High Educ (2017) 73:357–369

DOI 10.1007/s10734-016-0092-y

Students’ transition into higher education

from an international perspective

Liesje Coertjens 1,2 & Taiga Brahm 3 &

Caroline Trautwein 4 & Sari Lindblom-Ylänne 5

Published online: 16 December 2016

# Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Abstract In introducing the special issue on students’ transition into higher education,
we emphasise the importance of expanding our understanding of students’ enculturation
in higher education. Next to this, the editorial presents a working definition on
transition and takes stock of the existing empirical lines of research on the subject of
students’ transition into higher education. Further, we evidence that research primarily
stems from Western countries and predominantly applies either a quantitative or a
qualitative approach. We argue that a more international perspective and studies using
different methodologies (including mixed-method approaches) are fruitful to advance
this field further. Finally, we give an introduction on the nine empirical contributions in
this special issue, stemming from an equal number of countries and applying quanti-
tative, qualitative and mixed methods.

Keywords Transition . Secondary education . Higher education . International

Liesje Coertjens and Taiga Brahm contributed equally to this article.

* Liesje Coertjens
Liesje.coertjens@uclouvain.be

1
Psychological Sciences Research Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, IPSY–Place Cardinal
Mercier 10 bte L3.05.01, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
2
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, Antwerp,
Belgium
3
Chair for Economic Education, University of Tuebingen, Tuebingen, Germany
4
Faculty of Education, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
5
Centre for Research and Development of Higher Education, Institute of Behavioural Sciences,
University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
358 High Educ (2017) 73:357–369

Introduction

With the change of higher education from elite towards mass institutions (Trow 1974, 2006),
higher education institutions (HEIs) have changed in many ways (Scanlon et al. 2007).
Worldwide, the higher education sector has strongly expanded, which is above all visible in
the growing number of students as well as in the amount of HEIs and study programmes. In
this context, students’ transition into higher education has received more attention for at least
two reasons: (a) in the light of diverse opportunities for beginning students, the decision for a
particular HEI and/or a certain study programme has become even more complicated in the last
years and (b) HEIs are held more accountable for students’ success (Kuh et al. 2011; Yorke and
Longden 2004; Alexander 2000). Thus, the successful transition into higher education is of
practical relevance both for the individual student and for the HEI (Tinto 2005). Accordingly,
research into transition processes into higher education has increased in recent years, as is for
example evidenced by the recent edited book ‘Higher education transitions: theory and
research’ by Kyndt et al. (in press).
Given the relevance of the topic, this special issue aims to contribute to the growing
research body on the transition from secondary to higher education. The idea for this
special issue on students’ transition into higher education emerged at the conference of the
Special Interest Groups SIG4 Higher Education and SIG17 Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches to Learning and Instruction of the European Association for Research in
Learning and Instruction in Leuven, Belgium. At this conference, three of the editors for
this special issue had organised a symposium on transition into higher education for which
the fourth editor served as discussant. Beyond the symposium, several papers focusing on
the access to and the first year in higher education were presented. Noticing that researchers
from different countries also presented at other conferences in the same year, we felt the
need for a collaborative publication from an international perspective. The focus of this
special issue is on the transition processes at the beginning of students’ experiences with
higher education, for instance, the transition from secondary education to higher education.
The aim of this special issue is to expand our understanding of students’ transition
processes when entering higher education. By applying an international perspective and
multiple research methods, our goal is to shed further light on students’ individual
pathways into and initial challenges within higher education.

Transition into higher education

‘Look to the left, look to the right. One of you three will continue onto the second year.’ Many
students entering higher education hear sentences like this one and so did one of the authors of
this special issue. The importance of the first year in higher education was immediately made
clear, unfortunately in a severely threatening way. At a more macro-level, the dropout in the
first year of higher education causes concern. The majority of withdrawals have been found to
happen during the first year (Wingate 2007). And, though there are differences between
countries, approximately one third of students entering higher education will not obtain a
degree (OECD 2013).
At the same time, there is an ongoing trend to increase participation in higher education
(e.g. Abbott-Chapman 2011; Davies 2003; Leathwood and O’Connell 2003; McKenzie and
Schweitzer 2001). This increase in number of students brings about an increase in the diversity
of students. This increasing participation highlights the need to examine the transition to higher
High Educ (2017) 73:357–369 359

education, given that most students find it challenging and ‘non-traditional students’ even
more so (Briggs et al. 2012).
In the effort to facilitate the transition, universities and colleges all over the world
have set up different initiatives, ranging from introductory courses on approaches to
learning (Hultberg et al. 2008; Kjellgren et al. 2008) to activities targeted to engaging
with peers and staff (Brooman & Darwent 2013) based on Tinto’s (1975) theory on
social integration, courses informing about curriculum content or assessment require-
ments to more long-term interventions such as freshmen coaching or mentoring
programmes (du Preez and McGhie 2015). These innovations are based on the idea
that helping students to enter into higher education more easily will enhance their
chances for academic success. While initiatives aiming at improving students’ first-year
experience have been readily implemented, their research-based unpinning often ap-
pears unclear. As such, to set up further initiatives in a more informed manner, more
empirical research on the transition phase is needed. The present special issue aims
exactly an international spectrum of empirical research on students’ experiences with
the transition.
Before giving a review on prior research on transition and presenting what this special issue
can add to it, it seems appropriate to provide a definition of ‘transition’. As stated by
Ecclestone et al. (2010), there is no agreement on what should be labelled as a transition.
Gale and Parker (2012) define it as the ‘the capability to navigate change’ (p. 4). Broadening
our view to literature outside the educational domain reveals work by in the counselling
domain defining transitions as ‘turning points or as a period between two periods of stability’
(Anderson et al. 2011: 30). Focussing on work-related role transitions, Nicholson and West
(1995) define transitions as ‘any major change in work role requirements or work context’
(Nicholson and West 1995: 182). Adopting this definition to the transition to higher education,
we could say that educational transitions are any major changes in students’ role requirements
or study context. The transition from secondary to higher education is clearly a change
regarding the study context (i.e. new institution, for some students, also a new city and living
on their own) as well as a change in what is expected of students (i.e. their role, e.g. a more
self-responsible organisation of their studying in regard of content, time and study mode).
What binds the previous definitions is the concept of change on the one hand, more specif-
ically in case of the transition for secondary to higher education, a confrontation with change,
and on the other hand students’ coping with this change.
Transition is regarded as a phase, rather than a single event. Gale and Parker (2012) use a
typology to describe current literature, in which each type also entails a different time frame for
the transition phase. A first strand views transition as induction and focuses on periods of
adjustment. Taking the case of the transition from secondary to higher education, it is clear that
the first weeks in higher education are likely to be part of this transition phase, which is also
the main focus of some transition initiatives (e.g. Hultberg et al. 2008). This view on a rather
short time period has also been criticised as being too narrow (Brooman and Darwent 2013).
The second strand conceptualised transition as ‘development’ (Gale and Parker 2012) and thus
looks into students’ trajectories. Examples are studies describing students’ experiences over
time (e.g. Palmer et al. 2009). The third strand takes an even wider perspective in defining
transition as ‘becoming’ and advocates to research students’ ‘lived realities’ as they enter into
higher education (e.g. Quinn 2010).
Nicholson and West (1995) define the transition phase as the period of preparing for,
adjusting to and stabilising in a new environment, which could be related to the second strand
360 High Educ (2017) 73:357–369

of research as described by Gale and Parker (2012). The transition process runs through four
stages (Fig. 1):
In the preparation phase, the student anticipates the change and prepares for it. This phase is
likely to take place during the last year of secondary education, and it depends on the student
how early it starts. The encounter phase consists of the first days or weeks in the new
educational environment, in which a student tries to make sense of the new environment.
This stage is similar to the induction research described by Gale and Parker (2012). The
adjustment phase is the stage in which students attempt to cope with the demands of the new
environment, and it will mostly occur during the first year of higher education. Regarding the
duration of the adjustment phase, qualitative research has stated that the experience with
formal assessment at the higher education level was crucial (Christie et al. 2008). As such, we
could put forth that the transition period is likely to range from the last year of secondary
education till after students’ first experience with formal assessment in higher education. From
then onwards, it can be hypothesised that students are in the stabilisation phase, which is a
more stable period in which only small adjustments are made.

Research on transition into higher education

As the transition into higher education has received increasing interest in the last years, a
number of different research groups have dealt with this issue from different topical as well
as methodological lenses. This study aims to provide a succinct summary of the existing
‘empirical lines of research’ (albeit it cannot and does not claim to provide a comprehen-
sive literature review, as, for example, only studies available in English were included in
the review).

Development of a student identity A mostly UK-based research group investigates how

(above all non-traditional) students find their way into HEI (Christie et al. 2004, 2005,
2008, 2011; also Bathmaker and Thomas 2009; Bathmaker et al. 2008; Hope in press;
Palmer et al. 2009). The transition is described as ‘one of struggling against the odds’
(Leathwood and O’Connell 2003, p. 607). Based on an interview study, Christie et al.
(2008) found that students need to get to know the university system and to build a ‘new

Fig. 1 The transition cycle (taken Phase V/I

from Nicholson 1990: 87) PREPARATION

Phase IV Phase II
STABILIZATION ENCOUNTER

Phase III
ADJUSTMENT
High Educ (2017) 73:357–369 361

learning identity’ (p. 571). This is also in line with research by Crozier et al. (2008) who
found that, in particular, non-traditional students need to undertake ‘identify work’ (Christie
et al. 2008, p. 579) in order to become familiar with their new (learning) environment, i.e.
the university (Crozier and Reay 2011). ‘Students needed to be aware of particular
segments of the higher education market depending on their own specific positioning
within the field.’ (Reay et al. 2005, p. 52). In this context, Hoelscher et al. (2008) found
that students’ subject choice at school (whether they are vocational or academic) affects
their future educational pathways. Accordingly, Abbott-Chapman (2011) found for the
Australian context that ‘mature students’ benefit from ‘responsive institutions’, which offer
induction programs and study support in order to strengthen students’ resilience when
entering higher education (also Abbott-Chapman and Kilpatrick 2001; Abbott-Chapman
2006). Furthermore, Holmegaard et al. (2014,2015) investigated students’ identity develop-
ment in the context of science and engineering in the Danish context.

Student engagement In the USA, a prominent line of research results from the National
Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), which investigates how students integrate into higher
education through a socio-cultural lens. Different studies show that students who succeed to
build an identity and social ties with their HEI have a lower risk of dropping out than students
who manage to become acquainted with their (new) learning environment (Tinto 1998, 2005).
Furthermore, studies show that the way in which HEIs communicate their institutional
missions and their expectations regarding performance affects students’ engagement, i.e. the
time and energy that students invest in purposeful study activities (Kezar and Kinzie 2006;
Krause and Coates 2008; Kuh et al. 2005). Similarly, a study from Australia identified the fit
between students’ choice, their expectations and their successful transition to higher education
(James 2000). Other studies point at the importance of students’ integration into social learning
communities as important lever for students’ successful transition to higher education (Rocconi
2011; Zhao and Kuh 2004). A UK-based interview study with 34 first-year students also
identified the important role of social integration for students’ successful transition (Wilcox
et al. 2005). Next to relations with academic tutors and fellow students during studying, new
friendships in their private lives are seen as crucial (Wilcox et al. 2005).

Fit between secondary education and higher education Research from the Netherlands
has looked into the perceived fit between secondary and higher education (Jansen and van der
Meer 2012; Torenbeek 2009; Torenbeek and Hofman 2010; Jansen et al. in press; Jansen and
Suhre 2010). Results indicate that students benefit from learning environments that are not too
dissimilar from what they are acquainted with in secondary education. If the resemblance in
teaching/learning environment is high (i.e. in Torenbeek’s case, if in higher education, a
student-centred teaching approach was used, comparable to in secondary education), students
needed less time to adjust, which affected achievement in a positive way (Torenbeek and
Hofman 2010).

Students’ motivation Other researchers have focused more on students’ individual path-
ways into higher education, for instance, investigating students’ motivational patterns (e.g.
Martens and Metzger in press) or their motivational development during the transition into
higher education. One line of research identified that students lose motivation throughout their
studies (e.g. Jacobs and Newstead 2000; Lau et al. 2008; Pan and Gauvain 2012). However,
most of this research looks into students’ development throughout their studies, not in
362 High Educ (2017) 73:357–369

particular during the first year. For first-year students, Busato and colleagues (2000) found for
psychology students that their interests narrow down over the first year. In a longitudinal study
with 1866 high school students from six different schools, Martin et al. (2010) confirmed the
importance of different motivational predictors of academic buoyancy, i.e. “‘students’ ability
to successfully deal with setbacks and challenges that are typical of academic life” (p. 473) (see
also Putwain & Sander 2016). Busse (2013) found that students’ motivation decreased over the
first year due to a misfit of the challenges experienced by students and their expectations. In
contrary, Ratelle et al. (2004) found that students’ intrinsic motivation increased over the first
2 years in college while external motivation decreased. To our knowledge, the only study that
specifically investigated the motivational development from secondary to higher education
was conducted by Kyndt et al. (2015) who confirmed the increase in autonomous motivation
that Ratelle et al. (2004) had also found. For controlled motivation, Kyndt et al. (2015) found
an increase from secondary to higher education but no changes within higher education.

Students’ emotions In addition to motivation, students’ emotions are often seen as important
for students’ studying and well-being (Ashwin and Trigwell 2012; Pekrun et al. 2002). In a
cross-sectional study with 372 Canadian university students who had recently graduated, it
was found that students scoring higher on interpersonal abilities as well as adaptability
received higher grades in their first year, which was interpreted as a more successful transition
to higher education (Parker et al. 2004). Drawing on interview data, Christie (2009) also
identified that students’ emotions play a pivotal role in their transition from home to higher
education. With regard to the identity formation depicted previously, the author points out that
it has ‘emotional underpinnings’ (Christie 2009, 131). Moreover, a quantitative study by
Wagner and Brahm (in press) shows that students who are afraid of failing their courses have
a lower probability of passing their first year.

Learning approaches Though there has been research in the transition period focussing on
learning approaches (e.g. Revised ASI: Richardson 2006 and Inventory of Learning Styles
(ILS); Marambe 2007; Severiens et al. 2001), to our knowledge, none has taken the explicit
focus of the effect of the transition on these approaches or the other way around. This is in
contrast to the importance given to learning approaches in initiatives to smoothen students’
transition (e.g. Hultberg et al. 2008). In examining the effect of this initiative on students’
learning approaches, using the Learning Process Questionnaire (LPQ), Kjellgren et al. (2008)
detected that prior to the course, students already scored high on the deep approach.
Nevertheless, after the course, their scores for some deep approach items were higher.
The literature review shows that there are a number of different studies available applying
different methodologies and using different concepts such as identity, motivation and emotion.
In addition to these studies on students’ transition to higher education, there is also profound
research on students’ first-year experience within higher education (e.g. Bruinsma and Jansen
2009; Cliff 2000; Vanthournout et al. 2012), which is not fully represented in this editorial. For
future research, it seems worthwhile to further connect these two strands of research.
While the empirical studies available provide valuable insights into the challenges that
students face in their transition into higher education, the current state of research is also
characterised by some shortcomings: First, the research is primarily based in the Western
world. An international perspective on the topic is clearly needed. Second, there seem to be
two strands of research—one looking into students’ experiences in the transition and another
one looking into specific constructs (e.g. motivation). These two strands seem to go along with
High Educ (2017) 73:357–369 363

an inclination towards qualitative and quantitative methodology. Studies applying a mixed-

method design are missing. This special issue tries to address these gaps by providing
empirical studies from nine different countries, which apply different methodologies.

Overview of the studies

Four studies in this special issue focus on the development of a student identity. The study by
Caroline Trautwein and Elke Bosse takes a qualitative approach to unveiling which experi-
ences are crucial in the first year of German higher education and examining the relevance of
these critical requirements. Using the frameworks of requirement analysis and critical incident
technique, 11 first-year students and 14 more advanced students from six faculties are
interviewed in depth. Results reveal 32 critical requirements representing four different
dimensions: the personal dimension (including amongst other study skills), the organisational
dimension (a.o. perceived lack of support by their lecturers and administrative hurdles), the
content-related dimension concerning the subject matter (e.g. the high pace of courses) and the
social dimension such as building peer relationships. Examining the frequency of these
dimensions, the authors conclude that the personal requirements and the organisational
dimension are especially relevant for students. Next to this, a single-case analysis is presented
evidencing how the critical requirements interplay, which may, at times, result in a chain
reaction bringing students in troubled waters.
The second study by Lyn Tett and colleagues is entitled ‘From further to higher education:
transition as an on-going process’. The authors explore the transition to university as an on-
going process, which continues after entry to university and involves changes over time. To
investigate students’ ‘transitional pathways’, this study applies a longitudinal research design.
The sample comprises 45 non-traditional students who entered a research-intensive university
in Scotland directly from further education colleges as part of a broader widening access
initiative. These students’ views on their college and university learning were examined
throughout their university education and 1 year after graduation. A subsample of 15 students
was followed up 10 years later. The authors identified three important transitions: on coming to
university, at the end of the first year and in the final year of study. These transitions were
helped by peers and staff. The authors emphasise the importance of building pedagogical
relationships of trust to help the students to build up their self-esteem, changing their self-
concepts and learning identities. This process also affected the students’ personal and profes-
sional lives.
The third study by Venicia McGhie is entitled ‘Entering university studies: to be or not to
be?’. In this study, the transition challenges of first-year students are examined. Moreover,
McGhie aims at identifying factors that enhance students’ successful adjustment to the
university environment. The South African higher-education sector is faced with high attrition
and low retention rates; as much as 50% of the students dropout from university, and the
majority of them during the first study year. The sample of this study consists of 32 first-year
students. A multi-method approach was applied, and the data comprised questionnaire data,
reflective texts and interviews. The results showed that all students experienced difficulties in
overcoming their transition challenges and that some dropped out at the end of the first study
year. The results emphasise the importance of providing support to incoming students in order
to integrate them into the academic community and to help them successfully complete their
university education.
364 High Educ (2017) 73:357–369

The fourth contribution, by Lars Ulriksen and colleagues, focuses on how students in
Danish Science and Technology study programmes develop an identity while interacting with
the new HEI and the curriculum. Thirty-eight students were interviewed at the end of upper-
secondary education, 20 of which went on to study in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) higher education. Of those, 12 students agreed to a narrative interview
6 weeks after the start of STEM higher education. Transcripts were coded based on Bernstein’s
concepts of classification and framing. Common in students’ narratives is the experience of
courses being little interrelated (i.e. strong internal classification). Some students report the
STEM higher education programmes making an effort to clarify the link between the pro-
gramme and the future career (i.e. external classification), while others questioned the rele-
vance of these efforts. Results regarding framing were mixed as well: those in lecture-based
curricula noted strong framing by teachers, while those in a more problem-based learning
curriculum reported less teacher control over amongst other the content and pace of the
courses. Analysis further shows that when students experienced fragmented courses and little
control, this hampered students’ development of a disciplinary identity.
Next to the four studies contributing to the research line on the development of a student
identity, new insights into the domain of the students’ emotions during their first year are
provided by Lisa Postareff and colleagues. By adopting a person-oriented perspective, they set
out to distinguish groups of students characterised by different emotions and to relate these
emotions to students’ approaches to learning, study success and progress. Forty-three students
of a Finnish university were interviewed at the start of the second year regarding their
experiences in the first year, and their spontaneous expressions of emotions were coded into
25 positive and 36 negative emotions. Subsequently, hierarchical cluster analysis was per-
formed on quantifications of this data per student in terms of having mentioned an emotion (1)
or not (0). A three-cluster solution was opted for, which showed significant differences in
terms of learning approaches and study success, but not for study progress. A first cluster
consists of quickly progressing successful students experiencing positive emotions, while
students in the second cluster differed only on the aspect of emotions being negative. A third
cluster was labelled slowly progressing students experiencing negative emotions.
The sixth study of this special issue contributes to the research strand on students’
motivation while transitioning from secondary to higher education. In the context of a
Swiss business school, Taiga Brahm and colleagues examine how intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation develops during the transition to and during the first year in
higher education. Moreover, this study examines how personal (i.e. gender, self-
efficacy, enjoyment of learning and anxiety) and socio-cultural factors (i.e. studying
atmosphere) influence this motivational development. The authors followed up one
cohort of students using a longitudinal design of four waves. Growth in motivation
was modelled using latent different score modelling. Results indicated that during the
actual transition period, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation declines, only to
increase anew towards the end of the first year in higher education. Examining the
relation of personal and socio-cultural factors to students’ motivational development
reveals one effect: enjoyment can mitigate the decline in intrinsic motivation during
the transition to higher education.
The seventh contribution by Sheryl Guloy and colleagues forms a bridge between
the research line on motivation (as represented by the previous article) and on
learning approaches (as represented by the two studies in the following). Using a
design-based study, these authors investigated how computing science and engineering
High Educ (2017) 73:357–369 365

students can be supported to develop adequate study strategies for the first year in a
Canadian university. More specifically, the authors explored paired learning support as
potential intervention. However, students at risk did not participate as expected. Using
both qualitative and quantitative data from five instructors and 154 students, the study
focused on students’ perceptions of their course work, study strategies and motiva-
tions and complemented this with the instructors’ perceptions of the relevant strategies
that students should develop. Results show that for students’ transition into higher
education, it is important that they persist through difficulties, that they become
familiar with the learning strategies and ‘craft’ of their discipline and that they use
peer learning and seek for help.
The last two studies of this special issue contribute to the research base on learning
approaches during the transition from secondary to higher education. The study by
Liesje Coertjens et al. addresses the question of how students’ learning strategies
change during the transition from secondary to higher education in the context of
Flanders, Belgium. Building on the ILS framework to map changes in learning
strategies, the authors hypothesise that students’ learning strategies develop in the
direction of deep learning and self-regulated learning. Data was gathered in five
waves from the end of secondary education to 18 months into higher education.
Data analysis was based on 630 students, applying latent growth curve modelling.
Results show a strong increase (‘transition jump’) for all learning strategies in the
immediate transition. Looking at the entire transition period, the hypothesised increase
towards deep and self-regulated learning can be partially confirmed.
The last study of this special issue targets further understanding of students’
learning approaches during the transition from secondary to higher education as well.
Applying student learning theory, Luke Fryer addresses students’ different transition
profiles in one Japanese university. With a longitudinal person-centred approach, the
study aims (a) to identify the latent subgroups at the beginning and the end of the
first year and (b) to analyse student movement between these subgroups. In total, 920
students from seven faculties participated in the study. Data was analysed with latent
profile transition analysis. Results showed that for both waves, three groups could be
identified (high, middle and low). Regarding students’ movement between these
groups, the results were mixed. Surface approaches either increased or remained
relatively consistent; however, for the mid and high groups, deep approaches in-
creased. Overall, students tended to move towards less adaptive profiles over the
course of their first year at university. These results both call for further differentiation
of student learning research and for practical consequences, in particular, for the
students who begin in the low groups.
As evidenced by the overview of the studies, different methodologies are relied
upon: qualitative, quantitative and mixed method. Next to this, the present special issue
addresses different empirical lines: the development of a student identity, students’
emotions, their motivations and learning strategies. Moreover, by including contribu-
tions from nine different countries, an international view is provided. To complement
this international perspective on students’ transition to higher education, James Stuart
Cole put together a critical and comprehensive review of the articles from a US
American perspective.
We hope that this special issue has taken a step forward in researching the—often
difficult—transition from secondary to higher education. Moreover, we would suggest that
366 High Educ (2017) 73:357–369

future research should aim to connect different empirical lines of research on students’
transition from secondary to higher education and to further make use of an international
perspective on the research topic.

References

Abbott-Chapman, J. (2006). Moving from technical and further education to university: an Australian study of
mature students. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 58(1), 1–17.
Abbott-Chapman, J. (2011). Making the most of the mosaic: facilitating post-school transitions to higher
education of disadvantaged students. Aust Educ Res, 38(1), 57–71. doi:10.1007/s13384-010-0001-9.
Abbott-Chapman, J., & Kilpatrick, S. (2001). Improving post-school outcomes for rural school leavers. Aust J
Educ, 45(1), 35–47.
Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: monitoring and assessing institutional performance
in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411–431. doi:10.2307/2649146.
Anderson, M., Goodman, J., & Schlossberg, N. (2011). Counseling adults in transition: linking Schlossberg’s
theory with practice in a diverse world (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Ashwin, P., & Trigwell, K. (2012). Evoked prior experiences in first-year university student learning. High Educ
Res Dev, 31(4), 449–463.
Bathmaker, A. M., & Thomas, W. (2009). Positioning themselves: an exploration of the nature and meaning of
transitions in the context of dual sector FE/HE institutions in England. J Furth High Educ, 33(2), 119–130.
doi:10.1080/03098770902856652.
Bathmaker, A. M., Brooks, G., Parry, G., & Smith, D. (2008). Dual-sector further and higher education: policies,
organisations and students in transition. Res Pap Educ, 23(2), 125–137. doi:10.1080/02671520802048646.
Briggs, A. R. J., Clark, J., & Hall, I. (2012). Building bridges: understanding student transition to university. Qual
High Educ, 18(1), 3–21. doi:10.1080/13538322.2011.614468.
Brooman, S., & Darwent, S. (2013). Measuring the beginning: a quantitative study of the transition to higher
education. Stud High Educ, 39(9), 1523–1541. doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.801428.
Bruinsma, M., & Jansen, E. (2009). When will I succeed in my first-year diploma? Survival analysis in Dutch
higher education. High Educ Res Dev, 28(1), 99–114. doi:10.1080/07294360802444396.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshouta, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning style, personality,
achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. Personal Individ
Differ, 29(6), 1057–1068.
Busse, V. (2013). Why do first-year students of German lose motivation during their first year at university? Stud
High Educ, 38(7), 951–971. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.602667.
Christie, H. (2009). Emotional journeys: young people and transitions to university. Br J Sociol Educ, 30(2),
123–136. doi:10.1080/01425690802700123.
Christie, H., Munro, M., & Fisher, T. (2004). Leaving university early: exploring the differences between
continuing and non-continuing students. Stud High Educ, 29(5), 617–636.
Christie, H., Munro, M., & Wager, F. (2005). ‘Day students’ in higher education: widening access students and
successful transitions to university life. Int Stud Sociol Educ, 15(1), 3–30. doi:10.1080
/09620210500200129.
Christie, H., Tett, L., Cree, V. E., Hounsell, J., & McCune, V. (2008). ‘A real rollercoaster of confidence and
emotions’: learning to be a university student. Stud High Educ, 33(5), 567–581. doi:10.1080
/03075070802373040.
Christie, H., Barron, P., & D’Annunzio-Green, N. (2011). Direct entrants in transition: becoming independent
learners. Stud High Educ, 38(4), 623–637. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.588326.
Cliff, A. F. (2000). Dissonance in first-year students’ reflections on their learning. Eur J Psychol Educ, 15(1), 49–
60. doi:10.1007/BF03173166.
Crozier, G., & Reay, D. (2011). Capital accumulation: working-class students learning how to learn in HE. Teach
High Educ, 16(2), 145–155. doi:10.1080/13562517.2010.515021.
Crozier, G., Reay, D., Clayton, J., Colliander, L., & Grinstead, J. (2008). Different strokes for different folks:
diverse students in diverse institutions—experiences of higher education. Res Pap Educ, 23(2), 167–177.
doi:10.1080/02671520802048703.
Davies, P. A. T. (2003). Widening participation and the European Union: direct action—indirect policy? Eur J
Educ, 38(1), 99–116. doi:10.1111/1467-3435.00131.
du Preez, M., & McGhie, V. M. V. (2015). Addressing the learning needs of at-risk students at a South African
university. South African Journal of Higher Education, 29(1).
High Educ (2017) 73:357–369 367

Ecclestone, K., Biesta, G., & Hughes, M. (2010). Transitions and learning through the lifecourse. London:
Routledge.
Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2012). Navigating change: a typology of student transition in higher education. Stud High
Educ, 39(5), 734–753. doi:10.1080/03075079.2012.721351.
Hoelscher, M., Hayward, G., Ertl, H., & Dunbar-Goddet, H. (2008). The transition from vocational education and
training to higher education: a successful pathway? Res Pap Educ, 23(2), 139–151. doi:10.1080
/02671520802048679.
Holmegaard, H. T., Madsen, L. M., & Ulriksen, L. (2014). A journey of negotiation and belonging: understand-
ing students’ transitions to science and engineering in higher education. Cult Stud Sci Educ, 9(3), 755–786.
Holmegaard, H. T., Ulriksen, L., & Madsen, L. M. (2015). A narrative approach to understand students’ identities
and choices. In Understanding student participation and choice in science and technology education (pp. 31–
42). Springer.
Hope, J. (in press). Cutting rough diamonds’: the transition experiences first generation students in higher
education. In E. Kyndt, V. Donche, K. Trigwell, & S. Lindblom-Ylänne (Eds.), Higher education transi-
tions: theory and research. London/New York: Routledge.
Hultberg, J., Plos, K., Hendry, G. D., & Kjellgren, K. I. (2008). Scaffolding students’ transition to higher
education: parallel introductory courses for students and teachers. J Furth High Educ, 32(1), 47–57.
doi:10.1080/03098770701781440.
Jacobs, P. A., & Newstead, S. E. (2000). The nature and development of student motivation. Br J Educ Psychol,
70(2), 243–254.
James, R. (2000). How school-leavers choose a preferred university course and possible effects on the quality of
the school-university transition. AAIR Journal, 9(1).
Jansen, E. P. W. A., & Suhre, C. J. M. (2010). The effect of secondary school study skills preparation on first-year
university achievement. Educ Stud, 36(5), 569–580.
Jansen, E. P. W. A., & van der Meer, J. (2012). Ready for university? A cross-national study of students’
perceived preparedness for university. Australian Education Research, 39, 1–16.
Jansen, E., Suhre, C., & André, S. (in press). Transition to an international degree programme: preparedness,
first-year experiences and success of students of different nationalities. In E. Kyndt, V. Donche, K. Trigwell,
& S. Lindblom-Ylänne (Eds.), Higher education transitions: theory and research. London/New York:
Routledge.
Kezar, A., & Kinzie, J. (2006). Examining the ways institutions create student engagement: the role of mission. J
Coll Stud Dev, 47(2), 149–172.
Kjellgren, K. I., Hendry, G. D., Hultberg, J., Plos, K., Rydmark, M., Tobin, G., et al. (2008). Learning to learn
and learning to teach—introduction to studies in higher education. 30(239–245).
Krause, K.-L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students’ engagement in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 33(5), 493–505. doi:10.1080/02602930701698892.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & Associates (2005). Student success in college: creating
conditions that matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2011). Piecing together the student success
puzzle: research, propositions, and recommendations: ASHE Higher Education Report: Wiley.
Kyndt, E., Coertjens, L., van Daal, T., Donche, V., Gijbels, D., & Van Petegem, P. (2015). The development of
students’ motivation in the transition from secondary to higher education: a longitudinal study. Learn Individ
Differ, 39, 114–123. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.03.001.
Kyndt, E., Donche, V., Trigwell, K., & Lindblom-Ylänne, S. (in press). Higher education transitions: theory and
research. London/New York: Routledge.
Lau, S., Liem, A. D., & Nie, Y. (2008). Task- and self-related pathways to deep learning: the mediating role of
achievement goals, classroom attentiveness, and group participation. Br J Educ Psychol, 78(4), 639–662.
doi:10.1348/000709907x270261.
Leathwood, C., & O’Connell, P. (2003). ‘It’s a struggle’: the construction of the ‘new student’ in higher
education. Journal of Education Policy, 18(6), 597–615. doi:10.1080/0268093032000145863.
Marambe, K. (2007). Patterns of student learning in medical education—a Sri Lankan study in a traditional
curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Maastricht: University of Maastricht.
Martens, T., & Metzger, C. (in press). Different transitions towards learning at university: exploring
the heterogeneity of motivational processes. In E. Kyndt, V. Donche, K. Trigwell, & S. Lindblom-
Ylänne (Eds.), Higher education transitions: theory and research. London/New York: Routledge.
Martin, A. J., Colmar, S. H., Davey, L. A., & Marsh, H. W. (2010). Longitudinal modelling of academic
buoyancy and motivation: do the ‘5Cs’ hold up over time? Br J Educ Psychol, 80(3), 473–496.
McKenzie, K., & Schweitzer, R. (2001). Who succeeds at university? Factors predicting academic performance
in first year Australian university students. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 21–33.
doi:10.1080/07924360120043621.
368 High Educ (2017) 73:357–369

Nicholson, N. (1990). The transition cycle: causes, outcomes, processes and forms. In S. Fisher & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), On the move: the psychology of change and transition. Chichester: Wiley.
Nicholson, N., & West, M. (1995). Transitions, work histories, and careers. In M. B. Arthur, D. T.
Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 181–201). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
OECD (2013). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/eag-2013-en.
Palmer, M., O’Kane, P., & Owens, M. (2009). Betwixt spaces: student accounts of turning point
experiences in the first-year transition. Stud High Educ, 34(1), 37–54. doi:10.1080
/03075070802601929.
Pan, Y., & Gauvain, M. (2012). The continuity of college students’ autonomous learning motivation and its
predictors: a three-year longitudinal study. Learn Individ Differ, 22(1), 92–99. doi:10.1016/j.
lindif.2011.11.010.
Parker, J. D. A., Summerfeldt, L. J., Hogan, M. J., & Majeski, S. A. (2004). Emotional intelligence and academic
success: examining the transition from high school to university. Personal Individ Differ, 36(1), 163–172.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00076-X.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning and
achievement: a program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educ Psychol, 37(2), 91–105. doi:10.1207
/s15326985ep3702_4.
Putwain, D. W., & Sander, P. (2016). Does the confidence of first-year undergraduate students change over time
according to achievement goal profile? Stud High Educ, 41(2), 381–398. doi:10.1080
/03075079.2014.934803.
Quinn, J. (2010). Rethinking ‘failed transitions’ to higher education. In K. Ecclestone, G. Biesta, & M. Hughes
(Eds.), Transitions and learning through the lifecourse (pp. 118–129). London: Routledge.
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2004). Family correlates of trajectories of
academic motivation during a school transition: a semiparametric group-based approach. J Educ
Psychol, 96, 743–754. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.743.
Reay, D., David, M. E., & Ball, S. (2005). Degrees of choice: class, race, gender and higher education. Stoke on
Trent: Trentham Books.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2006). Perceptions of academic quality and approaches to studying among technology
students in distance education. Eur J Eng Educ, 31(4), 421–433. doi:10.1080/03043790600676307.
Rocconi, L. M. (2011). The impact of learning communities on first year students’ growth and development in
college. Res High Educ, 52(2), 178–193. doi:10.1007/s11162-010-9190-3.
Scanlon, L., Rowling, L., & Weber, Z. (2007). ‘You don’t have like an identity … you are just lost in
a crowd’: forming a student identity in the first-year transition to university. J Youth Stud, 10(2),
223–241.
Severiens, S., Ten Dam, G., & Van Hout-Wolters, B. (2001). Stability of processing and regulation
strategies: two longitudinal studies on student learning. High Educ, 42, 437–453. doi:10.1023
/A:1012227619770.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: a theoretical synthesis of recent research. Rev Educ Res, 45(1),
89–125.
Tinto, V. (1998). Colleges as communities: taking research on student persistence seriously. Review of Higher
Education, 21(2), 167–177.
Tinto, V. (2005). Taking student success seriously: rethinking the first year of college. Paper presented at the
Ninth Annual Intersession Academic Affairs Forum. Fullerton: California State University.
Torenbeek, Jansen, E., & Hofman, A. (2009). How first year students perceive the fit between secondary and
university education: the effect of teaching approaches. Effective Education, 1(2), 135–150. doi:10.1080
/19415530903522543.
Torenbeek, J. E. P. W. A., & Hofman, W. H. A. (2010). The effect of the fit between secondary and university
education of first-year student achievement. Stud High Educ, 35(6), 659–675. doi:10.1080
/03075070903222625.
Trow, M. A. (1974). Problems in the transition from the elite to the mass university. Paris: Unveröffentlichtes
Manuskript.
Trow, M. A. (2006). Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: forms and
phases of higher education in modern societies since WW II. In J. J. F. Forest & P. G. Altbach
(Hrsg.), International handbook on higher education (S. 243–280): Springer.
Vanthournout, G., Gijbels, D., Coertjens, L., Donche, V., & Van Petegem, P. (2012). Students’
persistence and academic success in a first-year professional bachelor program: the influence of
students’ learning strategies and academic motivation. Education Research International, Article
ID 152747, doi:10.1155/2012/152747.
High Educ (2017) 73:357–369 369

Wagner, D., & Brahm, T. (in press). Fear of academic failure as a self-fulfilling prophecy. In E. Kyndt, V.
Donche, K. Trigwell, & S. Lindblom-Ylänne (Eds.), Higher education transitions: theory and research.
London/New York: Routledge.
Wilcox, P., Winn, S., & Fyvie-Gauld, M. (2005). ‘It was nothing to do with the university, it was just the people’:
the role of social support in the first-year experience of higher education. Stud High Educ, 30, 707–722.
Wingate, U. (2007). A framework for transition: supporting ‘learning to learn’ in higher education. High Educ Q,
61(3), 391–405. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2007.00361.x.
Yorke, M., & Longden, B. (2004). Retention and student success in higher education. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Zhao, C.-M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: learning communities and student engagement. Res High
Educ, 45(2), 115–138. doi:10.1023/B:RIHE.0000015692.88534.de.