A typology of supports for first generation college students in the u s the role of leadership and collaboration

Table 1 shows the average expenditures of postsecondary institutions for student services, academic and institutional support as well as net grant aid to students for the year 2012.First

or government support, and intended audience This chapter develops a typology of the support programs that currently exist to serve first generation college students attending four-year colleges and universities

in the United States It begins by exploring the academic and financial challenges many first generation college students face, and concludes by offering recommendations that institutional policymakers can implement to expand the possibilities for improving the success of this distinctive group of students.

INTRODUCTION

Given the widening gap of income inequality (Saez & Zucman, 2014) and the decline of social mobility

in the United States (Chetty, Hendren, Kline, & Saez, 2014), along with ample research on the economic returns to higher education (Arias & McMahon, 2001; Ashenfelter & Zimmerman, 1997; Bhuller, Mogstad,

& Salvanes, 2014; Carnoy, 1997; Jaeger & Page, 1996; Psacharopoulos, 1994; Rouse, 1999), addressing these social issues may be done through increasing the number of students who receive formal, post-secondary education and are the first in their families to do so These students – first generation college

A Typology of Supports for First Generation College

Students in the U.S.

The Role of Leadership and Collaboration

students – stand to gain the most social mobility through economic returns to postsecondary education (Bowen, Kurzweil, Tobin, & Pichler, 2006) Data from the U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that adults without a college degree earn less and are more likely to be unemployed (U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015) Because they enter college from a relatively low socioeconomic background, complet-ing college will likely increase their wages and standard of living above that of their parents, allowing for intergenerational social mobility (Duncan & Murnane, 2011; Fiske & Markus, 2012; Hout & Janus, 2011) In contrast to this, students whose parents received postsecondary education, upon completing college are likely only to match their parents’ standards of living While there have, historically, been programs that support first generation college students, these programs have been diverse in goals and implementation, ranging from addressing financial concerns to deficits in academic skills to cultural issues (Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014) This chapter offers a typology of the student supports for first generation college students currently in use in the United States for understanding the ways in which universities are currently working to improve college completion rates for these kinds of students.

BACKGROUND

This vignette, taken from an opinion article in the New York Times printed in 2015, offers an tion to the experiences of first generation college students This personal story offers a direct insight into the special challenges that first generation college students face Discussion of these challenges is provided in context with this vignette immediately preceding it

introduc-…a week into classes, I received the topics for what would be my first college paper, in an English course

on the modern novel I might as well have been my non-English-speaking grandmother trying to read and understand them: The language felt that foreign I called my mom at work and in tears told her that

I had to come home, that I’d made a terrible mistake.

She sighed into the phone and said: “Just read me the first question We’ll go through it a little at a time and figure it out.”

I read her the topic slowly, pausing after each sentence, waiting for her to say something The first topic was two paragraphs long I remember it had the word intersectionalities in it And the word gendered And maybe the phrase theoretical framework I waited for her response and for the ways it would encour- age me, for her to tell me I could do this, that I would eventually be the first in my family to graduate from college.

“You’re right,” she said after a moment “You’re screwed.”

Other parents — parents who have gone to college themselves — might have known at that point to courage their kid to go to office hours, or to the writing center, or to ask for help But my mom thought

en-I was as alone as en-I feared.

“I have no idea what any of that means,” she said “I don’t even know how it’s a question.”

While my college had done an excellent job recruiting me, I had no road map for what I was supposed

to do once I made it to campus I’d already embarrassed myself by doing things like asking my R.A what time the dorm closed for the night As far as I knew, there’d been no mandatory meeting geared toward first-generation students like me: Aside from a check-in with my financial aid officer when she explained what work-study was (I didn’t know and worried it meant I had to join the army or something) and where she had me sign for my loans, I was mostly keeping to myself to hide the fact that I was a very special kind of lost I folded the sheet with the paper topics in half and put it in my desk drawer (Capo Crucet, 2015)

The author of this op-ed shares her personal experience of being a first generation college student at

an elite, private university in the United States Her story reveals some common challenges that many first generation college students face – being underprepared academically, a lack of tangible academic or emotional support from family, and being unaware of cultural practices such as the ways in which dorms operate and what work-study means These types of issues collide in the experience of first generation

college students who, in the anthropological sense, find themselves othered upon the start of the academic year Coming from phenomenonology and sociology, otherness refers to a state of being outside of the

norm in some important way (J M Miller, 2008) From the works of Foucault (1990), Said (1979), and

de Beauvoir (2011), the process of othering – the social construction of the Other – is bound up with

language and knowledge power that operates differentially across social class, race, and gender For first generation college students, it is Foucault’s concept of knowledge-power that most clearly presents itself as these students lack the knowledge of the basics of university life, and sometimes the academic

knowledge necessary to success, that constructs them as somehow different – other – than their peers

Scholars have theorized that this alterity is directly related to the disparities in the retention rates between first generation college students and their peers whose parents have a college degree (Bergerson, 2007;

St John, Hu, & Fisher, 2011)

In the vignette provided above, the author notes how her college had done a great job with ment, but that they failed to address the very real feeling of being lost on campus that many first genera-tion college students encounter Like this author, many feel out of place, without guidance, and without much tangible support from back home While many first generation college students’ families are very proud of them, they are unable to offer the kinds of practical advice and emotional support that is needed simply because their children are experiencing something that they themselves have not experienced, in places that they themselves have not encountered This is the quintessential problem of the first genera-tion college student – having the abstract support of their families without practical guidance, and often without adequate academic preparation, while simultaneously having strong academic potential and the

recruit-drive and desire to be the first person in their family to complete college.

Achieving a baccalaureate degree is an accomplishment in and of itself; however, there are also specific economic reasons for seeking to become the first to complete college Specifically, economic returns to baccalaureate degrees are greater than those of associate degrees and high school diplomas (Grubb, 2002; Marcotte, Bailey, Borkoski, & Kienzl, 2005; Valentine et al., 2011) Retention in college

is greatly important also because the earnings associated with an occupational or vocational certificate are higher than those of students who completed some college but did not complete their degree (Grubb, 2002; Marcotte et al., 2005; Valentine et al., 2011) Overall, higher levels of education have economic impacts; more education is associated with higher employment rates, reduced use of publicly funded services and supports, and higher tax revenues generated from higher wages (Barrow & Rouse, 2005;

Kemple & Willner, 2008; Krolik, 2004; National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2004; Prince & Jenkins, 2005; Valentine et al., 2011) For these reasons, increasing college completion rates

is an economic objective as well as a social objective Not only does a postsecondary degree provide for social mobility for individuals, but it also provides economic benefits to society

In the following section, the reader will find a review of the literature around the attainment gap tween first generation college students and multi-generation college students In addition to the evidence

be-of academic attainment gaps, the reader will also find information about higher education finance issues

as they impact first generation college students Following a review of the evidence about these issues, the reader will find discussion of theories around why first generation college students struggle in com-parison to multi-generation college students, with a focus on academic preparedness and cultural capital

Academic Attainment Gap

There has been consistent data suggesting that there is a significant gap in completion rates between first generation college students and multi-generation college students Specifically, the U.S Department

of Education’s analysis in 2006 revealed that being a first generation college student reduced students’ probability of completing a bachelor’s degree by 21% (Adelman, 2006) Based on the data available at the time, a student’s status as a first generation college student was more damaging to their likelihood of completing a college degree than race or gender, and family income was the least influential in reducing the probability of finishing a bachelor’s degree (Adelman, 2006) A different analysis by Pike & Kuh (2005) found a 15% difference between first and second generation college students in the national av-erage three-year persistence rate Taken together, these findings suggest that there is something unique about being a first generation college student that deeply impacts student persistence to degree, above and beyond race, gender, and socioeconomic status – meaning that even being in a racial minority from a low socioeconomic status still has less to do with student persistence than if one or both of their parents obtained a bachelor’s degree

This gap in academic attainment has been theorized primarily through the work of Vincent Tinto (1987), whose foundational work in the field of higher education retention suggested that effective strategies for improving retention are predominantly related to the college or university’s overall com-mitment to students This theoretical framing has largely dominated the field in terms of understanding and improving student retention, framing a well-spring of research around ways colleges exhibit and expand their commitment to student success Tinto’s (1987) seminal work posits that student persistence

is related to overall integration into both the academic and social life of the university, and that ships with peers and faculty are critical for student retention It is from this theoretical framing that many postsecondary institutions turn to programs and policies that support students with integration into the university community

relation-Higher Education Finance

The role of finance – money, spending, costs, etc – is important when examining the challenges facing first generation college students Given that these students face particular challenges; some institutions provide specific supports (reviewed in the typology presented in this chapter) Additionally, many col-lege students in the U.S take out loans to help pay for their education, resulting in incurred debt upon completion Sometimes the costs of college tuition, room, and board are offset through grants and

scholarships, issued from the federal government, the college or university itself, or other organizations Table 1 shows the average expenditures of postsecondary institutions for student services, academic and institutional support as well as net grant aid to students for the year 2012.

First generation college students, when they do complete college, are more likely to carry high levels

of student loan debt (Lee & Mueller, 2014) Additionally, first generation college students are also more likely to default on their student loans (S P Choy & Li, 2006; Volkwein & Szelest, 1995; Volkwein, Szelest, Cabrera, & Napierski-Prancl, 1998) The percentages that colleges and universities spend on net grant aid to students (5% for public and 1% for private) seem very low in light of what is known about trends in student loan debt for first generation college students Additionally, most grant aid is awarded

to students from low-income families While the majority of first generation college students come from low-income families (Engle & Tinto, 2008), some do not, thus situating them at an even greater disadvantage in the likelihood of receiving grants to offset their loan burden

While postsecondary institutions spend low percentages of their budgets on direct aid to taged students, some funding is available to students, through their institutions, from state and federal programs The largest federal investment in these kinds of supports is through the TRIO program, housed within the United States Department of Education (“Federal TRIO Programs - Home Page,” 2015) The objective of TRIO was to increase access to postsecondary education among disadvantaged students, as defined by socio-economic status and racial or ethnic minority status (“Federal TRIO Programs - Home Page,” 2015; Timberlake, 2006) The two prongs of TRIO programming are the Student Support Services Program, which is designed to support individual students, and the TRIO Dissemination Partnership Program, which is designed to support institutions and agencies that serve disadvantaged students but otherwise do not have a TRIO grant The TRIO program offers grants to postsecondary institutions for development of and continuing support of programs and services for disadvantaged students (“Federal TRIO Programs - Home Page,” 2015; Timberlake, 2006)

disadvan-One example of a TRIO grant program is Project CONNECT at Sam Houston State University

in Huntsville, Texas Project CONNECT (Creating Opportunities for Navigating and Easing through College Transitions) program is designed to support low-income, first generation students in enrolling and persisting to graduation in higher education (“Welcome to Project CONNECT: A Student Support Services TRIO Program,” 2015) Project CONNECT focuses on persistence, academic performance, and graduation as a strategy to increase retention and graduation rates among these students Students are targeted at the start of their enrollment and invited and encouraged to utilize an array of services

Table 1 Expenditures by Postsecondary Sector for Select Categories Impacting First Generation lege Students

Col-Public Institutions Private Institutions (Not-for-Profit)

Expenditure Amount in U.S dollars Percentage of Total

Spending Amount in U.S dollars Percentage of Total Spending Student services,

academic and

institutional support

Net grant aid to students $15,435,492 5% $832,078 1%

Notes: Dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation and are shown in 2010 U.D dollars.

(McKeown-Moak & Mullin, 2014; Snyder & Dillow, 2012)

and discounted tickets to cultural events However, the program is limited in that it, “does not support non-minority FGC students who are neither low-income nor low-achieving” (Timberlake, 2006, p 41).

In addition to federal funding, some state funding is also available for the support of first generation college students The state of New York created the Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP)

to meet the needs of disadvantaged students studying at independent (private) postsecondary tions (“Arthur O Eve Higher Education Opportunity Program (HEOP),” 2015, “The Higher Education Opportunity Program helps economically and educationally disadvantaged students get the education they deserve,” 2015) HEOP is targeted to students who are in the lower half of their class’s academic ranking, score below average on college entrance exams, are residents of New York, and are economi-cally disadvantaged; the program also targets individuals who hold a GED or no high school diploma

institu-or equivalent (“The Higher Education Oppinstitu-ortunity Program helps economically and educationally disadvantaged students get the education they deserve,” 2015) HEOP provides an abundant amount

of resources to its participants including full tuition, 1-1 counseling, academic support, and continuing support beyond college (“The Higher Education Opportunity Program helps economically and education-ally disadvantaged students get the education they deserve,” 2015) However, it only supports students attending private colleges and universities, and it excludes first generation college students who are not low-achieving and/or economically disadvantaged (Timberlake, 2006)

Academic Preparedness and College Readiness

Academic preparedness, for the purposes of this chapter, refers to how “ready” a given student is to engage in postsecondary curriculum upon enrolling The concept of academic preparedness is one that comes up at nearly every transition point in schooling in the U.S – early childhood education discourse often focuses on kindergarteners being “ready to learn,” elementary schools (typically k-5) emphasize preparation for middle school (typically grades 6-8), and middle schools focus on high school (grades 9-12) readiness (Graue & Reineke, 2014) While each transition point calls for skills and knowledge specific to that age group, overall academic preparedness consists of having the academic skills and base of knowledge necessary to successfully navigate the next higher level of education For first gen-eration college students, academic preparedness means having preparation for, or exposure to, the kinds

of pedagogy, workload, and rigor characteristic of college and university classrooms (Nichols & Islas, 2015; Schademan & Thompson, 2015) This contributes to the stagnant college completion rates of first generation students as compared to students whose parents have a college degree or higher (Chen & Carroll, 2005; Engle & Tinto, 2008) Overall, average academic preparedness for first generation college students as measured by standardized tests and high school grade point average is lower than the average for students whose parents hold a college degree (S Choy, 2001)

Understanding the Variance in Academic Preparedness in the U.S.

As seen in the vignette provided at the beginning of this chapter, like the author of the vignette, many students begin postsecondary education inadequately prepared for the rigor and depth of a university education The author mentions that upon reading the “questions” she felt immediately overwhelmed; she was not accustomed to the depth of the questions or the academic terminology used within them This may lead one to wonder, how can this have happened? If she was recruited by the college and gained admission, surely she must be prepared for the academics This paradox lies in no small part to the wide

variation in curriculum content and rigor across the United States This variation stems, broadly, from two main topics within K-12 education in the U.S – governance structure and funding formulae for public schools.

Governance Structure

Per the United States Constitution, the right and purview of education is given to the states rather than the federal government (U.S Const amend XIX) Amendment 10 of the U.S Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people” (U.S Const amend XIX) Because education was not specifically listed as a responsibility of the federal government, it is thus delegated to states and localities As such, educational procedures, curriculum, and standards have developed separately among the fifty states, resulting in variations in what is taught, how it is taught, and what students are required

to know in order to graduate from high school and continue on to postsecondary education Evidence of this variation is found in student scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) This is a standardized test that is nationally representative – meaning that it is not specific to any one state’s curriculum Table 2 shows summary statistics for the latest available NAEP scores for Grade 8 Mathematics

Table 3 shows the school jurisdictions with the highest and lowest average scale scores in Grade

8 Mathematics for 2013 It is important to note that there are more jurisdictions in the bottom quarter than the top, suggesting that academic achievement across the country varies substantially based on geographic location within certain educational districts

Table 2.: Summary Statistics of NAEP Average Scale Scores for Grade 8 Mathematics, 2013

Notes: Fifty states plus the District of Columbia and Department of Defense school systems included Data retrieved from (“NAEP Data Explorer,” 2015).

Table 3 Highest and Lowest Average Scale, Scores for Grade 8 Mathematics, 2013

Average Scale Score

New Hampshire District of Columbia

Oklahoma West Virginia Notes: Data retrieved from (“NAEP Data Explorer,” 2015).

The distribution of scores across the states, shown in Figure 1 below, is overlaid with a normal bution From this overlay, the distribution is somewhat normal, with gaps This suggests that while taken together overall, academic achievement is mostly normally distributed, individual students are likely to have widely varying achievement levels based on state jurisdiction Grade 8 Mathematics for 2013 are shown as an example; however, similar variations in other subjects also exist.

distri-Figure 1 demonstrates how students from various states are performing in mathematics at Grade

8, ranging from 265-301 This speaks to the variation in academic achievement between states in that students’ academic preparedness can vary significantly depending on which school jurisdiction, both at the state level and within states, from which they come While not completely attributable to a loosely coupled governance structure (Weick, 1976), the variance in these scores is certainly impacted by it

K-12 School Funding

Generally speaking, most K-12 schools, regardless of location (i.e state), are funded by approximately at the following levels by government sector: 9.1% federal, 46.5 state, and 44.4% local (Baker, Sciarra, & Farrie, 2010) Local funding most often is generated from property taxes that cover homes and vehicles This affects school funding in that more wealthy areas generally produce higher revenues from property taxes and can therefore spend more money on local schools (Guthrie, Springer, Rolle, & Houck, 2007) However, in areas that are economically depressed, property tax revenues are typically much lower as fewer people in the are can afford to own their own home and vehicle This results in wide disparities

Figure 1.

Notes: Data retrieved from (“NAEP Data Explorer,” 2015).

between schools and school districts within the states as local contributions to school funding vary greatly (Guthrie et al., 2007) The variance in local funding, the largest portion of overall funding for K-12 schools, results in variance in school quality, leading to variations in students’ academic prepared-ness as they enter colleges and universities from different locales.

Understanding the Variance in College Readiness in the U.S.

When examining programs that support student retention for first generation college students, it is tant to understand not only the disparities in academic preparedness among incoming college students, but also the disparities in college readiness College readiness differs from academic preparedness in that it denotes characteristics associated with successful transitions to college in addition to academic factors Whereas academic preparedness refers explicitly to a students’ capacity to successfully engage with the curriculum, college readiness refers to academic preparedness along with skills ranging from financial literacy and support, to openness to new concepts, cultures, and people, to personal grit and beliefs about one’s own college readiness, to maturity and the emotional security to participate in the re-examination of one’s self, society, and one’s place in it that stems from traditional liberal arts based postsecondary education All of these factors, and undoubtedly more that the authors have not listed, play a role in a first generation college students’ decision to stay or to drop out of college In fact, Heck-man and Lochner (2000) found that long-run family factors that promote college readiness are more important than commonly believed, concluding that, “An exclusive emphasis on cognitive skills misses the important point that non-cognitive and social skills are equally important and more easily altered” (p 78) Their analysis would suggest that persistence to a postsecondary degree is formed by human capital that is comprised of academic capital, social capital, and cultural capital

impor-Cultural Capital

Of the issues within the umbrella of college readiness, one that is less obvious than things like financial support or academic preparedness is incoming students’ cultural capital As discussed in the introduc-tion, first generation college students experience alterity in the college and university setting Because they are the first in their families to attend college, these students often do not share the same tacit skills and knowledge as their peers to empower them to navigate the social-cultural landscape (Bergerson, 2007) While the transition to college is difficult for all students, first generation students experience disconnects between home and school more so than their peers (R R Jehangir, 2009) Additionally, first generation students have less knowledge coming into college about the college experience than second generation students (York-Anderson & Bowman, 1991) Recognizing their need for support in this dimension, Schlossberg, Waters, & Goodman (1995) developed a theory of college transition that claims four factors mainly influence transition – social support consisting of intimate relationships, family units, networks of friends, and institutions and communities

Another way of conceptualizing the issue of cultural capital with respect to college readiness among first generation students is through Bourdieu’s theory of habitus (1973) Habitus refers to one’s cultural habitat, which becomes internalized in the form of dispositions to act, think, and feel in certain ways These culturally determined bodily dispositions have no representative content, and at no stage pass through consciousness – they are internal Habitus is acquired through one’s acculturation into certain social groups such as social classes, a particular gender, family, peer group, or even nationality

Bourdieu’s concept of social reproduction through educational systems is directly related to habitus (1990) As students whose habitus is different from the majority of their peers enter college, they are presented with two opposing options – develop a new habitus or leave college Given the difficulty of changing one’s habitus – internalizing and absorbing a new set of dispositions and cultural norms – many first generation students may find leaving college the better option Social class structures are then reinforced as social mobility decreases when students from working class or poor backgrounds less frequently obtain a college degree and the access to a middle class lifestyle it can provide Framed

by Bourdieu’s theories of habitus and social reproduction, institutionally supporting first generation college students is disruptive to the societal status quo Envisioning the cultural capital needs of these students as an area for which programmatic supports might be put into place calls into question the role and purpose of postsecondary education and issues of fairness Is it fair for postsecondary institutions

to treat all students equally, or is it more fare to treat unequal students equally in an effort to “level the playing field?” This tension is brought to light within the typology presented later in the chapter

Moving Towards a Typology

In conjunction with understanding the drivers behind the college completion gap between first generation college students and multi-generation college students, it is important to also assess what is currently being done to address this gap The typology presented in this chapter seeks to fill this gap, allowing policymakers, university administrators, and scholars of higher education to gain a broad picture of the kinds of programs and interventions currently in use in the U.S In addition to the overall typology, we also provide discussion of important characteristics of these interventions and programs, examining the kinds of institutional commitments, cultures, and requirements that are necessary for these kinds of support programs

DEVELOPING A TYPOLOGY FOR UNDERSTANDING PROGRAMS

THAT SUPPORT FIRST GENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS

Significance

A typology of supports for first generation college students is needed within the scholarly and ner literatures First, no such conceptual classification currently exists, and the typology presented here provides a conceptual framework for future researchers seeking to comparatively measure the impact

practitio-of different programs Gale and Parker (2014) practitio-offer a typology practitio-of student transitions to college, broadly classifying three different paradigms for conceptualizing student transitions and institutional responses to them as: transition as induction, transition as development, and transition as becoming (p.738) However, this typology considers all college students together, providing a way to think about college transition generally; this neglects the specific challenges first generation college students face when transitioning to college Additionally, Valentine et al (2011) provide a systematic review of college retention programs, including effect size calculations However, none of the studies they identified targeted first generation college students specifically This suggests that scholarly inquiry around retention programs designed to specifically meet the needs of first generation college students is an area that is yet largely unexamined

This study is also needed within the scholarly and practitioner literature because the typology sented in this chapter also provides insights around the implementation of various programs and inter-ventions Specifically, as postsecondary administrators and policymakers contemplate existing supports

pre-or the institution of new supppre-orts fpre-or first generation college students, considering the dimensions and characteristics of these interventions presented in the typology can help facilitate greater understanding

of the foreseeable challenges to implementation in addition to different options

For example, if an administrator or policymaker considers a support structure for first generation college students, and her or his institution has done well with intra-institutional collaboration in the past, programs that necessitate high levels of collaboration may be considered On the other hand, if the institution is highly siloed – having an organizational culture wherein departments do not interact , a program that requires a great deal of collaboration may not be the best option Changing organizational culture is notoriously slow and difficult (Burke, 2014; Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Tierney, 1988), making programs that rely on cultural changes within the postsecondary institution difficult to garner support for, to implement, and to sustain over time In fact, Burke (2014) suggests that as much of 95% of change

is evolutionary, occurring incrementally In reference to the structure of education as often “loosely coupled” (Weick, 1976), Burk (2014) goes to say that, “The “looser” these interdependencies, the less likely that overall organization will occur” (p 77)

Methods

In order to generate a typology, the authors relied on the methods of systematic research Mays, Pope,

& Popay delineate the steps of systematic research as including the following:

1 Identifying the broad focus of the review and searching for and mapping available evidence,

2 Specifying the review question,

3 Selecting studies to include in the review,

4 Extracting data and appraising study quality,

5 Conducting the synthesis, and

6 Reporting and disseminating the results of the review

Figure 2 shown below provides a graphical representation of the iterative nature of the systematic review process Figure 2 was developed from the works of Dunkin (1996) and Mays et al (2005) It is the iterative yet systematic aspects of the method that the authors most closely followed in the development

of the typology; all portions of the process shown in Figure 2 were not fully completed as this project does not claim a systematic review of the research

Loosely following the methods of systematic review listed above, the authors kept detailed records

of the search terms and databases used to construct the typology In systematic reviews, the purpose of the process is to synthesize all research about a phenomenon (Andrews, 2005; Cooper & Hedges, 1994; Mays et al., 2005) In this case, the authors were less interested in ensuring that all possible sources

of information were assessed for inclusion or exclusion in a synthesis of the best available research Instead, this project focused on deep immersion in the literature to inductively produce a typology of programs for the support of first generation college students The process of immersion and inductive coding was drawn from methods of qualitative inquiry (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Marshall & Rossman, 2011; Popay, Rogers, & Williams, 1998) While

the authors do not suggest that this study was ethnographic, the process of immersion in order to derstand a phenomenon within the practice of ethnography provided a template for development of the typology (Margaret D LeCompte & Goetz, 1982; Margaret Diane LeCompte, Preissle, & Tesch, 1993) Whereas an ethnography might be immersed in a culture or community to understand a phenomenon, the authors underwent a textual immersion to inductively arrive at common characteristics of the programs discovered by the searches.

un-During the first stage, the authors searched for studies, beta-testing different search terms and niques As searching commenced, we identified additional search terms and revised the list of terms

tech-as needed Using the iterated, a priori list of search terms, the authors searched for scholarly literature about current programs in place at various postsecondary institutions across the United States to get a sense of what is currently being done to support first generation college students, as well as the extent

of empirical research on the efficacy of these programs Table 4 lists the iterations of the search terms, the fields in which the terms were used, the databases of scholarly literature in which the search terms were applied, the number of results, and the number of the results that were pertinent to this project

the program relies on administrative leadership for support, and 3) the extent to which the program relies

on collaboration From this coding, the authors developed a typology along the following 8 dimensions:

Dimension 1: Target – whom the program or intervention was intended to serve

Dimension 2: Restrictions – any restrictions on eligibility for receiving the support program or service Dimension 3: Support Focus – cognitive or noncognitive

Dimension 4: Dominant Paradigm – if the support program or service is passive in nature, relying on

students to choose to participate or if the intervention actively requires first generation students

to participate

Dimension 5: Mode of Delivery – the method by which the intervention is delivered to students Dimension 6: Inter-Institutional Collaboration – the degree to which postsecondary institutions must

collaborate with other institutions or organizations to implement the intervention

Dimension 7: Intra-Institutional Collaboration – the degree to which various groups of stakeholders

within a postsecondary institution must collaborate to implement the intervention

Dimension 8: Reliance on Leadership – the degree to which the intervention relies on active support

from college administrators and leaders for both initial implementation and sustainability

The dimensions used in the typology grew out of the authors’ emergent sense of nuances between

various programs beyond the original a priori characteristics The dimensions are provided below in

Table 5, along with specifications of categories within each dimension

Table 4 Search Results for Developing Typology

“first generation college students” and

programs “first ” in Title; programs in all text ERIC 32 12

“first generation college student success” all text ERIC 0 0

“first generation college students” and

support and services “first…” in Title; support in all text; services in all text ERIC 14 6

“first generation college student” and

“first generation college students” and

programs “first ” in Title; programs in full text JSTOR 8 3

“first generation college student success” full text JSTOR 0 0

“first generation college students” and

support and services “first…” in Title; support in full text; services in full text JSTOR 8 4

“first generation college student success” exact phrase anywhere in

“first generation college students” and

“first generation college students” and

“first generation college students” and

“support” or “services” all in title Google Scholar 59 9

Total 47

The authors chose not to include support programs or services from community colleges for two reasons The first is that most of the programs and services the authors encountered were centered on simply getting students to enroll at community college, rather than supporting them through to a 4-year degree The second reason for excluding community colleges from this typology is the dismal transfer rate

of community college students to four-year institutions (Bradburn & Hurst, 2001; Dougherty & Kienzl, 2006; Peter & Cataldi, 2005) As this typology is meant to frame understandings of what is currently being done to support first generation college students in completing a 4-year degree, the aforementioned reasons led the authors to exclude community college programs, though research suggests that those who do transfer into four-year degree programs are equally likely to graduate as students who began at

a four-year institution (Melguizo, Kienzl, & Alfonso, 2011)

Table 5 Typology of Student Support Programs for First Generation College Students at 4-year degree granting institutions

Dimensions Reliance on Collaboration

Target Restrictions Support Focus Dominant Paradigm Mode of Delivery Inter-institutional Intra-institutional Reliance on Leadership

high

school

students income-based

Cognitive (academic knowledge, study skills, organization skills, etc.)

passive (student chooses to be involved)

summer program

High (involves multiple other organizations in addition to the postsecondary institution)

High (involves multiple faculty, departments, administrative units)

High (Active Support from Leadership Needed)

active (college requires student involvement)

classes or specific course

Medium (involves 2-3 other organizations in addition to the postsecondary institution)

Low (involves 2-3 other organizations in addition to the postsecondary institution)

Low (involves 2-6 faculty or staff that are connected organizationally)

Low (Acquiescence

of Leadership Needed)