Untitled

Assessing the Alignment of Preparatory Year Program Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements
with First-Year Student Success Principles
Atiyah A. Alghamdi
Thesis submitted to the

College of Education and Human Services
at West Virginia University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in
Educational Psychology/Evaluation and Research
Reagan Curtis, Ph.D., Chair

Nathan M. Sorber, Ph.D.
Patricia A. Haught, Ed.D.
Department of Learning Sciences and Human Development
Morgantown, West Virginia
2017
Keywords: Content Analysis, Saudi Higher Education, Preparatory Year Program, First-Year
Experience, First-Year Theory, Vision, Mission, Goals, and Students’ Success
Copyright 2017 Atiyah A. Alghamdi

ProQuest Number: 10268340

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10268340

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
Abstract
Assessing the Alignment of Preparatory Year Program Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements
with First-Year Student Success Principles
Atiyah A. Alghamdi
Using student development theories to develop and deliver first-year students programs is critical
to ensure program quality and to understand students actual needs (Cubarrubia and Schoen, 2010; Upcraft
& Gardner, 1989). The majority of Saudi universities established the Preparatory Year Programs for first-
year students in 2005 or beyond. This study answers the following four research questions: 1) For each
university, to what extent do the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements align
with the Seven Principles of Students’ Success in the first-year of university?; 2) What common key
elements cited in the Seven Central Principles of Students Success are most often included in the
Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements?; 3) For all Saudi public universities,
what is the format and frequency of the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals
statements?; and 4) How do the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements
compare or contrast in content between universities, according to geographical location, size, the
Preparatory Year Programs’ date of establishment, and gender?
This study used the nine steps of Content Analysis (CA) developed by Neuendorf (2002) to
assess the alignment of the Preparatory Year Program’s vision, mission, and goals statements with the
Seven Central Principles of Student Success advanced by Cuseo (2014), and to also explore universities
trends in developing the Preparatory Year Programs’ students. The nonrandom sampling process,
purposive sampling, was utilized for all 28 Saudi public universities. The Unit of Thoughts (UT)
extracted from the vision, mission, and goals statements was counted, coded, and used to assess the
alignment extent. A pilot study was conducted on seven Preparatory Year Program’s (25%) to test the
codebook and coding for reliability, validity, and consistency, which resulted in 100% agreement between
the researcher and two coders. The descriptive statistics were then reported. The Self-Efficacy (S.E.)
Principle was cited the most in the vision, mission, and goals statements; also, the Social Integration (S.I.)
Principle in the second level of alignment. Preparing students for university study was the common
format and frequency of vision, mission, and goals statements associated with the seven principles.
Furthermore, this study found that different universities, founded in different regions and under
different conditions, have similar mission and vision statements; with this, each university or Preparatory
Year Program should have a unique need and identity, and its students should have different needs. The
study’s finding suggests that the Preparatory Year Programs may articulate and develop its vision,
mission, and goals statements based on the Students Success Principles, Students’ Development Theory,
and First-Year Theory to create a shared vision toward better understating of the programs components.

ASSESSING THE ALIGNMENT OF PREPARATORY YEAR PROGRAM iii
Acknowledgment
I would like to acknowledge Allah Almighty, the God for all things given to me in my
life and for guiding and for providing me the strength, inspiration, motivation, and wisdom to
achieve what I have done so far in my journey in life. I would like to thank the Saudi Arabian
government and King Saud University for giving me a learning chance to study abroad in the
great country of the United State of America at a respectable university, West Virginia
University.
This study could not have been conducted without the guidance of an outstanding
dissertation committee, to which I am indebted thanks and gratitude. To Professor Reagan Curtis,
my advisor, for all the support and encouragement he provided to me. I would like to thank him
further for facilitating and supporting me to overcome all challenges encountered during my
study. I thank him for encouraging me to apply for this degree although my study is done in a
different major. I had several courses with Dr. Reagan in quantitative, qualitative, and mixed
methods research methodology, which attracted me and gave me necessary knowledge and skills
to conduct this study.
Additionally, I would like to thank Dr. Nathan M. Sorber for his agreement to serve on
the thesis committee. I had several courses with Dr. Sorber, which expanded my knowledge,
experience, and skills in higher education and policy studies. In addition, I appreciated his
constructive comments and feedback on my work.
I am grateful to Dr. Patricia Haught for kindly agreeing to serve on the thesis committee.
Dr. Haught is a supportive and kind person. Her comments on my thesis and direction helped to
improve this study’s structure and outcomes. All thanks and gratitude for those who had a
positive impact on my life and supported me in different ways, although I did not include their
names in this acknowledgment.
ASSESSING THE ALIGNMENT OF PREPARATORY YEAR PROGRAM iv
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgment ........................................................................................................................... iii
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. viii
List of Appendices ......................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter One: Introduction of the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Brief History of Saudi Higher Education............................................................................ 1
Saudi Higher Education Reform Movement....................................................................... 3
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................................ 7
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................................. 10
Purpose of Study and Research Questions.................................................................................... 12
Definition of Terms in Alphabetical Order ................................................................................... 13
Organization of Study ................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 16
Literature Review Process ................................................................................................ 16
Organization of Review of Literature ............................................................................... 18
Theoretical Foundations of Student Development and First-Year Experience Theories . 19
Alexander Astin’s Theory. .................................................................................... 20
Vincent Tinto Theory. ........................................................................................... 28
Pascarella and Terenzini Theory. .......................................................................... 34
Chickering’s Theory. ............................................................................................ 40
The First-Year Experience ................................................................................................ 44
The History of First-Year Experience Concept. ................................................... 45
First-Year Experience Issues. ............................................................................... 51
The First-Year Experience: An International Perspective. ................................... 56
Student’s Success in the First-Year College ..................................................................... 57
Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements ............................................................................ 66
Content Analysis Methodology ........................................................................................ 69
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 72
Contribution of this Study to the Literature ...................................................................... 73
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 74
ASSESSING THE ALIGNMENT OF PREPARATORY YEAR PROGRAM v
Restatement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 75

Significance of the Problem .............................................................................................. 76
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 77
Research Design................................................................................................................ 78
Step 1: Theory and Rationale. ............................................................................... 80
Step 2: Conceptualizations and Operationalization (measures)............................ 86
Step 3: Coding schemes. ....................................................................................... 87
Step 4: Sampling. .................................................................................................. 90
Step 5: Training and pilot reliability. .................................................................... 90
Step 6: Coding. ..................................................................................................... 91
Step 7: Final reliability.......................................................................................... 92
Step 8: Tabulation and reporting........................................................................... 94
Summary. .............................................................................................................. 94
Translation Process ........................................................................................................... 95
Limitations of the Methodology ....................................................................................... 97
Chapter Four: Results ................................................................................................................... 98
Purpose of the study and Research Questions .................................................................. 98
Description of the Sample ................................................................................................. 99
Descriptive analysis .......................................................................................................... 99
Finding for the First Major Research Question .............................................................. 103
Finding for the Second Major Research Question .......................................................... 128
Finding for the Third Research Question........................................................................ 132
Finding for the Fourth Research Question ...................................................................... 140
Additional Limitations of the Study ............................................................................... 145
Chapter Five: Summary, Discussion, Implications, and Future Research .................................. 147
Overview of Study .......................................................................................................... 147
Summary of Finding ....................................................................................................... 150
Summary of Results for Research Question One. .............................................. 152
Summary of Results for Research Question Two. .............................................. 153
Summary of Results for Research Question Three. ............................................ 153
Summary of Results for Research Question Four............................................... 158
Interpretation of Results .................................................................................................. 160
The Alignment of Preparatory Year Programs’ Vision, Mission, and Goals
Statements to the Seven Principles of Students’ Success. .................................. 161
Lack of Focus on Student Success as Preparatory Year Programs Vision and
Mission................................................................................................................ 165
Different Preparatory Year Programs with Similar Vision, Mission, and Goals
Statements. .......................................................................................................... 168
The Gap between Theory and Practice (Personal Reflection). ........................... 170
ASSESSING THE ALIGNMENT OF PREPARATORY YEAR PROGRAM vi
Implication of Finding .................................................................................................... 171

Implication for Saudi Universities. ..................................................................... 171
Implication for Preparatory Year Programs. ....................................................... 172
Implication for Saudi Educational Policymaker. ................................................ 173
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 173
Summary of the Study .................................................................................................... 175
References ................................................................................................................................... 182
Appendices.................................................................................................................................. 222

ASSESSING THE ALIGNMENT OF PREPARATORY YEAR PROGRAM vii
List of Tables
Table 1: The Descriptions of the Seven Variables, Operational Definition, and Applications
Adapted from Cuseo (2014).......................................................................................................... 84
Table 2: Displays the First-Year Students Enrollment in Saudi Public Universities in 2014-2015
..................................................................................................................................................... 100
Table 3: Preparatory Year Programs Date of Establishment ...................................................... 101
Table 4: The organizational structure of Preparatory Year in Saudi Public Universities. .......... 103
Table 5: Shows the application policy of the Preparatory Year Programs. ................................ 103
Table 6: Summarizes the alignments of each university with the Seven Principles of Student’s
Success and the alignment total for the vision, mission, and goals statements combined ......... 127
Table 7: The Seven Principles of Student’s Success as the most appeared in the Preparatory Year
Programs’ vision, mission, and goal statements ......................................................................... 130
Table 8: Displays the format and the frequency of vision, mission, and goals statements of the
Preparatory Year Programs. ........................................................................................................ 137
Table 9: The Similarity and Differences of Vision Statements Based on geography location, size,
Preparatory Year Programs date of establishment, and gender .................................................. 142
Table 10: The List of Saudi Universities that Aligned with Self-Efficacy Principle. ................ 144

ASSESSING THE ALIGNMENT OF PREPARATORY YEAR PROGRAM viii
List of Figures
Figure 1: I-E-O Model .................................................................................................................. 23

Figure 2: Tinto’s longitudinal model of institutional departure.................................................... 30
Figure 3: The General Model for Assessing Change. ................................................................... 38
Figure 4: A comprehensive model of influences on student learning and persistence. ................ 40

ASSESSING THE ALIGNMENT OF PREPARATORY YEAR PROGRAM ix
List of Appendices
Appendix A: The PYPs’ Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements in Saudi Public Universities 222
Appendix B: The Codebook Form.............................................................................................. 231
Appendix C: The Coding Form .................................................................................................. 232
Appendix D: Saudi Public Universities List and the Links to Preparatory Year Programs ....... 233
ASSESSING THE ALIGNMENT OF PREPARATORY YEAR PROGRAM 1
Chapter One
Introduction of the Study
Brief History of Saudi Higher Education
On January 15,1902, King Abdulaziz established the third Saudi country, naming this
country the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on September 23, 1932. Higher education began with
the approval of King Abdulaziz to send 14 students of various fields of specialization to
Egypt in 1927. However, the actual beginning of institutional higher education in the
kingdom occurred in 1949, when the first college called (Shari’a) or (College of Islamic Law)
in Makkah was founded (Information, 2013).
In general, Saudi higher education history can be divided into three phases:
1. Foundation (1949-1960); this phase contains the first blocks of higher education,
which was the College of Islamic Law (Shari’a) in Makkah established in 1949,
followed by the Teachers College in 1952. In 1953 and 1954 respectively, a second
College of Islamic Law (Shari’a) and a College of Arabic were established in Riyadh,
the capital city of Saudi Arabia. These two colleges in Riyadh were the nucleus of the
establishment of the King Saud University in 1957, and were followed by additional
colleges within the university such as Colleges of Arts, Science, Administrative
Sciences, and Pharmacy.
2. Expansion (1961-1980); this phase involved an expansion in the establishment of
universities on the country level in different provinces of the Kingdom. For example,
the Islamic University in Medina in 1961; King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah in
1967; Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh in 1974; King Fahd
University of Petroleum and Minerals in Dhahran and King Faisal University in Al-
Hassa in 1975; and finally Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah in 1980. These
universities together consisted of 58 colleges of various disciplines. During that era,

some of these universities had campuses in other provinces besides the main
campuses. For example, King Saud University established branches at Abha, which is
located in the south of the Kingdom and Qassim, located in the middle of the
Kingdom; similarly, Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University branch is at Al-
Hassa in the east of the Kingdom; and King Abdulaziz University branch is at Al-
Medina in the west of the Kingdom. Moreover, this expansion phase was
characterized by an increasing diversity of higher education specialists and
establishing numerous teachers’ colleges in different cities (Information, 2013, p. 19).
3. Comprehensiveness (1981-2012); this phase can signify the mass education of Saudi
Arabia when the country’s government was clearly intent on spreading the institutions
of higher education in all the provinces and districts of the Kingdom. The goal was to
enable people in small cities, towns, and villages to pursue their higher education
without having to move to major cities such as Riyadh, Jeddah, and Dammam to find
education opportunities. Between 1957-2011, the number of universities public or
private grew rapidly from 8 universities in 2001 to 33 in 2011 (Information, 2013).
Since its establishment, Saudi higher education system is centralized, meaning the
Ministry of Higher Education plans and manages, while universities rely on the government
for most funding and infrastructure (Al-Eisa & Smith, 2013). However, Saudi higher
education is a relatively modern phenomenon with the first university institution being
established in 1957 (Al-Eisa & Smith, 2013).
Consequently, the Saudi government has been developing many regulations covering
all aspects of higher education, including the “number of students to be enrolled, student
admission procedures and personnel policies for faculty members” (e.g., salaries, promotion,
reappointment and retirement age) (Alkhazim, 2003) as cited in (Al-Eisa & Smith, 2013).
Eventually, in January 29, 2015 Saudi government made a decision to combined higher
education and public education ministries into one ministry named Educational Ministry and
assigned one minister for both sectors.
Saudi Higher Education Reform Movement
In recent years, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has emphasized the educational sector
both secondary and postsecondary, to develop human capital and to increase the knowledge
society. The transition from an oil-based economy to a knowledge society requires the
population to develop its level of human capital (Corneo, 2011; Gallarotti, Filali & Yahia
2013). Currently, Saudi Arabia supplies 60 percent of the world’s oil, and policymakers in
Saudi government are aware that decreasing the dependence on oil for the supply of energy is
the priority of research and government policy (Smith & Abouammoh, 2013).
Hence, the government’s Ninth National Development Strategic Plan (2010-2014)
states “Knowledge has become a critical requirement for enhancing competitiveness of
countries in the twenty first century” (Planning, 2010, p. 94).
Additionally, the ninth plan stresses the following:
To establish a learning pattern that develops analytical thinking, advances
acquirement of practical skills, and promotes initiative and entrepreneurship, the
system of education needs to address a set of issues ranging from curriculum
development, lifelong learning, linking education with development, Arabization of
knowledge, to privatization (Planning, 2010, p. 94).
The ninth plan defines Arabization of knowledge as requiring that “knowledge and
scientific and technical information should be in Arabic” and Privatization of education
means “to maintain values, heritage and particularities of society, educational policies and
objectives remain the responsibility of the State” (Planning, 2010, p. 95). Thus, the quest for
educational reforms became part of ninth-plan development. Such a strategic transition from
the current oil-based economy to a knowledge society requires an enhanced effort to improve
both cognitive and non-cognitive skills.
Consequently, in 2006, the Ministry of Higher Education launched its future strategic
plan named AAFAQ2029 (translated to English: “Horizons2029”) in alignment with the
national strategic plan, which aimed to shift toward a knowledge society and a more diverse
economy. AAFAQ2029 adopts the government trend, launching its educational reform plan
on the following basis: “Expansion of higher education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with
an integrated quality, excellence, and competing for global leadership to contribute
effectively in building a knowledge society” (AAFAQ, 2013, p. 15).
AAFAQ2029 incorporates a comprehensive reform process for Saudi Arabia’s
postsecondary system for developing a long-term plan for the next 25 years (Al-Swailem &
Elliott, 2013). Due to Saudi Arabia’s postsecondary system being a centralized system of
control in terms of policy and educational support, the AAFAQ2029 project defines the
mission and outcomes for the higher education system as a whole. The plan suggests a
mechanism through which methods of strategic planning are to be adopted by all public
universities in the country (Smith & Abouammoh, 2013).
To provide support to AAFAQ2029, the Ministry of Higher Education launched the
complementary plan entitled Achieve Excellence in Science and Technology2025
(AEST2025). AEST2025 emphasizes various dimensions of educational reform. One of these
dimensions is developing students' skills to prepare knowledge workers who could participate
effectively in the nation’s movement toward a knowledge society through merging necessary
knowledge, hard and soft skills, and job market skills (Information, 2010).
Furthermore, AEST2025 created new initiatives and programs for students’
development, which aimed to achieve the following goals:

1. Developing basic student skills that are needed in the job market and society in
general;
2. Improving the students’ ability to continue their education, find appropriate solutions
to problems, and develop their thinking skills;
3. Developing graduates’ vocational, social, and personal skills, and;
4. Enabling students to broaden their knowledge bases (Information, 2010, p. 26).
The AEST2025 plan consolidates student skills and improves the quality of
postsecondary graduates through two paths: 1) an academic knowledge path to prepare
students to be qualified in a specific area of study, and 2) a professional skills path, which
focuses on soft and hard skills, technology utilization, research skills, self-learning skills, and
lifelong learning skills (Information, 2010).
The AEST2025 plan suggests programs that Saudi universities, either public or
private, could apply to achieve the knowledge society, such as the Preparatory Year Program
and Centers of Developing and Improving Personal Skills. The new postsecondary policy
allows universities to collaborate with the business sector such as educational companies to
operate and provide educational service such as training and teaching on the required skills
and knowledge (2010). In other words, the business sector is taking the responsibility of
teaching and preparing students through agreements and business contracts consistent with
the university vision, mission, and policy.
According to the Ministry of Higher Education report: The Current Status of Higher
Education (2013), between 1999-2012, the number of new students who enrolled in first-year
of college/university increased from 109,049 to 329,696, or approximately (300%). Similarly,
from 2000-2012 the total of all students in all public universities increased (250%) from
404,094 to 1,116,230. Additionally, in 2012 the total number of degrees graduate was
111,852 students. This number represents 66,860 females (59.8%), and 44,992 males
(40.2%). These percentages indicate higher participation of females in higher education
(Information, 2013). Despite the high percentage of female participation in postsecondary
education, the gender segregation culture is still considered a challenge for the educational
reform movement, which has a goal to achieve equality of educational opportunity for
females and achieve the knowledge society (Jamjoom & Kelly, 2013; Smith & Abouammoh,
2013). For example, the curriculums that are used to teach male or female at these institutions
are the same, with the exclusion of topics in physical education and home economics for
female.
In addition, in many cases male-only departments are responsible to plan and select
curriculum materials and content without sharing it with female departments. Furthermore,
establishing equality in terms of leadership positions, where some of female departments still
manage through male departments, remains a challenge, as well as equity matters concerning
access to knowledge resources or highly qualified teachers (Jamjoom & Kelly, 2013; Smith
& Abouammoh, 2013). Therefore, more attention is required to meet male and female
prerequisites with respect to religion, culture and privacy, especially in programs such as
Preparatory Year Program.
However, higher education policy makers stress that such educational strategic reform
should take into account the necessity of building human capital by instilling the values of
work, commitment, lifelong learning skills, accountability, collaboration, creativity, and
innovation to participate effectively in building a knowledge society. Therefore, universities
are responsible to ensure that students who are transferred from secondary to postsecondary
education will be ready with the essential knowledge, skills, and attitudes for a successful
transition into postsecondary education (AAFAQ2029, 2013; Corneo, 2011; Smith &
Abouammoh, 2013).
In responding to these needs, Saudi universities established during the past ten years a
Preparatory Year Programs to support the First-Year students and to provide them with
essential skills, knowledge, and attitudes to achieve success and excellence, especially for
those who are not ready for college. Preparatory Year Program attempts to fill the gap
between secondary education outcomes and university requirements and also ensures
students’ readiness for job market and knowledge society (Alatas, 2012; Alhosin, 2010
Bagazi, 2010; Dow & Alnassar, 2013; Habib, 2010). While internal evaluation reports
addressing these aspects have yet to be released publicly, there do exist secondary journalistic
accounts that provide evaluative insights into the Preparatory Year Program.
Statement of the Problem
As a response to higher education trends in developing first-year students, the
educational policymakers in Saudi universities are interested transforming the program into a
new era, where it can meet higher education’s standards, government’s vision, and student’s
actual needs. Such a trend is required to better understand the current practices of the
Preparatory Year Programs to identify the theoretical base and pedagogical philosophy that
leads the current models of Preparatory Year Program’s that are applied in Saudi public
universities.
The Saudi higher education community including policymakers, administrators,
faculty, parents, and business markets feel that the incoming students from high schools are
extremely unready for college and they need more preparation in terms of the English
language, hard and soft skills, math skills, science skills, and writing and reading skills. Thus,
a need exists for a comprehensive support system such as the Preparatory Year Program to
assist university’s in reaching its goals and to help students successfully transition into
postsecondary education.
A meditation on the current practices of preparatory year programs in all Saudi public
universities revealed that most Saudi public universities operate the program through the
business sector, educational or training institutions, and this practice is considered
unprecedented on the international level (Alaqeeli, Abouammoh, & Alghamdi, 2014). The
majority of these private sectors are new in the educational and training market in general,
and in the field of first-year program operation in particular. In other words, these private
sectors may not have enough previous experience to operate such programs or to deal with
first-year students, and may have no pedagogical philosophy or theory base to design and
operate the program. Furthermore, Alaqeeli et al. note a lack of qualified faculty selected by
the business sector to teach or deal with first-year students, which causes miscommunication
between first-year students and university faculty. One disadvantage of relying on the
business sector to operate the Preparatory Year Program is known as the “Commodification
of Higher Education”, which leads to learning and teaching quality problems. Schroeder
(1998) advocates that collaboration with the business sector is considered the most
challenging trend encountered by postsecondary institutions.
Furthermore, in most of the Saudi universities, the Preparatory Year Program has
been launched to fulfill institutional needs to improve universities inputs and outputs.
Therefore, the Preparatory Year Programs are designed based on the best international
practices with no consideration about the theoretical base or pedagogical philosophy that fit
the culture of Saudi students. However, most of the Preparatory Year Program models in
Saudi public universities have a main challenge that lack a governing philosophy, theoretical
and pedagogical base of the program, “the preparatory year in most American universities is
based on a theoretically and practical structured vision. This is in terms of goals, programs,
skills, strategies, learning dimensions, teaching strategies, and assessment styles” (Alaqeeli,
2014, p. 60).
Close examination of the current models of Preparatory Year Program at all Saudi
public universities proved that there are no documents that could be used to report or describe
the theoretical base of the program or its philosophical base. Although the Preparatory Year
Program has been in existence for ten years at most Saudi public universities, there is a lack
of research and evaluation studies to explore the Preparatory Year Programs’ models or to
define an overall theoretical foundation or pedagogical philosophy of the programs.
Furthermore, Saudi first-year or Preparatory Year Program literature reported that very few
studies have been conducted about the Preparatory Year Program, in either the Arabic or
English languages, to evaluate specific aspects of the program. For instance, most of the
research was conducted to assess the English skills program. Furthermore, although the large
size of the Preparatory Year Deanship in Saudi public universities in general, there is no
evaluation or research unit or research center for first-year experience to assess the
Preparatory Year Program’s progression.
Consequently, exploring and understanding a theoretical base of the current models of
the Preparatory Year Programs and assess their alignment with the First-Year Student
Success Principles is critical for the program’s development in the future. Thus, this study
attempted to explore the theoretical base of the program through studying the vision, mission,
and goals statements of all Preparatory Year Programs at all Saudi public universities and
assessing their alignment with the Seven Principles of Students Success. This study employed
the Seven Central Principles of Students Success advanced by Cuseo (2014) as a guideline to
identify the theoretical base of the Preparatory Year Programs due to their
comprehensiveness, which includes most of student’s success themes that appear in student’s
development theories, first-year theory such as “intellectual development, emotional
development, social development, ethical development, physical development, and spiritual
development” (Cuseo, 2014, p. 2). Furthermore, the Seven Principles of Students Success
provided a wide ground for theories selection. As this study’s aim was to explore and assess
the theoretical base of the current practices of the Preparatory Year Programs, the seven
principles are considered an appropriate tool to achieve such a goal and to provide a better
understanding of the current practices. Moreover, this study added to the weak body of
existing literature, especially in the Saudi higher educational culture where the first-year
practices and student’s development theories need more investigation.
The authorized information published on the official Preparatory Year Programs’
websites including the programs vision, mission, and goals statements that express the
programs purpose, philosophy, and trends were used to assess the Preparatory Year
Programs’ alignment with the Seven Principles of Students Success. In addition, this research
investigated how Saudi universities are different or similar in terms of program theory and
philosophy, according to various variables, such as university size, locations, program’s date
of establishment, and gender. This study is considered the first attempt to discover the
compatibility of these principles with the Preparatory Year Programs’ mission in Saudi
public universities context.
Significance of the Study
Research studies on first-year students agree that the first-year of university is critical
for developing a foundation for successfully transitioning into college, and students’ success
is largely based on their first-year experiences (Ben-Avie, Kennedy,Unson, Li, Riccardi &
Mugno, 2012; Clark, 2005; Frazier, 2007; Mutch, 2005; Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985; Tinto
& Pusser, 2006; Upcraft, Gardner & Barefoot, 2004). A new trend of postsecondary
education policy and practice is to provide equal opportunity for all students, which is
considered fundamental for students’ success and develop first-year programs to meet
students actual needs and university requirements (Johnston, 2010).

As the Preparatory Year Programs at the majority of Saudi public universities are
considered a new phenomenon, which began in 2004 or after for most, this study is
significant because it explored the Preparatory Year Program’s theoretical base in all 28
Saudi public universities by analyzing the vision, mission, and goals statements of each
university and assessed its alignment with the First-Year Experience Theory represented by
the Seven Principles of Students Success advanced by Cuseo (2014). Furthermore, this study
represented significant research for several reasons.
First, this study responded to the call of Saudi Education Ministry to develop the
Preparatory Year Program to improve learning quality and student’s performance. Thus, this
study has significance giving a better understanding for the program’s purpose, philosophy,
and trend, which can lead the development effort in the future.
Second, the current working model of the Preparatory Year does not have any
published documents to identify its theoretical and pedagogical bases. This issue may affect
the curriculums design, teaching methods, and student outcomes. In other words, “the
preparatory year in Saudi universities lacks a Governing Concept philosophy” (Alaqeeli,
2014, p. 60). This study achieved a step toward exploring the theoretical foundation of the
Preparatory Year Program that could connect theories and learning pedagogy instead of only
relying on the best global practices.
Third, the current working model is designed for all students, male and female, and
for students from different backgrounds with different needs, meaning it is contrary to the
fact that one-size does not fit all. The Content Analysis of the Preparatory Year Programs’
vision, mission, and goals statements used in this study was beneficial for the future program
design by exposing these issues.
Fourth, this study compared and contrasted the Preparatory Year Program’s vision,
mission, and goals statements for all Saudi public universities according to universities’ size,
location, program date of establishment, and gender variables. The comparison represented
the trend of Preparatory Year Programs in Saudi public universities and how Saudi
universities design its programs.
Finally, this study is significant due to the research methodology that was utilized,
Content Analysis (CA), developed by Neuendorf (2002). Generally, the preferred
methodology in the Saudi Arabian educational context is quantitative studies, and thus,
studies utilizing Content Analysis are rare. Using such methodology will contribute
positively to transferring such research experience overseas.
Purpose of Study and Research Questions
The main purpose of this study was to analyze the vision, mission, and goals
statements of all 28 Preparatory Year Programs and assess whether the Preparatory Year
Programs incorporate the principles of Student Success in the first-year of university outlined
in the Seven Central Principles of Student Success advanced by Cuseo (2014). Additionally,
this study explored the themes and formats of the Preparatory Year Programs in all 28
universities and the differences among all these programs based on university size, location,
program date of establishment, and gender. Finally, this study explored the Preparatory Year
Programs trend in Saudi universities through the most common key elements of the Seven
Principles of Students Success included in the Preparatory Year Program’s vision, mission,
and goals statements.
To accomplish the study’s goals, the researcher used the government information
published on the Preparatory Year Program’s official websites expressing the vision, mission,
and goals statements in each public university. The nine steps of Content Analysis (CA)
developed by Neuendorf (2002) was used for data collection and analysis. This study
attempted to answer the following research questions:

a. For each university, to what extent do the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision,
mission, and goals statements align with the Seven Principles of Students’ Success in
the first-year of university?
b. What common key elements cited in the Seven Central Principles of Students Success
are most often included in the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals
statements?
c. For all Saudi public universities, what is the format and frequency of the Preparatory
Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements?
d. How do the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements
compare or contrast in content between universities, according to geographical
location, size, the Preparatory Year Programs’ date of establishment, and gender?
Finally, for clarification, this study was not to evaluate the content or structure of the
vision, mission, and goals statements of Preparatory Year Program itself, but to assess its
alignment with the First-Year Theory.
Definition of Terms in Alphabetical Order
Alignments. Alignment is “the degree to which expectations and assessments are in
agreement and serve in conjunction with one another to guide the system toward
students learning what they are expected to know and do” (Webb, 1997, p. 3). In the
content analyses, “Alignment can be judged by coding and analyzing the documents
that convey the expectations and assessments.” (Webb, 1997, p. 10).
Content Analysis. This study used the Content Analysis definition as a research
technique that Neuendorf (2002) advanced, “summarizing, quantitative analysis of
messages that relies on the scientific method (including attention to objectivity-
intersubjectivity, a prior design, reliability, validity, generalizability, replicability, and

hypothesis testing) and is not limited as to the types of variables that may be
measured or the context in which the message are created or represented” (p. 10).
Goals Statement. Phrases used to express the performance level of all university or
school components, either educational professional, students, curriculums,
professional development, etc. (Gurley, Peters, Collins, & Fifolt, 2014). For this
study, ‘goal statement’ is used to define the Preparatory Year Program’s objectives
and the key specification’s actions in each university and the programs actual
practices.
Mission Statement. For this study, ‘mission statement’ is used to define the
Preparatory Year Program’s purpose, creed, values, and belief.
Preparatory year program. Within the Saudi higher education context, the
Preparatory Year Program is an academic year that aims to provide students with
foundation courses in essential soft and hard skills before entering their colleges.
Student success. For this study, ‘student success’ is more likely to be experienced
and evidenced when students: 1) feel personally validated and they matter to the
college; 2) believe that their effort matters and that they can influence or control the
prospects for success; 3) develop a sense of purpose and perceive the college
experience as being personally relevant; 4) become engaged in the learning process
and in the use of campus resources; 5) become socially integrated or connected with
other members of the college community; 6) think reflectively about what they are
learning and connect it to what they already know or have previously experienced;
and 7) are self-aware and remain mindful of their learning styles, learning habits, and
thinking patterns (Cuseo, n.d.).

Vision Statement. Generally, vision is an expression of the desired future, “it is a
picture of excellence, something that the person, team or organization wants to create
in its best possible future” (Papulova, 2014, p. 13).
Organization of Study
The first chapter of this study begins with an overview of the status of Saudi
postsecondary education and its reform movement with a historical brief about the
Preparatory Year Program and its importance in Saudi higher education. Next, the study
states the research problem and its significance to postsecondary education. Finally, the
chapter concludes with the definitions of terms in alphabetical order.
The second chapter is divided into five sub-sections. First, an extensive review of the
literature of the theoretical foundations of student development and first-year experience is
provided. Second, the history of the first-year experience and the literature on the
international and national levels. The third discussed the student’s success in the first-year
college literature. The fourth section includes a review about the vision, mission, and goals
statements definition and its use in the organization. Finally, a brief explanation about the
Content Analysis methodology that is utilized in this study is given.
The third chapter of this study provides a detailed explanation for the research
methodology that will be utilized. The research methodology explanation includes the data
collection and analysis process and any limitations related to the methodology.
The fourth chapter illustrates in detail the study’s procedures and results which
responds to the four research questions of this study. The research questions are answered
separately for each group of stakeholders, male and female. The fifth chapter reports the
research findings and conclusion, including a discussion of the study’s outcomes and
implementations, followed by recommendations for future studies and a summary of the
study.
Chapter Two
Review of the Literature
Literature Review Process
The concepts of First-Year College, Preparatory Year, Vision, Mission, and Goal
statements in general and for university in particular were searched using different database
and academic libraries to fulfill the current study literature review needs. First, through the
West Virginia University (WVU) library, peer reviewed and scholarly academic research
papers were collected electronically using library catalogs. Online search of EBSCOhost’s
Education Research Complete Database with the phrase first -year experience as a key
search with no other limitations reported 7,359 citations were retrieved, the oldest with a
publication date of 1981. By limiting the search using the subject field higher education, the
citations number decreased to 30 citations since 1998.
A similar search in EBSCOhost’s Academic Search Complete Database with the
phrase first-year experience with no other limitations resulted in 20,574 citations. The oldest
had a publication date of 1924. By limiting the search results using the subject field higher
education, 1,430 citations were retrieved. Both databases have no results by using the Arabic-
language as a limitation of the search. A parallel search was done using the ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses (PQDT) Database, limiting to the phrase first-year experience to
higher education, citation, and abstract, retrieved 34,400 English-language dissertations and
theses published between 1914 and 2014.
Using Google search tools such as Scholar with the phrase first-year experience
reported about 1,040,000 results. Further, Google Scholar revealed 40,200,000 results for the
concepts of vision, mission, and goals statements. Limiting this number to phrase “university
vision, mission, and goal statements” resulted in 568,000 outcomes.

In addition, a search was completed on an Arabic database named Saudi Digital
Library (http://sdl.edu.sa/SDLPortal/en/Publishers.aspx) and King Saud University Library
using Arabic language as a limitation. This search resulted in ten studies conducted in Arabic
language most of them to assess a specific aspect of Preparatory Year Program such as
English language program and academic accreditation of the program. Additionally, most of
these studies represented a master or doctoral student research.
Moreover, an electronic copy of the Saudi Journal of Higher Education was
referenced on Google search engine. This is a peer-refereed, bi-annual journal published by
the Center for Higher Education Research and Studies (CHERS) Ministry of Higher
Education. Three articles related to the first-year experience were retrieved from issue No.11
- Rajab 1435 AH - May 2014. One of these article is titled: A History of the First-Year
Experience in the United States during the Twentieth and Twenty-First centuries: Past
Practices, current Approaches, and Future Directions, written by Professor. Andrew K.
Koch and Professor. John N. Gardner.
Another database utilized was the National Resource Center for the First-Year
Experience and Students in Transition at the University of South Carolina. The National
Resource Center specializes in the first-year experience and students-in-transition issues,
which “serves as the trusted expert, internationally recognized leader, and clearinghouse for
scholarship, policy, and best practice for all postsecondary student transitions” (“About the
Center”, 2015) http://sc.edu/fye/center/index.html.
The National Resource Center has several publications in the First-Year Experience
& Students in Transition. One of its publications is the Journal of The First-Year Experience
& Students in Transition, which has published 26 volumes divided into 52 issues, beginning
with the first volume in 1989 to the most recent volume in fall 2014. All these materials are
available electronically (“About the Center”, 2015). Furthermore, numerous books and
annotated bibliographies have been published about the first-year experience. Moreover, the
National Resource Center has conducted 34 annual conferences discussing first-year issues
and development (“About the Center”, 2015).
The last search was done using the International Journal of the First-Year in Higher
Education (Int J FYHE), which is published by Queensland University of Technology in
Australia. The Int J FYHE published its first volume in 2010. The most recent volume which
has been published is volume six, in the beginning of 2015. The Int J FYHE “focuses on
research and practice about enhancing the experience of commencing students” (“Int J
FYHE”, 2015) https://fyhejournal.com.
In addition, the search process took into account the type of research, including both
positivist and postpositivist research for better understanding of first-year students’ practices.
Consequently, in preparation for conducting this study, a systematic review of literature
associated to the application of first-year experience practices and theories to postsecondary
education was performed. Expanding the literature review domain of search allows for more
understanding and provides a researcher with new information and experience regarding
his/her topic, and elucidate the relationship between different subjects within a research
problem (Boylan, Bonham, & White, 1999).
Organization of Review of Literature
For the purpose of this study, the literature review starts with an outline of the most
common and leading cited documents associated with the first-year experience discipline that
established the foundation for several theoretical, practical and research publications in the
most recent years. Thus, the literature review has been divided into five main sections
attempting to cover all issues and topics related to study domains.
The first section provides an inclusive description of theoretical foundations of
students’ development and first-year experience theories. This section discusses the most
common theories inspiring the first-year experience movement and its development in the
literature. These theories include Alexander Astin Theory, Pascarella and Terenzini Theory,
Vincent Tinto Theory, and Chickering’s Theory. Each theory has been discussed in detail,
comprising its roots, development, issues, and critical analysis of theory.
The second section illustrates first-year experience topics, including a wide review of
first-year history development, first-year experience issues, first-year intervention strategies
and functions, first-year organizational structures, and first-year experience: an international
perspective. The third section illustrates student’s success in the first-year college literature.
This section provides information regarding first-year interventions initiatives that could
foster student’s success in first-year colleges and make their transition into postsecondary
education successfully. The fourth section discusses vision, mission, and goals statements.
This section clarify the importance of these three domains that use as guidelines for any
institute to leads its effort towards desire goals. Finally, the fifth section involves a brief
history of Content Analysis Methodology in general and in particular for the Content
Analysis Approach developed by Neuendorf (2002) used in this study.
Theoretical Foundations of Student Development and First-Year Experience Theories
Several research studies were conducted over the last four decades related to various
issues associated with student development in general, and first-year students and transition
topics. The earlier studies discussed general issues related to college students’ success and
the factors that impacted students’ persistence and retention. Other studies established new
concepts and definitions such as first-year students, students’ success, retention, readiness,
persistence, etc. In the last thirty years, new issues manifested such as diversity, gender,
racial, sexual, economic situation, higher education trends, etc.
Student development theories became part of the first-year movement, with numerous
theories attempting to study students’ success and transition issues within a theoretical
perspective. According to Cubarrubia and Schoen (2010), “intentionally using student
development theory to develop and deliver new students programs is critical to ensure that
the needs of diverse students populations are addressed” (p. 167). In other words, applying
the best practices of first-year programs at postsecondary institutions is inadequate to ensure
program quality and success if we ignore the foundational theories of student development.
Due to differences in student characteristics from one community to another, a wide
range of research on student development has worked to establish new models or programs to
meet students’ needs and to fulfill the postsecondary mission. Therefore, an analysis of the
most common student development theories are vital for the current study, a process that will
give insights about the student development movement and its applications. This analysis will
help to understand the current theoretical base of Preparatory Year Programs in the Saudi
higher education context.
In this context, this section will discuss four theories of student development
according to two criteria:
1. Relationship to student development theories in college/university.
2. Contribution to first-year experience literature according to the particular theory’s
citation in Google Scholar.
The discussion of these theories will assist as a fundamental background when
assessing a Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goal statements at all 28 Saudi
universities.
Alexander Astin’s Theory. Astin has conducted numerous research studies, but the
most important are published in his books, Four Critical Years. Effects of College on Beliefs,
Attitudes, and Knowledge (1977), and What Matters in College? Four Critical Years (1993),
cited by 2,145 academic studies, Astin’s Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for
Higher Education (1984), was cited by 2,767 studies; both research studies citations
according to Google Scholar.
The purpose of What Matters in College? is to provide faculty, student affairs,
educational policy-makers, and professionals a better understanding of “how undergraduate
students are affected by their college experiences” (Astin, 1993, p. xix). To assess how
students are affected by their college experiences, Astin cited three major activities that are
used in his study: 1) understanding the nature and meaning of student change; 2) select or
develop a model or theoretical or conceptual framework to study student performance; and 3)
“designing the analyses of college impact” (p. 5).
Astin (1977, 1993) argues the majority of research studies on first-year experience
measures students’ change or growth academically rather than studying the impact of the
college itself on students’ experience. For example, some postsecondary institutions survey
student’s perceptions at the first day of college and at the end of year, or after four years of
study. In this case, students’ change in perception is assessed by comparing two measures.
The weakness of this measurement approach refers to the weakness of this measure to predict
a student’s change if he/she attends different colleges, or does not attend a college. Astin
states that a student’s change occurs due to two major mechanisms: college impact and the
outside environment of college.
To measure the impact of college activities, Astin’s study (1993) utilized the
Cooperative Institutional Research Program Survey (CIRP). CIRP involves several
measurements, thus Astin developed a conceptual scheme to organize and guide these
measurements. The “taxonomy of student outcomes” (p. 9) contains three dimensions: 1)
type of outcomes, which involves cognitive outcomes (called intellective) such as mental
process (e.g. reasoning and logic), and non-cognitive outcomes (called affective) such as
attitudes, values, self-concept, aspirations, and everyday behavior; 2) type of data, which
describes type of information collected to evaluate cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes;
these data involve Psychological (e.g. attitude, values, etc) and Behavioral (e.g. personal
habits, occupations, citizenship, etc.); and 3) time dimension, which refers to two points of
time during college and after college (e.g. satisfaction with college represents a during
college point of time, and job satisfaction represents an after college point of time) (p. 9-11).
Furthermore, Astin’s studies (1977, 1993) utilized some standardized tests to
recognize Student Input Characteristics such as the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT),
American College Test (ACT), and Graduate Record Examination (GRE). Moreover, for
Environment Measures, Astin utilized 192 environmental measures, including 16 measures of
institutional characteristics (e.g. size, control, type); 35 measures of student peer group
characteristics (e.g. socioeconomic status, academic preparation, values, etc.); 34 measures of
faculty characteristics (e.g. teaching methods, moral, etc.); 15 measures of the curriculum; 15
measures of financial aid; 16 measures of freshman major field choice; 4 measurements of
place of residence; and, 57 different measures of student involvement (p. 15). Essentially, the
main difference between Astin’s studies (1993) and (1977) is the number of environmental
measures that were utilized in 1993 study.
The 1977 study used longitudinal data with a sample size of more than 200,000
students and tested more than 80 different student outcomes. Moreover, it gave more
attention to students’ involvement applications such as “place of residence, honors programs,
undergraduate research participation, social fraternities and sororities, academic involvement,
student-faculty interaction, athletic involvement, and involvement in student government”
(Astin, 1984, p. 524).
The data analysis of these studies involves two stages: 1) the data of each freshman is
entering through multiple-regression techniques to get a predicted score on each outcome
measure under study; and 2) compare predicted scores for each freshman characteristic in
different college environments with the actual outcome measures. This study has one
important limitation in that this study has no separate analysis according to “gender, race,
ability, socioeconomic status, or other key students’ characteristics” variables (Astin, 1993, p.
29). In other words, the “studies focus on individual programmatic interventions” (Terenzini,
2005, p. 1). Astin (1993) developed the Input-Environment-Outcome Model (I-E-O) as a
conceptual framework to study college student development.
Inputs refer to the characteristics of the student at the time of initial entry to the
institution; environment refer to various programs, polices, faculty, peers, and
educational experiences to which the student is exposed; and outcomes refers to the
student’s characteristics after exposure to the environment. Change or growth in the
student during college is determined by comparing outcome characteristics with input
characteristics… studying student development with the I-E-O model provides
educators, students, and policy makers with a better basis for knowing how to achieve
desired educational outcomes (Astin, 1993, p. 7).
Environment
Input Outcome
Figure 1: I-E-O Model. (Astin, 1993, p. 18)
Astin’s study, Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education
(1984), represented a development of his theory, the Theory of Student Involvement, which is
found in student development research of postsecondary education during recent years. The
theory dates back to a longitudinal study conducted by Astin in 1975, to identify the
environmental factors impacting students’ academic persistence (Astin, 1984).

According to Astin, (1984), “student involvement refers to the amount of physical and
psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience” (p. 518). Astin
provides some examples of involvement practices such as study hard, engage in campus
activities and student organizations, and interact with faculty. On the other hand, uninvolved
is a term used to represent the opposite practices.
Furthermore, Astin defines the involvement concept as an active term in literature the
student develops discipline, which expresses the following (e.g. attach oneself to, engage in,
show enthusiasm for, take a fancy to, etc.). In other words, he defines involvement as a
behavioral practice. The involvement theory also has five basic postulates:
1. Student involvement requires investment of psychosocial and physical energy.
2. Involvement is continuous, and each student, as an individual, has a different amount
of energy.
3. Involvement can be measured qualitatively or quantitatively.
4. The quality and quantity of involvement is related to the amount of learning acquired.
5. Policy effectiveness depends on its capacity to stimulate students’ involvement
(Astin, 1984, p. 519).
In addition, Astin (1984), uses “black box” (p. 519) as a metaphor to describe
academic practices toward students’ treatment. Black box, according to Astin, contains
various policies, programs, etc., and the black box outcomes are students’ GPA, etc. Astin
mentions a factor missing in academia is “how these educational programs and policies are
translated into student achievement and development” (p. 520).
Additionally, Astin (1984) identified three implicit pedagogical theories, which can
help policy makers, faculty, college staff, etc. to understand their actions and the impact on
students’ development.
1. Subject-matter theory: Student learning and development depend primarily on
exposure to the right subject matter. In practice, students receive knowledge from
faculty or experts. In other words, a student could be considered an inactive
participant, a follower- learner.
2. Resource theory: Different resources in one place to improve students’ learning, e.g.,
physical facilities, human resources, financial resources. The crucial factor in this
theory is student-faculty ratio, in which a lower ratio leads to better educational
opportunity.
3. Individualized (or eclectic) theories: Each student can get an appropriate education
according to his/her capacity. In other words, each student has a proper content fit to
his/her needs (p. 520-521).
These three traditional pedagogical theories can help to recognize and provide a
conceptual framework of the black box metaphor mentioned above. However, the
involvement practices are missing in these three pedagogical theories, despite involvement’s
significance, which is considered “the driving force behind college student retention”
(Mertes, 2013, P. 18).
Astin’s (1977, 1993, & 1984) studies have provided postsecondary education with
several practical applications. For example, developing students’ peer group programs plays
an important role in improving students’ performance (Reason, 2009). Astin (1993)
concludes, “Every aspect of the student’s development – cognitive and affective,
psychological and behavioral – is affected in some way by peer group characteristics, and
usually by several peer characteristics” (p. 363). Moreover, “the student’s peer group is the
single most potent source of influence on growth and development during the undergraduate
years” (Astin, 1993, p. 398). In real life, students tend to embrace the dominant beliefs or
values structured by their peers, which Astin and Panos (1969) called (progressive
conformity).
In addition, Astin’s model of Input-Environment-Outcomes (I-E-O) is used widely as
a theoretical framework to study several issues related to first-year experience at
postsecondary institutions. For example, the model is used to study students’ retention,
persistence, performance, and to design first-year initiatives such as seminar and orientation
programs (Krahenbuhl, 2012). Kelly (1996) used the I-E-O model to identify relationships
among inputs, environment, and student persistence as outcomes. This study found a
statistically significant relationship between input and environment and students’ persistence.
On the international level, Yanto, Mula, and Kavanagh (2011) used the I-E-O model
for developing Students’ Accounting Competencies (SAC). The study population was in
Indonesian universities with a sample size 7,500 students. Yanto et al., “utilized student
motivation, student previous achievement, student demographic characteristics, learning
facilities, and comfort of class size are educational inputs, and student engagement and sac
are proxies for environment and outcome respectively” (p. 1). This study reported that all
inputs are statistically significant for improving SAC, with one exception, student
demographic characteristics. However, this study found the I-E-O model valid to analyze
relationships among a single input, but less powerful among multiple inputs.
Using the I-E-O model, Norwani (2005) studied the relationships among inputs,
environment, and students’ learning based on a final Grade Point Average (GPA) and
aptitude development in Australian universities. Norwani found that student input statistically
can be used to predict final GPA, while aptitude development was impacted by
environmental factors.
Moreover, Astin’s (1993) I-E-O model reported that learning communities are
considered a significant factor to students’ success and involvement. Numerous research

studies support Austin’s point of view about the role of learning community in students’
development in general, and in first-year in particular.
Learning community has a high impact in the first-year college, with a strong positive
correlation with students’ retention, persistence, easiest transition, social and academic
integration, develop personal relationship with faculty and students, develop personal habits,
develop soft skills/hard skills (e. g., teamwork, collaboration, shared learning, engagement
within community, problem solving, critical thinking, writing and reading skills), and
improving graduation rate and grade (Bailey and Alfonso, 2005; Blackhurst, Akey &
Bobilya, 2003; Commander, Valeri-Gold, Darnell, 2004; Crissman, 2001; Dillon, 2003;
franklin, 2000; Gold & Pribbenow, 2000; Johnson, 2000-01; Kutnowski, 2005; Tinto, 2000;
Walker, 2003). In contrast, some other studies reported no effect of learning community
practices over time on students’ performance; rather than applying learning community,
improving communication strategies between students and their environment lead to better
outcomes (Baker, Meyer, Hunt, 2005; Barrows & Goodfellow, 2005).
However, MacGregor and Smith (2005) state that postsecondary institutions can use
learning community practices to connect students and faculty with the institutional mission.
According to Giles and Hargreaves (2006), transition toward a knowledge society requires
schools to shift toward professional learning communities, because learning communities’
applications will promote students’ soft/hard skills (e. g., problem solving, systems-thinking,
and social networks between society members including educational institution members).
However, despite Astin’s theory contributions in the first-year student experience
research studies field, his E-I-O theory has limitations. Despite its effectiveness as an
assessment theoretical base to recognize the impact of student practices and behaviors,
faculty, programs, and environmental components in general on student outcomes, Astin’s
theory is limited in terms of assessing organizational components impacting students’

outcomes, e.g., organization culture context impact (Terenzini, 2005). Furthermore, Astin’s
theory as a social science theory places emphasis on how involvement makes a difference on
students’ outcomes, but does not clarify why involvement makes a difference, nor does it
illustrate how to help students who are not involved (Torres & LePeau, 2013).
In short, Astin’s (1977, 1993, & 1984) studies conclude that students’ involvement
with their environment will lead to better learning. Designing educational programs with
more focus on quality and quantity of involvement will lead to better learning. “The more
students put into an activity, the more they get out of it” (Barefoot, 1998, p. 3).
Vincent Tinto Theory. Tinto authored a large number of studies in student
development discipline. For example, Dropout from Higher Education: A Theoretical
Synthesis of Recent Research (1975), which was cited by 4,994 researchers, according to
Google Scholar. Tinto also authored Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of
Student Attrition (1987,1993), which was cited by 8,289 researchers, according to Google
Scholar. Tinto (1975, 1987, 1993) introduces the Theory of Student Departure dominant
sociological viewpoint and the common referred model of student retention/dropout literature
(Draper, 2005; Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006).
Tinto’s theory was based on the work of cultural anthropologist Arnold Van Gennep.
Gennep focused on studying the movement of individuals from one group to another.
Furthermore, Tinto’s theory is influenced by Durkheim's Theory of Suicide (1951) and
Spady’s work Dropout from Higher Education: Toward an Empirical Model (1971)
(Tinto,1987, 1993, 1988). Additionally, Tinto (1993) highlighted egoistic suicide to justify
his relying on Durkheim's Theory of Suicide, which states “the individual is unable to become
integrated into society due to values which may deviate from society, or from insufficient
personal affiliation between the individual and other persons in society” (p. 102). Tinto
explains that the student who is not integrated into college/university academically and
socially will be at risk of dropping out (Roos, 2012). The theory takes from the educational
economy discipline concerning the cost-benefit analysis of individual decisions regarding
continuing/dropping out of his/her college (Tinto, 1975).
Tinto’s longitudinal model aims to elucidate the college student attrition process, and
is related to Astin’s involvement theory (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991; Skipper, 2005). In
addition, Tinto identifies two main paths of the theory of student departure: academic and
social integration (Tinto, 1975, 1987 & 1993). Academic integration means that students can
meet college/university requirements and standards while embracing college values and
beliefs. Social integration means the student feels he/she is part of society beliefs and norms
on campus (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Skipper, 2005; Stuart, Rios-Aguilar & Deil-Amen,
2014). The term integration describes the extent to which a student “shares normative
attitudes and values of peers and faculty in institution and bides by the formal and informal
structural requirements for membership in that community or in the subgroups of which the
individual is a part” (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, p. 52-53). The term integration can be
defined as a negative or a positive connection between the student and academic or social
system.
Tinto hypothesized three dimensions that influence student departure or retention: 1)
pre-entry characteristics (e.g., family background, skills and abilities, prior educational
experience); 2) goals and commitments; and 3) institutional experiences with academic
systems (e. g., academic performance, faculty/staff interaction) and social system (e. g.,
extracurricular activities, peer interaction) (Tinto, 1975, 1987 & 1993). The nature and power
of integration determines departure decision. In other words, a student who could not achieve
a level of academic or social integration is probable to leave the college/university.

Figure 2: Tinto’s longitudinal model of institutional departure. (Tinto, 1993, p. 114).
In 1988, Tinto introduces three stages of students’ departure, Separation, Transition
to College, and Incorporation in College. Separation stage means that the student requires
separating himself from the past community and becoming involved in a new community
(university community). This stage contains a difficult process, due to its nature and the
relationship to the person’s life, choices, belief, and attitude. Transition stage means the
period of movement between the old communities to the new one. This stage requires the
student to adapt and adjust himself with the new culture.
Tinto (1988) stresses that, at this stage, the student has not yet acquired new
community norms and patterns of behavior; therefore, more support, either academic, social,
financial, etc., is required to help the student be involved in a new culture. Incorporation
stage means the student is ready to become a part of a new community. In other words, the
student moved away from the old norms and behavior pattern to the new one.
Further, Tinto’s identifies two main paths of the theory of student departure: academic
and social integration (Tinto, 1975, 1987 & 1993). Academic integration means that students
can meet college/university requirements and standards while embracing college values and
beliefs. Social integration means the student feels he/she is part of society beliefs and norms
on campus (Comeaux & Harrison, 2011; Skipper, 2005; Stuart, Rios-Aguilar & Deil-Amen,
2014). The term integration describes the extent to which a student “shares normative
attitudes and values of peers and faculty in institution and bides by the formal and informal
structural requirements for membership in that community or in the subgroups of which the
individual is a part” (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, p. 52-53). The term integration can be
defined as a negative or a positive connection between the student and academic or social
system (Tinto, 1993).
Despite its popularity, Tinto’s theory of student departure has come under a critical or
developmental review in students’ retention, persistence, and first-year experience field.
Tinto’s student integration model has changed over the last three decades from the first
version that was introduced. For instance, a new variable such as motivation is included
(Demetriou & Sciborski, 2011). Several studies reported other factors outside of Tinto’s
model cause students to leave their college, such as student inability to adjust, economic and
financial difficulties, lack of family emotional and social support, and poor academic
performance (Bogard, Helbig, Huff & James, 2011; De Witz, Woosley & Walsh, 2009). For
example, Tinto himself expanded the theory of student departure to include classroom
activities as a variable of student departure. His study utilizes learning community practice as
a tool to understand the relationship between classroom activities and retention. The study
found that classroom activities in general, and learning community practice in particular,
impact student’s retention positively (Tinto, 2000).
To provide another example, in his book, Reworking the Student Departure Puzzle,
Braxton (2000) dedicated two chapters for criticism of Tinto’s theory, which resulted in
development of a new theoretical path to recognize student departure factors. Braxton’s
framework suggests new variables that influence student departure such as socioeconomic
and financial impact and tuition. Further, Braxton suggests that the campus climate and
learning methodology also influence student departure. Moreover, Braxton discusses issues
related to student race, color, and identity, which can affect student behavior and persistence.
Pascarella and Chapman (1983) have studied Tinto’s theory validation in a multi-
institutional sample. Pascarella and Chapman illustrate three main problems related to the
previous studies that tested Tinto’s theory validation, as follows: 1) most of these studies
focus on the operational variables of academic and social integration (e. g., studying the
relationship between pre-college characteristics and student retention); 2) most of these
studies were conducted in four-year residential institutions; therefore, more investigation
regarding two-year institutions, or on commuter institutions is required; and 3) these studies
in general utilized a single sample in one large university, which produces a generalization
limitation.
Pascarella and Chapman’s (1983) study was conducted on four different types of
institutions: residential universities, liberal arts colleges, two-year and four-year commuter
institutions. In general, this study supported the predictive validity of Tinto’s theory with a
comment that student characteristics have “the main-effects influence on persistence” (p. 25).
However, Pascarella and Chapman use the concepts of persistence/withdrawal instead of
retention concept in their study, despite Tinto (2010) distinguishing between two concepts.
Retention refers to the perspective of the institution. Institutions seek to retain
students and increase their rates of institutional retention. By extension the term
student retention refers to that process that leads students to remain within the
institution in which they enroll and earn a certificate or degree. By contrast,
persistence refers to the perspective of the student. Students seek to persist even if it
may lead to transfer to another institution. By extension, the term student persistence
refers to that process that leads students to remain in higher education and complete
their certificate or degree regardless of the institution from which the certificate or
degree is earned (p. 53).
Moreover, Rendón, Jalomo, and Nora (2000) criticized Tinto’s theory according to
the issue of the non-white students variable. The purpose of their study was to; 1) provide a
critical analysis of Tinto's theory with a specific focus on the separation and transition stage
mentioned earlier; 2) critique Tinto's concepts of academic and social integration; and 3)
provide some recommendations to develop Tinto’s theory into a higher level of student
development research (p. 131).
Rendón et al. (2000) sees the separation stage of Tinto’s theory as utilizing a negative
interpretation of a native culture, which requires a student to abandon his/her culture and
embrace the new culture of institution or community to be integrated socially or
academically. Rendón et al. state “The assumption made is that an individual's values and
beliefs rooted in his or her cultural background must be abandoned to successfully
incorporate the values and beliefs not only of the institution but of the majority population
upon which they are based” (p. 132).
To overcome this issue, Rendón et al. (2000) offer a concept of “Biculturalism” (p.
133) in where the student can move between two or more cultures that are separate and
diverse. In fact, understanding student ability to fit between and within two cultures is
important, especially for the first-year students. Therefore, “culture translators, mediators,
and role models become critical to the socialization process” (Skipper, 2005, p. 72).
However, moving from theoretical perspective to practical action, Tinto (1993) suggests
action principles for development of retention programs:
1. Postsecondary institutes require providing adequate resources to develop intervention
programs.
2. Postsecondary institutes are obligated to plan a long-term process to develop and
adjust these programs according to students’ needs and institutional mission.
3. Postsecondary institutes that plan such changes are required to identify and allocate
tasks and responsibility across the campus to implement that change.
4. Postsecondary institutions require coordinating efforts to insure a systematic campus-
wide approach to achieve retention goal.
5. Postsecondary institutes require insuring that faculty and administration staff
members have the necessity skills to teach and assist students.
6. Postsecondary institutions require giving more attention to student retention issues.
7. Postsecondary institutes require focusing more on assessment of its process and
actions about retention programs for development purposes.
In sum, Tinto’s theory provides a wide understanding of student retention issues and
includes suggestions to improve student retention. Moreover, Tinto’s theory provides a new
perspective about factors and variables that can influence students’ persistence and retention.
For example, new perspectives emerged as a result of applying Tinto’s theory in different
contexts such as economic, cultural, psychological, organizational, social perspectives,
especially for the first-year student. Furthermore, Tinto’s theory stresses that developing and
implementing a comprehensive student retention program requires a commitment from
university/college leaders, faculty, and staff.
Pascarella and Terenzini Theory. Pascarella and Terenzini have conducted a
comprehensive analysis of student development research, for example, How College Affects
Students: Findings and Insights from Twenty Years of Research (1991), and How College
Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research (2005), which were cited by 9,020 researchers,
according to Google Scholar.

In a longitudinal analysis of how college affects students, Pascarella and Terenzini
(1991, 2005) have conducted an exhaustive review of the literature on first-year students
using variables such as GPA, retention, graduation and self-reported student satisfaction
(Jamelske, 2009). The purpose of these studies was to answer the following questions, “Do
students change in various ways during the colleges year? To what extent are changes
attributable to collegiate experience and not to other influences (like growing up)? And
finally, what college characteristics and experiences tend to produce change?” (Pascarella
and Terenzini, 1991, p. xvi-xvii). These studies attempted to answer six research questions:
1. What is the evidence that individuals change during the time in which they are
attending college?
2. What evidence exists to indicate that change or development during college is the
result of college attendance?
3. What is the evidence that different kinds of postsecondary institutions have a different
influence on student change or development during college?
4. What evidence exists on the effect of different experiences within the same
institution?
5. What evidence shows that the collegiate experience produces conditional, as opposed
to general, effects on student change or development?
6. What are the long-term effects of college? (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, p. 7-8).
To answer these research questions, Meta-Analysis methodology was utilized to
synthesize research findings. In the first version of their study, Pascarella and Terenzini
(1991) conducted a search covering the period, 1969-1980, by reviewing about 2,600 studies,
representing 1,300 studies per decade. In the 2005 research, the number of studies increased
to 2,400 studies during ten years in the 1990s (Pascarella, 2006).

Chapter Two of Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) study; Theories and Models of
Student Change in College helps to clarify the difference between change and development
terminologies. “Change refers to alternations that occur over time in students’ internal
cognitive or affective characteristics” (p. 16). Moreover, change can be measured
quantitatively or qualitatively. “Development on the other hand, has generated considerable
philosophical and theoretical debate among psychologists, sociologists, and others for some
time” (p. 16).
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005) classified two families of theories and models
of student change and developed directed college impact studies in the last three decades. The
first family category, Developmental Theories, involves psychological aspects of human
growth, or in other words intra-individual development. The second family category, College
Impact Models, regularly focus on “the environmental or sociological origins of student
change” (p. 17). Some examples of this family of theories are Astin (1985, 1993), Tinto
(1993), and Pascarella (1985) models and theories.
The College Impact Models family category emphasizes environmental factors that
change or develop one or more student aspect (e. g., academic aptitude, performance,
socioeconomic, race. etc.) and on structural and organizational aspects (e. g., size, policy,
administration, etc.) Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005). In other words, “how does the
environment of the college or university affect the student’s development? How do the
background and individual characteristics of the student foster or impede development?”
(Long, 2012, p. 51).
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991; 2005) identified four clusters of theories and models
of student change in college:
1. Psychosocial theories (e. g., Erikson theory, Arthur Checkering theory, Cross’s model
of Black Identity Formation, etc.).

2. Cognitive-structural theories (e. g., Jean Piaget theory, Perry’s Scheme of Intellectual
and Ethical Development, Kohlberg’s theory of Moral Development, etc.).
3. Typological models (e. g., the Myers-Briggs typology, etc.).
4. Person-environment interaction models (e. g., Physical model, Human Aggregate
model, Perceptual model. etc.).
In 1985, Pascarella suggested a general casual model to understand student change in
college. The General Model for Assessing Change emphasizes two dimensions: an
institution’s structural features/organizational characteristics and its environmental factors. In
detail, Pascarella’s model comprises five clusters for assessing college student change: 1)
student background and precollege characteristics (e. g., aptitude, achievement, etc.); 2)
organization structure and characteristics (e. g., selectivity, faculty-students ratio, etc.); 3)
clusters 1 & 2 together shape cluster 3, which consists of college environment; 4) the three
clusters impact student interaction with campus components including peers, agents of
socialization, etc.; and 5) cluster 5 is shaped by the quality of student effort, which is also
shaped by student background and interaction with environment (Moon, Sullivan, Hershey,
Walker, Bosangue, Filowitz, Fernandez, Unnikrishnan, and Delgado, 2013). Pascarella’s
model assumes that student learning and cognitive development is impacted directly and
indirectly by institutional characteristics and environment (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991,
2005).
Despite the efforts to classify theories and models of student change in college,
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991, 2005) admitted that “the important lesson is to understand
what the constraints are on any approach and to bear in mind that reliance on developmental
models may lead to misspecification of the origins of student change and growth” (p. 49-50).
Finally, in their article: Studying College Students in the 21st Century: Meeting New
Challenges, published in 1997, Pascarella and Terenzini state that “the knowledge base for
How College Affects Students permitted us to draw conclusions about a population of
students that no longer dominates American postsecondary education” (p. 2).
Ironically, just as analysis of the experiences of college students reached an apex in
terms of quantitative technique and vigor," the population of interest began shifting.
Now at the end of the two decades, our college campuses are no longer predominantly
populated by the students described in this book” (Educational Research, Stage 1993,
p. 22) as cited in (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1997, p. 2)
This conclusion gives an insight about the necessity of studying these theories and
models in a different cultural context such as Saudi postsecondary education. Moreover, the
fact of student change may make postsecondary institutions reconsider before transferring
first-year programs or experiences from one culture to another under the best practices title,
without sufficient knowledge about students’ needs. However, Pascarella and Terenzini
statement supports the current study goals to recognize first-year students and other
stakeholders’ needs in preparatory year program.
Figure 3: The General Model for Assessing Change. (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991, p. 54).
In 2005, Terenzini and Reason argued that most student development theories or
models provide theoretical illustrations of student and faculty behaviors, attitudes, and
cultures. However, it doesn’t explain the influence of organizational structure and
characteristics on student outcomes. One notable exception, Berger and Milem Model (2000),
suggests that organizational structure and characteristics (Internal Organizational Features)
impact students’ college experiences directly or indirectly. An example is university/college
curricular structure, financial issues, educational policies, faculty recruiting, selectivity, etc.
Therefore, Terenzini and Reason (2005) proposed a new framework to identify the
nature and dynamics of factors that impact first-year college experiences. The new
framework is best classified in the second family of student development theories and models
“college impact model” (p. 2), despite its diversity of components between psychology and
social psychology theories, cognitive development theory, and the Foundations of
Excellence® of two years postsecondary institutions. Terenzini and Reason’s (2005) model
assumes that students come to college with diverse backgrounds, including experiences,
knowledge and skills (academic and social background) that prepare him/her to become
involved with the numerous formal and informal learning opportunities offered by his/her
institution. Moreover, student interaction with the institution’s environment will shape his/her
experience and reflect on his/her learning.
The model has three main factors that impact student learning; college/university
internal organization context, the peer environment, and student experiences. However, the
Terenzini and Reason (2005) model relies on different theoretical components including
Foundations of Excellence® of two-year postsecondary institutions. Therefore, applying such
a model to four-year postsecondary institutions requires more study to check its validity in
the research university. Due to the current study’s focus on the four-year research university,
a short description of the model is provided.

Figure 4: A comprehensive model of influences on student learning and persistence.
(Terenzini and Reason, 2005, p. 21).
Chickering’s Theory. The first outline of Chickering’s theory was in his book,
Educational and Identity (1969), which focused on studying the college environment’s
impact on the development of students. In 1993, Chickering revised the theory by including
new variables as follows: 1) merging research findings on student development such as
gender, race, etc. into his theory; 2) including new resources students have in their college
such as specialists, finance aid, etc.; 3) adjusting the theory to fit students age and to also
include adult learners; and 4) introducing an alternative definition of seven vectors of his
theory. Thus, Chickering and Reisser (1993) revised the theory (Evans, Forney, & Guido-
DiBrito, 1998; Rode & Cawthon, 2010). In fact, Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) work relied
on Pascarella and Terenzini’s research (1991) mentioned earlier in this section (DeVilbiss,
2014).
Chickering mentions that the big challenge encountered by college students is
establishing their identity (Rode & Cawthon, 2010). Chickering (1969) states “because each
seems to have direction and magnitude…. even though the direction may be expressed more
appropriately by a spiral or by steps than by a straight line” (p. 8) as cited in (Rode &
Cawthon, 2010, p. 37-38).

In this context, Chickering and Reisser (1993) illustrate that a person’s environment,
culture, and background impact the ways he or she will deal with future issues or tasks.
Therefore, Chickering and Reisser (1993) introduce seven vectors or developmental tasks that
contribute to build student identity. The vectors are described as “maps to help us determine
where students are and which way they are headed” (p. 34). According to Rode and Cawthon
(2010) “vectors built on each other, leading to greater complexity, stability, and integration”
(p. 14). In other words, each vector has its own direction and measure.
According to Chickering and Reisser (1993), the seven vectors are as follows: 1)
developing competence, which includes intellectual (e. g., knowledge and skills acquisition),
interpersonal (e. g. communication, leadership, and teamwork skills), and physical (e. g.,
through athletic and recreational activities); 2) managing emotions (e. g., anxiety, depression,
shame, caring, optimism, and inspiration); 3) moving through autonomy toward
interdependence; 4) developing mature interpersonal relationships (e. g., tolerance, respect
differences, empathy); 5) establishing identity (e. g., self-esteem, self-concept); 6) developing
purpose (e. g., personal interest in future plan, commitment behavior toward study or family);
and 7) developing integrity (e. g., values and responsibility behavior).
Chickering and Reisser (1993) argue that the educational environment has a high
impact on student development. Chickering and Reisser proposed seven main educational
factors that play an important role on students’ transitions:
1. Institutional goals. The clarity of university/college objectives will shape its policy,
programs, and practices.
2. Institutional size. The number of students plays a crucial role on the amount of
development that each student can receive.

3. Student-faculty relationship. Chickering and Reisser (1993) suggest that a student
needs to deal faculty in different situations, which make student-faculty interaction
effective and useful for student.
4. Curriculum. An appropriate curriculum is needed, which meets student needs and
differences.
5. Teaching. Timely feedback, an appropriate interaction between student-faculty, uses
different teaching methods such as learning collaboration, etc.
6. Friendship and student communities. Involvement in community, either formal or
informal, helps students develop personal skills such as collaboration, teamwork,
confidence, etc.
7. Student development programs and services. Chickering and Reisser suggest a
collaborative effort between academic and student affairs to design ideal services and
programs to fit students’ needs.
Some research studies have been conducted to check the validity of this theory. For
example, on women’s development, Taub and McEwen’s (1991) study found that “women’s
development differ from men’s, particularly regarding the importance of interpersonal
relationships in fostering other aspects of development” as cited in (Evans, Forney & Guido-
DiBrito, 1998, p. 46). As well, some studies demonstrate a critique for the theory. For
example, Evans et al., 1998 sees vectors definitions as quite general, and state “it lacks
specificity and precision” (p. 51). Moreover, Rode and Cawthon (2010) suggest that it is
better for researchers to focus on one or two vectors rather than all of the vectors in one study
and use qualitative research methodology to test theory validation in terms of psychosocial
development.
In summary, Chickering’s theory or identity development theory is often a favorite
option of the student affairs community (DeVilbiss, 2014). The seven vectors of theory can
be used as categories for student development issues mentioned earlier in this chapter,
especially the issues related to first-year students, or in other words, related to students in
transition. Examples include, 1) developing competence; 2) managing emotions; 3) moving
through autonomy toward interdependence. These three vectors manifest usually in the first-
year students as other studies show earlier in this chapter (e. g., Evans, Forney, & Guido-
DiBrito, 1998; Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991; Tinto 1975, 1993;
Upcraft & Gardner, 1989)
Overall, this section of literature review discusses the most common student
development theories that have a relationship to first-year student experience and how these
theories can be applied to help to restructure first-year programs. Astin’s (1977, 1993)
involvement theory or I-E-O model describes the importance of an interaction between the
student and educational environment. Increased interaction will lead to more involvement
and learning. Moreover, Astin suggests learning community as a perfect strategy to help first-
year students become involved in university/college environment.
Pascarella and Terenzini Theory (1991, 2005) discuss student change in college. They
suggest that much interaction between the student and his or her university environment will
lead to better learning. Furthermore, the theory is revised to align with the Foundations of
Excellence® dimensions to be more practical.
Tinto’s (1975, 1987, 1993) student departure theory or the retention theory represents a
new perspective about factors and variables that can influence students’ persistence and
retention. Tinto’s theory also examines factors that effect student learning in the first-year.
His investigation found different variables that can impact student decisions about continuing
or leaving their college. These variables include economic, cultural, psychological,
organizational, social perspectives. Tinto called for the necessity of implementing a
comprehensive student retention program at colleges.

Chickering’s (1993) Theory, or the identity development theory, is a practical tool for
the student affairs division at any college, providing practical categories for student
development transition issues through the seven vectors theory. Finally, we can observe that
these theories and models attempt to understand how students change in college or how
college affects students? Each theory built on the previous one or on part of it. Moreover,
each theory could be utilized to deal with part or all of first-year challenges. Understanding
these theories and their applications will help to understand and analyze content analysis
outcomes of this study. As this study is qualitative in nature it requires deep understanding of
the first-year and students’’ success theories to illustrate the current practices of Preparatory
Year Programs in Saudi public universities.
The First-Year Experience
First-year is a critical period of transition into postsecondary education. Besides, first-
year is “not grade 13” (Hunter, 2006, p. 4) where the student usually relies on his/her teacher
to direct him/her to do school work. The university study requires the student to be more
responsible and commit toward his/her study and future. Therefore, the events happening at
this period of transition between high school and university and during the first-year of
college will affect students’ success positively or negatively in coming years (Gardner, 1998;
Raymond & Napoli, 1998; Soldner & Duby, 1999; Tinto, 1996; Upcraft & Gardner, 1989;
Upcraft & Gardner, 1989; Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005). On the other hand, despite
the postsecondary institutions commitment to support students to earn their degrees and
achieve their goals, postsecondary institutions are a business, which has high interest in its
graduate quality and retention rate (Curtis & Harte, 1991; Johnston, 2010).
According to Upcraft and Gardner (1989), postsecondary institutions should embrace
ten beliefs to help first-year students be successful. These beliefs are as follows: 1)
institutions have an obligation to support and enhance the first-year students, 2) institutions
can intentionally and successfully help first-year students to achieve their academic and
personal goals, 3) involvement is the key to success of first-year students, 4) help first-year
students to engage with others such as faculty, students, etc., 5) institutions should take into
account the diversity issue such as racial, cultural, ethnic, etc., 6) dignity and respect is a
basis of student treatment, 7) establishing deliberate goals for first-year students, 8) ensuring
an institutional commitment to enhance first-year student success, 9) utilizing the Freshman
Seminar to improve student success, and 10) necessity of faculty involvement (p. 4-5). In
their first-year college, students learn the language and culture of their institution. They
develop minimally successful study skills. They also develop certain attitudes towards
faculty. A student’s attitude towards faculty is an important indicator as to whether or not a
student will be retained (Gardner, 2007).
In this context and for better understanding of first-year students, this section of
literature review will illustrate first-year experience in detail to recognize first-year history,
issues, organizational structures and functions, and the first-year experience from an
international perspective.
The History of First-Year Experience Concept. The concept of first-year has
historical roots, beginning with the “freshman” concept, which has gradually been replaced
by the term, “first-year student,” at colleges and universities. In 1998, the concept of First-
Year Experience and Students in Transition was introduced by the University of South
Carolina's National Resource Center (Watts, n.d.).
Historically, the first use of the freshman concept dates back more than 800 years ago,
when the first Italian young men went to Bologna in the twelfth century for study (Dwyer,
1989). Freshmen students were responsible for organizing the lecture and examinations
schedule. In France, in the “renaissance” (p. 26) era, the famous liberal arts teachers tried to
attract some freshmen to come to Paris. These students’ parents encouraged their sons,
especially boys who were between thirteen and sixteen, to join the nearest universities.
Dwyer noted that, the renaissance era created an undergraduate curriculum that was used
until the middle of nineteenth century in Western higher education.
During that time, students who engaged with university at those early ages lived with
the other first-year students in a dorm or “hall” (p. 26). The dorm was managed by freshmen
students themselves, or by the oldest students, or by a master. In addition, students were
required to attend some lectures and select courses as a prelude to choosing a teacher (Dwyer,
1989). At the beginning of their arrival at university, the older students looked at a freshman
as a “victim” (p. 27) upon arrival, but then welcomed the freshman later. In addition, the
university celebrated new students in a ceremony called “depositio” (p. 27) as a part of a
semiofficial university function. This celebration was conducted to celebrate the new arrivals;
however, freshmen “might be subject to discrimination” (p. 27).
In Europe during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, universities required students
to register for some courses that helped them to adjust to university life and manage personal
affairs. According to Dwyer (1989), freshmen could register for “Ars Dictaminis, or business
Latin” (p. 28) courses to learn how to draft a letter or document. After completing these
courses, each freshman started to study subject by subject with his master until the master
determined the student’s readiness for the next level of study. Dwyer (1989) points out that,
at this phase of study, students can take notes, memorize and retrieve information, work in
groups, and engage in public debate. When approved by the master, freshmen became
eligible to be a “sophister” (p. 28), which means “sophomore, in English universities later”
(p. 28).
In the sixteenth century, the new technology of printing increased the availability of
books especially for freshmen, which provided more opportunity for students to access
printed educational resources. In 1550, the concept of first-year manifested in the English
language to describe a new novice in any field of work, and in 1590 was used officially in
English universities to describe new students (Dwyer, 1989, p. 28). In 1638, the new Harvard
College in North America used the concept of freshmen for the first time (Dwyer, 1989).
Because those students in 1638 were the first group of students at Harvard and there were no
sophomore students, they struggled to adapt to their masters. Harvard also created “freshmen
counselors” (p. 30), which established the first system to help students’ transition into
college.
Dwyer (1989) mentioned that Harvard empowered its freshmen to get grants for
doing some work such as serving the college, taking care of the college bell, etc. These tasks
paved the way to appoint the first “President’s freshman” (p. 30). Ralph Waldo Emerson was
the first appointed to this position in 1817. In 1655, Harvard College raised admission criteria
for freshmen, whereby students were required to have Latin speaking, reading, and writing
skills. The admission process was changed, with an entrance exam conducted by Harvard’s
president (Dwyer, 1989).
In 1735, Harvard College invented “the College Customs” (Dwyer, 1989, p. 31), and
assigned freshmen advisors. The College Customs document contained a series of ethical and
educational statements, and sophomore students were required to read it publicly for
freshmen. Later, Harvard’s faculty opposed the College Customs because they thought it was
unsuccessful and replaced it with the first protection record of freshmen, which outlined the
freshmen students’ rights and responsibilities (Higgins, 2010).
Despite the spread of freshman culture and initiatives, Dwyer noted that some
freshmen at some universities were still suffering for their rights. For example, at some
universities, freshmen were responsible for cleaning rooms and building the fireplace, while
in other universities, they were not permitted to use a library.

In the nineteenth century, an educational development movement unfolded in
secondary and postsecondary education, which caused universities and secondary schools
enrollment numbers to expand and the student bodies to become more diverse. During that
era, admission policy and standards changed to be more “selective” (p. 32). Further,
universities such Harvard required pre-courses for their freshmen such as mathematics. The
secondary schools tried to prepare students for college, especially after the movement to
standardize curriculum and teaching. Dwyer noted that the most important feature of that era
is faculty involvement with freshmen, through which they tried to improve freshmen life. For
example, faculty arranged “freshmen week” (p. 33). Additionally, in 1889 Harvard
established “A Board of Freshman Advisors” (p. 33), which was responsible to take care of
freshman affairs such as students’ support out of the classroom, to provide an orientation plan
for new students, arrange social events, and provide advice to help freshmen become more
independent (1989).
The Board of Freshman Advisors realized that freshmen advising and orientation are
necessary to help students transition into college because transition phase students encounter
difficulties making correct decisions, understanding the campus environment, and are often
missing required skills for college (Higgins, 2010). Higgins noted that the Board of
Freshman Advisors at Harvard identified three main principles for orientation of freshmen: 1)
students need guidance rather than only specific instruction, 2) students need a support
system regarding choices and skills to make correct decisions, and 3) students need more
support from faculty to ensure success (2010).
One of the important features of nineteenth century education is that women newly
participated in higher education as freshmen students, such as “the seven sisters” (Dwyer,
1989, p. 33) at Mount Holyoke College in 1837, which is considered the first group of
women in postsecondary education in the United States. According to Dwyer, “Freshman

women there were more members of a city community than a college campus” (p. 34). In
other words, freshmen women were not subject to campus restriction or specific rules or
direction such as males.
In the twentieth century, higher education functions were changed due to changes in
social culture, the industrial revolution, need for qualified laborers, and emergence of new
variables, especially among freshmen diversity, identity, behavioral problems, technology
revolution, etc. (Dwyer, 1989). Dwyer divided freshmen development during the first half of
the twentieth century into two stages: 1) “the freshman as parishioner” (p. 35), in which
freshman learned from directions that were outlined by the university. Freshman were also
required to learn time management and some soft skills, and 2) the freshman under the
“microscope” (p. 35), in which freshman studies concentrated on problems encountered by
freshman such as identity, curriculum adjustment, financial problems, beliefs, culture,
religion, and successfully transitioning into college.
During the second half of twenty century, freshman research studies further evolved,
with new methods invented to help freshman. For example, General Alarm was a new system
utilized to indicate students’ needs or problems at many universities. Universities developed a
more involved role to better provide students required tools for adjustment (Higgins, 2010).
Additionally, mid-century freshmen research studies indicated that freshman students have
different problems and needs. For example, some need guidance; others need counselor or
social support, while some need information that helps with adjustment to university life
(Dwyer, 1989). In short, Dwyer identified two services that can help universities or colleges
provide support to first-year students as they transition to postsecondary education: 1)
consular system, and 2) orientation programs.
The expression “freshman” is gradually replaced by the term, “first-year student,” at
colleges and universities. In 1998, the concept of First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition was introduced by the University of South Carolina's National Resource Center
(Watts, n.d.). In the last twenty years, the first-year discipline received large-scale interest by
scholars and postsecondary institutions. In their preface to Challenging and Supporting the
First-Year College Student, Upcraft, Gardner, and Barefoot (2005) highlighted the most
important first-year accomplishments in the last twenty years. To illustrate a few examples,
colleges and universities:
1. Increased campus-wide, national, and international conversation and action about the
first-year of college.
2. Introduced more initiatives designed to help first-year students succeed, for instance,
more flexible and varied first-year seminars, more comprehensive development
educational programs, etc.
3. Expanded research and scholarship on the first-year of college, for example,
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) How College Affect Students, Astin (1993) What
Matters in College?, and Tinto (1993) Principles of Effective Retention. The
contributions of these scholars and others provide better understanding of students’
characteristics, assessment and development tools of first-year, and more approaches
to help students to transition into colleges successfully.
4. Developed closer collaboration between academic affairs and students affairs.
5. Integrated technology into first-year initiatives.
6. Included diversity in first-year initiatives as a permanent feature of the first-year
student landscape.
7. Made the classroom central to efforts to promote first-year students' success (p. 2-7).
Moreover, Upcraft, Gardner, and Barefoot (2005) mentioned some challenges
encountering first-year experience movements. For instance:
1. There is no consensus about a clear sense of purpose in the first-year.

2. Building first-year initiatives that are responsive to today’s increasingly diverse
students is still a challenge.
3. The link from research and assessment to policy and practice is still weak.
4. Institutional efforts to help first–year students succeed are still not sufficiently
integrated.
5. Efforts to help first-year students succeed are too often focused on retention rather
than students learning.
6. First-year students’ out-of-class experiences are still a double-edged sword (p. 2-7).
Besides, Upcraft et. al. outlined some important issues encountered by students as
they transfer from secondary to postsecondary education. For example, discovering identity,
determining self-concept, making decisions about future careers, building interpersonal
relationships, developing academic competency, and developing responsible behaviors,
beliefs, and spirituality.
Despite these developments in first-year, Skipper (2005) mentions “many institutions
already design and deliver interventions that assist students in resolving these and other tasks
in the first college year and beyond, but these programs are frequently divorced from the
student’s classroom experiences and intellectual development” (p. 5). Barefoot (2004) states
“Campuses have lacked any systematic, valid definition of, or standards for, first-year
excellence that go beyond a single best-practice program to a broader characterization of a
campus’s total approach to the first-year” (p. 5).
Overall, this study will establish a new scientific context of first-year within Saudi
postsecondary education and may result in new or similar functions of preparatory year with
respect to the international level.
First-Year Experience Issues. “Where am I now, what am I doing, what has my
schooling prepared me to do?” (Johnston, 2010, p. 1). Comments and questions about
students’ first-year were shared at most postsecondary institutions. These questions and
others required clear answers and support to make students transition successfully into
university/college. Thus, Johnston states that each student has his or her own perception of
first-year transition, which can have an effect on his/her academic future and life.
The positive common characteristics of new first-year students include high skills and
knowledge to use technology, a trend toward social work and team activity, ability to access
and acquire information, focus less on school work and emphasize future career plan,
improve familial/parental involvement, and passion to learn more with high expectations
(Keeling, 2003; Newton, 2000). However, several issues and challenges related to students’
transition into postsecondary education still exist (e.g., Astin, Oseguera, Sax, &Korn, 2002;
Bauer & Liang, 2003; Crissman Ishler, 2005; Gordon & Steele, 2003; Howe & Strauss, 2000;
Johnston, 2010; Pryor, Hurtado, Saenz, Lindholm, Korn & Mahoney, 2005). For example:
1. Cultural barrier: students move from high school or familiar cultural environment to
university or a more diverse cultural environment. Furthermore, students’ move from
theoretical fields to professional fields.
2. Personal change: some students feel academic disengagement, decreased social
activism, difficulty understanding his/her capacity (self-assessment), weak decision-
making skills, especially about his/her major, and lack of some life skills. Personal
change has a direct effect on performance of first-year students.
3. Increase in emotional and mental health disorders among new students, either male or
female.
4. Family background, type of relationship between students and his/her parents, some
come from divorced family, and some are first generation students.
5. Increase in university cost and decrease in financial aid.
6. Number of students with disabilities, who require more attention.

7. Finally, Gender differences involving different needs.
Alexander, Garcia, Gonzalez, and Grimes (2007), conducted a study to identify
barriers in the transfer process for Hispanic and Hispanic immigrant students. This study is
determined several barriers encounter such students: 1) economic difficulties; 2) culture
barrier on two levels; engagement with dominant white students’ body and norms that do not
support women in higher education; 3) lack of family and students awareness about
postsecondary education importance and values; 4) lack or no English language or life skills;
5) no preparation courses prior university enrollment; and 6) lack or no support from faculty
and administration staff for those students.
Furthermore, Upcraft, Gardner, and Barefoot (2005), in their book, Challenging and
Supporting the First-Year College Student, identified several developmental matters
encountered by first-year students. For example, discovering their identity, making a decision
regarding future career, developing civic obligation, emerging intellectual feeling, promoting
a confident feeling in academic competence, and developing beliefs, faith, and spirituality.
Erickson and Strommer (2005) conducted a study to recognize the issues that are
encountered by first-year students inside the first-year classroom. Erickson and Strommer
classify the most common problems in first-year classroom as four categories:
1. Academic preparation, in which a number of high school graduates are not ready for
college academically, especially in English, science, math, writing skills, etc.
Moreover, most of those students have no experience about the nature of studying in
college, in which students’ need to spend more time for study and doing assignments.
In addition, some academic skills such as taking notes, summarizing content,
participating in classroom activities, etc. are missing.
2. Expectations and motivation for learning, in which some students have course
expectations higher or less than his/her capacity. These expectations are the result of
his/her perception about college or coursework, correlated to his/her motivation to
study. Thus, establishing a positive relationship with faculty or academic adviser will
help a student to recognize his/her aptitude and manage his expectations, while
improving his motivation to learn.
3. Learning style. First-year classroom experience differs; for example, students come
from high school with different backgrounds, and teachers are responsible to guide
students to do tasks/assignments, according to specific steps. Furthermore, each
student has a different learning style and he/she may prefer a specific way of teaching.
Therefore, faculty is required to recognize student diversity and to design learning
activities in a way that ensures all students can participate and engage in classroom
community.
4. Stage of intellectual development. Erickson and Strommer state “students also differ
in their stage of intellectual development… with some significant differences for
women” (246). This research fact suggests that teaching students who are in different
stages of intellectual development require using various teaching methods.
According to Studdert (2013), utilizing supplemental instruction or peer-assisted
support programs, academic advising, learning community to share experiences, and
participation in service learning to enhance civic responsibility will help to overcome these
challenges and problems.
Other challenges and problems of first-year students are outside of the classroom. For
example, first-year residential environments must facilitate and develop an interaction
between students themselves, between students and faculty, and students and the external
community. Moreover, the learning environment such as the library should be comfortable
and facilitate learning. Finally, development of some social activity to promote student
engagement in society, promote student diversity, and working part time on campus (Astin,
1993; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).
Mullendore and Banahan (2005) see orientation programs for student and their family
as an effective solution to overcome previous challenges. Moreover, Mullendore and
Banahan provide several recommendations for an effective orientation program, for example:
1. Develop and support an orientation process that continues at least throughout the first
semester.
2. Develop an orientation program that introduces and reflects the mission and goals of
the institution.
3. Balance between technology utilization and person-person interaction.
4. Encourage collaboration between student affairs and academic affairs in the
orientation program.
Some other issues are related to gender. Christensen (1990) found strong correlation
between gender and retention (as cited in Ishler & Upcraft, 2005). Hill and Sedlacek’s (1995)
study on male and female first-year students found that men are more interested in improving
their academic skills than women. On the other hand, females are more interested in
receiving counseling about educational vocational concerns and emotional/social issues.
Perrine’s (2001) study, College Stress and Persistence, which was focused on first-year
students, found that females demonstrated more stress than males, and the attrition rate is
higher as well. Perrine recommended that an intervention program is required at this stage of
college before students become stressed.
This conclusion supports the need for developing first-year intervention programs
with more attention to gender issues, taking into account that females have different needs
than males. As Preparatory Year deanship at King Saud University provides male and female
students with one content program, this may require redesigning a program to fit their gender
needs. The current study will provide information regarding both male and female
perceptions about first-year program at King Saud University.
Barefoot (2000) in her article, The first-year experience: Are we making it any
better?, stresses the necessity of continuing to recognize the new challenges that affect
students’ transition and enhance the first-year programs and initiatives, with more focus on
factors that influence students’ future work during first-year. In addition, postsecondary
institutions need to create flexible solutions that can respond to the diversity of students, to
promote their learning, and to make their transition experience successful, while improving
persistence and retention through systemic efforts with an appropriate pedagogy fitting local
culture and supporting international trends (Johnston, 2010).
In summary, this section shows the most important issues related to first-year students
and mentions some first-year solutions that can be utilized to overcome these issues or reduce
their impact on students’ development. Therefore, understanding students’ problems and
needs prior to establishing or developing first-year programs is crucial.
The First-Year Experience: An International Perspective. Outside the United
State of America, first-year experience and students in transition topic has high interest (Nutt
& Calderon, 2009). In the United Kingdom, Yorke’s (1999) research about the students’
departure and postsecondary institutions roles in this phenomenon had a significant output to
shape first-year researches in the UK. Furthermore, Yorke and Longden (2007) conducted a
study across UK’s postsecondary institutions to identify first-year initiatives and programs.
These studies provided insights about the critical factors that influence first-year programs in
the UK (Nutt & Calderon, 2009).
In Australia, the McInnis, James, and Hartley (2000) study contributed positively to
disseminate first-year culture across the country. Moreover, it directed first-year research
toward specific issues related to student transition, retention, persistence, and to develop
English aptitude of student who has such problem. Furthermore, Krause, Hartley, James, and
McKinnis (2005) conducted a longitude study to explore first-year movement during 10 years
in Australia. This study directed research toward specific issues of first-year as well (Nutt &
Calderon, 2009).
In 2009, the European First-year Experience Conference took place in Groningen in
the Netherland. Numerous researchers from several countries participated in the conference,
e. g., Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway. The main theme of the conference
was Researching the Fist-Year Experience. The conference discussed several issues related to
the first-year experience such “student support services collaborating with academic staff pre-
entry work to better prepare students for their studies, skills development for students in the
first-year, institutional fist-year strategies, and fist-year assessment” (Nutt & Calderon, 2009,
p. 5).
In the Arabic postsecondary educational context, the literature review did not find an
organized research project to search for first-year issues and trends. There is a limited number
of individual research studies as mentioned earlier at the beginning of this chapter. The first
conference about first-year experience in Saudi Arabia and in the region named First
National Conference for Prep Year in Saudi Arabia took place in University of Dammam on
22-23 April 2015 (http://prep1sa.ud.edu.sa).
However, by observing the first-year movement and development globally, which
most of international university has a clear theoretical base to develop its program, more
attention is required to explore and identify a theoretical base of the program in Saudi
universities, and this is what this study achieved.
Student’s Success in the First-Year College
The literature review provides specific components that universities may take into
account for developing effective first-year programs that can facilitate students’ success in
their first-year of college. Most of the research on first-year programs stress the importance
of developing initiatives that encourage students to become involved academically and
socially, and facilitate their transition into postsecondary education.
Several research studies focus more attention on the factors that can influence
students’ success in college/university, such as psychological factors (e.g. motivation, self-
understanding, mental health, self-efficacy, lifelong learning skills, personal goals, etc.).
Other postsecondary institutions develop intervention programs that aim to improve student
retention, performance, and graduation rates which can also contribute to students’ success.
In general, the first-year experience literature suggests that each institution has unique student
needs and goals. Therefore, several different first-year intervention programs have been
developed, and a wide debate that relates to the benefits of the first-year intervention
programs has emerged.
For example, some researchers reported usefulness of these programs and others
reported limited benefits. For example, some studies reported a high impact of learning
community practice as an intervention program benefiting student retention and performance
(Bailey and Alfonso, 2005; Blackhurst, Akey & Bobilya, 2003; Commander, Valeri-Gold,
Darnell, 2004; Crissman, 2001; Dillon, 2003; franklin, 2000; Gold & Pribbenow, 2000;
Johnson, 2000-01; Kutnowski, 2005; Tinto, 2000; Walker, 2003). In contrast, others reported
little or no effect from the learning community practices over time on students’ performance
(Baker, Meyer, Hunt, 2005; Barrows & Goodfellow, 2005). They suggest some intervention
practices, such as improving communication between students and faculty to make students’
transition into college successful, instead of using the learning community strategy.
Furthermore, Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) observed a lack of assessment studies
that explore the weaknesses and strengths of the first-year intervention programs; or, the
studies that evaluated some of these intervention programs did not mention the program’s
characteristics, which created difficulties predicting whether these programs can work in
different environments or not. Despite such limitations, first-year intervention programs
continue to play an important role in preparing students for college/university life (Upcraft,
Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005).
First-year interventions are classified into three main categories: curricular strategies,
co-curricular strategies, and institutional strategies (Barefoot, 2005; Miller, 2011; Storey,
2010; Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005). Curricular strategies include initial courses,
seminars, counseling, service learning, faculty development, and supplemental instruction.
Co-curricular strategies include learning communities, first-year experience programs,
campus activities, membership in social clubs or academic association, etc. Finally,
institutional strategies include curricular and co-curricular interventions, which can create
opportunities for students or institutional decision-makers to make adjustments or changes in
specific areas of the first-year programs to ensure their effectiveness. For example, providing
financial support for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Upcraft, Gardner &
Barefoot, 2005).
Crosling, Thomas, and Heagney (2008) identify several functions for the first-year
program that may foster student success: 1) recruiting; 2) admissions selectivity; 3) financial
aid; 4) orientation and academic advising; 5) teaching/learning; 6) academic support; 7)
supplemental instruction; 8) academic enrichment; 9) residential living; 10) learning
communities; 11) service learning; 12) counseling; 13) extracurricular activities; 14)
underrepresented students/specialty sub-populations; 15) undecided students; 16) early alert;
17) policies/procedures; 18) faculty/staff development; 19) internal marketing programs; 20)
first-year experience courses; 21) sophomore strategies; 22) technology utilization; 23)
students’ engagement and satisfaction; 24) quality service; and 25) adult learning strategies.
Conley (2008) suggests four dimensions for postsecondary institutional improvement
to make students’ transition into college successful. These dimensions express the first-year
functions in college/university.
1. Key Cognitive Strategies:
a. Problem formulation and problem solving.
b. Research skills.
c. Reasoning, argumentation, and proof.
d. Analyzing and interpreting data or information.
e. Precision and accuracy for tasks achievement (p. 7-8).
2. Academic Knowledge and Skills: associated with academic subjects (e.g. English,
mathematics, science, social studies, world languages, and the arts).
3. Academic Behaviors: “self-awareness, self-monitoring, and self-control of processes
and actions necessary for academic success… self-management skills... time
management, stress management, task prioritizing, using information resources,
taking class notes, and communicating with teachers and advisers” (p. 9-10).
4. Contextual Skills and Awareness: “the information students need to apply
successfully to college, gain necessary financial aid, and then, subsequent to
matriculation, understand how college operates as a system and culture” (p. 10-11).
Adding to these four dimensions, Evenbeck, Jackson, Smith, Ward, and Associates
(2010) explain that the first-year experience establishes its functions by linking faculty
members, student affairs, student services, policies, and academic advising, and then utilizes
the first-year programing such as first-year seminars, learning communities, etc.
In general, Koch and Gardner (2014) divided the current practices, initiatives, and
programs for first-year students into three categories:

1- Pre-University Programs for First-Year Students: new student orientation programs,
parent/family orientation programs, summer bridge programs, and summer or
common reading programs.
2- First-Year Initiatives Focused on the Curriculum and/or the Faculty: academic
advising, developmental education, distance education and online first-year courses,
faculty development, first-year seminars, learning communities, service learning, and
supplemental instruction.
3- Structures, Services, and Activities that Benefit First-Year Students: early
alert/warning systems, learner analytics, first-year activities such as athletics,
institutional policies, attendance and mid-term reporting, and living-learning
communities/first-year living environments (p. 23-33).
“How is the first-year different in institutions of varying type, size, and mission? Is
there evidence that the first-year is being designed in ways that are consistent with existing
principles of good practices that promote learning and retention?” (Barefoot, 2005, p. 47).
Additionally, “How can colleges and universities improve their first-year academic
encounters? How can they enhance the impact of their programs upon student retention?”
(Tinto, 1996, p. 1).
Several studies attempted to answer these questions regarding the first-year program
structure that could support student’s success in their first-year of college. For example,
Barefoot’s (2005) study Current Institutional Practices in the First-Year, developed two
separate surveys: first-year curricular practices and first-year co-curricular practices survey.
The surveys’ items investigated the ways that postsecondary institutions structured first-year
programs. For instance, some items asked about the institutional mission, resources, role,
programs, student body size, location, student life, policy, structure, etc. The surveys were
used for description purposes, not for diagnosing problems or recommending solutions. The
surveys used a random sample of 621 postsecondary institutions. The directors of academic
and student affairs were asked to fill out the surveys in each institute. The sample is stratified
by the Carnegie Classification with a response rate of 54%.
This study concluded that the first-year experience is “more than seminar course,
orientation program, or learning community” (Barefoot, 2005, p. 62). Barefoot suggested that
developing the first-year experience, as a whole program, including interacting components,
is better than separate parts or initiatives. Moreover, the type, size, mission, student, internal
and external environmental components are key factors for structuring the first-year
experience. Furthermore, Barefoot mentioned important issues related to higher education
trends in general, “to be transformed by market pressures, changing levels of external
financial support, and the impact of technology” (p. 63). These results are consistent with
Braxton and McClendon’s (2001-2) study outcomes, which suggest that students’ success
and retention in the first-year is a campus-wide responsibility, not only the task of one
division’s department. Moreover, (Cuseo, n. d.; Studdert, 2013) suggest that a comprehensive
and centralized first-year program is more effective than decentralized or fractured programs.
However, Skipper (2005), states that “many institutions already design and deliver
interventions that assist students in resolving these and other tasks in the first college year
and beyond, but these programs are frequently divorced from the student’s classroom
experiences and intellectual development” (p. 5). Therefore, more attention has been devoted
to the structure of first-year programs to help students’ success in their transition into
postsecondary education.
For example, Cutright (2002), determined several themes, which influence research
universities in developing student’s success in the first-year: 1) diffusing the first-year
programs on a university level; 2) housing first-year initiatives on the colleges’ level or in
departments; 3) adopting varied strategies or approaches for first-year programs; 4) adopting

learning communities as a main strategy for first-year programs; 5) assessing and developing
learning and teaching strategies of the first-year; 6) developing the relationship between
academic and student affairs, especially in terms of the admission policy; and 7) using
benchmark and assessment tools to evaluate the first-year experience.
Hossler, Kuh, and Olsen (2001), in their research, Finding (more) fruit on the vines,
introduce three strategies to foster first-year student success: 1) expanding collaboration
between university diffusion, colleges, and departments regarding first-year initiatives; 2)
developing and integrating academic and social experiences; and 3) establishing a strong
academic foundation. Cubarrubia and Schoen (2010), in their study Creating a
Developmental Framework for New Student Orientation to Address the Needs of Diverse
Population, offer a framework for delivering a first-year experience that can meet students’
diverse developmental needs. They suggest two levels for the program’s design: the
assessment and planning level and the implementation level.
The assessment and planning level requires answering three main questions: “what do
I know about my student population?, what does current research say about my student
population?, and what is the balance between creating programs for some students and
creating programs for all students?” (p. 173-174). In the implementation level, three main
questions need to be answered: “how does my program address challenges related to
accessibility and affordability? How does my program address challenges related to
inadequate preparation?, and how does my program address students’ need for adequate
support networks?” (p. 174-175).
In their study, University College: Flexible Structure for Serving Undergraduate
Students, Swing and Alexander-Hamilton (2010) describe the five-category typology of first-
year organizational structures created by the staff of the Policy Center on the First-Year of
College, now called John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education.
The typology is divided into two levels:
1. Single administrative unit structures comprise comprehensive and non-comprehensive
structure. The comprehensive structure contains a campus-wide organizational chart,
director/senior leader, a recurring operational budget; the non-comprehensive single
unit structure meets some of previous components, but not all.
2. Multiple unit administrative structures contain three types of structures; a) multiple
units that are coordinated by a formal standing committee or official coordinating
form; b) multiple units that intentionally but informally collaborate to provide first-
year resources and services; and c) multiple units that operate separately with limited
coordination (p. 1-2).
By relying on the research published over the past 30 years (e.g., Astin, 1977, 1993;
Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 1998, 2005; Whitt & Associates, 1991), on professional
experience, and developmental theories, Barefoot, Gardner, and Swing utilized the typology
as a resource for Foundations of Excellence® in the First College Year Institute (Miller,
2011). The Foundations of Excellence® in the First College Year Institute (http://
http://www.jngi.org), established the First-Year Focus – Foundational Dimensions® for
Four-Year Colleges.
Foundational Dimensions statements constitute a model that provides institutions with
a means to evaluate and improve the first-year of college. As an evaluation tool, the
model enables institutions both to confirm their strengths and to recognize the need
for improvement. As an aspirational model, the Dimensions provide general
guidelines for an intentional design of the first-year (“John N. Gardner Institute”,
2015).
The dimensions are normative statements representing the issues related to
postsecondary institution cultures, policy, mission, structure, activities, and programs that
shape student learning and success in the first-year (Terenzini, 2005).
1- Foundations Institutions approach the first-year in ways that are intentional and based
on a philosophy/rationale of the first-year that informs relevant institutional policies
and practices (Philosophy).
2- Foundations Institutions create organizational structures and policies that provide a
comprehensive, integrated, and coordinated approach to the first-year (Organization).
3- Foundations Institutions deliver intentional curricular and co-curricular learning
experiences that engage students in order to develop knowledge, skills, attitudes, and
behaviors consistent with the desired outcomes of higher education and the
institution’s philosophy and mission (Learning).
4- Foundations Institutions make the first college year a high priority for the faculty
(Faculty).
5- Foundations Institutions facilitate appropriate student transitions through policies and
practices that are intentional and aligned with the institutional mission (Transitions).
6- Foundations Institutions serve all first-year students according to their varied needs
(All Students).
7- Foundations Institutions ensure that all first-year students experience diverse ideas,
worldviews, and cultures as a means of enhancing their learning and preparing them
to become members of pluralistic communities (Diversity).
8- Foundations Institutions promote student understanding of the various roles and
purposes of higher education, both for the individual and society (Roles and
Purposes).
9- Foundations Institutions conduct assessment and maintain associations with other
institutions and relevant professional organizations in order to achieve ongoing first-
year improvement (Improvement) (“John N. Gardner Institute”, 2015).
The dimensions were developed for self-assessment and to assist postsecondary
institutions in measuring performance and impact on student learning to compare on-campus
programs and to improve the current structure of the program if needed. Moreover, the
dimensions were “formulated in a general manner to enable academic institutions to
articulate their own beliefs for the preparatory year within the institutional guidelines”
(Alaqeeli, 2014, p. 47).
Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements
The root of the word “vision” originates from “the Latin videre, to see” (Senge, 1994,
p. 302). A vision statement should answer the questions: ‘‘what do we hope to become?’’
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. 62) or “what do we want to create?” (Senge, 2006, p. 192). Thus,
the vision statements of universities are considered to be a philosophical guide for what a
particular university or college works toward achieving (Abelman & Dalessandro, 2008). In
his article, Vision and Education, Pekarsky (2007) explains how vision guides education.
Pekarsky stresses that vision must be measurable, clear, and meaningful for all stakeholders.
Therefore, all schools function via commitment and are linked to achieve its vision and make
desired change. Clayton (1997) describes six characteristics of institution vision:
1- Powerful: Although a vision statement expresses the future, the statement is also
important to understand the present. The tension that comes from comparing the
desired future with the current reality is what drives actions toward achieving the
vision. A vision statement can become disconnected and powerless if the organization
does not include the current reality.

2- Purposeful: Vision cannot be understood in isolation; in particular, it has to be
connected to the purpose and the core values. The vision emerges from the
fundamental values of the organization’s individuals, the fundamental purpose, and
awareness of today’s reality, melded together to produce a shared future.
3- Self-determining: Vision is not relative. If the vision is connected to competition then
it may prove that the vision stops achieving greatness because that is what the
competition has done.
4- Concrete: The vision statement is concrete, having a specific destination, presenting
an image of the desired future.
5- Multifaceted: The vision includes key aspects, such as personal facets (health,
integrity) and altruistic facets (helping the community, serving the customer).
6- Emotional: The vision statements are developed using values. This implies that the
visions are emotionally charged (p. 54). This is very helpful because these emotions
become the driving forces towards achieving the vision as cited in (Brătianu &
Bălănescu, 2008, p. 21).
The vision is developed based on ideas about future dominant factors and their
impacts that will create a new reality that is different from the past or present (Papulova,
2014). In contrast to vision, the word “mission” originated “from the Latin word mittere,
meaning: to throw, let go, or send”, also, “derived from Latin the word: purpose (originally
proponere) meant to declare” (Senge, 1994, p. 303). Whether you title a statement in terms
of mission or purpose, the statement is used to answer the questions, “what are we here to do
together?” (Senge, 1994, p. 303) or “why an organization exists, a statement of its
fundamental purpose” (Gurley, Peters, Collins, & Fifolt, 2014, p. 222).
The mission statements of universities or schools illustrate a set of values, principles,
purpose, directions for individuals, and program functions (Boerema, 2006). Furthermore,
“the school mission provides the context for governance, decision making, and the way the
school is managed’’ (p. 182). Thus, articulating the university’s or school’s mission in clear
detail is crucial to make all stakeholders have a clear understanding of what the school would
actually like to be; otherwise, educational stakeholders may understand the school’s purpose
differently (Gurley, Peters, Collins, & Fifolt, 2014).
In the real world, an overlap exists between the vision and mission statements, in
some cases. Some institutions declare their vision in the form of a mission statement, or have
two statements, one declaring the mission and another declaring the vision. The difference
between the two concepts can be described as, “mission statements typically define the
physical, social, fiscal, and political contexts in which that institution exists; whereas, vision
statements complement these characteristics, but transcend them as well” (Abelman &
Dalessandro, 2013, p. 223).
The goals statement’s concept is considered to be the clearest among the three
concepts, vision, mission, and goals, which expresses the performance level of all
university’s or school’s components, either educational, professional, students, curriculum,
professional development, etc. (Gurley, Peters, Collins, & Fifolt, 2014). Developing clear
goals helps the school to connect the students’ performance with its vision and mission
(purpose).
In summary, a clear definition of the meaning of each of the three foundational
statements (vision, mission, and goals) is imperative for members of the university or school,
including educational leaders, teachers, faculty, and parents, to understand the purpose of
statement development. Furthermore, analyzing these three components will expose the
implicit philosophy, purpose, and future trends of school, which can help to determine the
theoretical foundation of the Preparatory Year Program in all 28 Saudi universities and its
alignment with the Seven Principles of Students Success in the first-year of college.
Content Analysis Methodology
The systemic analysis of text has been traced to the 17th century, where it was used to
compare religious books. Despite its historical roots, the terminology of Content Analysis did
not appear in English until 1941 (Krippendorff, 2004). According to Krippendorff, the first
dissertations to utilize Content Analysis as a research approach was about newspaper content
that was defended in 1690, 1695, and 1699 by some academic scholars.
Since that time, use of Content Analysis as a research methodology has grown and
expanded, especially in the social science field (Pegoraro, 2006). One of the earliest
definitions of Content Analysis was developed by Berelson in 1952 as a “research technique
for the objective, systematic, and quantitative description of the manifest content of
communication” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 10). In 1966, Stone, Dunphy, Smith, and Ogilvie
defined Content Analysis as “any research technique for making inferences by systematically
and objectively identifying specified characteristics within text.” Furthermore, Weber (1990)
says, “Content Analysis is a research method that uses a set of procedures to make valid
inferences from text,” as cited in Neuendorf (2002, p. 10). Krippendorff (2004) defines
Content Analysis as “a research technique for making replicable and valid inferences from
texts (or other meaningful matter) to the context of their use” (p. 18). Neuendorf (2002)
expands the definition of Content Analysis as a research technique to:
Summarizing, quantitative analysis of messages that relies on the scientific method
(including attention to objectivity-intersubjectivity, a prior design, reliability, validity,
generalizability, replicability, and hypothesis testing) and is not limited as to the types
of variables that may be measured or the context in which the message are created or
represented. (p. 10)
Neuendorf’s definition is significant because she viewed Content Analysis as
quantitative research, not just as qualitative, and used both to promote the use of scientific
research methods. In general, the typical Content Analysis is used in human communication
including newspapers, TV commercials, novels, music, books, etc.. The Content Analysis is
“applicable to many areas of inquiry” or “may be applied to the human production of
messages” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 1-4). According to Ritchie, Burns, and Palmer (2005),
Content Analysis is “the fastest growing method in social research” (p. 191) and “the fastest
growing technique in quantitative research” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 1).
In general, the Content Analysis relies on systematic steps, starting with theory and
rationale, for conceptualization and operationalization of variables to be measured. The
purpose of conceptualization and operationalization is to identify the unit of analysis of
content under study, which can enable the researcher to statistically analyze data using
descriptive or inferential statistics (Neuendorf, 2002). Moreover, coding of data is essential
for Content Analysis. Researchers should take into account the objective of each study or
research questions that led to investigation. The coding steps aim is to record the existence or
absence of predetermined themes that are defined for each variable in advance, and
categorize them manually or by using a computer (Neuendorf, 2002). The “Content Analysis
is the ideal method for examining and studying the language of mission statements within
appropriate context” (Kempland, 2009, p. 59). Furthermore, “mission statements can be
systematically and reliably coded by applying Content Analysis techniques” (Bebell &
Stemler, 2004; Berleur & Harvanek, 1997; Stemler & Bebell, 1999; Stober, 1997) as cited in
(Stemler, Bebell & Sonnabend, 2011, p. 391).
Moreover, educational institutions’ vision and mission statements are an empirical
data source, which can introduce the philosophy, functioning, values, and school culture
(Stemler, Bebell & Sonnabend, 2011). Several studies utilize Content Analysis of vision,
mission, and goal statements to explore and understand the school’s practices, philosophy,
and trends. For example, Kempland (2009) used Content Analysis to assess the alignment of
academic advising program mission statements of large four-year higher education
institutions with the goals and objectives of Council for the Advancement of Standards
(CAS) and Guidelines for Academic Advising Programs. Kempland’s study recommended
the necessity of revision of higher education institutions’ mission statements to fit with the
CAS standards.
The purpose of Morphew and Hartley’s (2006) study was to identify the pattern of
difference within the mission and vision statements of hundreds of higher education
institutions “to understand what institutions actually say in their missions and by exploring
the relationship between these rhetorical elements and institutional type” (p. 456). This study
found a significant result that most “public colleges and universities construct their mission
statements with combinations of elements more similar to one another than to their private
peers of similar focus and institutional type” (p. 466). This conclusion views mission and/or
vision statements of colleges or universities as “symbolic artifacts” (p. 466).
Abelman and Dalessandro (2013) conducted a study using Content Analysis to assess
the institutional vision and mission of Catholic colleges and universities. This study found
that “Catholic schools are vision-driven institutions that communicate their priorities and
defining characteristics by employing clear, highly optimistic, and inspirational language” (p.
221). Moreover, this study found that there is a significant difference between the religious
colleges’ and universities’ vision and mission and their secular counterparts where "Catholic
schools are vision-driven institutions that communicate their priorities and defining
characteristics by employing clear, highly optimistic, and inspirational language" (p. 221).
Wattananimitkul (1991) used Content Analysis of mission statements of two private
universities in Thailand to assess how the universities’ administrators perceive the
relationship between the two universities’ mission statements and strategic plans, and to
explore the roles and functions of the mission statements in the strategic plans. This study
utilizes Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis, a theoretical
framework, in their Mission Development Process Framework to guide the study process.
Wattananimitkul’s study reported that the universities’ mission statements were used as an
important element in strategic plans.
A suggestive example of using vision, mission, and goals statements to assess theory
validation is presented by Augusta-Dupar (2003) in his study, The Mission and Vision
Statements of Ten Historically Black Colleges and Universities: A Content Analysis. The
purpose of his study was to assess the validity of Student Development Theory advanced by
Checkering (1993), and to identify the academic and social indicators in each school under
study. The Augusta-Dupar study reported that 60% of these institutions’ mission and vision
statements were committed to academic development, and 40% were committed to the social
development of students. Content Analysis is time consuming, as it requires a long time for
data collection, categorizing, and analyzing, but Content Analysis is considered an advantage
with the current study for several reasons:
First, Content Analysis can use unstructured themes as data. The vision, mission, and
goals statement data has already been created, and there is no need to create a survey or
questionnaire for data collection (Krippendorff, 2004). Second, using Content Analysis of the
vision, mission, and goals statements to understand and identify higher education institutions’
philosophy and purpose is common in research studies. Some studies aim to determine the
common themes in these statements, while others go deeper in order to identify the
underlying philosophy and its alignment with a specific theory or model (Krippendorff,
2004). The current study plan works on both goals.
Summary
The role of vision, mission, and goals statements in higher education planning and
policy are crucial. These statements provide an excellent venue to build an appropriate
strategy of education and to design and implement proper programs to fit prospective
students’ needs, thus achieving educational goals. In Saudi Arabia, the First-Year Experience
Program or as in the Saudi context, the Preparatory Year Program is considered a new
phenomenon in higher education. This phenomenon requires more scientific investigation.
This research attempted to study the Preparatory Year Program through analyzing the vision,
mission, and goals statements. This analysis gave insight regarding the Preparatory Year
Programs theoretical base in Saudi higher education and reported program alignments with
the Seven Principles of Students Success in the first-year of university developed by Cuseo
(2014). Therefore, the literature review section applies a systematic review of literature
associated with:
• Theoretical Foundations of Student Development and First-Year Experience
• The First-Year Experience
• Students Success in the First-Year of College
• Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements
• Content Analysis Methodology
Contribution of this Study to the Literature
This study is significant because its findings adde to the weak body of preexisting
literature regarding the First-Year Experience in Saudi Arabian postsecondary education. It
also attempt to fill in the gap between theory and current practices of Preparatory Year
Programs, in terms of the alignment of the Preparatory Year Program at all Saudi public
universities with the First-Year Experience Theory. This study comes at an appropriate time
since postsecondary education policymakers recently made a decision to restructure the
current model of the Preparatory Year Programs in Saudi Arabia.

Chapter Three
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to analyze the vision, mission, and goals statements of
the 28 Preparatory Year Programs at all Saudi public universities that published on their
official websites, to assess whether their Preparatory Year Program incorporates the
principles of student success in the first-year of university as outlined in the Seven Central
Principles of Student Success, advanced by Cuseo (2014). Further, this study explored the
themes and formats of the Preparatory Year Programs in all 28 universities and the
differences among them based on university size, location, program date of establishment,
and gender variables. Finally, this study reveals the Preparatory Year Programs trend in Saudi
universities through the most common keys elements of the Seven Principles of Students
Success included in the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements.
The nine steps of Content Analysis (CA) developed by Neuendorf (2002) were used for data
collection and analysis. This study attempts to answer the following research questions:
statements?
It is important to note that this study was not to evaluate the content or structure of the
vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year Program itself but, to assess its
alignment with the First-Year Theory.
Restatement of the Problem
The Preparatory Year Program plays an important role in making student’s transitions
into postsecondary education successful at Saudi public universities (Alaqeeli, 2014; Al
Kathiri, 2014). The current practices of the Preparatory Year Programs at all Saudi public
universities concentrate on preparing students academically for university studies (e.g. in
math, languages, and business administration), and improving their hard/soft skills (Al
Kathiri, 2014). The Preparatory Year Programs will also be required to focus on the future on
the “non-cognitive or non-academic skills… e. g., educational commitment, campus
engagement, self-efficacy, appreciating creativity, seriousness, teamwork, and discipline”
(Alaqeeli, 2014, p. 62).
Globally, the majority of first-year program designs have a theory-base that could
help to assess the program’s performance and capability to achieve the students’ and
institutions’ needs. Within the Saudi postsecondary education context, the Preparatory Year
Programs have unclear educational pedagogy or theoretical base and “the preparatory year in
Saudi universities lacks a Governing Concept philosophy” (p. 60).
If we are to help freshmen succeed, we must know how various theories attempt to
explain their development. To be sure, the theoretical underpinning of freshman
development is a dynamic and constantly changing endeavor. The most recent
challenges to include women, minorities, and older students in our theoretical
concepts about student development will expand and make more valid our thinking
about students. In spite of this continuing uncertainty about student-development
theories, everything we do to enhance freshman success must be grounded in one or

more of these theories. It is important that we take what we know about students from
developmental theories and apply it to our teaching, counseling, advising, and
programming for freshmen (Upcraft & Gardner, 1989, p. 52).
This study attempted to assess the extent of the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision,
mission, and goals statements alignment with the First-Year Experience Theory represented
by the Seven Central Principles of Student Success advanced by Cuseo (2014). The outcomes
of this study revealed the theoretical base of the program, and provided better understanding
to the current practices. The study also exposed the most common themes that appeared in
the vision, mission, and goals statements of the program, which provides insights about the
program’s trend and philosophy.
Significance of the Problem
It is time to apply the lessons of the past to the present and, in the process of doing so,
make necessary structural, policy, curricular, and pedagogical changes to better meet
the needs of our students so that they have fuller and richer futures. (Koch & Gardner,
2014, p. 35)
Saudi universities apply the Preparatory Year Program as one of the best practices to
help student success in college/university. Koch and Gardner (2014) clarify that to create a
successful Preparatory Year model, it is important to link the program’s policy, structure, and
practices with the university’s mission. Therefore, postsecondary institutions “should work
collectively to develop a research-based, comprehensive model of the first-year that is
attainable and immediately usable to increase student learning, success, and retention” (p.
36).
Developing theory-based Preparatory Year Programs could be tied to the
accreditation process, student learning and performance, and assessment strategies. Among
these developmental and operational issues, understanding the current model of Saudi
Preparatory Year Programs through analyzing the vision, mission, and goals of the programs
is essential to identify theoretical base of the program and for developmental purposes in the
future. Utilizing Content Analysis allowed recognizing the program’s theoretical base and
philosophy that may help establish future practices of the program. Further, no previous
studies have been found that have utilized Content Analysis of the vision, mission, and goals
statements in Saudi public universities, while assessing program alignments with the Seven
Principles of Students Success in the first-year of university.
Methodology
As mentioned in Chapter One and at the beginning of this chapter, the purpose of this
study was to assess whether Preparatory Year Programs incorporate the principles of
students’ success in the first-year of university as outlined in the Seven Central Principles of
Students Success advanced by Cuseo (2014). Additionally, this study exposed the most
common themes in the vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year
Programs among Saudi public universities.
Among the available research methods that can be used to analyze universities’
vision, mission, and goals statements and assess its alignments with the First-Year
Experience Theory, one approach is using a survey as a quantitative method. According to
Messman-Mandicott (2012), surveying people will make them respond to specific items that
might describe the current situation or what they wish for in the future. The survey will limit
participants’ opportunity to express or share their perspective about the crucial issues of the
Preparatory Year that need to be developed. Therefore, Content Analysis was chosen instead
of the survey quantitative method.
Content Analysis is a superior methodology to achieve this particular study’s goal for
four reasons: 1) Content Analysis can be done without the possibility of influencing the
subjects, which can increase the validity of data that will be acquired by using texts or
documents; 2) Content Analysis reduces the risk of corrupted data because there is no human
participation, and the researcher can neglect inappropriate data or recollect data again at any
time to ensure validity; 3) data collection is more reliable in Content Analysis due to the
robust process that the researcher follows; and 4) data is available at any time (Falduto,
2008).
Research Design
According to Vega (2010), “a challenge with content analysis is identifying the best
model to employ for each study” (p. 91). For this study, the nine steps of Content Analysis
developed by Neuendorf (2002) were utilized to guide the study’s design: 1) theory and
rationale; 2) conceptualizations; 3) operationalizations; 4) coding schemes; 5) sampling; 6)
training and pilot reliability; 7) coding; 8) final reliability; and 9) tabulation and reporting.
This study adopted the Content Analysis definition advanced by Neuendorf:
Furthermore, Content Analysis can be applied to all types of written text, verbal,
visual images or maps, transcribed text, etc. (Vega, 2010). The content analyzed in this study
includes vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year Programs at all 28
Saudi public universities. The three data sources were analyzed and coded to assess the
program’s alignment with the Seven Central Principles of Students Success advanced by
Cuseo (2014), and to identify the frequency and themes for each Preparatory Year Program.
The research questions of this study were answered by inferences from a systematic reading
and reviewing of the content, and verified by a pilot study that was applied on seven
universities representing 25% of this study sample by two other analysts (coders).
Furthermore, this study used descriptive statistics and frequency counts to identify patterns
and themes for each dependent variable including vision, mission, and goals statements. The
reasons for selecting the vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year
Programs for this study as units of analysis are as follows:
• Preparatory Year Programs lack a “governing concept philosophy” (Alaqeeli, 2014, p.
60), theoretical and pedagogical base, and no clear purpose. “Mission statements
represent an important summation or distillation of an organization’s core goals
represented by concise and simple statements that communicate broad themes. School
mission statements are one of the only written documents outlining purpose that
nearly all schools have” (Stemler, Bebell, & Sonnabend, 2011, p. 391).
• Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals are easily available and
accessible for study, due to these statements being published on the universities’
official websites.
• Vision, mission, and goals statements “can be systematically and reliably coded by
applying content analysis techniques” (Stemler, Bebell, & Sonnabend, 2011, p. 9).
Additionally, the vision, mission, and goals statements are essential for the
university’s or Preparatory Year Program’s strategic plan, which is considered to be a
base for any practices or application in the program.
Before embarking on detailed steps of the Content Analysis used in this study, it is a
vital to reveal the role of the researcher in this study. First, the researcher has extensive
experience in the field of first-year experience. The researcher has working experience in the
Preparatory Year Program at King Saud University that totals eight years as a faculty
member. Furthermore, the researcher is the main player in planning, implementing, and
reporting this study’s process including the nine steps developed by Neuendorf (2002). The
researcher also has previous experience using the Content Analysis Methodology, where he
published a research paper in the 35th Annual Conference on the First-Year Experience in
2015, titled: Exploring First-Year Experience Practices in Saudi Higher Education. This
research paper employed Content Analysis to explore the Preparatory Year’s practices in
Saudi higher education.
Step 1: Theory and Rationale. To explore and assess the theory and rationale behind
Content Analysis, it is necessary to define what is to be examined and why it is selected
(Neuendorf, 2002). As mentioned in Chapter One, the Preparatory Year Program in all Saudi
universities is considered a new phenomenon. The literature review indicates that the
Preparatory Year Programs in Saudi postsecondary education have no clear purpose or
theoretical base. Therefore, this study attempted to explore the Preparatory Year Programs
and assess its alignments with the Seven Principles of Student Success in the first-year of
university.
The theory and rationale step is employed to identify variables related to the
information that is assessed in this study including the vision, mission, and goals statements
of Preparatory Year Programs. The Content Analysis requires an a priori design where "all
decisions on variables, their measurement, and coding rules must be made before observation
begins" (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 11). Furthermore, Content Analysis is “the systematic,
objective, quantitative analysis of message characteristics” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 1).
Neuendorf states, “there are many ways to define a given construct, and there is no one right
way” (p. 50). These assumptions express the difficulty of applying Content Analysis for a
specific body of knowledge or research, which first requires “determining the nature of the
data that shape the variables selected and informs the development of the codebook… full of
hours of invention, reinvention, and repeated failures” (Vega, 2010, p. 95).

Neuendorf suggests four techniques to select Content Analysis variables: 1) a
consideration of universal variables; 2) using theory and past research for variables
collection; 3) a grounded or “emergent” process of variable identification; and 4) attempting
to find medium-specific critical variables (p 97). Neuendorf defined variables as “latent or
manifest variables and as content or form variables” (p. 95). Manifest variables include
content that is explicit in text and that the researcher can observe, such as text and images or
diagrams or figures. The latent variables represent unobserved concepts that the researcher
can infer through the context, either text or any other types of context. These types of
variables contain implicit meaning or messages (Krippendorff, 2004; Neuendorf, 2002). In
other words, the latent variables depend on the researcher’s interpretation of the context.
Benoit (2011) suggests “quantitative Content Analysis requires a set of categories that
coders use to assign numeric values to dimensions of messages”. These categories
represented variables used in this study. Neuendorf (2002) and Benoit (2011) stress that these
categories should meet three criteria to ensure validity and reliability including: 1) exhaustive
(no parts of content can be disregarded); 2) mutually exclusive (each part of text can be
coded and placed in only one category); 3) and relevant (to research questions or study
purpose) (p. 271).
Benoit says, “preferably these categories should be derived from theory, which should
help understand the data that arise from application of these categories to texts… if no
theoretically based categories can be derived, one may rely on categories found in previous
research” (p. 271). Thus, “content analysis as a research method is not standardized regarding
selection of categories” (Falduto, 2008, p. 45). Taking into his account all these conditions
and criteria for theory selection and coding schema categorization, the researcher used the
Seven Principles of Students Success in the first-year as a guiding theory and categories for
this study, and for developing the codebook and coding form.
In this context, Schreiner, Louis, and Nelson (2012) defines “student success” as
students who “move beyond the fundamental benchmarks of college completion rates and
grades have emerged in recent years. Such expanded definitions have included learning
gains, talent development, satisfaction and sense of belonging, and student engagement” (p.
xix). Furthermore, Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2006), define student success
as “academic achievement, engagement in educationally purposeful activities, satisfaction,
acquisition of desired knowledge, skills and competencies, persistence, attainment of
educational objectives, and postcollege performance” (p. 7). Upcraft, Gardner, and Barefoot
(2004) determined the most common practices that universities apply for first-year programs
to promote students’ success:
1- Completing courses registered in the first-year;
2- Persistent courses registration for the second year;
3- Developing academic and intellectual competence;
4- Establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships;
5- Exploring identity development;
6- Deciding on a career;
7- Maintaining health and wellness;
8- Considering faith and the spiritual dimensions of life;
9- Developing multicultural awareness;
10- Developing civic responsibility (p. 8-9).
Moreover, Cuseo (n.d.) sees that student success is more likely to be experienced and
evidenced when students: 1) feel personally validated and they matter to the college; 2)
believe that their effort matters and that they can influence or control the prospects for
success; 3) develop a sense of purpose and perceive the college experience as being
personally relevant; 4) become actively or engaged in the learning process and in the use of
campus resources; 5) become socially integrated or connected with other members of the
college community; 6) think reflectively about what they are learning and connect it to what
they already know or have previously experienced; and 7) are self-aware and remain mindful
of their learning styles, learning habits, and thinking patterns. Furthermore, Cuseo (2014)
states that first-year student success requires higher education institutions to promote three
student outcomes concurrently: “(a) student retention (persistence), (b) student learning
(academic achievement), and (c) personal development (holistic outcomes)” (para. 1).
The literature of the first-year has several definitions of students’ success where each
postsecondary institute is different from one another, with specific factors controlling the
style of each institution’s program structure. In general, the differences among institutions’
size, mission, financial budget, students’ needs and capacity, and institutional trends and
goals are the keys to define students’ success and design first-year initiatives to meet the
actual needs of the institute and students.
This study employs the Seven Central Principles of Students Success advanced by
Cuseo (2014) as a guideline. The reasons for selecting these principles is due to their
comprehensiveness, which includes most of students’ success themes that appear in student’s
development theories, first-year theory, and student’s success themes mentioned previously.
As mentioned in Chapters One and Three, the Preparatory Year Programs in Saudi
postsecondary education have no documented theory or philosophical base. This study
attempts to explore the theory foundation in Saudi universities; therefore, using the Seven
Principles of Students Success to provide extensive ground to understand the program in a
better way. The seven principles are grounded in research and theory of students’
development. The seven principles represent holistic development dimensions including:
• Intellectual Development: developing skills for acquiring and communicating
knowledge, learning how to learn, and how to think deeply.

• Emotional Development: developing skills for understanding, controlling, and
expressing emotions.
• Social Development: enhancing the quality and depth of interpersonal relationships,
leadership skills, and civic engagement.
• Ethical Development: formulating a clear value system that guides life choices and
demonstrates personal character.
• Physical Development: acquiring and applying knowledge about the human body to
prevent disease, maintain wellness, and promote peak performance.
• Spiritual Development: appreciating the search for personal meaning, the purpose of
human existence, and questions that transcend the material or physical world (Cuseo,
2014, p. 2).
While the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements are
considered dependent variables and a unit of analysis in this study, the Seven Principles of
Students Success are used as independent variables, “the seven key principles are briefly
reiterated and first-year programs or practices are identified that effectively implement these
central principles of student success” (Cuseo, 2014, p. 7). Cuseo defines each principle
through specific practices that first-year programs could apply to help students’ succeed. The
seven principles were coded and are defined operationally as appears in Table 1.
Table 1
The Descriptions of the Seven Variables, Operational Definition, and Applications Adapted
from Cuseo (2014)
Variable
Category Definition Examples of Indications
(Code)
P.V. Personal Student success is promoted Welcome and celebrate new students’ entry into
Validation when students feel personally higher education, refer to them by name, and know
significant—i.e. when they about them, communicate with students in a
feel welcomed by the college, personalized manner, and acknowledging their
recognized as individuals, and individual achievements inside and outside the
that they matter to the classroom (e.g. personal e-mail messages
institution. congratulating students for their co-curricular
contributions, attaining academic excellence, and
regaining good academic standing following academic
probation).
S.E. Self-Efficacy Student success is more likely College-entry assessment for initial student placement
to be experienced when in skill-building courses, and careful attention to
students believe that their course pre-requisites in the college curriculum,
individual effort matters, i.e. developing a summer bridge program, first-year
when they believe they can seminars that extend support to students beyond new-
exert significant influence or student orientation, providing timely student support
control over their academic for college-adjustment issues they encounter during
and personal success. their critical first term in college, supplemental
instruction in first-year courses that have
disproportionately high failure and withdrawal rates,
and Honors courses and programs that provide
optimal challenges for high-achieving students.
P.M. Personal Student success is enhanced Developmental academic advising programs that help
Meaning when students find meaning students see the “connection” between their present
and purpose in their college academic experience and their future life plans, which
experience—i.e. when they broaden students’ perspectives with respect to their
perceive relevant connections personal life choices, helps students connect their
between what they’re learning current college experience with their future
in college and their current or educational and life goals, reality-based learning
future life. experiences, and providing experiential learning
opportunities for first-year students that allows
students to learn directly.
A.I. Active The likelihood of student Inside the classroom through the use of engaging,
Involvement success increases student-centered pedagogy, delivered information by
proportionately with the shifting more opportunity for talking and more
degree of student engagement responsibility for learning to the students, and active
in the learning process, i.e. involvement in campus life outside the classroom is
with the amount of time and promoted by practices that deliver academic support
energy that students invest in intrusively.
the college experience—both
inside and outside of the
classroom.
P.R. Personal Students are more likely to be This principle is most effectively implemented by
Reflection successful when they step writing-to-learn assignments that encourage students
back and reflect on what they to reflect on what they are learning and connect it to
are learning and elaborate on their personal experiences or what they have
it, transforming it into a form previously learned.
that relates to what they
already know or have
previously experienced.
S.I. Social Student success is augmented New-student orientation programs that move beyond
Integration by human interaction, information dissemination and orientation to campus
collaboration, and the buildings, and moves towards community-building
formation of interpersonal practices that connect new students with each other,
connections between the with peer leaders and role models, with student
student and other members of development professionals, and the college’s faculty,
the college community— and cooperative learning practices inside the
peers, faculty, staff, and classroom that transform group work into team work
administrators. by intentionally creating learning teams composed of
students who can learn the most from each other using
the learning communities strategy.
S.A. Self- Student success is promoted Encouraging students thinking about their own
Awareness when students gain greater thought processes, and to complete self-assessment
awareness of their learning instruments designed to promote personal awareness
styles, learning habits, and of learning styles and habits.
thinking patterns.
Adopted from: Cuseo (2014) Student Success: Definition, Outcomes, Principles and
Practices.
Step 2: Conceptualizations and Operationalization (measures). Conceptualization
is to identify “what variables will be used in the study, and how to define them conceptually”
(Neuendorf, 2002, p. 50). Operationalization is “the process of developing measures” (p.
118). Neuendorf stresses that measures and conceptualizations must be matched to build
internal validation of data. This step involves identifying the unit or units of data. “The unit
in a research study refers to what or whom is being studied” (Asta, 2009, p. 9). Neuendorf
(2002) illustrates that there are two units of data: collection and analysis. “The unit of data
collection is the element on which each variable is measured. The unit of analysis is the
element on which data are analyzed and for which findings are reported” (p. 13). The
researcher must distinguish between two units and their use (Neuendorf, 2002).
However, in this study, the entire Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and
goals statements (dependent variables) in each university serve as the unit of data collection
while elements included in each classification either vision, mission, and goals statements
serve as the unit of analysis. For this study, the unit of analysis was defined by thought/s
extracted from the dependent variables. In other words, each vision or mission or goals
statements are analyzed into thoughts named Unit of Thoughts (UT) and used to assess its
alignment with the Seven Principles of Students Success. In summary, the unit of data
collection referred to the vision, mission, and goals statements and the unit of analysis
referred to the thoughts extracted from these three classifications. More details will be
provided in the next section (Step 3: Coding Schemas).
However, each Preparatory Year Program has unique statements of vision, mission,
and goals that express that program’s purpose and theoretical base, the data was collected
from a primary source, the official website of the program. The researcher performed two
rounds of data collection. The researcher performed two rounds of data collection. The first
was in July 2016 and the second was around November 2016 for data confirmation. The
reason for this was that the new year of study in Saudi Arabia started in September 2016, and
the researcher assumed that some universities might make some changes to its Preparatory
Year Program’s vision, mission, and goals statements (see Appendix A & D).
Step 3: Coding schemes. The coding schemes consist of two materials: 1) codebook
(with all variables measures fully explained), and 2) coding form (Neuendorf, 2002). The
codebook was developed to match the codes, which are used on the coding form. For the
codebook, each Preparatory Year Program in each university is assigned a form in order to
ensure that the university’s name remains confidential and all necessary information is
included. The codebook was created on Microsoft Excel and the information and variables
are determined and coded as follows:
1. University name (UN#1; UN#2; UN#3; etc.) all universities were sorted in
alphabetical order from 1 to 28.
2. University location in Saudi Arabia according to province (UL=North), (UL=South),
(UL=East), (UL=West), and (UL=Middle).
3. University size identified based on new students enrollment total in 2014-2015 (US).
4. Preparatory Year Program organizational structure. Data analysis revealed seven
types of organizational structure for the Preparatory Year Program, sorted from 1 to 7
using (OS#1; OS#2; OS#3; OS#4; OS#5; OS#6; OS#7) codes.
5. Program Application Policy. Apply for all new students (AFA); Not apply for all new
students (NAF); Unreported (UR).
6. Preparatory Year Program establishment date (ED#year).
7. The researcher also coded the new themes as follows: Vision New Theme/s (NTV1;
NTV2, NTV3, etc); Mission New Theme/s (NTM1; NTM2, NTM3, etc.); and Goals
New Theme/s (NTG1; NTG2, NTG3, etc.). However, due to the scale-sample, which
comprised of only 28 universities, the researcher used a human code (see Appendix B
& C).
For the coding form, the Seven Principles of Students Success were categorized,
coded, defined, and provided examples of indications as appeared in Table 1. To answer the
two major research questions, “For each university, to what extent do the Preparatory Year
Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements align with the Seven Principles of Students
Success in the first-year of university?” and “What common key elements cited in the Seven
Central Principles of Students Success are most often included in the Preparatory Year
Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements?” The Unit of Thoughts (UT) were extracted
from the vision, mission, and goal statements to assess its alignment with the Seven
Principles of Students Success.
The Unit of Thoughts (UTs) extracted from the unit of analysis were defined by the
number of sentences or paragraphs or words that belong or indicate to an existing principle.
Any sentence or indication of the vision, mission, or goals statements was extracted and
placed under an appropriate principle. The alignment percentage for each classification of the
vision or mission or goals statements was calculated separately. For example, UN#1 vision
has no UT that could align with any of the Seven Principles of Student’s Success. Also, the
mission statement has no Unit of Thoughts that aligned with any of these seven principles.
The goals statement has three Units of Thoughts that aligned with two principles as follows:
1. Self-Efficacy (S.E.):
a. Preparatory Year Program is for helping and directing students to select the
future college that fits his/her abilities and interests.
b. Providing students with the necessary skills for the labor market and
developmental plan of government.
2. Self-Awareness (S.A.):
a. Developing student learning, thinking, and scientific discussion skills.
This result means that the goal statement aligned with two (28.57%) of the Seven
Principles of Students Success calculated as follows: (Total of Principles aligned*100/ 7
Principles) where in this case for goals statement (2 principles aligned*100/7= 28.57%).
To assess the alignment of the vision, mission, and goals statements combined for
each university with the Seven Principles of Students Success, the researcher used the
following formula (vision UTs alignment + mission UTs alignment + Goals UTs
alignment/3). For example, in the case of UN#1 (vision alignment 0 + mission alignment
0 + goals alignment 28.57/3= 9.52%).
Furthermore, the UTs were used to identify the pattern of the Preparatory Year
Programs and the differences and similarities among the 28 universities. Moreover, the other
two research questions were answered inductively from data collected using the Content
Analysis process individually for each program. The coding form involved specific
information about each university including study title, the university’s name code e.g.
UN#1, data source, coder number, and open code table to report any new themes that appear
through the analysis step. The open code table revealed new themes that were used to report
the frequency and pattern of the Preparatory Year Program’s vision, mission, and goals
statements.
Step 4: Sampling. The target population consisted of 28 public universities that are
managed and supervised by the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia (MOE, 2016). The
nonrandom sampling process (purposive sampling) is utilized in this research. All
Preparatory Year Program’s that reported its vision, mission, and goal statements on the
official websites were included in this study. Since all required data is accessible and
published on the official websites of the universities, the researcher has no need to obtain
permission to conduct the study. In other words, this study did not involve a human subject;
therefore, there was no need to acquire the Institutional Review Board (IRBs) approval. In
case of any required clarification regarding data, it accomplished by telephone or email
communication with the Preparatory Year Deanship or College via official contact
information from the website.
Step 5: Training and pilot reliability. Neuendorf (2002) suggests the use of at least
two coders to ensure consistency between coders and to improve reliability on each variable.
The primary researcher and two assistants coded the data. The qualification of additional
coders was based on their educational experience at university and prior experience in the
First-Year Experience Program. The researcher and the two coders set up a meeting, using
Skype since they were in Saud Arabia, to practice coding and to reach an agreement on the
coding form and codebook and to identify the list of variables included. The researcher
followed specific steps to ensure training quality as follows:
• Provided coders a full description about the research study’s purpose and procedures.
This step is essential to ensure all coders have enough knowledge regarding the
study’s process and context.

• Introduced coders to the Seven Principles of Students Success in the first-year content
and the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements to be
analyzed.
• Provided a brief explanation about the Content Analysis in general and the research
approach utilized for this study.
• Introduced research questions that the researcher aims to answer.
• Defined the dependent and independent variables for coders.
• Provided each coder a portfolio including an electronic copy on Microsoft Excel for
the codebook and code form.
To get confirmation of the accuracy of researcher’s analysis and to ensure the
integrity of the coding schema and form, a copy of the Content Analysis pilot study was
given independently to each of the two members and they were asked to respond to the
codebook and sample Content Analysis to verify the researcher’s coding outcomes. The pilot
study was conducted on seven (25%) Preparatory Year Programs selected randomly
including UN#03, UN#07, UN#09, UN#17, UN#18, UN#20, and UN#28. To ensure
consistency and understanding among the coders, the researcher discussed any issue or
difficulties the coders encountered. In case the results differed, the researcher worked with
the two coders to modify and retest the data. For these seven universities, the validity resulted
in 100% agreement between the researcher and two coders, which means the Content
Analysis is valid and reliable (see Appendix C).
Step 6: Coding. After the pilot study, the researcher performed Content Analysis for
all remaining universities, using human coding and the codebook and coding form generated
in Step 3: Coding Schema. Neuendorf (2002) says to “apply dictionaries to the sample text to
generate per-unit (e.g., per-new-story) frequencies for each dictionary” (p. 51). The codebook
was designed to help coders in the process of coding the vision, mission, and goals statements
of the Preparatory Year Program in all public Saudi universities. The coding procedure
included:
• Vision, mission, and goals statements for each Preparatory Year Program read by the
primary researcher.
• The seven variables relating to the research questions coded into the corresponding
area on the coding form. Further, sub-variables such as university location, size,
gender, and Preparatory Year Program date of establishment were coded.
• The researcher used an open code to explore any new themes that may not match any
of the independent variables under study.
• The codebook corresponded to a coding form that was created on the Microsoft Excel
software.
• Some instructions were provided to the coders to increase validity of data during the
pilot study (e.g. coders practice code together and independently on some units of
data analysis and discussed results) (Neuendorf, 2002).
Step 7: Final reliability. This study used human coding conducted by the primary
researcher and two other coders to ensure data validity and “to establish intercoder
reliability” (Neuendorf, 2002, p. 51) between two coders “with at least 10% overlap for the
reliability” (p. 51). Reliability data can be obtained “by using several researchers with divers
personalities, by working in differing environments, or by relying on different but
functionally equal measuring devices.” (Krippendorff, 2004, p. 212). For measuring,
Neuendorf suggests some statistical methods to check reliability such as “percent agreement,
Scott’s pi, Spearman’s rho, or Pearson’s r” (p. 51). However, to assess the alignment of the
Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements with the Seven Principles
of Students Success in the first-year of university, the researcher used the agreement
percentage level between him and the two other coders to collect reliability. The reliability
could be proven through multiple data collections. The percentage of errors could be reduced
or eliminated through data reviewing and checking the data multiple times, which can give
the data a high degree of reliability and validity.
As mentioned previously in (Step 5: Training and pilot reliability) the researcher set
some steps to ensure the integrity, validity, and reliability of the coding process as follows: 1)
Provided coders a full description about the research study’s purpose and procedures; 2)
Introduced coders to the Seven Principles of Students Success (independent variables) and
the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements (dependent variables);
3) Provided a brief explanation about the Content Analysis; 4) Introduced research questions
that the researcher aims to answer; and 5) Provided each coder a portfolio including an
electronic copy on Microsoft Excel for the codebook and code form.
The researcher performed the coding process individually several times before they
reached the final agreement. For example, the first time coding, the discrepancy among the
three coders was high and the agreement percentage was only about 60%. The reason for this
high discrepancy was the overlapping among the Seven Principles contents itself. For
instance, Active Involvement (A.I.) and Social Integration (S.I.) principles have similar
content to a large extent, e.g. helps students to engage in the university environment. The
researcher and two coders referred to Table 1 to discuss and clarify the difference between
two principles and to make an agreement about each principle’s components and which unit
of thoughts should be included. The result of this discussion increased the agreement
percentage to 90%. Another round of discussion and practice was performed to increase the
level of agreement between the researcher and two coders to solve some wording issues
regarding translation from Arabic to English for some missions and goals statements, which
resulted in 100% of agreement between the researcher and two coders for seven universities
(25%) that were used as a pilot study for this research. However, the data analysis of the
seven universities used for the pilot test was incorporated within the findings of 28
universities.
However, Krippendorff (2004) says, “any content analysis should be validatable in
principle” (p. 39). Further, Krippendorff states, “validity standards cannot be divorced from
chosen contexts” (p. 317). Notably, Krippendorff mentions that the procedure used for data
collection and analysis is essential in creating empirical validity. The construct validity is
evidenced by the selected content of the vision, mission, and goals statements that are
published on the official websites of the Preparatory Year Programs’ in all Saudi public
universities.
Step 8: Tabulation and reporting. The results tabulation for each Preparatory Year
Program’s variables and sub-variables were coded and entered into a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet for analysis. The alignment of the relationship between the Seven Principles of
Students Success and the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goal statements
was calculated using frequencies and ratio of presence. The common key elements of the
Seven Principles relevant to the Preparatory Year Programs were described. The descriptive
statistics and nonparametric results including frequency and new themes tables are reported
in Chapter Four.
Summary. This chapter provides an overview of the methodology used in this study.
The nine steps of Content Analysis were explained in detail. Data collection and analyzing,
theory and rationale, data sources, coding process, tabulation, and reporting process were
described. Further, the literature informed the dependent and independent variables were
transpired. The codebook and coding form were mentioned. A pilot study to ensure the
codebook and coding form was applied on seven (25%) universities of the sample of the
study was conducted. The agreement level between the researcher and two other coders was
used for reliability measurement. The agreement result indicated that the coding process,
codebook, and coding form are reliable and valid. The next chapter displays the findings of
this study.
Translation Process
As some of the Preparatory Year Programs at some Saudi universities developed its
version of the vision, mission, and goals statements solely in the Arabic language. The
researcher performed translation from Arabic to English for these Preparatory Year
Programs. However, the literature provides several techniques to translate text among
different languages from or to the English language. Squires et al. (2013) state,
Researchers generally tend to focus on the technical aspects of language translation
and use only forward and back translation. Brislin’s (1970) decentering method is
perhaps the best-known translation method. It emphasizes the semantics and technical
aspects of translation during the forward and back translation process.
The researcher decided to use the cross-culture, forward-backward translation process
developed by Brislin (1970) with subjectivity, objectivity, and a pilot assessment test to
ensure the quality of the process and measurement in terms of validation and the functional
correspondence between the English and Arabic versions of Concept Mapping/Pattern
Matching outcomes.
To reduce the discrepancies between the original version of the vision, mission, and
goals statements developed in Arabic and the new version created in English for essential
main steps, the researcher should take into his/her account the translation quality: (a) A
bilingual person has knowledge or experience about a topic understudy to perform translation
from the source language document (Arabic version) into the target language (English
version); (b) a second bilingual person has no information about the original document
(Arabic version) to perform translation from target language (English version) to the original
language (Arabic version); (c) comparing and contrasting both versions; and (d) in case of
indispensable differences appearing between the two versions, Arabic and English, correction
and another around of translation should be repeated to reduce such discrepancies (Behling &
Law, 2000).
1- For this study, one bilingual person, fluent in Arabic and English, working as faculty
at King Saud University in the Linguistic College (English Department) helped with
the translation process.
2- All Arabic statements were transcribed verbatim and inputted into the computer on
the Microsoft Excel software.
3- The list of all the vision, mission, and goals statements were translated from Arabic to
English by the researcher and this was the first version of translation from Arabic to
English.
4- The researcher’s translated English version was sent to the bilingual person to
confirm the accuracy of the English translation. The original Arabic source was
excluded since the researcher did not send it to the interpreter. The interpreter was
asked to translate the English version into Arabic and to make any necessary
corrections on it.
5- The interpreter sent his translation from English-Arabic including his feedback. A
highlight, editing on the English version also was received. The interpreter also asked
some questions to clarify some issues regarding some terminology in the Arabic
version and its consensus with the English version.
6- The researcher matched the interpreters’ versions (Arabic version) with the original
Arabic version. Some differences were observed and discussion ensued to improve
translation.
7- A new English version of translation was created including all comments and notes.
8- The interpreters were asked to match and confirm the accuracy of the original Arabic
version with the last English version. Several rounds of correspondence were done
until both interpreters and the researcher reached a consensus between the Arabic and
English versions for all vision, mission, and goals statements.
Limitations of the Methodology
This Content Analysis has several limitations regarding the research methodology
used in this study:
1. A limitation regarding the Content Analysis methodology itself. This study employs
the vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year Program of each
university. As each university has different needs, patterns of students, and different
stakeholders, the interpretation and meaning may be different from what their creators
intended. Therefore, the results of the Content Analysis may not prove one meaning
for each vision, mission, and goals statements (Krippendorff, 2004). The researcher is
aware that another researcher analyzing the vision, mission, and goals statements may
reveal different outcomes. However, the researcher made an effort to ensure data
reliability and validity as mentioned in Steps 5 and 7 in this chapter.
2. As mentioned in Chapter Two and Three, Content Analysis has different definitions
and applications. Some scholars define Content Analysis as quantitative approach to
research (Krippendorff, 2004; Neuendorf, 2002). In the mixed methods approach,
others see Content Analysis as a "quantitative method that happens to be applied to
qualitative data" (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003, p. 405). However, despite these
different perspectives, all agree that Content Analysis comprises an empirical study
(Krippendorff, 2004; Neuendorf, 2002). For this study, the Content Analysis was
performed as a quantitative and qualitative research methodology.

Chapter Four
Results
Purpose of the study and Research Questions
The main purpose of this study was to analyze the vision, mission, and goals
statements of all 28 Preparatory Year Programs, which are published on the official websites
of all Saudi public universities, to assess whether the Preparatory Year Programs incorporates
the principles of student success in the first-year of university as outlined in the Seven
Central Principles of Student Success advanced by Cuseo (2014). This study also explored
the Preparatory Year Programs trend in Saudi universities by identifying the most common
key elements of the Seven Principles of Students Success as appeared in the Preparatory Year
Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements. Finally, this study exposed the themes and
formats of the Preparatory Year Programs in all 28 universities and reported the similarities
and differences among all these programs based on university size, location, program date of
establishment, and gender variables.
To accomplish this study’s goals, the researcher used the government information
published on the official Preparatory Year Programs’ websites that express the vision,
mission, and goals statements in each public university. The nine steps of Content Analysis
(CA) developed by Neuendorf (2002) was used for data collection and analysis. This study
consisted of two central research questions (a & b) and two sub-questions (c & d), articulated
as following:

statements?
This chapter contains five sections, starting with a brief review of the purpose of the
study and research questions. The second section describes the population employed in the
study. The third section reports the descriptive analysis of Preparatory Year Programs
including universities’ size, universities’ locations, Preparatory Year Program’s date of
establishment, Preparatory Year Program organizational structure, Preparatory Year Program
application policy, and gender variables. The fourth section involves the analysis of resulting
data as it relates to the research questions of this study. Finally, the fifth section clarifies the
additional limitations of the study observed after data analysis.
Description of the Sample
The target population consisted of 28 public universities that are managed and
supervised by the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia (MOE, 2016) and represent all
Saudi public universities. The nonrandom sampling process (purposive sampling) was
utilized in this research. All Preparatory Year Programs that reported its vision, mission, and
goal statements on the official websites were included in this study (see Appendix A & D).
All Saudi public universities were identified, coded, and sorted in alphabetical order for data
analysis.
Descriptive analysis
In the N=28, n=21 (75.00%) universities reported their Preparatory Year Program
vision statements on its website, while only seven (25%) have no vision statements. For
mission statements, n=24 (85.71%) universities have a mission statement, while four
(14.29%) have no mission statement. For goal statements, n=23 (82.14%) universities have a
goal statement, while five (17.86%) have no goal statements.
For university size (US), N=28 for the number of students enrolled in the Preparatory
Year Program in 2014-2015 was used to classify universities into three groups. Group (1),
>10,000 recorded nine (32.14%) universities. Group (2), 10,000<5,000 recorded nine
(32.14%) universities. Group (3), 5,000<1000 assigned 10 (35.71%) universities.
Table 2
Displays the First-Year Students Enrollment in Saudi Public Universities in 2014-2015
University Male Female Total Classify
UN24# 10,678 10,909 21,587
UN03# 8,796 6,391 15,187
UN19# 5,921 8,254 14,175
UN23# 5,724 7,536 13,260
UN07# 4,717 7,102 11,819 Group (1) >10,000
UN09# 5,780 5,849 11,629
UN22# 4,837 6,677 11,514
UN21# 5,212 4,961 10,173
UN12# 5,106 4,952 10,058
UN18# 0 9,682 9,682
UN14# 5,769 2,622 8,391
UN11# 3,123 4,638 7,761
UN20# 5,181 2,555 7,736
UN27# 2,473 4,976 7,449 Group (2) 10,000<5,000
UN28# 3,440 3,830 7,270
UN17# 2,577 3,812 6,389
UN02# 2,683 3,281 5,964
UN25# 1,532 3,913 5,445
UN16# 1,999 2,463 4,462
UN04# 2,501 1,879 4,380
UN01# 1,940 2,347 4,287
UN26# 275 3,354 3,629 Group (3) 5,000<1,000
UN05# 1,103 2,442 3,545
UN15# 1,574 1,778 3,352
UN10# 2,546 0 2,546
UN06# 2,490 0 2,490

UN08# 1,687 708 2,395
UN13# 673 714 1,387
Source: Higher Education Statistics. http://www.moe.gov.sa/ar/Ministry/Deputy-Ministry-for-Planning-and-Information-
affairs/HESC/Ehsaat/Pages/default.aspx
For universities location (UL), for N=28, eight universities (28.57%) are located in
the Middle of Saudi Arabia. Six universities (21.43%) are in the West Province. Five
universities (17.86 %) are in the North and five universities (17.86%) are in the South
Provinces. Three universities (10.71%) are in the East province. Finally, one university
(3.57%) represented the Electronic University.
Furthermore, for the Preparatory Year Programs date of establishment, for N=28,
three Preparatory Year Programs (10.71%) were established in 2014. One Preparatory Year
Program (3.57%) was founded in 2013, two Preparatory Year Programs (7.14%) in 2012,
four Preparatory Year Programs (14.29%) in 2011, one Preparatory Year Program (3.57%) in
2010, six Preparatory Year Programs (21.43%) established in 2009, four Preparatory Year
Programs (14.29%) in 2008, three Preparatory Year Programs (10.71%) in 2007, three
Preparatory Year Programs (10.71%) in 2005, and one Preparatory Year Program (3.57%)
was established in 1963 and updated in 2007. The data analysis revealed that 27 universities
(96.43%) established its Preparatory Year Program between 2005 and 2014. The data
indicated that the program is considered a new phenomenon in Saudi higher education
context. Finally, it is worthy to mention that two universities (7.14%) are male only
universities while one university (3.57%) is female only (see Table 3). For confidentiality
reason the researcher conceal the universities code on table 3.
Table 3
Preparatory Year Programs Date of Establishment
Date of Location
UNs Total Comments % Gender
Establishment (Province)
1 university 1963 Updating the Program on 2007 3.57 East M
Middle M/F
3 universities 2005 10.71
Middle M/F
North M/F
North M/F
3 universities 2007 10.71 West M/F
Middle M/F
South M/F
West M
East M/F
North M/F
South M/F
East M/F
South M/F
Middle M/F
Middle F
West M/F
1 university 2010 3.57 South M/F
North M/F
Online M/F
Middle M/F
West M/F
Middle M/F
Middle M/F
1 university 2013 3.57 West M/F
University establishment date South M/F
3 universities 2014 10.71 West M/F
University establishment date North M/F
Regarding the Preparatory Year Program’s organizational structure, for N=28, data
analysis revealed that 17 universities (60.71%) established separate deanship for the program
named Preparatory Year Deanship. Two universities (7.14%) named the program
Preparatory Year and Supporting Studies Deanship. Furthermore, two universities (7.14%)
placed the program within the Educational Services Deanship. One university (3.57%)
applied the Preparatory Year Program within College of Applied and Supporting Studies. One
university (3.57%) named the program Pre-Professional Program. Two universities (7.14%)
applied the program for specific bodies of students within selected colleges e.g. Science and
Medical colleges. Two universities (7.14%) structured the program as a unit named
Preparatory Year Program Unit under the Admission and Registration Deanship. Finally,
only one university (3.57%) did not report the program structure on its website. Table 4
displays the organizational structure of the Preparatory Year Program in Saudi public
universities.
Table 4
The organizational structure of Preparatory Year in Saudi Public Universities.
UNs Total Structure Comments Percent
1 university College of Applied and Supporting Studies 3.57%
Serve Faculty and Students
2 universities Educational Services Deanship 7.14%
1 university None 3.57%

1 university Preparatory and Supporting Studies Deanship
Preparatory Year and Supportive Studies 7.14%
1 university
Deanship
17 universities Preparatory Year Deanship 60.7%
Only for Medical Colleges

2 universities Preparatory Year Program within specific college College of Arts and 7.14%
Sciences
Independent Program within
1 university Pre-Professional Program within specific college 3.57%
bachelor programs
2 universities Unit under Admission & Registration 7.14%
For the program application policy, for N=28, 14 (50%) universities apply the
program for all new coming students. Thirteen universities (46.43%) apply the program for a
specific body of students, in particular for Science and Medical Colleges students. One
university (3.57%) did not report program application on its website.
Table 5
Shows the application policy of the Preparatory Year Programs.
UNs Total Application Policy Percent
14 universities Apply for all new students 50%
1 university None 57%
13 universities Not for all new students 46.43%
Finding for the First Major Research Question
For the first research question, “For each university, to what extent does the
Preparatory Year Program’s vision, mission, and goals statements align with the Seven
Principles of Students’ Success in the first-year of university?” the data was generated
through the Content Analysis of the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals
statements at all Saudi public universities using Unit of Thoughts (UTs) and assessed its
alignment with the principles of student success in the first-year of university as outlined in
the Seven Central Principles of Student Success, advanced by Cuseo (2014). The researcher
analyzed each university and category vision or mission or goals statements separately and
matched unit of thoughts for each category with an appropriate principle and calculated the
alignment percentage for each category and for all three categories using the following
formula (vision UTs alignment + mission UTs alignment + Goals UTs alignment/3) as
explained in chapter-3.
University UN01#. UN01 has no vision or mission statements reported on its website.
The website includes only general statements that express the Preparatory Year Program’s
objectives. For the goal statement alignment with the Seven Principles of Student’s Success
in the first-year, the data analysis revealed three Unit of Thoughts (UT) distributed between
two principles as follows:
1- Self-Efficacy (S.E.):
a. Preparatory Year Program is for helping and directing students to select the
future college that fits his/her abilities and interests.
b. Providing students with the necessary skills for the labor market and
developmental plan of government.
2- Self-Awareness (S.A.):
a. Developing student learning, thinking, and scientific discussion skills.
The goal statement aligned with two (28.57%) of the Seven Principles of Students
Success. Overall, the result for UN01# indicted that the alignment of the vision, mission, and
goal statements combined with seven principles only was (9.52%).

University UN02#. The vision statement has one UT that aligned with one (14.29%)
of the seven principles:
a. Preparing students for university study.
The mission statement also has one UT that aligned with one (14.29%) of the seven
principles:
a. Developing student's behavior, skills, and knowledge for college study.
The goal statement has five UTs that aligned with two (28.57%) of the seven
principles:
a. Developing student's skills in English, science, computer, thinking, research,
and communication.
b. Helping students to choose an appropriate major that fits their abilities and
interests, and meets the labor market’s needs.
2- Social Integration (S.I.):
a. Educating students about university regulation and policy.
b. Promoting student’s awareness about social responsibility,
c. Preparing students to adapt to the university environment.
Overall, the results for UN02# indicted that the alignment of the vision, mission, and
goal statement combined with seven principles was (19.05%).
University UN03#. For the vision statement, there was no indicator about the seven
principles and there was no alignment.
For the mission statement, there were two UTs that aligned with two (28.57%) of the
seven principles:
a. Preparing students to be able to adapt to scientific and technical development.
a. Participating actively in national, regional, and global development.
For the goal statement, five UTs aligned with two (28.57%) of the seven principles:
a. Raising the academic level of students to continue their education smoothly
and with excellence.
b. Promoting student's skills in English, basic science, and computers.
c. Preparing students for university study.
d. Assessing student’s performance to help them choose their major.
2- Self-Awareness (S.I.):
a. Changing student's thinking ways for more autonomy and criticism.
Overall, the result for UN03# indicted that the alignment of the vision, mission, and
goal statements combined with the seven principles was (19.05%).
University UN04#. UN04# has no vision or goal statements reported on its website.
The website only includes a mission statement. The mission statement recorded only one UT
match with one (14.29%) of the seven principles.
a. A comprehensive and professional academic system to prepare students for
university study.
Overall, UN04#’s alignment of the vision, mission, and goal statement combined with
seven principles was (4.76%).
University UN05#. UN05# has no indicators or website information about the
Preparatory Year Program’s vision, mission, and goal statements.

University UN06#. This university has three UTs distributed within three categories
for the vision, mission, and goals statements. The alignment of the vision with the seven
principles was one (14.29%):
a. Preparing students for science colleges.
For the mission, the alignment was one (14.29%):
a. Developing student's the necessary knowledge and skills to engage in the
science colleges successfully
For the goal statement, the alignment with the seven principles was one (14.29%):
a. Fill the knowledge gap between high school outputs and university
requirements.
Overall, for UN06#, the alignment of the vision, mission, and goals statements
combined with the seven principles was (14.29%).
University UN07#. This university has no indicators in its vision regarding the Seven
Principles of Students Success. For the mission statement, three UTs were recorded and
matched with three (42.86%) of the seven principles as follows:
a. Emphasizing on high moral and ethical values.
2- Personal Meaning (P.M.):
a. Achieve an effective transition of high school graduates into university.
a. Contribute positively to the community and society.

For the goal statements, seven UTs were paired with five (71.43%) of the seven
principles as follows:
a. Enhancing student's self-confidence and leadership skills.
b. Developing student's skills in English, Information Technology,
Mathematics… Communication, learning, and aptitudes.
c. Preparing students to excel academically and maximize their ability.
a. To enable them to compete for quality jobs.
3- Active Involvement (A.I.):
a. Instilling self-discipline, commitment, and responsibility.
a. Developing students socially…through student's activity on and off campus.
a. Improving students' health awareness and physical fitness.
combined with seven principles at (38.10%).
University UN08#. Although UN08# has a Preparatory Year Program there was no
vision, mission, or goals statements reported on its website.
University UN09#. UN09# has no vision or mission statements reported on its
website but, has goals statement. Three UTs were matched to two (42.86%) of the seven
a. Improve students’ skills and knowledge, especially in the English language,
computer skills, communication skills, and research.

2- Social-Integration (S.I.):
a. Show and define the university’s regulations and systems.
a. Give a student an opportunity to discover his/her skills and knowledge within
the university environment.
University UN10#. Nine UTs were distributed among three categories of analysis of
the vision, mission, and goals statements for UN10#.
For the vision statement, two UTs matched two (28.57%) of seven principles as
follows:
a. …… and future leaders in their field of study.
a. To ensure that high school graduates of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia become
successful participants in the KFUPM community.
For the mission statement, two UTs paired with two (28.57%) of the seven principles
as follows:
a. To ensure that students attain the level of proficiency in academia necessary to
participate fully as KFUPM students.
a. Preparatory Year Program … seeks to develop students into well-rounded
individuals.
For the goal statements, five UTs paired with three (42.86%) of the seven principles
as follows:
1- Personal Validation (P.V.):
a. To enhance their opportunities for success and excellence.
a. Improving students' English language proficiency to prepare them for
university.
b. Reviewing and reinforcing student's knowledge of Mathematical and
Analytical techniques.
c. Consolidating students' knowledge of basic science, and providing necessary
skills for effective learning.
a. Assisting students in choosing their academic majors through career guidance,
as well as promoting student's physical well-being.
University UN11#. University 11 reported 12 UTs spread among three categories of
analysis of the vision, mission, and goals statements.
For the vision statement, one UT matched one (14.29%) of the seven principles:
a. Prepare for university’s academic study.
For the mission statement, three UTs paired with three (42.86%) of the seven
a. Raise the… efficiency and skills of graduates.

a. Contribute in finding suitable jobs for university graduates.
a. To meet the needs of the community.
For the goals statements, eight UTs paired with four (57.14%) of the seven principles
as follows:
a. Support students’ ambitions in academic excellence.
a. Students has fluent skills in both Arabic and English.
b. Students are able to use the main computer programs and applications.
c. Give a student the ability to solve basic mathematical problems.
d. Developing skills of self-education, communication, and planning.
e. Developing skills of self (thinking, research, communication, fitness).
a. Active participation in sport, cultural and social development activities.
a. Help students integrate into the university community.
University UN12#. Although UN12 has the Preparatory Year Program for specific
student bodies, there was no vision, mission, or goals statements reported on the website.
University UN13#. This university has no vision or mission statements reported on
its website. Four UTs reported on the goals statement paired with two (28.57%) of the seven
a. Preparing high school graduates to pursue professional studies in health
science.
b. It provides them with the language skills essential for studying and
communicating in an English language medium.
c. It introduces them to the basic concepts of general and medical science
necessary for higher-level education in health science.
a. It moves the students from high school didactic and passive learning into
university student-centered education.
University UN14#. Although UN14# has a vision and mission statement reported on
its website, there were no UTs or alignment with the seven principles.
For the goals statement, two UTs paired with two (28.57%) of the seven principles as
follows:
a. Enhancing students' capabilities.
a. Raising student’s awareness and responsibility.
Overall, for UN14#, the alignment of the vision, mission, and goal statements
University UN15#. For the vision statement, no UTs were found so, none matched
the Seven Principles of Students Success.

For the mission statement, two UTs paired with two (28.57%) of the seven principles
as follows:
a. Preparing balanced personalities with a high degree of distinctiveness and
readiness for university study.
a. Contributes to developing the society.
For the goals statement, the Arabic version of the goals statements has eight goals,
while the English version only has four goals. The researcher matched both versions to
explore the differences and similarities between them. The data analysis revealed that six
UTs paired with two (28.57%) of the seven principles as follows:
a. To qualify students for the specialized university.
b. To prepare distinctive, balanced personalities.
c. To enhance the skills of the students in dealing with the cognitive environment
and technology.
d. Provide students self-learning skills.
e. Develop thinking skills.
a. Provide students life-skills to integrate into society.
University UN16#. For the vision statement, one UT paired with one (14.29%) of the
Seven Principles of Students Success as follows:
a. Preparing students of the Preparatory Year for university study.
For the mission statement, four UTs matched three (42.86%) of the seven principles
as follows:
a. Providing essential training on English language skills.
b. Developing their personality, the skills of information technology and basic
science and its applications.
a. Students have an effective participation in fostering an academic community
at the university.
a. Prove to be productive members of society.
For the goals statement, three UTs paired with two (28.57%) of the seven principles
as follows:
a. Equip all students with basic knowledge and skills in basic science subjects to
prepare distinctive, balanced personalities.
a. Enhance the level of awareness and telling of responsibility among the
students.
Overall, for UN16# the alignment of the vision, mission, and goals statements
University UN17#. For the vision statement, there were no UTs that could be paired
with any of the Seven Principles of Students Success.

The mission statement reported one UT aligned with one (14.29%) of the Seven
Principles of Students Success.
a. To create an aware generation that can build their future and serve their
nation.
For the goals statement, seven UTs paired with three (42.86%) of the seven principles
as follows:
a. Developing students' skills in the English language and basic science.
b. Developing student's personality.
c. Encouraging students... and self-development.
d. Developing student’s academic, social, and personal skills.
a. Instill the love of academic excellence in the minds of students.
a. Preparing students to be involved in the university’s environment.
b. Accustom students on discipline, seriousness, and commitment of the
university’s laws.
Overall, for UN17#’s alignment of the vision, mission, and goals statements
Seven Principles of Students Success:
a. Preparing the student for undergraduate education.

The mission statement also has one UT that aligns with one (14.29%) of the Seven
Principles of Students Success:
a. Building the skills, knowledge, and values of the students…
For the goals statement, three UTs paired with one (14.29%) of the seven principles
as follows:
a. Developing students' skills in the English language.
b. Providing student’s mathematical, and self-development skills.
c. Enhancing students' personal and leadership abilities to cope with the
requirements of undergraduate education.
Overall, UN18#’s alignment of the vision, mission, and goals statements combined
with the seven principles was (14.29%).
University UN19#. For the vision statement, there were no UTs that could be paired
The mission statement has three UTs that aligned with two (28.57%) of the Seven
a. Raising the student’s capability and skills.
b. Preparing new students for their colleges.
a. Help students adapt to the university’s environment.
For the goals statement, three UTs were paired with two (28.57%) of the seven
a. Developing students' skills in the English language, computer, mathematics,
science…
b. Developing life-skills, e.g. leadership, collaboration, teamwork, etc..
a. Providing an academic advising service to help students adapt to university
life….
University UN20#. For the vision statement, two UTs were paired with one (14.29%)
of the Seven Principles of Students Success:
a. Bringing students to the higher level of academic readiness.
b. …and personality traits.
The mission statement has four UTs that aligned with two (28.57%) of the Seven
a. Achieve excellent academic performance.
a. Developing basic skills.
b. Widening academic knowledge.
c. Reinforcing positive attitude.
For the goals statement, four UTs were paired with one (14.29%) of the seven
principles:
a. Preparing students to continue their studies in available academic
environments.
b. Developing students' basic skills in English, computers, and thinking.
c. Reinforcing positive attitudes towards learning.
d. Encouraging... self-development.
University UN21#. For the vision statement, there was no UTs that could be paired
a. Developing students capability, academic skills and morale.
b. Preparing students…for future studies.
a. Preparing students, socially, to communicate with his/her society.
For the goals statement, 10 UTs were paired with four (57.14%) of the seven
a. Preparing students for excellence in academic achievement.
b. Improving language capacity and develop ability to analyze for university
study.
c. Developing English language and technology skills.
d. Developing self-learning capacity and learning collaboration skills.
e. Promoting leadership skills and instill initiative.

f. Encouraging...self-development.
g. Preparing students for university study.
a. Discovering student’s capability and direct him/her.
a. Consolidate the principles of discipline, commitment, and responsibility.
a. Help student to engage in their society.
University UN22#. For the vision statement, there were no UTs that could be
matched to any of the Seven Principles of Students Success.
a. Preparing college students to master language and technology skills.
b. Developing student’s capability to create self-knowledge and to pursue his/her
academic life effectively.
a. Developing a positive attitude towards learning.
For the goals statement, 10 UTs paired with three (42.86%) of the seven principles as
follows:
a. Preparing students for university study.

b. Developing student’s skills to deal with a knowledge environment and
technology.
c. Developing student’s ability to create self-knowledge and self-reliance.
d. Developing English language skills.
e. Developing learning, thinking, and research skills.
f. Developing handicraft skills.
b. Developing planning skills, using resource and library skills, and personal
skills.
a. Educating students about his/her major requirements, academic terminology
and future study.
b. Help students to choose his/her future major of study.
a. Developing discipline, commitment, and responsibility skills and respect for
university laws.
University UN23#. There were no UTs in the vision statement matched any of the
Seven Principles of Students Success.
The mission statement has two UTs that aligned with two (28.57%) of the Seven
a. To provide students with educational skills and competencies.
a. To build a qualified student socially.

For the goals statement, six UTs paired with three (42.86%) of the seven principles as
follows:
a. Providing students with necessary skills and knowledge in the English
language, computer…thinking, research, communication, and learning skills.
b. Developing critical thinking skills... and problem solving skills.
a. Contribute effectively in their careers after graduation.
b. Facilitating the admission procedures for students…to determine the
appropriate discipline based on their abilities and skills.
b. Promoting self-development through infusion of the principles of
commitment, discipline, and responsibility, and elevating their leadership
skills and self-confidence.
a. Strengthening their partnership with the community.
a. Preparing a creative generation of students.
The mission statement has five UTs that aligned with two (28.57%) of the Seven
a. To develop the intellectual capabilities of students.

b. Enable them to acquire technical, linguistic, cognitive and thinking skills.
c. To build a distinctive, balanced personality.
a. Participating actively and effectively in the progress and prosperity of the
Saudi community.
b. Able to accept and co-exist with others under the governing values of
developed communities.
For the goals statement, four UTs paired with two (28.57%) of the seven principles as
follows:
a. Providing students numerous skills.
a. To be successful and prominent in their academic studies and their career life.
b. To assess students' capabilities…and help them to select their future college.
Seven Principles of Students Success.
a. Fully prepare our students, so that they have a successful and rewarding
academic experience.
The mission statement has one UT aligned with one (14.29%) of the Seven Principles
of Students Success.
a. Teach students the skills required…

For the goals statement, five UTs paired with three (42.86%) of the seven principles
as follows:
a. Prepare the students for the rigors of university life.
b. Develop the students’ English language and computer skills.
c. Promote originality, ingenuity, and improve their learning, research, thinking
and communication skills.
a. Expanding students' capabilities and help them take a leading role in student
activities.
a. Expanding students’ awareness about health and fitness.
University UN26#. UN26# has no indicators or website information about their
Preparatory Year Program’s vision, mission, and goals statements.
a. To provide new students with academic skills.
The mission statement has two UTs that aligned with one (14.29%) of the Seven
a. Provide students the language, political science, technology, and self-
development skills.
b. To help students succeed in their university studies.
For the goals statement, five UTs paired with two (28.57%) of the seven principles as
follows:
a. Providing students the necessary skills to pursue their undergraduate
education.
b. Fill the unbridged gap between secondary and university education.
c. Build the students' personality.
d. Provide the students with the basics of language and computing, mathematics,
science, and self-learning strategies.
2- Personal Reflection (P.R.):
a. Inspiring students to encounter academic challenges.
University UN28#. There were no UTs in the vision statement that aligned with any
of the Seven Principles of Students Success.
The mission statement has two UTs that aligned with two (28.57%) of the Seven
a. Providing students skills and knowledge to achieve excellence.
a. Developing… social skills…to achieve academic excellence….
For the goals statement, nine UTs paired with two (28.57%) of the seven principles as
follows:
a. Providing students necessary skills that are required for university studies.
b. Promoting leadership, self-confidence, and initiative skills....
c. Help students to make academic achievements....
d. Developing students’ skills to deal with a knowledge environment and
technology....
e. Mastering language basics in Arabic and English....
f. Developing students’ skills in using computer software, applications, and
libraries...
g. Developing students’ skills in mathematics....
h. Developing students’ skills in science......
a. Consolidating the principles of discipline, commitment, and responsibility....
In summary, the universities total alignments with the Seven Principles of Students
Success are reported as follows:
1. Universities 7 and 11 (38.1%)
2. University 10 (33.33%)
3. Universities 16 and 21 (28.57%)
4. Universities 22, 23, 24, and 25 (23.81%)
5. Universities 2, 3, 15, 17, 19, 20, 27, and 28 (19.05%)
6. Universities 6, 9, and 18 (14.29%)
7. Universities 1, 13, and 14 (9.52%)
8. University 4 (4.76%)
9. Universities 5, 8, 12, and 26 (0%)

Table 6 displays the alignments of the vision, mission, and goals statements for each
university with the Seven Principles of Students Success in the first-year of college/university
and the alignment total for each university.

Table 6
Summarizes the alignments of each university with the Seven Principles of Student’s Success and the alignment total for the vision, mission, and
goals statements combined
Cata Vision Mission Goals Alignment
% % %
UN P.V. S.E. P.M. A.I. P.R. S.I. S.A. P.V. S.E. P.M. A.I. P.R. S.I. S.A. P.V. S.E. P.M. A.I. P.R. S.I. S.A. Overall %
07# x x x x x x x 0 x √ √ x x √ x 42.86 x √ √ √ x √ √ 71.43 38.1
11# x x √ x x x x 14.29 x √ √ x x √ x 42.86 √ √ x √ x √ x 57.14 38.1
10# x x √ x x √ x 28.57 x √ x x x x √ 28.57 x √ √ x √ x x 42.86 33.33
16# x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x √ x √ x 42.86 x √ x x x x √ 28.57 28.57
21# x x x x x x x 0 x √ x x x √ x 28.57 x √ √ √ x √ x 57.14 28.57
22# x x x x x x x 0 x √ √ x x x x 28.57 x √ √ √ x x x 42.86 23.81
23# x x x x x x x 0 x √ x x x √ x 28.57 x √ √ x x √ x 42.86 23.81
24# x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x x x √ x 28.57 x √ √ x x x x 28.57 23.81
25# x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x √ x x √ 42.86 23.81
02# x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x x x √ x 28.57 19.05
03# x x x x x x x 0 x √ x x x √ x 28.57 x √ x x x x √ 28.57 19.05
15# x x x x x x x 0 x √ x x x √ x 28.57 x √ x x x √ x 28.57 19.05
17# x x x x x x x 0 x x √ x x x x 14.29 x √ √ √ x x x 42.86 19.05
19# x x x x x x x 0 x √ x √ x x x 28.57 x √ √ x x x x 28.57 19.05
20# x √ x x x x x 14.29 √ √ x x x x x 28.57 x √ x x x x x 14.29 19.05
27# x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x x √ x x 28.57 19.05
28# x x x x x x x 0 x √ x x x √ x 28.57 x √ x √ x x x 28.57 19.05
06# x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x x x x x 14.29 14.29
09# x x x x x x x 0 x x x x x x x 0 x √ x x x √ √ 42.86 14.29
18# x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x x x x x 14.29 x √ x x x x x 14.29 14.29
01# x x x x x x x 0 x x x x x x x 0 x √ x x x x √ 28.57 9.52
04# x x x x x x x 0 x √ x x x x x 14.29 x x x x x x x 0 4.76
05# x x x x x x x 0 x x x x x x x 0 x x x x x x x 0 0

Finding for the Second Major Research Question
For the second research question, “What common key elements cited in the Seven
Central Principles of Students Success are most often included in the Preparatory Year
Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements” the data retrieved from Table 7 used to
answers this research question.
The total of Unit of Thoughts (UTs) aligned with the Seven Principles of Students
Success in the first-year of university was 174. Self-Efficacy (S.E.) was recorded as the most
cited principle in the vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year Program
in Saudi Arabian public universities, where they recorded nine (5.17%) for the vision
statement, 28 (16.10%) for the mission statement, and 76 (43.68%) for the goals statement.
Overall, 113 (64.94%) UTs of vision, mission, and goals statements aligned with the S.E.
principle.
The principle of Social Integration (S.I.) placed in the second level of the most cited
in the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements. Twenty (11.49%)
UTs paired with the S.I. principle. The Personal Meaning (P.M.) principle cited 18 (10.34%)
UTs and came in the third level of the most cited in the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision,
mission, and goals statements. The Active Involvement (A.I.) principle placed in the fourth
level of matching at 10 (5.75%) UTs. The Self-Awareness (S.A.) principle recorded nine
(5.17%) pairings with the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements.
Lastly, the Personal Validation (P.V.) and Personal Reflection (P.R.) placed in the lowest
level of matching with the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements
where only two (1.15%) UTs were cited for each principle.
Overall, the Seven Principles of Students Success frequently appeared in the goal and
mission statements of Preparatory Year Programs’ more than the vision statement, where 116

(66.67%) UTs were cited from the goals statements, 46 (26.44%) UTs from the
mission statements, and 12 (6.90%) UTs from the vision statements. Table 7 summarizes the
common key elements cited in the Seven Central Principles of Students Success that were
most often included in the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements.

Table 7
The Seven Principles of Student’s Success as the most appeared in the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goal statements
P.V. S.E. P.M. A.I. P.R. S.I. S.A. UTs UTs UTs
Cata UTs
Vi Mi Go Vi Mi Go Vi Mi Go Vi Mi Go Vi Mi Go Vi Mi Go Vi Mi Go Vision Mission Goals
Total 0 1 1 9 28 76 2 4 12 0 2 8 0 0 2 1 10 9 0 1 8 174 12 46 116

01# 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
02# 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 P.V. S.E. P.M. A.I. P.R. S.I. S.A.
03# 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7 2 113 18 10 2 20 9
04# 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1.15% 64.94% 10.34% 5.75% 1.15% 11.49% 5.17%
05# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
06# 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
07# 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 10
08# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
09# 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3
10# 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 9
11# 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 12
12# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
13# 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
14# 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
15# 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 8
16# 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 7
17# 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
18# 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
19# 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
20# 0 1 0 2 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
21# 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 13
22# 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
23# 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 8

24# 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9
25# 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7
26# 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
27# 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
28# 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11
Finding for the Third Research Question
For the third research question, "For all Saudi public universities, what are the format
and the frequency of the vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year
Programs?" As mentioned in Step 3 in Chapter Three titled Coding Schemes, the coding form
used with the Seven Principles of Students Success to assess its alignment with the
Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements. The researcher created an
open code table to identify new themes that appeared in the Preparatory Year Program’s
vision, mission, and goals statements. The researcher coded the new themes as follows:
Vision New Theme/s (NTV1; NTV2, NTV3, etc.); Mission New Theme/s (NTM1; NTM2,
NTM3, etc.); and Goals New Theme/s (NTG1; NTG2, NTG3, etc.). For each categories
vision, mission, and goals statements the researcher identified, counted, and coded them
appropriately. Answering this research question has two main steps: 1) identify the format
and the frequency of the themes of the vision, mission, and goals statements of the
Preparatory Year Programs that aligned with the Seven Principles of Students Success; and
2) report any new themes that appeared but, did not align with the success principles.
For the vision statements for N=28, n=21 (75.00%) of the universities reported the
Preparatory Year Program’s vision statements on its website, while only seven (25.00%)
have no vision statements. Further, as mentioned in Research Questions a and b answers,
there are only 12 (6.90%) UTs that aligned with the Seven Principles of Students Success in
the first-year of university. The common format and frequency of the vision statements
associated with the seven principles was “Preparing students for university study” (n=11,
52.38%) in UN02#, UN04#, UN06#, UN10#, UN11#, UN16#, UN18#, UN20#, UN24#,
UN25#, and UN27#.
Three main new themes appeared in the vision statements, for n=21, as follows:

1- NTV1: “Achieving leadership and excellence in developing the Preparatory Year
Program” (n=17, 80.95%) in UN02#, UN03#, UN04#, UN06#, UN07#, UN14#,
UN15#, UN16#, UN17#, UN18#, UN19#, UN21#, UN22#, UN23#, UN24#, UN25#,
and UN28#.
2- NTV2: “Quality-based Preparatory Year Program” (n=4, 19.05%) in UN02#, UN03#,
UN04#, and UN#19.
3- NTV3: “Accredited Preparatory Year Programs locally and internationally” (n=10,
47.62%) frequency in UN03#, UN04#, UN06#, UN#07, UN17#, UN21#, UN22#,
UN23#, UN24#, and UN28#.
Overall, the new themes appeared in the vision statements due to their focus on
developing the Preparatory Year Program, instead of developing the Preparatory Year
Programs’ students’ learning.
For the mission statements, for N=28, only n=24 (85.71%) universities have a mission
statement, while four (14.29%) do not have mission statements. The common themes
associated with the Seven Principles of Students Success was as follows:
1- “Developing student’s knowledge, attitude, values, and academic skills including
Mathematics, self-development skills, science, language skills, communication,
technology, and thinking skills” (n=19, 79.17%) in UN02#, UN03#, UN06#, UN07#,
UN23#, UN24#, UN25#, UN27#, and UN28#.
2- “Preparing students for university study” (n=12, 50.00%%) in UN02#, UN04#,
UN06#, UN10#, UN15#, UN18#, UN19#, UN21#, UN22#, UN23#, UN27#, and
UN28#.
3- “Participating in the national, regional, and global development (Social Integration)”
(n=10, 41.67%) in UN03#, UN07#, UN11#, UN15#, UN16#, UN17#, UN21#,
UN23#, UN24#, and UN28#.
4- “Developing student’s personality” (n=6, 25.00%) in UN10#, UN11#, UN15#,
UN16#, UN20#, and UN24#.
5- “Providing students intensive and advanced English programs” (n=5, 20.83%) in
UN13#, UN16#, UN22#, UN24#, and UN27#.
6- “Preparing students for labor-market” (n=2, 8.33%) in UN11#, and UN16#.
The Content Analysis revealed five new themes in the mission statements as follows:
1- NTM1: “Provide a stimulating learning environment” (n=10, 41.67%) in UN02#,
UN06#, UN14#, UN15#, UN16#, UN21#, UN23#, UN24#, UN27#, and UN28#.
2- NTM2: “Developing creativity and innovation” (n=7, 29.17%) in UN02#, UN06#,
UN07#, UN14#, UN16#, UN24#, and UN25#.
3- NTM3: “Providing academic services” (n=7, 29.17%) in UN02#, UN03#, UN04#,
UN06#, UN07#, UN09#, and UN19#.
4- NTM4: “Developing the Preparatory Year Program on high quality-based” (n=7,
29.17%) in UN06#, UN11#, UN14#, UN19#, UN20#, UN23#, and UN28#.
5- NTM5: “Building excellent partnerships with the private sector to operate the
Preparatory Year Program” (n=5, 20.83%) in UN03#, UN14#, UN17#, UN18#, and
UN24#.
For the goals statements, for N=28, 23 (82.14%) universities have a goals statement,
while five (17.86%)do not have a goals statements. The common themes associated with the
Seven Principles of Students Success are recorded as follows:
1- “Developing students’ knowledge, academic skills, technology skills, research and
communication skills, self-confidence skills, leadership skills, self-development

skills, and life-skills” (n=18, 78.26%) in UN01#, UN02#, UN07#, UN09#, UN10#,
UN23#, UN27#, and UN28#.
2- “Developing English language skills” (n=16, 69.57%) in UN03#, UN07#, UN09#,
UN25#, UN27#, and UN28#.
3- “Preparing students for university study and life” (n=13, 56.52%) in UN01#, UN02#,
and UN28#.
4- “Help students to enroll in a suitable college based on their performance” (n=7,
5- “Developing student’s self-autonomy skills, responsibility, and self-discipline” (n=7,
6- “Raising students awareness about social-responsibility” (n=4, 17.39%) in UN02#,
UN14#, UN15#, and UN16#.
7- “Preparing students for the labor-market” (n=3, 13.04%) in UN01#, UN07#, and
UN23#.
8- “Developing student’s awareness and physical fitness” (n=2, 8.70%) in UN07#, and
UN25#.
9- “Educating students about their rights, and university’s regulations” (n=2, 8.70%) in
UN02#, and UN09#.
Furthermore, the Content Analysis of goals statements revealed seven new themes
recorded as follows:
1- NTG1: “Developing a stimulating learning environment to encourage innovation and
creativity among students” (n=11, 47.83%) in UN02#, UN07#, UN14#, UN15#,
UN16#, UN17#, UN18#, UN20#, UN23#, UN24#, and UN28#.
2- NTG2: “Improving university’s outcomes” (n=4, 17.39%) in UN03#, UN14#,
UN23#, and UN24#.
3- NTG3: “Fill the knowledge and skills gap between high school outcomes and
university requirements” (n=4, 17.39%) in UN06#, UN13#, UN24#, and UN27#.
4- NTG4: “Unify university admission” (n=3, 13.04%) in UN08#, UN09#, and UN23#.
5- NTG5: “Build distinguished partnerships with the private sector to operate the
program” (n=3, 13.04%) in UN14#, UN16#, and UN23#.
6- NTG6: “Developing student’s assessment system” (n=2, 8.70%) in UN14#, and
UN19#.
7- NTG7: “Developing excellent human resources” (n=2, 8.70%) in UN14#, and
UN16#.
Overall, for vision statements category, new themes for the majority of universities
focus on the development of the Preparatory Year Program and achieving leadership and
excellence in the program’s design. For the mission statements, the majority of the new
themes emphasis developing a stimulating learning environment to encourage creativity and
innovation and to provide high quality academic services. Finally, the goals statements
common new themes concentration on developing a motivating learning environment and
filling the knowledge and skills gap between high school outcomes and university
requirements. Table 8 displays the format and the frequency of the vision, mission, and goals
statements of the Preparatory Year Programs.

Table 8
Displays the format and the frequency of vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year Programs.
Aligned with New
Categories Theme/s
Seven Principles Theme
n % Universities
Preparing students for university study √ 11 52.38 UN02#, UN04#, UN06#, UN10#, UN11#,
UN16#, UN18#, UN20#, UN24#, UN25#,
UN27#
NTV1: Achieving leadership and √ 17 80.95 UN02#, UN03#, UN04#, UN06#, UN07#,
excellence in developing the Preparatory UN14#, UN15#, UN16#, UN17#, UN18#,
Vision Year Program UN19#, UN21#, UN22#, UN23#, UN24#,
UN25#, UN28#
NTV2: Quality-based Preparatory Year √ 4 19.05 UN02#, UN03#, UN04#, UN19#
Program
NTV3: Accredited Preparatory Year √ 10 47.62 UN03#, UN04#, UN06#, UN07#, UN17#,
Program locally and internationally UN21#, UN22#, UN23#, UN24#, UN28#
Developing student’s knowledge, √ 19 79.17 UN02#, UN03#, UN06#, UN07#, UN10#,
attitude, values, and academic skills UN11#, UN13#, UN14#, UN16#, UN18#,
including Mathematics, self-development UN19#, UN20#, UN21#, UN22#, UN23#,
skills, science, language skills, UN24#, UN25#, UN27#, and UN28#
communication, technology, and thinking
skills
Mission Preparing students for university study √ 12 50.00 UN02#, UN04#, UN06#, UN10#, UN15#,
UN18#, UN19#, UN21#, UN22#, UN23#,
UN27#, UN28#
Participating in the national, regional, √ 10 41.67 UN03#, UN07#, UN11#, UN15#, UN16#,
and global development (Social UN17#, UN21#, UN23#, UN24#, UN28#
Intergradation)
Developing student’s personality √ 6 25.00 UN10#, UN11#, UN15#, UN16#, UN20#,

UN24#
Providing students intensive and √ 5 20.83 UN13#, UN16#, UN22#, UN24#, UN27#
advanced English programs
Preparing students for the labor-market √ 2 8.33 UN11#, UN16#
NTM1: Providing a stimulating learning √ 10 41.67 UN02#, UN06#, UN14#, UN15#, UN16#,
environment UN21#, UN23#, UN24#, UN27#, UN28#
NTM2: Developing creativity and √ 7 29.17 UN02#, UN06#, UN07#, UN14#, UN16#,
innovation UN24#, UN25#
NTM3: Providing academic services √ 7 29.17 UN02#, UN03#, UN04#, UN06#, UN07#,
UN09#, UN19#
NTM4: Developing Preparatory Year √ 7 29.17 UN06#, UN11#, UN14#, UN19#, UN20#,
Program on high quality-based UN23#, UN28#
NTM5: Building excellent partnerships √ 5 20.83 UN03#, UN14#, UN17#, UN18#, UN24#
with the private sector to operate the
Preparatory Year Program
Developing students’ knowledge, √ 18 78.26 UN01#, UN02#, UN07#, UN09#, UN10#,
academic skills, technology skills, UN11#, UN13#, UN15#, UN16#, UN17#,
research and communication skills, self- UN18#, UN19#, UN20#, UN21#, UN22#,
UN23#, UN27#, UN28#
confidence skills, leadership skills, self-
development skills, and life-skills
Developing English language skills √ 16 69.57 UN03#, UN07#, UN09#, UN10#, UN11#,
Goals UN13#, UN17#, UN18#, UN19#, UN20#,
UN21#, UN22#, UN23#, UN25#, UN27#,
UN28#
Preparing students for university study √ 13 56.52 UN01#, UN02#, UN03#, UN04#, UN07#,
and life UN11#, UN15#, UN17#, UN20#, UN21#,
UN22#, UN25#, UN28#
Help students to enroll in a suitable √ 7 29.17 UN01#, UN03#, UN09#, UN10#, UN21#,
college based on their performance UN22#, UN23#

Developing student’s self-autonomy √ 7 29.17 UN03#, UN07#, UN17#, UN21#, UN22#,
skills, responsibility, and self-discipline UN27#, UN28#
Raising students awareness about social- √ 4 17.39 UN02#, UN14#, UN15#, UN16#
responsibility
Preparing students for the labor-market √ 3 13.04 UN01#, UN07#, UN23#
Developing students awareness and √ 2 8.70 UN07#, UN25#
physical fitness
Educating students about their rights and √ 2 8.70 UN02#, UN09#
university’s regulations
NTG1: Developing a stimulating learning √ 11 47.83 UN02#, UN07#, UN14#, UN15#, UN16#,
environment to encourage innovation and UN17#, UN18#, UN20#, UN23#, UN24#,
creativity among students UN28#
NTG2: Improving university’s outcomes √ 4 17.39 UN03#, UN14#, UN23#, UN24#
NTG3: Fill the knowledge and skills gap √ 4 17.39 UN06#, UN13#, UN24#, UN27#
between high school outcomes and
university requirements
NTG4: Unify university admission √ 3 13.04 UN08#, UN09#, UN23#
NTG5: Build distinguished partnerships √ 3 13.04 UN14#, UN16#, UN23#
with the private sector to operate the
program
NTG6: Developing student’s assessment √ 2 8.70 UN14#, UN19#
system
NTG7: Developing excellent human √ 2 8.70 UN14#, UN16#
resources
Finding for the Fourth Research Question
The last research question was “How do the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision,
mission, and goals statements differ in content between universities according to
geographical location, size, Preparatory Year Programs date of establishment, and gender?”
To answer this research question, the researcher used data generated through the previous
three questions. For each theme produced, it either aligned with the Seven Principles of
Students Success or it was considered a new theme. The similarities and differences were
reported based on the four variables: geographical location, size, Preparatory Year Programs
date of establishment, and gender.
For the vision statements analysis, n=21 (75.00%) universities have vision statements.
Four different themes were discovered in this analysis. To identify the similarities and
differences among all 28 universities, the researcher divided the vision statements into three
groups based on phrasing and targeting: 1) vision focus only on students; 2) vision emphasis
is only on the program itself; and 3) vision concentrate on both the student and program.
The Preparatory Year Program’s visions that focus only on the student, “Preparing
students for university study”, include UN10#, UN11#, UN20#, and UN27# (n=4, 19.05%).
Visions that emphasis on the Preparatory Year Program’s development comprises of UN03#,
UN04#, UN07#, UN15#, UN17#, UN19#, UN21#, UN22#, UN23#, and UN28# (n=10,
47.62%), for example “Achieving leadership and excellence in developing the Preparatory
Year Program”. The visions that focus on both the student and program development involve
UN02#, UN06#, UN14#, UN16#, UN18#, UN24#, and UN25# (n=7, 25.00%), for example
“leadership and excellence in preparing students”.
For Group 1 (Student) (n=4, 19.05%), two out of four universities involved in this
group are located in the East of Saudi Arabia, and one of them is a single gender university.

Of the other two universities, one was located in the North and the other represented an
Online University.
The majority of universities included in this study are represented in Group 2
(Program) (n=10, 47.62%) and have similar vision statements that emphasize on achieving
excellence and leadership in developing the Preparatory Year Program; although, the
difference among them are according to the four variables: location, size, date, and gender.
Five out of 10 universities, including UNs 03#, 04#, 17#, 19#, and 21# are located in the
middle of Saudi Arabia and has a student enrollment range between 4,380-15,187 students in
2014-2015. Two universities, 22# and 23# are located in the West of Saudi Arabia. Two
universities, 07# and 15# are located in the South and have a student enrollment range
between 11,819-3,352 students respectively, and one is in the North UN28#. Overall, all 10
universities provide education for both males and females.
In the second level of similarity, in terms of the number of universities involved, are
represented by Group 3. They emphasize its statements on the development of the students
and the program, which reported seven (n=7, 25.00%) and spread between two in the Middle,
two in the North, two in the West, and one in the East. Universities size ranges between
2,490-21,587 students. Furthermore, UN06# is a single gender university for males, and
UN18# is only for females, and the programs date of establishment ranges between 2007 and
2011. Table 9 displays these universities and the associated variables.

Table 9
The Similarity and Differences of Vision Statements Based on geography location, size, Preparatory Year Programs date of establishment, and
gender
Group1 (Student) Group2 (Program) Group3 (Student & Program)
UN#
Location Size Date Gender Location Size Date Gender Location Size Date Gender
10 East 2,546 1963- M
2007
11 East 7,761 2009 M/F
20 Online 7,736 2011 M/F
27 North 7,449 2006 M/F
03 Middle 15,187 2012 M/F
04 Middle 4,380 2012 M/F
07 South 11,819 2009 M/F
15 South 3,352 2010 M/F
17 Middle 6,389 2009 M/F
19 Middle 14,175 2005 M/F
21 Middle 10,173 2011 M/F
22 West 11,514 2011 M/F
23 West 13,260 2013 M/F
28 North 7,270 2008 M/F
02 North 5,964 2007 M/F
06 West 2,490 2008 M
14 Middle 8,391 2007 M/F
16 North 4,462 2011 M/F
18 Middle 9,682 2009 F
24 West 21,587 2009 M/F
25 East 5,445 2008 M/F

For the mission statements, n=24 (85.71%) universities have a mission statement,
while four (14.29%) have no mission statements. The data generated from research question
one were used to answer this question (see Tables 6 & 7). The Content Analysis revealed that
the majority of Saudi public universities are similar in terms of the Preparatory Year Program
emphasizing the area of study that focuses on the academic aspects such as developing
student’s academic skills and knowledge, such as developing English Language, Self-
Development skills, Mathematics and Science skills, despite the differences among them
according to the four variables: geographical location, size, Preparatory Year Programs date
of establishment, and gender.
Nineteen (79.17%) of the Preparatory Year Programs’ mission statements aligned
with the Self-Efficacy (S.E.) principle (see Table 10). Further, 9 (37.5%) aligned with the
Social Integration (S.I.) principle. Four (16.67%) aligned with the Personal Meaning (P.M.)
principle. Two (8.33%) aligned with the Active Involvement (A.I.) principle. One (4.17%)
aligned with the Personal Validation (P.V.) and Self-Awareness (S.A) principles for each.
The principle of Personal Reflection (P.R.) did not align with any mission statement at all 28
universities. However, the data exposed that must of the Saudi universities design its
Preparatory Year Program to improve students’ skills and knowledge to meet the universities
standards. Furthermore, the data revealed an overlapping between the mission and goals
statements phrasing, which in some cases, the mission and goals statements have similar
content, for example, UNs 7, 16, and 21. Table 10 displays 19 universities that are similar in
terms of the Preparatory Year Program’s purpose. Universities numbers were hidden for data
confidentiality purpose.

Table 10
The List of Saudi Universities that Aligned with Self-Efficacy Principle.
Location Size Date Gender
North 5,964 2007 M/F

Middle 15,187 2012 M/F
Middle 4,380 2012 M/F
West 2,490 2008 M
South 11,819 2009 M/F
East 2,546 1963-2007 M
East 7,761 2009 M/F
South 3,352 2010 M/F
North 4,462 2011 M/F
Middle 9,682 2009 F
Middle 14,175 2005 M/F
Online 7,736 2011 M/F
Middle 10,173 2011 M/F
West 11,514 2011 M/F
West 13,260 2013 M/F
West 21,587 2009 M/F
East 5,445 2008 M/F
North 7,449 2006 M/F
North 7,270 2008 M/F
For the goals statements, n=23 (82.14%) universities have a goals statement, while
five (17.86%) do not. 23 (100%) universities have similar statements of goals that aligned
with the Self-Efficacy principles, despite the differences among them (see Table 6 & 7). For
example, "Developing students’ knowledge, academic skills, technology skills, research and
communication skills, self-confidence skills, leadership skills, self-development skills, and
life-skills" or "Developing English language skills".
Furthermore, eight (34.78%) universities have similar settings of goals aligned with
the Personal Meaning principle. For example, “Preparing students for the labor-market” or
“Developing a stimulating learning environment to encourage innovation and creativity
among students”. Besides, eight (34.78%) universities have similar interests in developing
the Social Integration principle, for instance, “Raising student’s awareness about social-
responsibility”. The Self-Awareness principle aligned with eight (34.78%) universities that
have similar trends for “Developing student’s awareness and physical fitness”. Moreover,
seven (30.43%) universities were developing their Preparatory Year Programs’ goals to
increase student’s involvement within the university’s environment, which aligned with the
Active Involvement principle. For example, “Developing student’s self-autonomy skills,
responsibility, and self-discipline”. The Personal Validation and Personal Reflection
principles aligned with only one goal statement (4.35%) in UN11#, and two goals statements
(8.70%) aligned with the Personal Reflection in UN10#, and UN27#.
Overall, the majority of the Preparatory Year Programs are similar in terms of their
vision statements that focus on achieving leadership and excellence in developing the
Preparatory Year Program, while only few universities phrase its vision to regard student’s
development. For the mission and goals statements, the content of a majority of Preparatory
Year Programs set its goals and focus on the Self-Efficacy and Social Integration principles.
The similarity among Saudi Preparatory Year Programs vision, mission, and goals statements
were high despite the differences among them based on the four variables: geographical
location, size, Preparatory Year Programs date of establishment, and gender (see Tables 2 &
3).
Additional Limitations of the Study
This study has several limitations:
1. The alignment of the vision, mission, and goals statements with the Seven Principles
of Students Success in the first-year of university has not been systematically studied
by researchers in general and in a Saudi higher education context in particular but, is
cited as a recommendation in some research studies conducted in the United States of
America.
2. A limitation exists due to the nature of the vision, mission, and goals statements,
because some institutions do not state their vision, mission, and goals statements in a
way that exposes all practices and policies for the public. Bart and Tabone (1998) say
that “mission statements not in sync with an organization's formal structure are often
regarded as being of little value” (p. 57). However, using three categories: vision,
mission, and goals statements, for this study may have reduced the effectiveness of
this limitation because most of the data necessary to explore the program theory base
includes these three categories.
3. The size and scope of this study is limited to public Saudi universities; therefore, the
outcomes of this study cannot be generalized on private universities or 2-year
institutions such as community colleges in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, more
investigation is recommended in the future using the Seven Principles of Students
Success within a different research methodology or in different universities.

Chapter Five
Summary, Discussion, Implications, and Future Research
Chapter Five offers an overview of the study, summarizes the study’s findings,
discusses the potential implications, and recommendations for future research regarding
First-Year Experiences and the Preparatory Year Program development.
Overview of Study
The first-year of college is critical for developing a foundation for successfully
transitioning into college for all new students, and students’ success is largely based on their
first-year experiences (Ben-Avie, Kennedy,Unson, Li, Riccardi & Mugno, 2012; Clark, 2005;
Frazier, 2007: Mutch, 2005; Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985; Tinto & Pusser, 2006; Upcraft,
Gardner & Barefoot, 2004).
Within the context of Saudi postsecondary education, the first-year programs are
considered a new phenomenon, which the majority of Saudi universities established its
Preparatory Year Programs for first-year students in 2005 or beyond. The current working
models of the Preparatory Year Program encounter several challenges, including the absence
of a theoretical and pedagogical base of the program and also “the preparatory year in Saudi
universities lacks a Governing Concept philosophy” (Alaqeeli, 2014, p. 60). Furthermore,
although the Preparatory Year Programs have been in existence for ten years at many of the
Saudi public universities, there is a lack of research and evaluation studies to explore the
Preparatory Year Programs models or to define an overall theoretical foundation or
pedagogical philosophy of the programs.
As the current working models of Preparatory Year Program have no published or
released documents that report a program theoretical and pedagogical base, this study used
and analyzed the vision, mission, and goals statements of all 28 Preparatory Year Programs
published on the official websites of all public Saudi universities. The vision statements of
universities are considered to be a philosophical guide for what a particular university or
college works toward achieving in the future (Abelman & Dalessandro, 2008). The mission
statements of universities or schools illustrate a set of values, principles, purposes, directions
for individuals, and program functions (Boerema, 2006). Finally, the goals statements
express the performance level of all university or school components, either educational,
professional, students, curriculum, professional development, etc. (Gurley, Peters, Collins, &
Fifolt, 2014).
The main purpose of this study was to assess whether or not the Preparatory Year
Programs incorporate the principles of student success in the first-year of university as
outlined in the Seven Central Principles of Student Success advanced by Cuseo (2014).
Further, this study explored the Preparatory Year Programs’ Saudi universities trends through
the most common key elements of the Seven Principles of Students Success included in the
Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements. This study explored the
themes and formats of the Preparatory Year Programs in all 28 universities and the
differences among these programs based on the university’s geographical location, size,
programs date of establishment, and gender. However, this study was not to evaluate the
contents phrasing or structure of the vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory
Year Programs itself but, to assess its alignment with the First-Year Theory.
The target population consisted of 28 public universities managed and supervised by
the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia (MOE, 2016). The nonrandom sampling process
(purposive sampling) is utilized in this research. All Preparatory Year Programs that reported
its vision, mission, and goal statements on the official websites were included in this study
(see Appendix A & D). As this study used public information published on the official
Preparatory Year Programs’ websites and has no human subject involved in the study’s
procedure, the approval of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was not required prior to
data collection and analysis.
To accomplish this study’s goals, the researcher used government information
published on the official Preparatory Year Programs’ websites expressing the vision, mission,
and goals statements in each public university. The nine steps of Content Analysis (CA)
developed by Neuendorf (2002) were used for data collection and analysis. Furthermore, the
Unit of Thoughts (UT) extracted from vision, mission, and goal statement were used to assess
its alignment with the Seven Principles of Students Success. The Unit of Thoughts (UT) are
defined by the number of sentences or paragraphs or words that belonged to or indicated the
existence of the principle individually for each program. Any sentence or indication on the
vision, mission, or goals statements was placed under an appropriate principle. Using UTs
also assisted the researcher in identifying the pattern between the Preparatory Year Programs
and the differences and similarities among universities.
This study adopted the Content Analysis definition advanced by Neuendorf:
All Saudi public universities vision, mission, and goals statements and the Seven
Principles of Students Success were identified, coded, defined operationally, and reported. A
pilot study was conducted on seven (25.00%) Preparatory Year Programs to test the
codebook’s and coding form’s reliability, validity, consistency, and understanding among
two coders and the researcher. The validity resulted in 100% agreement between the
researcher and two coders, which means that the Content Analysis is valid and reliable (see
Appendix C). This study attempted to answer the following research questions:
statements?
Summary of Finding
In the N=28 Saudi public universities, n=21 (75.00%) universities reporting vision
statements for Preparatory Year Program on its website, while seven (25.00%) have no vision
statements. For the mission statements, n=24 (85.71%) universities have a mission statement
for its Preparatory Year Program, while four (14.29%) have no mission statements. For the
goals statements, n=23 (82.14%) universities have a goals statement, while five or (17.86%)
have no goals statements.
For the universities size, for all N=28 the number of students enrolled in the
Preparatory Year Program in 2014-2015 was used to classify the universities into three
groups. Group 1 includes nine (32.14%) universities that enrolled a total of students above
10,000. Group 2 involves nine (32.14%) universities that have 10,000<5,000 students
enrolled. Finally, Group 3 has 10 (35.71%) universities that recorded 5,000<1,000 students
total in the first-year (see Table 2).
For the universities geographical location for all 28 public universities, N=28, eight
(28.57%) universities are located in the Middle of Saudi Arabia. Six (21.43%) are located in
the Western province. Five (17.86%) are positioned in the North and five (17.86%) in the
Southern provinces. Three (10.71%) are in the Eastern province, and one (3.57%) is
represented as an Online University (see Table 3). Furthermore, for the date of establishment
of the Preparatory Year Programs, for N=28, three (10.71%) were established in 2014. One
(3.57%) was founded in 2013. Two (7.14%) were established in 2012, four (14.29%) in 2011,
and one (3.57%) in 2010. Six (21.43%) were established in 2009, four (14.29%) in 2008,
three (10.71%) in 2007, three (10.71%) in 2005, and one (3.57%) Preparatory Year Program
was established in 1963 and updated in 2007 (see Table 3). The data analysis revealed that 27
(96.43%) universities established its Preparatory Year Program between 2005-2014, which
indicates that the program is considered a new phenomenon in the Saudi higher education
context. Finally, for N=28 universities, two (7.14%) universities, UN10# and UN06# are
single gender universities for males, while one (3.57%) is only for females (see Table 3).
For the organizational structure classifications of the Preparatory Year Program for
N=28, 17 (60.71%) universities have a separate deanship named the Preparatory Year
Deanship for the program. Two (7.14%) named the program Preparatory Year and
Supporting Studies Deanship. Two (7.14%) universities placed the program under the
Educational Services Deanship. One (3.57%) university applies the Preparatory Year
Program within the College of Applied and Supporting Studies. One (3.57%) university calls
the program Pre-Professional Program. Two (7.14%) applied the program for specific
bodies of students and within the colleges structure, e.g. for Science and Medical colleges.
Two (7.14%) built a unit named Preparatory Year and placed it under the Admission and
Registration Deanship. Finally, only one (3.57%) university did not report a program
structure on its websites (see Table 4). Finally, for the program’s application policy, for
N=28, 14 (50%) universities apply the program for all new coming students and for all
colleges, either Science, Health, or Humanities Colleges. 13 (46.43%) apply the program for
specific bodies of students for Science and Medical Colleges. One (3.57%) did not report a
program application on its website (see Table 5).
Summary of Results for Research Question One. “For each university, to what
extent do the Preparatory Year Program’s vision, mission, and goals statements align with the
Seven Principles of Students Success in the first-year of university?” The data was generated
statements and assessed its alignment with the Principles of Students Success in the first-year
of university as outlined in the Seven Central Principles of Student Success advanced by
Cuseo (2014) using the Unit of Thoughts (UT) within each category and the codebook and
coding form designed for this study. The alignments total of the vision, mission, and goals
statements of the Preparatory Year Programs at all 28 Saudi public universities with the
Seven Principles of Students Success are reported as follows:
1. UN07# and UN11# (38.1%)
2. UN10# (33.33%)
3. UN16# and UN21# (28.57%)
4. UN22#, UN23#, UN24#, and UN25# (23.81%)
5. UN02#, UN03#, UN15#, UN17#, UN19#, UN20#, UN27#, and UN28# (19.05%)
6. UN06#, UN09#, and UN18# (14.29%)
7. UN01#, UN13#, and UN14# (9.52%)
8. UN04# (4.76%)
9. UN05#, UN08#, UN12#, and UN26# (0%) (see Table 6 & 7)

Summary of Results for Research Question Two. “What common key elements
cited in the Seven Central Principles of Students Success are most often included in the
Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements?” The data generated
statements was used to assess the alignment of the Preparatory Year Programs with the Seven
Principles of Students Success in the first-year of university advanced by Cuseo (2014), as
represented in Table 6 and 7, and to answer this research question.
The total of Unit of Thoughts (UTs) aligned with the Seven Principles of Students
Success in the first-year of university was 174. The Self-Efficacy (S.E.) principle is the most
cited in the vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year Program, since it
was recorded nine (5.17%) times for the vision statement, 28 (16.10%) times for the mission
statement, and 76 (43.68%) times for the goals statement. Overall, 113 (64.94%) UTs of the
vision, mission, and goals statements matched the S.E. principle.
The Content Analysis of the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals
statements placed the principle of Social Integration (S.I.) in the second level of alignment
with 20 (11.49%) UTs. The Personal Meaning (P.M.) principle cited 18 (10.34%) UTs and
placed in the third level of alignment. The Active Involvement (A.I.) principle placed in the
fourth level of alignment with 10 (5.75%) UTs. Nine (5.17%) UTs aligned with the Self-
Awareness (S.A.) principle. Lastly, the Personal Validation (P.V.) and Personal Reflection
(P.R.) principles placed in the lowest level of alignment, where each principle was cited only
twice (1.15%). Overall, 116 out of 174 (66.67%) UTs appeared to be extracted from the goals
statements, 46 (26.44%) UTs from the mission statements, and 12 (6.90%) UTs from the
vision statements (see Table 7).
Summary of Results for Research Question Three. "For all Saudi public
universities, what are the format and the frequency of the vision, mission, and goals
statements of the Preparatory Year Programs?" To answer this question, the researcher
accomplished two main steps: 1) identified the format and the frequency of the themes of the
vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year Programs that aligned with the
Seven Principles of Students Success; and 2) reported any new themes that appeared but, did
not align with the student’s success principles.
For the vision statements, for N=28, n=21 (75%) universities reporting the
Preparatory Year Program’s vision statements on its website, while only seven (25%) had no
vision statements. 12 (6.90%) UTs aligned with the Seven Principles of Students Success in
the first-year of university. The common format and frequency of the vision statements
associated with seven principles was “Preparing students for university study” (n=11,
52.38%) in UN02#, UN04#, UN06#, UN10#, UN11#, UN16#, UN18#, UN20#, UN24#,
UN25#, and UN27#. For new themes that appeared in the vision statements, for n=21, three
main themes were recorded as follows:
1- NTV1: “Achieving leadership and excellence in developing the Preparatory Year
Program” (n=17, 80.95%) in UN02#, UN03#, UN04#, UN06#, UN07#, UN14#,
and UN28#.
2- NTV2: “Quality-based Preparatory Year Program” (n=4, 19.05%) in UN02#, UN03#,
UN04#, and UN19#.
3- NTV3: “Accredited Preparatory Year Program locally and internationally” (n=10,
47.62%) frequency in UN03#, UN04#, UN06#, UN07#, UN17#, UN21#, UN22#,
UN23#, UN24#, and UN28#.
The new themes appeared in the vision statements focus on developing the
Preparatory Year Program instead of developing the Preparatory Year Programs’ students’
performance.
For the mission statements, for N=28, n=24 (85.71%) universities have a mission
statement, while four (14.29%) have no mission statements. The common themes associated
with the Seven Principles of Students Success are as follows:
technology, and thinking skills” (n=19, 79.17%) in UN02#, UN03#, UN06#, UN07#,
UN23#, UN24#, UN25#, UN27#, and UN28#.
2- “Preparing students for university study” (n=12, 50.00%%) in UN02#, UN04#,
UN06#, UN10#, UN15#, UN18#, UN19#, UN21#, UN22#, UN23#, UN27#, and
UN28#.
(n=10, 41.67%) in UN03#, UN07#, UN11#, UN15#, UN16#, UN17#, UN21#,
UN23#, UN24#, and UN28#.
4- “Developing student’s personality” (n=6, 25.00%) in UN10#, UN11#, UN15#,
UN16#, UN20#, and UN24#.
5- “Providing students intensive and advanced English programs” (n=5, 20.83%) in
UN13#, UN16#, UN22#, UN24#, and UN27#.
6- “Preparing students for the labor market” (n=2, 8.33%) in UN11#, and UN16#.
The new themes appeared in the mission statement as follows:
1- NTM1: “Providing a stimulating learning environment” (n=10, 41.67%) in UN02#,
UN06#, UN14#, UN15#, UN16#, UN21#, UN23#, UN24#, UN27#, and UN28#.
2- NTM2: “Developing creativity and innovation” (n=7, 29.17%) in UN02#, UN06#,
UN07#, UN14#, UN16#, UN24#, and UN25#.

3- NTM3: “Providing academic services” (n=7, 29.17%) in UN02#, UN03#, UN04#,
UN06#, UN07#, UN09#, and UN19#.
4- NTM4: “Developing Preparatory Year Program on high quality-based” (n=7,
5- NTM5: “Building excellent partnerships with the private sector to operate the
Preparatory Year Program (n=5, 20.83%) in UN03#, UN14#, UN17#, UN18#, and
UN24#.
For the goals statements, for N=28, n=23 (82.14%) universities have a goals
statement, while five (17.86%) universities have no goals statement. The common themes
associated with the Seven Principles of Students Success are recorded:
skills, and life-skills” (n=18, 78.26%) in UN01#, UN02#, UN07#, UN09#, UN10#,
UN11#, UN13#, UN15#, UN16#, UN17#, UN18#, UN19#, UN20#, UN21#, UN22,
UN23#, UN27#, and UN28#.
2- “Developing English language skills” (n=16, 69.57%) in UN03#, UN07#, UN09#,
UN25#, UN27#, and UN28#.
3- “Preparing students for university study and life” (n=13, 56.52%) in UN01#, UN02#,
and UN28#.

6- “Raising student’s awareness about social-responsibility” (n=4, 17.39%) in UN02#,
UN14#, UN15#, and UN16#.
7- “Preparing students for the labor market” (n=3, 13.04%) in UN01#, UN07#, and
UN23#.
8- “Developing student’s awareness and physical fitness” (n=2, 8.70%) in UN07#, and
UN25#.
9- “Educating students about their rights, and university’s regulations” (n=2, 8.70%) in
UN02#, and UN09#.
The new themes appeared in the goals statements:
1- NTG1: “Developing a stimulating learning environment to encourage innovation and
creativity among students” (n=11, 47.83%) in UN02#, UN07#, UN14#, UN15#,
UN16#, UN17#, UN18#, UN20#, UN23#, UN24#, and UN28#.
2- NTG2: “Improving university’s outcomes” (n=4, 17.39%) in UN03#, UN14#,
UN23#, and UN24#.
3- NTG3: “Fill the knowledge and skills gap between high school outcomes and
university requirements” (n=4, 17.39%) in UN06#, UN13#, UN24#, and UN27#.
4- NTG4: “Unify university admissions” (n=3, 13.04%) in UN08#, UN09#, and UN23#.
5- NTG5: “Build distinguished partnerships with the private sector to operate the
program” (n=3, 13.04%) in UN14#, UN16#, and UN23#.
6- NTG6: “Developing student’s assessment system” (n=2, 8.70%) in UN14#, and
UN19#.
7- NTG7: “Developing excellent human resources” (n=2, 8.70%) in UN14#, and
UN16#.
Overall, for the vision statements, the majority of new themes appeared to focus on
the development of the Preparatory Year Program and achieving leadership and excellence in
the program’s design. For the mission statements, the popular new themes emphasize on
developing a stimulating learning environment to encourage creativity and innovation, and to
provide high quality academic services. Finally, the goals statement have common new
themes concentrating on developing a motivated learning environment, and to fill the
knowledge and skills gap between high school outcomes and university requirements (see
Table 8).
Summary of Results for Research Question Four. “How do the Preparatory Year
Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements differ in content between universities
according to geographical location, size, Preparatory Year Programs date of establishment,
and gender?” For the vision statements analysis, for n=21 (75.00%) universities that have a
vision statement. The researcher divided the vision statements into three groups based on the
phrasing and targeting as follows: 1) visions focus only on students; 2) visions only emphasis
on the program itself; and 3) visions that concentrates on both the students and program.
Group 1 recorded (n=4, 19.05%) Preparatory Year Programs that focus on the student
including UN10#, UN11#, UN20#, and UN27#, for example, “Preparing students for
university study”. For Group 2 (n=7, 25.00%) Preparatory Year Programs emphasize its
vision statement on developing the Preparatory Year Program itself. This group comprises of
UN03#, UN04#, UN07#, UN15#, UN17#, UN19#, UN21#, UN22#, and UN23#. An example
from this group statements is, “Achieving leadership and excellence in developing the
Preparatory Year Program”. Group 3 focuses on both the student and program development
(n=7, 25.00%) including UN02#, UN06#, UN14#, UN16#, UN18#, UN24#, and UN25#, for
example, “leadership and excellence in preparing students” (see Table 9).
For the mission statements, n=24 (85.71%) universities have a mission statement. 19
(79.17%) of the Preparatory Year Programs’ mission statements aligned with the Self-
Efficacy (S.E.) principle, 9 (37.5%) aligned with the Social Integration (S.I.) principle, four
(16.67%) aligned with the Personal Meaning (P.M.) principle, two (8.33%) aligned with the
Active Involvement (A.I.) principle, one (4.17%) aligned with the Personal Validation (P.V.)
and Self-Awareness (S.A.) principles for each, and finally the principle of Personal
Reflection (P.R.) did not align with any mission statements of the 24 universities.
The Content Analysis revealed that most Saudi public universities are similar in terms
of the Preparatory Year Program emphasizing the area of study, which focuses on academic
aspects, such as developing student’s academic skills and knowledge, despite the differences
among them according to four variables: geographical location, size, Preparatory Year
Programs date of establishment, and gender (see Table 10).
For the goals statements, n=23 (82.14%) universities have a goals statement. 23
(100%) universities have similar goals statements that aligned with the Self-Efficacy (S.E.)
principles despite their differences (see Table 6 & 7). Eight (34.78%) universities have
similar settings of goals that aligned with the Personal Meaning (P.M.) principle. Eight
(34.78%) universities have similar interests in developing the Social Integration (S.I.)
principle. The Self-Awareness (S.A.) principle aligned with eight (34.78%) universities that
have a similar trend for “Developing student’s awareness and physical fitness”. Seven
(30.43%) universities developing their Preparatory Year Programs’ goals to increase
student’s involvement within the university’s environment, which aligned with the Active
Involvement (A.I.) principle. The Personal Validation (P.V.) principle aligned with only one
goal statement (4.35%) in UN11# and two goals statements (8.70%) aligned with the
Personal Reflection (P.R.) principle in UN10# and UN27# (see Tables 2 & 3).
Overall, the majority of the Preparatory Year Programs are similar in terms of vision
statements that focus on achieving leadership and excellence in developing the Preparatory
Year Program, while only some universities phrase its vision to regard student’s
development. For the mission and goals statements content, many of the Preparatory Year
Programs set its goals and focus on the Self-Efficacy (S.E.) and Social Integration (S.I.)
principles. The similarity among Saudi Preparatory Year Programs vision, mission, and goals
statements were high although there are differences among them based on the four variables:
geographical location, size, Preparatory Year Programs date of establishment, and gender
(see Tables 2, 3, 6 & 7).
The following section interprets and discusses the results of the study as they relate to
the four areas of study: assessing the alignment of the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision,
mission, and goals statements with the Seven Principles of Students Success in the first-year
of university, common key elements cited in the Seven Central Principles of Students
Success that are most often included in the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and
goals statements, the format and the frequency of the vision, mission, and goals statements of
the Preparatory Year Programs, and the similarities and differences among Saudi public
universities according to geographical location, size, Preparatory Year Programs date of
establishment, and gender.
Interpretation of Results
Students’ success in postsecondary institutions is largely based on their first-year of
college experiences (Ben-Avie, Kennedy,Unson, Li, Riccardi & Mugno, 2012; Clark, 2005;
Frazier, 2007: Mutch, 2005; Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985; Tinto & Pusser, 2006; Upcraft,
Gardner & Barefoot, 2004). Using a Content Analysis of the vision, mission, and goals
statements of all Preparatory Year Programs at all 28 public Saudi universities to explore and
assess the Preparatory Year Programs’ alignment with the Seven Principles of Students
Success in the first-year of college. This study proposed to Saudi Education Ministry and
Saudi public universities a set of suggestions and outcomes as related to the four research
questions and the theoretical base and trend of the Preparatory Year Programs that could
support the Preparatory Year Programs’ policymakers to develop the program in the future.
The Alignment of Preparatory Year Programs’ Vision, Mission, and Goals
Statements to the Seven Principles of Students’ Success. As mentioned in Chapter One
and Three, this study’s concern was not to assess the content and quality of the vision,
mission, and goals statements itself in terms of phrasing or structure, this study concern was
to assess the alignment of the three categories’ statements to the Seven Principles of Students
Success advanced by Cuseo (2014). The Units of Thought/s (UTs) used to assess the
alignment extent for each category and for all combined outcomes revealed that, overall, the
highest percentage of alignment was (38.1%) for UN07# and UN11#, and (33.33%) for
UN10#. Six universities: 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, fell between (23.81%) 28.81%).
Eleven universities: 02, 03, 06, 09, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 27, and 28 recorded alignment scores
between 14.29% 19.05%. Four universities: 01, 04, 13, and 14, between (4.76%%)
9.52%). Finally, four universities: 05, 08, 12, and 26, did not align with any of the Seven
Principles of Students Success (see Table 6 & 7). In general, all universities reported an
alignment percentage below (50%), which is considered a weak matching with the First-Year
Theory represented by the Seven Principles.
The total of Unit of Thoughts (UTs) aligned with the Seven Principles was 174 total.
The Self-Efficacy (S.E.) principle was the most cited in the vision, mission, and goals
statements of the Preparatory Year Program where it recorded nine UTs (5.17%) for the
vision statement, 28 UTs (16.10%) for the mission statement, and 76 UTs (43.68%) for the
goals statement. Overall, 113 (64.94%) out of 174 UTs of the vision, mission, and goals
statements matched the Self-Efficacy (S.E.) principal, which exposed the universities trend in
developing the Preparatory Year Programs. The majority of Saudi public universities
developed its Preparatory Year Programs to improve students academically and to prepare
them for university study in terms of knowledge and skills. This study could conclude that
the majority of Saudi universities have an implicit theory base rooted in the Self-Efficacy
(S.E.) principal, which most of the Preparatory Year Programs aim to develop the student’s
academic skills. For examples, “Developing student’s skills in the English language and basic
science”, “Providing students the mathematical, and self-development skills”, and “Preparing
new students for college”. As this trend is compatible with the first-year literature that
focuses on academic preparation in which a number of high school graduates are not ready
for college academically, especially in English, science, math, writing skills, etc. Most of
those students have no experience with the nature of studying in college, in which students’
need to spend more time studying and doing assignments. In addition, some academic skills
such as taking notes, summarizing content, participating in classroom activities, etc. are
missing (Conley, 2008; Erickson and Strommer, 2005).
For the remaining six principles, the principle of Social Integration (S.I.) is in the
second level of alignment with 20 UTs (11.49%), and the Personal Meaning (P.M.) principle
cited 18 UTs (10.34%) in the third level of alignment. The Active Involvement (A.I.)
principle was placed in the fourth level of alignment with 10 UTs (5.75%). Nine UTs
(5.17%) aligned with the Self-Awareness (S.A.) principle. Finally, the Personal Validation
(P.V.) and Personal Reflection (P.R.) were recorded on the lowest level of alignment where
only two UTs (1.15%) cited each principle.
The Seven Principles of Students Success appeared most frequently in the goals
statements with 116 UTs (66.67%) out of 174. For the mission statements, 46 UTs (26.44%)
aligned with the Seven Principles, and 12 UTs (6.90%) were cited for the vision statements
(see Table 7). These results indicated that the Preparatory Year Programs vision, mission, and
goals statements concentrate on the Self-Efficacy (S.E.) principle, and the other principles
have a lack or absence of concentration. This result’s consensus with the fact that the
majority of the Preparatory Year Program models in Saudi public universities have a main
challenge that lack a governing philosophy, theoretical, pedagogical base of the program, and
the capability of meeting students actual needs in the other aspects of development (Alaqeeli,
2014). Although Alaqeeli suggests developing the first-year students program to enhance the
academic knowledge and skills associated with academic subjects (e.g. English, mathematics,
science, social studies, world languages, and the arts), Conley (2008) also suggests several
dimensions of development, including academic behavior, contextual skills and awareness,
and key cognitive strategies.
Using explicit and comprehensive theoretical bases to develop the Preparatory Year
Programs is essential to make first-year students successful in postsecondary institutes. Saudi
universities may need to articulate the different aspects of success including intellectual,
emotional, ethical, physical, and spiritual development in its vision, mission, and goals
statements, which may lead to institutional learning practices, academic designs, and policies.
For example, “the preparatory year in most American universities is based on a theoretically
and practical structured vision. This is in terms of goals, programs, skills, strategies, learning
dimensions, teaching strategies, and assessment styles” (Alaqeeli, 2014, p. 60). “Intentionally
using student development theory to develop and deliver new students programs is critical to
ensure that the needs of diverse students populations are addressed” (Cubarrubia and Schoen,
2010, p. 167).
Concentrating of the Preparatory Year Programs in one or two dimensions of
development may cause learning or dropout problems for students. Skipper (2005) mentions,
“many institutions already design and deliver interventions that assist students in resolving
these and other tasks in the first college year and beyond, but these programs are frequently
divorced from the student’s classroom experiences and intellectual development” (p. 5).
Barefoot (2004) states, “campuses have lacked any systematic, valid definition of, or
standards for, first-year excellence that go beyond a single best-practice program to a broader
characterization of a campus’s total approach to the first-year” (p. 5).

If we are to help freshmen succeed, we must know how various theories attempt to
explain their development. To be sure, the theoretical underpinning of freshman
development is a dynamic and constantly changing endeavor. The most recent
challenges to include women, minorities, and older students in our theoretical
concepts about student development will expand and make more valid our thinking
about students. In spite of this continuing uncertainty about students-development
theories, everything we do to enhance freshman success must be grounded in one or
more of these theories. It is important that we take what we know about students from
developmental theories and apply it to our teaching, counseling, advising, and
programming for freshmen. (Upcraft & Gardner, 1989, p. 52)
Koch and Gardner (2014) clarify that to create a successful Preparatory Year model, it
is important to link the program’s policy, structure, and practices with the university’s
mission. Therefore, postsecondary institutions “should work collectively to develop a
research-based, comprehensive model of the first-year that is attainable and immediately
usable to increase student learning, success, and retention” (p. 36).
In summary, the majority of Saudi universities articulated its vision, mission, and
goals statements with a concentration on developing the Self-Efficacy (S.E.) principle with a
lack of or absence of other principles associated with student’s success, which indicates the
weak alignment of the current statements with the Seven Principles of Students Success.
These results may be due to the lack of knowledge about the first-year experience theories
where the Preparatory Year Programs are considered a new phenomenon in most Saudi
universities. Furthermore, the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals
statements emphasize preparing first-year students for university study and that may result in
neglecting the other aspects of the student’s development. Moreover, the lack of a theoretical
basis of the Preparatory Year Programs will make the program’s development difficult,
where faculty or policymakers have no enough assessment tools connected to specific theory
that could inform them about the program’s progression and its benefit on student’s learning.
Lack of Focus on Student Success as Preparatory Year Programs Vision and
Mission. Once again, this study’s purpose was not to evaluate the Preparatory Year
Programs’ vision and mission quality or content, this study’s purpose was to explore and
assess the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements alignment with
the Seven Principles of Students Success.
For the vision statements, the Content Analysis revealed that only 12 UTs (6.90%)
aligned with the Seven Principles of Students Success in the first-year of university. The
common format and frequency of the vision statements associated with the seven principles
was “Preparing students for university study” (n=11, 52.38%). Furthermore, three common
new themes were extracted from the vision statements as follows: 1) NTV1: “Achieving
leadership and excellence in developing the Preparatory Year Program” (n=17, 80.95%); 2)
NTV2: “Quality-based Preparatory Year Program” (n=4, 19.05%); and 3) NTV3:
“Accredited Preparatory Year Program locally and internationally” (n=10, 47.62%). On
close examination of these themes revealed that the vision statements emphasize the
Preparatory Year Program’s development and neglected student’s success for the majority.
For the mission statement’s analysis, the common themes associated with the Seven
Principles of Students Success are as follows: 1) “Developing student’s knowledge, attitude,
values, and academic skills including Mathematics, self-development skills, science,
language skills, communication, technology, and thinking skills” (n=19, 79.17%); 2)
“Preparing students for university study” (n=12, 50.00%%); 3) “Participating in the
national, regional, and global development (Social Integration)” (n=10, 41.67%); 4)
“Developing student’s personality” (n=6, 25.00%); 5) “Providing students intensive and
advanced English programs” (n=5, 20.83%); and 6) “Preparing students for the labor
market” (n=2, 8.33%). Furthermore, five new themes were extracted from the mission
statements as follows: 1) NTM1: “Provide a stimulating learning environment” (n=10,
41.67%); 2) NTM2: “Developing creativity and innovation” (n=7, 29.17%);3) NTM3:
“Providing academic services” (n=7, 29.17%); 4) NTM4: “Developing the Preparatory Year
Program on high quality-based” (n=7, 29.17%); and 5) NTM5: “Building excellent
partnerships with the private sector to operate the Preparatory Year Program” (n=5,
20.83%). Upon close analysis of the content of the mission statements articulations, the study
found that the phrasing also revolved around the Preparatory Year Programs academic
services, program development, and developing student’s Self-Efficacy (S.E.) principle with
limited or absent concentration on the other student’s success principles.
Additionally, the Content Analysis revealed an overlap among the vision, mission,
and goals statements, with many words/sentences, such as competency, skills, environment,
etc. used frequently within the study sample. Besides, in some cases, the Preparatory Year
Programs mission would exceed the Preparatory Year Programs’ scope of work such as
“Preparing students for the labor market” (n=2, 8.33%) or consider an abnormal phrase such
as NTM5: “Building excellent partnerships with the private sector to operate the Preparatory
Year Program” (n=5, 20.83%). In the first case, the study is wondering what the Preparatory
Year Programs’ task is to prepare students for the labor market during the students’ first-
year? What about the next four or five years of study at university? Labor market experts
such as Paul Barton at the Educational Testing Service (ETS) and Peter Cappelli at the
Wharton School argue, “being prepared for college is not the same as being prepared for
successful transition into the workforce” (Stone III, Lewis, 2012, p. 14). However,
Preparatory Year Programs may plan to develop its programs to be beyond the first-year in
the future to achieve such a goal and this requires linking the program’s design with the
learning theory and possibly a business theory, and also study the future to anticipate job
trends and demands.
For the second case, “Building excellent partnerships with the private sector to
operate the Preparatory Year Program” as mentioned in Chapter One most Saudi public
universities operate the program through the business sector, educational or training
institutions, and this practice is considered unprecedented on the international level (Alaqeeli,
Abouammoh, & Alghamdi, 2014). The majority of these private sectors are new in the
educational and training market in general, and in the field of first-year program operation in
particular. Alaqeeli et al. (2014) note a lack of qualified faculty selected by the business
sector to teach or deal with first-year students, which causes miscommunication between
first-year students and university faculty, and may lead to learning and teaching quality
problems or what is known as the “Commodification of Higher Education”. Schroeder (1998)
advocates that the collaboration with the business sector is considered the most challenging
trend encountered in postsecondary institutions. Instead of building excellent partnerships
with the business sector to operate the Preparatory Year Programs and state that as a mission
of the program, Preparatory Year Programs may need to work to develop its internal and
external proficiency and develop its mission to operate itself in the future.
However, if a vision or mission statement is proposed to clarify a singular and
convincing purpose or to raise a reason for the program’s existence, this study might expect
the student’s success principles or first-year theories components be a priority of Preparatory
Year Programs future purposes. Upcraft, Gardner, and Barefoot (2005) mentioned some
challenges encountered in the first-year experience movements, “there is no consensus about
a clear sense of purpose in the first-year” (p. 2). The current context of the Preparatory Year
Programs vision and mission statements concentrate on the Preparatory Year Programs
development itself. For example, phrases such as achieving excellence or building high
quality programs or building partnerships with private sectors, all these themes express the
Preparatory Year Programs leaders desire to compete among other universities, while the
most important target of the program (Student Success) considers the weakest focus point in
this context although the fact that the programs were originally established to prepare
students academically for university.
This study hopes that the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision or mission statements
might be phrased in a way that contributes to creating a shared vision among the Preparatory
Year Programs’ stakeholders, either students, faculty, or leaders about the student’s success
principles in particular and about First-Year Theories in general. “The preponderance of
literature on strategic planning exhorts leaders to work toward defining a singular,
organizational purpose in order to focus the efforts of organizational members toward a set of
common goals” (Bardwell 2008; Bryson 2004; Crittenden and Crittenden 1997; Moore 2000
as cited in Gurley, Peters, Collins, & Fifolt, 2014).
Different Preparatory Year Programs with Similar Vision, Mission, and Goals
Statements. The Content Analysis of the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision statements
classified vision statements under three main categories: 1) visions that focus on student
development (n=4, 19.05%) for example, “Preparing students for university study”; 2)
visions that emphasize developing the Preparatory Year Programs itself (n=10, 47.62%) for
example, “Achieving leadership and excellence in developing Preparatory Year Program”;
and 3) visions that focus on both student development and program development (n=7,
25.00%) for example, “leadership and excellence in preparing students”.
For the mission statements analysis, 19 Preparatory Year Programs’ (79.17%) aligned
with the Self-Efficacy (S.E.) principle. Four (16.67%) aligned with the Personal Meaning
(P.M.) principle. Two (8.33%) aligned with the Active Involvement (A.I.) principle. One
(4.17%) aligned with the Personal Validation (P.V.) and Self-Awareness (S.A.) principles for
each. The principle of Personal Reflection (P.R.) did not align with any of the mission
statements at all 24 universities. For the goals statements, 23 (100%) Preparatory Year
Programs goals aligned with the Self-Efficacy (S.E.) principle. For example, "Developing
students’ knowledge, academic skills, technology skills, research and communication skills,
self-confidence skills, leadership skills, self-development skills, and life-skills" or
"Developing English language skills". For the other remaining principles, the majority of the
Preparatory Year Programs recorded alignment below 50%.
Regardless of the differences among the 28 Saudi public universities in terms of
histories, geographical location, gender, and sizes, the majority used similar vision, mission,
and goals statements. Universities should identify their unique characteristics and emphasize
them in their mission and vision statements. It is note-worthy that universities founded in
different regions and under different conditions all have similar mission and vision
statements. Each university or Preparatory Year Program should have unique needs and
identities, which caters to its varied student population.
The success of the strategic plan depends on the correct formulation of mission and
vision statements, and wide participation in their formulation. Mission and vision
statements also contribute to the creation of the institutional identity of an
organization. Mission statement introduces the organization to the public and
distinguishes it from other organizations by emphasizing its unique characteristics.
(Ozdem, 2011, p. 1992)
The fact of similarity among most of Saudi Preparatory Year Programs vision,
mission, and goals statements may be due to the lack of knowledge and experience about the
first-year and students development theories among the Preparatory Year Programs’
educational planner at these universities. The Content Analysis showed that many Saudi
public universities established its Preparatory Year Programs based on the assumption that
the students coming from high school are academically unready for university although there
are differences among Saudi students in terms of qualification and preparation at public
education (K-12 education). Furthermore, another observation was made on the female-only
institute. Similar results were found across the Preparatory Year Programs, which means the
program’s content is virtually the same, despite the segregation policy between females and
males in Saudi higher education. For example, UN18# (female-only university), its
statements analysis showed that the content of the vision, mission, and goals statements are
similar to the other universities.
However, to avoid such issues in the future, this study hopes that all Saudi
universities might redesign its Preparatory Year Program on theory-based, not just relying on
the best practices on the first-year experience. Barefoot (2004) states, “campuses have lacked
any systematic, valid definition of, or standards for, first-year excellence that go beyond a
single best-practice program to a broader characterization of a campus’s total approach to the
first-year” (p. 5). Transferring first-year programs or experiences from one culture to another
under the best practices title, without sufficient knowledge about students’ needs may lead to
learning problems or an increase in student’s attrition, each student and postsecondary
institute has unique changeable needs (Pascarella and Terenzini, 1997).
The Gap between Theory and Practice (Personal Reflection). The researcher has
previously worked in the Saudi public and higher education system for more than 18 years
with experience in teaching and in educational administration in both sectors. The researcher
spent eight years in the Preparatory Year Program at King Saud University. This study’s
finding exposed a gap between theory and practice at the Preparatory Year Programs. Using
Content Analysis gave the researcher insight and answers to a critical question, why do most
Saudi educational initiatives encounter problematic achievement or may conclude with
results opposite to those of the educational policymaker and society’s desire.

In fact, establishing an educational initiative with no consideration to the theoretical
base may lead to misunderstandings or incorrect practices that may lead to risky
consequences. Furthermore, the majority of Saudi educational sectors tend to apply the a
global experience or theory that emerged in different educational contexts with no
thoughtfulness to its appropriateness for Saudi students and culture. This conclusion does not
mean rejecting these practices or theories but, means that there is a need in testing the theory
or practice before applying it on a wide range. Saudi educational policymakers may think to
establish their own theory that fits their students’ needs and supports the educational goals
instead of relying on personal experience to develop or manage educational projects.
Implication of Finding
This study has several implications for Saudi universities and the Preparatory Year
Programs developers.
Implication for Saudi Universities. This study used the Content Analysis of the
vision, mission, and goals statements of all 28 Preparatory Year Programs that are applied at
all Saudi public universities to assess its alignment with the Seven Principles of Students
Success advanced by Cuseo (2014). The Content Analysis revealed that the majority of the
Preparatory Year Programs vision, mission, and goals statements aligned with the Self-
Efficacy (S.E.) principle, while there was lack or absence of alignment with the other six
principles. Furthermore, this study exposed the similarity for a large extent among Saudi
universities in terms of the vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year
Programs articulation, despite the differences among them regarding: geographical location,
size, Preparatory Year Programs date of establishment, and gender.
These findings and others suggest that each Saudi university may need to reassess its
actual needs and its student’s needs in the first-year, before developing the program’s
purpose and goals. Furthermore, it is essential for Saudi universities to develop the
Preparatory Year Programs on theory-based, which can support the university’s endeavors to
develop a holistic set of development for its students involving 1) intellectual development;
2) emotional development; 3) social development; 4) ethical development; 5) physical
development; and 6) spiritual development. Developing the Preparatory Year Programs’
vision, mission, and goals statements on theory-based will create a shared vision of culture
among the program’s stakeholders such as leaders, faculty, students, parents, and society.
Implication for Preparatory Year Programs. The Content Analysis also revealed
that many Preparatory Year Programs focus on developing student’s academically to meet
university requirements. Some sub-themes were raised, such as achieving excellence among
other Preparatory Year Programs, building partnerships, developing a program on quality-
based, etc., such themes may encourage universities to compete with others, but this practice
may not be the concentration point of the Preparatory Year Programs. These goals could be a
secondary goal, while the main goal for the Preparatory Year Programs should be Students’
Success in the first-year and beyond. Some Preparatory Year Programs state that they are
preparing students for the labor market; this is considered a strategic goal for all colleges
within the university, but for the Preparatory Year Program, this task may exceed the
program’s capacity and main goals. All students who complete the Preparatory Year Program
will study four or five years in their colleges, which raises a question regarding the ambition
goal, how can the Preparatory Year Program achieve such task, if its program is limited to
one year and this year is the first-year for students at university. This study suggests that the
Preparatory Year Programs vision, mission, and goals should link to the First-Year Theory
and the Seven Principles of Students Success for better understanding the Preparatory Year
Program’s tasks and to provide common ground for the Preparatory Year Programs’
policymakers, leaders, and faculty to develop the program’s curriculum, policy, and goals.
Implication for Saudi Educational Policymaker. This study showed that the
majority of Saudi public universities established its Preparatory Year Program to develop
students academically, improve their knowledge and skills, boost their English language
skills, and to overcome the fact that new students may be unready for university. The nature
of the vision, mission, and goals statements phrasing and the high percentage similarity
among them revealed a gap between high school graduates and universities’ requirements in
Saudi Arabia. Although each university has autonomy to develop and design its programs
and despite the differences among these universities, the vision, mission, and goals
statements language may indicate a significantly common problem across the country
regarding students’ readiness for university. However, recently, on January 29, 2015, the
Saudi government decided to combine the higher education and public education ministries
into one ministry, named the Educational Ministry, and assigned one minister for both
sectors. Historically, both ministries were separated since their establishment date.
Combining both sectors into one makes this study’s outcomes more important, which
will give the educational policymaker insights regarding the Preparatory Year Programs’
actual tasks and concerns across the country. Furthermore, it may encourage the policymaker
to study public schools programs and its capability to prepare students for future study at
university. This study has a significant implication to create an academic cooperation project
design on theory-base to link universities needs with the public education program and
student’s success principles.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study used the Content Analysis (CA) Methodology advanced by Neuendorf
(2002). Generally, the preferred methodology in the Saudi Arabia educational context is
quantitative studies, since studies utilizing Content Analysis are uncommon. Furthermore,
analyzing Saudi organizations’ vision, mission, and goals statements is a rare practice within
Saudi educational research. The researcher recommends several future research studies for
further investigation and to refine and evaluate the Preparatory Year Programs in Saudi
Arabia, as well as to inform broader concerns regarding the Preparatory Year Programs
development in postsecondary education.
1- Replicate this study using one or more of a wide variety of methods that are common
in qualitative measurement such as interviews, case study, document analysis,
observation, etc. to assess the Preparatory Year Programs, which will give a deep
understanding to the program’s practices and theoretical base.
2- As this study assessed the content of the Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission,
and goals statements and its alignment with the Seven Principles of Students Success.
This study suggests that developing quantitative or qualitative measurements based on
the Seven Principles of Students Success for all students, faculty, and Preparatory
Year Programs’ stakeholders to evaluate the universities and students’ actual needs.
3- There may need to be some research studies in the future to assess each principle
separately and use the outcomes for practices, curriculums, and policy development
of the Preparatory Year Programs.
4- This study observed a lack of experience about the First-Year Theories within the
Saudi higher education context, thus, this study needs more investigation on the
Students’ Development Theories and First-Year Theories, which is essential to
establish for the culture among Saudi educators.
5- This study observed an overlap among three categories content for the vision,
mission, and goals statements. Some studies may be required in the future to assess
these statements’ content from organizational perspectives.

6- Finally, this study observed the lack or absence of caring in the vision, mission, and
goals statements articulation in some universities. Research studies may be required
to explore and develop solutions for this issue.
Summary of the Study
Students’ success in university is largely based on their first-year experiences (Ben-
Avie, Kennedy,Unson, Li, Riccardi & Mugno, 2012; Clark, 2005; Frazier, 2007: Mutch,
2005; Noel, Levitz, & Saluri, 1985; Tinto & Pusser, 2006; Upcraft, Gardner & Barefoot,
2004).
Many Saudi universities established its Preparatory Year Programs for first-year
students in 2005 or beyond. The current working models of the Preparatory Year Program
encounter several challenges including the absence of a theoretical and pedagogical base of
the program. The current working models of the Preparatory Year Program have no
published or released documents that report the program’s theoretical and pedagogical base,
thus, this study used and analyzed the vision, mission, and goals statements of all Saudi
Preparatory Year Programs published on the official websites of all public Saudi universities
to assess whether or not the Preparatory Year Programs incorporate the principles of student
success in the first-year of university as outlined in the Seven Central Principles of Students
Success advanced by Cuseo (2014).
This study explored the Saudi universities Preparatory Year Programs’ trends through
the most common key elements of the Seven Principles of Students Success included in the
Preparatory Year Programs’ vision, mission, and goals statements. The study also looked at
the themes and formats of the Preparatory Year Programs in all 28 universities and the
differences among all these programs based on university size, geographical location,
programs date of establishment, and gender. This study was not to evaluate the phrasing
content or structure of the vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year
Programs, but to assess its alignment with the First-Year Theory.
The three categories: vision, mission, and goals statements, used are considered as: 1)
a philosophical guide for what a particular university or college works toward achieving in
the future; 2) illustrate a set of values, principles, purpose, directions for individuals, and
program functions; and 3) express the performance level of all university or school
components, either educational, professional, students, curriculum, professional
development, etc. (Gurley, Peters, Collins, & Fifolt, 2014; Boerema, 2006; Abelman &
Dalessandro, 2008).
The target population consisted of 28 public universities managed and supervised by
the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia (MOE, 2016). The nonrandom sampling process
(purposive sampling) was utilized in this research. The nine steps of Content Analysis (CA)
developed by Neuendorf (2002) were used for data collection and analysis. Furthermore, the
Unit of Thoughts (UT) extracted from the vision, mission, and goals statements were used to
assess its alignment with the Seven Principles of Students Success. The Unit of Thoughts
(UT) are defined by the number of words or sentences or paragraphs that belonged or
indicated the existence of the principle individually for each program. All vision, mission,
and goals statements, and the Seven Principles of Students Success were identified, coded,
defined appropriately, and reported. A pilot study was conducted on seven of the Preparatory
Year Programs (25%) to test the codebook’s and coding form’s reliability, validity,
consistency, and to create a common understanding among the two coders and the researcher.
The validity resulted in 100% agreement between the researcher and two members, which
means that the Content Analysis is valid and reliable.
In the N=28 Saudi public universities, n=21 (75.00%) universities reported their
vision statements for the Preparatory Year Program on its website, while only seven
(25.00%) have no vision statements. For the mission statements, n=24 (85.71%) universities
that have a mission statement for its Preparatory Year Program, while four (14.29%) do not
have mission statements. For the goal statements, n=23 (82.14%) universities have a goals
statement, while five (17.86%) have none.
Upon student enrollment data from 2014-2015, the universities size were distributed
into three groups. Group 1 has nine universities (32.14%) with a total of enrolled students
above 10,000. Group 2 nine universities (32.14%) enrolled a total of students between
10,000<5,000. Finally, Group 3 has 10 universities (35.71%) that enrolled between
5,000<1,000 students. The N=28 universities distributed among six provinces as follows: 1)
eight (28.57%) universities in the Middle of Saudi Arabia; 2) six (21.43%) in the West
province; 3) five (17.86%) in the North; 4) five (17.86%) in the South provinces: 5) three
(10.71%) in the East province; and 6) one university (3.57%) represented the Online
University. The data analysis revealed that n=27 universities (96.43%) established its
Preparatory Year Programs between 2005-2014, which indicates that the program is
considered a new phenomenon in the Saudi higher education context. Finally, there are two
male-only universities (7.14%) and one female-only university (3.57%).
For the organizational structure classifications of the Preparatory Year Program, 17
universities (60.71%) established a separate deanship named Preparatory Year Deanship for
the program. Two universities (7.14%) named the program Preparatory Year and Supporting
Studies Deanship. Two universities (7.14%) placed the program under the Educational
Services Deanship. One university (3.57%) applies the Preparatory Year Program within
College of Applied and Supporting Studies. One university (3.57%) called the program Pre-
Professional Program. Two universities (7.14%) applied the program for a specific body of
students and within the colleges structure, e.g. for Science and Medical colleges. Two
universities (7.14%) built a unit named Preparatory Year and placed it under the Admission
and Registration Deanship. Finally, only one university (3.57%) did not report the program’s
structure on its websites (see Table 4). For the programs application policies, 14 universities
(50%) apply the program for all new students and for all colleges, either Science or Health or
Human Colleges. 13 universities (46.43%) apply the program for a specific body of students
in either the Science or Medical Colleges. One university (3.57%) did not report the
program’s application on its website.
This study assessed the alignment of the vision, mission, and goals statements for
each university with the Seven Principles of Students Success separately using the Unit of
Thoughts (UT) within each category, and the specially designed codebook and coding form
for this study. The alignments total of the vision, mission, and goals statements of
Preparatory Year Programs were generated using the formula: vision UTs alignment +
mission UTs alignment + Goals UTs alignment/3, and the results are summarized as follows:
1. UN07# and UN11# (38.1%)
2. UN10# (33.33%)
3. UN16# and UN21# (28.57%)
4. UN22#, UN23#, UN24#, and UN25# (23.81%)
5. UN02#, UN03#, UN15#, UN17#, UN19#, UN20#, UN27#, and UN28# (19.05%)
6. UN06#, UN09#, and UN18# (14.29%)
7. UN01#, UN13#, and UN14# (9.52%)
8. UN04# (4.76%)
9. UN05#, UN08#, UN12#, and UN26# (0%)
Furthermore, the total of Unit of Thoughts (UTs) aligned with the Seven Principles of
Students Success in the first-year of university was 174. The Self-Efficacy (S.E.) principle
was the most cited in the vision, mission, and goals statements of the Preparatory Year
Program where 113 UTs (64.94%) matched the S.E. principle. The Social Integration (S.I.)
recorded 20 UTs (11.49%). The Personal Meaning (P.M.) principle cited 18 UTs (10.34%)
of alignment. The Active Involvement (A.I.) principle reported 10 UTs (5.75%). Nine UTs
(5.17%) aligned with the Self-Awareness (S.A.) principle. Lastly, the Personal Validation
(P.V.) and Personal Reflection (P.R.) placed in the lowest level of alignment, where they
cited only two UTs (1.15%) for each principle. Overall, 116 out of 174 UTs (66.67%) were
extracted from the goals statements, 46 UTs (26.44%) from the mission statements, and 12
UTs (6.90%) from the vision statements.
The common format and frequency of vision statements associated with the seven
principles was “Preparing students for university study” (n=11, 52.38%). Moreover, three
main themes were recorded in the vision statements as follows:
1- “Achieving leadership and excellence in developing the Preparatory Year Program”
(n=17, 80.95%)
2- “Quality-based Preparatory Year Program” (n=4, 19.05%)
3- “Accredited Preparatory Year Program locally and internationally” (n=10, 47.62%)
For the mission statements, the common themes associated with the Seven Principles
of Students Success are as follows:
technology, and thinking skills” (n=19, 79.17%)
2- “Preparing students for university study” (n=12, 50.00%)
(n=10, 41.67%)
4- “Developing student’s personality” (n=6, 25.00%)
5- “Providing students intensive and advanced English programs” (n=5, 20.83%)
6- “Preparing students for the labor market” (n=2, 8.33%)

The new themes appeared in the mission statements as follows:
1- “Provide a stimulating learning environment” (n=10, 41.67%)
2- “Developing creativity and innovation” (n=7, 29.17%)
3- “Providing academic services” (n=7, 29.17%)
4- “Developing the Preparatory Year Program on high quality-based” (n=7, 29.17%)
5- “Building excellent partnerships with the private sector to operate the Preparatory
Year Program” (n=5, 20.83%)
For the goals statements, the common themes associated with the Seven Principles of
Students Success are recorded as follows:
skills, and life-skills” (n=18, 78.26%)
2- “Developing English language skills” (n=16, 69.57%)
3- “Preparing students for university study and life” (n=13, 56.52%)
29.17%)
29.17%)
6- “Raising student’s awareness about social-responsibility” (n=4, 17.39%)
7- “Preparing students for the labor market” (n=3, 13.04%)
8- “Developing student’s awareness and physical fitness” (n=2, 8.70%)
9- “Educating students about their rights and university’s regulations” (n=2, 8.70%)
The new themes that appeared in the goals statements are:
1- “Developing a stimulating learning environment to encourage innovation and
creativity among students” (n=11, 47.83%)

2- “Improving university’s outcomes” (n=4, 17.39%)
3- “Fill the knowledge and skills gap between high school outcomes and university
requirements” (n=4, 17.39%)
4- “Unify university admission” (n=3, 13.04%)
5- “Building distinguished partnerships with the private sector to operate the program”
(n=3, 13.04%)
6- “Developing student’s assessment system” (n=2, 8.70%)
7- “Developing excellent human resources” (n=2, 8.70%)
Furthermore, this study divided the vision statements into three groups based on
vision’s phrasing and purposes as follows: 1) visions that focus only on the student; 2)
visions that emphasis only on the program itself; and 3) visions that concentrate on both the
student and program. Group 1 recorded (n=4, 19.05%) focus on student development. For
Group 2 (n=7, 25.00%), the emphasis was on developing the Preparatory Year Program
itself. Group 3 focuses on both the student’s development and program’s development (n=7,
25.00%). For similarities and differences, the majority of the Preparatory Year Programs set
their goals and academic focus on the Self-Efficacy (S.E.) and Social Integration (S.I.)
principles. The similarity among Saudi’s Preparatory Year Programs vision, mission, and
goals statements were high despite the differences among them based on the four variables:
geographical location, size, Preparatory Year Programs date of establishment, and gender.
However, this study found that universities founded in different regions and under different
conditions have similar mission and vision statements and each university or Preparatory
Year Program should have a unique need and identity that fits its students’ needs.
References
(AAFAQ), P. M. (2013). The future plan of higher education in saudi arabia. Riyadh:
Ministry of Higher Education.
Abelman, R., & Dalessandro, A. (2008). An assessment of the institutional vision of catholic
colleges and universities. Catholic Education: A Journal of Inquiry and
Practice, 12(2), 221.
Abelman, R., Atkin, D., Dalessandro, A., Snyder-Suhy, S., & Janstova, P. (2007). The
trickle-down effect of institutional vision: Vision statements and academic
advising. NACADA Journal, 27(1), 4-21.
About the center. (n. d.). In National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience &
Students in Transition at the University of South Carolina. Retrieved January 20,
2015, from http://sc.edu/fye/center/index.html.
Al Awsat, Asharq (2013, June, 24). Saudi Universities are ready to recive 376,000 high
school gradute. Asharq Al Awsat Newspaper , 12627. Alriyadh, Saudi Arabia: Saudi
Research and Marketing LTD (In Arabic).
Al Kathiri , S. N. (2014). Preparatory year (first year experience). The Saudi Journal of
Higher Education (11), 65-70.
Al-Eisa, E. S., & Smith, L. (2013). Governance in saudi higher education. In Higher
Education in Saudi Arabia (pp. 27-35). Springer Netherlands.
Al-jarallah, A. (2014, August, 18). Saudi universities and the preparatory year dilemma. Al-
Jazerah Newspaper, 15299. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Al-Jazerah .
Al-Swailem, O., & Elliott, G. (2013). The learning experiences of saudi arabian higher
education leadership: Characteristics for global success. In Higher Education in Saudi
Arabia (pp. 37-47). Springer Netherlands.

Alaqeeli, A. S. (2014). The preparatory year: Global Perspectives and local practices. The
Saudi Journal of Higher Education (11), 45-64.
Alaqeeli, A., Abouammoh, A., & Alghamdi, S. (2014). International experiences in the
preparatory year: Highlight on the 33rd annual conference on the first- year
experience in the United State of America. Riyadh: Ministry of Higher Education (In
Arabic).
Alatas, A. (2012, November, 4). An ambitious action plan at Shqra university to improve the
educational outcomes and provide better academic and training services to students:
Preparatory year investing on minds of young people to promote knowledge-based
society. Al-Riyadh Newspaper, 16204. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Alyamama Press Est (In
Arabic).
Aldana, U. S. (2014). Moving beyond the college-preparatory high school model to a
college-going culture in urban catholic high schools. Catholic Education: A Journal
of Inquiry and Practice, 17 (2). Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ce/vol17/iss2/9
Alexander, B. C., García, V., González, L., Grimes, G., & O'Brien, D. (2007). Barriers in the
transfer process for Hispanic and Hispanic immigrant students. Journal of Hispanic
Higher Education, 6(2), 174-184.
Alexander, R. J. (2001). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary
education. Blackwell publishing.
Alhosin, M. (2010, January, 9). Preparatory year works to raise the level of academic
preparation of graduates to achieve the developmental requirements and to meet labor
market demand. Al-Riyadh Newspaper, 15174. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Alyamama
Press Est (In Arabic).

Alhosini, K. (2012, April, 14). The preparatory year frustration. Al-Riyadh Newspaper,
16000. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Alyamama Press Est (In Arabic).
Alkhazim, M. (2007, July, 26). Preparatory year or the year of guillotine? Al-Riyadh
Newspaper, 14276. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Alyamama Press Est (In Arabic). .
Alkhazim, M. (2013, October, 6). Preparatory year and king Fahd university of petroleum
and minerals. Al-Jazirah Newspaper, 14983. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Al-Jazirah (In
Arabic).
Almaliki, S. (2011, September, 13). Al-shura council board tends to abolish the preparatory
year in Saudi universities. Sabq Electronic Newspaper. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Sabq
(In Arabic).
Alnahdi, G. H. (2013). Educational change. In saudi arabia. Journal of International
Education Research (JIER), 10(1), 1-6.
Alnassar, S. A., & Dow, K. L. (2013). Delivering high-quality teaching and learning for
university students in saudi arabia. In Higher Education in Saudi Arabia (pp. 49-60).
Springer Netherlands.
Alnofaie, H. (2013). A framework for implementing critical thinking as a language pedagogy
in EFL preparatory programs. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 10, 154-158.
Alqahtani, M. (2010, March, 30). Preparatory year function [powerpoint]. The fourth
periodic meeting for academic affairs deputy of Saudi universities. Riyadh: King
Saud University.
Alqassim, U. (2010, March, 31). Highlight on the preparatory Year Program at the university
of qassim: Challenges and experience. The fourth periodic meeting for academic
affairs deputy of Saudi universities. Riyadh: King Saud University.

Alsalim, H. (2012, March, 10). Dilemma of public education outputs need to a solutions
better than Disablement: Fourth of secondary school or preparatory year. Al-Riyadh
Newspaper, 15965. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Alyamama Press Est (In Arabic).
Alshamri, T. (2010, March, 31). Highlight on the preparatory year program at Al-jouf
university. The fourth periodic meeting for academic affairs deputy of Saudi
universities. Riyadh: King Saud University.
Alsoltan, A. (2012, April, 17). Preparatory year hinder educational reform. Al-Jazirah
Newspaper, 14446. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Al-Jazirah (In Arabic).
Altowjry, A. (2005). Reforming higher education in Saudi Arabia: The use of
telecommunications technology.
Amaral, A. and A. Magalhães (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders in european
higher education governance. In A. Amaral, G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds.)
Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance,
Higher Education Dynamics 2, Dodrecht, Boston and London, Luwer Academic
Publishers, pp. 279-298.
Andrade, M. (2005). International students and the first year of college. Journal of the First-
Year Experience & Students in Transition, 17(1), 101-129.
Arnold, K. D., Lu, E. C., & Armstrong, K. J. (2012). The ecology of college readiness. ASHE
Higher Education Report. Volume 38, Number 5. John Wiley & Sons.
Asta, L. A. (2009). A content analysis of induction policies in seven selected Florida school
districts. Doctoral dissertation, University of Florida. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/304874287?accountid=2837
Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years. effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and
knowledge.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher
education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297-308.
Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence: A critical assessment of priorities
and practices in higher education. Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited (Vol. 1). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518-29.
Astin, A. W., & Panos, R. J. (1969). The educational and vocational development of college
students. Washington: American Council on Education.
Astin, A. W., Oseguera, L., Sax, L.J., Korn, W.S. (2002). The American freshman: Thirty-
five year trends, Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Augusta-Dupar, C. M. (2003). The mission and vision statements of ten historically black
colleges and universities: A content analysis
Azizi, S., & Hosseinabadi, V. (2014). A content analysis of the mission statements of iran,
turkey, india and united states pharmaceutical companies. Management &
Marketing Journal, 15(1).
Bagazi, A. (2010, June, 28). King saud university treat the inadequacy of educational
outcomes for the labor market by preparatory year. Asharq Al-Awsat Newspaper,
11535. Al-Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Saudi Research and Marketing LTD (In Arabic).
Bailey, T. R. (2005). Paths to persistence: An analysis of research on program effectiveness
at community colleges.
Bailey, T. R., & Alfonso, M. (2005). Paths to persistence: An analysis of research on
program effectiveness at community colleges. Indianapolis, IN: Lumina Foundation
for Education.
Baker, L., Meyer, K., & Hunt, S. (2005). First year students' perception of power and use of
persuasive techniques: A comparison of learning community versus traditional
classes. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 17(2), 23-48.
Bakoğlu, R., & Aşkun, B. (2007). Mission statements of socially responsible firms: A content
analysis. Journal of Global Strategic Management, 1(1), 66-74.
Bakry, S. H., & Al-Ghamdi, A. (2008). A framework for the knowledge society ecosystem:
A tool for development. In the open Knowledge Society. A Computer Science and
Information Systems Manifesto (pp. 32-44). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Barefoot, B. (1998). A brief introduction to student development theory; Special issues
pertaining to the first year. Faper presented at the Annual Conference on The First-
Year Experience, Columbia SC.
Barefoot, B. (2004). Foundations of excellence: A new model for first-year
assessment. Assessment update, 16(2), 5-7.
Barefoot, B. O. (1992). Helping first-year college students climb the academic ladder. Report
of a national survey of freshman seminar programming in american higher education.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
Barefoot, B. O. (2000). The first-year experience. About Campus, 4(6), 12-18.
Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Achieving and sustaining institutional excellence for the first year of
college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Current institutional practices in the first college year. In M. L.
Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds), Challenging and supporting the first-
year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college, 47-63. San
Barefoot, B. O., & Fidler, P. P. (1992). 1991 national survey of freshman seminar
programming. (Monograph No. 10). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina,

National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience.
Barefoot, B. O., Gardner, J. N., Cutright, M., Morris, L. V., Schroeder, C. C., Schwartz, S.
W., Siegel, M. L., & Swing, R. L. (2010). Achieving and sustaining institutional
excellence for the first year of college. John Wiley & Sons. New Jersey, United
States.
Barrows, S., & Goodfellow, M. (2005). Learning effect on first-year students success in a
general chemistry course. The Journal of The First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition, 17(2), 11-22.
Bart, C. K., & Tabone, J. C. (1998). Mission statement rationales and organizational
alignment in the not-for-profit health care sector. Health Care Management Review,
23(4), 56-71.
Bauer, K. W., & Liang, Q. (2003). The effect of personality and precollege characteristics on
first-year activities and academic performance. Journal of College Student
Development, 44(3), 277-290.
Beerkens, E. (2008). University policies for the knowledge society: Global standardization,
local reinvention. Perspectives on global development and technology, 7(1), 15-36.
Beers, R. E. (1998). The first-year university experience: An international student
perspective. Retrieved from
Ben-Avie, M., Kennedy, M., Unson, C., Li, J., Riccardi, R. L., & Mugno, R. (2012). First-
year experience: A comparison Study. Journal of Assessment and Institutional
Effectiveness, 2(2), 143-170.
Benoit, William L. (2011). Content analysis in political communication. In Bucy, E. P., &
Holbert, R. L. The sourcebook for political communication research: Methods,
measures, and analytical techniques (pp. 268-279). New York: Routledge.

Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Understanding college and university organization:
Dynamics of the system (Vol. 2). Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Bielavitz, T. (2011). A content analysis of the strategic plans of the coalition of urban serving
universities' academic libraries.
Bindé, J., & Matsuura, K. (2005). Towards knowledge societies (Vol. 1). UNESCO.
Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in
the college presidency. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blackhurst, A., Akey, L., & Bobilya, A. (2003). A qualitative investigation of student
outcomes in a residential learning community. Journal of the First-Year Experience
& Students in Transition, 15(2), 35-59.
Boerema, A. J. (2006). An analysis of private school mission statements. Peabody Journal of
Education, 81(1), 180-202. doi:10.1207/S15327930pje8101_8
Bogard, M., Helbig, T., Huff, G., & James, C. (2011). A comparison of empirical models for
predicting student retention. White paper. Office of Institutional Research, Western
Kentucky University.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and
leadership, fourth edition Jossey-Bass. San Francisco, United States.
Bosse, S., Duncan, K., Gapp, S., & Newland, L. (2011). Supporting american indian students
in the transition to postsecondary education. Journal of the First-Year Experience &
Students in Transition, 23(2), 33-51.
Boylan, H. R., Bonham, B. S., & White, S. R. (1999). Developmental and remedial education
in postsecondary education. New Directions for Higher Education, 108, 87-101.
Brătianu, C., & Bălănescu, G. V. (2008). Vision, mission and corporate values. A
comparative analysis of the top 50 US companies. Management & Marketing, 3(3),
19-38.
Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville: Vanderbilt
University Press.
Braxton, J. M., & McClendon, S. A. (2001). The fostering of social integration and retention
through institutional practice. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory
& Practice, 3(1), 57-71.
Braxton, J. M., Hirschy, A. S., & McClendon, S. A. (2011). Understanding and reducing
college student departure. ASHE-ERIC higher education report, volume 30, number
3. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of cross-cultural
psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
Brooman, S., & Darwent, S. (2012). ‘Yes, as the articles suggest, I have considered dropping-
out: Self-awareness literature and the first-year student. Studies in Higher Education,
37(1), 19-31.
Cetinavci, U. R., & Topkaya, E. Z. (2012). A contrastive qualitative evaluation of two
different sequential programs launched at the school of foreign languages of a turkish
university. Online Submission, 3(3), 82-101. Chicago
Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education. AAHE bulletin.
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Chomey, L. (1994). Concept mapping and the role of the elementary school counselor.
Master's Thesis in Counselling Psychology. University of Alberta.
Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change
the way you do business. Collins Business Essentials.

Clark, M. R. (2005). Negotiating the freshman year: Challenges and strategies among first-
year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 296-316.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational
choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-25.
College of Applied Medical Sciences. (n. d.). Home. In the college of applied medical
sciences. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://cams.ksu.edu.sa/en.
College of Business administration. (n. d.). Vision. In the college of business administration.
Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://cba.ksu.edu.sa/en/content/vision#.
College Of Education. (n. d.). Vision. In the college of education. Retrieved March 18, 2015,
from http://education.ksu.edu.sa/en.
College of Engineering. (n. d.). Vision. In the college of engineering. Retrieved March 18,
2015, from http://engineering.ksu.edu.sa/Arabic/en/Pages/default.aspx.
Comeaux, E., & Harrison, C. K. (2011). A conceptual model of academic success for
student–athletes. Educational Researcher, 40(5), 235-245.
Commander, N., Valeri-Gold, M., & Darnell, K. (2004). The strategic thinking and learning
community: An innovative model for providing academic assistance. Journal of the
First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 16(1), 61-76.
Conley, D. T. (2008). Rethinking college readiness. New Directions For Higher Education,
2008(144), 3-13. doi:10.1002/he.321.
Conley, D. T. (2010). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed beyond high
school. John Wiley & Sons. New Jersey, United States.
Conley, D. T. (2013). Getting ready for college, careers, and the Common Core: What every
educator needs to know. John Wiley & Sons. New Jersey, United States.
Corneo, G. (2011). Stakeholding as a new development strategy for Saudi Arabia. Review of
Middle East Economics and Finance, 7(1), 1-19.

Creamer, E. G., & Ghoston, M. (2013). Using a mixed methods content analysis to analyze
mission statements from colleges of engineering. Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, 7(2), 110-120. doi:10.1177/1558689812458976
Crews, T. B., Wilkinson, K., & Neill, J. K. (2015). Principles for good practice in
undergraduate education: Effective online course design to assist students'
success. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 87.
Crissman Ishler, J. L. (2005). Today’s first-year students. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, &
B. O. Barefoot (Eds), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook
for improving the first year of college, 15-26. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Crissman, J. (2001). Clustered and non-clustered first-year seminars: New students' first-
semester experiences. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition, 13(1), 69-88.
Crosling, G., Thomas, L., & Heagney, M. (2008). Introduction: Student success and
retention. Improving student retention in higher education, 1-13.
Cubarrubia, A. P. & Schoen, J. C. (2010). Creating a developmental framework for new
student orientation to address the needs of diverse population. In J. A. Ward-Roof
(Ed), Designing Successful Transitions: A Guide for Orienting Students to College.
(Monograph No. 13, 3rd ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National
Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Curtis, S. M., & Harte, J. (1991). A freshman retention project at borough of Manhattan
community college.
Cuseo, J. (2011). Assessment of the first-year seminar: Research-based guidelines for course
& program evaluation. Indiana University. Retrieved from
http://resources.uc.iupui.edu/Articles.aspx
Cuseo, J. (2014). Student success: Definition, outcomes, principles and practices. The Big
Picture: E-source for College Transitions. Indiana University. Retrieved from
Cuseo, J. (n. d.). The first year experience & students-in-transition movement: What is its
appeal? what are its ideals?. Indiana University. Retrieved from
Cuseo, J. (n. d.). Seven powerful properties & principles of effective first-year program
delivery. Indiana University. Retrieved from
Cuseo, J., Fecas, V. S., & Thompson, A. (n.d.). What all first-year students should know: The
most potent, research-based principles of college success. Indiana University.
Retrieved from http://resources.uc.iupui.edu/Articles.aspx
Cutright, M. (2002). What are research universities doing for first-year students?. About
Campus, 7(4), 16-20.
Cutright, M., & Rodems, M. (2003). Annotated bibliography on assessment of the first
college year. Policy Center on the First Year of College.
Deanship, P. Y. (2014). Student handbook 2014-2015. Riyadh: King Saud University.
Demetriou, C., & Schmitz-Sciborski, A. (2011). Integration, motivation, strengths and
optimism: Retention theories past, present and future. In the 7th National Symposium
on Student Retention, Charleston, Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma.
DeVilbiss, Samantha E. (2014). The transition experience: Understanding the transition from
high school to college for conditionally-admitted students using the lens of
Schlossberg's transition theory. University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
DeWitz, S. J., Woolsey, M. L., & Walsh, W. B. (2009). College student retention: An
exploration of the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs and purpose in life among
college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50(1), 19-34.
doi:10.1353/csd.0.0049
Dillon, J. J. (2003). Bringing counseling to the classroom and the residence hall: The
university learning community. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education
and Development, 42(2), 194-208.
DiRamio, D., & Jarvis, K. (2011). Transition 2.0: Using Tinto’s model to understand student-
veteran persistence. ASHE Higher Education Report, 37(3), 35-49.
Division of Public Administration, & Development Management. (2005). Understanding
knowledge societies: In twenty questions and answers with the index of knowledge
societies. United Nations Publications.
Draper, S. (2005). Tinto’s model of student retention.
Drucker, P. (2012). Managing in the next society. Routledge.
Drucker, P. F. (1969). The age of discontinuity: Guidelines to our changing society. New
York: Harper & Row.
Drucker, P. F. (1993). The rise of the knowledge society. The Wilson Quarterly (1976-),
17(2), 52-71.
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: Harper
Business.
Drucker, P. F., & Drucker, P. F. (1994). Post-capitalist society. Routledge.
Drucker, P. F., & Wartzman, R. (2010). The drucker lectures: Essential lessons on
management, society and economy: Part VI: 1990s: Chapter 22: Manage yourself and
then your company 1996. Sebastopol: Safari Books Online LLC
Duderstadt, J. J., & Weber, L. E. (2006). Universities and business: Partnering for the
knowledge society. Economica.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices
for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington: National Education Service.
Dwyer, J. O. (1989). A historical look at the freshman year experience. In Upcraft, M. L., &
Gardner, J. N. The freshman year experience: Helping students survive and succeed
in college. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Eddie, C., & C, K. H. (2011). A conceptual model of academic success for student–
athletes. Educational Researcher, 40, (5), 235-245.
Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced
nursing, 62(1), 107-115.
Elyas, T., & Picard, M. (2013). Critiquing of higher education policy in saudi arabia:
Towards a new neoliberalism. Education, Business and Society. Contemporary
Middle Eastern Issues, 6(1), 31-41.
Erickson, B. L., & Strommer, D. W. (2005). In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O.
Barefoot (Eds), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook for
improving the first year of college, 241-256. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ernest T. Pascarella, & Patrick T. Terenzini. (2005). How college affects students: a third
decade of research. Jossey-Bass.
Estanek, S. M., James, M. J., & Norton, D. A. (2006). Assessing Catholic identity: A study of
mission statements of catholic colleges and universities. Catholic Education: A
Journal of Inquiry & Practice, 10(2), 199-217.
Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., & Guido-DiBrito, F. (1998). Student development in college:
Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Evenbeck, S. E., Jackson, B., Smith, M., Ward, D., & Associates. (2010). Organizing for
student success: The university college model (Monograph No. 53). Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience
& Students in Transition,
Falduto, V. R. (2008). A content analysis of contemporary college algebra textbooks:
Applications of visualization strategies. Retrieved from
Fashola, O. S., & Slavin, R. E. (1998). Effective dropout prevention and college attendance
programs for students placed at risk. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 3, 159-183.
Feldman, R. S. (Ed.). (2005). Improving the first year of college: Research and practice.
Psychology Press.
Feldman, R. S., & Zimbler, M. S. (2011). Engendering college student success: Improving
the first year and beyond. Massachusetts: The McGraw-Hill Research Foundation.
Female Student Campus. (n. d.). Home. In the female student campus. Retrieved March 18,
2015, from http://womencampus.ksu.edu.sa/en.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS. Sage.
Fielstein, L., & Bush, L. (1998). Remedial students' perceptions: Pre-college decision-
making, satisfaction with the freshman year, and self-perceptions of academic
abilities. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 10(2), 41-55.
Foot, S. M., Hinkle, S. E., Kranzow, J., Pistilli, M. D., Rease Miles, L., & Simmons, J. G.
(2013). College students in transition: An annotated bibliography. Columbia, SC:
University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience
and Students in Transition.
Foster, N. M. (2015). Alignment of mission statements with hiring and evaluation processes
of faculty at higher education institutions approved by the academic quality

improvement program (AQIP). Doctoral Dissertation, Western Michigan
University.
Franklin, K. (2000). Shared and connected learning in a freshman learning
community. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 12(2), 33-
60.
Fraser, K. M. (1993). Theory based use of concept mapping in organization development:
Creating shared understanding as a basis for the cooperative design of work changes
and changes in working relationships. Cornell University. New York, United States.
Frazier, K. G. (2007). First year experience collaboration among academic affairs and
student affairs at public state university. Georgia State University. Atlanta, United
States.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. School
Development and the Management of Change Series 10. London: Falmer.
Fuller, S. (2003). Can universities solve the problem of knowledge in society without
succumbing to the knowledge society? Policy Futures in Education, 1(1), 106-124.
Gallarotti, G. M., Filali, A., & Yahia, I. (2013). Smart development: Saudi Arabia's quest for
a knowledge economy. International Studies.
Gardner, J. (2007). An interview with John Gardner. In student success: The Newsletter for
Higher Education Professionals, November 2007.
Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2011). Your College Experience: Strategies for Success.
Macmillan. London, United Kingdom.
Gardner, J. N., & Koch, A. K. (2014). A history of the first-year experience in the united
states during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: Past practices, current
Approches, and future directions. The Saudi Journal of Higher Education (11), 11-44.
Gardner, J. N. (1998, February). Current trends in the first college year. Faculty House
Dinner Workshop conducted at the National Conference on the Freshman Year
Experience, Columbia, South Carolina.
General Department for Planning Statistics. (2011). Higher education and building
knowledge society: An international evaluation. Riyadh: Education, Ministry of
Higher. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.mohe.gov.sa
General Department for Planning Statistics. (2013). Higher education and building
knowledge society: An international evaluation. Riyadh: Ministry of Higher
Education. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.mohe.gov.sa
Gengler-Dunn, D. (2007). A narrative inquiry of four female first-year, first-generation
student perspectives of the university experience.
Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning
organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124-156.
Gold, J., Miller, M., & Rotholz, J. (2001). Grief experiences of first-year women students in
the transition to college: Implications for individual and systemic interventions.
Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 13(2), 37-54.
Golde, C. M., & Pribbenow, D. A. (2000). Understanding faculty involvement in residential
learning communities. Journal of College Student Development, 41(1), 27-40.
Gordon, V., & Steele, G. (2003). Undecided first-year students: A 25-year longitudinal
study. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 15(1), 19-38.
Gore, P. A., Jr., & Carter, L. P. (Eds.). (2011). Students in transition: Research and practice
in career development (Monograph No. 55). Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition.
Greenfield, G. M., Keup, J. R., & Gardner, J. N. (2013). Developing and sustaining
successful first-year programs: A guide for practitioners. John Wiley & Sons. New
Jersey, United States.
Gurley, D. K., Peters, G. B., Collins, L., & Fifolt, M. (2015). Mission, vision, values, and
goals: An exploration of key organizational statements and daily practice in
schools. Journal of Educational Change, 16(2), 217-242.
Habib, H. (2010, 9 21). Preparatory year is a transition phase for student: Its benefits exceed
on just academic chance. Al-Riyadh Newspaper, 15429. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia:
Alyamama Press Est (In Arabic).
Halvorsen, T., & Skauge, T. (2004). Constructing knowledge societies? The World Bank and
the new lending policy for tertiary education. Journal of Higher Education in Africa,
2(3), 140.
Hamdan, A. (2005). Women and education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges and
achievements. International Education Journal, 6(1), 42-64.
Hanley, G., & Olson, S. (1996). Preparing incoming students for the university educational
process: From the students' perspective and retrospective. Journal of the First-Year
Experience & Students in Transition, 8(1), 47-77.
Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of
insecurity. Teachers College Press. New York.
Haring, M. J. (2005). Preparing for college: Nine elements of effective outreach.
Middletown: American Library Association CHOICE.
Hensheid, J. M., & Keup, J. R. (2011). Crafting and conducting research on student
transitions. National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition, University of South Carolina.

Hidayat, I. (2011). A content analysis of Indonesian hotel website. Master Thesis, University
of Nevada, United States.
Higgins, M. (2010). The first year experience. Kansas State University, Department of
Counseling and Student Development. Manhattan: College of Education.
Higher Education Statistics in Details (2015, January 10). Retrieved from
https://he.moe.gov.sa/ar/Ministry/Deputy-Ministry-for-Planning-and-Information-
affairs/HESC/Ehsaat/Pages/default.aspx (In Arabic).
Hill, M., & Sedlacek, W. (1995). Freshman counseling interests. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N.
Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds), Challenging and supporting the first-year student:
A handbook for improving the first year of college, 27-38. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Hollands, A. L. C. (2012). Fostering hope and closing the academic gap: An examination of
college retention for African-American and Latino students who participate in the
louis stokes alliance minority participation program (learning community) while
enrolled in a predominately white institution.
Hollands, A. L. C. (2012). Fostering Hope and Closing the Academic Gap: An Examination
of College Retention for African-American and Latino Students Who Participate in
the Louis Stokes Alliance Minority Participation Program (Learning Community)
While Enrolled in a Predominately White Institution. Ann Arbor, MI. Retrieved from
http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.
Holosko, M. J., Winkel, M., Crandall, C., & Briggs, H. (2015). A Content analysis of mission
statements of our top 50 schools of social work. Journal of Social Work
Education, 51(2), 222-236.
Hornidge, A. K. (2011), ‘Knowledge Society’ as Academic Concept and Stage of
Development – A Conceptual and Historical Review. In the Menkhoff, H.-D. Evers,

Chay Y. W. and Eng F. P. (eds.), Beyond the Knowledge Trap: Developing Asia’s
Knowledge-based Economies. Hackensack, NJ, et al.: World Scientific Publishing,
pp. 87 128.
Hossler, D., Kuh, G. D., & Olsen, D. (2001). Finding (more) fruit on the vines: Using higher
education research and institutional research to guide institutional policies and
strategies (Part II). Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 223-235.
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Hunter, M. S. (2006). Fostering student learning and success through first-year
programs. Peer Review, 8(3).
Information Technology unit. (2014). Internal statistical report of preparatory year.
Preparatory year deanship. Riyadh, King Saud University.
Information, D. F. (2010). Ministry of higher education's plan to achieve excellence in
science and technology. Riyadh: Ministry of Higher Education.
Information, M. D. (2013). The current status of higher education in the kingdom of saudi
arabia . General Department for Planning and Statistics . Riyadh: Ministry of Higher
Education.
Int J FYHE. (n. d.). The international journal of the first year in higher education. Retrieved
January 20, 2015, from https://fyhejournal.com.
Jackson, C. K. (2014). Do college-preparatory programs improve long-term
outcomes?. Economic Inquiry, 52(1), 72-99.
Jacob, M. (2000). “Mode 2’ in context: The contract researcher, the university and the
knowledge society”, in M. Jacob and T. Hellström (eds) The Future of Knowledge
Production in the Academy, Buckingham, SRHE and Open University Press, pp. 11-
27.
Jamelske, E. (2009). Measuring the impact of a university first-year experience program on
student GPA and retention. Higher Education, 57(3), 373-391.
Jamjoom, F. B., & Kelly, P. (2013). Higher education for women in the kingdom of Saudi
Arabia. In Higher Education in Saudi Arabia (pp. 117-125). Springer Netherlands.
Jamjoom, Y. (2012). Understanding private higher education in saudi arabia-emergence,
development and perceptions. University of London.
Jazan, U. (2010, March 31). Preparatory year program at jazan university. The fourth
periodic meeting for academic affairs deputy of Saudi universities. Riyadh: King
Saud University.
John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in Undergraduate Education. (n. d.). First year focus
– foundational dimensions®. In John N. Gardner Institute for Excellence in
Undergraduate Education. Retrieved March 12, 2015, from http://www.jngi.org/foe-
program/foundational-dimensions/four-year-first-year-focus/.
Johnson, J. L. (2000). Learning communities and special efforts in the retention of university
students: What works, what doesn’t, and is the return worth the investment. Journal
of College Student Retention, 2(3), 219-238.
Johnston, B. (2010). The First Year at University: Teaching Students in Transition. McGraw-
Hill International. New York, United State.
Joseph, D. D. (2004). Hispanic dropouts speak out: A study of Hispanic youth and their
experiences in the public school system. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/305126398?accountid=2837.
Kearns, P. (2004). Education research in the knowledge society: Key trends in europe and
north america. National Centre for Vocational Education Research Ltd. PO Box
8288, Stational Arcade, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
Keeling, S. (2003). Advising the millennial generation. NACADA Journal, 23(1-2), 30-36.
Kelly, J. T., Kendrick, M. M., Newgent, R. A., & Lucas, C. J. (2007). Strategies for student
transition to college: A proactive approach. College Student Journal, 41(4), 1021.
Kelly, L. J. (1996). Implementing Astin's I-E-O model in the study of student retention: A
multivariate time dependent approach. New London, CT: U.S. Coast Guard
Academy, Center for Advanced Studies.
Kempland, M. L. (2009). A comparative analysis of academic advising mission statements of
large four year institutions and their alignment with CAS Standards' goals and
objectives. University Saint Louis University).
Ketterer, M. L. (2015). Analysis of university mission statements and the missions and
strategic plans of athletic departments. The University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill.
Keup, J. (2013). Twenty-five years of scholarship on students in transition: Celebrations and
reflections. Journal of the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition, 25(1), 9-
11.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 147.
Kim, I., & Kuljis, J. (2010, June). Applying content analysis to Web based content.
In Information Technology Interfaces (ITI), 2010 32nd International Conference
on (pp. 283-288). IEEE.
King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (2014). Transition to knowledge society in
saudi arabia: Tracing the rise of the knowledge economy in the kingdom of saudi
arabia in 2014. Riyadh: Alani, D. I., Mrayati M., Al Kamil, A. K., & M. Alghamdi,
M.
Kirst, M. W., & Venezia, A. (2004). From high school to college: Improving opportunities
for success in postsecondary education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Koch, A. K., Foote, S. M., Hinkle, S. E., Keup, J., & Pistilli, M. D. (Eds). (2007). The first-
year experience in american higher education: An annotated bibliography (4th ed.).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-
Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Krahenbuhl, K. (2012). Analysis of social and academic integration in a public university's
first year experience seminar. Northern Arizona University.
Krause, K. (2006, October). On being strategic about the first year. In keynote presentation,
Queensland University of Technology First Year Forum (Vol. 5).
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kronour, J. P. (2004). Preservice teaching standards: What skills should first-year teachers
possess as they enter the field. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/305093604?accountid=2837.
KSUnews (n. d.). King saud univeristy portal. Retrieved Feburuary 12, 2015, from
http://ksu.edu.sa.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to
student success: A review of the literature commissioned report for the national
symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student
success. Washington DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Assessing conditions to enhance
educational effectiveness: The inventory for student engagement and success. San
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2011). Student success in college:
Creating conditions that matter. John Wiley & Sons. New Jersey, United State.
Kutnowski, M. (2005). In practice-this is why we teach: Igniting a passion for learning in
linked courses. About Campus, 10(1), 23-26.
Lane, R. E. (1966). The decline of politics and ideology in a knowledgeable society.
American Sociological Review, 5 (31), 649–62.
Larmar, S. & Lodge, J. (2014). Making sense of how i learn: Metacognitive capital and the
first year university student. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher
Education, 5(1). 93-105. doi: 10.5204/intjfyhe.v5i1.193
Leggat, S. G., & Holmes, M. (2015). Content analysis of mission, vision and value
statements in Australian public and private hospitals: Implications for healthcare
management. Asia Pacific Journal of Health Management, 10 (1), 46.
Lewis, B. (1996). Mission statements: Don't write a word until your ideas are clear to
all. InfoWorld, 18(5), 99. Retrieved from
Linton, R. (1989). Conceptualizing feminism: Clarifying social science concepts. Evaluation
and program planning,12(1), 25-29.
Long, D. (2012). Theories and models of student development. In L Hincliffe & M.A. Wong
(Eds.), Environments for student growth and development: Librarians and student
affairs in collaboration, (pp. 41-55). Chicago, IL: Association of College Research
Libraries.
Loza, P. P. (2003). A system at risk: College outreach programs and the educational neglect
of underachieving Latino high school students. Urban Review, 35, 43-57.
Ludwig, S. R. (1996). Abused women's experience with the justice system: Concept mapping.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/193484835?accountid=2837
Lyons, A. L. (2007). An assessment of social and academic integration among track and field
student-athletes of the Atlantic Coast Conference. The Florida State University.

MacGregor, J., & Smith, B. (2005). Where are learning communities now? National leaders
take stock. About Campus, 10(2), 2-8.
Mahmood, A. (2010, March, 30). Preparatory year’s students’ problems in some of Saudi
universities [PowerPoint]. The fourth periodic meeting for academic affairs deputy of
Saudi universities. Riyadh: King Saud University.
Malawi, A. (2010, March, 30). Preparatory year system at the university of the northern
border between reality and expectations. The fourth periodic meeting for academic
affairs deputy of Saudi universities. Riyadh: King Saud University.
Marifh, F. (2013, June, 29). The Preparatory year: Proposals and solutions. Al-Riyadh
Newspaper, 16441. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: Alyamama Press Est (In Arabic). .
Mayhew, M. J., Vanderlinden, K., & Kim, E. K. (2010). A multi-level assessment of the
impact of orientation programs on student learning. Research in Higher Education,
51(4), 320-345.
McCubbin, I. (2003). An examination of criticisms made of Tinto’s 1975 student integration
model of attrition. Retrieved July 2, 2008.
http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/localed/icubb.pdf
Menkhoff, T., Evers, H. D., & Wah, C. Y. (Eds.). (2011). Beyond the knowledge trap:
Developing asia's knowledge-based economies. World Scientific. New Jersey, United
State.
Mertes, S. (2013). Exploring the construct of social integration in a community college
environment. University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Messman-Mandicott, E. M. (2012). the use of concept mapping/pattern matching to
determine the content domain for information literacy in baccalaureate education.
West Virginia University Libraries.

Michalski, G. V. (1999). Stakeholder variation in perceptions about training program
evaluation. Retrieved from
Miller, C. E. (2011). Choosing foundations of excellence: Three profiles in institutional
change and first-year student success. University of Georgia.
Ministry of Higher Education, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. (2014). The king abdullah
scholarship program. Retrieved December 1, 2014, from http://www.mohe.gov.sa
Ministry, H. E. (2015, January, 28). Higher education news. Retrieved 4 22, 2015, from Self-
operating of preparatory year is a priority for Saudi universities:
http://he.moe.gov.sa/ar/news/Pages/28-01-2015.aspx
MOE, Ministry of Education (2016, November, 2). Universities and colleges. Retrieved from
http://www.moe.gov.sa/ar/Pages/default.aspx
Moon, B., Hoffman, R. R., Novak, J., & Canas, A. (Eds.). (2011). Applied concept mapping:
Capturing, analyzing, and organizing knowledge. CRC Press.
Moon, S., Sullivan, E., Hershey, J., Walker, S., Bosangue, M., Filowitz, M., … Delgado, V.
(2013). High-impact educational practices as promoting student retention and success.
Proceedings of the 9th Annual National Symposium, United State. Retrieved from
http://www..edu/analyticalstudies presentations/CSRDE2013_hip_moon_et_al.pdf.
Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric
across institutional type. The Journal of Higher Education, 77 (3), 456-471.
Mullendore, R., & Banahan, L. (2005). Designing orientation programs. In M. L. Upcraft, J.
N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds), Challenging and supporting the first-year
student: A handbook for improving the first year of college, 391-409. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Mutch, C., (2005). The transition from high school to university: An analysis of advice
for students, faculty and administration. 5 , pp. 143–66.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Publications.
Newcomb, T. M. (1979). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and
knowledge. The American Association for Higher Education, the Ohio State
University Press.
Newton, F. B. (2000). The new student. About Campus, 5(5), 8-15.
Noel, L., Levitz, R., & Saluri, D. (1985). Increasing student retention: Effective programs
and practices for reducing the dropout rate. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Norwani, N. M. (2005). Learning outcomes at higher learning institutions: Do institutional
environments matter?. Forum of the Australasian Association for Institutional
Research, Australia.
Nutt, D., & Calderon, D. (2009). The first-year experience: An international
perspective. University of South Carolina/University of Teeside: National Resource
Centre.
Oates, K. K., & Leavitt, L. H. (2003). Service-learning and learning communities: Tools for
integration and assessment. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 1818
R Street NW, Washington, DC 20009-1604.
Orsi, R. (2011). Using concept mapping as tool for program theory development. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/889091487?accountid=2837
Owen, G. T. (2014). Qualitative methods in higher education policy analysis: Using
interviews and document analysis. The Qualitative Report, 19(52), 1-19.

Ozdem, G. (2011). An analysis of the mission and vision statements on the strategic plans of
higher education institutions. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 11(4),
1887-1894.
Papulova, Z. (2014). The significance of vision and mission development for enterprises in
slovak republic. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 2(1), 12-16.
Pascarella, E. T. (1985). College environmental influences on learning and cognitive
development: A critical review and synthesis. Higher education: Handbook of Theory
and Research, 1(1), 1-61.
Pascarella, E. T. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future
research. Journal of College Student Development, 47(5), 508-520.
Pascarella, E. T., & Chapman, D. W. (1983). Validation of a theoretical model of college
withdrawal: Interaction effects in a multi-institutional sample. Research in Higher
Education, 19(1), 25-48. doi:10.1007/BF00977337
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and
insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1997). Studying college students in the 21st century:
Meeting new challenges. The Review of Higher Education, 21(2), 151-165.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students. A third decade of
research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. 2). K. A.
Feldman (Ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pavan, A. (2014). The new Saudi educational renaissance: In between the “capacity to
aspire” and the “capacity to remember”. Higher Education Studies. 4(5), 37-46.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/hes.v4n5p37

Pavel, D. M. (1991). Assessing the fit of Tinto's model of institutional departure with
American Indian and Alaskan native national longitudinal data. (Doctoral
dissertation, Arizona State University).
Pegoraro, A. (2006). Using university websites for student recruitment: A study of Canadian
university home pages examining relationship marketing tactics and website
usability. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Pekarsky, D. (2007). Vision and education: Arguments, counterarguments, rejoinders.
American Journal of Education. 113(3), 423-450. doi:10.1086/512739
Pelosky, C. B. (2005). Content analysis of undergraduate courses and course content on the
Armenian genocide in United States higher education. Lynn University. Retrieved
from ProQuest Digital Dissertations database.
Perrine, R. (2001). College stress and persistence as a function of attachment and
support. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 13(1), 7-22.
Peters, M. A. (2007). Knowledge economy, development and the future of higher education.
Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Peterson, M. W. (2007). The study of colleges and universities as organizations. Sociology of
Higher Education. Contributions and Their Contexts, 147-188.
Plan, M. O. (2014). KSU strategic plan 2030. Riyadh: King Saud University.
Planning, M. O. (2010). The Ninth Development Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.mep.gov.sa/themes/GoldenCarpet/#1429708335943
Poisel, M. A., & Joseph, S. (Eds.). (2011). Transfer students in higher education: Building
foundations for policies, programs, and services that foster student success
(Monograph No. 54). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource
Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Preparatory Year Strategic Plan 2011-2016 (2011). Preparatory year deanship. King saud
university. www.py.ksu.edu.sa
Prosser, M., & Pitkethly, A. (2001). The first year experience project: A model for
university-wide change. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(2), 185-198.
doi:10.1080/758483470
Pryor, J. H., Hurtado, S., Saenz, V. B., Lindholm, J. A., Korn, W. S., & Mahoney, K. M.
(2005).The american freshman: National norms for fall 2005. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute, UCLA.
Raymond, L., & Napoli, R. (1998). An explanation of the impact of a freshman seminar
course on student academic outcomes. Journal of Applied Research in the Community
College, 6 (1), 27-34.
Reason, R. D. (2009). An examination of persistence research through the lens of a
comprehensive conceptual framework. Journal of College Student Development,
50(6), 659-682. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0098
Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of
minority student retention in higher education. Reworking the student departure
puzzle, 1, 127-156.
Resalh, U. (2011, 5 21). King saud university portal. Retrieved 4 22, 2015, from University
launches its strategic plan KSU 2030: http://rs.ksu.edu.sa/48796.html
Riley, R. W. (1998). It’s time to ‘‘GEAR UP’’ for college! Schools in the Middle, 8, 39-41.
Rios-Maldonado, B. (2000). The strategic alignment of information technology with
academic strategy: A content analysis of university web sites. Boston College.
Ritchie, B. W., Burns, P. M., & Palmer, C. A. (Eds.). (2005). Tourism research methods:
Integrating theory with practice. Wallingford, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom:
CABI.
Ritter, J. K., & Lee, K. (2009). Explicit goals, implicit values, and the unintentional stifling
of pluralism: An examination of a social studies teacher education vision statement.
Theory & Research in Social Education, 37(1), 75-100.
doi:10.1080/00933104.2009.10473388
Riyadh Valley Company. (n. d.). Home. In Riyadh Valley Company. Retrieved March 18,
2015, from http://rvc.com.sa/.
Rode, L., & Cawthon W., (2010). Theoretical perspective on orientation. In J. A. Ward-Roof
(Ed). Designing successful transitions: A guide for orienting students to college.
(Monograph No. 13, 3rd ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National
Resource Center for The First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Roos, R. D. (2012). Relationship between first-year student retention, noncognitive risk
factors, and student advising. Logan, Utah: Utah State University.
Rowley, J. (2000). Is higher education ready for knowledge management? The International
Journal of Educational Management, 14(7), 325-333.
Rozycki, E. G. (2004). Mission and vision in education. Educational Horizons, 82(2), 94-98.
Saleh, M. A. (1986). Development of higher education in Saudi Arabia. Higher
Education, 15(1-2), 17-23.
Salmi, J. (2003). Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary education.
Higher Education in Europe, 28(1), 65-69.
Sándorová, Z. (2014). Content analysis as a research method in investigating the cultural
components in foreign language textbooks. Journal of Language and Cultural
Education, 2 (1), 95-128.
Schlossberg, J., Waters, R., & Goodman, P. (1995). Counseling adults in transition (2nd ed.).
New York: Springer.

Schlossberg, N. K., & Nicolay, R. C. (1984). Counseling adults in transition. Psyccritiques,
30(10), 823.
Schrader, P. G., & Brown, S. W. (2008). Evaluating the first year experience: Students'
knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(2), 310-343.
Schreiner, L. A., Louis, M. C., & Nelson, D. D. (Eds.). (2012). Thriving in transitions: A
research-based approach to college student success. University of South Carolina,
National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Schroeder, C. C. (1998). Developing collaborative partnerships that enhance student learning
and educational attainment. ACPA Senior Scholars Trend Analysis Draft Essays.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization (Rev. and updat ed.). New York: Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P. M. (2014). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a
learning organization. New York: Currency, Doubleday.
Shimp, U. R. (2008). Evaluation of the distance education literature: A content analysis
using the institute for higher education policy benchmarks and selected bibliometric
methods. (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University).
Shin, J. Y. (2013). Improving first-year intervention strategies at universities by focusing on
meaning and purpose in life. Colorado State University.
Skipper, T. L. (2005). Student development in the first college year: A primer for college
educators. National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in
Transition, University of South Carolina.
Smith, L., & Abouammoh, A. (2013). Higher education in saudi arabia: Reforms, challenges
and priorities. In Higher Education in Saudi Arabia (pp. 1-12). Springer Netherlands.
Smith, L., & Abouammoh, A. (2013). Higher education in saudi arabia: conclusions.
In Higher Education in Saudi Arabia (pp. 181-190). Springer Netherlands.

Soldner, L., Lee, Y., & Duby, P. (1999). Welcome to the block: Developing freshman
learning communities that work. Journal of College Student Retention, 1(2), 115-129.
Sörlin, S., & Vessuri, H. (2007). Knowledge society vs. knowledge economy: Knowledge,
power, and politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sperber, A. D., Devellis, R. F., & Boehlecke, B. (1994). Cross-cultural translation
methodology and validation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25(4), 501-524.
Stehr, N. (1994). Knowledge societies. London: Sage.
Stemler, S. E., Bebell, D., & Sonnabend, L. A. (2010). Using school mission statements for
reflection and research. Educational Administration Quarterly. 47(2), 383-420.
0013161X10387590.
Stone, J. R., & Lewis, M. V. (2012). College and career ready in the 21st century: Making
high school matter. Teachers College Press. New York, United State.
Storey, K. L. (2010). Bridging the gap: Linking co-curricular activities to student learning
outcomes in community college students. OASIS: The NLY Digital Commons.
Stovall, M. (2000). Using success courses for promoting persistence and completion. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 2000 (112), 45-54.
Strauss, W., & Howe, N. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York:
Vintage Books.
Streeter, C. L., Franklin, C., Kim, J. S., & Tripodi, S. J. (2011). Concept mapping: An
approach for evaluating a public alternative school program. Children and Schools,
33(4), 197-214.
Stuart, G. R., Rios-Aguilar, C., & Deil-Amen, R. (2014). How much economic value does
my credential have?: Reformulating Tinto’s model to study students’ persistence in
community colleges. Community College Review, 42(4), 327-341.

Stuart, J. M. (2002). Client perceptions of emotional experience in counselling. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/305472405?accountid=2837
Studdert, T. P. (2013). The development of a comprehensive First-Year Experience program
for the University of Southern California: Using an innovation gap analysis model.
University of Southern California.
Student Success. (November, 2007). The Newsletter for Higher Education Professionals.
Suciu, M. C., Drăgulănescu, I. V., Ghiţiu-Brătescu, A., Picioruş, L., Imbrişcă, C., Şerbu, V.
M., & Grigore, C. (2011). Universities role in knowledge-based economy and society.
Implications for romanian economics higher education. The Economic
Amphitheater, 13, 420-437.
Swail, W. S. (2000). Preparing america’s disadvantaged for college: Programs that increase
college opportunity. New Directions for Institutional Research, 107, 85-101.
Swing, R. L. & Alexander-Hamilton, J. H. (2010). University colleges: Flexible structures for
serving undergraduate students. In S. E. Evenbeck, B. Jackson, M. Smith, D. Ward, &
Associates, Organizing for student success: The university college model (Monograph
No. 53, pp. 1-23). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource
Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition.
Tabuk, U. (2010, March, 31). The application Mechanism of preparatory year: Tabuk
university model. The fourth periodic meeting for academic affairs deputy of Saudi
universities. Riyadh: King Saud University.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Terenzini, P. T., & Reason, R. D. (November, 2005). Parsing the first year of college: A
conceptual framework for studying college impacts. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research.
Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125. Doi: 10.3102/00346543045001089
Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of
student leaving. The Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438-455.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition (2nd
ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (1996). Reconstructing the first year of college. Planning for Higher
Education, 25(1), 1-6.
Tinto, V. (2000). Linking learning and leaving: Exploring the role of the college classroom in
student departure. In J. M. Braxton (Ed.), Reworking the student departure puzzle
(81-94). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Tinto, V. (2006). Research and practice of student retention: what next?. Journal of College
Student Retention, Research, Theory and Practice, 8(1), 1-19.
Tinto, V. (2006). The assessment of student retention programs. Faculty Convocation at
Maricopa College, Phoenix, AZ. Retrieved September, 22, 2009.
Tinto, V. (2007). Taking student retention seriously. Syracuse University.
Tinto, V. (2010). From theory to action: Exploring the institutional conditions for student
retention. In Smart, J. C. (2010). Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research (pp. 51-89). Springer Netherlands.
Tinto, V. (July 01, 1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal
character of student leaving. Journal of Higher Education, 59, 4, 438-55.

Tinto, V., & Pusser, B. (2006). Moving from theory to action: Building a model of
institutional action for student success. National Postsecondary Education
Cooperative, 1-51.
Torres, V., & LePeau, L. (2013). Making the connection: The use of student development
theory in first-year and transition programs. Journal of the First-Year Experience &
Students in Transition, 25(2), 13-26.
Transition (n. d.). In S. Abbott (Ed.), the glossary of education reform. Retrieved March 17,
2015, from http://edglossary.org/transition/
Trilling, B. (2007). Toward learning societies and the global challenges for learning with ict.
Australian Educational Computing, 22(1), 10-16.
Troxel, W. G., & Cuttright, M. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring the evidence: Initiatives in the first
college year (Monograph No. 49). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina,
Tzotzes, K. (2012). A content analysis of women's safety websites: Rape myths and the
Internet. (Doctoral dissertation, UOIT).
University of Dammam (2015, April). The recommendations of the first national conference
for prep year in saudi universities. Paper presented at the First National Conference
for Prep Year in Saudi Universities, Al-Dammam, Saudi Arabia.
University of Dammam. (n. d.). Conference themes. In the first national conference for
preparatory year in saudi arabia. Retrieved January 20, 2015, from
http://prep1sa.uod.edu.sa/common/article.aspx?articleId=2.
Upcraft M. L. (2005). Assessing the first year of college. In M. L. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, &
B. O. Barefoot (Eds), Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A handbook
for improving the first year of college, 469-485. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M. L., & Gardner, J. N. (1989). A comprehensive approach to enhancing freshman

success. In M. L. Upcraft & J. N. Gardner (Eds.), the freshman year experience (pp.
1–12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M. L., & Gardner, J. N. (1989). The freshman year experience: Helping students
survive and succeed in college. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2004). Meeting challenges and building
support: Creating campus climates for first-year student success. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M. L., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the
first-year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Välimaa, J., & Hoffman, D. (2008). Knowledge society discourse and higher education.
Higher Education, 56(3), 265-285.
Van Weert, T. (2005) Lifelong learning in the knowledge society: Implications for education.
Education and the Knowledge Society, 161, 15-25.
Van Weert, T. (Ed.). (2004). Education and the knowledge society: Information technology
supporting human development (Vol. 161). Springer Science & Business Media.
Varela-Petito, G. (2012). System and policy in the planning of higher education in Mexico.
Creative Education, 3(6), 980.
Vassilieva, E. (2012). Web content authorship: Academic librarians in web content
management.
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

Vega, A. L. (2010). Investigation of alignment between goals of schooling relevant to
Georgia and the Georgia performance standards. Retrieved from
Verma, H. V. (2009). Mission statements-a study of intent and influence. Journal of Services
Research, 9(2), 153.
Vlieger, E., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Content analysis and the measurement of meaning:
The visualization of frames in collections of messages. Public Journal of
Semiotics, 3(1), 28-50.
Walker, A. (2003). Learning communities and their effect on students' cognitive
abilities. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 15(2), 11-33.
Wang, J., Gibson, A. M., Salinas, L., Solis, F., & Slate, J. R. (2007). Thematic differences in
mission statements between four-year public institutions and two-year colleges in
Texas. 11 (1). IEJLL: International Electronic Journal for Leadership in
Learning, 11(1), 1-17
Ward-Roof, J. A. (2010). Designing successful transitions: A guide for orienting students to
college. (Monograph No. 13, 3rd ed.). Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina,
Watt, K. M., Huerta, J., & Lozano, A. (2007). A comparison study of AVID and GEAR UP
10th grade students in two high schools in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12, 185-212.
Watts, W. (n. d.). The power of words: A guide to the latest terminology in student affairs.
The Mentor.
Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics
and science education. Research Monograph No. 6.

Weber, L. E., & Duderstadt, J. J. (2006). Universities and business: Partnering for the
knowledge society. London: Economica.
Welton, J., & Cook, B. (1997). Institutional vision: A prerequisite for fund raising success.
Garden City: Hoke Communications, Inc.
White, J., & Weathersby, R. (2005). Can universities become true learning organizations?
The Learning Organization: An International Journal, 12(3), 292-298.
Wilson, M. E., & Association for the Study of Higher Education. (2011). College student
development theory. Boston, MA: Pearson Learning Solutions.
Wolf-Wendel, L., Tuttle, K., & Keller-Wolff, C. (1999). Assessment of a freshman summer
transition program in an open-admissions institution. Journal of the First-Year
World Economic Forum. (2004). Towards an Arab renaissance. Presented at the annual
meeting.
Yanto, H., Mula, J. M., & Kavanagh, M. H. (2011, November). Developing student’s
accounting competencies using Astin’s I-E-O model: an identification of key
educational inputs based on Indonesian student perspectives. In Proceedings of the
RMIT Accounting Educators' Conference, 2011: Accounting Education or Educating
Accountants?. University of Southern Queensland.
Young, D. G., & Hopp, J. M. (2014). 2012-2013 national survey of first-year seminars:
exploring high-impact practices in the first college year (Research Report No. 4).
Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina, National Resource Center for the First-
Year Experience and Students in Transition.
Yushau, B., & Omar, M. H. (2007). Preparatory year program courses as predictors of first
calculus course grade. Mathematics and Computer Education, 41(2), 92-108.

Zafft, C., Kallenbach, S., & Spohn, J. (2006). Transitioning adults to college: Adult basic
education program models. National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and
Literacy, Harvard Graduate School of Education. Chapter One
Zhang, A. (2014). Evaluation of first year experience program at georgia southern
university. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational
Research, 8(1), 68-75.

Appendices
Appendix A: The Preparatory Year Programs’ Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements in Saudi Public Universities

Appendix B: The Codebook Form
Appendix B: Codebook A Content Analysis to Assess the Alignment of Preparatory Year Program Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements in Saudi Public Data Source‐Website Link:

Universities with First Year Student Success Principles
UN00# Province: Program Organizational Structure: Pre‐Professional Program within specific None
college
University Size/New Undergradute Students' Enrollment in 2014/2015 Preparatory Year Deanship Unit under Admission & Registration
[Fulltime: Saudi & None Saudi]
Establishment Date: Applicaion Policy
Apply for all Not for College of Applied and Supporting Studies Preparatory and Supporting Studies Deanship

Male Female Total Access Date: FYS all
Educational Services Deanship Preparatory Year and Supportive Studies
Deanship
Unit of Thoughts (UT) New Theme/s
No Category Definition Examples of Indications
Uts/ Vision Alignment Uts/ Mission Alignment Uts/ Goals Alignment Code Vision/Theme/s Code Mission/Theme/s Code Goals/Theme/s
student success is promoted when welcome and celebrate new students’ entry into higher
students feel personally significant—i.e., education, refer to them by name, and know about them, NTV1 NTM1 NTG1
when they feel welcomed by the college, and communicate with students in a personalized manner,
recognized as individuals, and that they acknowledging their individual achievements inside and
NTV2 NTM2 NTG2
Personal matter to the institution. outside the classroom (e.g., personal e‐mail messages
P.V. congratulating students for their co‐curricular
Validation
contributions, attaining academic excellence, and regaining
good academic standing following academic probation). NTV3 NTM3 NTG3
student success is more likely to be College‐entry assessment for initial student placement in
NTV4 NTM4 NTG4
experienced when students believe that skill‐building courses, and careful attention to course pre‐
their individual effort matters, i.e., when requisites in the college curriculum, developing a summer NTV5 NTM5 NTG5
they believe they can exert significant bridge programs, first‐year seminars that extend support to
influence or control over their academic students beyond new‐student orientation, providing timely NTV6 NTM6 NTG6
and personal success. student support for college‐adjustment issues the
S.E. Self‐Efficacy
encounter during their critical first term in college, NTV7 NTM7 NTG7
supplemental instruction in first‐year courses that have
disproportionately high failure and withdrawal rates, and
Honors courses and programs that provide optimal
challenge for high‐achieving students NTV8 NTM8 NTG8
student success is enhanced when Developmental academic advising programs that help
students find meaning and purpose in students see the “connection” between their present NTV10 NTM10 NTG10
their college experience—i.e., when they academic experience and their future life plans, and which
perceive relevant connections between broaden students’ perspectives with respect to their
what they’re learning in college and their personal life choices, helps students connect their current
P.M. Personal Meaning current or future life. college experience with their future educational and life
goals, reality‐based learning experiences, and providing
experiential learning opportunities for first‐year students
that allow students to learn through direct.
the likelihood of student success Inside the classroom through the use of engaging, student‐
increases proportionately with the centered pedagogy, delivered information by shifting more
degree of student engagement in the opportunity for talking and more responsibility for learning
learning process, i.e., with the amount of to the students, and active involvement in campus life
Active time and energy that students invest in outside the classroom is promoted by practices that deliver
A.I.
Involvement the college experience—both inside and academic support intrusively.
outside the classroom.
students are more likely to be successful This principle is most effectively implemented by writing‐to‐
when they step back and reflect on what learn assignments that encourage students to reflect on
they are learning and elaborate on it, what they are learning and connect it to their personal
transforming it into a form that relates experiences or what they have previously learn.
Personal
P.R. to what they already know or have
Reflection
previously experienced.
student success is augmented by human New‐student orientation programs that moves beyond
interaction, collaboration, and the information dissemination and orientation to campus
formation of interpersonal connections buildings, and moves toward community‐building practices
between the student and other that connect new students with each other, with peer
members of the college leaders and role models, with student development
community—peers, faculty, staff, and professionals, and the college faculty, and cooperative
S.I. Social Integration administrators. learning practices inside the classroom that transform
group work into team work by intentionally forming
learning teams composed of students who can learn the
most from each other using learning communities strategy.
student success is promoted when Encouraging students thinking about their own thought
students gain greater awareness of their processes, and to complete self‐assessment instruments
learning styles, learning habits, and designed to promote personal awareness of learning styles
S.A. Self‐Awareness
thinking patterns. and habits
Category, Definition, and Examples of Indications columns adopted Unit of Though/s Total
from Cuseo (2014) Student Success: Definition, Outcomes, Principles
and Practices. Principles Matching Total
Alignment Percent %
UN: University Name & SS: Student Success & NTV: New Theme/s Vision, NTM: New Theme/s Mission, and NTG: New Theme/s Goal.
Appendix B. Codebook. Original work of the research: Atiyah; all rights reserved.
Appendix C: The Coding Form
Appendix C: Coding Form A Content Analysis to Assess the Alignment of Preparatory Year Coder1 Agreemet Degree: % Data Source‐Website Link: Access Date:

Program Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements in Saudi Public
UN00# Universities with First Year Student Success Principles Coder2
Researcher
Unit of Thoughts (UT) New Theme/s
No Category Definition Examples of Indications
Vision Alignment Mission Alignment Goals Alignment Code Vision/Theme/s Code Mission/Theme/s Code Goals/Theme/s
student success is promoted when welcome and celebrate new students’ entry into higher
students feel personally education, refer to them by name, and know about them, NTV1 NTM1 NTG1
significant—i.e., when they feel and communicate with students in a personalized manner,
Personal welcomed by the college, acknowledging their individual achievements inside and
P.V. NTV2 NTM2 NTG2
Validation recognized as individuals, and that outside the classroom (e.g., personal e‐mail messages
they matter to the institution. congratulating students for their co‐curricular
contributions, attaining academic excellence, and regaining NTV3 NTM3 NTG3
good academic standing following academic probation).
student success is more likely to be College‐entry assessment for initial student placement in
NTV4 NTM4 NTG4
experienced when students believe skill‐building courses, and careful attention to course pre‐
that their individual effort matters, requisites in the college curriculum, developing a summer NTV5 NTM5 NTG5
i.e., when they believe they can bridge programs, first‐year seminars that extend support
exert significant influence or control to students beyond new‐student orientation, providing NTV6 NTM6 NTG6
S.E. Self‐Efficacy
over their academic and personal timely student support for college‐adjustment issues the
success. encounter during their critical first term in college, NTV7 NTM7 NTG7
supplemental instruction in first‐year courses that have
disproportionately high failure and withdrawal rates, and
NTV8 NTM8 NTG8
Honors courses and programs that provide optimal
challenge for high achieving students
student success is enhanced when Developmental academic advising programs that help
students find meaning and purpose students see the “connection” between their present NTV10 NTM10 NTG10
in their college experience—i.e., academic experience and their future life plans, and which
when they perceive relevant broaden students’ perspectives with respect to their
P.M. Personal Meaning connections between what they’re personal life choices, helps students connect their current
learning in college and their current college experience with their future educational and life
or future life. goals, reality‐based learning experiences, and providing
experiential learning opportunities for first‐year students
that allow students to learn through direct.
the likelihood of student success Inside the classroom through the use of engaging, student‐
increases proportionately with the centered pedagogy, delivered information by shifting more
Active degree of student engagement in opportunity for talking and more responsibility for learning
A.I.
Involvement the learning process, i.e., with the to the students, and active involvement in campus life
amount of time and energy that outside the classroom is promoted by practices that
students invest in the college deliver academic support intrusively.
b h d d
students are more likely to be This principle is most effectively implemented by writing‐
Personal successful when they step back and to‐learn assignments that encourage students to reflect on
P.R.
Reflection reflect on what they are learning what they are learning and connect it to their personal
and elaborate on it, transforming it experiences or what they have previously learn.
student success is augmented by New‐student orientation programs that moves beyond
human interaction, collaboration, information dissemination and orientation to campus
and the formation of interpersonal buildings, and moves toward community‐building practices
connections between the student that connect new students with each other, with peer
and other members of the college leaders and role models, with student development
S.I. Social Integration
community—peers, faculty, staff, professionals, and the college faculty, and cooperative
and administrators. learning practices inside the classroom that transform
group work into team work by intentionally forming
learning teams composed of students who can learn the
most from each other using learning communities strategy.
student success is promoted when Encouraging students thinking about their own thought
students gain greater awareness of processes, and to complete self‐assessment instruments
S.A. Self‐Awareness
their learning styles, learning habits, designed to promote personal awareness of learning styles
and thinking patterns. and habits
Category, Definition, and Examples of Indications columns Though/s Total
adopted from Cuseo (2014) Student Success: Definition,
Outcomes, Principles and Practices. Principles Matching Total
Alignment Percent %
UN: University Name & SS: Student Success & NTV: New Theme/s Vision, NTM: New Theme/s Mission, and NTG: New Theme/s Goal.
Appendix C. Codebook. Original work of the research: Atiyah; all rights reserved.
Appendix D: Saudi Public Universities List and the Links to Preparatory Year Programs
Appendix D: Universities Lists A Content Analysis to Assess the Alignment of Preparatory Year Program Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements in Saudi Public Universities
with First Year Student Success Principles
Univeristy UN# Univeristy Website Links PYP's Website Link
Al Baha University http://www.bu.edu.sa http://www.bu.edu.sa/web/14807859/home
Al Jouf University http://www.ju.edu.sa http://www.ju.edu.sa/index.php?id=402
Al Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University https://units.imamu.edu.sa https://units.imamu.edu.sa/deanships/Preperation/profile/Pages/default.aspx
Almajmaah University https://www.mu.edu.sa https://www.mu.edu.sa/ar/%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9-
%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%86%D8%A9-
%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AA%D8%AD%D8%B6%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9/%
D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%85%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA
Bisha University http://ub.edu.sa/ None
Islamic University http://www.iu.edu.sa http://www.iu.edu.sa/colleges/AppliedSci/Pages/default.aspx
Jazan University http://deanships.jazanu.edu.sa http://deanships.jazanu.edu.sa/prep.tear/Pages/Default.aspx
Jeddah University http://darnj.uj.edu.sa http://darnj.uj.edu.sa/Pages-%d9%85%d8%a7%d9%87%d9%8a-
%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b3%d9%86%d8%a9-
%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%aa%d8%ad%d8%b6%d9%8a%d8%b1%d9%8a%d8%a9.aspx
King Abdulaziz University http://founyear.kau.edu.sa http://founyear.kau.edu.sa/Default.aspx?Site_ID=210100&Lng=AR
King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals http://www.bu.edu.sa http://www.bu.edu.sa/web/14807859/home
King Faisal University https://www.kfu.edu.sa https://www.kfu.edu.sa/en/Deans/PreparatoryYear/Pages/En-Vision-and-
Goals.aspx
King Khalid University http://www.kku-a.com None
King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences http://www.ksau-hs.edu.sa http://www.ksau-
hs.edu.sa/English/Academic/Pages/ThePreProfessionalProgram.aspx
King Saud University http://www.ksu.edu.sa http://py.ksu.edu.sa/
Najran University http://www.nu.edu.sa http://dpy.nu.edu.sa/en/131
Northern Borders University https://www.nbu.edu.sa https://www.nbu.edu.sa/en/Deanships/PreparatoryYearDeanshipstudiessupport/P
ages/Objectives.aspx
Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University https://www.psau.edu.sa https://dpy.psau.edu.sa/ar/vision-mission/1-9
Princess Nora bint Abdulrahman University http://www.pnu.edu.sa http://www.pnu.edu.sa/en/Deanships/PreparatoryYear/Pages/Intro/Vision.aspx
Qassim University http://www.des.qu.edu.sa http://www.des.qu.edu.sa/About/Pages/‫الرؤية‬.aspx
Saudi Electronic University https://www.seu.edu.sa https://www.seu.edu.sa/sites/en/deanships/py/Pages/GoalsAndTasks.aspx
Shaqra University http://www.su.edu.sa http://deanships.su.edu.sa/DOPY/About/Pages/Main.aspx
Taibah University https://www.taibahu.edu.sa https://www.taibahu.edu.sa/Pages/AR/Sector/SectorPage.aspx?ID=42&PageId=59
Taif University http://www.tu.edu.sa http://deanships.tu.edu.sa/en/DoPY/About/Pages/default.aspx
Umm Al-Qura University https://www.uqu.edu.sa https://uqu.edu.sa/en/pre-edu/2161
University of Dammam http://www.uod.edu.sa http://www.uod.edu.sa/en/administration/deanships/deanship-of-preparatory-and-
supporting-studies/about
University of Hafr AlBatin http://www.uohb.edu.sa None
University of Hail http://www.uoh.edu.sa http://www.uoh.edu.sa/en/Subgates/Deans/Prep-Year/About/Pages/Default.aspx
University of Tabuk https://www.ut.edu.sa https://www.ut.edu.sa/ar/web/deanship-of-academic-services/11

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Untitled

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessing the Alignment of Preparatory Year Program Vision, Mission, and Goals Statements

with First-Year Student Success Principles

Thesis submitted to the

Educational Psychology/Evaluation and Research

Reagan Curtis, Ph.D., Chair

Department of Learning Sciences and Human Development

Morgantown, West Virginia

Experience, First-Year Theory, Vision, Mission, Goals, and Students’ Success

Copyright 2017 Atiyah A. Alghamdi

Restatement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 75

Implication of Finding .................................................................................................... 171

Table 3: Preparatory Year Programs Date of Establishment ...................................................... 101

Figure 1: I-E-O Model .................................................................................................................. 23

Introduction of the Study

Brief History of Saudi Higher Education

the approval of King Abdulaziz to send 14 students of various fields of specialization to

in Makkah was founded (Information, 2013).

colleges within the university such as Colleges of Arts, Science, Administrative

Sciences, and Pharmacy.

2. Expansion (1961-1980); this phase involved an expansion in the establishment of

the Islamic University in Medina in 1961; King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah in

universities together consisted of 58 colleges of various disciplines. During that era,

characterized by an increasing diversity of higher education specialists and

establishing numerous teachers’ colleges in different cities (Information, 2013, p. 19).

education opportunities. Between 1957-2011, the number of universities public or

private grew rapidly from 8 universities in 2001 to 33 in 2011 (Information, 2013).

established in 1957 (Al-Eisa & Smith, 2013).

assigned one minister for both sectors.

Saudi Higher Education Reform Movement

Hence, the government’s Ninth National Development Strategic Plan (2010-2014)

states “Knowledge has become a critical requirement for enhancing competitiveness of

countries in the twenty first century” (Planning, 2010, p. 94).

Additionally, the ninth plan stresses the following:

To establish a learning pattern that develops analytical thinking, advances

acquirement of practical skills, and promotes initiative and entrepreneurship, the

system of education needs to address a set of issues ranging from curriculum

development, lifelong learning, linking education with development, Arabization of

knowledge, to privatization (Planning, 2010, p. 94).

scientific and technical information should be in Arabic” and Privatization of education

both cognitive and non-cognitive skills.

plan named AAFAQ2029 (translated to English: “Horizons2029”) in alignment with the

an integrated quality, excellence, and competing for global leadership to contribute

effectively in building a knowledge society” (AAFAQ, 2013, p. 15).

AAFAQ2029 incorporates a comprehensive reform process for Saudi Arabia’s

universities in the country (Smith & Abouammoh, 2013).

To provide support to AAFAQ2029, the Ministry of Higher Education launched the

complementary plan entitled Achieve Excellence in Science and Technology2025

(AEST2025). AEST2025 emphasizes various dimensions of educational reform. One of these

Furthermore, AEST2025 created new initiatives and programs for students’

development, which aimed to achieve the following goals:

to problems, and develop their thinking skills;

3. Developing graduates’ vocational, social, and personal skills, and;

4. Enabling students to broaden their knowledge bases (Information, 2010, p. 26).

postsecondary graduates through two paths: 1) an academic knowledge path to prepare

lifelong learning skills (Information, 2010).

the university vision, mission, and policy.

of college/university increased from 109,049 to 329,696, or approximately (300%). Similarly,

(40.2%). These percentages indicate higher participation of females in higher education

(Information, 2013). Despite the high percentage of female participation in postsecondary

Preparatory Year Program.