Key Characteristics of the Instrument
As part of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), The Freshman Survey collects data on approximately 11 million entering college students at 1,800 institutions in the United States ("CIRP: About CIRP," 2004, para. 1). Established in 1966 by the American Council on Education, The Freshman Survey is now administered at the Higher Educational Research Institute.
The data collected by CIRP can be used to compare current entering freshmen to previous first-year classes. On its own, the Freshman Survey simply describes entering students. The results measure population characteristics (e.g., age, race, income, religion), students’ expectations of their college experiences, secondary school experiences, degree goals and future plans, as well as perceptions of college finances, attitudes, values, lifestyles, and reasons for attending college ("CIRP: The Survey Instrument," 2004, para. 1). However, when combined with another instrument, it provides a baseline of information for comparison purposes.
Who Might Find It Worthwhile?
The Freshman Survey is useful to a number of constituencies. The instrument provides valuable student profiles that are beneficial on a number of levels. Academic affairs personnel might use profile data for program review, assessment, accreditation, and the development of early intervention programs. Faculty could use data about academic abilities, self-confidence, and intellectual background for course and curricula development. For example, questions ask respondents to rate themselves on pedagogical strategies. These data are reported as averages for an entering class. The instrument could aid department chairs in working with faculty on designing courses that fit student characteristics and expectations. Faculty might find it useful to know why students chose their college, through responses such as: "My parents wanted me to go," "I could not find a job," and "To make me a more cultured person." The survey results could inform enrollment services in their admission and recruitment efforts (e.g., characteristics relative to marketing a college or university such as: distance of the campus from home, grade point average in high school, and college entrance exam scores).
Institutional researchers would likely find the data helpful for retention, assessment, and longitudinal studies of class profiles, and to evaluate their students against others at peer institutions (e.g., pre-college students’ characteristics useful for retention purposes).
How might the data be used to measure the impact of a liberal arts education?
Students enter college with a set of qualities we refer to as "inputs." This section reviews how CIRP could be used to measure those educational inputs (Astin, 1991). This instrument does not assess students’ educational experiences or capture how they have been transformed by the end of their studies. The Freshman Survey would need to be used in tandem with another instrument, which could be administered at the end of their educational experience to gain a sense of how they have changed over time. One instrument that is commonly used in conjunction with CIRP is the College Student Survey (CSS), which can be administered at the end of the student’s senior year.
The Freshman Survey provides a snap-shot of student's characteristics when they enter college, which is useful for understanding their background as they begin the college experience. Forty questions provide self-reported data on academic preparation, socio-economic status, demographics, opinions, beliefs, behaviors, and expectations of the college experience. Developing a profile of students at entry enhances an institution’s ability to provide resources in areas of student need, hence helping to better shape students’ college experiences in all points of contact with the institution (e.g., socialization programs, student activities, classroom experience, etc.).
Data Collection Methods
Data are collected as freshmen full-time students enter college. The survey is typically administered by professionals in a supervised setting, during orientation. Respondents are allotted one hour to complete the survey, although many complete it in thirty to forty minutes. Completed surveys are sent back to the Higher Education Research Institute in Los Angeles, CA for processing and initial analysis. The instrument is four pages with forty questions and numerous subquestions. Institutions are able to add up to twenty-one questions, which can be designed to fit their needs. The cost is $400 plus a $1.50 fee per returned survey for the first 1,000 surveys, and $1.00 thereafter ("CIRP," 2004). Institutions purchase their own data file, which is also available electronically. However, there is an option to receive the summarized results only, which may be an option that appeals to smaller institutions with fewer institutional research resources.
How Widely Is It Distributed?
The instrument is used at 1,800 higher education institutions, and is administered to approximately 11 million students ("CIRP: About CIRP," para. 1). The Freshman Survey is made available in mid-March each year, although revisions are made annually. Most questions are maintained to allow for comparison across entering classes.
What Can the Freshman Survey Offer?
Since 1966, questions repeated from year to year are used to assess trends and to better understand how student profiles change over time. The survey data provides a current profile of the entering student population’s self-reported academic preparation, socio-economic status, population characteristics, opinions, beliefs, behaviors, and expectations. These data may be tracked over time and used for long-term analysis of entering students. If students consent, individual data may be used with other data, such as grade point average or other survey instruments that contain similar constructs for a longitudinal perspective. The data are commonly used in combination with the College Student Survey (CSS) given to seniors, for long-term analysis. Moreover, the data set may be used to test conceptual frameworks, such as those which examine college choice, retention, and the like. Understanding students and their self-concepts at entry is critical to assessing the effect college has on students. Since the CIRP only examines inputs of the educational process, and because measurement is taken at the entry-point, it cannot assess liberal arts outcomes.
Shortcomings
Questions are closed-ended, which means that respondents are unable to comment or provide additional information that is not part of the original question. Because the instrument covers many topics, it is difficult to ask about any one area in-depth. For example, one question about promoting racial understanding may not be sufficient; diversity is such a complex concept that several questions about this topic would be more effective and thorough.
The way students interpret the wording of questions may have changed since the original administering of the survey in 1966. Therefore, without revision, some may no longer be as relevant as they were initially. In addition, qualitative research to support question development, which examines deeper explanations of racial and gender issues related to higher learning constructs, would strengthen the instrument.
Some schools have trouble getting students to participate or take it seriously, a problem that is common to many assessments. The one hour length may fatigue respondents, and the inability to administer the instrument electronically may be limiting for some. Since data are collected once, it cannot measure change over time. One solution is to administer the CSS in conjunction with the CIRP in order to measure changes in students over the course of their college experience.
Sample Using CIRP
The Freshman Survey has been used by many types of institutions across the United States. For example, the CIRP and CSS were administered at Montclaire State University (MSU) ("Introducing Montclair State University’s," 2004, para. 1). MSU compared their data to comparable institutional types (4-year, medium-selective, public institutions) and found differences among MSU students and comparable groups in the national sample. For example, 25% of MSU’s entering freshmen reported coming in with a grade point average in the A-range; the national average was 35% (para. 2).
From The Freshman Survey, MSU also learned that their students closely resembled the national average in terms of amount of time spent studying, socializing, working for pay, volunteering, watching TV, and playing computer games ("Introducing Montclair State University’s," 2004, Table 2). The majority of students spent less than five hours per week studying and doing homework, which suggests student disengagement in academics (para. 3). MSU also learned that students at their campus are above the national average in participation in student groups (para. 5).
Eighty percent of students reported that they study with other students frequently or occasionally ("Introducing Montclair State University’s," 2004, para. 8). Over 75% of freshmen reported frequent socialization with someone of another racial/ethnic group, which was significantly larger than the 64.2% at similar institution types nationwide (para. 8). Similar to the national average, women tended to feel more overwhelmed than men; 37.9% to 20.3% respectively (para. 9). MSU students also mirrored the national average in terms of reported levels of academic self-confidence (para. 12).
References
Annotated Bibliography
Astin, A. W. (1993). An empirical typology of college students. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 36-46. The article suggests that using CIRP data to create student typologies for placement and individualization for treatment would allow colleges and universities to create useful devices for record keeping and resource allocation. Administrators, Faculty Chairs and University Financial Aid offices may find this article particularly helpful.
Glynn, J. G., Sauer, P. L. & Miller, T. E. (2003). Signaling student retention with prematriculation data. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 41-63. This article used a survey which included portions of the CIRP instrument to provide information to enhance early identification of freshmen at risk of attrition. This article would be helpful to college and university advisors and early intervention personnel.
Kezar, A., & Moriarty, D. (2000). Expanding our understanding of leadership development: A case study exploring gender and ethnic identity. NASPA Journal, 41(1), 55-69. This article uses the CIRP 1987 Freshman Survey and 1991 Follow up to suggest that different strategies are necessary for the development of leadership among a diverse group of students. Student life and development personnel may find this article interesting.