First Generation Students and Student Success

Recent estimates suggest that by the year 2015, underrepresented and nontraditional students will account for two-thirds of the collegiate population within the United States (Gohn & Albin 2006). These students represent various demographic characteristics including ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, and ability. However, the fastest growing at-risk group is first-generation college (FG) students (Choy 2001, Pike & Kuh 2005). These students come from a family in which neither parent has received a bachelor’s degree, and they make up a significant proportion of the general student population at higher education institutions (Choy 2001, Horwedel 2008). Research also shows half these students will fail to graduate, particularly from four-year institutions (Swail 2003, Siedman 2005). According to the literature, FG students are more likely to be academically under prepared, come from low income and minority backgrounds, and be less engaged in the higher education experience than continuing generation college students. (Horn 2002, Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin 1998, Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004, Pike & Kuh, 2005).

Retention is an increasingly important issue for colleges and universities. State legislatures and accrediting organizations have demanded greater accountability resulting in retention and graduation rates being tied to funding and accreditation.
The U.S. Department of Education emphasized student retention rates when it
worked with Congress to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. Data indicates the
retention record of most colleges for first- and second-year students is not good.
The Department of Education has examined retention policies and ways to use
federal money in an incentive fashion to reward programs that work (DeBerard &
Spelman, 2004, p. 31).

At the institutional level, “attrition represents a direct loss of tuition income and, other things being equal, a failure to accomplish their educational missions” (Bean 2005). The increased pressure and accountability for retention is both complex and critical for the sustainability of colleges and universities. This has resulted in a number of research attempts to explain factors that contribute to student persistence. Since first-generation college students represent a larger proportion of at-risk students, it is essential that higher education institutions understand the unique characteristics of this population so that they may develop appropriate policies and programs to enhance their success. Therefore, the purpose of this review of literature is to define first-generation students, understand their common experience and describe their transition from high school to college.
The definition of a first-generation student focuses on the highest level of a parent’s education and includes different “acceptable‟ types of postsecondary education. Billson and Terry (1982) and York-Anderson and Bowman (1991) classified students as FG if “neither of their parents nor siblings attended college for 1 year”. Some researchers considered students first-generation if neither of their parents had more than a high school education (Choy 2001, Ishitani 2006, McConnell 2000, Pascarella et al. 2004, Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2007, Warburton et al., 2001). Engle et al. (2006) defined this student as one “whose parents have not attended college and/or have not earned a college degree” thus including both students whose parents had earned only a high school diploma and those who had some college. Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin (1998) defined first generation students as “those [students] whose parents’ highest level of education is a high school diploma or less. In cases where parents have different levels of education, the maximum education level of either parent determines how the student is categorized”. It is important to know what definition is being used. Depending on the demographics of the institution and the purpose of the study, researchers have used different definitions.

Choy (1998 & 2001) examined three national longitudinal studies (the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS:88),The Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) and the Baccalaureate and Beyond Study (B&B)) and compared those students where at least one parent completed a minimum of a bachelor’s degree to two separate groups of FG students: (1) students whose parents had earned a high school diploma or less and (2) students whose parents had attended “some college” but had not earned a baccalaureate degree. Ishitani (2006) used the above groupings and also included students whose parents had earned at least a bachelor’s degree, in his study on role of parents’ education in degree completion.

As stated previously, first generation students represent a growing segment of the college-going population and, as a group, share some common characteristics. They tend to work more than their peers, they score lower on standardized tests, and they have lower high school GPA’s. (Pascarella et al., 2004). According to Nunez & Curraro-Alamin (1998) they are often female, older, married and have children. First generation students are more likely to be Black or Hispanic and are more likely to originate from low-income backgrounds when compared to their peers (Bui 2002, Chen 2005, Choy 2001, Nunez & Curraro-Alamin 1998, Terenzini 1996). In a follow-up study to Nunez, Warburton (2001) found that FG students were more likely to speak a language other than English at home. Not only do they share some common demographic characteristics, but also similar pre-college experiences. As a group, these students are less academically prepared for college (Choy 2001).
Horn and Nunez (2000) found that a rigorous high school curriculum can greatly improve the chances that first-generation students will go to college. In his work, Adelman (2006) defines “rigor” as “academic intensity and the quality of one’s high school curriculum” Horn and Kojaku (2001) further defined a rigorous curriculum as one that included: 4 years of English, 3 years of a foreign language, 3 years of social studies, 4 years of mathematics (including pre-calculus or higher), 3 years of science (including biology, chemistry & physics) and at least one Advanced Placement (AP) course taken. According to Horn and Nunez (2000), taking advanced math courses in high school more than doubles the chances that first-generation students will enroll in a four-year college. In their study of the relationship between high school academic curriculum and college persistence, Horn and Kojaku (2001) found that low income and FG students were less likely to complete a rigorous high school program and were more likely to “leave the bachelor’s degree tract” after three years of college. Ishitani (2006) determined a positive correlation between graduating in four years to those who completed a more rigorous high school curriculum.
Contributing factors include the lack of familial encouragement and availability of college preparatory courses. The combination of students with involved, encouraging parents who also take a rigorous HS course load, enroll in college regardless of parental educational level (Horn & Nunez 2000, Hossler, Schmit, and Vesper 1999). Unfortunately, FG students reported receiving less encouragement and support, and to some extent discouragement, from their parents when going to college (Billson & Terry, 1982; Horn & Nunez, 2000; Terenzini et al., 1996). Due to a lack of exposure to postsecondary education, the parents of first-generation students may not have been aware of the social and economic benefits of college attendance (Voile & Federico, 1997). Additionally, they might have lacked knowledge or had misperceptions about the college-going process, particularly about costs and financial aid, which may have led them to discourage their children from pursuing postsecondary education (Vargas, 2004). First-generation students and their parents often lack access to key informational sources regarding the process of preparing, applying, and paying for postsecondary education, as well as the admission process (Choy 200, Oliverez & Tierney 2005, Vargas 2004). Consequently, FG students were less likely to complete the necessary steps toward enrolling in college, especially a four-year institution, even if they were college-qualified and had aspirations to attend college (Berkner & Chavez 1997, Choy, 2001, Voile & Federico 1997).

As early as eighth grade, first-generation students have low expectations about the highest level of education they will attain (Choy, 2001). In twelfth grade, approximately 53% of FG students expected to earn a bachelor's degree, compared to nearly 90% of their peers (Berkner & Chavez, 1997; Choy, 2001). First-generation students who do enroll in college are much more likely to choose to attend less selective institutions, even when they are qualified for admission to more selective ones (Berkner & Chavez 1997, Pascarella et al., 2004). This is due to a number of factors, primarily related to cost and location. First-generation students are more likely to cite obtaining financial aid, finishing in a short period of time and being able to work while attending college as very important reasons for their choice of institution. FG students are also more likely to choose institutions that are close to home and/or that allow them to live at home (Inman & Mayes 1999, Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005, Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). According to Pascarella et. al (2004) and Vargas (2004), attending a less selective two- or four-year college or university can have a negative effect on a student's chance of earning a degree. In addition, FG students who do attend college are less likely to enroll in a four-year institution; are less likely to attend full time, are more likely to “stop out” and are more likely to leave without earning a degree (Chen 2005, Choy 2001, Engle, et al., 2006). Furthermore, according to Choy (2001) and Ishitani (2003) 16% of FG students who enroll in 4-year institutions leave before the second year.
Further studies have shown that first generation students work more hours and tend not to live-on campus or develop relationships with faculty members (Kuh & Pike 2005, Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella, & Nora,1996). In addition, they are less likely to develop relationships with other students and less likely to become involved in on-campus activities (Billson & Terry, 1982; Kuh & Pike, 2005; Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Terenzini et al., 1994; Terenzini et al., 1996). Additionally, FG college students are more likely to be dissatisfied with the campus environment (Kuh & Pike, 2005; Terenzini et al., 1996).
As summarized in Terenzini et al. (1996), first-generation college students have more difficulty transitioning from secondary school to college than peers with parents who have attained college degrees. Students whose parents are college educated tend to experience college as a continuation of their academic and social experiences in high school. FG students, however, often experience college as a disjointed from their familiar academic and social patterns. Students often feel alienated from their families if they have been discouraged from going to college. First-generation students think that they are not college material, which leaves them doubting their academic and motivational abilities. In order for them to successfully transition, they must overcome these personal challenges (Striplin, 1999).

As stated previously, FG students tend to be less prepared academically for college than their peers. Chen and Carroll (2005) provided a comprehensive analysis of the first-generation students by studying the 2000 Postsecondary Education Transcript Study (PETS) and the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988.
This study identified a number of distinguishing characteristics of FGCS, who
typically completed fewer credits, took fewer academic courses, earned lower
grades, needed more remedial assistance, and were more likely to withdraw from
or repeat courses they attempted. As a result, the likelihood of attaining a
bachelor’s degree was lower for first-generation students compared to their peers
whose parents attended college.

They often require remedial coursework and lack study and time-management skills; they also experience more difficulty navigating the bureaucracy of the university, and have less confidence in their academic abilities (Richardson & Skinner, 1992; Terenzini et al., 1996). Moreover, first-generation students tend to perform at lower levels academically (Chen & Carroll 2005, Lohfink & Paulsen 2005, Nunez & Cuccarco-Alamin 1998, Pascarella et al., 2003, 2004; Warburton et al., 2001). The lower performance and persistence rates of first-generation students are attributable to the fact they lack the necessary financial resources and are less likely to engage in the successful academic and social experiences such as studying, interacting with faculty and other students, participating in extracurricular activities and using support services (Kuh & Pike 2005, Billson & Terry 1982, Lohfink & Paulsen 2005, Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin 1998, Pascarella et al, 2003& 2004, Richardson & Skinner 1992, Terenzini et al., 1996).
In evaluating degree completion of students by socio-economic status (SES), Cabrera and colleagues (2005) found that those students with higher academic preparation were more likely to graduate. However, only 25% of the lowest SES students had access to higher education resources versus 59% of those at the highest SES levels. SES students who did complete rigorous high school academics and had access to resources, performed in college at the same level as non-first generation students (Warburton et. al, 2001, Horn & Kojaju 2001). In conjunction with curricular rigor, academic performance (HS GPA, class rank & performance on standardized college entrance test) factor significantly into a FG student’s successful degree completion (Chen 2005, Choy, 2001 & 2002, Engle et al., 2006, Ishitani, 2006; Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). Furthermore, they confirmed that students with higher GPAs, test scores and rank were more likely to graduate from college, regardless of SES or FG status. Inshitani (2006) found students in the highest class rank quintile were more likely to graduate. However, according to Chen (2005), Ishitani (2006) and Warburton et. al., (2001) first-generation students and those who are economically disadvantaged are less likely to appear in this group. Regardless, research has found that increases in financial aid (in the form of grants, scholarships and work study) increase the likelihood that first-generation students will persist in college. The converse is also true, that an increase in debt is often a contributing factor of students leaving college. (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005).

First-generation students not only face barriers to their academic and social integration, they also confront obstacles with respect to cultural adaptation due to disparities between the culture (e.g., norms, values, and expectations) of their families and communities, and the culture that exists on college campuses. Rendon (1992) describes first-generation students often experience problems "that arise from [living] simultaneously in two vastly different worlds while being fully accepted in neither." At home, first-generation students report that relationships with family and friends who did not go to college often become strained and difficult to maintain, as they are perceived as changing and separating from them, which causes intense stress for these students (Rendon 1992, Richardson & Skinner, 1992, Terenzini et al., 1994, 1996).

On campus, first-generation students, particularly those of racial and ethnic minority backgrounds, often describe themselves as unprepared for the isolation and alienation they feel upon entering college (Richardson & Skinner, 1992). First-generation students are more likely to view the campus environment, particularly the faculty, as less supportive and less concerned about them (Kuh & Pike, 2005; Terenzini et al., 1996). The extent to which first-generation students can participate in and transition across these two worlds, which can be aided or impeded by the level of support available at home and on campus, has a significant impact on whether they can be successful in college.

Student retention is both a financial and ethical challenge for colleges and universities. Because of this, greater efforts to understand today’s college students are being made across the country. However, these studies currently do not include non-heterosexual students. Student retention theories are attempting to explain student departure in order to provide colleges and universities methods for systematically creating policies and processes to retain their students and further studies and necessary to understand the unique needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered students.

Because of the complexity of first generation students and the diverse nature of higher education institutions, colleges and universities must not only understand the broad concepts of the FG student but also apply these findings to their unique situations. In today’s complex and challenging higher education environment – characterized by a burgeoning college-bound population, escalating costs, lagging state support, intense scrutiny from state and federal agencies – colleges and universities must be able to put policies and practices in place that promote student success.
 

REFERENCES



Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisited: Paths to degree completion from high
school through college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Vocational and Adult Education (ED).

Bean, J. (2005). Nine Themes of College Student Retention. In Seidman, A. (Ed.)
College Student Retention: Formula for student success. American Council on
Education and Praeger Publishers. Westport, CT.

Berkner, L., & Chavez, L. (1997). Access to postsecondary education for 1992 high
school graduates. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Billson, J. & Terry, B. (1982). In search of the silken purse: Factors in attrition among first generation students. College and University, 58, 57-75.

Bui, K. 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(1), 3.

Cabrera, A.F., Burkum, K.R. & LaNasa, S.M. (2005). Pathways to a four year degree:
Determinants of transfer and degree completion. In A. Seidman (Ed.), College
student retention: A formula for student success (pp.155-209). Westport, CT:
Praeger Publishers.

Chen, X., & Carroll, C. D. (2005). First-generation students in postsecondary education: A look at their college transcripts (Postsecondary education descriptive analysis report, NCES 2005-171). Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005171

Choy, S. (1998). First generation students: Undergraduates whose parents never
enrolled in postsecondary education. Washington, DC: U.S. National Center for Education Statistics http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=98082

Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access,
persistence, and attainment. Findings from the Condition of Education, 2001.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf

DeBerard, S., & Spelmans, G. (2004). Predictors of Academic Achievement and
Retention Among College Freshmen: A Longitudinal Study. College Student
Journal, 38(1), 66-80.

Engle, J., Bermeo, A., & O’Brien, C. (2006). Straight from the source. Washington
D.C.: The Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education.

Gohn, L. A., & Albin, G. R., (Eds.). (2006). Understanding college student
subpopulations: A guide for student affairs professionals. National
Association of College and Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA)

Horn, L., and Kojaku, L.K. (2001). High school academic curriculum and the
persistence path through college: Persistence and transfer behavior of
undergraduates 3 years after entering 4 year institutions. Washington D.C.:
National Center for Education Statistics.

Horn, L., & Nunez, A. (2000). Mapping the road to college: First-generation students'
math track, planning strategies, and context of support. Education Statistics
Quarterly, 2, 81-86.

Horn, L., Peter, K., & Rooney, K. (2002). Profile of Undergraduates in US
Postsecondary Institutions: 1999-2000. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary
Student Aid Study.

Horwedel, D. M. (2008). Putting first-generation students first. Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 25(5), 10–12.

Hossler, D., Schrnit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic,and educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD:The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Inman, W. E. & Mayes, L. (1999). The importance of being first: Unique characteristics of first generation community college students. Community College Review,26(4), 3-22.

Ishitani, T. T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among firstgeneration students: Time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 433.

Ishitani, T.T. (2006). Studying attrition and degree completion behavior among first
generation college students in the United States. The Journal of Higher
Education, 77(5), 861-885.

Kuh, G. D., & Pike, G. R. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A
comparison of their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of Higher Education, 76, 276-300.

Lohfink, M. M., & Paulsen, M. B. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first-generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student
Development, 46(4): 409-428.

McConnell, P. J. (2000). What community colleges should do to assist first-generation
students. Community College Review, 28(3), 75.

Nunez, A. & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First generation students: Undergraduates
whose parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES 1999-082). Washington D.C. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/2001126.pdf

Oliverez, P. M., & Tierney, W. G. (2005). Show us the money: Low- income students,
families, and financial aid. Los Angeles: Center for Higher Education Policy
Analysis.

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C, & Terenzini, P. T. (2003). Experiences and outcomes of first-generation college students in community colleges. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 420-429.

Pascarella, E., Pierson, C. Wolniak, G. & Terenzini, P. (2004). First generation
students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of
Higher Education 73(3): 249-284.

Pike, G. & Kuh, G. (2005). A typology of student engagement for American colleges
and universities. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 185-209.

Prospero, M., & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2007). First generation college students: Motivation,integration, and academic achievement. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(12), 963–975.

Rendon, L.I. (1992). From the barrio to the academy: Revelations of a Mexican American scholarship girl. In L.S. Swerling and H.B. London (Eds.), First generation students: Confronting the cultural issues (pp. 55-64). New Directions for Community Colleges, No.80. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Richardson, R. C, Jr., & Skinner, E. F. (1992). Helping first-generation minority students achieve degrees. In L. S. Zwerling & H. B. London (Eds.), First-generation
students: Confronting the cultural issues (pp. 29-43). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Seidman, A. (Ed.). (2005). College Student Retention: Formula for student success.
American Council on Education/ Praeger Series on Higher Education.
Striplin, J. J. (1999). Facilitating transfer for first-generation community college students(ERIC ED430627). http://www.eric.ed.gov

Swail, W. S., (2003). Retaining minority students in higher education: A framework
for success. ASHE-ERIC Report. Jossey-Bass Higher Education Series.

Terenzini, P. T., Rendon, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L.,et al. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research
in Higher Education, 35(1), 1-22.

Terenzini, P. T.; Springer, Leonard; Yaeger, Patricia; Pascarella, Ernest & Nora, Amaury (1996). First-generation college students: Characteristics,experiences, and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 37(1), 1-22: DOI: 10.1007/BF0168003

Voile, K., & Federico, A. (1997). Missed opportunities: A new look at disadvantaged
college aspirants. Washington, DC: The Educational Resources Institute and The
Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Warburton, E.C., Bugarin, R., Nunez, A.. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic
preparation and post-secondary success of first-generation students (Statistical
Analysis Report No. NCES 2001-153). Washington DC: U.S. National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2001153

York-Anderson, D. & Bowman, S. (1991). Assessing the college knowledge of first
generation and second generation students. Journal of College Student
Development, 32, 116-122.