Effects of a “Focused Interest” Career Course Approach for College Students

1986 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT W. LENT ◽  
KEVIN C. LARKIN ◽  
CAROL S. HASEGAWA
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Career Course

Career Development Courses and Educational Outcomes

2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie M. Hansen ◽  
Aaron P. Jackson ◽  
Tyler R. Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Career Development ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Educational Outcomes ◽  
Graduation Rate ◽  
Grade Point Averages ◽  
Grade Point ◽  
Career Course ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Development Course

Research suggests that career development courses have positive impacts on college students’ career development outputs. What is less established is the impact of these career courses on educational outcomes like retention, graduation rate, and academic performance. This study compared two groups of undergraduate students: one that successfully completed a career development course ( n = 3,546) and a matched group of students who did not take the career course ( n = 3,510). The groups were compared on graduation rate, time to graduation, course withdrawals, and cumulative grade point averages (GPAs). The career development course was not a significant predictor of graduation within 6 years, the number of semesters to graduate, or the number of withdrawals incurred. However, the career development course did significantly predict the total number of credits (participants graduated with about five more credits) and cumulative GPA at graduation (participants graduated with higher GPAs).

The effects of a career course on undecided college students

1983 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 346-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack R Rayman ◽  
Carole B Bernard ◽  
John L Holland ◽  
David C Barnett
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Career Course ◽  
Undecided College Students

Lessons Learned From Coaching Postsecondary Students With Traumatic Brain Injury

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-96
Author(s):  
Mary R. T. Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Traumatic Brain Injury ◽  
Brain Injury ◽  
Sense Of Self ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Sudden Onset ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Exhaustive List

Purpose The purpose of this clinical focus article is to provide speech-language pathologists with a brief update of the evidence that provides possible explanations for our experiences while coaching college students with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Method The narrative text provides readers with lessons we learned as speech-language pathologists functioning as cognitive coaches to college students with TBI. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather to consider the recent scientific evidence that will help our understanding of how best to coach these college students. Conclusion Four lessons are described. Lesson 1 focuses on the value of self-reported responses to surveys, questionnaires, and interviews. Lesson 2 addresses the use of immediate/proximal goals as leverage for students to update their sense of self and how their abilities and disabilities may alter their more distal goals. Lesson 3 reminds us that teamwork is necessary to address the complex issues facing these students, which include their developmental stage, the sudden onset of trauma to the brain, and having to navigate going to college with a TBI. Lesson 4 focuses on the need for college students with TBI to learn how to self-advocate with instructors, family, and peers.

Effects of Physical Training on Stuttering

1968 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Don Franks ◽  
Elizabeth B. Franks
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Group Therapy ◽  
Physical Training ◽  
Cardiovascular Response ◽  
Training Group ◽  
Physical Stress ◽  
Submaximal Exercise ◽  
Endurance Running ◽  
Response To Exercise

Eight college students enrolled in group therapy for stuttering were divided into two equal groups for 20 weeks. The training group supplemented therapy with endurance running and calisthenics three days per week. The subjects were tested prior to and at the conclusion of the training on a battery of stuttering tests and cardiovascular measures taken at rest, after stuttering, and after submaximal exercise. There were no significant differences (0.05 level) prior to training. At the conclusion of training, the training group was significandy better in cardiovascular response to exercise and stuttering. Although physical training did not significantly aid the reduction of stuttering as measured in this study, training did cause an increased ability to adapt physiologically to physical stress and to the stress of stuttering.

The Effects of a Neutral Stimulus (Buzzer) on Motor Responses and Disfluencies in Normal Speakers

1969 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 179-184 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard R. Martin ◽  
Gerald M. Siegel
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Neutral Stimulus ◽  
Motor Responses ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
And Control ◽  
Speaking Task

Seventy-two college students were divided into three groups: Button Push-Speech (BP-S), Speech-Button Push (S-BP), and Control. BP-S subjects pushed one of two buttons on signal for 8 min. During the last 4 min, depression of the criterion button caused a buzzer to sound. After the button-push task, subjects spoke spontaneously for 30 min. During the last 20 min, the buzzer was presented contingent upon each disfluency. S-BP subjects were run under the same procedures, but the order of button-push and speech tasks was reversed. Control subjects followed the same procedures as S-BP subjects, but no buzzer signal was presented at any time. Both S-BP and BP-S subjects emitted significantly fewer disfluencies during the last 20 min (Conditioning) than during the first 10 min (Baserate) of the speaking task. The frequency of disfluencies for Control subjects did not change significantly from Baserate to Conditioning. In none of the three groups did the frequency of pushes on the criterion button change significantly from minute to minute throughout the 8-min button-push session.

Distinctive Phonetic Features as Relevant and Irrelevant Stimulus Dimensions in Speech-Sound Discrimination Learning

1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-425
Author(s):  
Stuart I. Ritterman ◽  
Nancy C. Freeman
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Discrimination Learning ◽  
Irrelevant Dimension ◽  
Speech Sound ◽  
Irrelevant Stimulus ◽  
Relevant Dimension ◽  
Phonetic Features ◽  
Sound Discrimination ◽  
Nonsense Syllables

Thirty-two college students were required to learn the relevant dimension in each of two randomized lists of auditorily presented stimuli. The stimuli consisted of seven pairs of CV nonsense syllables differing by two relevant dimension units and from zero to seven irrelevant dimension units. Stimulus dimensions were determined according to Saporta’s units of difference. No significant differences in performance as a function of number of the irrelevant dimensions nor characteristics of the relevant dimension were observed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document