sociology essay

Clearing the Path for First-Generation

College Students Qualitative and Intersectional

Studies of Educational Mobility

Edited by Ashley C. Rondini, Bedelia Nicola Richards, and Nicolas P. Simon

Afterword by Jenny Stuber

LEXINGTON BOOKS Lanham • Boulder • New York • London

Published by Lexington Books An imprint of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706 www.rowman.com

Unit A. Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SEI 1 4AB

Copyright ©2018 by The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.

Chapter three was previously published as Elizabeth M. Lee and Rory Kramer. 2013. “Out with the Old, In with the New? Habitus and Social Mobility at Selective Colleges.' Sociology of Education 86, no. 1: 18-35

Chapter eight was previously published as Mullen, Ann L.. Degrees of Inequality: Culture, Class, and Gender in American Higher Education, pp. 156-204. © 2010 The Johns Hopkins University Press. Adapted and reprinted with permission of Johns Hopkins University Press.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Information Available

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Rondini, Ashley C., editor. | Richards, Bedelia Nicola, editor. |

Simon, Nicolas P., editor. Title: Clearing the path for first generation college students : qualitative

and intersectional studies of educational mobility / edited by Ashley C. Rondini, Bedelia Nicola Richards, and Nicolas P. Simon.

Description: Lanham : Lexington Books , [2018] | Includes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 2018011191 (print) | LCCN 2018016778 (ebook) | ISBN 9781498537025 (Electronic) | ISBN 9781498537018 (cloth : alk. paper)

Subjects: LCSH: First-generation college students-United States. | People with social disabilities—Education (Higher)—United States.

Classification: LCC LC4069.6 (ebook) | LCC LC4069.6 .C65 2018 (print) | DDC 378.1/98-dc23

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018011191

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992.

Printed in the United States of America

Contents

Acknowledgments vii

Introduction: Clearing the Path: Situating First-Generation Students’ Experiences in Qualitative, Intersectional Scholarship 1 Ashley C. Rondini, Bedelia Nicola Richards, and Nicolas P. Simon

1 “Cautionary Tales”: Low-Income First-Generation College Students, Educational Mobility, and Familial Meaning-Making Processes 19 Ashley C. Rondini

2 Interdependent Relationships and Family Responsibilities: How Socioeconomic Status and Immigrant Histories Shape Second-Generation Asian American Experiences 51 Fanny Yeung

3 Out With the Old, Tn With the New? Habitus and Social Mobility at Selective Colleges 75 Elizabeth M. Lee and Roiy Kramer

4 Moving Between Classes: Loyalists, Renegades, and Double Agents 10 5 Allison L. Hurst

5 Seeking Out Support: Looking Beyond Socioeconomic Status to Explain Academic Engagement Strategies at an Elite College 135 Anthony Abraham Jack and Veronique Irwin

v

318 Chapter 10

7. The Summer Science Immersion program was developed by Dr. Melissa Kosin­ ski-Collins, a professor at Brandeis University. She structured the program to include a scientific book report, a poster presentation using primary scientific sources, as well as lectures and/or labs in chemistry, biology, and physics.

8. Previous research on factors that positively impact students declaring majors in STEM disciplines has overwhelmingly focused on the importance of faculty mentor­ ing rather than on mentoring by graduate students or postdoctoral research fellows. One of the few studies of the differences in mentoring was conducted by Cox and Androit (2009), who studied differences in perceptions of undergraduates’ lab skills in college among faculty mentors and graduate student mentors. However, this re­ search did not compare how mentoring by graduate students differed from mentoring by faculty.

11

Toward a Local Student Success Model Latino First-Generation

College Student Persistence Trista Beard

First-generation college students (FGS) are a diverse population, and yet an invisible minority at most four-year colleges, with no outward identity markers. Researchers have established that there is a definite completion gap between FGS and their non-first-generation student (NFGS) peers (Chen and Carroll 2005). FGS are less likely to take advantage of study groups, profes­ sors’ office hours, tutoring, writing coaches, and other support services that could help them achieve better marks in the first year of college (Chen and Carroll 2005). FGS also enroll in fewer credit hours in the early years of college, contributing to slower progress and higher attrition rates, especially after the first year, when FGS are half as likely to return to school as NFGS (Choy 2001; Pascarella et al. 2004; Soria and Stebleton 2012).

Latino students are also a rapidly rising population entering four-year uni­ versities, and half of them are the first in their families to attend college (San­ tiago 2011). In looking at how Latino students succeed in college and why they depart, researchers have used variable such as campus climate (Castillo et al. 2006; Hurtado and Carter 1997), minority stress (Wei, Ku, and Liao 2011), campus involvement (Museus, Nichols, and Lambert 2008; Prospero and Vohra-Gupta 2007) and students’ support networks (Bordes-Edgar et al. 2011; Hurtado, Carter, and Spuler 1996). Much of the educational research on persistence has focused on barriers to persistence in college for Latino students or for first-generation college students, but little has honed in on the intersection of these populations.

In thinking about the theme of this book, it is important to consider how in­ stitutions, educators, families, and policymakers can clear the path to college, but also clear the path through college. “Access without support is not oppor­ tunity” (Engstrom and Tinto 2008, 46). This chapter focuses not on student access, but on student success. While there is an abundance of quantitative studies examining factors that influence college departure, there is a need for more qualitative studies that seek to examine how first-generation students of color overcome obstacles and complete four-year degrees. Qualitative studies

319

320 Chapter 11

allow researchers to explore a participant’s world, culture, and experience in its entirety, allowing those voices to speak to the complexity of intersectional identity. Instead of trying to control for demographic characteristics or to dis­ entangle identity markers, it was the aim of this study to learn directly from Latino first-generation college students (LFGCS) about their unique experi­ ences at a large, research-intensive, predominately white institution (PWI). A single research question drove this study: How do Latino first-generation col­ lege students at this elite PWI navigate and negotiate barriers to persistence?

LITERATURE REVIEW

In considering what promotes student persistence in college from year to year, many researchers have looked to Astin’s (1984) theory of student involvement. Astin asserts that the more a student is involved in academic activities, extracurricular activities, faculty and staff interactions, and resi­ dential programs that engage the student’s time, the greater the amount of learning. Kuh (2001) defines engagement as cocurricular activities such as campus clubs and societies, relationships and interactions with peers and faculty, mentoring programs, and educational activities like group projects, study groups, and course-related field trips. The concept of high-impact practices has also been associated with engagement activities that make the most impact on student commitment and persistence—i.e. capstones, intern­ ships, service learning, global learning, and undergraduate research, all of which require application of classroom skills in new contexts (Kuh 2008). First-gen students often find it more difficult to decode the behaviors neces­ sary to succeed in college, such as “attending class, asking questions, visiting professors, and being involved on campus in organizations and with peers” (Mehta and Newbold 2011, 30). Mehta and Newbold found that FGS were less likely to be engaged in campus activities, both academic and social, and that GPA and completion rates were affected by this.

Museus, Nichols, and Lambert (2008) suggest that the relationship between campus racial climate, academic and social involvement, and institutional commitment all relate to degree completion in unique ways for students of color. For Latino students, the most significant positive effect on degree com­ pletion was a lower amount of social involvement, assuming that social time detracted from academic engagement (Museus, Nichols, and Lambert 2008). Prospero and Vohra-Gupta (2007) also found a strong correlation for FGS between engagement and academic achievement. Hernandez (2002) validated this experience through interviews with Latino students at a four-year PWI who reported that because they felt underprepared, they specifically chose

Toward a Local Student Success Model 321

not to get involved in student organizations the first year so that they could focus on meeting academic expectations. The benefit of academic activities is higher for FGS “because these experiences act in a compensatory manner and thus contribute comparatively greater incremental increases in first-generation students’ stock of cultural capital” (Pascarella et al. 2004, 280).

How LFGCS negotiate the campus climate impacts their commitment and persistence at an institution (Hurtado and Carter 1997). First-gen students of color have unique intersectional identities. In a qualitative study, Orbe (2004) found that the first-generation student identity was most salient for those who also identified as an underrepresented minority on their campus. It was the intersectional identities of race and class that exacerbated students’ feelings of difference and minority status, especially at the most selective colleges. When the students felt that they were the minority within the minority, they kept their first-gen status hidden until they found individuals like them, with whom they could share their status.

Social support from peers then becomes a lifeline for students marginal­ ized by the dominant institutional culture. Specifically, mentoring (formal and informal) by either peers, faculty, or staff increases the likelihood of persistence for Latino students (Bordes-Edgar et al. 2011). Mentors can guide students in turning desire to complete college into behaviors that will aid persistence. The literature also suggests that FGS who perceive they have the support they need feel less stress, have more confidence, and adjust and perform better. Those who feel they lack support struggle to adjust and persist (Dennis, Phinney, and Chuateco 2005). Students who perceived they had less social support also had low self-efficacy scores (Phinney and Haas 2003). Disentangling self-efficacy and social support as influential variables in how first-gen students of color cope with stressful situations in college is incredibly difficult. Using a narrative approach allows for this complexity. Just as intersectional identities cannot be unraveled, neither can the intrinsic mechanisms students use to succeed in college. Instead of controlling for variables looking for causation, starting this study with an awareness of stu­ dents’ multiple identities and compound strategies for problem-solving gives credit to students’ funds of knowledge and community wealth.

Yosso (2005) explains that traditional notions of cultural capital ignore the unique knowledge that students of color bring with them to college, and that their home communities have infused them with cultural wealth that they can use to succeed in dominant spaces. An example of how students use commu­ nity cultural wealth is found in Munoz and Maldonado’s (2012) case study of four undocumented Mexican women, all first in their families to attend college. The students reported that they were able to persist because of family support, and that they created their own peer support and cultural circle. The

322 Chapter ll

students, through their stories, also expressed a strong desire to complete col­ lege, and were able to navigate home life, work life, and school life in different ways, and still maintain their aspirations (Munoz and Maldonado 2012). Pa­ dilla’s (1996) qualitative study of students of color at a single college campus allowed students, in focus groups, to respond to a list of established barriers to persisting in college and to report how they faced those barriers, what they had to know to overcome them (heuristic knowledge), and actions taken by the students to succeed and persist. Padilla’s (1996) results demonstrated that students of color were successful because they learned how to get the support they needed in their campus environment. His argument necessitated my own study: if we know, based on tested theoretical models, that integration and in­ volvement increase persistence (Astin 1984; Tinto 1993), and yet graduation rates have changed very little in fifty years (see Iffert 1957; NCES 2016), then we must look more deeply at student experiences to see what actions work for students and what institutions might do to eliminate barriers and better serve students. A singular focus on models of student success allowed me to learn from students’ expertise. This focus situates the study on a longer line of ac­ tion research that acknowledges LFGCS’ funds of knowledge.

METHODS

The expertise model put forth by Padilla (1994) allowed me to explore the process by which LFGCS at an elite PWI gained heuristic knowledge that im­ pacted their persistence. A focus on success rather than deficits allows for the development of new models of student completion from which asset-minded strategies and interventions can be drawn. This study aimed to explore the ways successful LFGCS persisted and navigated the college and to exam­ ine the role that students play as agents of their own academic success, as measured by persistence to degree completion. One research question drove this study: How do Latino first-generation college students at this elite PWI navigate and negotiate barriers to persistence?

Padilla’s (1994) expertise model fit this study because it validates students’ sense of agency and funds of knowledge, acknowledging that successful LF­ GCS are experts on how to persist at an elite PWI. Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth framework also informed the study, keeping the focus on what assets LFGCS brought to campus with them. Yosso’s theory allows for a wider conceptualization of cultural capital that values aspiration, bilingual­ ism, interdependence, familial strength, and resistance, among other values. The community cultural wealth model combined with Padilla’s expertise model helped center the study on the participants as I sought to highlight their

Toward a Local Student Success Model 323

lived experiences and their unique ways of getting through the new terrain of college as Latino students and first-gen college students.

To build a local model around LFGCS and their pathways to persistence was the goal of this study. The primary form of data collection for this study was interviews, which allowed me to gain insight into the experience and perceptions of others (Patton 2002). I conducted in-depth interviews (on aver­ age, ninety minutes) with ten participants (five men and five women), using a semistructured interview guide, based on Padilla’s (1994) unfolding matrix model. Padilla’s unfolding matrix technique helped to draw out expert tacit knowledge that students may not be explicitly aware that they even possess. Where Padilla used this technique with focus groups, I conducted one-on- one interviews in order to explore with each participant the barriers to their integration and engagement in college and the ways in which they faced and overcame those barriers.

Site and Sample Selection

The site was a single predominately white research university in the West: highly selective, with nearly 18,000 undergraduates, 23 percent low-income (Pell-eligible), about 20 percent first-generation and 14 percent Latino. As with the national average (Santiago 2011), half of the Latino undergrads are first-gen. All interview participants were rising seniors and first-generation college students who self-identified as Latino. This study used the federal TRIO programs’ definition of first-generation: students whose parents have not earned a bachelor’s degree. The university has three single-ethnicity cul­ tural centers and an LGBT resource center, but no transfer center or first-gen office. The culture is one where, like many colleges, ethnicity is part of the di­ versity discussion but class is not yet. Some students’ identities are validated by the university, as cultural centers are a visible way the university says “you belong,” but for many others, when there is no space, there is no place, and it is more difficult to find community and sense of belonging.

All ten participants were the children of immigrants, and high financial- need students (also described as low-income). All interviews took place in the fall term of the students’ senior year. Participants were purposefully invited to interview because they were LFGCS and were seniors making successful progress toward graduation. Invitations to interview were sent out via aca­ demic advisors across the campus, student organizations, including Latino student government, and through scholarship program offices that support first-generation and low-income students.

324 Chapter 11

Data Analysis

All interviews were transcribed and then analyzed for common themes and categories following Padilla’s unfolding matrix method, detailed in Student Success Modeling (2009). Transcripts were coded first for open codes and then grouped into cover terms developed through interpretive analysis. All categories related to barriers and obstacles were listed under one domain, and the strategies used to overcome reported barriers and obstacles were listed un­ der the second domain. The purpose of the domain analysis was to establish a model of how first-generation students perceived and overcame challenges as they arose, within the boundaries of the college years and the college environ­ ment. All interviews were viewed as a single case study, representing a col­ lective experience at one particular site. Themes that were reported by only a single participant were considered outliers as they were not corroborated by additional participants, and as such, were not included in either domain. Interview texts were analyzed to the point of saturation.

FINDINGS

In participant interviews, students described the obstacles to successful completion of college as well as the ways in which they were able to take action to overcome such difficulties as they arose. The following tables pres­ ent the barriers by category (table 11.1) and the strategies for navigating such impediments (table 11.2). While the sample is small, and not generalizable to all LFGCS at large research universities, there is value in learning how a particular group of students interpreted the institution, reported the obstacles that could derail student success, and suggested their own tested strategies.

Table 11.1 Barriers to Latino first-generation college student persistence at a large PWI.

Type of Barrier Barriers and Obstacles to Persistence

Academic

1. academic struggle 2. felt academically underprepared 3. afraid to speak up in class 4. lack of academic support 5. lack of study skills 6. did not seek out advice from instructors

Toward a Local Student Success Model 325

(continued)

Behavioral 7. did not want to try new things 8. lack of help-seeking behaviors 9. lack of willingness to share emotions and struggles

Cultural

10. cultural stigma to counseling 11. negative perception of help-seeking 12. culture shock 13. feeling separated from home 14. feeling stereotyped 15. feeling "minoritized"1 16. to not assimilate takes energy

Emotional

17. afraid of being seen as an imposter/not good enough 18. afraid to ask for help (fear of rejection) 19. anxiety 20. difficulty managing emotions 21. fear of not belonging 22. fear of talking to instructors/faculty 23. feeling isolated 24. lack of sharing emotions/struggles 25. overwhelming stress (distraction)

Familial

26. family issues at home (takes energy) 27. difficult to explain academic challenges 28. difficult to explain social challenges 29. lack of parental involvement/advocacy at college

Financial

30. worry over finances 31. lack of clear understanding of financial aid 32. works more than twenty hours per week 33. work conflicts with office hours on campus 34. works off-campus 35. works to send money home 36. work conflicts with clubs/co-curricular activities 37. work conflicts with tutoring/academic support

326 Chapter 11

1.1 use "minoritized" in this study as used by Shaun Harper in his work Race Without Racism (2012). Harper explained that many students of color do not feel like a minority until they enter the predominately white space. Minority status is a social construction put upon them, not a natural state of being.

Institutional

38. competitive peers in class 39. poor advising 40. distrust of academic advisor 41. professors are not approachable 42. support resources are hidden

Integration al

43. commutes from home 44. work conflicts with clubs/co-curricular activities 45. does not join social or academic communities 46. feels lost 47. does not feel a sense of belonging

Knowledge

48. does not know how to navigate campus resources 49. does not know how to network 50. difficulty with time management 51. difficulty balancing work and academics 52. difficulty balancing academic and social engagement 53. lack of study skills 54. lack of heuristic knowledge (how to learn)

Motivational 55. lack of commitment 56. lack of goals/sense of purpose

Selt-efficacy

57. lack of confidence 58. self-doubt 59. lack of effort to access support resources 60. lack of models

Social 61. does not join social communities 62. difficulty finding "people like me" 63. lack of models

The research question that drove this study was How do Latino first-gener­ ation college students at this elite PWI navigate and negotiate barriers to persistence? The detailed items in table 11.1 provide a clear picture of the difficulties students encountered at this particular college. As I sat through interviews and listened to students talk about their frustrations and successes, their ups and downs in college, I asked them to tell me more about how they got past obstacles such as fear of speaking to professors, or lack of study

Toward a Local Student Success Model 327

skills, or feeling that they didn’t have a purpose. Table 11.2 comprises the aggregate responses from this line of inquiry.

Table 11.2 Strategies identified by Latino first-generation college students as ways to overcome obstacles to persistence in college.

Type of Barrier Strategies and Actions for Persistence

Academic

1. ask for advice 2. ask professors for study advice particular to field of study 3. ask TAs for study tips 4. connect with a professor over shared interests 5. sign up for enrichment programs 6. find mentors 7. find models 8. find study groups 9. follow others 10. participate in high-impact practices 11. take peer advice and share resources 12. identify peer models/mentors 13. view professors as models 14. study with trusted peers 15. talk to advisors 16. talk to professors about coursework and college life 17. talk to professors about career ideas/paths 18. use academic support resources (tutoring/SI) 19. use learning center (academic coaching) 20. find a job that allows for study/time space 21. join learning communities around field of study

Behavioral

22. explore your interests 23. show your interests 24. speak up in class 25. talk about career ideas/pathways 26. talk about your goals 27. be willing to try new things 28. practice help-seeking behaviors

Cultural 29. find a way to connect with ethnic community/-ies 30. connect with others around all identity markers

328 Chapter 11

Table 11.1 (continued) Type of Barrier Strategies and Actions for Persistence

Emotional 31. de-stress with peers 32. gain emotional support and encouragement from peers 33. find a confidante

Financial 34. financial aid is an incentive to stay 35. campus job provides funds and connections 36. find a job which allows study time/space

Institutional 37. advisors are bridges to resources 38. professors offer advice and mentorship 39. learning center offers coaches

Integrational

40. assimilate or code-switch 41. claim space 42. be active in cultural centers 43. live in dorms 44. cultivate fictive kin/trusted peer network 45. find a sense of home 46. join communities 47. join a team 48. be active in dorm events 49. stay involved in campus activities/groups 50. join learning communities around field of study and

professional interests

Knowledge

51. ask advisors questions to get referrals 52. find study spaces that work for you 53. learn to study 54. use resident advisors as near peer coaches 55. take advantage of academic and pre-professional opportunities

Motivational

56. find purpose 57. find role models 58. set goals beyond college 59. help others 60. join organizations with a purpose/ideology 61. remember your success is part of a collective success 62. be part of a peer group that motivates you 63. put in effort 64. feeling a sense of duty 65. set higher, long-term life goals

Toward a Local Student Success Model 329

Self-efficacy

66. ask for advice from models 67. accept short-term failure as part of skill-building 68. be willing to make changes 69. focus on a few goals 70. go to offices for help 71. practice self-care 72. self-exploration (goals, interests) 73. self-talk 74. gain confidence through navigating challenges

Social

75. awareness of need to build new ties 76. connect over shared identity 77. connect with peers 78. develop a support network 79. find peers who share values 80. find trusted peers for emotional support 81. join social events 82. meet a wide range of people 83. join learning communities around field of study and

professional interests

First, the matrix of reported barriers revealed little in the way of new insights. The categories of barriers and examples (table 11.1) described by the partici­ pants in this study are in line with previous literature (Chen and Carroll 2005; Choy 2001; Pascarella et al. 2004; Tinto 1993). One category of barriers that is not present in the first-gen persistence literature was the institutional bar­ riers that students described here (table 11.1, items 37-41). These items are particularly important to consider since they convey how LFGCS interpret and understand the institution. Students do not depart college simply because they are not motivated, committed, or connected to the university; they also may be repelled and pushed out by hostile campus climate or unnavigable bureaucratic systems.

The first item in this category was “competitive peers in class.” Multiple participants reported that they could not connect with peers in classes, partic­ ularly in biosciences, because the courses were large and graded on a curve. No one wanted to study together or support others. They explained that there were only so many high scores to be doled out and students were afraid they would be sabotaged by their peers.

330 Chapter 11

It’s weird, because it feels like at any moment you can't really trust other students, because it's a huge curve, and everyone’s like “oh, it’s a 50 percent acceptance rate to get into medical school.” You want to be above the curve, so if you’re helping anyone, that might put you down a little bit.

Students interpreted grading on a curve as being measured against—and therefore in competition with—their classmates. Faculty could mediate this problem by explaining that students working together to review and study material before each exam generally do better. The benefits of study groups are academic, but they also provide opportunities for social engagement, which students reported as a helpful strategy for persistence in college.

Also in the institutional barriers category, participants reported that they received poor advising from professional academic support staff, and that they were mistrustful of advising staff. Positive interactions with faculty and staff can increase student persistence (Schreiner, Noel, and Cantwell 2011). A negative experience or repeated negative interactions caused distress for the students in this study and increased the difficulty they were already hav­ ing in navigating the college environment.

When I was here at orientation, my first day. like officially as a student here, the advisor was . . . just pressuring me into other [classes], so I really had to figure it out on my own, I feel like, in terms of navigating [this school], especially because they’re not—at least the advisors that I’ve encountered, not many of them are first-gen and not many of them are people of color, so they don’t—and they’re also not—at least from what they’ve expressed to me, they don’t come from low socioeconomic backgrounds, so they don’t understand the specific perspective that I have and that my friends have.

The students who felt they were not listened to, or not understood as first- gen, working-class students of color, were dissuaded from further help-seek­ ing because they lost trust in the institution and its agents. This exemplifies institutional failure to serve students who are both first-gen and Latino. Every interaction with students is key to building their connection to the institution and their academic journey.

The last two items in the institutional barriers category (table 11.1) were “professors are not approachable” and “support services are hidden.” Much like the negative impact of advisors, students perceived their instructors as unapproachable. Students spoke of professors as “not even human.” None of the students felt empowered early in their college years to speak with their pro­ fessors. Some participants explained that they were able to speak to professors once they gained confidence and heard from other people (e.g., peers, peer mentors/models, advising staff) that they were supposed to go to office hours, ask professors questions, and talk about their own interests and goals as a way

Toward a Local Student Success Model 331

to get feedback. Endorsements and advice from trusted sources, especially peers—that is, fellow LFGCS—is one of the most noteworthy findings from the analysis of the strategies used to overcome barriers (table 11.2).

Peer networks were a valuable way to adjust to the new terrain, learn about and gain entry to other communities, and acquire academic advice. The use of social support came up as a strategy under the academic, cultural, emotional, integrational, motivational and self-efficacy cover terms. This excerpt dem­ onstrates how LFGCS’s network-building impacts integration, engagement (both academic and social), and even aspirational capital:

So when I got there, I got connected with some friends who liked the same things I like. They were pre-med or they were studying bio too. And we got involved with different community outreach organizations, so for example. Chicanos for Health Education. We’d go to the weekly meetings, and I think it helped that we would all go together kind of. And I also got interested in a Latina sorority my first year and I would just go and hang out with them and see what it was all about, kind of just trying to meet new people and things like that.... One of the first girls I met, we got in contact because she was my same major and she was already a senior but I was a freshman. I was like “oh, what about this class?” or you know, “what about this professor?”

These students had a natural impulse to tap into the local community cultural wealth (Yosso 2005) within the college. Participants explained that when they saw people “like me,” they felt a sense of trust. For one student, that person was her resident advisor (RA) in the dorm, a Latino student just a few years older than her, who provided emotional support, but also served as a credible model of success. “He was just the first person that I considered someone like me, but older, that has gone through what I was going through.” She stated that the support of peers and her RA helped her through the “cul­ ture shock. 100 percent culture shock. ... I felt lost and confused.” Others found empowering, credible models through joining a cultural organization that offered a community of peers who shared class, gender, and ethnic iden­ tity, as well as navigational capital.

When I found these girls they all knew the same music I was talking about, who I was talking about or what shows I was talking about... and all of us were kind of in the same income level, so it was really easy to fit in with them. It is easy to fit in with the girls there [in Las Hermanas].... They really were helpful in the sense that they could guide me. There was one girl who was a psychology ma­ jor and I would ask her what professors or what classes she would recommend. They would share their own stories of what they were feeling at the moment so it prepared me of what I had to look [forward] to. It wasn’t like guiding in the

332 Chapter 11

sense of advising, but guiding in the sense of what they were feeling or what they went through and it prepared me for what I would face.

Beyond the power of peers to support many of the strategies used by these LFGCS and the drawing upon of community cultural wealth, it is important to note that there is no consistent correlation between a struggle and its resolution. The barriers and strategies are categorized and can be coupled by matching theme. For instance, a student who felt they were academically un­ derprepared (table 11.1, item 2) might have tried strategies from the academic section (see table 11.2) as well as strategies from the institutional section. For each barrier there are multiple strategies that will help to mitigate the problem. For cultural barriers (table 11.1, items 10-16), there are few specific “cultural” strategies that align with these obstacles. Students in this sample, Latino first-gen college students, used a multipronged approach to resolving those kinds of difficulties.

Like my mom worked all day and she didn’t really speak English so I was the one handling stuff at high school and [college], but here it's like, parents fight for their kids with their counselors, it’s like—that’s cool, but when are you go­ ing to learn to do that for yourself, you know? So all that was very confusing to me. Um, yeah, I think I was blessed too, because I was American Studies, I took a lot of classes that were already empowering with professors of color, or professors from different backgrounds, so I think I’m very lucky in that sense.

This student felt separated from home, felt a lack of familial support in the college environment, but was empowered to persist because of models she found in faculty of color, coursework that validated her experiences, and the independence and self-efficacy she brought with her to college. A cultural barrier (“feeling separated from home”) and a familial barrier (“lack of paren­ tal involvement/advocacy”) were alleviated by academic (“view professors as models”) and motivational solutions (“put in effort” and “find role models”). Another way to look at this is that a high-impact solution, like finding mod­ els, helps to diminish multiple obstacles, hurdles, and/or stressors. Since bar­ riers and obstacles are often compounded for working-class minority youth, then so must their strategies for persistence be compounded, complex, and multipronged. Because there is not a clear alignment of strategies to barriers, I found it essential to look more closely at the most “high-impact” actions that yielded multiple benefits, and from there begin to create models of the most advantageous actions.

Toward a Local Student Success Model 333

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that barriers to persistence for LFGCS are in line with prior research on Latino students and first-gen college students, although little research has been done on this intersectional population. Barriers such as familial demands, conflicts between needing to work and needing time for engagement activities, feeling minoritized, and difficulty finding community are not surprising. The LFGCS’s discussion of specific institutional barriers was unique to this study: competitive peers, negative advising experiences, and the perception that support services are hidden. Whether these barriers are particular to the population, the type of university, or this site specifically is not clear without investigating the perception of these barriers at other sites.

As students explained that they felt isolated, overwhelmed, underprepared, and cut off from familial communities, I thought of the unique situation they are in, where they have to navigate a maze from within the maze. Latino students have been found to scale down the geography of the university in order to be able to find a way through the unfamiliar terrain (Attinasi 1989), I found this to be true for these LFGCS as well. What becomes important here is to illustrate how they were able to accomplish this. All the students dem­ onstrated through their strategies that a sense of agency and social learning were integral to their persistence.

First, a sense of agency was exemplified through the students’ action- oriented strategies, such as asking for advice, exhibiting help-seeking behav­ iors, joining communities, and participating in “high-impact practices” (Kuh 2008). While all the students explained that their first-year adjustment was particularly difficult and they “felt lost,” they were still willing to ask ques­ tions, to talk to peers about their struggles, and build some initial support networks that could be scaffolded and built upon as their confidence grew. Many students were aware of their poor help-seeking behaviors and talked about their lack of confidence or cultural barriers that kept them from asking for help and advice. However, participants expressed that after some critical incident of failure or faltering, they realized that if they want to be successful and complete college (i.e., if they were motivated to persist), they would have to be active in help-seeking and community-building. Many of the students also elected to participate in cocurricular high-impact practices (Kuh 2008). These activities were not part of the required course of study, but the fact that 90 percent of these successful students voluntarily took part in undergraduate research, service learning, overseas studies, internships, or capstones vali­ dates the students’ sense of agency and supports the powerful effect of such activities on persistence in college.

334 Chapter ll

Secondly, social learning (Bandura 1963) was demonstrated through the intricate system of mentors, models, and brokers that students reported were integral to their persistence. One student described her varied networks as “ropes of people” while another said, “I have a lot of role models. I look up to a lot of people because I want to be a lot of things, you know?” Each de­ scribed peer models and coaches who gave them emotional support; advice about campus resources; academic advice on study skills, courses, and pro­ fessors; as well as connected them to other communities on campus. Learning how to navigate college and how to be a successful student was learned in a social context. Students spoke to peers and near-peer models about their goals. This allowed for articulation of goals and immediate feedback or ad­ vice on local resources that could be utilized. Many of the success strategies that participants identified are dependent on activating social networks and social learning. The community cultural wealth model helps to explain how the Latino first-gen students in this sample motivated and inspired each other and bonded over aspects of shared culture. They exchanged navigational, social, and aspirational capital among their trusted peers, and they invested in others without any expectation of favors being reciprocated. The peer network became a fictive kin network, and trusted peers took the place of familial networks within the college environment.

A final point for discussion is the finding that some strategies for persis­ tence identified by participants addressed multiple barrier types. For instance, two male students described their time volunteering at a local hospital and being allowed to shadow healthcare professionals as significantly contribut­ ing to different categories of barriers to persistence (figure 11.1). “Helping others” diminished motivational, emotional, social, and academic difficulties. The many benefits that this volunteer experience provided to the students validate that this is a type of high-impact action, even though volunteering is not one of the cocurricular activities described among the high-impact prac­ tices that increase retention (Kuh 2008).

Toward a Local Student Success Model 335

motivation; sense of purpose

confidence; setting long­ term goals

helping others

high impact practice

(academic engagement

access to mentors/ models

social engagement;

new ties

For three of the female participants, their first year in the dorms living in an ethnic enclave (an all-Latino dorm floor) made a positive impact on their initial adjustment to college life at the large urban PWI, providing them with access to various networks that again helped them face multiple types of bar­ riers (figure 11.2). These are just a few examples of how actions taken by successful Latino first-generation college students were a type of significant investment that paid dividends in breaking down other barriers they encoun­ tered as they worked to persist to graduation. Models like these can help students see the value of their actions and may increase motivation to persist. A future project will be to continue mapping key actions that yielded such a powerfiil effect in mitigating obstacles.

336 Chapter 71

integrated into chosen

communities; sense of

belonging

shared resources/

advice among

community lived in special interest housing

celebrated identity and

cultural assets

access to peer models

social engagement;

support network

LIMITATIONS

The generalizability of this study is limited because of the single site and small sample. It was not my intention that the findings be scaled up to a larger population or be interpreted as applicable at other institutional types. The findings present a starting point for action research and analysis of stu­ dent success strategies at other sites. The second limitation is the complex entanglement of barriers and strategies for success, and in particular, the compounded struggles with which Latino first-generation students at an elite PWI have to contend. Culture shock as a barrier to student persistence was reported by nearly all the students and explained in so many ways that it was difficult to unpack. The jumble or piles of frustrations and roadblocks that come along with encountering so much new “culture” (for example, socio­ economic class difference, racial and ethnic difference, linguistic difference, differences in parental educational history and parental occupations, new un­ spoken social norms and rules, privilege, minoritization, and other “shocks”) are very difficult to tease out. I would suggest a project that focuses solely on culture shock as a barrier to student adjustment and integration, and that a dynamic model should be created to demonstrate what aspects of “culture”

Toward a Local Student Success Model 337

push levers on LFGCS’s sense of belonging and how they negotiate or as­ similate to each facet of “culture.”

The third limitation of this study is that it cannot separate, and therefore control for, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, immigrant status, or parents’ educational level in sorting out which factors might contribute more heavily to barriers and which strategies mitigate those. The delimitation of this is that I remained focused on the homogenous nature of the sample. All participants met the same criteria, and so from them I could learn something about the experience of this population at this institution. Unable to tease the identity markers apart, I accepted my participants as complex subjects, and acknowl­ edged that all the barriers, and strategies for diminishing them, were unique to the reporting population, a sample of students with intersectional identities. The results presented here inform the discussion on models for student suc­ cess, but cannot be presumed to represent a solution for all students.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND FURTHER INQUIRY

In terms of using these findings to create an action plan or interventions to improve graduation outcomes for Latino first-generation college students at four-year universities, I recommend first creating intentional programming around the strategies identified by the study participants. The high-impact ac­ tion models (figures 11.1 and 11.2) presented here demonstrate the numerous benefits that productive activities provide. Many of the strategies that stu­ dents identified for overcoming obstacles can be grouped together and can be modeled and taught to first-year students. Having resident advisors and peer mentors explain how certain high-impact actions yield multiple results may increase sense of agency and encourage help-seeking behaviors early in col­ lege. Since LFGCS do not have their parents’ college knowledge to fall back on, they must get all their information about college from within college, and so faculty, staff, and students become the teachers and disseminators of that knowledge. Every interaction matters, and I would add, especially those interactions with people employed by the university to teach and administer programs and services. How might faculty training on heuristic knowledge and the geography of the college impact students’ help-seeking behaviors and sense of belonging?

Faculty should receive overt training on minimizing the power distance between themselves and first-gen students of color, particularly those who may feel marginalized or feel that their voice does not matter. There may be implicit bias at work in the way instructors communicate (too subtly) that they are available to students. If instructors are explicit about wanting to see

338 Chapter 11

students at office hours and conferences, and explain why students should be speaking with professors about coursework, study practices, and academic opportunities across and beyond the college, could this improve cultural capi­ tal building for first-gen students? These actions are not obvious to first-gen students, as many were not socialized to engage in help-seeking or network­ building behaviors, and therefore would need extra encouragement to build that bridge with staff and faculty.

As for students’ perception that “support services are hidden” or difficult to find, how might the institution remedy that? Administrators say that sup­ port services are available, but they cannot make students use them. From student reports, we learn that first-gens were often not aware of free cam­ pus resources, such as tutoring, supplemental instruction, writing centers, academic coaches, support groups, career coaching, and other spaces where students get advice and assistance with academic, social, and other types of difficulties. It is necessary to realize that students with little knowledge of the college terrain will not be expecting these types of services or know that they are free and accessible to them. LFGCS need a clear map and an overt wel­ come mat in the form of institutional agents who meet them where they are. Could faculty, especially those teaching first-year students, involve support services staff in the classroom experience, integrating heuristic and content knowledge, as well as endorsing campus support services and normalizing help-seeking behaviors? Another opportunity might be to assign first-year students to visit support service offices as part of assignments, aligning the course content with exploration of campus resources.

Lastly, I would advocate for a visible First-Generation Students’ Services office. First, this would add depth and counterpoint to race-based diversity efforts in bringing socioeconomic class and privilege to the forefront. Sec­ ond, through its very existence such an office would raise the profile of and celebrate students who are doing something extraordinarily challenging by being the first in their families to attend college. Third, a campus center would allow for this population with no visible markers to share an identity and to connect and share resources. If trusted peers that are “people like me” are so important for community-building and social support, but there is no space to connect on campus, how does one find their first-gen and low-income peers? The institution can ease this burden, especially at a campus with 20 percent first-generation college students. The larger question is whether it is the insti­ tution’s responsibility to provide spaces for students to connect around socio­ economic class. Class is left out of the diversity initiatives at most universities. Could a more intentional and open acknowledgment of class as an identity marker strengthen community on campus and mitigate marginalization? First-gen status often becomes a proxy for low-income (although this is not

Toward a Local Student Success Model 339

always the case). A center that celebrates student achievement, offers space for community-building, and increases awareness of underrepresented popula­ tions would allow for class-based diversity work to come out of the shadows, further supporting students with intersectional identities across the campus.

CONCLUSION

When we explore the lived experience of students, we validate their funds of knowledge and we demonstrate that students are what make a college a place of learning and growth. Even the most prestigious research university is only a think tank (at best) without students. This study aimed to explore the college life experiences of Latino first-generation college students at an elite PWI, particularly inquiring as to how these students navigate and negotiate barriers to persistence. This rich data, even from a small sample, yielded a compre­ hensive list of barriers and obstacles that Latino first-gen students faced, as well as an extensive list of strategies for overcoming such obstacles. These successful seniors created their own support networks and shared heuristic knowledge and their understanding of the geography of the campus with each other. They also identified peers and mentors who were credible models from whom to learn, building their self-efficacy and sense of belonging in the pro­ cess. Studying successful students allows us to build up the literature focused on assets and to develop models of student potential and achievement. As educators, we must continue to learn from our students and be mindful and accepting of the lessons they can teach us.

REFERENCES

Astin, Alexander W. 1984. "Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education.” Journal of College Student Personnel 25, no. 4: 297-308.

Attinasi, Louis C., Jr. 1989. “Getting hi: Mexican Americans’ Perceptions of Univer­ sity Attendance and the Implications for Freshman Year Persistence.” The Journal of Higher Education 60, no. 3 (May-June): 247-77.

Bandura, Albert. 1963. Social Learning and Personality Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Bordes-Edgar, Veronica, Patricia Arredondo, Sharon Robinson Kurpius, and James Rund. 2011. “A Longitudinal Analysis of Latina/o Students’ Academic Per­ sistence.” Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 10, no. 4: 358-68. doi: 10.1177/1538192711423318.

Castillo, Linda G., Collie W. Conoley, Catherine Choi-Pearson, Debra J. Archuleta, Marion J. Phoummarath, and Alisa Van Landingham. 2006. “University Environ­

340 Chapter 11

ment as a Mediator of Latino Ethnic Identity and Persistence Attitudes." Journal of Counseling Psychology 53, no. 2: 267-71.

Chen, Xianglei, and C. Dennis Carroll. 2005, "First-Generation Students in Postsec­ ondary Education: A Look at Their College Transcripts. Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report. NCES 2005-171." National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005171.

Choy, Susan. 2001. “Students Whose Parents Did Not Go to College: Postsecondary Access, Persistence, and Attainment. Findings from the Condition of Education, 2001.” http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=200l 126±

Dennis, Jessica M., Jean S. Phinney, and Lizette Ivy Chuateco. 2005. “The Role of Motivation, Parental Support, and Peer Support in the Academic Success of Ethnic Minority First-Generation College Students.” Journal of College Student Develop­ ment 46, no. 3: 223-36.

Engstrom, Cathy, and Vincent Tinto. 2008. “Access without Support Is Not Opportu­ nity.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 40, no. 1: 46-50.

Harper, Shaun. R. 2012. “Race without Racism: How Higher Education Researchers Minimize Racist Institutional Norms.” The Review of Higher Education 36, no. 1: 9-29.

Hernandez, John C. 2002. “A Qualitative Exploration of the First-Year Experience of Latino College Students.” NASPA Journal 40, no. 1: 69-84.

Hurtado, Sylvia, and Deborah Faye Carter. 1997. “Effects of College Transition and Perceptions of the Campus Racial Climate on Latino College Students’ Sense of Belonging.” Sociology of Education 70, no. 4: 324-45.

Hurtado, Sylvia, Deborah Faye Carter, and Albert Spuler. 1996. “Latino Student Transition to College: Assessing Difficulties and Factors in Successful College Adjustment.” Research in Higher Education 37, no. 2: 135-57.

Iffert, Robert E. 1957. Retention and Withdrawal of College Students. U.S. Depart­ ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bulletin 1958, no. 1. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ ED543830.pdf.

Kuh, George D. 2001. “Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning Inside the National Survey of Student Engagement.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 33, no. 3: 10-17.

Kuh, George D. 2008. “High-Impact Educational Practices: A Brief Overview.” (Ex­ cerpt from High-Impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.) https://www.aacu.org/leap/hips.

Mehta, Sanjay S., and John J. Newbold. 2011. “Why Do First-Generation Students Fail?” College Student Journal 45, no. 1: 20.

Munoz, Susana Maria, and Marta Maria Maldonado. 2012. “Counterstories of Col­ lege Persistence by Undocumented Mexicana Students: Navigating Race, Class, Gender, and Legal Status.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Educa­ tion 25, no. 3: 293-315.

Toward a Local Student Success Model 341

Museus, Samuel D., Andrew H. Nichols, and Amber D. Lambert. 2008. "Racial Differences in the Effects of Campus Racial Climate on Degree Completion: A Structural Equation Model.” The Review of Higher Education 32, no. 1: 107-34.

National Center for Education Statistics. 2016. “The Condition of Education 2016. NCES 2016-144.” Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016144.pdf.

Orbe, Mark P. 2004. “Negotiating Multiple Identities within Multiple Frames An Analysis of First-Generation College Students.” Communication Education 53, no. 2: 131-49.

Padilla, Raymond V. 1994. “The Unfolding Matrix: A Technique for Qualitative Data Acquisition and Analysis.” In Studies in Qualitative Methodology vol. 4, edited by R. G. Burgess, 273-85. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Padilla, Raymond V. 1996. “The Unfolding Matrix: A Dialogical Technique for Qualitative Data Acquisition and Analysis.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Padilla, Raymond V. 2009. Student Success Modeling: Elementary School to College. Herndon, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Pascarella, Ernest T., Christopher T. Pierson, Gregory C. Wolniak, and Patrick T. Terenzini. 2004. “First-Generation College Students: Additional Evidence on Col­ lege Experiences and Outcomes.” Journal of Higher Education 75, no. 3, 249-84.

Patton, Michael Q. 2002. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Third edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Phinney, Jean S., and Kumiko Haas. 2003. “The Process of Coping Among Ethnic Minority First-Generation College Freshmen: A Narrative Approach.” The Journal of Social Psychology 143, no. 6: 707-26.

Prospero, Moises, and Shetal Vohra-Gupta. 2007. “First Generation College Stu­ dents: Motivation, Integration, and Academic Achievement.” Community College Journal of Research and Practice 31, no. 12: 963-75.

Santiago, Deborah A. 2011. Roadmap for Ensuring America’s Future by Increasing Latino College Completion. Washington, DC: Excelencia in Education.

Schreiner, Laurie A., Patrice Noel, and Linda Cantwell. 2011. “The Impact of Faculty and Staff on High-Risk College Student Persistence.” Journal of College Student Development 52, no. 3: 321-38.

Soria, Krista M., and Michael J. Stebleton. 2012. “First-Generation Students’ Academic Engagement and Retention.” Teaching in Higher Education 17, no. 6: 673-85. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.666735.

Tinto, Vincent. 1993. Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. Second edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wei, Meifen, Tsun-Yao Ku, and Kelly Yu-Hsin Liao. 2011. “Minority Stress and College Persistence Attitudes Among African American, Asian American, and Latino students: Perception of University Environment as a Mediator.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 17, no. 2: 195-203.

Yosso, Tara J. 2005. “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth.” Race, Ethnicity and Education 8, no. 1: 69-91.