First-Generation College Students

Pascarella, Ernest T.; Pierson, Christopher T.; Wolniak, Gregory C.; Terenzini, Patrick T.

doi:10.1080/00221546.2004.11772256

Cited by 368 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additional research into the student characteristics associated with the different types of academic leavers could lead to further interventions. For instance, first-generation students and students from low-income households often hold jobs outside of school and play a greater role in supporting their families, making it more difficult to maintain an acceptable collegiate GPA (Pascarella et al, 2004;Tinto, 2012). Thus, providing additional financial supports or allowing for flexible scheduling may help these students succeed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These obstacles can include inadequate study skills and academic preparation, job responsibilities, family responsibilities, and weaker academic self-efficacy (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004;Stebleton & Soria, 2012;Tinto, 2012). Thus, it appears that first-generation college students have a unique blend of preentry attributes and nonacademic commitments that can make collegiate persistence and success a particular challenge.…”

Section: Preentry Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Final Is Leaving College While in Academic Jeopardy? Examining the Utility of Differentiating College Leavers by Academic Standing

Kopp¹,

Shaw

2015

Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Pr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retention research rarely differentiates between students dismissed from an institution for poor academic performance versus students leaving by choice. As a proxy for studying academic dismissal, this study investigated differences between students leaving college in academic jeopardy after the first year (<2.00 grade point average) and those leaving in good standing. These two types of academic leavers differed sharply in their 6-year completion outcomes, with students leaving in good standing most likely to receive a degree from another 4-year institution and students leaving in academic jeopardy most likely to not receive a postsecondary degree in 6 years. Further, these two groups differed on a number of student demographic and academic characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, first-generation college student, SAT scores) and institutional characteristics of first institution attended (e.g., freshman class size). Future research should consider differentiating between these two types of academic leavers when examining retention and designing-related interventions. Higher education researchers have conducted numerous rigorous studies on student persistence in college, examining the who, what, why, how, when, and where of students' leaving and returning to postsecondary institutions. The attention to this issue is well deserved, as students leave their first institution at relatively high rates, with only about 51% of students obtaining a bachelor's degree from their first 4-year institution in 6 years (Radford, Berkner, Wheeless, & Shepherd, 2010). Of those students not attaining a bachelor's degree from that first institution in 6 years, 25% enroll at another institution, 17% left college and never enrolled at another institution, and 5% were still enrolled at their first institution. Total estimates of 4-year degree completion tend to be around 63% of college entrants (Tinto, 2012). We are losing many students along the way-in particular in the first 2 years of college, with 67% of all students leaving their first 4-year institution in the first 2 years (Tinto, 2012), and research has clearly shown that discontinuous college enrollment and attending multiple institutions are associated with decreased degree completion rates (Goldrick-Rab, 2006). Student departure from an institution due to academic dismissal tends to account for less than 25% of departures (Tinto, 1993), and there is very little retention research comparing characteristics and outcomes of students who have been academically dismissed from college to those leaving an institution voluntarily (Brost & Payne, 2011;Cherry & Coleman, 2010;Cogan, 2011;Ott, 1988). In other words, in the plethora of studies examining student predictors of attrition in college, the outcome of attrition is rarely parsed by voluntary and involuntary leavers (Cherry & Coleman, 2010;Mattern, Marini, & Shaw, 2015). This may be an artifact of student data availability in databases of college outcomes. Noting that a student did not return to an institution is...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Preentry Attributesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Final Is Leaving College While in Academic Jeopardy? Examining the Utility of Differentiating College Leavers by Academic Standing

Kopp¹,

Shaw

2015

Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Pr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, measures of aptitude such as the ACT and SAT commonly have been used to predict college success (Willingham, Lewis, Morgan, & Ramist, 1990). Students' demographic factors, such as gender, ethnicity, financial status, and whether they are first-generation students, also have been shown to relate to college success (e.g., Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004;Richardson & Bender, 1987). After summarizing 39 studies predicting college GPA based on a range of factors including high school GPA, SAT scores, personality characteristics, and demographic factors, Mouw and Khanna (1993) concluded that overall our ability to predict college success on the basis of any of these factors is disappointingly low.…”

Section: Predicting College Student Successmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychosocial Factors Predicting First-Year College Student Success

Krumrei-Mancuso

Newton

Kim

et al. 2013

csd

197

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Student success is at the heart of the educational enterprise. College success helps students to meet long-term personal and career goals and provides a range of monetary, psychosocial, and physical benefits (Baum & Ma, 2007). For years, concern has been expressed about graduation rates (Swail, 2004). Only slightly more than half (57%) of full-time students first going to a 4-year institution seeking a bachelor's degree end up achieving that goal within 6 years (National Center for Education Statistics, 2010, Indicator 21). Furthermore, given the high rate of students who discontinue their education at their original institution, retention is a popular topic within provides a reference list of over 1,400 publications on student retention. In addition, the entrepreneurial market has developed numerous consulting organizations that aid universities in increasing retention.Retaining students until graduation is often a direct fulfillment of the mission of institutions of higher learning. Colleges and universities are concerned with preparing students for productive roles in society. Students who terminate their education prior to graduation lose the time and finances that they have invested in the educational process without gaining the benefits of a degree. Admitting a student into the institution carries with it a certain level of commitment on the part of the institution to support the success of the student. Secondarily, retention is of concern to institutions for financial reasons. When students discontinue, a university is faced with the loss of campus resources that have been invested in the student as well as the loss of future revenue in the form of tuition.Students discontinuing their education may reflect a failure on the part of the institution to support students' progress or respond to students' needs. Colleges and universities have invested a great amount of money in retention services (e.g., preparation courses, first-year seminars, academic success centers, advising interventions, tutorial programs, and counseling) in the hopes of retaining students through graduation. These represent substantial investments to improve student opportunities for success. Seidman (2005) indicated that promoting student success involves early identification of individual needs followed by a prescription for action.Psychosocial learning factors are useful points of intervention for professionals to actively promote student success (Krumrei & Newton, 2009). Institutions of higher education are in need of assessments of psychosocial learning factors that can be used to customize interventions to students' characteristics . Given institutional cost Psychosocial Factors 4 restraints, it would benefit colleges and universities to make use of tools in house rather than allocating substantial funding toward private consulting organizations promising retention results. Measuring College Student SuccessTinto (1987, 2005) observed that efforts to promote student success are hampered when research focuses on student attrition ra...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since then, the numbers of poorer and first generation college students have only increased. Furthermore, many noted researchers in the field still acknowledge that not enough is known about how low socioeconomic college students experience and manage college life (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004;Pike & Kuh, 2005).The rest of this paper will further define and explore the parameters of these issues and then utilize original research on academically resilient students to provide specific approaches faculty can adopt to increase the degree of resilience and persistence among first generation college students. These suggestions will be categorized and explained, then justified through related research literature.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Learning from Success: How Original Research on Academic Resilience Informs what College Faculty Can do to Increase the Retention of Low Socioeconomic Status Students

Morales

2014

IJHE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Utilizing resilience theory and original research conducted on fifty academically resilient low socioeconomic status students of color, this article presents specific objectives and values institutions of higher learning can adopt and emphasize to increase the retention and graduation of their most statistically at-risk students. Major findings and suggestions include: constantly build students' self-efficacy; help students realistically appraise their own strengths and weaknesses; encourage help seeking tendencies; and provide clear linkages between academic success and future economic security.According to a recent report from National Center for Education Statistics, by the year 2022, White and Asian students will increase their attendance on college campuses by 7%, whereas the rate will be 26% for African American students and 27% for Hispanics, two groups with disproportionately higher poverty rates (Hussar & Bailey, 2014). These students will continue to make up larger and larger percentages of students on college campuses nationwide. While these can be viewed as positive and exciting forecasts, they bring with them new sets of challenges.Given the changing racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic demographics of the United States, as well as shifts in expectations as to who seeks a college degree, a majority of institutions of higher education are struggling with one essential question: How do we retain and graduate greater numbers of ethnic minorities and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds? The consequences of not meeting this challenge can be viewed on both a macro and micro level. From a societal perspective, unemployment rates, reliance on public social service agencies, incarceration rates, and America's place in the global hierarchy are all either directly or indirectly linked with the successful education of working class and poor students, many of whom are ethnic minorities. On a more local level, as more and more first generation college students enter colleges across the country (Jehangir, 2010), institutions are increasingly recognizing the value of effectively meeting their needs (Bastedo & Gumport, 2003), for if they don't, current and future enrollment targets may not be met. Furthermore, those with the most influence over the potential success of these students, college faculty, already acknowledge the need for, and desire, effective ways of meeting their needs (Erisman & Looney 2007).The difficulties colleges face in effectively teaching and graduating lower socioeconomic status students, often from ethnic minority backgrounds, continues to be a pressing issue. However, the issue is not a new one. Back in the early 1970s K. Patricia Cross (1971) famously talked specifically of the inability of colleges to adjust to the needs of the changing student bodies of the time. Since then, the numbers of poorer and first generation college students have only increased. Furthermore, many noted researchers in the field still acknowledge that not enough is known about how low socioeconomic ...

show abstract

First-Generation College Students

Cited by 368 publications

References 14 publications

How Final Is Leaving College While in Academic Jeopardy? Examining the Utility of Differentiating College Leavers by Academic Standing

How Final Is Leaving College While in Academic Jeopardy? Examining the Utility of Differentiating College Leavers by Academic Standing

Psychosocial Factors Predicting First-Year College Student Success

Learning from Success: How Original Research on Academic Resilience Informs what College Faculty Can do to Increase the Retention of Low Socioeconomic Status Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About