University Massification and Teaching Non-Traditional University Students
Abstract
Professor James feels his first lecture to his business class was a disaster. Teaching has always come easy to him, until today. Professor James recently moved from a small private university to this large public university. The students in his previous school were quite homogeneous. They came to him with similar backgrounds, similar knowledge and his class sizes were never more than forty students. Today was his first experience at this new university. One-hundred and fifty first-year students were enrolled in his class and they were anything but homogeneous. First, while many students were seventeen years, not all of them were. In fact, some students were clearly ‘mature’. There seemed to be at least ten students over the age of thirty. Second, prior to the class, the center for students with disabilities had emailed him a list of students who they were assisting. The list had seven student names on it. He had never taught students with disabilities before and wondered if he was supposed to modify his course for them. Third, after class several students came to his office hours. In conversation with these students he learned that some of these students were the first in their families to go to university. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
First-generation students are more likely to drop out than their peers who are not first-generation students.
“Additionally, first-generation students, unfamiliar with university culture and expectations, are more likely to drop out than their peers who are not first-generation students (Reed, 2016).”
From Methodological Choices When Assessing Summer Bridge Programs in STEM Majors: A Scoping Review (2026) · cites this paper as Reed, 2016
Cites
Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M. G., & Destin, M. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797613518349 · Cited by 612 · see citing works
Kennett, D. J., & Reed, M. J. (2009) · Educational Research and Evaluation · doi:10.1080/13803610902804382 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Self-citationReed, M. J., Kennett, D. J., & Emond, M. (2015) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/1469787415589626 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Methodological Choices When Assessing Summer Bridge Programs in STEM Majors: A Scoping Review
Caballero Díaz, D., Amin, A., Musa, P., & Leung, V. (2026) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci16020220
- Authors
- Reed, M. J.
- Corresponding author
- Reed, Maureen J.
- ORCID
- Reed, Maureen J.
- Venue
- Universities, the Citizen Scholar and the Future of Higher Education
- Publisher
- Palgrave Macmillan UK
- Published
- 2016
- Pages
- 137-154
- OpenAlex
- W2514060360
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 5.35
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Research Studies
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
- Keywords
- massification of higher education, non-traditional students, adult learners, students with disabilities, first-generation college students, inclusive pedagogy, change of course, large class teaching, university teaching
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review