Rachel F. Pickett, Ph.D., Concordia University Wisconsin
The Suder Foundation is committed to assisting four-year public universities in providing a data-driven approach to increasing the graduation rate of first-generation college students. The foundation awarded a program development grant to three university research teams at the following institutions: Morehead State University, Texas Tech University, and The University of Utah. The work from these projects informed the Suder Foundation’s First Scholars initiative. Following is a summary of the research grants.
First-generation college (FGC) student enrollment has reached record highs and college student enrollments are becoming more diverse (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2008). First-generation college students are more likely to come from ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in higher education and/or lower socioeconomic groups (Bui, 2002). Despite increasing numbers of these students entering college, they continue to leave higher education at greater rates when compared to their peers (Seidman, 2005). These students face additional challenges in navigating the college experience. For example, FGC students must navigate between various identities: ethnic, familial, personal, social, cultural, and community (Orbe, 2004). They also may have to overcome numerous barriers. For example, financial issues and difficulties with the financial aid system (Padilla, Trevino, Trevino, and Gonzalez, 1997) or inadequate academic preparation (Murphy and Hicks, 2006). In order to engage these students productively in society in future, the availability of appropriate support services in higher education for FGC is critical. Merely admitting FGC students to college and allowing them access to higher education without supporting their success is not real opportunity (Engle and Tinto, 2008).
There are a number of college student success factors that have been identified in the literature. The work of the Suder Foundation’s various university research teams is important because the practical aspect of creating working university programs by directly incorporating student success factors is less researched (Kuo, et al., 2004).
In working with FGC students, institutions and programs must go beyond solely acknowledging pre-college cognitive factors such as high school GPA, high school class rank, and standardized test scores (e.g., ACT or SAT). In order to promote successful academic performance and retention in FGC students it is essential to consider non-cognitive student characteristics (Ting, 1998; 2003).
Robbins and colleagues (2004; ACT, 2004), identified ten critical skills for college student success that represent psychosocial and study skills factors gleaned from an extensive meta-analysis. Gore, Leuwerke, and Metz (2009) investigated these ten factors. Four of the ten indicated only weak links to student success: general determination, goal striving, study skills, and communication skills. They found that six emerged as the most useful predictors of student outcomes: academic engagement, educational commitment, campus engagement, social comfort, academic self-efficacy, and resiliency. Each of the six factors will be reviewed and support services/interventions will be discussed.
Academic engagement considers the degree to which a student views oneself as conscientious and hardworking. This factor also takes into account how much effort a student puts into academic tasks such as class projects or studying. Motivational theory models (Covington, 2000; Eccles and Wigfield, 2002) concentrate on the relationship between performance behaviors and students’ academic performance. The need to achieve and the desire to perform academically, as demonstrated by academic engagement, directly impacts academic performance, according to these theorists. In addition, leadership experience is a predictor of retention and academic performance (i.e., GPA) for college students (Ting, 1998; White and Sedlacek, 1986). Students who display high levels of academic engagement may be more likely to be leaders on campus.
Academic engagement can be enhanced through a number of support services and interventions. Skill-building workshops offered to FGC students may be aimed at improving study skills, time management, and academic prioritization. Academic advising also may play a critical role in improving this college success factor. Thompson and colleagues (2007) mentioned that positive academic advising experiences were correlated with better time-management skills and less stress. In addition, community service opportunities may assist FGC students in building leadership skills (Ting, 2003).
Educational commitment represents a student’s dedication to persisting in college and earning a degree. Tinto’s (1975; 1993) model of educational persistence suggests that demographic variables (e.g., socioeconomic status, family background, high school performance), academic and social integration, as well as commitment to institutional goals predict retention. Gardner (2001) emphasized the greatest risk for students to drop out of college occurs between the first and second year. If a strong educational commitment can be established during the first year of college, FGC students may be more likely to persist in spite of the challenges and barriers they face.
Support services and interventions that may be used to increase educational commitment include career counseling, academic advising, and financial planning. Career counseling can assist a student in identifying a career path and drawing clear connections between college majors and occupations, as well as exploring professional life values. Academic advising can provide students with a well-informed direction related to educational planning and academic decision-making, which may make them more likely to persist in college (Cuseo, 2003). Lastly, financial assistance is a key element to attending and persisting in college for FGC students (Astin, 1993; Solórzano, Villalpando and Oseguera, 2005).
Campus engagement reflects how connected a student feels to the college community as well as one’s level of involvement in student life. Bean’s (1980; 1983) student attrition model emphasizes academic engagement and social involvement, two constructs widely supported in the literature (e.g., Berger and Milem, 1999). Astin (1985) indicated that student involvement leads to greater likelihood of success and educational commitment. Additionally, Belch, Gebel and Maas (2001) emphasized the significance of social integration into the campus community for student success. Students who feel they belong at an institution are more likely to be successful (Thompson, Orr, Thompson, and Grover, 2007).
First-generation college students’ levels of campus engagement can be strengthened by encouraging them to participate in various interventions and resources aimed at increasing their involvement in extra-curricular areas of interest, organized school sponsored events, and time spent on campus. In addition, faculty-student interaction has been shown to contribute to academic performance (e.g., Anaya and Cole, 2001; Cokley et al., 2006; Lundberg and Schreiner, 2004). This is in line with Bean’s model discussed above, as he suggested faculty-student interaction as a means of bolstering student campus engagement.
Social comfort is defined by how comfortable a student feels meeting and interacting with others. Connecting with social and peer networks in college is related to academic success for FGC students (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, and Terenzini, 2004). Developing a social support network of peers provides students with a safe base throughout their college career (Dennis, Phinney, and Chauteco, 2005).
Social comfort can be increased by encouraging students to take part in student organizations, volunteer activities, and recreational resources that will broaden their social network. Personal counseling may be helpful in assisting students to manage issues such as social anxiety that may get in the way of formulating positive relationships with peers. Also, increasing assertiveness may assist students in setting appropriate boundaries and handling social pressures that get in the way of their academic success. Lastly, creating a college life support group made up of FGC students would allow them to engage in dialogue and form meaningful relationships with each other (Folger, Carter, and Chase, 2004).
Academic self-efficacy is a student’s belief in one’s ability to perform well in school. This factor is based on Bandura’s (1986; 1993) social learning theory where he defined the concept of self-efficacy. There is overwhelming support in the literature for the connection between high academic self-efficacy and academic success (e.g., Chemers, Hu, and Garcia, 2001; Ramos-Sanchez and Nichols, 2007). Ramos-Sanchez and Nichols also indicated that self-efficacy levels at the start of the academic year predicted later adjustment. Students with low self-efficacy are prone to try less and give up more easily. These students tend to have lower expectations for themselves, which translate into weaker academic performance (Hackett, Betz, Casas, and Rocha-Singh, 1992; Mayo and Christenfeld, 1999).
According to Bandura (1986; 1993), an individual’s self-efficacy is strengthened by experiencing success, receiving social persuasion (i.e., verbal expression of confidence from others), having vicarious learning experiences through role models — ideally, models who share common traits with the individual (e.g., gender or FGC student status) — and managing physical/emotional states during tasks. These can be fostered through career counseling, personal counseling, or academic advising. Providing FGC students with student and faculty mentors will also bolster academic self-efficacy. Mentoring relationships have been investigated as academic enrichment and retention strategies for undergraduate student success (Cole, 2007; Jacobi, 1991; Walker and Taub, 2001).
Resiliency is classified as appropriate management of feelings and emotions across a variety of social and academic situations. As mentioned above, FGC students face additional challenges and barriers compared to non-first-generation counterparts. In addition, according to Wang and Castaneda-Sound (2008), FGC students reported more somatic complaints in contrast to their peers. Students’ perception of the stressors they encounter as college students is directly related to their ability to cope with difficult situations and the pressures of college life (Phinney and Haas, 2003).
First-generation college students’ resiliency can be further developed by personal counseling and health/wellness services that include teaching stress relief practices, positive life skills, and emotional management techniques. Family support and connection to home communities may also serve to improve FGC students’ well-being.
Considering the above six characteristics of student success is imperative to promoting the success and support of FGC students. Centralization of the support services and interventions mentioned above will greatly assist FGC students in improving these six areas and becoming more successful in college. The Suder Foundation’s commitment to increasing the resources available to FGC students is important work. In order to assess the unique needs of each FGC student, utilizing a data-driven decision-making framework, requires an effective and efficient assessment plan. Several assessment instruments were reviewed; the following assessments are considered to be the most appropriate and psychometrically reputable.
Gore and Leuwerke (2009) created an instrument based on the original data gleaned from the meta-analysis conducted by Robbins and colleagues (2004; ACT, 2004). The Student Strengths Inventory (SSI) is an evidence-based assessment instrument used to predict college student outcomes and identify at risk students. The SSI measures six dimensions of student success and persistence factors: academic engagement, educational commitment, campus engagement, social comfort, academic self-efficacy, and resiliency. These factors have been demonstrated to be the most useful predictors of student outcomes. The SSI was created in order to develop and implement comprehensive student support efforts on campus as well as direct students to specific support services based on their strengths and weaknesses as identified by the SSI. The SSI contains 48 items and utilizes a six-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” It also collects demographic data such as race/ethnicity, parental educational levels, high school GPA, and standardized admission test scores. Over the course of the summer and fall of 2009, the instrument was piloted and administered to over 7,000 students in both high schools and colleges. The SSI represents the most up-to-date research findings on student success factors. It provides easy-to-read, personalized reports for the student and advisor, highlighting strengths and weaknesses. The measure is concise and cost-effective, as well.
The College Student Inventory (CSI; Stratil, 2009), managed by Noel-Levitz, was also explored as a potential assessment instrument. The CSI was created to identify motivational variables connected to college success and persistence as well as identify at-risk students. Primary categories include: academic motivation, social motivation, general coping, and receptivity to support services. However, after careful review, it was determined that, with nearly 200 items and several interpretation formats, it was too cumbersome and may hinder the work of students and their advisors/counselors instead of serving as a user-friendly tool.
The Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey 2009, from the Higher Education Institution (HERI) at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), is designed for administration to incoming first-year students. The instrument collects extensive information on the characteristics of incoming students before they experience college. The instrument contains 42 items and utilizes a combination of Likert scale and forced-choice response formats. Additionally, the institution may add up to 20 original items of its own. Key sections of the survey include: established behaviors in high school, academic preparedness, admissions decisions, expectations of college, interactions with peers and faculty, student values and goals, student demographic characteristics, and concerns about financing college. Over the course of its 40+-year history, the CIRP Freshman Survey has collected data on over 13,000,000 students at over 1,900 institutions, and is the largest U.S. study of higher education. The survey provides opportunity for longitudinal assessment as well as linking students attending institutions across the country. The CIRP Freshman Survey is used by researchers and practitioners to examine readiness for college, as well as college choice factors, values/beliefs with respect to diversity issues and civic engagement, and student expectations of higher education. A follow-up version, the CIRP College Senior Survey, can also be administered.
Both the SSI and the CIRP Freshman Survey allow for comparisons of individual student growth and comparisons among student cohorts, as well as comparisons among students across institutions. Both measures also assist in identifying characteristics, strengths/weaknesses, and experiences unique to each FGC student, which facilitates the creation of an individualized treatment plan for college success. The student information provided by the SSI and CIRP Freshman Survey is supported in the literature to be critical factors for student success. Finally, both instruments provide an assessment of progress and change in FGC students over time, which makes it possible to evaluate program effectiveness. These two assessments will assist universities and practitioners in making data-driven decisions with respect to FGC student success initiatives. The Suder Foundation has chosen to utilize the SSI in the First Scholars initiative.
ACT (2004). The role of psychosocial and study skill factors in predicting college outcomes: A national incremental validity study. Iowa City, IA: Author.
Anaya, G., and Cole, D. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence of student-faculty interaction on college grades. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 3–14.
Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117.
Bean, J. P. (1980). Dropouts and turnover: The synthesis and test of a causal model of student attrition. Research in Higher Education, 12, 155–187.
Bean, J. P. (1983). The application of a model of turnover in work organizations to the student attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 6, 129–148.
Belch, H. A., Grebel, M., and Mass, G. M. (2001). Relationship between student recreation complex use, academic performance, and persistence of first-time freshmen. NASPA Journal, 38, 254–268.
Berger, J. B., and Milem, J. F. (1999). The role of student involvement and perceptions of integration in a causal model of student persistence. Research in Higher Education, 40, 641–664.
Bui, V. T. (2002). First-generation college students at a four-year university: Background characteristics, reasons for pursuing higher education, and first-year experiences. College Student Journal, 36, 3.
Chemers, M., Hu, L., and Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 55–64.
Chronicle of Higher Education (2008). 2008–2009 Almanac, 55, 14.
Cokley, K., Rosales, R., Komarraju, M., Shen, F., Pickett, R., and Patel, N. (2006). Assessing the quality of student-faculty interactions. Journal of the Professoriate, 1, 53–67.
Cole, D. (2007). Do interracial interactions matter? An examination of student-faculty contact and intellectual self-concept. Journal of Higher Education, 78, 249–281.
Cuseo, J. B. (2003). Academic advisement and student retention: Empirical connections and systemic interventions. Invited paper posted on the First-Year Assessment Listserv, Policy Center for the First Year of College. Brevard, NC (http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/CuseoRemarks.htm).
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., and Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support, and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 223–236.
Eccles, J. S., and Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109–132.
Engle, J., and Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College success for low-income, first-generation students. Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.
Folger, W. A., Carter, J. A., and Chase, P. B. (2004). Supporting first-generation college freshmen with small intervention. College Student Journal, 38, 472–475.
Gardner, J. N. (2001). Focusing on the first-year student. Priorities, 17.
Gore, P. A., Jr., and Leuwerke, W. C. (2009, October). Development and validation of the Student Strengths Inventory: A measure supporting data-driven programs to promote student success and retention. Rocky Mountain Association for Institutional Research Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
Gore, P. A., Jr., Leuwerke, W. C., and Metz, A. J. (2009, October). Non-cognitive and motivational factors in student success. Retrieved from http://studentstrengthsinventory.com/resources.html.
Hackett, G., Betz, N. E., Casas, J. M., and Rocha-Singh, I. A. (1992). Gender, ethnicity, and social cognitive factors predicting the academic achievement of students in engineering. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 527–538.
Jacobi, M. (1991). Mentoring and undergraduate academic success: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505–532.
Kuo, J., Hagie, C., and Miller, M. T. (2004). Encouraging college student success: The instructional challenges, response strategies, and study skills of contemporary undergraduates. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31, 60–67.
Lundberg. C., and Schreiner, L. (2004). Quality and frequency of faculty-student interactions as predictors of learning: An analysis by student race/ethnicity. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 549–565.
Mayo, M., and Christenfeld, N. (1999). Gender, race and performance expectations of college students. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 27, 93–104.
Murphy, C. G., and Hicks, T. (2006). Academic characteristics among FGC students and non-FGC. College Quarterly, 9, 2–20.
Orbe, M. P. (2004). Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames: An analysis of first-generation college students. Communication Education, 53, 131–149.
Padilla, R. V., Trevino, J., Trevino, J., and Gonzalez, K. (1997). Developing local models of minority student success in college. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 125–135.
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., and Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students. Journal of Higher Education, 75, 249–284.
Phinney, J. S., and Haas, K. (2003). The process of coping among ethnic-minority first-generation college freshman: A narrative approach. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 707–726.
Ramos-Sanchez, L., and Nichols, L. (2007). Self-efficacy of first-generation and non-first-generation college students: The relationship with academic performance and college adjustment. Journal of College Counseling, 10, 6.
Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., and Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 261–288.
Seidman, A. (2005). Minority student retention: Resources for practitioners. New Directions for Institutional Research, 125, 7–24.
Sólorzano, D. G., Villalpando, O., and Oseguera, L. (2005). Educational inequities and Latina/o undergraduate students in the United States: A critical race analysis of their educational progress.
Stratil, M. L. (2009). College Student Inventory. Coralville, IA: Noel-Levitz, Inc.
Ting, S. (1998). Predicting first-year grades and academic progress of college students of first-generation and low-income families. Journal of College Admission, 158, 14–23.
Ting, S. (2003). A longitudinal study of non-cognitive variables in predicting academic success of first-generation college students. College and University Journal, 78, 27–31.
Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45, 89–125.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the cause and cures of student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago.
Thompson, D. E., Orr, B., Thompson, C., and Grover, K. (2007). Examining students’ perceptions of their first-semester experience at a major land-grant institution. College Student Journal, 41, 640–648.
Walker, S. C., and Taub, D. J. (2001). Variables correlated with satisfaction with a mentoring relationship in first-year college students and their mentors. Journal of the First Year Experience and Students in Transition, 13, 47–67.
Wang, C. D. C., and Castañeda-Sound, C. (2008). The role of generational status, self-esteem, academic self-efficacy, and perceived social support in college students’ psychological well-being. Journal of College Counseling, 11, 101–118.
White, T. J., and Sedlacek, W. E. (1986). Noncognitive predictors: Grades and retention of specially-admitted students. Journal of College Admissions, 111, 20–23.
© 2012 The Suder Foundation • 3701 E. Plano
Parkway, Plano, TX 75074 (469) 429-2200 info@suderfoundation.org • Affiliates’ log-in
First Scholars is a registered trademark of The Suder Foundation.
