Research Concept Matrix

Comparing First-Generation Students to Continuing-Generation Students and the Impact of a First-Generation Learning Community

Gail Markle1 & Danelle Dyckhoff Stelzriede2

Published online: 27 February 2020 # Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract This study examined how factors associated with student development and persistence differ between first-generation and continuing-generation students and how participation in a learning community influences development and persistence. The findings show that first-generation students were less involved in academics and had lower gains in intel- lectual development and engagement with diverse perspectives than did continuing- generation students. There was no significant difference between the two groups on first-to-second year persistence rates. First-generation students who participated in the learning community outperformed continuing-generation students in gains in intellectual development, interpersonal development, and engagement with diverse perspectives. There was no significant difference in persistence between first-generation students who were in the learning community and those who were not.

Keywords First-generation students . Student development . Student involvement . Learning communities . Persistence

Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09502-0

Gail Markle is Associate Professor of Sociology at Kennesaw State University. She has a B.S. in Business Administration from East Carolina University, an M.S. in Interdisciplinary Studies from the University of North Texas, and a Ph.D. in Sociology from Georgia State University. Her research interests include nontraditional students, student loan debt, and persistence. Email: [email protected].

Danelle Dyckhoff Stelzriede is the Interim Director of First-Year Writing and Visiting Faculty in English at California State University, Los Angeles. She earned her B.A. in English from California State University, Sacramento; her M.A. in English from Loyola Marymount University; and her Ph.D. in English with an emphasis on twentieth Century American Literature and U.S. Empire Studies at Claremont Graduate University. Her current research interests include translingual approaches to teaching first-year writing and high-impact academic practices for first-year, first-generation college students. Email: [email protected]

* Gail Markle [email protected]

Danelle Dyckhoff Stelzriede [email protected]

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

First-generation college students, as a demographic, are garnering increasing attention in the general media, academic journals, and institutional reports and initiatives. According to the 2017 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) report, about 30% of U.S. college students identify as first-generation, which means that neither parent has attained a college degree. An extensive body of research has documented common challenges facing first- generation students, including lower SAT scores (Atherton, 2014; Penrose, 2002), difficulty with transition (Choy, 2001; Engle, Bermeo, & O’Brien, 2006), lower degree completion rates (Cataldi, Bennett, & Chen, 2018; Engle & Tinto, 2008), higher student loan debt (NCES, 2017), and lack of support for first-generation students of color (Phinney & Haas, 2003). As a result, institutions around the country have begun developing targeted initiatives for promoting effective transition, retention, and progress to graduation for this student population (Ward, Siegel, & Davenport, 2012).

The sheer number of first-generation college students enrolled in U.S. universities coupled with the diversity of the demographic make it imperative to better understand the factors that influence their success and to determine effective ways of providing institutional support. The purpose of the study we report here was to examine how factors associated with student development and persistence differ between first-generation and continuing-generation college students. This study also examined how participation in a first-year, first-generation student learning community affected student development and persistence.

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

Astin (1999) developed the Theory of Student Involvement to explain how educational programs influence college student learning and personal development. The theory focuses on student attributes (motivation and behavior) instead of on program attributes (content and technique). Astin’s I-E-O model has three components. Inputs, which is the term that Astin used, are the personal qualities of the student at the beginning of the educational program (such as gender, race/ethnicity, high school grades, and standardized test scores). Environment refers to aspects of the student’s college environment and includes student involvement in academics and with student peers and faculty members and also participation in specific educational practices. Outcomes refer to improvement that has occurred, such as increases in intellectual development or persistence. According to Astin: “input and outcome refer simply to the state of the person at two different time points, and environment refers to the intervening experi- ences” (1993, p. 22). Increasing our knowledge about the influence of these intervening experiences on the development and persistence of first-generation college students will enable educators to develop programs to increase the success of these students.

Astin’s research indicates that “nearly all” (1999, p. 524) types of student involvement positively influence developmental outcomes and that academic involvement, involvement with faculty members, and involvement with student peers are the most productive kinds of involvement (Astin, 1993, 1999). Academic involvement, involvement with faculty, and involvement with student peers influence GPA (Webber, Krylow, & Zhang, 2013). Involve- ment with student peers predicts intent to re-enroll (Milem & Berger, 1997) and influences academic gains (Whitt, Edison, Pascarella, Nora, & Terenzini, 1999). Research indicates that first-generation students have lower levels of academic and student peer involvement (Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004; Pike & Kuh, 2005; Soria & Stebleton, 2012), yet they derive greater educational benefits from both types of involvement when

286 Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298

compared to continuing-generation students (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005; Pascarella et al., 2004). Our study examined four outcomes: intellectual development, interpersonal develop- ment, engagement with diverse perspectives, and first-to-second-year persistence.

Colleges and universities are increasingly offering programs to promote the success and retention of students, such as pre-enrollment enrichment courses and learning communities. Learning communities consist of small cohorts of students who co-enroll in paired or clustered courses in which learning is integrated in a common theme. These courses generally focus on the development of community, diversity, and integration, and utilize the methods of active learning and reflection/assessment (Smith, MacGregor, Matthews, & Gabelnick, 2004). Par- ticipation in residential and nonresidential learning communities positively influences academ- ic development, grades and retention, student engagement, and personal and social development (Rocconi, 2011; Sperry, 2015; Zhao & Kuh, 2004) and eases the transition to college (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003). Inclusive learning communities targeted toward typically underserved student populations include programming designed to ease the transition to college by providing academic support, fostering a sense of belonging and community, and facilitating involvement with peers and faculty (Fink & Hummel, 2015). These learning communities positively affect GPA and retention among at-risk students (Hill & Woodward, 2013; Huerta & Bray, 2013). First-generation students who participated in a residential learning community reported more successful transitions to college when compared to first- generation students living in a regular residence hall (Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Leonard, 2007). Low-income first-generation students who participated in a multicultural learning community reported an increased sense of belonging to their institution (Jehangir, 2009).

The study we conducted compared involvement and outcomes across three groups of college students: continuing-generation students, first-generation students, and first- generation students who participated in a first-year learning community designed to promote academic citizenship and belonging. Much of the research on first-generation college students focuses on challenges to academic performance and persistence. Research indicates first- generation students earn lower grades, complete fewer credit hours (Pascarella et al., 2004), and report lower gains in intellectual development (Pike & Kuh, 2005) when compared to continuing-generation students. The research also shows that first-generation students have lower retention and persistence rates in comparison to continuing-generation students (DeAngelo, Franke, Hurtado, Pryor, & Tran, 2011; Ishitani, 2003; Penrose, 2002; Soria & Stebleton, 2012), and they are especially vulnerable to attrition before and during the second year (Choy, 2001; Engle & Tinto, 2008).

The Study

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to increase our knowledge of first-generation college experi- ences by answering the following research questions:

& How do precollege characteristics differ among first-generation students, continuing- generation students, and first-generation students who participated in a first-year learning community?

& How does academic and social involvement differ among the three student groups?

Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298 287

& How do student outcomes differ among the three groups? & What factors influence these outcomes? & How does participation in a learning community influence these outcomes?

Context and Course

We conducted this study at a public university in the southeastern United States with an undergraduate enrollment greater than 35,000. Admission is considered “selective”; based on first-year test scores the university ranks within the middle two-fifths of baccalaureate insti- tutions. About one-third (32.2%) of undergraduates are first-generation college students.

All first-time, first-year students entering the university with fewer than 15 credit hours are required to complete a first-year seminar course which includes instruction in life skills, strategies for academic success, campus and community connections, and foundations for global learning. In fall 2017 the university offered two sections of the first-year seminar course as a learning community limited to first-generation students. The first-year seminar learning community included readings, assignments, and community-based learning projects that specifically addressed first-generation college student experiences, identities, and challenges. It also included several social and co-curricular events. By initiating intentional and regular connections between students, faculty, and staff, the learning community faculty members sought to increase students’ sense of belonging and community, while helping students build a network of support and access to institutional resources. The first-generation learning com- munity was open to students for whom neither parent had earned a college degree, while the non-learning community first-year seminar courses were open to all students. We visited the classrooms of the two first-generation learning community sections and invited students to participate in the research. The remaining members of the sample population (349) were students enrolled in a randomly drawn sample of non-learning community first-year seminar sections. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, and signed consent forms were collected from all study participants.

Instruments

We developed two survey instruments to collect data from students in the learning community course and those in the regular course. We administered the first survey during the second week of the semester and the second one during the last week of the semester. Response rates were 84.6% (n = 334) for the first survey and 70.3% (n = 280) for the second survey. Only those students who had completed both surveys were included in the analysis (n = 277). Pascarella (2001) argued that, for educational impact studies to be internally valid, they must collect data on participants’ pre-college academic differences, receptivity to the educational experience, and self-selection into the particular intervention (i.e., a learning community) at the beginning of college and collect data on outcomes at a later date. Accordingly, the first survey consisted of 42 multiple choice questions assessing participants’ pre-college perceptions of their academic literacy, confidence in ease of transition, predispositions to learning new perspectives, and various demographic and academic background characteristics. Student expectations have been shown to predict student outcomes (Astin, 1993). The second survey consisted of 43 multiple choice questions about participants’ academic and social experiences, sense of belonging, and self-reported gains in academic and personal development. Student

288 Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298

self-reports of academic development are considered suitable proxies for indicators of general achievement in educational impact studies, especially when pre-college predispositions are statistically controlled (Pascarella, 2001; Pike & Kuh, 2005). The Office of Institutional Effectiveness provided enrollment data for participants.

Sample

The sample consisted of 277 students (out of 395) who completed both surveys: 46 first- generation learning community (FGLC) students, 78 first-generation (FG) students, and 153 continuing-generation (CG) students. Effect sizes for this study, calculated using eta squared, were large (.14–.17) indicating that the sample sizes for each group were sufficient (Cohen, 1988). Women were slightly underrepresented in the sample (45.4%), compared to the university population (49.0%). The racial/ethnic composition of the sample was similar to that of the university population: white, 59.1%; black, 21.6%; Hispanic, 8.9%; and Asian 4.5%. The sample was diverse in household income: $25,000 or less, 10.2%; $25,001 – $40,000, 17.4%; $40,001 – 75,000, 30.6%; and $75,001 or more, 41.5%. Almost half of participants (43.9%) lived on campus. The highest level of education attained for either parent of participants was: high school, 13.1%; some college, 27.8%; and bachelor’s degree or higher, 59.1%. In this sample participants’ parents had somewhat higher levels of educational attainment compared to those enrolled in public four-year institutions in general: high school, 21.0%; some college, 24.3%; and bachelor’s degree or higher, 52.5% (National Center for Education Statistics, 2017). For this study we defined first-generation students as those for whom neither parent had obtained a bachelor’s degree and continuing-generation students as those for whom at least one parent had obtained a bachelor’s degree.

Variables and Analysis

Input (pre-college) Variables Perception of academic skills, confidence in ease of transition, and predisposition to new perspectives served as pretest variables. We measured perception of academic skills using ten Likert-style questions adapted from Penrose (2002). Students reported their level of ability (from 1 to 5, with 1 being very low and 5 being very high) for such academic skills as communicating ideas in writing and critically analyzing events, information, and ideas. Chronbach’s alpha for this measure was .73. Confidence in ease of transition represents students’ anticipated level of difficulty in transitioning to the role of college student. It is a composite measure consisting of students’ initial sense of belonging to the campus community and their anticipation of participating in college student behaviors. We measured this variable using five Likert-style questions adapted from Inkelas and Weisman (2003). Students reported their level of agreement (from 1 to 5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) with statements such as “I feel that I belong at [name of university]” and “I am confident about my academic success at [name of university].” Chronbach’s alpha for this measure was .72. We measured predisposition to new perspectives using five Likert-style questions also adapted from Inkelas and Weisman (2003). Students reported their level of interest (from 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all interested and 5 being very interested) in matters such as learning about cultures different from [your] own and discussing intellectual topics with friends and other students. Chronbach’s alpha for this measure was .81. Other input variables included gender, race/ethnicity, household income, self-reported SAT scores, and high school GPA.

Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298 289

Environmental Variables Environmental variables measured student involvement in aca- demics and with faculty, student peers, and campus social organizations. Students indicated how frequently in the current semester (from 1 to 5, with 1 being never and 5 being very often) they had engaged in various activities. We adapted these measures from Inkelas and Weisman (2003), Inkelas et al. (2007), Lohfink and Paulsen (2005), Pike & Kuh (2005), and Soria and Stebleton (2012). Involvement in academics included five activities such as brought up ideas from different courses during class discussion and used critical thinking skills in class assignments. Chronbach’s alpha for this measure was .77. Involvement with faculty included five activities such as met with a faculty member in his or her office and visited informally with a faculty member during a social occasion. Chronbach’s alpha for this measure was .86. Involvement with student peers included five activities such as went places with a friend from school and asked a friend from school for advice about a personal problem. Chronbach’s alpha for this measure was .83. Involvement with campus social organizations asked students how much involvement (from 1 to 5, with 1 being none and 5 being very much) they had had with fraternities or sororities, university sponsored clubs or organizations, and university sponsored community service activities. Chronbach’s alpha for this measure was .71. Other environmen- tal variables included whether students lived on campus, the average number of hours worked per week during the semester, and sense of belonging at the end of the semester. We constructed a set of three dummy variables based on student group: first-generation learning community (FGLC), first-generation (FG), and continuing-generation (CG) as the reference category.

Outcome Variables We examined four outcome variables. Gains in intellectual develop- ment and gains in interpersonal development were each measured using five Likert-style questions adapted from Pike and Kuh (2005). Students reported how much their skills in various areas had improved over the semester (from 1 to 5, with 1 being none and 5 being very much). Gains in intellectual development included areas such as writing clearly and effectively and thinking analytically and logically. Chronbach’s alpha for this measure was .86. Gains in interpersonal development included areas such as getting along with people different from yourself and functioning as a member of a team. Chronbach’s alpha for this measure was .76. Engagement with diverse perspectives represents students’ engagement with course material and students whose perspectives are different from their own. We measured this variable using four Likert-style questions adapted from Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, and Terenzini (1996) and the College Student Experiences Questionnaire (CSEQ) as reported in Hu and Kuh (2003). Students reported their level of agreement (from 1 to 5, with 1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) with statements such as “I enjoy taking courses that challenge my beliefs and values” and “I have had serious discussions with students whose philosophy of life is different than mine.” Chronbach’s alpha for this measure was .78. The University’s Office of Institutional Effectiveness provided data on First-to second year persistence; students who re-enrolled for their second year were coded 1, and those who did not were coded 0.

Analysis We used analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey post hoc tests to discern differences among the three groups on pre-college characteristics, environmental vari- ables, and outcome measures. We used hierarchical multiple regression analysis to examine the effects of pre-college characteristics and environmental variables on the outcome variables.

290 Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298

Results

Table 1 presents the statistically significant findings from the ANOVA analyses comparing the three student groups. On pre-college characteristics CG students had higher household incomes (F = 20.893; df = 2; p < .001), higher SAT scores (F = 6.719; df = 2; p < .001), higher scores on the Perception of Academic Skills scale (F = 3.401; df = 2; p < .05), and higher levels of confidence in ease of transition (F = 7.781; df = 2; p < .01) compared to FG students and FGLC students. Regarding environmental variables FGLC students reported higher levels of involve- ment in academics followed by CG students and, finally, FG students (F = 13.457; df = 2; p < .001). FGLC students reported higher levels of involvement compared to FG and CG students with faculty members (F = 25.873; df = 2; p < .001), student peers (F = 6.630; df = 2; p < .01), and campus organizations (F = 11.318; df = 2; p < .001). FGLC students reported an increase in sense of belonging over the semester, while FG and CG students reported a decrease (F = 8.154; df = 2; p < .001). FGLC students reported higher levels of belonging at the end of the semester compared to FG and CG students (F = 25.702; df = 2; p < .001). FGLC students were most likely to live on campus followed by CG students and, finally, FG students (F = 6.017; df = 2; p < .01). Students in the three groups did not differ significantly in hours worked.

On the outcome measures FGLC students reported higher gains in intellectual development and higher levels of engagement with diverse perspectives followed by CG students and FG students respectively (F = 13.586; df = 2; p < .01; F = 18.267; df = 2; p < .01). FGLC students

Table 1 Significant differences in means for pre-college and environmental variables and outcome measures among FGLC, FG, and CG students

FGLC FG CG (n = 46) (n = 78) (n = 153) Significance Tukey’s Post Hoc

Tests

SAT score 2.81 3.00 3.37 F = 6.719; df = 2; p < .001 CG > FGLC and FG Household Income 3.34 2.67 2.64 F = 20.893; df = 2;

p < .001 CG > FGLC and FG

Perception of Academic Skills

35.17 35.75 37.1 F = 3.401; df = 2; p < .05 CG > FGLC and FG

Confidence in Ease of Transition

17.22 16.61 22.1 F = 7.781; df = 2; p < .01 CG > FGLC and FG

Involvement in Academics 17.68 13.66 15.63 F = 13.457; df = 2; p < .001

FGLC > FG and CG; CG > FG

Involvement with Faculty 13.73 8.46 9.69 F = 25.873; df = 2; p < .001

FGLC > FG and CG

Involvement with Student Peers

19.11 15.89 16.72 F = 6.630; df = 2; p < .01 FGLC > FG and CG

Involvement in Campus Organizations

7.14 4.88 5.67 F = 11.318; df = 2; p < .001

FGLC > FG and CG

Sense of Belonging Time 2 4.61 3.53 3.67 F = 25.702; df = 2; p < .001

FGLC > FG and CG

Change in Sense of Belonging

0.52 −0.30 −0.05 F = 8.154; df = 2; p < .001 FGLC > FG and CG

Gains in Intellectual Development

20.86 17.18 18.85 F = 13.586; df = 2; p < .01 FGLC > FG and CG; CG > FG

Gains in Interpersonal Development

21.77 17.51 18.02 F = 19.356; df = 2; p < .001

FGLC > FG and CG

Engagement with Diverse Perspectives

16.98 13.34 14.95 F = 18.267; df = 2; p < .01 FGLC > FG and CG; CG > FG

Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298 291

reported higher gains in interpersonal development compared to FG and CG students (F = 19.356; df = 2; p < .001). Persistence differed by student group; 91.3% of FGLC students, 81.4% of CG students, and 76.5% of FG students enrolled for a second year, although these differences were not statistically significant (χ2 (2, N = 277) = 4.367, p = .113).

Table 2 presents the results of the hierarchical linear regression analyses of three outcome measures: gains in intellectual development, gains in interpersonal development, and engage- ment with diverse perspectives. Each of these three overall regression analyses was statistically significant at p < .001.

Gains in Intellectual Development

The pre-college variables alone explained 8.5% of the variance in gains in intellectual development. After entering the environmental variables, the model as a whole explained 41.7% of the total variance, (F (16, 230) = 7.757, p < .001). Involvement in academics (b = .253, p < .001) and involvement with student peers (b = .243, p < .001) had positive effects

Table 2 Regression of pre-college and environmental variables on outcome measures

Intellectual Development

Interpersonal Development

Diverse Perspectives

B SE B

β B SE B

β B SE B

β

Pre-college variables: Women .383 .454 .052 .340 .442 .045 .334 .361 .053 Black −.525 .644 −.058 .208 .527 024 −.906 .446 −.120 Hispanic −.901 .955 −.075 .500 .726 .041 −.310 .614 −.029 Other −.572 .895 −.085 −.980 .750 −.076 −.476 .634 −.043 Household Income .089 .230 .024 - .131 .224 - .035 - .274 .183 - .087 HS GPA .395 .263 .088 - .098 .256 - .021 .006 .209 .002 SAT Score .050 .218 .006 - .074 .213 - .020 .514** .174 .169** Perceptions of Academic Skills

.056 .044 .081 .025 .043 .036 .007 .035 .013

Confidence in Ease of Transition

.032 .087 .024 .023 .084 .017 - .126 .069 - .110

Predisposition to New Perspectives

.038 .089 .026 .044 .087 .029 .363*** .071 .285***

Environmental variables: Involvement in Academics .253*** .066 .263*** .260*** .064 .264*** .150** .053 .183** Involvement with Faculty .063 .063 .070 .026 .062 .029 .134** .050 .175** Involvement with Student Peers

.243*** .053 .298*** .230*** .052 .276*** .121** .042 .175**

Involvement in Campus Orgs - .039 .100 - .025 .051 .097 .032 - .006 .079 - .005 Sense of Belonging Time 2 .210 .260 .052 .625* .254 .152* .496* .207 .144* Live on Campus .392 .454 .053 .262 .443 .034 .045 .361 .007 Hours Worked - .083 .210 - .024 .192 .205 .061 - .119 .167 - .041 FGLC 1.859** .712 .182** 1.847** .694 .177** 1.126* .566 .130* FG - .649* .515 - .079* - .533 .502 - .064 - .225 .409 - .032 Constant (n = 277) 6.993 6.106 2.174

R2 .417 .433 .456

White is the omitted category for race. Continuing-generation is the omitted category for student group. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

292 Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298

on gains in intellectual development. Participation in the learning community also had a positive effect on gains in intellectual development. With all other variables held constant, FGLC students had higher gains in intellectual development (b = 1.859, p < .01) when com- pared to CG students. FG students had lower gains in intellectual development (b = − .649, p < .05) in comparison to CG students. As indicated by standardized beta coefficients, involvement with student peers had the largest effect on gains in intellectual development (β = .298, p < .001) followed by involvement in academics (β = .263, p < .001).

Gains in Interpersonal Development

The pre-college variables alone explained 11.7% of the variance in gains in interpersonal development. After entering the environmental variables, the model as a whole explained 43.3% of the total variance, (F (16, 230) = 9.841, p < .001). Involvement in academics (b = .260, p < .001), involvement with student peers (b = .230, p < .001), and sense of belong- ing at the end of the semester (b = .625, p < .05) had positive effects on gains in interpersonal development. Participation in the first-generation learning community also had a positive effect on gains in interpersonal development. With all other variables held constant, FGLC students had higher gains in interpersonal development (b = 1.847, p < .01) compared to CG students. As indicated by standardized beta coefficients, involvement with student peers had the largest effect on gains in interpersonal development (β = .276, p < .001) followed by involvement in academics (β = .264, p < .001).

Engagement with Diverse Perspectives

The pre-college variables alone explained 20.7% of the variance in engagement with diverse perspectives. After entering the environmental variables the model as a whole explained 45.6% of the total variance, (F (16, 230) = 10.787, p < .001). SAT score (b = .514, p < .01), predispo- sition to new perspectives (b = .363, p < .001), involvement in academics (b = .150, p < .01), involvement with faculty members (b = .134, p < .01), involvement with student peers (b = .121, p < .01), and sense of belonging at the end of the semester (b = .496, p < .05) were positively associated with engagement with diverse perspectives. Participation in the first- generation learning community also had a positive effect on engagement with diverse per- spectives. With all other variables held constant, FGLC students had higher levels of engage- ment with diverse perspectives (b = 1.126, p < .05) compared to CG students. As indicated by standardized beta coefficients, predisposition to new perspectives had the largest effect on engagement with diverse perspectives (β = .285, p < .001) followed by involvement in aca- demics (β = .183, p < .01).

Persistence

Table 3 presents the results of the logistic regression analysis of the outcome variable first-to- second year persistence. The model with the sixteen independent variables used in the linear regression models discussed above was not statistically significant (χ2 (16, N = 277) = 25.939, p = .055). As reported earlier, persistence did not differ significantly by student group (χ2 (2, N = 277) = 4.367, p = .113). Removing the student group variable resulted in a statistically significant logistic regression model (χ2 (15, N = 277) = 25.364, p < .05). This model as a whole explained between 11.8% (Cox and Snell R square) and 19.6% (Nagelkerke R squared)

Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298 293

of the variance in persistence and correctly classified 84.6% of the cases. Three of the independent variables made a statistically significant contribution to the model: involvement in academics (B = .111, p < .05), involvement with student peers (B = .106, p < .05), and hours worked (B = − .518, p < .05). The odds ratio of involvement in academics (1.118) indicates that each unit increase in the variable (on a scale of 1–5) was associated with an 11.8% increase in persistence.

The odds ratio of involvement with student peers (1.112) indicates that each unit increase in the variable (on a scale of 1–5) was associated with an 11.2% increase in persistence. The odds ratio of hours worked (.596) indicates that each ten hour increase in hours worked per week during the semester was associated with a 40.4% decrease in persistence.

Discussion

The first-generation students in this study had lower household incomes, lower SAT scores, lower levels of confidence in ease of transition, and perceived themselves to be less academically prepared compared to their continuing-generation peers. These findings are consistent with the literature (Atherton, 2014; Choy, 2001; Inkelas & Weisman, 2003; Penrose, 2002). Role theory (Blumer, 1969) provides some useful concepts for thinking about the transition to college. Awareness of the behavioral expectations of the college student role differs according to one’s familiarity with individuals who have previously inhabited that role, with first-generation college students having less role knowledge than students whose parents have attended college (Shields, 2002). Students have precollege perceptions of their ability to meet these anticipated role expectations, or to transition to

Table 3 Regression of pre-college and environmental variables on persistence

B SE B Odds Ratio

Pre-college variables: Women .179 .451 1.195 Black - .303 .579 .739 Hispanic - .441 .848 .644 Other .401 .754 1.493 Household Income .410 .249 1.664 HS GPA .153 .260 1.165 SAT Score .103 .205 1.109 Perception of Academic Skills .038 .037 1.963 Confidence in Transition .018 .089 1.018 Predisposition to New Perspectives .125 .094 1.134

Environmental variables: Involvement in Academics .111* .069 1.118 Involvement with Faculty .109 .206 1.115 Involvement with Student Peers .106* .053 1.112 Involvement in Campus Orgs .054 .101 1.056 Sense of Belonging Time 2 .152 .222 1.164 Live on Campus .108 .450 1.114 Hours Worked - .518* .213 .596

Constant 1.670 n = 277 Nagelkerke R2 = .196

White is the omitted category for race. *p < .05

294 Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298

college successfully. Students with higher levels of confidence in ease of transition are more likely to experience smoother transitions and academic success (Byrd & MacDonald, 2005; Inkelas & Weisman, 2003). According to Pike and Kuh (2005), differences in precollege characteristics are among the most significant factors in first-generation stu- dents’ lower persistence and graduation rates.

First-generation students reported lower levels of academic involvement compared to continuing-generation students, which is consistent with the literature (Pike & Kuh, 2005; Soria & Stebleton, 2012). Level of involvement with faculty, student peers, and campus organizations did not differ significantly between first-generation and continuing-generation students although first-generation students who participated in the learning community report- ed higher levels of involvement than did both first- and continuing-generation students in all four areas. Researchers suggest lower levels of social involvement among first-generation students may be due to competing family obligations, financial need, and a lack of awareness of the importance of such involvement (Filkins & Doyle, 2002; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005). Both first- and continuing-generation students reported a decrease in sense of belonging over the course of the semester (Hausmann, Schofield, & Woods, 2007), with no significant difference between the groups in sense of belonging at the end of the semester. Learning community students, however, reported an increase in sense of belonging; and their levels of belonging at the end of the semester were higher than both first- and continuing-generation students.

First-generation students reported lower gains in intellectual development (Pike & Kuh, 2005) and engagement with diverse perspectives compared to continuing-generation students. The two groups did not differ significantly on gains in interpersonal development, in contrast to Pike and Kuh (2005). First-generation students had lower persistence rates compared to continuing-generation students (DeAngelo et al., 2011; Engle & Tinto, 2008; Ishitani, 2003; Penrose, 2002; Soria & Stebleton, 2012) although these differences were not significant. Learning community students outperformed both first- and continuing generation students on all four outcomes although the differences in persistence rates was not statistically significant.

Involvement in academics and involvement with student peers positively influenced all four outcomes. Involvement with student peers had the strongest influence on both intellectual and interpersonal development (Colbeck, Campbell, & Bjorklund, 2000; Demetriou, Meece, Eaker-Rich, & Powell, 2017; Whitt et al., 1999). These findings are consistent with others who found that peer involvement predicted persistence and openness to diversity and different perspectives (Engberg & Hurtado, 2011; Hu & Kuh, 2003; Jayakumar, 2008; Milem & Berger, 1997). These results underscore Astin’s (1993) assertion that involvement with student peers has the strongest impact upon college students’ development.

Researchers have documented the positive impact of first-year seminars, learning commu- nities, and bridge programs upon first-generation students’ ease of transition (Inkelas & Weisman, 2003; Inkelas et al., 2007), second semester persistence (Vaughan, Parra, & Lalonde, 2014), and sense of belonging (Becker, Swanbrow, Romano, & Spinelli, 2017). This study is the first to demonstrate the positive influence that a first-year learning community focused on first-generation students has on student development outcomes. The results of this study suggest that learning communities can positively impact first-generation college students when they are intentionally designed to address first-generation experiences and identities, promote academic citizenship, and cultivate a sense of student belonging (Stephens, Hamedani, & Destin, 2014).

Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298 295

At the institution where the study was conducted the curricula for the first-generation learning community included readings that focused on challenges specific to this population and on existing forms of cultural and social capital first-generation college students possess. An interdisciplinary group of faculty and staff members served as mentors to the learning community students. In addition to social and co-curricular events, students connected with mentors through informational interviews. Learning community students facilitated a campus visit for local high school students on track to be the first in their families to attend college. Through a series of interactive workshops, games, and site visits, learning community students shared information about their educational experiences and highlighted campus resources for supporting first-generation students.

The gains that the first-generation learning community students made over the course of their first semester suggest that these kinds of activities and assignments have a positive impact on students’ intellectual development, interpersonal development, and engagement with di- verse perspectives. Practitioners working with first-generation college students should explore strategies for integrating curricular and co-curricular experiences that promote awareness of first-generation college experiences and identities and strengthen alliances within the first- generation community (see Smith et al., 2004; Ward et al., 2012).

We note that this study has several limitations. Data were collected from a single institution, which limits the generalizability of findings. Outcomes, other than persistence, were derived from participant self-reports although this was accounted for in the study design. Persistence was measured for first-to-second year; results may differ somewhat over a longer time period.

Conclusion

Students participating in the first-generation learning community not only surpassed first- generation students who did not participate in the learning community, but also continuing- generation students on intellectual development, interpersonal development, and engage- ment with diverse perspectives. The success of the learning community students is due to the higher levels of involvement in academics, with faculty members and with student peers built into the learning community courses. The theoretical implications of this study provide strong support for Astin’s Theory of Student Involvement and highlight the valuable contribution peer involvement makes to student development and persistence, surpassing that of academic involvement for intellectual and interpersonal development. The practical implications of this study highlight the critical impact learning communities can have on first-year, first-generation college students when they (a) focus on the devel- opment of community, diversity, and integration, utilizing the methods of active learning and reflection/assessment; (b) are designed to engage students in critical examination of their personal relationships with higher education; and (c) foster connections with campus and local communities.

We suggest that further research should delve more deeply into the influence of student peer involvement on student development and consider the importance of interactive relationships. Practitioners should assess the impact of new initiatives designed to support transition, retention, and progress to graduation for first-generation college students and explore the development of more high-impact educational practices specific to first- generation college students.

296 Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298

References

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College

Student Development, 40, 518–529. Atherton, M. C. (2014). Academic preparedness of first-generation college students: Different perspectives.

Journal of College Student Development, 55, 824–829. Becker, M. A., Swanbrow, L. S., Romano, K., & Spinelli, C. (2017). Promoting first-generation college students’

mental well-being: Student perceptions of an academic enrichment program. Journal of College Student Development, 58, 1166–1183.

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Byrd, K., & MacDonald, S. (2005). Defining college readiness from the inside out: First-generation college

students’ perspectives. Community College Review, 33, 22–37. Cataldi, E. F., Bennett, C. T., & Chen, X. (2018). First-generation students: College access, persistence, and

postbachelor’s outcomes. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access, persistence, and

attainment. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge. Colbeck, C., Campbell, S. E., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2000). Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from

group projects. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 60–83. DeAngelo, L., Franke, R., Hurtado, S., Pryor, J. H., & Tran, S. (2011). Completing college: Assessing graduation

rates at four year institutions. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute. Demetriou, C., Meece, J., Eaker-Rich, D., & Powell, C. (2017). The activities, roles, and relationships of

successful first-generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 58(1), 19–36. Engberg, M. E., & Hurtado, S. (2011). Developing pluralist skills and dispositions in college: Examining racial/

ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education, 82, 416–443. Engle, J., Bermeo, A., & O’Brien, L. (2006). Straight from the source: What works for first-generation college

students. Washington, DC: Pell Institute. Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access. Washington, DC: Pell Institute. Filkins, J.W., & Doyle, S.K. (2002, June). First-generation and low income students: Using NSSE data to study

effective educational practices and student gains. Paper presented at the Annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Fink, J. E., & Hummel, M. L. (2015). With educational benefits for all: Campus inclusion through learning communities designed for underserved student populations. New Directions for Student Services, 149, 29– 40.

Hausmann, L., Schofield, J. W., & Woods, R. L. (2007). Sense of belonging as a predictor of intentions to persist among African American and White first-year college students. Research in Higher Education, 24, 803–839.

Hill, W., & Woodward, L. S. (2013). Examining the impact learning communities have on college of education students on an urban campus. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 643–648.

Hu, S., & Kuh, G. D. (2003). Diversity experiences and college student learning and personal development. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 320–334.

Huerta, J. C., & Bray, J. J. (2013). How do learning communities affect first-year Latino students? Learning Communities: Research & Practice, 1, 1–18.

Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2007). Living-learning programs and first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in Higher Education, 48, 403–434.

Inkelas, K. K., & Weisman, J. L. (2003). Different by design: An examination of student outcomes among participants in three types of living-learning programs. Journal of College Student Development, 44, 335– 368.

Ishitani, T. T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among first- generation students: Time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics. Research in Higher Education, 44, 433–449.

Jayakumar, U. M. (2008). Can higher education meet the needs of an increasingly diverse and global society? Campus diversity and cross-cultural workforce competencies. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 615–706.

Jehangir, R. (2009). Stories as knowledge: Bringing the lived experience of first-generation college students into the academy. Urban Education, 45, 533–553.

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, 409–428.

Milem, J. F., & Berger, J. B. (1997). A modified model of college student persistence: Exploring the relationship between Astin’s theory of involvement and Tinto’s theory of student departure. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 387–400.

Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298 297

National Center for Education Statistics (2017). First-generation and continuing-generation college students: A comparison of high school and postsecondary experiences. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018 /2018009.pdf

Pascarella, E. (2001). Using student self-reported gains to estimate college impact: A cautionary tale. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 488–492.

Pascarella, E., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. The Journal of Higher Education, 67, 174–195.

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal of Higher Education, 75, 249–284.

Penrose, A. M. (2002). Academic literacy perceptions and performance: Comparing first- generation and continuing-generation college students. Research in the Teaching of English, 36, 437–461.

Phinney, J. S., & Haas, K. (2003). The process of coping among ethnic minority first-generation college freshmen: A narrative approach. The Journal of Social Psychology, 143, 707–726.

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

Rocconi, L. M. (2011). The impact of learning communities on first year students’ growth and development in college. Research in Higher Education, 52, 178–193.

Shields, N. (2002). Anticipatory socialization, adjustment to university life, and perceived stress. Social Psychology of Education, 5, 365–392.

Smith, B. L., MacGregor, J., Matthews, K., & Gabelnick, F. (2004). Learning communities: Reforming undergraduate education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Soria, K. M., & Stebleton, M. J. (2012). First-generation students’ academic engagement and retention. Teaching in Higher Education, 17, 673–685.

Sperry, R. (2015). Predicting first-year student success in learning communities: The power of pre-college variables. Learning Communities Research and Practice, 3, 1–24.

Stephens, N. M., Hamedani, M., & Destin, M. (2014). Closing the social-class achievement gap: A difference- education intervention improves first-generation students’ academic performance and all students’ college transition. Psychological Science, 25, 1–11.

Vaughan, A., Parra, P., & Lalonde, T. (2014). First-generation college student achievement and the first-year seminar: A quasi-experimental design. Journal of the First-year Experience & Students in Transition, 26, 51–67.

Ward, L., Siegel, M., & Davenport, Z. (2012). First-generation college students: Understanding and improving the experience from recruitment to graduation. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Webber, K., Krylow, R., & Zhang, Q. (2013). Does involvement really matter? Indicators of college student success and satisfaction. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 591–611.

Whitt, E. J., Edison, M., Pascarella, E. T., Nora, A., & Terenzini, P. T. (1999). Interactions with peers and objective and self-reported cognitive outcomes across 3 years of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 61–78.

Zhao, C., & Kuh, G. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–138.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Affiliations

Gail Markle1 & Danelle Dyckhoff Stelzriede2

1 Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, 402 Bartow Ave, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA 2 Department of English, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032, USA

298 Innovative Higher Education (2020) 45:285–298

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.