designed to be learning in low stakes, supportive environments and in contexts where there are not significant penalties (albeit missed opportunities ) for non-exemplary attainment of the desired goals for the programming. Thus, programming is seen as a kind of hopefully non-threatening, low risk, high potential gain for students to learn the so-called “soft skills.” Programming is often designed so that students have “fun” and learn at the same time. Programming may also be used as a form of entertainment and recreation. And programming places a high premium on personal and social interaction.

Most importantly for this monograph’s purposes, it is believed that programming, when successful, increases student engagement, learning, satisfaction, social adjustment and acclimation, stress reduction, and commitment to the college or university. Hence much of the content of this monograph pertains to programming for new students and other students in predictable and often challenging transition phases during collegiate life, that if engaged in will increase student success. Providers of programming would argue that students who engage in such are more likely to increase their sense of belonging and commitment to the institution and hence to be more likely to be retained and graduate. Providers also maintain that such activities provide a support group and facilitate friendship formation, reduce social isolation and anxiety.

As you will find in this monograph, the most common and important programming approach to better serving these students is to make sure they experience a “support group” of peers who are in a comparable, significant, stressful, transition, common to all the group members, a group which is facilitated by someone who has experienced and survived, and preferably flourished, in and through that exact same transition. And that is still the concept driving the content of this monograph.

This monograph documents the effectiveness of such programming activities. As the chapters in this monograph demonstrate, “programming” provides students with vital information they are usually not receiving in the formal academic curriculum or in academic advising. Such activities are designed to promote healthy and more effective decision making.

Possible Ways to Maximize Use of this Monograph

1. Think of whom on your campus should have a copy of the monograph in its entirety and provide it for them. Seeing as this publication is available at no charge there is no cost inhibitor.
2. Take a look at the Table of Contents. Who in the faculty and staff at your college or university do you think might really benefit from reading on any particular topic for both information and inspiration? I have received both benefits from every chapter in this work.
3. Who are the senior officers, decision makers, resource allocators, student success advocates, who really could be enlightened and, hopefully, motivated to take some actions after considering the arguments and information put forth in this monograph. For example, I would definitely hope this work could be seen and considered by institutional chief executive and chief academic officers; and leaders of respective “faculties” and faculty bodies such as faculty senates/legislative and policy making bodies.
4. This book would be an excellent facilitation tool and guide for an institution-wide summit meeting or campus planning retreat at both micro and macro levels of the institution.
5. Based on an experience I had in 2021 with a book I produced on how to improve transfer student performance, I saw real momentum generated in a US statewide university system when the system adopted the book for a “book club.” That’s right, just as in the non-professional/personal book club format, you get interested people together and they get together on a scheduled basis to discuss the book and its implications for application and improvement at your institution.
6. Take some of the specific topics of this monograph and see what it would take to produce a comparable paper or report on the same topic that would be both descriptive and proscriptive for improvement actions at your institution. What would be your college or university’s “story” about that exact same topic of your choice: for example, history and treatment of indigenous students “in a time of reconciliation, decolonization, and Indigenization.” And/or “Breaking Ground” for improving “Black Student Transitions.” And/or for “Mainstreaming Upstreaming Mental Health in the First-Year Curriculum.” And/or “First-Year Programs of Support for International Students.” And/or “The Role of Pedagogy in the Evolution of First-Year Experience Programming.” Take your pick of this monograph’s challenging options.
7. Conduct a “self-study” of the current status of “The First-Year Experience” and/or “Students in Transition” of your institution. What would your “story” be?
8. Make every effort possible to create study/action groups composed of multiple campus constituencies who could add many different insights into the experiences of your relevant student populations: this could include students themselves; representatives of Student Government associations; teaching faculty drawn from multiple faculties; academic and student services administrators, and others.
9. Conduct a “a policy audit” whereby you collect and inventory your specific institutional polices, regulations, etc., pertaining to these specific populations. When were these policies developed and how long has it been since they were revisited?
10. What is your institution’s history in terms of previous studies that may have been done of the needs, experiences, outcomes for these student populations? When were they conducted? And by whom? And with what recommendations? And what is the status of said recommendations? And how could this monograph serve as a model for your institution in an important self-assessment, planning and action process?

A Reader’s Guide and Quick Digest of this Monograph’s Coming Attractions to Which I Call Particular Attention

Once I got into this monograph, I just couldn’t put it down, metaphorically speaking. Often its contributors made me realize that even though I am a scholar, researcher, thought leader, and practitioner with 58 years of professional experience in the global student success movement, there is still so much I don’t know (but need to know) that these monograph contributors do know. They have helped to expand my knowledge. The data gleaned from the research on which this monograph is based yielded rich and actionable insights. The literature reviews were comprehensive, and each chapter was both values-based and data driven. Now, I definitely know much more about the current status of the first-year experience and students in transition in Canada. In so many ways this is truly a Canadian success story as you will now see for yourselves.

Finally, for those of you not able to commit to reading the full monograph, I urge you to not fall into the habit of only reading the chapters in areas you feel comfortable in reading, but to read outside your comfort and normal positional interest.  Our students are multifaceted, so too should our understanding and knowledge base.  Read – Reflect – Rejuvenate – Revise.

To get started:

Chapter One First-Year Experience and Students in Transition Programming in Canada: Where are We Now?

Don’t miss:

• See how “the times have changed”
• What a difference Canada’s doubling over 40 years its number of higher education students has made
• The significant difference in how sub-populations are faring
• The first shout-out of the monograph for the prioritization of student mental health challenges
• The admonition that the concept of “at-risk” is not “monolithic” and instead manifests in many different forms for different populations
• An admission of the need for more and better assessment of the kinds of interventions needed by Canadian students

Chapter Two: Results of a Pan-Canadian Survey of First Year Experience and Students in Transition Programming 

Chapter Three: Orientation Programming in Canada

Don’t miss:

• The chapter opening’s comprehensive definition of “orientation.” I suggest readers compare it with their own PSI operational definition of orientation; and if they don’t have one, then this one could be used as a jumping off point. This definition has three virtues: 1) stating why orientation matters; 2) who it is for; and 3) what it may include.
• The chapter’s history of orientation “overall and within Canada.” This is a necessary context for understanding the present. For better or worse the US plays a starring role in the “overall.” It is my hope that a future edition of this monograph will present only the Canadian context which is what matters most.
• The origins of orientation in Canada in the 60’s and 70’s before becoming professionalized rested on this function being provided by “student government…in many cases was motivated by trying to get students involved in special causes…” Readers were not informed however, but I will fill this gap by pointing out that this practice of student government associations leading orientation was and still is a long exercised function of UK Students Unions and elsewhere in Europe. And I like very much this notion of students being introduced by students to “causes!”
• Noting could be more different from orientation in the Canada than the US than this chapter’s important acknowledgement of the role immigration plays in offsetting population declines of the larger Canadian population and hence the importance of orientation in introducing the PSI aspects of the Canadian culture. As chapter 11 just ahead will point out in such fascinating detail, how PSI’s in any culture design student success interventions and why, reveals much about the value systems of the given national culture—in this case Canada.
• “I forgive the history in this chapter for omitting the role the University of Windsor played in 1978 under the leadership of its Dean of Students, Kenneth Long, in creating the first course-like process of orientation delivered in classes as part of a course titled very appropriately “Studentship: The Art and Craft of Becoming a Successful Student.”
• The Chapter’s interesting uses and comparisons of data gleaned from two surveys of orientation practices in 2016 and the survey for this monograph in 2022-23. I found the tables of areas of focus for orientation programming and their illustrations of which issues and concerns getting more or less attention over a six-to-seven-year period to be deserving of our readers to be fascinating. And I think our readers need to ask themselves what is going on here? Why for example should we be paying less attention to the needs of transfer students in 2023 than in 2016, yet dramatically more attention, thankfully, to the needs of students of colour? Also on a very positive note, good news about greater efforts being directed to indigenous students, students with disabilities, and to the need for more gender-based or sexual violence-based programming.
• The comparison between Canadian and US offering of so-called ‘first-year transition seminars/courses (57% vs 77%)
• Three cheers for Canadian higher education reaching this distinction as reported by the Chapter author, Tom Brophy: “The diversity of programming is certainly reflective of the Canadian culture of inclusion…..”
• The particularly interesting predictions from the author for what changes in orientation we may expect over the next 25 years. Readers should contemplate these and consider which ones should they be working harder to fulfill—as well as perhaps other or differing predictions they might want to offer—an interesting and surely a provocative exercise.
• The fact that the chapter joins the ranks of many pundits in venturing a prediction about the uses of AI necessitating orientation professionals (and faculty I would add) to be sure to connect this to the need to practice academic integrity and how to do so.
• “The offering somewhat indirectly of the notion of students as “clients” and hence the growing belief by some that students could and should be supported by CRM, client related management software.
• The surprising finding that only (my addition) “43% of PSI’s provide career advising programs. I am curious as to why this isn’t reported as 100%.
• The compelling argument that Canadian orientation professionals take into consideration as undergirding rationale for the content of orientation programming “the top seven reasons new students cite in attending universities in Canada.” If a reader were to take away only this point from this comprehensive description of such an important but often taken for granted function (orientation) then this chapter has all been worthwhile for such a reader.
• The striking under emphasis (say compared to the US) of examining the impact of orientation programming on retention. It is almost hard for me to believe this little amount of attention paid to this outcome. This confirms for me we still are two different countries, mostly in YOUR favor!
• And finally, an excellent and succinct summary of the generic factors that “will continue to shift and evolve….the landscape of orientation programming.” Readers of course need to identify the factors that they will pay the most attention to with special emphasis on what is known as opposed to what is unknown and more speculative.

Chapter Four: Mainstreaming Upstreaming: Mental Health in the First-Year Curriculum

Don’t miss:

• This compelling review of “the progressive and substantive decline” of “the mental well-being of Canadian post-secondary students”
• Compounded by loneliness and social isolation—even higher for younger women and members of the 2SLGBTQIA+ orientated students
• Notable manifestations in sub-populations
• Patterns in rates of treatment utilizations and related barriers to treatment
• Students “not seeking treatment because they are not recognizing stress and not having enough time”
• Making sense out of disturbing data
• Making the needed case for prevention and what can be done by embedding efforts in the curriculum

Chapter Five: First-Year Programs of Support for International Students in Canada

Don’t miss:

• Implications from tremendous growth of this population and impacts of new federal caps on amounts of cash students must be able to access
• Complexity of the maze differing federal vs provincial responsibilities for this population and mix of stakeholders on and off campus
• Canadian government policy shifts perceived as confusing and unwelcoming
• Lack of a Canadian “benchmark” for levels of support that should be provided
• What makes these students considered as “vulnerable youth” and “vulnerable newcomers”
• A comprehensive catalog of the array of services needed to support international first-year students: how do you compare with this?
• A provider of support NOT found in the US: students’ unions and associations
• “Fossilized institutional policies”

Chapter Six: Indigenous First-Year Experiences in a Time of Reconciliation, Decolonization, and Indigenization

Don’t miss:

• The entire chapter which addresses a huge deficit in the previous 1997 monograph: woefully inadequate attention to Canada’s Indigenous first-year students, a sign of those times vs now.
• A masterfully comprehensive guide to understanding this population’s status, needs, and current Canadian efforts to address. This is an excellent “primer” that deserves a much wider audience.
• Fascinating differentiation between how differently Indigenous students may define “student success”– made me wonder how both Canada and the US might be different if all our students linked their success to “giving back to their communities….”
• How a “Wholistic Framework” if applied to any sub-population might greatly improve our understanding of and designed interventions for said population
• A guide to our better understanding of who are Indigenous students and their demographics and what that suggests needs to be aligned with policy, programs and practices
• Notable contrasts in programming as a function of what types of educational units and educators drive such initiatives
• Much of what you need to know but may never have asked about: when programming is provided, how are programs evaluated, retention rates, policies that matter for supporting access, important elements of first-year Indigenous students experiences in their first year of higher education
• Using as a lens to give this population its due the concept of “the next 7 generations of Indigenous learners”—and possibly encouraging educators to consider now this model could be adapted to non-indigenous students.

Chapter Seven: 2SLGBTQIA+First-Year Programming in Canadian Post-Secondary Institutions: Insights and Future Directions in Research, Policy, and Practice

Don’t miss:

• The challenge: these students manifest “disparities in mental health and academic performance,” higher first-year attrition rates, and overall “disproportionately lower retention rates compared to their non-2SLGBTQIA+ peers”
• Integrating three theoretical perspectives—ecological systems, student development, and minority stress.”
• Shocking (to me) gaps between Canadian institutions that do offer programming focused on onboarding and transition support for these students versus those do not offer anything at all.
• The profound conclusion that: “the onus of curating an inclusive campus environment falls on student leaders rather than the institutions themselves.” Where would we be without our students doing what matters most to the success of other students?
• What kinds of programming are most needed
• “Students in Canada who perceive their campus climate to be diverse have been shown to report higher levels of “belonging”.
• There is an inescapable conclusion from examining the chapter’s research and data presented that the culture and organization of higher education institutions is significantly biased in favor of non-2SLGBTQIA+ students. Straight higher educators cannot read enough to fully persuade them of this and its implications for student success. Again, this is an excellent primer.

Chapter Eight: Breaking Ground: Black Student Transitions in Canadian Higher Education

Don’t miss:

• An optimistic perspective noting “significant strides have been made….” but systemic barriers and oppressive cultural norms still drive disparities
• The valuable insights of the nature and status of the first-year Black student experience drawn from students in Ontario and Nova Scotia
• Four principles of Black flourishing and the need to address the status of anti-Black racism in Canada—with differences noted from the U.S.
• A valuable compendium of multiple research and data collection models and of types of programming models to respond to student needs
• Includes also examination of the “state of Black staff members” and their “invisible labor.”
• “Important differences between international and domestic students
• The need for “racial oases” and other space considerations
• With respect to this population research for this monograph demonstrates that the “ground” is beyond a need for “breaking” and towards that this chapter provides other explicit, helpful, important recommendations

Chapter Nine: Accessibility and The First-Year University Experience of Students with Disabilities: Current Trends, Achievements, and Concern

Don’t miss:

• Noting the realities and challenges of the significantly varied provincial policy approaches to this critical population and the “divergent and contradictory funding models”
• A needed primer on the evolution of the definition of disability
• Importance of understanding “the Global North” and “entering “a post-industrial phase” and the notion of a “human rights safety net that avoids the worst occurrences of discrimination”
• The dichotomy between accessibility and EDI—disappointing news about a potential synergy not realized
• Commentary on the impacts of the focus on social justice
• Important survey finding which you need to grasp—especially about the absence of specific programming
• What we don’t know but need to
• Connecting the disabilities focus to issues of mental health, student transition, lack of agency for persons with disabilities to influence the management of services, and tensions with intersectionality
• Overall, a wonderful primer on this population that concludes optimistically “now count significantly as a voice across campuses….”

Chapter Ten: A Comparative View of the Post-Secondary First-Year Student Transition Programming

Don’t miss

• This fascinating examination of how important it is for North American higher educators to make efforts to experience higher education outside the normal national and cultural contexts in which we live and work. This was a stroke of editorial genius for the creators of this monograph to include these perspectives.
• A new lens to view our higher education culture can be provided for you as it was for me by this chapter’s presentation of three models: 1) The Confucian Model’s “emphasis on memorization and moral education; 2) the Socratic method “prioritizing critical thinking, questioning and dialogue; 3) a hybrid model “that integrates both the aforementioned approaches.
• Contrary to the negative perceptions of Chinese efforts to compete with the West, this chapter provides a portrait of Chinese efforts to support new students that will impress and surprise you.
• Distinctly different cultural expectations that shape higher education are presented from Australia, Finland, Germany, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Sweden.
• A case study is provided based on Cape Peninsula Institute of Technology, in Cape Town South Africa, which the reader needs to remember describes a public university approximately 30 years post -apartheid.
• For any reader for whom this hasn’t sunk in yet, the nature of any country’s government policies towards higher education students and the dominant cultural values are essential to understand one’s own country, in this case, not in South Africa but in Canada—and I would argue from my unique cross-cultural perspective, the United States. And that U.S. culture matters as well because of its profound and uninvited influences on Canadian higher education.
• Spoiler alert: Don’t miss the chapter’s conclusion after looking at non-Canadian cultures about what constitutes “the core of international FYE practices,” some of which are currently in place at Canadian colleges and universities.
• Finally, the chapter concludes with an admonition directed specifically and solely to student affairs professionals, which I believe is a reason for a wider audience of Canadians to absorb the information presented in this monograph namely, that they “be open to the ways colleagues from across the world are supporting the success and transition of first-year students
• Thus, readers, while the central thrust of this monograph’s content is Canadian, it is really global.

Chapter Eleven: Supporting Co-Curricular Design Through Social Learning Approaches in the Evolution of First Year Planning

Don’t miss:

• ”The curse of knowledge”—best explanation I have ever seen about “the fact that educators cannot forget what they already know and what they experienced as students!”
• The excellent, succinct history of how the U.S. based “FYE movement became mainstream…” and thus impacted Canadian higher education
• Important Canadian national data on different models of “FYE” courses in Canada
• The very important argument for “a somewhat rarer approach, and the one that will be the focus of this chapter…the integration of student success programming into required first-year courses”
• The “friction” between “fulfilling the goal of the colleges and universities of enforcing ‘academic rigor” with “integrating student success skills into the course content…”
• “Impediments to adapting an American course model to the Canadian context
• “A “modular” compromise developed at St. Mary’s University
• Models for increasing faculty engagement: Communities of Practice and Faculty Learning Communities
• “Linking FYE programming innovation to SEM (Strategic Enrollment Management)” and realizing increased student retention by infusion of FYE content and processes in Introduction to Business Management courses
• The challenges of institutionalizing FYE type innovations
• The future needs to test out the longer-term merits of integrating co-curricular content and process into conventional first-year academic courses

Chapter Twelve: Evaluating Impact of First-Year Experience Programs in Canadian Higher Education 

Don’t miss:

• This excellent primer on assessment principles and practices
• The striking contrast between the reported expectations that entering students bring with them compared to the challenges they actually incur
• The significant indicators of stress encountered by Canadian students
• The 5 Senses of Success Framework
• Obstacles to performing needed assessments
• The importance of incorporating “socially just” practices into assessment
• Best predictors of retention
• Important uses and mapping of student learning outcomes

Chapter Thirteen: Looking Ahead to the Next Ten Years

Please DO MISS the temptation to jump to the conclusion to discover the major take aways from this work.  You will get much more out of it if you have read what preceded it! So consider practicing deferred gratification—and then:

Don’t miss:

• Our monograph editorial leaders’ considerations of “what might come next” in terms of program development to enhance retention in Canadian higher education
• The acute need to address what still is “a dearth of programs that especially engage Black students in light of their “well founded lack of trust in Post-Secondary Institutions.” This includes zeroing in on what most needs to be done to address this “lack of trust.”
• The continuing need for a high priority for the emphasis on mental health related to the “lingering impacts” of the pandemic—and not only for the mental health of the students but of higher educators themselves as seen through the lens of “work-life balance.”
• The need for more higher educators who “represent the similar lived experiences” to those of Indigenous, Black, 2SLGBTQIA students and those with disabilities
• The need for a “national standard” to be congruent with human rights legislation that attends to “effective ways to develop and deliver programming for students who have accessibility need.” This must be based on the caveat that the “starting point” for such a standard is what we “hear from the students to better understand their needs.”
• A clarion call to break down the silos that are “arbitrarily split in the academic and non-academic sides of the house.”
• The “urgent” need for assessment that yields “data informed programming.”
• The expected continuing growth of the 2SLGBTQIA and other “equity denied groups” moving from a “stage of tokenism” to “environment of true inclusion.”
• And in case it hadn’t already sunk from your reading of the chapter on the indigenous students’ experience, the important reminding conclusion for the need for “indigenizing and decolonizing Post-Secondary Institutions.”
• Needed actions based on the compelling fact that “recent developments have dropped the veil on how truly important international students are….”
• An important call out to a convergence of other factors also impinging on the adequacy of programs for first-year and other students in transition: funding pressures; the increasing roles of student governments, changes to immigration policies, and overall the critical need to “own our histories, mistakes, deficits….and truly start working on meaningful, sustainable, and measurable change.
• A concluding return to the overarching case this monograph makes is that what is presented herein is really for ALL Canadian higher educators who want to intentionally take actions that will increase student success for ALL Canadian PSI students.  Thus, while the monograph content addresses the needs for and extent of delivery of student services “programming,” the substance of this monograph is not just about students’ needs and the role of Student Services in responding thereto. The publication is much more about the status of the Canadian student experience writ large. These writers have provided both throughout the monograph and in this concluding chapter a manifesto for what is truly in the national interests of Canada.

Preface Final Thoughts from This Cross-Border Observer and Critical Friend:

Since I first had the opportunity in 1978 to learn of and support efforts in my “could have been but wasn’t to be” country of Canada, this has been a very meaningful professional and personal commitment of mine. Over this 47-year period I have seen tremendous strides in trans Canada efforts to make its new higher education students and all those in transition more successful than they might otherwise have been without the benefits of the kinds of “programming” described in this monograph. A truly substantial foundation has been laid for even more successful educational efforts to support student success. I have unqualified optimism that Canadian higher education can, must, and will become even more supportive of its students to help them more fully actualize their potential to help Canada fulfill its own future to have an ever-improving way of life that I, as your cross-border colleague, could only dream of. This monograph describes how more of your students’ dreams are being made to come true. Thus, as an American, I find this monograph a stand-out compelling Canadian contribution to the developing literature of the global student success movement.

I sincerely thank the individuals who have been the guiding forces behind the production of this monograph for allowing me to join them in this important undertaking. My final concluding thoughts are that this work on the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition in Canada has become truly and fully “Canadianized” and thank goodness for that. You own it. And now move on by reading this monograph and see what you have created, and also what even more you can now do. All you need is the will and the continuing efforts in these directions.