IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

The Implicit Role of First-Years’ Higher Education Faculties
Maurice Abi-Raad
Rabdan Academy, United Arab Emirates

7

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Abstract
The higher education experience is a challenge for first-year students. One of the challenges
facing a generation of youth is attaining professional skills, academic experience andoccupational training. In order to have a clear picture of the challenges involved in first-year
experiences it is important to examine elements impacting first-year students’ adjustment touniversity and in particular on the dual faculty role. This opinion paper posits that higher
education faculties play an important role in the successful adjustment of first-year students,
not only in facilitating their learning, but in impacting students’ well-being and their growth
as better citizens. The findings from this paper were drawn from various studies looking at
the importance of first-year faculties in higher education, which involved extensive literature
reviews and reported interviews with university stakeholders. The paper offers higher
education leadership insights into the complex factors at play and the dual role faculties hold.
Keywords: first-year student, higher education, quality teaching

8

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Introduction
Undertaking higher education is an important landmark for newly enrolled students in the
period of initial adulthood. The higher education experience is both an opportunity and achallenge for first-year students. If a first-year student cannot adjust to the new university
setting swiftly they may encounter difficulties in their learning and psychologicalprogressions (Stirling, 2017). The younger generation today faces the challenges of a multidimensional and competitive world of work and exceedingly specific roles. As such, they
spend prolonged periods in educational institutions to attain professional skills, academic
experiences and occupational training. (Symonds, Schwartz & Ferguson, 2011). Becoming afirst-year higher education student after being a final-year student at a secondary school
echoes the phenomenon of shifting from the oldest and most influential group of students inthe primary school to the newest and least influential group of students in secondary schools(Najdanovic-Visak, 2017). Correspondingly, the progression into a university setting
comprises moving to an extended, more equitable or learner-oriented faculty structure,communication with peers from more diverse geographical regions and sometimes morediverse backgrounds. Experience indicates a greater emphasis on academic performance andits evaluation (Radojicic, Milenkovic & Jeremic, 2017).
The university environment also requires the process of creating new social networks,
friends, altering existing associations with family members, and adapting to the new learning
setting. An effective adaptation to university settings implies an ongoing and flexible processof accepting a new lifecycle in college, appreciating psychological welfare and achieving
learning objectives (Najdanovic-Visak, 2017). This means that graduates who can manage astrong, universally competitive economy or transnational corporation perform better
compared with their poorly adjusted peers. Joining the university demands moreaccountability and some students may doubt their competency to be effective at the university
level, which may reduce their learning success and can cause an upsurge in their anxiety
levels. Scholars suggest that some students adapt well to the university environment whileothers encounter difficulties with the progression, some dropping out of university altogether(Uttl, White & Gonzalez, 2017). Nevertheless, the elements impacting first-year students’adjustment to university are multifaceted; in such cases, the dual role of the first-year faculty
emerges in the sense that educators not only fulfil their teaching role, but also their role asadvisors, mentors and supporters of students.
This reflective paper suggests that higher education faculties, particularly those in the firstyears of student transition, play a significant role not only in the successful transition of
students into higher education facilities by way of learning, but also in providing a significant
support role, impacting student well-being. The paper first discusses the benefits of higher
education and the general transition of students to higher education and the adjustments
involved. This is followed by a discussion on the concept of student-centred learning and thedual roles that faculties play during the student transition period: providing not only thefoundation for successful learning, but also in supporting students to have a sense of
becoming better independent learners.
The Benefits of Higher Education
The benefits and significance of higher education in the past decade have increased, andcontinue to expand, as examinations by various stakeholders aim to provide more specificresults in the higher education field (Noaman, Ragab, Madbouly, Khedra & Fayoumi, 2017).

9

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

At present, the opportunity to advance one’s studies in higher education institutions is
considered a significant privilege, considering the role of the financial factor that is apersistent limitation for some students (Arbel, Bar-El & Tobol, 2017). One of the benefits ofhigher education is associated with achieving a high level of economic growth and stability(Schendel, McCowan & Oketch, 2014). Therefore, educators promote school reforms acrossdifferent countries in order to help them improve their existing economic systems(Sriarunrasmee, Techataweewan & Mebusaya, 2015). From this perspective, students haverecognized that investing in their higher education is an important and worthwhile
precondition for their economic success and the success of society (Blaskova, Blasko,
Matuska & Rosak-Szyrocka, 2015). In fact, researchers have assessed the long-term
implications of education, which implies that individuals may think from diverse perspectives
when it comes to achieving certain educational outcomes (Singh, Misra & Srivastava, 2017).
Another significant benefit of higher education relates to the idea that the respective
institutions foster lifelong learning, which is an essential factor in helping students become
better persons, leading healthier and meaningful lives (Jarvis, 2017). By improving thepersonal lives of individuals, higher education improves the entire social system in the senseof contributing to its smooth functioning (Ma, Pender & Welch, 2016). Highly educatedpeople tend to demonstrate an active involvement in different social activities (Griffiths,
2016). The reason why education improves people’s well-being is that such individuals
apparently realise that the potential and knowledge they have can help them change the world
in one way or another (Nolan & Molla, 2017).
In terms of major social benefits pertaining to higher education, educated individuals
contribute to expanding social unity and trust. In this context, society functions better as aunited community, which is possible only through the diverse values promoted by higher
education (Sriarunrasmee et al., 2015). The feeling of togetherness, along with the emphasis
in ongoing cooperation, has helped many people in a positive way by changing their views
about society and higher education (Gonondo, 2017). As a result, a substantial number ofindividuals demonstrate their willingness to work together on finding appropriate solutions toemerging social problems (de Kraker, Dlouhá, Machackova Henderson & Kapitulcinová,
2017; Kellett, & Goldstein, 1999). Being properly educated means that people are most likely
to have shared goals in terms of social development and improvement initiatives (Griffiths,
2016).
Therefore, the insights they may share can be quite helpful for further enhancing the role ofsociety in modernity. Higher education has emerged as the prerequisite for shared democratic
practices promoting the relevance of freedom, flexibility and creativity in society (Shephard& Brown, 2017). Individuals who are highly educated can have an opportunity to have a
successful career, indicating that such people are generally wealthier and more socially stablecompared to their uneducated counterparts (Sriarunrasmee et al., 2015). Thus, it appears that
pursuing higher education is related to both personal and social benefits that can significantly
multiply once individuals have recognised the limitless possibilities of learning in today’s
knowledge-based, digital society. Education is the right answer to all those who may haveany doubts regarding their future development as individuals and professionals in a certain
field (Linse, 2017). In this way, higher education institutions succeed at preparing people forthe challenges they may encounter by giving them the proper knowledge and tools to thrivein modern society.

10

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Student Transition to Higher Education
Scholars frequently utilise the term “transition” as an alternative word for “adjustment”,“integration” and “adaptation” (Uttl et al., 2017). It illustrates an individual’s efforts toendure in their societal and physical setting. Scholars describe the transition process to higher
education as a way in which the student tries to deal with anxiety, academic performance andconflict and attain their learning objectives (Najdanovic-Visak, 2017). In this progression, thestudent also tries to sustain coordinated relationships with the setting, which means that thehelp of the first-year faculty is crucial in such cases. In the process of transition to higher
education, the two key elements are the student and the university environment (classrooms,
faculty members, tutors, principal, administrators and student services). Students in higher
education typically come from diverse ethnic backgrounds and have diverse customs, norms
and ethics (Blaskova et al., 2015). The university and its faculties have their own objectives,
standards and principles that educators incorporate into the institution’s aim, vision and core
standards (Uttl et al., 2017). Students must fit in with the university setting through altering
their own attitudes, vision and activities to the appropriate level of those of the university.
The adaptation varies from one student to another depending on the progressive phase of thelearner. Newly enrolled university students have little knowledge about course scheduling.
For instance, new students have been in secondary school, where teachers arrange or program
every activity for them, as well as allocate school-work time – all students have to do isfollow the program (Hogan, Fox & Barratt-See, 2017). Therefore, faculty members ought toprovide these students with the mentoring and support they need to better adjust to their new
university environment.
First-year students join the university with unexpressed and indistinct enquiries about theirown personality and the globe – queries that academic institutions and parents never probe(individual personalities) further at the initial stages. They join the college community withan eagerness and passion that may soon become dissatisfaction (Sezer, 2016). During theirtime in university, students deal with a number of activities, many of which they areencountering for the first time, comprising new settings, friends, class mates, exposure todiverse cultures and a new outlook. Scholars argue that when students are unable to cope withthese initial activities they are likely to struggle (Uttl et al., 2017). If first-year students do notexperience a feeling of satisfaction or they are not ready to adapt to the new setting of acollege campus and faculty they could simply become vulnerable to anxiety and depression.
For most university students, the progression to the university classroom requires anadaptation to academic practices and expectations. They must study efficiently to enhancetheir learning habits. Classrooms may be larger, tutors have diverse instructing styles andteaching approaches, assignments are extensive and benchmarks are higher (Sezer, 2016).
Students need to stabilize their personal and academic priorities. The academic domain,courses and syllabus in higher education turn out to be rather sophisticated and complex forthe first-year student. The complexity can be predominantly greater for students coming fromethnic and language backgrounds that are dissimilar to those supporting the foremost
principles of higher education organisations (Khoshlessan & Das, 2017). Researchdemonstrates that educational demands increase with time and new societal relations develop
when students join higher-level education, thereby the dual role of the first-year faculty is an
important element in supporting students to become not only excellent learners but also better
persons (Poorman & Mastorovich, 2017); first-year students are often unclear of theircompetencies to attain these learning demands.

11

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Social Adjustment
First-year students may also be unable to adapt to the environment due to many social
reasons. In some instances, the sole support structure students have encountered prior tojoining college was in the home atmosphere; first-year students must encounter the university
experience individually, without the security of an accustomed and responsive support
system. Subsequently, numerous first-year students discuss feelings of isolation andhomesickness as an outcome of their lack of adaptation to the university environment (Uttl etal., 2017). Although these students may establish many social associations, this does notessentially prevent aloneness and homesickness (Blaskova et al., 2015). It is the value of theassociation that influences students’ aloneness in their new university environment. With
regards to the progression into university, student social support is the most vital component
in decreasing negative outcomes, such as anxiety, depression and loneliness (Baker &Robnett, 2012; Cho & Yu, 2015). Students’ social adaptation to college has been related to
students’ overall transition to higher education (Hogan et al., 2017). The assessment of social
adaptation refers to determining how efficiently students react in their environment,
demonstrate involvement in social programs and their gratification with several social factorsof the college experience (Simmons, Creamer & Yu, 2017; Trolian & Barnhardt, 2017). The
university social setting requires flexibility on the part of newly enrolled students. The
student union has a strong influence on new students' lives, typically because they have aneed to transform family and community networks with student support networks(Sriarunrasmee et al 2015). First-year students, hence, expect others to like and acknowledge
them, which contributes to their own satisfaction as being part of the new university
environment (Dornan, 2015). First-year faculties can clearly communicate such a need. As
stated previously, joining the university often signifies the youth's initial experience indeveloping and preserving the individual personality outside the home (Blaskova et al.,2015).
Personal – Emotional Transition to Higher Education
The personal-psychological transition of students to higher education refers to the emotionalanxiety and mind symptoms linked with the transition process itself (Gautam, Lowery, Mays
& Durant, 2016; Rahat & Ilhan, 2016). First-year students experience concerns of being a
stakeholder in the college. They also want to demonstrate themselves to their fellow
classmates. It seems that unsteady and distressed students tend to perform less efficiently intheir education in proportion to their ability than students who experience better adjustment(Uttl et al., 2017). Failure to comprehend the significance of adjustment at college may be acore factor in certain psychological issues (Nolan & Molla, 2017). Numerous first-year
university students encounter various psychological health problems, with higher education
institutions determined as “ideal” incubators of psychological health issues (Budescu &Silverman, 2016; Ceyhan, E. & Ceyhan, A. A., 2011). Scholars contend that there are
numerous reasons for these health issues such as lack of finance to attain fundamental needs(which is a common situation for college students in developing economies), along with otherfactors, for example adapting to college life, pressure to achieve success, time management
and task completion (Sriarunrasmee et al., 2015).
New Models for Quality Teaching in Higher Education
The core transformation in education over the past five decades suggests an upsurge in the
demand for non-routine mental and interactive competencies and a fall in the demand for12

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

long-established cognitive and craft competencies, non-skilled labour and tiresome physicalroles (Frey & Fisher, 2015). Graduates participate in a world of competitiveness, dominatedby greater uncertainty, flexibility, risk, globalisation and cross-cultural communication (Kim,
2016; Onnis & Dyer, 2017). Higher education institutions, and the approach of learning
promoted by educators whilst at college, need to help students adapt to such a setting andprepare them with appropriate competencies, insights, principles and qualities to flourish in it(Sriarunrasmee et al., 2015). There is a strong determination to develop and boost knowledge,
together with comprehending the importance of professional life and restructuring the theoryof knowledge in academic situations (Blaskova et al., 2015). Strong connections withoccupational life through diverse academic initiatives provide reliable opportunities toacquire both generic and professional competencies, as well as to strengthen networks andjob pathways after acquiring an undergraduate qualification. Colleges/universities across theglobe face the challenge of discovering ways of demonstrating their quality, not only in theteaching of students but also how they connect to business objectives and industry (Linse,
2017).
Learning entrenched in occupational life could facilitate higher education institutions tounderstand and react more effectively to the issues of this setting, utilising other types ofschooling and learning models such as a project-based approach. Higher education can nolonger be preserved by a set of disciplinary specialists who share knowledge with students.
Both the difficulty and ambiguity of society and the competitive marketplace will require
higher education organisations to incessantly acclimatise while maintaining quality teaching
standards (Linse, 2017). Having become the central point of the education approach in many
regions of the globe, universities will have to comprehend how to efficiently serve students(Figure 1) (Bhardwaj & Kumar, 2017; Pescaru, 2017).

Figure 1: The Explicit Role of First Years’ Faculties

13

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Alternatively, students seem to have become more attentive about equality, and demand
student-oriented teaching and academic opportunities (Blaskova et al., 2015). They aim tocomplete their education to get a desirable job and strengthen their social attachment.
Students’ ability to influence learning quality is immense as they have access to the rightservices at the time they need them to improve their commitment (Sriarunrasmee et al.,2015). Student involvement can take diverse arrangements (on podiums and throughclassroom presentations, extended student gratification surveys, instantaneous feedback
approaches, among others.). Student involvement is mostly influential as a tool of quality
instruction when it comprises collaboration and not simply data on the student’s learning
experience. The implementation of modern teaching approaches, along with an increasingly
diverse student base, place the subject of equity at the very core of quality teaching issues(Tweddell, Clark & Nelson, 2016). With this assessment of learning, the responsibility offaculty members and teachers is transforming.
The Student-Oriented Approach of Higher Education: Helping Students to Adjust
Much of the capacity encircling undergraduate education and student learning refers to thetwo key functions of university or college faculties (departments within the academic
institution): schooling and research (Linse, 2017). The parameter of time assigned to these
two responsibilities is one of the most prominent issues in higher education (Khan, 2017). It
is unfortunate that much of the discussion on the structure of faculty work finds its basis in
myth, assessment and prediction. There is a myth, for instance, that how a faculty member
teaches and interacts with students in the higher education experience results in improved
student knowledge gains (Sriarunrasmee et al., 2015). However, it is important to debunk or
corroborate such a myth. Hence, evaluating the influence that faculty member behaviours andcommunications with students in the tutorial room have on classroom experience and student
performance is important.
The most vital role of faculty members (tutors, consultants and school administrators) is toimprove the student learning experience. Diverse teaching approaches can be found in many
institutions to improve student educational achievement, but tutors frequently lack thecomprehensive training or the support required to implement those approaches in theclassroom. University administrators should decrease the opportunity costs of testing in thetutorial room and permit faculty deans or members to develop unique and effective teachingapproaches across various departments (Linse, 2017). The use of faculty members in initialwarning systems has become a norm in many universities as they play a crucial role inidentifying vulnerable students depending on their adaptability and on their apparent impact(Morales, Grineski & Collins, 2017; Roksa & Whitley, 2017).
Research demonstrates that around 75% of colleges and universities in the United States havecreated or acquired an early warning framework, but there are certain problems in terms ofutilisation (Sriarunrasmee et al., 2015). Permitting faculty members to modify academic risk
and contribution protocols can facilitate the need to advance the levels of enthusiastic
participants. The university chancellor and academic deans must boost the significance ofprimary warnings among faculties and demonstrate their effect on facilitating students in an
appropriate manner (Linse, 2017). Student support programs tend to emphasise the mostvulnerable students; however, mentoring programs for students should also take into
consideration high-achieving students. If students are unable to establish a considerable
connection with their faculty in their first academic year they may experience difficulties as
they enter the higher level of education. Focusing faculty mentoring initiatives on groups

14

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018such as students who are educationally on track, but who lack involvement in a facultycommunity or student group, can assist in building extended participation among thisdecisive group (Byl, Struyven, Meurs, Bieke & Koen, 2016).
Utilising a learner-oriented methodology is an effective mode of designing instructive
materials to facilitate first-year students since it aims to encourage students by precisely
targeting their individual education needs (Blaskova et al., 2015). In contrast to conventional
teaching approaches, where the design of instruction is from the standpoint of the teacher, alearner-oriented approach aims primarily to meet the student’s educational needs from thestandpoint of the student (Linse, 2017). Internationally, colleges and universities discuss thesignificance of adopting new student-oriented learning approaches resulting in the growing
implementation of non-traditional techniques and strategies by progressive academic
institutions (Partanen, 2016). The student-centred methodology comprises more than the
pursuit of modern techniques; it involves an incorporated idea of education (Sriarunrasmee etal., 2015). Comprehending the knowledge-centred approach to instruction requires an insight
into the element of power in the tutorial room. In a learning-oriented setting tutors do notdiscriminatorily make all the decisions about teaching; rather, they discuss these decisions
with their students in order to bring consent.
A student-oriented classroom does not cater to student impulses in a way that decreases
academic consistency. As a substitute, it offers strong learning positions, facilitating students
to comprehend and apply knowledge. Many universities support their faculties in establishingstudent-centred tutorial rooms through their instruction, learner centres and student services(Blaskova et al., 2015). Faculties also collaborate with other faculty members in efficiently
creating and delivering first-year course outlines (Bryant, 2016). However, faculties
frequently encounter challenges in managing the time to join learning workshops or use
social media websites to offer tips on boosting accessibility and adaptation for first-year
students. Despite the advantages drawn in the literature, educators do not consistently utilise
Universal Instructional Design (UID) as the teaching framework (Pliner & Johnson, 2004).
Educators face several obstacles in adopting these approaches. Initially, implementing a newteaching structure needs collaboration, joint decision, leadership and administrative
assistance (Linse, 2017).
Without assistance, it is complicated for faculty members to acquire training on UID, getaccess to adequate facilities and modern technologies, or restructure course syllabi. From
time to time, universities may consider UID approaches as being too complex to adopt inpractice because of suggestions that emphasise the need to integrate modern technology into
each tutorial room (Bryant, 2016). Additionally, adverse attitudes from various students about
implementing these approaches in undergraduate education may act as an obstacle to utilising
UID. Accepting the UID framework requires that one adopt the standpoint thatapproachability issues exist within conventional teaching methodologies and that thisinfluences the academic performance of all learners (Sriarunrasmee et al., 2015). As
discussed above, tutors must take into consideration the variations in students’ individual
learning approaches. Research on learning approaches (e.g. surface vs deep learning), and the
3 Ps model (Pressage-Process-Product) developed to express the interactions between
lecturers and students from the point of view of the expectations that both would have of theteaching and learning process, is substantial, with changeable and sometimes inconsistentlearning systems (Ak, 2008).

15

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Effective teaching must comprise some reflection on the diverse ways in which students
learn, which can help students become better learners and persons over time. Scholars tend toagree that there are specific variations among students that considerably influence thelearning process (Sriarunrasmee et al., 2015). With these concepts as support, a rising numberof scholars and experts have gradually admitted that conceptualisation has a constructive
effect on the academic experience of students (Blaskova et al., 2015). Conceptual teaching
and academic activists indicate that, through this approach, students can develop initialknowledge (comprehending specific ideas or notions), process knowledge (the competency touse this knowledge practically), incorporate knowledge (comprehend the associations
between the knowledge acquired), and acknowledge their human aspects (the competency toacknowledge one’s self), boosting substantial learning by interacting with fellow students atevery phase (Linse, 2017). The subject of transferable abilities, or students’ abilities toexhibit the capabilities acquired through one framework in another, has become a clearer
objective in many contextualised initiatives. From a metacognitive standpoint, transferable
abilities reflect the outcome of “learning to learn”. In other words, the learner has establishedthemselves as an effective learner by becoming more cognisant and self-oriented, as well as
significantly competent in conducting more effective analysis and using that learning
approach in other arenas (Singh et al., 2017).
The Critical Roles of First-Year Faculties During the Student Transition Period
Innovation in the teaching and learning process can present certain challenges to higher
educational institutions. The dual role of the first-year faculty implies that the focus on
different responsibilities may be difficult for educators, as being in the position of a persistentchange mode may lead to substantial uncertainty (Abbott-Anderson, Gilmore-Bikovski &Lyles, 2016). The extensive focus on innovative practices in the educational field may bringthe opposite results in terms of frightening potential students and faculty staff. Thus, it isimportant to implement ongoing monitoring mechanisms and strategies in order to address
any emerging challenges.
Yet educators should constantly encourage experimentation in various teaching practices,emphasising the distinct role of educators to serve as change agents, mentors, advisors andpersons who support and guide students in their transition into higher education (Redmond,2015). In this way, it is possible to understand the faculty’s dual role as reflected in a wide
range of activities pertaining to the smooth transition of students into their academic
advancement at a later stage in their lives (Nolan & Molla, 2017). Academic educators arethose who promote the view that higher educational institutions fulfil their role external andinternal roles as learning organisations. From this perspective, faculty responsibilities havebeen progressively expanded to identify various teaching and learning situations that canfacilitate students’ transition to higher education (Blaskova et al., 2015). Faculty teachers
have the necessary skills and tools to anticipate different challenges during the process oftransition. Therefore, faculty teachers have been able to gain the trust of their students who
recognise the importance of following certain role models in their respective faculty.
Guiding students throughout their transition to higher education is among the most significant
roles of faculty teachers (Redmond, 2015). This means that such educators show substantial
dedication to the distinct purpose of education, which refers not only to the idea of teaching
students important concepts, but also in the overall understanding that first-year or general
education courses represent a relevant stage for learners to build the foundation for lifelong
learning. Moreover, such a stage is crucial for students to realise the potential they have to16

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

become better citizens, which means that faculty teachers have complied with therequirements of their social role in education (Blaskova et al., 2015). Faculty educators needto ensure a holistic approach to education, which is the venue in which students can grow inboth personal and professional aspects. Such teachers tend to have a solid impact on students’decisions for professional realisation and academic progress (McNickle, 2014; Warr
Pedersen, Pharo, Peterson & Clark, 2017).
Educators in the role of change agents clearly understand their institutional contexts(Redmond, 2015). In this way, they present appropriate change initiatives that actively
involve students. Faculty teachers are responsible not only for making change happen in theirfield but also for emphasising the relevance of students taking individual responsibility for
their own actions (Willegems, Consuegra, Struyven & Engels, 2017). Moreover, facultyteachers may need comprehensive support structures, which show their distinct approach
towards the teaching and learning process as a whole. As a result, students will feel more
confident in undertaking the next stage of their academic growth and development (Blaskova
et al., 2015). Learners tend to feel empowered after they encounter highly responsible,
creative and inspiring faculty teachers who provide them with the right model for transition to
the higher education environment (Davies & Gonzalez, 2017; Del Gandio, 2017). In this way,
those students find it possible to rethink and even improve their approach towards education,
which is a multifaceted phenomenon that can bring about substantial change in people’s lives(Nolan & Molla, 2017).
In discussing the two paradigms pertaining to the dual role of first-year faculties, the support
expected by teachers at this time is crucial in facilitating students’ transition into higher
education. It is important to reconsider the dimensions of traditional faculty
appraisal/evaluation as a way to optimise the teaching and learning process (Orland-Barak,2014). The focus on conducting regular performance appraisals of faculty members implies
that educators undertake significant measures to improve the quality of instruction andguidance demonstrated to students. In addition, teachers can enhance different aspects ofscholarship and research after carrying out specific performance appraisals (Blaskova et al.,2015). The most important aspect is to ensure quality, integrity and flexibility of the entire
educational system. The role of self-assessment is that of a useful tool in emphasizing the job
requirements and responsibilities of faculty members. However, some educational evaluation
systems often ignore the critical role of “faculty as life coach”. This highlights the fact thatthe role of life coach has important implications for students’ professional lives at a laterstage and, as a faculty, we should aim to help students become better people (Hennissen,
Crasborn, Brouwer, Korthagen & Bergen, 2008).
Academic success is multidimensional, and the role of faculties in helping students become
successful in their lives is fundamental. In fact, educators need to assist students to have an
optimal college/university experience, implying that faculty members should demonstrate
dedication to student development and success (Nolan & Molla, 2017). As a result, students
can experience relevant opportunities to build life and leadership skills. At the same time, in
the role of life coach, faculties can help students create sufficient balance and manage stresseffectively, irrespective of the challenges they may encounter. Students’ self-confidence cansignificantly increase, which can further motivate them to pursue their goals for the future(Fazel, 2013).

17

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Conclusion
This paper explored two essential paradigms about the role of first-year faculties or general
education in undergraduate degrees in higher education institutions. The first paradigm
indicates that the first-year is crucial in setting the foundation for certain degree courses inwhich students can develop their learning potential (Blaskova et al., 2015). In fact, educators
can guide students through the ongoing process of building a foundation of knowledge on awide range of specialisation topics that can further help them refine their choice forprofessional realisation in their lives.
The second paradigm discussed in this paper is related to the belief that educators should
design general education courses in such a way as to help students become better persons(Fazel, 2013). As illustrated, these two paradigms reflect the dual role of first-year faculties.
On the one hand, teachers extensively focus on using optimal faculty practices to help
students obtain relevant knowledge of different educational concepts and ideas; on the other,
the intrinsic role of the faculty is to guide, support and assist in the student’s academictransformation to becoming a university student, irrespective of the major they pursue (Nolan& Molla, 2017). In this way, first-year faculty members are the unacknowledged change
agents who play the role of transition catalysts in the life of many students. As a result,students successfully adapt to their professional learning environment later in their lives(Blaskova et al., 2015). Educators also assist and guide students in becoming better persons
who can serve others with adequate self-confidence, empathy and understanding (Audrey,
2017; Elias, 2010; Stanford, 2014).
It is clear that first-year faculties play an important role not only in the successful transitionof students to the university environment but in assisting them to become better citizens.
Future research should therefore further explore the dual role of first-year faculties todetermine the most successful intervention strategies to positively impact students’ lives.

18

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

References
Abbott-Anderson, K., Gilmore-Bykovskyi, A., & Lyles, A. A. (2016). The value of preparing
PhD students as research mentors: Application of Kram’s temporal mentoring model.
Journal of Professional Nursing, 32(6), 421–429.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2016.02.004
Ak, S. (2008). A conceptual analysis on the approaches to learning. Educational Sciences:
Theory and Practice, 8(3), 707–720.
Arbel, Y., Bar-El, R., & Tobol, Y. (2017). Equal opportunity through higher education:
Theory and evidence on privilege and ability. IZA Discussion Paper (No. 10564).
Germany: Institute of Labor Economics, IZA DP.
Audrey, W. J. (2017, January 15). How to cultivate faculty leaders. The Chronicle of Higher
Education.
Baker, C. N., & Robnett, B. (2012). Race, social support and college student retention: A
case study. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 325–335.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0025
Bhardwaj, G. N., & Kumar, S. (2017). What makes teaching an effective teaching? A
conceptual study on academic environment. International Journal of Information and
Education Technology, 7(3), 236–241. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.3.872
Blaskova, M., Blasko, R., Matuska, E., & Rosak-Szyrocka, J. (2015). Development of key
competences of university teachers and managers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 182, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.755
Bryant, S. G. (2016). First-year students as first responders: Initiating their first code.
Teaching
andLearning
inNursing,11(2),
74–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2016.01.001
Budescu, M., & Silverman, L. R. (2016). Kinship support and academic efficacy amongcollege students: A cross-sectional examination. Journal of Child and Family Studies,25(6), 1789–1801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0359-z
Byl, E., Struyven, K., Meurs, P., Bieke, A., & Koen, L. (2016). The value of peer learning forfirst-year postgraduate university students’ social and academic integration. ProcediaSocial and Behavioral Sciences, 228, 299–304.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.044
Carpintero, S. (2015). Qualities that mentors in the university setting should have. Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 255–258.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.132
Ceyhan, E., & Ceyhan, A. A. (2011). Loneliness and depression levels of the students
applying the university counseling center. Egitim Ve Bilim, 36(160), 81.
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L.-t., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year
college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology,
93(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.93.1.55
Cho, J., & Yu, H. (2015). Roles of university support for international students in the UnitedStates: Analysis of a systematic model of university identification, university support,
and psychological well-being. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(1),11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314533606

19

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Davies, D. K., & Gonzalez, S. (2017). Empowering learners: A win-win solution for students
and educators. New Directions for Student Services, 158, 23–35.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20217
de Kraker, J., Dlouhá, J., Machackova Henderson, L., & Kapitulcinová, D. (2017). The
European virtual seminar on sustainable development as an opportunity for staff ESD
competence development within university curricula. International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(5), 758–771.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-03-2016-0040
Del Gandio, J. (2017). More than solutions: Empowering students to think strategically andtactically. Communication Teacher, 31(2), 63–69.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17404622.2017.1285415
Dornan, E. L. (2015). Identifying characteristics that influence first-time, full-time freshmen
persistence and exploring effective and strategic retention initiatives for an at-risk
student population. (Unpublished dissertation, University of Mississippi, Oxford,
MS). Retrieved fromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/1708664923?accountid=188854
Elias, M. (2010). Character education: Better students better people. The Education Digest,
75(7), 47–49.
Fazel, P. (2013). Teacher-coach-student coaching model: A vehicle to improve efficiency ofadult institution. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 384–391.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.249
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2015). Beyond academics. Principal Leadership, 15(8), 57–59.
Gautam, C., Lowery, C. L., Mays, C., & Durant, D. (2016). Challenges for global learners: A
qualitative study of the concerns and difficulties of international students. Journal ofInternational Students, 6(2), 501–526.
Gonondo, J. (2017). Africa and China higher education cooperation: Establishing knowledge
sharing partnership between students. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(10), 17–28.
Griffiths, B. (2016). A faculty’s approach to distance learning standardization. Teaching and
Learning in Nursing, 11(4), 157–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2016.04.004
Hennissen, P., Crasborn, F., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Mapping
mentor teachers’ roles in mentoring dialogues. Educational Research Review, 3(2),168–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2008.01.001
Hogan, R., Fox, D., & Barratt-See, G. (2017). Peer to peer mentoring: Outcomes of third-year
midwifery students mentoring fist-year students. Women and Birth, 30(3), 206–213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2017.03.004
Jared, D., Oloko, M., & Oraw, G. (2015). The relationship between dynamic curriculum
capabilities and competitive advantage of technical, vocational and entrepreneurshiptraining institutions in Western Kenya Region. International Journal of Academic
Research in Progressive Education and Development, 4(3), 12–23.
Jarvis D. H., (2017). Universities and engagement: International perspectives on higher
education and lifelong learning (Book review). International Review of Education,
63(1), 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-016-9582-5

20

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Kellett, C. E., & Goldstein, A. E. (1999). Transformation in the university and thecommunity: The benefits and barriers of collaboration. Journal of Family andConsumer Sciences, 91(2), 31–35.
Khan, M. A. (2017). Achieving an appropriate balance between teaching and research ininstitutions of higher education: An exploratory study. International Journal of
Information and Education Technology, 7(5), 341–349.
https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.5.892
Khoshlessan, R., & Das, K. P. (2017). Analyzing international students' study anxiety inhigher education. Journal of International Students, 7(2), 311–328.
Kim, J. (2016). Development of a global lifelong learning index for future education. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 17(3), 439–463.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9445-6
Lieberman, D. (2016). How to select a mentor as a trainee and junior faculty.
Gastroenerology, 151(1), 17–19. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.05.014
Linse, A. R. (2017). Interpreting and using student ratings data: Guidance for faculty serving
as administrators and on evaluation committees. Studies in Educational Evaluation,
54, 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.12.004
Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2016). Education pays 2016: The benefits of higher
education for individuals and society. Trends in higher education series. New York,
NY: The College Board.
Maria-Monica, P. M., & Alina, M. C. (2014). Students-teacher perspectives on the quality ofmentor-teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 3559–3563.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.802
McNickle, C. P. (2014). Approaching a more holistic education. (Unpublished dissertation,
UniversityofNorth
Carolina,
Greensboro,
NC).
Retrievedfromhttps://search.proquest.com/docview/1652500578?accountid=188854
Morales, D. X., Grineski, S. E., & Collins, T. W. (2017). Faculty motivation to mentor
students through undergraduate research programs: A study of enabling andconstraining factors. Research in Higher Education, 58(5), 520–544.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-016-9435-x
Najdanovic-Visak, V. (2017). Team-based learning for first-year engineering students.
Education for Chemical Engineers, 18, 26–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2016.09.001
Noaman, A. Y., Ragab, A. H. M., Madbouly, A. I., Khedra, A. M., & Fayoumi, A. G. (2017).
Higher education quality assessment model: Towards achieving educational quality
standard. Studies in Higher Education, 42(1), 23–46.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1034262
Nolan, A., & Molla, T. (2017). Teacher confidence and professional capital. Teaching andTeacher Education, 62, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.11.004
Onnis, L. L., & Dyer, G. (2017). Maintaining hope: The intrinsic role of professional support.
The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education, and Practice, 12(1), 13–23.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMHTEP-04-2015-0014

21

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Orland-Barak, L. (2014). Mediation in mentoring: A synthesis of studies in teaching andteacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 180–188.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.011
Partanen, L. (2016). Student oriented approaches in the teaching of thermodynamics atuniversities – developing an effective course structure. Chemistry Education Researchand Practice, 17(4), 766–787. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00049E
Pescaru (Marinescu) T-G. (2017). Analysis of the main factors influencing student
satisfaction towards the university environment. Journal of Educational Sciences andPsychology, Ii(lxix) 1.
Pliner, S. M., & Johnson, J. R. (2004). Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles ofuniversal instructional design in higher education. Equity and Excellence in
Education, 37(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680490453913
Poorman, S. G., & Mastorovich, M. L. (2017). Promoting faculty competence, satisfaction
and retention: Faculty stories supporting the crucial need for mentoring whenevaluating nursing students. Teaching and Learning in Nursing, 12(3), 183–190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.teln.2017.01.006
Radojicic, A. Milenkovic, M. J., & Jeremic, V. (2017). Academic performance vs academic
reputation: What comes first – how well you perform and how others see yourperformance. In World University Ranking and the future of Higher Education,
Chapter 2, IGI Global Book series, Advances in Educational Marketing,
Administration and Leadership (AEMAL).
Rahat, E., & Ilhan, T. (2016). Coping styles, social support, relational self-construal, andresilience in predicting students' adjustment to university life. Kuram Ve Uygulamada
Egitim Bilimleri, 16(1), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2016.1.0058
Redmond, P. (2015). Discipline specific online mentoring for secondary pre-service teachers.
Computers & Education, 90, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.018
Roksa, J., & Whitley, S. E. (2017). Fostering academic success of first-year students:
Exploring the roles of motivation, race, and faculty. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(3), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0026
Sezer, B. (2016). Faculty of medicine students’ attitudes towards electronic learning and theiropinion for an example of distance learning application. Computers in Human
Behavior, 55, 932–939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.018
Schendel, R., McCowan, T., & Oketch, M. (2014). Global: The economic and noneconomic
benefits of tertiary education in low-income contexts. International Higher
Education, Fall(77), 6–8, https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2014.77.5673
Shephard, K., & Brown, K. (2017). How democratic is higher education for sustainable
development? Discourse, 38(5), 755–767.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2016.1150254
Simmons, D. R., Creamer, E. G., & Yu, R. (2017). Involvement in out-of-class activities: A
mixed research synthesis examining outcomes with a focus on engineering students.
Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 18(2), 10–16.
Singh, S., Misra, R., & Srivastava, S. (2017). An empirical investigation of student’s
motivation towards learning quantitative courses. The International Journal ofManagement Education, 15(2), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.05.001

22

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 2018

Sriarunrasmee, J., Techataweewan, W., & Mebusaya, R. P. (2015). Blended learning
supporting self-directed learning and communication skills of Srinakharinwirot
University’s first-year students. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 1564–
1569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.111
Stanford, C. (2014, Nov 26). Feel better, work better, be better. University Wire. Retrieved
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1627842145?accountid=188854
Stirling, B. V. (2017). Results of a study assessing teaching methods of faculty after
measuring student learning style preference. Nurse Education Today, 55, 107–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2017.05.012
Svojanovsky, P. (2017). Supporting student teachers’ reflection as a paradigm shift process.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 338–348.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.001
Symonds, W. C., Schwartz, R., & Ferguson, R. F. (2011). Pathways to prosperity: Meetingthe challenge of preparing young Americans for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA:
Pathways to Prosperity Project, Harvard University Graduate School of Education.
Trolian, T. L., & Barnhardt, C. L. (2017). Shaping students' civic commitments: The
influence of college cocurricular involvement. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0012
Tweddell, S., Clark, D., & Nelson, M. (2016). Team-based learning in pharmacy: The faculty
experience. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 7–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2015.09.008
Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonzalez, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teachingeffectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are notrelated. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007
Warr Pedersen, K., Pharo, E., Peterson, C., & Clark, G. A. (2017). Wheels of change inhigher education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 18(2),171–184. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-10-2015-0172
Willegems, V., Consuegra, E., Struyven, K., & Engels, N. (2017). Teachers and pre-service
teachers as partners in collaborative teacher research: A systematic literature review.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 230–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.014
Corresponding Author: Maurice Abi-Raad
Contact Email: mabiraad@ra.ac.ae

23

IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume 6 – Issue 1 – Spring 201824