article research

Reference 1

Database used

Allen, J.M., Muragishi, G.A., Smith, J.L., Thoman, D.B., & Brown E. R. (2015). To grab and to hold: Cultivating communal goals to overcome cultural and structural barriers in first-generation college students’ science interest. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 1(4), 331-341.

DB: EBSCO Host

Type and purpose of study

Hypothesis or Research Questions

Qualitative Study using survey

Hypothesis 1 (pg. 335): Examine the relationships among communal purpose goals and science interest for undergraduate students.

Tool: Work Values Scale

Hypothesis 2 (pg. 336): Examine how the noncommunal structure of science education and training creates a barrier to FGS’ science access.

Tool: Life Goal Assessment Questionnaire

Population and Sample

Study 1: 211 Undergraduate Students (91 FGS, 120 CGS)

Study 2: 77 Undergraduate Research Assistants from Mountain West and West Coast Universities (25 FGS, 52 CGS)

Methodology

Study 1: Undergraduate students at a minority-serving institution were invited to participate in an online study on math and science experiences. They were given a $10 gift cards for participating. The Work Values Scale was utilized and responses placed on a scale from 1-7 pts. and averaged. The higher points indicated higher purpose goals or interest.

Study 2: The RAs were recruited through faculty mentors and participated in a survey. Step 1: Enrollment- provided a description of their lab research and FGS status. Step 2: Follow-up survey after 3 semesters. Step 3: Follow-up survey on residential mobility. Participants received $35 gift cards for each survey completed. The Life Goal Assessment Questionnaire was utilized. Used ANCOVA to control for SES and ethnicity.

Findings and Conclusions

Study 1: FGS students indicated a great interest in science when it fulfilled a prosocial communal goal. FGS instead of SES or ethnicity was found to be a driving factor.

Study 2: The FGS prosocial communal goal negatively predicted residential mobility. Not so in CGS. SES and ethnicity did not correlate with residential mobility.

To grab and hold onto FGS interest in science there needs to be emphasis on the prosocial communal goal. However, relocation is a barrier, especially to West and Midwestern students.

Evaluation Notes

The study looked at two similar groups at different times in the academic paths. The first study was larger than the 2nd. Both studies found similar outcomes. Exclusion criteria for both studies were incomplete surveys or self-identification as Asian American.

Reference 2

Database used

Blackwell, E., & Pinder, P. J. (2014). What are the motivational factors of first-generation minority college students who overcome their family histories to pursue higher education? College Student Journal, 48(1), 45-56.

DB: EBSCO Host

Type and purpose of study

Hypothesis or Research Questions

Qualitative study using a grounded theory approach and semi-structured interviews.

Research question from pgs. 47-48: What were the factors that motivated first-generation minority college students to overcome their family history to become the first in their family to pursue a college degree.

1. What experience(s) made you decide to attend college?

2. How were your home or high school environmental experiences different from your siblings? And, do you think this led to your decision to attend college and not your siblings?

3. Who were the people who influenced your decision to attend college?

4. Why was attending college important for you?

Population and Sample

Two-way process: 1st- homogenous sampling of three African American FGS women from very large families. 2nd- A heterogenous group of two third-generation (CGS) college students (comparison group) from very small families.

Methodology

Axial and in vivo codes were used. Questions revised between interviews. Questionnaire created to gather more information from some students.

Findings and Conclusions

Causal: 1) love of reading at an early age, 2) felt different from their siblings at an early age, 3) wanted a better life.

Phenomena: All 3 women worked throughout college.

Context: All three were poor or lived in poverty.

Intervening conditions/Actions: Positive parental support/Friendships and sibling support

Comparison Group: Both CGS participants were expected to go to college.

Evaluation Notes

Very small sample sizes which may make it difficult to generalize the findings. Required the participants to reflect back up to 50 years in the past which may have affected their remembering of triggers leading to their decision making regarding college. All participants were of the same ethnicity which did not allow for comparison between ethnic groups.

Limitations: Lack of information on participant’s siblings. Sample size.

Reference 3

Database used

Covarrubias, R. & Fryberg, S.A. (2015). Movin’ on up (to college): First generation college students’ experiences with family achievement guilt. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(3), 420-429. DOI: 10.1037/a0037844

DB: EBSCO Host

Type and purpose of study

Hypothesis or Research Questions

Study 1: Quantitative study via survey using IGQ subscale with open ended and closed ended measures. (20 min questionnaire)

Hypothesis (pg. 422): Whether first generation and Latino college students experience greater survivor guilt or family achievement guilt vs. continuous generation and White college students.

Population and Sample

Study 1: 121 undergraduate students (53 FGC, 68 CGS) from Introduction to Psychology class from Univ. of Arizona in exchange for course credit.

Study 2: 183 undergraduate students (58 FGC, 125 CGC) from Introduction to Psychology class from Univ. of Arizona in exchange for course credit.

Methodology

Study 1: Student completed a 20 min. questionnaire of open and closed ended questions related to family achievement guilt and survivor guilt. 2 research assistants were blinded to both the hypotheses and the school status of the participants and asked open ended questions related to family achievement guilt. A chi-square analysis was used to test for differences in reported experiences of guilt. A 22-item Survivor guilt subscale from the IGQ given to all participants. A 2x2 between subjects ANOVA was utilized on age.

Study 2: Students were randomly assigned to reflect (experimental) or not reflect (control). A 2x2 between subjects ANOVA was utilized. Both groups responded to the same 3 questions given to those in study 1 related to family achievement guilt. A 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects ANOVA on achievement guilt was conducted. A 2 x 2 between-subjects ANOVA on perceptions of family struggle was conducted.

Findings and Conclusions

Study 1: FGCs and Latino college students report more family achievement guilt than CGCs with Latino students reporting the most. No differences were found on the survivor guilt scales between groups.

Study 2: Perceptions of greater family struggle positively correlated with greater family achievement guilt, especially for FGCs. Those that reflected on a time they helped their family perceived family struggle as less which resulted in less family achievement guilt.

Evaluation Notes

The population was predominately Latino which could have influenced the outcomes compared to the rest of the study’s population. Also, all students in the population came from the same university. The student population at other nearby institutions may be different and show different outcomes or be more generalizable.

Reference 4

Database used

Gibbons M. M., & Woodside M. (2014). Addressing the needs of first-generation college students: Lessons learned from adults from low-education families. Journal of College Counseling, 17, 21-36. DOI: 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2014.0045.x

DB: EBSCO Host

Type and purpose of study

Hypothesis or Research Questions

Qualitative adaptation of 2 prior phenomenological studies by the authors.

To compare and contrast the women’s and men’s of work and career related to their college experiences and the influence of family on those experiences. (pg. 26)

Population and Sample

17 participants whose parents did not have education beyond HS, all from the same state. Each received a $15 gift certificate for completing the study.

Methodology

The participants responded to flyers posted on campus and the community. Biases were determined by the authors through interviews with each other before beginning the study. Each author independently reviewed all the data collected between the 2 studies then met to discuss their findings and analyses.

Findings and Conclusions

Three themes were identified: the role of the father, expectations about career, and expectations about college. The paternal impact on the participants was successful both for going or not going to college. The major factor for the participants related to career expectations was they wanted jobs that were both lucrative and they would enjoy as well. Related to college experience, the women discussed mentors whereas the men did not. They did not find college as being necessary for a job but more related to financial success later on.

Evaluation Notes

Three of the participants did not go to college despite the study’s hypothesis being related to college experiences. Despite having directly addressed potential bias, the introduction of a third author unrelated to the initial studies may have reduced bias and opened the opportunity for fresh interpretation of data collection and results.

Reference 5

Database used

Jenkins S.R., Belanger, A., Connally, M.L., Boals, A., & Durón, K.M. (2013). First-generation undergraduate students’ social support, depression, and life satisfaction. Journal of College Counseling, 16, 129-142. DOI: 10.1002/j.2161-1882.2013.00032.x

DB: EBSCO Host

Type and purpose of study

Hypothesis or Research Questions

Qualitative study comparing first-generation and non-first generation college students.

Hypotheses from pg. 132:

H1: First-generation students will report less social support (especially from family and peers) than will non-first generation students.

H2: First-generation students will report more PTSD symptoms than will non-first generation students.

H3: First-generation students will report more depression symptoms than will non-first generation students.

H4: First-generation students will report less life satisfaction than will non-first generation students.

Population and Sample

1,647 (34% male, 66% female; 368 FGS) participants after removing participants over the age of 35. Students were from Introduction to Psychology courses across various programs who participated in a group online testing session.

Methodology

Several tests/questionnaires were utilized including: Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, Traumatic Events Questionnaire, and the PTSD Checklist-Specific, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptoms- Self Report, and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire.

Several analyses were utilized: t-test for age and first-generation status; first generation status, gender, and ethnicity via chi-square analysis; tested the four hypotheses via MANOVA.

Findings and Conclusions

H1: Supported- FGS received less support from family.

H2: Supported- FGS reported stronger PTSD symptoms.

H3: Not supported- FGS did not have stronger depression symptoms.

H4: Supported- FGS reported less life satisfaction.

Institutions with a higher number of FGS require greater mental health services.

Evaluation Notes

This study did not look at SES which may also have impacted H1 and H4. However, the population was large and diverse making it possible to generalize to students at public institutions. However, the population at private institutions may have less FGS so this study may not be as applicable to those institutions. Also, the authors did not look at the different types of events related to PTSD and if any had a greater impact on the hypotheses outcomes.